The second week of the 12th Conference of the Parties (COP) to
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) picked up where it left off
Friday: with Committee I delegates discussing the ivory trade
proposals. Before the day was out, however, they would hear
something that CITES delegates had not heard since before 1989:
The United States supports trade in stockpiled ivory.
The U.S. conditional support for limited trade in ivory was
the day's headline news, but both committees also made smaller
news: Committee I argued over the validity of the Elephant
Trade Information System report, while Committee II shot down
two controversial proposals, one on the "sustainable use" of
wildlife and another on the Secretariat's concept of "economic
incentives and trade."
The Elephant Trade Information
System
In Committee I, the CITES Elephant Trade Information System
(ETIS) report was presented to the Parties. ETIS is designed to
collect information on how much ivory has been seized, and
where it has been seized, so that Parties can be made aware of
the current state of illegal trade before deciding on the
elephant proposals. The Parties learned there has been an
increase in ivory seizures worldwide.
The ETIS report attributed the increase in seizures to a
growth in ivory consumption in China. (One third of the
seizures were in some way connected to China.) It also cited
unregulated, large-scale ivory markets around the world. What
it did not highlight was that the increase coincides with the
1997 transfer of the African elephant populations of Botswana,
Namibia, and Zimbabwe from Appendix I to II, and the one-time
experimental export of 50 metric tons of ivory to Japan in
1999.
China itself sent a letter to the managers of ETIS, saying
that this experimental export sent a signal to Chinese ivory
carvers that the ivory trade had reopened. China added that it
had recently improved regulation of the ivory trade and that
the ETIS report contained factual errors in regard to ivory
seizures and the control of ivory trade in both China and Hong
Kong. China also disavowed last week's press reports that it
opposes the international ivory trade.
India, whose Asian elephants have fallen victim to poaching,
pointed out that the ivory seizure data in the ETIS report
represents only the "tip of the iceberg" because most seizures
are not reported to ETIS managers. As an example, India noted
that the seizure in Singapore of more than 6 metric tons of
ivory destined for Japan was not included in the report. India
further pointed out that the Singapore seizure was just one of
several known by law enforcement officers to be destined for
Japan, which suggests ETIS has underestimated the amount of
illegal ivory involving Japan.
Kenya agreed, pointing out that 140 ivory seizures involving
Japan and 527 involving South Africa also were not included in
the report. And these two countries, Kenya noted, are key to
the ivory trade proposals being discussed at this meeting.
MIKE
The Parties then heard a report on implementation of a CITES
system for Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE).
MIKE is designed to provide information to Parties on elephant
poaching in Africa and Asia. The first step is for MIKE to
provide baseline data on the number of elephants in the
populations that are part of the program. However, this will
not be completed until the end of 2003 or early 2004.
Kenya proposed changes to the resolution that established
both ETIS and MIKE. The changes included adding the
recommendation that countries with ivory-carving industries and
a domestic ivory trade should control them by improving their
regulations and enforcement, that countries where domestic
ivory sales are allowed should inform tourists and other
visitors that they should not export ivory if it is illegal to
import it to their home country, and that there be established
a technical oversight committee for ETIS. Kenya's proposals
were adopted.
Botswana's Proposal
Botswana amended its proposal so that it included the export
of 20 metric tons of stockpiled ivory, followed by annual
exports of 4 metric tons. But it no longer referred to the
export of worked ivory such as tourist souvenirs. Botswana also
asked for the export of hides and leather goods, sport-hunted
trophies for non-commercial purposes, and live animals for
reintroduction purposes.
As the discussion of Botswana's proposal began, it became
clear that—despite the ETIS evidence that the one-time export
of ivory to Japan coincided with an increase in ivory seizures
worldwide—the Parties were ready to allow such an export again.
Tanzania, Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Gabon, and
Japan all announced that they supported Botswana's amended
proposal. Kenya, Congo, Togo, Malawi, Mali, Ghana, Eritrea,
Sierra Leone and the European Union expressed concerns about
Botswana's proposal.
The Kenyan delegate pointed out that there is no African
consensus on trade in ivory, and that a legal ivory trade might
trigger more poaching and even more illegal ivory trading. In
the case of uncertainty, Kenya said, CITES should take a
precautionary approach. Kenya added that the southern African
proponents of the ivory trade earn $12.7 billion per year from
eco-tourism, whereas they stand to earn only $8.7 million from
the ivory sales. If $12.7 billion cannot help local communities
that are suffering from conflicts with elephants, why should
Botswana think $8.7 million can? Kenya also argued that MIKE
should be given time to establish baseline data before ivory
trade proposals are discussed.
The side effects of reopening the ivory trade would be
damaging and costly, Kenya emphasized. Kenya itself would faced
extra costs, not only with enforcement but also in protecting
villagers from poachers. The Kenyan delegate said, poachers
"shoot people, they rape women, and they burn down villages."
The delegate noted that Kenya's tourism industry earns $1.3
billion per year, and that while the nation could earn about $3
million from the sale of its ivory stockpile, selling the
stockpile is not worth the added cost of increased
enforcement.
The United States Backs
Botswana
To everyone's surprise, the United States—reversing its
long-standing opposition to the international ivory
trade—stated that while it opposes annual ivory export quotas,
it supports the export of ivory stockpiles, provided that
certain conditions are met, including the implementation of
MIKE. This bomb having been dropped, the delegates suspended
discussion until Tuesday morning to allow time for the United
States to discuss its compromise proposal with Botswana.
"We denounce the United States for today's disappointing
departure from its past position on this issue," said Dr.
Teresa Telecky, director of the Wildlife Trade Program for The
Humane Society of the United States. "The United States has
turned a blind eye to the serious poaching and illegal trade
that threatens the survival of elephants. They are ignoring
what happened the last time ivory was dumped into the
international marketplace."
Committee II
Meanwhile in Committee II, delegates agreed that the CITES
Standing Committee should work on a Memorandum of Understanding
with the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a body
that addresses issues related to fisheries, and should
establish a mechanism for cooperation between CITES and
FAO.
Norway's controversial draft resolution on sustainable use
and trade in CITES-listed species was defeated by a vote of 11
in favor, 42 against, and 32 abstentions. The United States,
the European Union, Australia, and Mexico offered the strongest
statements in opposition. Committee II also defeated the
Secretariat's controversial document on economic incentives and
trade policy (see the story "Contention in the Committees on
Day Three at CITES"). Finally, Committee II adopted documents
that will improve compliance with and enforcement of CITES.
