Five Southern African countries with the largest populations of elephants recently met in Hwange, Zimbabwe to resuscitate their fight to trade ivory for the first time since 2008. Between then and now, the world has turned against the ivory trade and even in the unlikely event that the responsible global wildlife trade organisation agrees, analysts are asking who the buyers would be. Staff Writer, MBONGENI MGUNI reports
North Korea. This is the only country a leading elephant conservation biologist says would be the sole target market in the world for any ivory Southern Africa states may want to sell.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the international body regulating trade in wildlife, binds its members to agreements that restrict the buying and selling of elephants and their related products.
The 184 member states making up CITES have consistently shot down proposals for once-off ivory sales by Southern African countries, despite what regional officials argue is clear evidence that elephant populations in these countries have not only remained stable over the years, but in the case of Botswana and Zimbabwe, have actually grown.
The last time Southern Africa states were allowed to sell their ivory stocks was a once-off permit in 2008, under which Botswana sold 43.2 tonnes from its stockpiles for US$7.1 million (P85 million at current rates).
The argument from the regional states is that while elephants may be endangered in parts of Africa, in Zimbabwe, Botswana and to a lesser extent, Zambia, Namibia and South Africa, the giant beasts are not only over-abundant, but are threatening sensitive ecology, while being the primary culprits in fatal human wildlife encounters.
The debate around elephant overpopulation in Southern Africa is focussed on the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA) which runs across Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Angola and contains the world’s largest continuous population of elephants by far.
KAZA is a paradise in every sense of the word, boasting both the Okavango Delta and the Victoria Falls, forests, wetlands, some of Africa’s greatest river systems and a natural beauty that is amongst the world’s wonders.
Besides the largest contiguous population of elephants, KAZA also “contains” three million humans who for centuries have lived besides the abundant wildlife in the area, drawing value and sustenance from the resources around them.
The conservation policies underpinning this co-existence has meant that in countries like Botswana, the population of elephants has far exceeded the carrying capacity, increased the competition amongst species for resources and raised conflict. In any battle of the species, however, the grey giants generally win through sheer numbers. Adult elephants can eat up to 200 kilogrammes of food per day and drink up to 200 litres of water.
Human factors such as war and poaching in some KAZA states, as well as misguided wildlife interventions have stoked the conflict, pushing more elephants towards Botswana in particular, which has struggled to fund the escalating cost of its conservation programmes, as well as compensation for farmers whose crops are destroyed by the elephants. Citizens who have been injured or the families of those who have been killed by elephants have also decried the level of compensation received from government, describing it as meagre.
The ivory stockpiles, meanwhile, sit idle, bound by the collective decisions of CITES members, most of whom are far removed from the harsh reality ordinary KAZA citizens in the elephant zone battle with on a daily basis.
The stockpiles have been built up over the years since the last once-off sale in 2008, through recoveries from natural deaths and seizures from poachers. In Botswana, more than 300 elephants died in 2020 from what authorities said was cyanobacteria infection in the north-west and most of these carcasses were recovered with their tusks in place, adding to the country’s stockpile.
Zimbabwe officially estimates its stockpile of ivory and rhino horn at being worth US$600 million, while Botswana has refused to disclose the volume or potential value of its stockpile, citing security concerns.
The KAZA states say allowing trade would enable them to fund their conservation programmes, pay for the costs of securing the ivory and also help communities affected by the excess numbers of elephants.
Ahead of each of CITES’ meetings, known as Conference of Parties (CoP) and held once every three years, the KAZA states have stepped up their lobbying to sell their ivory stockpiles, without success, as the world in general argues that this would worsen the poaching of elephants, a species which in most parts of Africa is critically endangered.
Ahead of CITES’ meeting in Panama scheduled for November, senior officials from Zimbabwe, Botswana, Tanzania, Zambia and Namibia met in Hwange, Zimbabwe late last month and reportedly signed a declaration, which among others, included “a clarion call for CITES not to interfere with domestic trade, the sovereignty of states, and their rights to sustainable use of wildlife”.
Zimbabwe’s Environment, Climate, Tourism and Hospitality Industry Minister, Mangaliso Ndlovu, was quoted as saying: “We are clear that we are not going to CITES to beg them. We are going to CITES to present our strong position, a position which we are willing to defend, even if it means being outside CITES.”
The last point, the threat of leaving CITES is not new. In 2019, ahead of CITES’ CoP in Geneva, Switzerland, Southern African states, led by Zimbabwe, made somewhat veiled threats to leave the international body if they were once again denied an opportunity to extract value from their ivory.
The Geneva meeting again shot down the proposals.
“The recent meetings - the conference in Hwange - are the same kind of thing done before the previous CITES conference,” says Keith Lindsay, elephant conservation biologist and Community-Based Natural Resources Management expert.
“Making a big noise and trying to lobby other governments to support their position at CoP19 in Panama in November.”
Lindsay, who worked as a wildlife biologist for the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) between 1988 and 1992, says even if by some miracle, the KAZA states were able to persuade other CITES members to relax ivory trade at the Panama meeting, they would find no buyers for their stockpiles.
China and Japan, traditionally the major markets for ivory, have tightened their laws around the products considerably in recent years, prohibiting imports and clamping down on sales within their borders. In addition, amongst the numerous conditions attached to the last once-off sale in 2008, the buyers of ivory sourced from Botswana and other states also had to secure CITES permission before the trades were made.
Even if KAZA states dumped CITES, the member states under CITES would be prohibited from purchasing any of the ivory coming from the Southern African states.
“To sell their Ivory outside the CITES framework, they would have to have a buyer who is also not a CITES member,” Lindsay tells Mmegi.
“China and Japan are parties to CITES, so they could not buy.
“North Korea is not in CITES, and is about the only possible buyer under that scenario.
“They don’t really have a domestic ivory market, so could only be a conduit for illegal trading to criminals in CITES member states.
“So it’s not really a serious suggestion to leave CITES; more of an empty threat.”
Appearing in any way to influence the illegal trade in ivory is not something the countries that signed the Hwange Declaration want to be associated with. Under the declaration, member states said they were “committed to the facilitation of legally-based participation in the management of wildlife including access, benefit and sharing mechanisms for communities living alongside wildlife resources”.
DWNP director, Kabelo Senyatso, is optimistic that value can be found for the country’s ivory stockpile, should CITES give its blessing in Panama.
“Botswana and SADC members are in discussion with potential markets of the stockpiled ivory, and so securing markets for the legal trade will not be difficult,” he told Mmegi this week, without elaborating.
The director struck a more diplomatic tone than the remarks attributed to his Zimbabwean counterpart, saying the region and the country’s request to CITES is to amend the current conditions to make them “less restrictive to the extent that they facilitate rather than restrict trade, as is the case presently”.
According to Senyatso, African elephant populations are listed in Appendix I of CITES which precludes trade, except for a few Southern Africa countries, including Botswana, whose populations are listed in Appendix II. In this regard, he says, while Botswana can trade as CITES allows for international trade in Appendix II species, the trade is subject to some conditions, and the request to be made in Panama is to relax these conditions.
“Botswana and fellow SADC member states are lobbying other CITES parties so that they understand the socio-economic demands on us due to the large elephant populations, whose management is demanding a lot of funds from the treasury, and yet the countries with these large and growing elephant populations, including Botswana, are not allowed to legally trade in ivory stockpiles and generate the funds required for elephant management,” he said.
According to Senyatso, the DWNP spends in excess of US$3 million (P36 million) each year in direct payment to farmers for damage due to wildlife, most of which is due to elephants. This figure excludes costs associated with staff payments, vehicle fuel, vehicle repairs and others associated with supporting assessment for compensation damage.
“These resources could have been used for other development projects, yet, the ivory from these same elephants that divert these significant resources from other development needs cannot be legally traded to help finance the same compensation scheme,” says the director.
“This means that as Botswana, the management of elephants is largely on a deficit trajectory, as opposed to being a credit positive trend.”
The region needs the Panama meeting to relax the trading conditions, which would then allow it to finalise deals to unlock the value of its stockpile. Conceivably, the relaxation sought at Panama would include CITES giving permission to certain countries that want to buy the ivory to engage Botswana and others.
Analysts say everything about the markets, unlocking value and other arguments made by the region, is almost definitely moot, as the Panama meeting will not endorse any trade in ivory.
For Botswana and the region to get its wish, two-thirds of the 184 CITES members or at least those in attendance in Panama, would have to agree. The European Union, which comprises 27 countries, is a powerful voting bloc within CITES and votes in an agreed way, always against ivory trade.
“Basically if the EU supports a proposal, it has a much better chance of passing,” Lindsay explains.
But the KAZA states’ problems ahead of Panama lie much closer to home. African states are divided over supporting KAZA’s proposals to allow ivory trade, as seen in the Geneva CITES meeting and more recently, in the non-attendance by many countries in Hwange.
In Geneva, an African voting bloc of 32 states calling itself the African Elephant Coalition, led objections to and votes against KAZA’s requests for a once-off ivory sell off, even rejecting a last-minute compromise where the region said if the once-off sale was granted, it would agree to a six-year closure of the market.
Members of the Coalition include countries such as Nigeria, Benin, Chad, Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Burundi, Gambia, Liberia, Ghana and others that Botswana considers traditional allies such as Kenya, South Sudan and Rwanda.
In fact, in Geneva, the Coalition had a counter-proposal: list all African elephants on CITES highest Appendix I under which no trade whatsoever is possible. That proposal was also, however, rejected by CITES members.
Critics of the Coalition say like other non-African CITES members, these countries gloss over the fact that Africa has two types of elephants, the savannah which is abundant in Southern Africa and the forest elephants which are endangered and found in central and west Africa.
When the world sees pictures of “African elephants” being in danger, they are most likely seeing the more abundant, larger savannah, which have bigger and more curved tusks, the spectacular sight that triggers emotional reactions against any form of ivory trade.
The recent Hwange meeting also showed the divisions within Africa, as just five of the 16 countries invited actually signed the declaration. South Africa, which in Geneva stood with the KAZA states, declined to sign the declaration and all indications are that the regional powerhouse will not be pushing for ivory trade in Panama.
Despite the ongoing lobbying, analysts expect the KAZA states to walk out of Panama empty-handed. Rather than pushing for ivory trade, the analysts, say, the KAZA states should intensify their lobbying on a clause in the Hwange declaration that wants CITES to affirm the recognition of the two different elephant sub-species: Savannah and Forest.
That distinction could be the beginning of greater understanding of the difference between KAZA and the rest of the continent.
