THE best way to save the elephants is to legalise the ivory trade. That鈥檚 the stance of five African nations who will argue for a resumption of the trade at next month鈥檚 meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in Santiago, Chile.
The pro-trade nations say that making elephants pay their way is the best way to guarantee their future. But the proposal will face fierce opposition from anti-trade nations who say any relaxation of the rules will play into the hands of poachers, and mean certain slaughter for elephants across Africa.
Widespread poaching drove elephant numbers down throughout the 1970s and 1980s, leading CITES to impose a worldwide ban on ivory sales in 1989. At the same time a public awareness campaign reinforced the message that buying ivory was taboo. It had the desired effect, and demand for ivory fell. But not for long: hauls of poached ivory are on the rise again, approaching levels not seen since the height of illegal trade in the 1980s. This June, 6 tonnes of ivory was seized in Singapore, en route to Japan from Zambia. It was the largest haul since the ban was introduced. 鈥淭he ivory trade is escalating,鈥� says Jim Armstrong, deputy secretary general of CITES. 鈥淐learly the ban isn鈥檛 working.鈥�
Advertisement
Opponents of the trade blame the upsurge in poaching on a decision made at the 1997 CITES meeting to allow Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to sell off their existing ivory stocks from culled elephants. Numbers were so high that these countries were 鈥� and still are 鈥� having to cull elephants to ensure that herds of the animals don鈥檛 devastate crops and habitats. The sale, which took place in 1999, was strictly controlled. All the ivory went to Japan, traditionally a major consumer of ivory with well-policed markets. The $5 million profit from the sale was divided between the three countries and ploughed back into elephant conservation projects.
But countries such as Kenya and India, which bitterly oppose any relaxation of the trade ban, believe the sell-off only whetted appetites for ivory. A legal market, they say, will make life easier for poachers by giving them a route to 鈥渓aunder鈥� illegal ivory. Without the laws and manpower to enforce controls, some countries will have a tough time reining poachers in. 鈥淚t鈥檚 way premature to consider resuming any trade,鈥� says Don Barry, who headed the US CITES delegation in 2000.
But Tapela Chimuti, senior ecologist at Zimbabwe鈥檚 Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (PWMA), argues that his country at least should be allowed to trade because, unlike the situation in some other states, its elephant population is not under threat. 鈥淲e shouldn鈥檛 be punished for the failure of other parties,鈥� he told New 杏吧原创. With delegates from Botswana, Zambia, Namibia and South Africa, he will argue for ivory trade to be resumed to approved consumer countries. All want a one-off sale to cut their stockpiles and all but Zambia want an annual sales quota ranging from 2000 to 5000 kilograms.
Support for the pro-trade camp may come from an unlikely source. A report for the CITES meeting from the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS), which was set up by CITES in 1997 to monitor global trends in ivory seizures, shows that increased demand in China, not the 1999 ivory sell-off, is responsible for the big increase in hauls of illegal ivory. On the back of a surging economy in the late 1990s, ivory became a must-have in China. Ivory name seals are a sign of social status, and with more money in their pockets, more Chinese are buying them. 鈥淪uddenly, from 1997 onwards, the Chinese influence is very profound,鈥� says Tom Milliken, one of the report鈥檚 authors.
Critics of the report say using seizures as a measure of illegal trade is at best a crude representation of the true picture. Some countries have delayed or completely failed to file reports with ETIS and some states plough far more resources into catching poachers than others. ETIS, in its defence, says it tries to factor in these shortcomings.
More seriously, one expert who recently completed a survey of Asia鈥檚 ivory markets questions the report鈥檚 main conclusion. While economic growth in China has led to an increase in demand there, most of the ivory flowing into China is made into carvings and shipped to other markets, such as Taiwan, Thailand and Singapore, says Esmond Martin of the Nairobi-based animal conservation group Save the Elephants.
Some of the ivory is turned into products that are sold in Africa itself. Reports have suggested that tourists and international business travellers to the continent are among the biggest buyers of ivory products. A report by Martin in 2000 on illegal markets in 15 African countries found that most of the buyers were European tourists, diplomats, foreign military personnel or UN staff. 鈥淭he international traveller seems to have forgotten about the ivory issue,鈥� says Will Travers at the Born Free foundation, a British-based animal welfare and conservation group.
Regardless of the accuracy of the ETIS report, pro-trade countries believe it adds crucial support to their claim that an ivory sale would not encourage poaching. This year, they believe they will get the green light from CITES.
But they could yet be defeated. Poaching figures submitted to CITES are notoriously unreliable, undermining the cases that countries put forward. In 2000, claims by anti-trade officials in Kenya of an upsurge in poaching were shown to be inaccurate by the country鈥檚 own elephant experts (New 杏吧原创, 8 April 2000, p 20). Inconsistencies are already surfacing ahead of this year鈥檚 meeting. This June, Zimbabwe鈥檚 PWMA told the Daily News in Harare that 92 elephants had been killed by poachers between 2000 and April 2002. But an internal PWMA memo seen by New 杏吧原创 from this July claims 502 animals were 鈥減ositive鈥� to have been poached in the previous 12 months. Chimuti now says neither figure is correct. The confusion will not help their case, says Travers. 鈥淚t draws into question their entire proposal.鈥�
Other pro-trade countries have reason to be more confident. Namibia was singled out for praise in ETIS鈥檚 report for its effective poaching controls, and South Africa is considered a world leader in elephant conservation. 鈥淲e believe we have a very strong case,鈥� says Moshibudi Rampedi, a member of the South African delegation.
Rather than stimulating the illicit market, agreeing an annual quota would help crush poaching, says Rampedi. 鈥淭he controlled sale of ivory will in fact assist in the elimination of illegal trade, as the commodity will be available on the legal market,鈥� she says. Many conservationists believe opening the market would also help protect elephants, as local communities would learn to protect them as a commodity. In short, if it pays, it stays.
鈥淭he reality is that if people do not have some incentive, they will not tolerate these animals,鈥� says Paul Funston, a conservation expert at Technikon Pretoria, one of South African leading research institutes. He believes that local people should be allowed to profit from their elephants through selling tusks and allowing trophy hunting by rich tourists. Only then, he says, will they put up with the regular destruction of their crops and property by elephants and step up efforts to stop poachers.
