African groups lead charge against Zimbabwe’s push to revive ivory trade

African elephants
Support us and go ad-free

Zimbabwe will host an Elephant Summit between 23 and 26 May, after recently courting European politicians to elicit their support for a sale of its elephant ivory stockpile. Such trade will reportedly be a focus of the upcoming meeting, which aims to find a ‘common stance‘ on the issue of selling ivory.

A number of NGOs, many of them African, have condemned the push for reinvigorating the trade in elephants’ ivory. They released a statement on 20 May that warned the summit:

is sending a dangerous signal to poachers and criminal syndicates that elephants are mere commodities

A banned trade

International commercial trade in new ivory has been illegal for decades. However, a legal trade has remained for older or antique ivory, which has allowed the continuation of some international and regional trade. A number of countries have banned the ivory trade in their domestic markets too, with some exemptions.

These bans are in place to protect elephants, because the ivory trade is a leading cause of their demise. The International Union for Conservation of Nature classifies African savannah elephants and Asian elephants as endangered. African forest elephants, meanwhile, are critically endangered.

The ivory trade encourages poaching of elephants, as illegal traders can use legal markets as a cover. This became abundantly apparent in legal sales in 1999 and 2008.

Disastrous for elephants

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) – a global wildlife trading body – allowed one-off international sales of stockpiled ivory from Botswana, Zimbabwe, and Namibia in 1999. CITES added South Africa to the list of approved sellers for a second one-off sale in 2008.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

The results were “disastrous” for elephants, the Revelator reported. Charan Saunders wrote that:

the sales led to an increase in demand and, consequently, an increase in elephant poaching. The 2008 ivory sale was accompanied by a 66% increase in illegally traded ivory and a 71% increase in ivory smuggling.

In his book It’s Not About the Bats, journalist and author Adam Cruise also noted that, according to an elephant census in 2016, the continent’s elephant population “had declined by a third in the seven years since the second one-time sale”.

Most African nations excluded

Nonetheless, Zimbabwe is now pushing for exactly the same kind of one-off sale of its stockpile again, as Africa News reported.

In its coverage of the upcoming elephant summit, Bloomberg highlighted comments from Tinashe Farawo, spokesperson for Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority. He suggested that the event’s aim was to “build consensus” on “elephant conservation” among African countries ahead of an upcoming CITES meeting in November. The monetising of stockpiles is among the issues on the table, the Chronicle reported.

Zimbabwe united with Namibia and Botswana to press CITES, at its meeting in 2019, for permission to sell their ivory stocks. That bid failed, as most countries that are parties to CITES see the ivory trade as a threat to remaining elephant populations. This includes the majority of African nations which, as part of the African Elephant Coalition (AFE), support “a global ban on all ivory trade”.

As the NGO statement highlighted, Zimbabwe hasn’t invited most African elephant range states – meaning countries where the elephants live and roam – to the summit. It has, however, invited China and Japan. These are two countries with a history of being large consumers of ivory. China has, however, introduced a ban in recent years. In 2019, the Diplomat reported that its illegal market was still “booming” though.

Reversing progress

45 NGOs signed the statement against allowing international sales of ivory – be they one-off ones or otherwise. These include the Environmental Investigation Agency, the African Nature Investors Foundation, and the EMS Foundation.

Noting the progress – both international and domestic – that’s been made through ivory bans, they explained that demand is currently at a “historic low”. They argued:

Elephants are a migratory species and therefore require coordinated international conservation efforts. At a time when demand for ivory is at an historic low and awareness of the need for sustained biodiversity is at an historic high, we urge the international community and policymakers to resist attempts by Zimbabwe and Southern African countries to restart ivory trade.

Zimbabwe, however, has argued that the sales would enable it to fund communities and conservation. Officials say human-elephant conflict has killed 60 people so far this year.

According to Farawo, its ivory stockpile is worth over $500m.

A false economy

Saunders, an environmental accountant, questioned in the Revelator an earlier figure of $600m that Zimbabwe had offered for its combined stockpile of ivory and rhino horn. She said that, based on the black market price for ivory and rhino horn at the time, a “more realistic valuation” of its ivory stockpiles would “give a potential income of only $19.5 million in U.S. dollars”.

Compare this, she said, to the estimated $1.6m every single elephant can rake in for host countries during their lifetimes in ecotourism. Zimbabwe claims to have a population of over 84,000 elephants, according to the Chronicle.

Moreover, Saunders argued that the ensuing spike in poaching which the sales would unleash would lead to increased costs in anti-poaching efforts, rendering the whole exercise a false economy.

Our use isn’t sustainable

The wildlife trade, whether it be ivory, other body parts, or live animals, is taking a deep toll on the living world. Much of it happens under the banner of so-called ‘sustainable use’. But as a recent study indicated, there’s very little that’s sustainable about the current levels of use. It found that utilised vertebrate wildlife species saw declines of around 50% on average between 1970 and 2016. The species that people don’t use, meanwhile, declined by less than 3%.

The intricate and interconnected web of lives that exist on the planet is critical to the survival of us all. We need to be moving away from use that exacerbates the extinction crisis. Resuscitating the international ivory trade is a dangerous step in the wrong direction.

Featured image via frankdoylezw / Flickr, cropped to 770×403, licensed under CC BY 2.0

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. While I don’t believe that God required blood and pain ‘payment’, from Jesus or anyone else, I do factually know that the creator’s animals have had their blood literally shed and bodies eaten in mindboggling quantities by Man. And maybe the figurative forbidden fruit of Eden eaten by Adam and Eve was actually God’s four-legged creation.

      I can see that really angering the Almighty — a lot more than the couple’s eating non-sentient, non-living, non-bloodied fruit. Mainstream Christianity doesn’t speak up much at all about what we, collectively, have done to animals for so long. (Just to be clear, I’m not vegetarian. Though I seldom eat mammal meat, I do enjoy eating prawns or shrimp pretty much on a weekly basis.)

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.