Kenya and Tanzania disagree on ivory trade

According to a statement from SSN, the proposal by Tanzania and Zambia did not meet the criteria for amending relevant parts of the convention to allow the ban on ivory trade to be lifted. The CITES regulations require that effective enforcement controls be in place before such a proposal is made, which is not the case in the two countries.

Experts have blamed the CITES secretariat for creating a loophole that was exploited by Tanzania and Zambia. Mr Omondi, said that in 2007, the nine-year moratorium on ivory trade was meant to ensure that no elephant trade proposals would be submitted by any party to CITES for the nine years.

This was to allow for proper studies on the dynamics of elephant populations to be conducted besides the development and implementation of an African elephant action plan. In their defence, the AEC countries have singled out statements issued then by the European Commission and a report by the European Parliament as alluding to the total nine year moratorium.

However, in crafting the resolutions, Mr Omondi said, the CITES secretariat indicated that ivory trade would only be banned in countries that had just disposed of its ivory stocks. This created a loophole that was exploited by Tanzania and Zambia in making their proposals. For this reason, Kenya has accused the CITES of bias in discharging its mandate.

Mr Travers said the secretariat also appeared to be more demanding towards the countries that opposed the lifting on the ban. He explained that it had not come out strongly against the failure by Tanzania and Zambia to circulate their proposals to all elephant ranges as required by CITES best practices.

“They only have strong words against proposal six (made by Kenya and other countries against the ban) but say nothing about proposal four and five (by Tanzania and Zambia ),” he said. Now, focus will shift to Doha when the issue will be put to vote in March.

Mr Omondi said that if Tanzania and Zambia do not back down on their planned petition to the CITES secretariat, then the AEC would seek a 20 year trade ban that it had initially wanted but which was reduced to nine years after mediation. “It would be more diplomatic and political to withdraw these proposals,” Mr Travers said.