05 Oct 2016

 The request by African countries to have the continent’s  elephant population moved from Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wildlife Fauna and Flora (CITES) Appendix II to Appendix I has been rejected.
The elephant population  is concentrated  in Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia.
The request got a nod from only 62 members with 71 opposing and 12 abstaining, falling short of the required two thirds majority at the just ended CITES conference in South Africa.
Down grading the species to Appendix I, Africa argued, would provide the  elephant with the highest level of protection against poachers and prohibit commercial international trade “thereby helping to reduce illegal ivory trade demand.”  
When motivating Botswana’s reasons for being party to the request, Minister of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism, Mr Tshekedi Khama, said poaching was so intense than in 10 years’ time, “we could lose 50 per cent of Africa’s remaining elephants.”
And in countries with small isolated elephant populations, he said, it was likely that elephants would be completely extirpated.
“There is a high human cost to this illegal trade too with rangers from the local communities losing their lives because of the demand for ivory.”
Botswana, Mr Khama said, was home to the world’s largest elephant population, which represented almost 35 per cent of African Savannah elephant population- currently listed under Appendix 2.
Therefore, fully aware of the serious poaching crisis facing elephants across much of Africa, the minister said “we unreservedly and voluntarily relinquish this status and support an up listing of all African elephants to Appendix I.”
A Botswana led survey referred to as the Great Elephant Census showed that, in just seven years, in 15 African countries, Savannah elephant populations declined by 30 per cent, which is 144 000 elephants.
The real measures of success, Mr Khama said, included stemming the demand for ivory internationally, protecting remaining herds from poaching, and securing elephant habitats, ‘as the struggle for their protection extends beyond Eastern and Central Africa.’
“It is clear that the southern African strongholds are now at great poaching risk, and there is concerning evidence that elephant poaching is moving south. The criminal networks that facilitate much of this trade are highly organised and fluid, operating over several regions in the continent,” he added.
For this reason, the environment, natural conservation and tourism minister also cautioned that no population should be considered secure.
Furthermore, while Botswana demonstrated conservation success regarding its elephant population, he said the country would not ignore its responsibility to other African elephant range states and their elephant populations.
Although Botswana previously supported the limited, legal ivory sales from countries that managed their elephant herds’ sustainability, the minister said “we now recognise that we can no longer support these sales and we cannot deal with this issue in vacuum.”
“We must unite solidarity with our colleagues worldwide to stop this crisis. Put simply, a threat to elephants anywhere, is a threat to elephants everywhere,” he said.
“We greatly appreciate that much non-range state, particularly consumer countries, have already taken actions or made commitments to adopt measures to close their legal domestic ivory markets, such as: China (including Hong Kong), France and the United States of America,” he added.
He expressed concern that there was clear and growing global consensus, which included major consumer countries. Therefore, to effectively conserve elephants, he said the ivory trade needed to be stopped.
Making all ivory illegal, Mr Khama said sent a clear message to the world and notified markets and consumers that ivory trade endangered elephants and was banned under international law.

Unlike Botswana, and despite being affected Parties, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia did not support the proposed up-listing of their African elephant populations from CITES’ Appendix II to Appendix I.
South Africa’s argument was that Appendix I listing had not stopped illegal killings of elephants and that elephants generated trophy hunting income, much needed for conservation and development of rural communities.’  
Namibia’s position for not supporting Proposal 16 was that whilst listing was commendable, the proposal was an unjustifiable act, as it did not meet the biological listing criteria as stated in Appendix I. Zimbabwe said its elephant species were well managed, as it had a successful conservation plan. ENDS