THE 鈥渢usk wars鈥� are about to begin. This month in the Zimbabwean capital, Harare, the 135 signatories to the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES) will line up in a showdown over the fate of the African elephant. The meeting will be dominated by a controversial proposal by the host nation to resume a limited legal trade in elephant ivory. The trade was outlawed in 1989 after conservationists revealed that poachers had slaughtered up to a million African elephants during the 1980s.
Zimbabwe, Namibia and Botswana claim that they should have the right to sell a limited amount of ivory to Japan, the largest potential market. They say that their elephants, which number 150 000 and rising, can no longer be considered 鈥渢hreatened with extinction鈥�-the main criterion for a trade ban. The money they would earn from selling ivory, they say, could be used for conservation: before the 1989 ban, the Zimbab-wean national parks department received a quarter of its income from ivory sales.
Their opponents, who include wildlife managers from many other African countries, argue that a legal trade would once again become a cover for wholesale poaching. David Western, director of the Kenyan Wildlife Service, says that 鈥渦nless the trade can be managed and contained, there should be no end to the ban. And on that, particularly in Zimbabwe, not much has changed since 1989.鈥� This case has recently been strengthened by claims of a poaching revival in Tanzania and a report by a team of CITES investigators that criticised Zimbabwe鈥檚 enforcement of its internal ivory trade laws ( 鈥淭oo dangerous to trade?鈥�, New 杏吧原创, 8 February, p 12).
Advertisement
Behind the ivory issue lie fundamental disputes about who owns the world鈥檚 wildlife, the sometimes competing interests of people and local wildlife and whether Western animal rights groups represent a 鈥渘ew colonialism鈥�. There is also the question of whether CITES, after 22 years as the main global agency for protecting endangered species, is still capable of policing these competing interests.
A treaty against trade
The world鈥檚 governments signed CITES in 1973, spurred into action by declining numbers of 鈥渃harismatic鈥� animals such as tigers, rhinos and giant pandas. The treaty came into force two years later, and most nations are now signatories. CITES is designed to protect endangered species while allowing continued trade where this does not damage stocks. Enforcement is the responsibility of member states.
The question of whether CITES, with its emphasis on international trade bans as a way of preserving endangered species, is working will be raised in Harare in the context of everything from elephants to sturgeon, tigers, crocodiles, minke whales and a number of rare plants. The decision eight years ago to ban the ivory trade has created a deep and lasting schism among the convention鈥檚 signatories. The split is manifested in two lobbying caucuses: the Species Survival Network, under which conservationists and animal rights groups have united, and the Conservation Action Network, which represents the rights of people to exploit local wildlife.
The Species Survival Network, which favours tough controls on killing animals and international bans on trading in their products, points to the success of this policy in shutting down ivory poaching. Many economists predicted in 1989 that the ban on the ivory trade would lead to a rise in prices and increased incentives for poachers. In fact, it led to a collapse in prices and poaching alike.
On the other side, with the so-called 鈥渃onsumptive users鈥� of the Conservation Action Network, is Eugene Lapointe, secretary-general of CITES until he left in 1990 following allegations that ivory traders were funding his CITES ivory unit. He believes that CITES has been 鈥渉ijacked鈥� by animal rights extremists from rich countries who 鈥渁re more interested in making developing countries a natural history museum than in trying to feed people鈥�.
Exhibit A in his group鈥檚 case is a Zimbabwean programme called CAMPFIRE-the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources-under which wildlife outside national parks is controlled by local communities. People can profit from animals by organising lucrative safari hunts for foreign tourists. Elephant shooting is the big draw. Hunters can take ivory home for their 鈥減ersonal use鈥� without infringing CITES rules.
Within CITES, the consumptive users are regaining ground that they lost at the end of the 1980s. This change of mood is reflected in the advice of the convention鈥檚 chief scientific advisers, the World Conservation Union (IUCN), in documents submitted to the Harare meeting.
This Swiss-based body, the world鈥檚 largest grouping of environmental scientists, argues that where possible CITES 鈥渟hould avoid blanket trade bans鈥� because they create conflicts and, notwithstanding the recent successful crackdown on ivory poaching, are unworkable in the long run. The IUCN argues that the history of CITES is one of rapacious trading punctuated by trade bans imposed after well-publicised crises. Such 鈥渧iolent swings in policy from overexploitation to trade bans [are] generally counterproductive to the development of more rational conservation programmes鈥�, it says.
Evidence for the failure of trade bans-enacted by listing species in Appendix 1 of CITES-is commonplace. The global tiger population, currently around 7000, appears to be falling fast, despite an Appendix 1 listing. Half the tigers live in Indian reserves that have been invaded by poachers who supply a ready underground trade in skins and bones, which are used in East Asian medicines. 鈥淎 tiger can be sold for up to $15 000, and there are plenty of poachers who will risk everything for that sort of money,鈥� says Peter Jackson, chairman of the cat specialist group at the IUCN. An Appendix 1 listing has also failed to prevent the decline in the world鈥檚 wild rhino population to some 10 000 animals.
Many conservationists respond to news of such failures with calls for tougher policing. But some rules are intrinsically unenforceable. Because CITES trade bans are so comprehensive, covering all 鈥渞eadily recognisable parts or derivatives鈥� of listed species, a vial of bear bile salts in a Chinese pharmacy is as subject to CITES controls as the animal from which the raw gall bladder was cut.
Supporters of consumptive use say such unworkable enforcement problems could be eased by recognising the rights of humans to exploit wildlife, and then applying sensible controls aimed at maintaining wildlife stocks. They point to the successful management of trade in crocodile skins which, says Lapointe, 鈥渉as contributed to the survival of the species, to the conservation of its habitat and to the economic benefit of human beings鈥�. Stimulating legal trade in crocodiles has created economic incentives to stamp out illegal trade, which is now at an all-time low.
The IUCN takes a similar view. At the CITES meeting, it will back proposals to relax further the rules on trade in crocodile products from Uganda, Madagascar, Tanzania and Argentina. The proposals would allow the collection of more wild eggs for crocodile ranches and, in Tanzania, the selective 鈥渉arvesting鈥� of crocodiles that threaten villages.
Kill and conserve
Indeed, most CITES insiders and their scientific advisers favour cooperating with hunters and traders rather than outlawing them. The IUCN wants to apply this approach to saving sturgeon in the Caspian Sea. The organisation admits that the risks of extinction 鈥渃learly meet the criterion for inclusion in Appendix 1鈥�. But, it says, wild caviar would probably continue to reach the dinner tables of wealthy Westerners because such a listing would simply drive the trade underground. So the IUCN is backing plans to add some threatened species of sturgeon to Appendix 2 of CITES, which lists species that may become endangered unless trade in them is controlled. This, it says, would offer 鈥渁n enlightened attempt to establish a basis for improving controls on the caviar trade and moving towards sustainable catches鈥�.
Britain鈥檚 Department of the Environment is also involved in the conciliation business. Its officials have drafted a statement on the fast-growing market for traditional Asian medicines and submitted it to CITES jointly with Japan and South Korea. For many years Western conservationists have routinely condemned these medicines, used by 1 in 10 of the world鈥檚 people, as dangerous quackery that plunders endangered species. But the new British report, drafted with the help of TRAFFIC, a wildlife trade monitoring organisation funded by the World Wide Fund for Nature, concedes that Chinese medicines using animal parts are 鈥渁 legitimate form of medical treatment鈥�. It adds that 鈥渟imply because traditional East Asian medicine does not fit with modern Western ideas of effective medicine does not mean it can be dismissed as superstition鈥�, and warns of a widespread view in Asia that the international ban on trade in rhino horn 鈥渉as denied healthcare to people suffering from life-threatening illnesses鈥�.
The report alludes to a widely held view: international trade that endangers species is driven more by economic inequalities around the world than anything else. It points out that people consuming the traded products are among the world鈥檚 richest, while those living in close proximity to the animals that are traded are among the poorest 鈥渁nd, in some cases, make windfall profits from poaching a single animal or plant.鈥� Many believe that easing such disparities would do more than anything to protect the world鈥檚 endangered species.
