|
|
CENTRAL AFRICA'S ELEPHANTS IN
THE AFTERMATH OF CITES. Between April 10 and 20 over 400 national delegates, and over twice that number of observers, reporters, NGO lobbyists and activists converged on Nairobi for the 11th Conference of Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). A major focus of debate at CITES, and during the African Elephant Range States Dialogue that preceded CITES, revolved around the protected status of the elephant and the possibility of further relaxation of the global ban on the sale of ivory. The positions of a number of the range states at the outset of the meetings were diametrically opposed. A group of southern African states, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe and South Africa, wished to retain or place their elephant populations on Annex 2, and to continue the experiment in controlled ivory sales initiated at COP 10 in Harare in 1997. The Kenyans, supported to some degree by a number of central and west African states, and Zambia, argued that they were experiencing increased poaching since 1997. They proposed stricter protection of all elephant populations, and most importantly, no further legal trade in ivory. THE LIFTING OF THE IVORY BAN. The root of this debate can be traced to the 1997 CITES Conference of Parties in Harare in 1997. This meeting authorized a one-off sale of identified ivory stocks from three southern African countries, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe to a single buyer, the government of Japan. The three countries argued that they had stable or growing elephant herds, and effective conservation programs. Why should they be penalized, they argued, for having achieved a conservation success. The proceeds from ivory sales, they maintained, would be invested directly into elephant conservation projects in their countries. While not contesting these arguments, the authorization of the ivory sale left many other CITES member states, including a number of African elephant range states, concerned. They worried that even a limited opening of the ivory sale would unleash a massive resurgence of poaching like that of the 1980's which saw Africa's elephant population at the end of the decade reduced to less than half its number in just 10 years. The compromise position arrived at by COP 10 in Harare authorized the one-off sale of ivory, but with the condition that a program to monitor the effect of the sale would be put in place. This monitoring program, termed MIKE, in abbreviation for "Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants", was to provide information on poaching trends of African elephants in time for the CITES meetings in 2000 in Nairobi. THE DEBATE IN NAIROBI In fact MIKE had trouble getting off the ground, and by the time of COP 11 in Nairobi, only one region, southern Africa, claimed to have an operational monitoring system in place. More significantly, there was growing criticism of MIKE's original design and objectives. It was widely questioned whether MIKE could even fulfill the original CITES mandate to establish a causal link between continental and global trends in elephant poaching and the single one-off sale. Several countries, led by India and Kenya, suggested that MIKE as it was originally conceived be scrapped. These positions came to a head in Nairobi during the two day African Elephant Range States Dialogue that preceded the CITIES meeting. The basic problem facing the national delegates was to determine the effect of the 1997 authorized ivory sale. Yet it was made clear by the CITES Secretariat on the first day of debate, that the existing system of tracking illegal trade, known as ETIS, had experienced declining rates of reporting over the last several years, and had become almost totally inoperative. This revelation was followed, to the amazement of the delegates, by the declaration by the Secretariat that it had no evidence that the ivory sale sanctioned in Harare had led to increased levels of poaching, and therefore, that the controlled sale could be considered a successful experiment. It was clear that many of the delegates did not accept this position, but even more seriously, the credibility of CITES itself was in doubt. The debates that followed, including the Kenyan proposal for up-listing all African elephant populations to Appendix 1, and the counter proposal by the southern African states, for further controlled ivory sales, were overshadowed by the recognition that the discussion of the status of African elephants lacked a solid information base. Two further facts regarding illegal killing of elephants also emerged . The first was that elephant poaching in particular in central and eastern Africa was linked to the increased presence of illegal weapons following the political unrest in the region. The second new development was that illegal elephant killing was associated not just with the ivory trade, but also with a growing trade in bushmeat, and that this trade, especially in central Africa, was increasingly international. Ivory prices had remained stable, and relatively low over most of Africa in the last several years, according to a report furnished to the delegates by " Save the Elephants." Under the current circumstances raw tusks were sometimes no more than a secondary by-product of the meat trade in some areas. At the same time, everyone recognized that any increase in the price of raw ivory at its source could unleash rates of elephant killing unseen even in the 1980's. In their final communiqué, the range states could find unanimous consensus on one point: That effective elephant monitoring be put in place, and that it be linked to increased support for enforcement and protection. A NEW APPROACH TO MONITORING In the CITES meetings that followed the Range States Dialogue the Kenyans retracted their demand for up-listing of all elephants, and the southern states retracted their demand for further trade. This consensus surprised many observers given the heated debate that preceded the meetings. However, it was clear that the real objective in retaining the status-quo was to defer any further debate on ivory trade until the next COP, and until an adequate system of monitoring was in place. What should be the objectives of such a system of monitoring? First, all agreed at the Range States Dialogue that the establishment of a causal link between any given trade event and changes in illegal elephant killing was scientifically questionable and should not be the basis of the monitoring program. It was also agreed that the monitoring should not become a "trigger mechanism" whereby designated levels of reported illegal killing would automatically lead to cessation in further trade. This would only make the monitoring program a potential hostage to a political process, thus smothering the development of a legitimate information base. Rather there was widespread recognition that multiple factors affected elephants and illegal elephant killing; that these were linked and highly dynamic. The objective of the monitoring program would be to provide a risk assessment for Africa's elephant populations, an early warning system that would better inform the debate on the elephant's status and trade in ivory at all levels. What form should a revised MIKE take? The Central African Pilot Project points the way forward for this region, and perhaps others. In Central Africa, a "bottom up approach" is being taken, strengthening capacity at site and national levels to develop information that will be representative of conditions affecting elephants at a regional and ultimately continental level. In Central Africa, the monitoring cycle includes first, the integration of existing information on human activities and elephant distributions in each of the survey sites into GIS-linked data bases. Base maps produced from these data bases are then used to develop a survey design for the site. In the closed forests of the region, field surveys will include ground counts of elephant dung as well as monitoring of anti-poaching effort, village-elephant conflict, and illegal activities, especially in areas of elephant concentrations such as mineral licks. Following field surveys, the analyzed results are used to up-date the maps and design the next cycle of fieldwork. The pilot project is currently underway in four large survey zones in five countries. The survey zones all include a matrix of national parks or reserves surrounded by unprotected forest where settlement, and a range of exploitative activities including forestry and mining occur. The sustainability of the monitoring project is enhanced by its integration into existing management projects underway in the participating sites, and by linking the monitoring to national conservation strategies of the participating states . Continued training of national staff is essential for the future of MIKE, as is collaboration with NGOs, and government and private sector partners in the survey sites. UNASKED QUESTIONS By the end of the meetings it was clear that the next years will be highly dynamic for elephant conservation in Africa. Elephants face increasing pressure from illegal ivory and bushmeat trade, human encroachment, flow of arms and fragmentation of ranges. At the same time the political, financial and administrative capacity to protect and manage elephants is not yet guaranteed. And here lies the unanswered question: Who will pay for the increased protection that elephants need? It certainly will not come only from the sale of ivory or other "elephant products". The one off ivory sale after Harare, netted less than 5 million dollars, far less than what is needed even in southern Africa by most estimates. Nor can funds generated from elephant tourism pay the bill, though they can make a contribution. In the end the costs of elephant protection necessitate the mobilization of global resources. A number of other questions that related to the broader global context of elephant conservation were not asked during the debates: Who is responsible for the flow of arms into the continent that have ended up being used to kill elephants? How have uncontrolled and ill-founded forestry operations and other resource extraction schemes affected elephants and other species dependent upon large, intact natural habitats? The fundamental causes of any range state's elephant management problems often extend beyond its own borders. In this regard, the increasingly regional approach to elephant monitoring and management being taken by some of the range states is certainly a positive sign. However, the truly global engagement needed in response to the realities of elephant conservation has not yet occurred. John A. Hart CITES / MIKE Projet Pilote, Afrique
Centrale See also
|
