At the time of writing, Environment and Tourism minister, Philda Kereng and her team would have been wrapping up their debates at the Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species (CITES) and preparing to pack their bags to return home.
While some victories were scored at the 11-day Conference of Parties (CoP), CITES’ highest decision-making meeting held every three years, the delegations from Botswana as well as Zimbabwe, Namibia, South Africa, and the general SADC region, would feel hard done by the rejection of several key proposals.
The tone of discussions, the “anomaly” that the bitterest opposition was from a coalition of fellow African states and the fact that some of the proposals have been repeatedly raised and defeated at previous CoPs, likely made the Panama meeting particularly sour for the region.
The CoP ends today with the finalisation of decisions on proposals, but already the region has suffered defeat in the initial stages of several key proposals.
Some proposals died early deaths in debates, failing to gather consensus, while others that moved to formal votes were crushed by a West African coalition and other continental forces such as Kenya.
The region lost its bid for a once-off sale of ivory stockpiles and equally failed to convince the CoP to give greater voting powers to countries which carry the burden of species when major changes are debated.
Victories at CITES include defeating a proposal by four West African states to essentially ban international trade involving elephants in Botswana and its neighbours. In addition, Botswana successfully supported Namibia against another West African proposal to uplist hippos in Namibia to a tighter trade status.
However, it was the rejection of a regional proposal to give greater decision-making powers within CITES to communities living with species such as elephants, that was especially discouraging for SADC.
“The saddest moment for us was to see countries voting against a proposed Advisory Committee for indigenous peoples and local communities under CITES.
“Yet decisions being taken here affect those people directly,” SADC states said in a statement released last Friday.
They added: “Our insights from the debates that we have had so far show an Africa that is not yet united and yet under CITES, Africa is treated as one region.
“We as SADC countries want to work towards a united Africa.
“So, we have a lot of ‘soul-searching’ to do so that we can find each other under the banner of the African Union.”
Kereng said the lack of representation of local communities in CITES’ decision-making structure is seen by many parties as problematic.
“This is because they are the custodians of the wildlife that is being discussed at CITES, therefore there should be a mechanism that can allow for their voices to be heard,” she said.
Regional community trusts that live with species such as elephants attended the CoP and had hoped the Panama meeting would give them a greater voice in the decisions that directly affect them.
As with other CoPs, the Panama meeting was characterised by intense pre-summit lobbying and canvassing by NGOs and other groups, who, while they do not vote, can influence member states’ decisions.
Mmegi is informed that the debate on giving communities greater decision-making powers was heavily lobbied against by a well-known and influential anti-hunting NGO.
“They are threatened by Africans making decisions that affect their funding ability,” an observer at the Panama meeting told Mmegi.
As the delegations from Botswana and its neighbours return home to ponder the outcomes of the Panama meeting, all indicators are that some difficult decisions may have to be considered.
In recent years, after the defeats at the CoPs and amidst their concerns that CITES is increasingly captured by the global anti-hunting lobby, regional states have publicly stated that they are considering pulling out of the global wildlife trade group.
The mechanics of doing that are unclear. CITES has 184 members or nearly every country in the world, and finding buyers for ivory stockpiles or partners to trade with would require both sides of the transaction to be outside CITES. In the past, whenever CITES has agreed on a level of trade, it has designated both the quantities to be sold, the countries allowed to buy, and the purposes for which the proceeds must be used.
Therefore, for any legal commercial trade outside CITES, Botswana and its neighbours would have to find countries that are also outside CITES.
Speaking ahead of the Panama meeting, Wildlife and National Parks director, Kabelo Senyatso told Mmegi the various mechanisms had been studied and presented to regional ministers for their consideration.
“That decision would be for our principals, it’s beyond my paygrade,” he said.
“However suffice to say, within SADC we have been actually deliberating on this and you would recall from CoP18 a lot of the southern African proposals were actually shot down and following that CoP18, SADC ministers of environment instructed that we constitute a technical team to explore options and craft these proposals for what the options are.
“We do have these documents and at a technical level, we have been deliberating on issues such as if we were to trade outside of CITES, who could we trade with, what are the options and modalities?
“If we were to trade and stand our ground with CITES, what could we legally do?
“These documents have been availed to our ministers.”
Before the Panama meeting, regional environment, wildlife and tourism ministers reportedly held a meeting to look at the technical considerations around dumping CITES. The ministers did not make any final decisions before heading to Panama.
“It’s one of those issues where we have agreed that we will go to CITES, then we come back from there, depending on the outcome, the ministers will look at the documents we have produced and then guide us.
“So the decision on what Botswana or SADC does relating to CITES is really for our ministers to take.
“But from a technical level, we have produced technical documents for their consideration, looking at all options, including which parties are willing to trade with us should we opt for trading outside of CITES.
“So all of that material has been presented and it’s really for our ministers to pronounce and guide,” Senyatso said.
Speaking from Panama, Kereng gave little away regarding which way ministers may be leaning in the debate on staying within or leaving CITES. However, the frustrations with the voting patterns and the apparent and continued indifference being displayed towards the region’s unique burden of managing some of the world’s largest wildlife populations are weighing on the political decision-makers.
In her response, Kereng appeared to hint at the thinking within SADC going forward.
“There is a need for the SADC countries to have a clear engagement strategy that should target countries, especially in Asia and South America who might become important in supporting us moving forward,” she said.
“The issue regarding Southern Africa and West Africa requires a more diplomatic engagement as at technical level it might be difficult as decisions are taken at country level.”
The SADC ministers and their technical teams will regroup upon their arrival and further hammer out a way forward, a process that will include studying the suite of proposals prepared prior to Panama.
