Out of Africa
Sudan and Kenya, Chad, Congo and Central African Republic all need to exercise Sovereign Authority for the Conservation of Elephants

Perhaps global governance of wildlife resources is a concept that should be reconsidered for the sake of sound conservation goals and principles. CITES has long had control of the trade, hence the management, of Africa's elephants. The 2/3 majority needed to win a vote on management plans and restrictions or lessening controls on the trade in elephants, has for years been an obstacle to some modern conceptions of sub-Saharan wildlife management. Those concepts include sustainable use of animals when they become too abundant to be compatible with the environment and the people in it.

Global governance began as an idea that seemed to have positive elements. Concerned nations of the world, united for conservation principles, joined CITES, thinking that together they would put rational restrictions on international wildlife and plant trade and thus contribute to those conservation practices that are affected by it. Bans on trade, however, were the solutions sought for various reasons by some of the Parties. Bans have not been a very satisfactory answer to elephant conservation in southern Africa.

Recently, several developments have been reported in the news out of the continent:

News 24.com reports that Botswana's president Festus Mogae was planning to hold talks with Zambian president Levi Mwanawasa regarding cooperation between the two elephant range states in requesting that CITES downgrade the status of their elephants, so that Botswana officials could conduct a cull to bring the herds down to "acceptable levels", and then sell the ivory from that cull action.

Botswana is said to have "huge herds" of elephants that are destroying the environment. In Zambia, where poaching used to be intensive, they are becoming a problem. Zambia asked for a transfer of its population to Appendix II only once, in 2002. This was not granted, but this means only that the text should be slightly changed, not that the request was not justified.

Each CITES meeting has seen them urging for relief through being allowed to sell ivory from animals culled by the government, or ivory from natural mortality. In 2002, CITES voted to allow Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to sell 60 metric tons in a one-time sale. At the latest CITES meeting, objectors to a new cull argued that excess animals should be physically transferred to areas where they are scarcer. This is an expensive and questionably humane practice.

Kenya is traditionally against any ivory sales from culled animals, arguing that such sales would encourage poachers. Kenyan elephants are steadily recovering from the effects of poaching that took place through the 1980s.

However, poaching is still taking place in Kenya, and CITES MIKE (Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants) investigators know that this is because there is a booming market for illegal ivory in Sudan. They allege that Sudanese army personnel are not only conducting the illegal kills, but are transporting the ivory to the Sudanese capital for export to China. The illegal trade is facilitated by the large Chinese population in Sudan, where between 3,000 and 5,000 Chinese work in the mining, oil and construction industries. Chinese demand is growing because the nation has experienced such marked economic growth in recent years, and the money is available for such luxury goods imports.

Nigel Hunter, MIKE director, has called on Sudan to control its people's involvement in this illegal trade. Others have noted that shops in Khartoum are openly advertising ivory artifacts in their stores. Despite Kenya's insistence that other countries control their traders, Nairobi stores contain ivory as well. Authorities note that elephants are being illegally killed in southern Sudan, Congo and the Central African Republic, Kenya, and Chad.

Elephant conservation ultimately depends on regional cooperation and transparency in conservation law enforcement, and it appears that CITES-maintained bans on ivory from culled animals and animals that die of natural causes, have not been effective in stopping the illegal international trade in these goods. Those nations whose citizens have been involved in this illegal trade need to either strictly control it under the CITES regime, or make the decision that they are going to protect their resources through a regional plan that is effective through integrity and hard work. Age old traditions of secretly sanctioned "under the table" deals have not escaped international notice, and ultimately, they are not a benefit to the people of those countries, their environments, and their animal resources.

IWMC urges that all range states cooperate in the effort to prove they can effectively enforce laws that serve elephant conservation, and perhaps ultimately, they may be able to create a regional African management plan that works for the benefit of all those who share the environment with the diversity of unique wildlife that is the essence of Africa.