Kenya and Tanzania disagree on ivory trade

Lobbying on the status of international trade in ivory has intensified ahead of next month’s 15th Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in Doha, Qatar.

African elephants are classified in CITES Appendix I, in which trade is prohibited. Tanzania and Zambia have been lobbying for the elephant to be down-listed from Appendix I to Appendix II, which covers endangered species but in which limited international trade is allowed.

The two countries have been arguing their case about the need to sell off 113 tonnes of their stockpiled ivory to China and Japan. Kenya, however, is vehemently opposed to the limited lifting of the ban on ivory trade, fearful that the move could spur an upsurge in poaching on the continent.

With barely a month to go, both sides have gradually escalated their advances. Kenya has been on the forefront in campaigning for international support ahead of the Doha convention. Tanzania and Zambia have gained the support of the South African Development Cooperation (SADC) countries.

Each side requires the support of at least 66 per cent of the 176 countries that have a vote in the CITES meetings.

African delegation

Assured of the backing from majority of the African states with elephant populations under the auspices of the African Elephant Coalition (AEC) that it co-chairs with Mali, Kenya is aggressively wooing the European Union (EU), which holds 27 votes.

Last month, Kenya and Mali led delegations from 17 of these countries that are opposed to ivory trade to a forum in Brussels to pitch for the support of the EU. Forestry and Wildlife minister Dr Noah Wekesa led the Kenyan team.
In his speech, Dr Wekesa stated that the EU’s lack of clear position on the issue had fuelled belief that it had contributed to the current stalemate.

Dr Wekesa said the uncertainty stemmed from the EU’s support in 2007 for the limited lifting of the ban in ivory trade between southern African countries and China and Japan at the last conference in The Hague.

The EU, then led by Germany, negotiated the deal that allowed a one-off sale of ivory stockpiles held by Botswana, South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe, which was to be followed by a nine-year moratorium on ivory trade.
A total of 108 tonnes of ivory were sold off.

In Brussels, the African countries stated: “Before it is too late, the EU must do the right thing and publicly defend the integrity of the CoP14 agreement, having played a central role in mediating the total moratorium for all.”

The statement described EU’s support for elephant conservation as ‘ambivalent’. At the end of the six-day deliberations, the African delegation left Brussels without commitment from the EU. However, Kenya has not rested since.

The Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) has lined up a series of activities aimed at garnering the support of the EU.
Earlier this month, the KWS assistant director in charge of species conservation and management, Patrick Omondi, was in the US to make a presentation on the issue to the House of Representatives committee for natural resources. The presentation was postponed at the last minute due to adverse weather conditions.

The KWS Communications manager, Paul Udoto, said Mr Omondi had instead met technical staff attached to the committee to present the Kenyan case. A game drive-cum-bush breakfast is also planned for envoys from EU and the member countries of the AEC.

Mr Udoto said similar initiatives were ongoing concurrently, spearheaded by the other countries opposed to the lifting of the ivory ban to lobby for support. The AEC wants the European Parliament to put pressure on the European Commission and the EU’s Council of Ministers to back their position.

The Brussels meeting’s resolutions are set to be put to vote in European Parliament’s environment committee before it is passed on to the full parliamentary sitting this month. Wildlife conservation organisations have also joined the raging debate.

The Species Survival Network (SSN), a grouping of 80 organisations involved in conservation, environmental and animal protection, has opposed the proposal by Tanzania and Zambia. The SSN president, Will Travers, said such a move could easily by exploited by illegal traders, making it difficult to fight poaching, besides violating the intent of the 14th conference of parties that agreed on the nine-year moratorium.

Lifting the ban, he argued, would send a message to the syndicates involved in elephant poaching to intensify their activities. Mr Travers said it was important for the EU to listen to the ‘majority’ and declare its opposition to the lifting of the ban. “The EU should stop trying to be everybody’s friend,” he added.

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.