IELP CITES

International Environmental Law Project (IELP) Goes to CITES

NOVEMBER 11, 2002

Santiago, Chile

Today, elephant conservation and Ivory trade issues took the floor of committee one. The discussions that ensued proved to be penetrating, giving insight and some clarity into divisive issues amongst Members to CITES, especially African and Asian Members. Currently, CITES lists certain elephants within its Appendix II, allowing for sustainable use of those species. Today, Botswana proposed an amendment to CITES Appendix II, a proposal that, according to Botswana, would allow for the sustainable use of Botswana's elephant population and allow Botswana's government to sell its Ivory stock. The proposal is based on several compelling economic and social arguments: (1) in certain regions elephant populations have become too large, to the extent that they infringe upon community crops and general living conditions. This circumstance may act to create a disdain for elephants, whereas sustainable use of elephants would promote harmony between communities and elephants, by providing an incentive to people to conserve and appreciate the animal rather than oppose it; (2) conservation mechanisms are economically onerous. As one Member pointed out, the cost to provide conservation equipment such as helicopters, weapons, and monitoring mechanisms presents a major economic obstacle. The sustainable use of elephants would provide for conservation costs because responsible governments such as Botswana will put the revenues back into conservation efforts; (3) the money derived from sustainable use of elephants promotes growth for poor communities.

On the other side of the debate, Members challenged the proposed down listings based on their own compelling arguments: (1) recent evidence demonstrates that some elephants, once thought to be within a certain species, may actually be distinct, sparse populations. Thus, until more scientific research establishes the validity of this, Members, by promoting sustainable trade, take a chance at possibly extinguishing an entire species; (2) conservation measures are not efficient enough to properly protect elephant population from trade abuses; (3) currently, there exist no baseline statistics for accurately determining elephant populations, a circumstance that inhibits an appropriate assessment of the effects that an Appendix II listing would have on the elephants proposed. These are just a few of the many issues that have presented themselves for lively debate. Because of the complexity, Botswana has asked for time to review suggested amendments to its proposal, possibly to gain more support, support that it will need because of the two-thirds voting requirement imposed on the proposal's passage. The requirement may stump the proposal due to the strong division between Members.

The subject of re-opening Ivory trade proved just as divisive. International Ivory trade has been banned since 1989 due to dramatic declines in elephant populations in Africa and Asia up to that year. Botswana desires to trade only its government owned Ivory stock piles. Opponents argue that re-opening any form of ivory trade (ivory is known in many parts of the world as "white gold") would promote the illegal killing of elephants and a possible regression to prior ivory ban conditions. In addition, ivory trade is not needed to help support elephant conservation: elephants provide a substantial portion of eco-tourism revenue (for some states revenues exceed a billion US dollars), revenue that can be used to further conservation efforts without the need for revenue from ivory trade. Moreover, if Members re-open any form of Ivory trade, the elephant population will decline, resulting in diminished eco-tourism revenues. And, furthermore, there are no effective measures to differentiate between illegal ivory and legal ivory once it enters into a market, a problem that significantly impedes enforcement measures.

Proponents argue that they should be allowed to trade government owned ivory stock piles because ivory is a natural resource that Members should not be prohibited from using to their benefit, dictating otherwise would be what one member called "eco-colonialism." One of the most contentious points of the debate is whether or not a nexus actually exists between re-opening the ivory trade and an increase in elephant poaching. Proponents of re-opening ivory trade state that there exist no evidence linking the two, while opponents to ivory trade state that re-opening any form of trade will induce more people to poach due to economic incentives, placing a heavier burden on currently strained monitoring systems of many Members- many Members state that their monitoring measures are currently insufficient. Members opposed to opening ivory trade in any form use the ambiguity surrounding this issue to restate an essential point: the status of elephants and Member states ability to protect elephants is not clear. Thus the pre-cautionary measure of not allowing any trade should be taken. This position finds support in CITES as well as customary international law. Tomorrow the debate continues. And as you can see, it is sensitive as well as complicated.

The elephant conservation/Ivory trade debate was not the only event to take hold of the committee one floor. Antigua, in what has become almost customary, began roaming verbally, this time locking onto the Chair of committee one. Antigua threatened to challenge the Chair's authority, by vote, because of what it felt was a procedural infraction made by the Chair, an infraction that merely evinced the Chair's continual "inconsistencies" and "double standards" that have led to his "willy nilly" decision making as to who can speak and who can not. Fortunately, the Chair, who had admitted to his procedural mistake prior to the comments made by Antigua, retained order within the room. One can only wonder as to the effect searched for by Antigua with its always boisterous, sometimes outrageous, but at times accurate comments.

Submitted by Mario Williams

Links

DAILY REPORTS