The CITES Convention of the Parties (COP17) was held in Johannesburg from 24 September to 5 October. We present a summary of how elephant survival could be affected in the next few years.

 

Betsy Swart and Phyllis Lee representing ATE at the CITES COP17

First, let's celebrate the most positive outcome - the FINAL end of the flawed mechanisms that were proposed for establishing a legal trade in ivory. Originally the result of a CITES Standing Committee (the small executive group that influences trade policy between the major conventions) working group and an expert advisory group of pro-hunting and pro-ivory trade southern Africans, the report suggested that a managed trade from natural mortality was possible.

We and many, many others contend that no, we simply cannot sustainably trade in ivory, especially given the massive fall of between 20-30% in elephant numbers over the last 10 years found in both the Great Elephant Census (Link) and the African Elephant Specialist Group report (Link). Indeed, our own research shows that to meet demand based on minimum estimates of ivory going into the current illegal market, the need to "harvest" would rapidly drive healthy populations with a balanced age structure to extinction.

What then of the next proposal to CITES to destroy stockpiles held by range states? Destruction would eliminate the potential for leakage of tusks into illegal markets. Despite consensus reached at a CoP17 working group, the end wording was "disposal" with no mention of destruction. A lost opportunity, very ably contested by the Kenyan delegation as members of the consensus. So there is still the potential for stockpile sales in the future, although the two proposals by Namibia and Zimbabwe to sell their existing stockpiles were roundly defeated. 

But the most significant defeat for the 29 members of the African Elephant Coalition was not up-listing all elephants to Appendix I (no trade) status. Championed by South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe (with backing from Tanzania, DRC and surprisingly the USA, the EU and a number of major conservation organisations), elephant populations in the southern states kept their Appendix II ("possible trade") status. Botswana meanwhile, as the state containing the largest number of elephants left in Africa, voluntarily joined Appendix I. 

Do we want this calf to grow up to be perceived as just ivory on the hoof?

What was the rationale for the lack of support for uplisting? We at ATE find it difficult to understand or justify. CITES takes advice from the IUCN Specialist Groups about population trends, reports of illegal killings, and forensic evidence from seized illegal shipments. All these sources of evidence point to an increase in poaching, more ivory joining the illegal trade routes, and reduced numbers of elephants everywhere in southern Africa except Namibia. Population statistics from one country with approximately 20,000 elephants has thus held all the continent's elephants to ransom or risk of extinction. ATE is convinced that the science behind population numbers and sources of mortality points towards coming increasing threats for southern Africa's elephants rather than complacency and status quo. The decisions appear to us to be political or financial rather than scientific.

Based on past evidence, the missed opportunity to afford the fullest trade protection to elephants will result in further poaching. More resources that could go to community conservation, conservancies, management of negative interactions between elephants and farmers, and development of rural agricultural capacity and livelihoods will have to be devoted to anti-poaching. African states will bear these costs, both financial and in terms of lost ranger lives, to sustain their elephants. As Professor Judi Wakhungu, the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment for Kenya, stated, elephants are worth more to communities and nations ALIVE. ATE strongly supports these statements and we will continue to provide support to our African Elephant Coalition colleagues.

Another proposal that passed encouraged the closure of domestic ivory markets but as CITES deals in international trade it is not binding. The last of the five proposals to CoP17 from the African Elephant Coalition, on abolishing live trade in elephants, has been sent to a further working group to determine whether captivity outside range states can ever provide acceptable and appropriate environments. Meanwhile the (non-commercial) "gifting" of calves, both Asian and African, will continue.