Ivory on the line

Despite widespread international opposition to any reopening of trade in elephant ivory and rhino horn, Namibia is to ask the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora & Fauna (CITES) at a meeting in Uzbekistan later this month to approve the sale of 46t of ivory and to permit trade in its stockpiled rhino horn.

The international trade in ivory has been prohibited by CITES since 1989, and that in rhino horn since 1977, on the grounds that legal trade can be exploited to mask smuggling and results in an increase in the poaching of these species.

CITES, an intergovernmental body made up of 185 countries and the EU, was created to regulate trade in wild animals and plants and attempts to offer extra protection to endangered species. The three-yearly meeting, known as COP, starts on November 24 and is the 20th in its history.

SADC countries, particularly Namibia, Zimbabwe and Botswana, insist they should be allowed to trade in elephant ivory and rhino horn and say the revenue could be ploughed back into conservation programmes.

These countries, and South Africa, are home to more than half the elephants in Africa and most rhinos. The Namibian proposal would need the support of two-thirds of the signatories, but similar requests in the past have been unsuccessful.

“Parties to CITES have a strong history of rejecting attempts to resume legal trade in ivory and rhino horn, and we would expect them to hold the line at COP20,” the UK-based Environmental Investigation Agency’s Rachel Mackenna says. “Namibia’s proposals are reckless, given the huge weight of evidence that legal ivory and rhino horn trade in the past has primarily served to stimulate demand, which inevitably leads to more poaching and trafficking of illegal wildlife products.”

There are about 400,000 elephants left in Africa, compared with an estimated 1.4-million in 1970. More than 8,000 rhinos have been killed by poachers, mostly in South Africa, since 2006. There are about 22,000 rhinos of both species (black and white).

Though South Africa has in the past regularly advocated the sale of ivory and rhino horn stocks and has supported other SADC nations on this issue, it has made no proposals on trade to COP20.

“The conditions are not currently favourable to enable consideration of the international commercial ivory trade,” says forestry, fisheries & environment minister Dion George. ”Significant constraints remain, including limited financial and human resources, inconsistent legislation, weak partnerships and knowledge gaps regarding ecological roles and population dynamics, as well as negative international perceptions and reputational risks.”

In 2008 South Africa, along with Zimbabwe, Namibia and Botswana, was granted permission for a one-off sale of 108t of ivory, but opponents say this was followed by a surge in elephant poaching.

CITES has become a hotly contested battleground for those SADC countries that promote consumptive use of wildlife, including trophy hunting. Over the past two years more than 300 elephants and other animals were shot by Namibian and Zimbabwean authorities to help feed people in drought areas. These countries say killing animals also helps control burgeoning elephant populations and reduces human/wildlife conflict, a claim disputed by many NGOs and scientists.

The argument has become so bitter that some countries, including Namibia, have threatened to withdraw from CITES

SADC politicians and government officials have become increasingly strident in their accusations of those opposed to their management policies. They say developed countries and animal welfare and rights organisations ignore the rights of African nations to make their own wildlife management decisions.

The argument has become so bitter that some countries, including Namibia, have threatened to withdraw from CITES.

Though the debate has strong political overtones that reflect the often-divergent approaches between some African nations and the NGOs and governments of the developed world, the SADC CITES strategy notes that its position is difficult.

“It [the strategy document] advocates for the promotion of sustainable use of natural resources while improving livelihoods of rural communities and the regional economy, both of which are largely nature-based,” the SADC-CITES Engagement Strategy (2022-2026) states but cautions: “SADC has very few allies on these issues in CITES, and if the results of voting on amendment proposals at the past two COPs are anything to go by, SADC may be losing further ground.”

“If CITES refuses, we have some alternatives and plans,” Namibia’s former minister of environmental affairs Pohamba Shifeta said earlier this year after helping compile the country’s CITES proposal.

“We can go for arbitration ... or we have to look at other alternatives or completely withdraw. We need to use our natural resources, including the ivory stockpiles. We need to sell and dispose of them,” Shifeta said. “We can keep our rhino horns and ivory in our banks, but it is very costly to maintain them. One day, we will get an offer and dispose.”