Double jeopardy for urban dwellers:
THE rejection of proposals by Zimbabwe and Namibia to export ivory was based on an uninformed decision and is a clear sign that the United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is increasingly getting under the control of wildlife campaigners, stakeholders in the animal conservation sector have said.
During a recent CITES convention which was held in South Africa, member states rejected proposals for Zimbabwe and Namibia to sell ivory.
Swaziland also had its proposal to sell rhino horns rejected.
In the proposals, the three Southern African countries argued that the sale of ivory and rhino horns is noble since the countries want to raise money for conservation. The countries also highlighted that some of the animals are increasing to the detriment of both poor farmers and their habitats.
Zimbabwe asked CITES for a green light to sell a 70-tonne ivory stockpile estimated to be worth US$35 million. Swaziland wanted to sell 330 kg of rhino horn, worth an estimated $10 million.
Some African countries, notably Kenya, however, strongly opposed the exports, claiming that they will stimulate demand.
The decision by 29 African countries that voted against the proposal irked conservationists. In the secret ballots, Namibia’s proposal was defeated by 73 to 27, Zimbabwe’s by 80 to 21, both far short of the two-thirds required to pass. Swaziland’s proposal was rejected by 100 to 26.
Conservationists and political commentators raised a number of issues regarding the way the proposals were handled. The CITES decision-making process came under the spotlight as stakeholders argue that decisions are greatly influenced by wildlife campaigners that are sponsored by Western countries.
Campfire director, Mr Godfrey Jonga, said the rejection of the proposals was based on an uninformed decision, adding that wildlife campaigners have hijacked CITES.
“This was never going to be a fair process. We walked straight into hostilities. The wildlife campaigners did not want any negotiations, all they wanted was a total rejection.”
“They did not care whether the ivory has been seized from poachers or taken from animals that die naturally. Some of the animals are shot in efforts to minimise animal-human conflicts,” Mr Jonga said.
Mr Jonga added that culling elephants would protect rather than endanger the animals.
“In my view, I think we are being punished for the good governance of animals. Money raised from ivory imports will be channelled towards the provision of say, better water facilities for the animals. The rejection means that our people will remain exposed to human-animal conflicts,” Mr Jonga said.
Zimbabwe has an elephant population of close to 84 000, which is more than what it is supposed to hold. Mr Jonga said the rejection of the proposals is tragic.
“This is a tragedy that we will have to live with. Maybe we may be able to convince the animal rights activists and member states at the next CITES convention,” Mr Jonga said.
Mr Godwin Mureriwa, a political analyst and resource person at the Herbert Chitepo Ideological College, said the rejection is not surprising.
“Zimbabwe is under sanctions and the Western world wants to make the economy scream. They want to choke anything that gives relief to Zimbabwe. They want to bring the country to its knees,” Mr Mureriwa said.
He said the rejection by the 29 African countries that voted against the proposals is “shameful”.
“Africa must always present a united front. The punishment which is being meted on Zimbabwe is now castigating to Namibia and Swaziland, among other Southern African countries,” Mr Mureriwa said.
Environment, Water and Climate Minister, Honourable Oppah Muchinguri-Kashiri, told Parliament early this year that Zimbabwe is sitting on 96 tonnes of ivory.
The Minister described the rejection of the sales in ivory as “wildlife colonialism”.
“We hope wildlife colonialism ends so communities and conservancies, especially, benefit. People must see a value in their wildlife so that sustainable utilisation with no poaching will continue,” she told The Herald Business in an interview.
Elephants are on the CITES Appendix II, which lists species that are not necessarily threatened with extinction but that may become so, unless trade is closely controlled. International trade in specimens on Appendix II species may be authorised by the granting of an export permit or re-export certificate.
Appendix I lists species that are the most endangered among CITES-listed animals and plants. These plants and animals are threatened with extinction and CITES prohibits international trade in specimens of these species except when the purpose of the import is not commercial, for instance for scientific research.
Whilst Zimbabwe was advocating for the exports, Western-backed wildlife campaigners were calling for the rejection of ivory sales. Speaking during the convention, Ginette Hemley, head of conservation group WWF’s CITES delegation was quoted saying, “African elephants are in steep decline across much of the continent due to poaching for their ivory, and opening up any legal trade in ivory would complicate efforts to conserve them. It could offer criminal syndicates new avenues to launder poached ivory.”
A global ban on ivory sales was imposed in 1989 to curb a wave of poaching.
A similar ban was applied to rhino horn in 1977.
CITES has, however, allowed Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to sell stockpiles to Japan. South Africa was given the green light to sell to China and Japan in 2008.
Poaching of both elephants and rhinos has, however, soared in recent years and this has been attributed to demand in such Asian countries as China and Vietnam.
Wildlife trade, both legal and illegal, is a multi-billion-dollar business which has seen hundreds of millions of specimens being traded annually.
Conservationists are questioning why Western countries are keen on maintaining the ban despite the fact that the block does not have any ivory.
Ivory is always in demand because of its decorative qualities, with rhino horn being used to make traditional Asian medicines.
South Africa, home to most of the world’s rhinos, has seen rhino killings leap from 13 in 2007 to 1 215 in 2014.
During the recent CITES convention, it was recommended that countries such as Japan, with legal domestic ivory markets, should close the market since they are contributing to poaching.