African elephants, or more specifically their ivory, are once again the centre of controversy now that 108 tonnes of their precious tusks are being auctioned to China and Japan. The ivory originates from four southern African countries and has been collected over the years through culls, natural deaths and seizures of poached tusks. The sale has been criticized by wildlife conservation groups because of fears that it will increase demand and subsequently stimulate the illegal trade.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) approved China as potential bidder at a meeting in Geneva this July. The four African sellers, namely Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia, had been awaiting this decision in order to create competition between the two bidders to drive up the price. The sale is further supported by the United Nations' World Conservation Union (IUCN) and the WWF.
“The sight of ivory openly and illegally on sale in many African cities is likely to be a far more powerful encouragement to those contemplating poaching and smuggling, than a strictly controlled one-off sale,” said Dr Susan Lieberman, Director of WWF International’s Species Programme. “The only way to end elephant poaching is through an effective clampdown on illegal domestic ivory markets.” To illustrate this point, the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) lists Nigeria as only having made 12 ivory seizures in 20 years.
By contrast China is now involved in 63% of global ivory seizures, up from 6% in 2002.
Traffic, an independent organization which monitors the global wildlife trade, is cautiously optimistic. "In 2002, China was the principal driver of the illegal trade and made very few seizures. Now it has been making seizures left, right and centre. They've added 100 seizures this year alone. On the domestic front China has moved aggressively." said Tom Milliken, director of eastern and southern African operations for Traffic, which monitors the trade and advises Cites.
A leading opponent of the auction is the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). Michael Wamithi, the director of the Elephant Programme at IFAW made the following statement. "China is the single largest destination for illegal ivory and to accept them as an importer for these legal stocks will only sustain the rampant poaching that African nations are faced with today. We hope Cites puts the brakes on these sales which will undoubtedly prompt even further slaughter."
The Environmental Investigation Agency which tracks illegal wildlife sales through undercover operations is also concerned that while the buyers may have satisfied the CITES requirements, the illegal trade is still prospering. Mary Rice, the head of campaigns at the EIA, stated their figures of the Chinese market place still indicate a serious problem which will not be alleviated by the upcoming auction.
And the money goes to...
Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia. Part of the agreement with CITES concerning the revenues made from the auction is that these must be used for domestic elephant conservation, community development and conservation programmes. CITES and Traffic will be monitoring that this will be the case in each country.
Those of you who are reading this and have some knowledge of what poor African states prefer to spend their money on might be sceptical that much if any of these revenues will go to their intended targets. Only time will tell, but rest assured that a follow-up article will appear once such information is available.
An obvious worry is of course Zimbabwe. I asked myself how, in a country which has no working government, economy or monetary system, these millions of ivory dollars will be spent. While it is apparently still possible for foreign hunters to get their trophies, the state of Zim's conservation programmes is uncertain at best. Reports indicate that many animals, even in the national parks, have been hunted and killed for sustenance by an increasingly desperate population. I have been given assurances by TRAFFIC that the funds will be tracked by their office in Zimbabwe once the auction has concluded, probably the best reassurance one can hope for.
I do support the sale of ivory, this one time of course, as the various national conservation agencies desperately need funds to sustain their programmes which protect the African wilds. In the case of South Africa, the government only supplies around 13% of the budget of the national parks. A ridiculously low amount considering that the South African National Parks is in essence a non-profit organization but on the other hand is very much controlled by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). Increasing the park's capacity to entertain tourists is the result of this under-funding which in turn causes more "wear and tear" on the park's fragile natural infrastructure. It is a delicate balance of course because tourism is obviously much needed, but being able to obtain funds not generated by tourism will ease the pressure to make a profit.
Off-Topic: The FAQ on the website of the Zimbabwean National Parks casts some doubts on the nature of their activities. Have a look for yourself here.
How do you defend the seemingly indefensible? Nicotine addictions and all that implies have been rising rapidly in Africa, with a reported 100,000 deaths (WHO) annually through tobacco-related illnesses. The World Health Organization is quoting local doctors who are foreseeing a doubling of that figure in the next 20 years if laws and regulations are not enforced by governments across the continent. In a recent documentary made for BBC2's This World, businessman Duncan Bannatyne points a spotlight on underage smoking in Malawi, Nigeria and Mauritius. 
The type of denial made in the last statement can be found throughout the press release. Apparently all the marketing tricks uncovered in the documentary have long since been halted and BAT's operations in Africa now confirms to their strict and "ethical" marketing policy. This change in policy must have been made not too long ago however, since in the documentary all these tactics were still in use. Perhaps Bannatyne did not convince BAT's board of their misbehaviour, but he did succeed by making the sale of cigarettes a little bit more difficult.
