The campaigners argue that despite the MIKE and ETIS initiatives by CITES, data on poaching is inadequate, unreliable or in some way deficient. This argument has uncanny parallels with that deployed against whalers, where each population assessment is supplanted by another, seemingly in perpetuity.

Doubtless campaigners will continue to present this angle, whatever conclusions are drawn from MIKE and ETIS, as it is in their interests to demand certainty in an area where it cannot exist. Once ivory is being traded in a carefully controlled manner, they will have lost an issue that has proved to be a lucrative source of income for them for many years.

And, of course, it is exceedingly easy to instill uncertainty into any complex process. The NGOs have been known to do this themselves, creating precisely the type of problems that they argue must be overcome before there can be any trade in ivory.

In 1998, the CITES Secretariat received information from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) giving details of alleged illegal trades of ivory. According to HSUS, 17 tonnes of ivory from the President’s personal stockpile had been shipped from Namibia to Taiwan and 8.1 tonnes had been sent from Zimbabwe to China on an Angolan-owned aircraft. Both alleged transactions were said to be exchanges for armaments.

CITES investigated the claims thoroughly and found no evidence that they were true. China’s military, defense industry, foreign affairs, public security, customs, aviation and CITES authorities all conducted inquiries and concluded that no Angolan-owned aircraft had entered China at the time in question and no exchanges of armaments for ivory had taken place.

Namibia responded that the allegations were untrue, that its President did not have an ivory stockpile and that the country had no communications with Taiwan. It welcomed a CITES inspection of its ivory stocks.

Zimbabwe also found no record of any international movement or unlawful sale of ivory, which was subsequently confirmed by an independent audit.

The CITES Secretariat wrote to HSUS requesting details about the source of its allegations. It offered the assurance that this type of information would be treated in complete confidence. Alternatively, it could pass on the relevant information to an official national law enforcement agency. HSUS declined and the Secretariat concluded that the allegations were unfounded.

The tactics of animal rights groups are evident to all. On the one hand they complain about a lack of reliable data, while on the other they are busy creating the uncertainties they profess to deplore. Countries acting as adjudicators in Santiago on the question of ivory trade should draw a level of confidence from the MIKE process that far outweighs any platitudes about imperfect data.