The proposals: Six proposals have been submitted with
respect to African Elephants (
Loxodonta africana).
Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, whose elephants
are listed on Appendix II, propose to begin international trade
in ivory, raw and carved, and to continue trading in elephants
killed for trophies, live elephants, and elephant hides and
leather goods. Zambia proposes to downlist its population of
elephants to Appendix II to allow trade in raw tusks and live
elephants. Kenya and India have jointedly proposed to list all
African elephant populations in Appendix I, which would uphold
the ivory trade ban as well as make all other types of
international elephant trade illegal.
HSUS Position: Oppose the Botswana, Namibia, South
Africa, Zimbabwe, and Zambia proposals. Support the joint
proposal by Kenya and India.
Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe all
promise to engage in a controlled trade in elephants (including
their ivory, their hides, and their carcasses) that will not
damage elephant populations. But their promise is not supported
by the facts.
Both African and Asian elephants remain at serious risk from
ivory poaching. There is already a significant and growing
illegal trade in ivory in many Asian nations, and large amounts
of ivory are being imported illegally by tourists into the
European Union and the United States. Legalizing the trade in
ivory will make it far more difficult to stop the trade in
ivory from poached elephants. An expanded ivory trade will also
provide further incentives for poaching, as it is impossible to
distinguish between ivory that has been legally or illegally
obtained.
When the Parties agreed in 1997 to allow the transfer to
Appendix II of the elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia,
and Zimbabwe—and a subsequent one-time auction of raw ivory to
buyers from Japan—they viewed it as an experiment to see if a
controlled legal ivory trade was possible. The understanding
was that CITES's Monitoring of the Illegal Killing of Elephants
(MIKE) program would provide the Parties with information that
would allow them to assess whether the downlisting had caused a
surge in elephant poaching. Since most nations haven't
implemented MIKE, the program has been unable to produce any
information about the effect of downlisting. Most African
nations with elephant populations don't submit any official
data regarding poaching, ivory seizures, and stockpiles.
Furthermore, there have been no official reports on the
"benefits" of the ivory auctions, whose proceeds were to help
elephant conservation. That was one of the principal
justifications for the 1997 downlisting and the ivory trade
proposals.
It would be premature and harmful to wild elephant
populations for CITES to permit any further trade in ivory or
other elephant products, or to downlist any further elephant
populations.
