Ivory – tactile, beautiful and emotive. The use of ivory as an artistic and cultural medium divides opinions like no other. While for some ivory conjures images of ancient exquisitely carved puzzle balls and Byzantine pyxis, others see slaughter, smuggling and organised crime. Statistics show that between 1979 and 1989, the number of African elephants fell from approximately 1.2 million to 600,000. In the last decade, Africa has seen a further decline in its elephant population of 111,000. This decline is primary due to illegal poaching.
The international community has led a number of attempts to respond to the dramatic decline in elephant numbers. The regulation of the trade in wildlife (in the 182 member states that have ratified it) is governed by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora ("CITES"). In 1989, CITES agreed an almost complete ban on the international trade in African elephant ivory by placing the African elephant on its ‘most at risk’ register (CITES Appendix I). As a result, for a time the wild elephant population stabilised. Then, in 1999, CITES approved a one-off sale of 49.4 metric tons of stockpiled ivory from Namibia, Zimbabwe and Botswana to Japan and, almost overnight, poaching escalated.
A further "one-off" sale was approved by CITES in 2008. This time, 102 metric tons of stockpiled ivory were exported to Japan and China from Zimbabwe, Namibia, Botswana and South Africa. This flow of ivory determined the old Chinese carving industry (which had been effectively shut down following the 1989 ban on commercial trade) to reopen and the reigniting of the Chinese love of ivory. This proved to be a disaster for the wild African elephant population culminating in an estimated elephant poaching incident every fifteen minutes.
African courts and parliaments take action
However, this is not just a story of rich Western states acting on their consciences. In recent years, African nations have been bolder and stronger in their actions to protect their iconic wildlife. A number of initiatives have enabled this stance including the Global Environment Facility, a UN Environment led policy aimed at supporting national sustainable development initiatives. One of the projects saw work in Malawi (a state which has lost fifty per cent of its elephant population since the 1980s) engaging policy makers and members of the judiciary to implement laws to protect rhinos and elephants. Malawi has since passed its new Wildlife and National Parks Act (2016), which condemns convicted poachers to prison sentences for up to 30 years. What is more, the legislation is being acted on. In October 2017, a Malawian court sentenced a rhino poacher to 18 years in prison. In November of the same year, two elephant poachers received prison sentences of 13 years each. Malawi is strongly and firmly building a deterrent through its legislation and its courts. Malawi is not alone as Mozambique, Zambia and Namibia have all taken similar steps. These states as well as others (Botswana, Gabon, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe) have taken active initiatives to curb the poaching crisis by setting up inter-parliamentary groups to push for reforms. However, legislative reform is only one part of the answer. While tougher laws and harsher penalties represent the first step, there must be support from prosecuting authorities and law enforcers for them to become effective. This takes time, training and commitment from all those involved in the fight against wildlife crime in Africa.
Shifting paradigm: Africa demands change
At the 2016 CITES Conference of the Parties, an acrimonious debate erupted which split Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe (states which collectively host about a third of Africa’s wildlife) from a group of 29 other African nations (home to 40% of wild African elephants), led by Botswana and including Kenya and Benin, which had seen their smaller herd plummet due to poaching. The former group, whose populations are stable and growing argued that the ongoing protection of their herds needed to be financed by revenues from controlled ivory sales and trophy hunting. The later countered that the illegal trade in ivory was the greatest threat to elephant populations and that stricter controls were urgently needed. The debate took place in the wake of a CITES proposal to lift the elephant populations of Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana, from CITES Appendix 2 (which offers a lower level of protection and allows limited trade) to Appendix 1 (affording them the highest level of protection). Most notably, the debate saw Botswana (with the world's largest elephant population) break ranks with Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe and argue vehemently for universal Appendix 1 protection.
Building on Existing Cooperation
Despite the 2016 disagreement, the truth is that for more than twenty years, African states have been cooperating through a series of initiatives. Most notable amongst these are two CITES backed monitoring programmes countries – the Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) and the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS), which provide information to CITES Parties about elephant killing and ivory seizures. With the data gathered from these systems the African range states have developed and implemented the African Elephant Action Plan, which prioritises conservation, but also recognises that circumstances differ across the African continent. What has been slower in coming is recognition, both by CITES and the African range states, that 76% of the wild African elephant population occupy trans-boundary ranges and as a result do not "belong" to one state or another. However, there are signs that this cross-continent, united approach is gaining strength. One example is the African-led Elephant Protection Inititive which now has seventeen range state members who commit to both national and transnational action plans. It does appear that attitudes are changing in Africa and the protection of the continent's iconic species is high on the political agenda. This was made clear earlier this year when 32 African leaders met to discuss the illegal wildlife trade. What was clear from their statements was that they see the illegal wildlife trade as a global issue not just Africa's problem and that the West and Far East, as consumers of ivory, must take action at their own state level. This new, bold stance from African leaders was music to the ears of wildlife campaigners. Now we are seeing Africa demanding change by the E.U., U.K., et al, namely that they must put their own house in order and close their own ivory markets. The message from Botswana’s President Ian Khama was loud and clear to the West: shut your ivory markets and stop fuelling the poaching of our elephants. No one is saying it will be easy. Despite the growing consensus, some important range states (including Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe) remain of the view that a limited ivory trade is to be welcomed – a view strongly opposed by states calling for a total ban who argue that any legal trade facilitates laundering of illegally poached ivory, stimulates further demand and increasing poaching.
An illegal trade that is estimated to be worth in the region of $8 billion a year will not go down without a fight. However, the political will to end the poaching crisis is stronger than ever. This coupled with a commitment to the implementation and enforcement of wildlife legislation and the steadily growing calls from African states for a total ivory ban is our best hope to protect these iconic creatures for us all.