At a meeting where there was unprecedented victory for sustainable use, southern African countries, namely Botswana, Namibia and South Africa successfully proposed to have the Hoodia gordonii cactus plant listed on CITES Appendix II (which allows international trade under a system of permits). In their joint proposal to CITES COP13, the three southern African countries emphasized the need for their local communities to enjoy the benefits from the exploitation of the Hoodia. Multinational pharmaceutical companies have recently learned of the fat-busting powers of the Hoodia from the local southern African communities.

The Hoodia is already being advertised on the Internet as the 21st century’s fat busting ‘magic bullet’ and has attracted interest from people battling with obesity worldwide. Interestingly, animal rights groups did not make noise about the southern African countries’ proposal on the Hoodia. The proposal sailed through peacefully. The issue of the Hoodia exposed the agenda of animal rights groups that they are only worried about charismatic mega species such as the big five (the elephant, rhino, leopard, lion and buffalo), which they claim to be saving through opposing their sustainable utilization. By so doing they play on the emotions of citizens of their home countries, asking for donations to save these animals.

But the anti-use stance is an anti-conservation stance. It is as bereft of conservation as it is not backed by compelling scientific evidence, such as that now being forwarded by pro-sustainable use southern Africa in its arguments for sustainable use. CITES is a scientific convention, which has no room for emotional anti-use campaigns not backed by compelling scientific evidence. Thank God CITES assumed this identity at COP13, while animal rights groups helplessly cried foul.

When Namibia was allowed by CITES member countries through a vote to trade in ornamental trinkets made of ivory, called ekipas, for non-commercial purposes (the ekipas can only be sold in Namibia and cannot be exported for resale), Adam Roberts, Executive Director of Washington DC –based Animal Welfare Institute, said, “Despite historical opposition to the international ivory trade and the over-whelming interest of the American people in protecting elephants from brutal traffic in their tusks, the US has done the bidding to those who prefer to trade in wild animals rather than protect them. Shame on the Bush administration for allowing this to happen.”

These are the kinds of emotional statements that animal rights groups have used in the past to win the support of the ignorant public in their home countries, who out of emotions donate billions of dollars annually to support the so-called conservation of animals through non-use.

Namibians will make ekipas from the ivory of elephants that accumulate from natural mortality. For the past seven years, Zimbabwe has been engaged in selling ivory carvings from elephants that die of natural mortality and there are no grounds to describe this sustainable business activity as “brutal traffic in their tusks” as described by Adam Roberts, an animal rights activist. Their agenda is clearly anti-use; no matter how sustainable one might want to exploit animal products.

Another headline from animal rights groups reacting to Namibia’s permission to trade in ekipas screamed “EU silence could condemn Africa’s elephants.” In this story, an umbrella organization for animal rights groups worldwide, the Species Survival Network, complained and castigated the European Union (EU) for abstaining when the Namibian proposal was put to a vote.

“The European Union abstained, understanding fully well that its indecision would hand victory to Namibia,” said Will Travers, President of the Species Survival Network.

Contrast Adam Roberts’ statement with that of Dr. Susan Lieberman, head of World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), one of the most respected conservation organizations worldwide. “Namibia has done an exemplary job of conserving its elephants and other wildlife and WWF is confident that the trade will be tightly controlled and will not lead to poaching of elephants,” she announced. “This small-scale trade will benefit Namibia’s excellent community-based conservation work. WWF opposes any international trade in ivory at this point in time, but this proposal is strictly for non-commercial trade, which means that the ekipas can only be sold in Namibia and cannot be exported for resale,” said Lieberman.

Currently, no country can engage in strictly controlled international trade in ivory. Trade in ivory will only resume if the ongoing two processes, Monitoring for Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) and Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS), are put into place to test whether there is a correlation between permission to trade in ivory and an increase in poaching. However, while these two processes have not been concluded, the interim reports presented by directors of MIKE and ETIS at CITES COP13, indicate that their findings in Southern Africa show that there is no evidence to show a link between increase in poaching or illegal trade and permission to trade in ivory. At CITES COP12 in Santiago, Chile in November 2002, Botswana, Namibia and South Africa were granted the right to trade in their declared quotas of ivory totaling 60 tons. However, these countries can only engage in trade on condition that there is no evidence found showing a direct link between an increase in poaching or illegal trade in ivory and permission to trade in ivory.

In southern Africa and elsewhere in the continent, it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that communities will not be attracted to conserve abundant resources that they are not allowed to use through sustainable hunting or harvesting. The issue of the Hoodia also showed that southern Africa’s conservation agenda is not about elephants and lions only but about all the resources that God bestowed upon them. It showed that southern Africans would like to sustainably conserve these resources in the same manner as they do elephants, lions and other related wildlife. In the case of the Hoodia, it must benefit the indigenous communities and not just benefit multi-national pharmaceutical companies.

Ekipas can only be sold in Namibia and cannot be exported for resale

Meanwhile, delegates from southern Africa have given credit to Parties to CITES for listening more to science than emotional statements such as that issued by an Australian citizen who spoke against hunting the African black rhinos in South Africa and Namibia. He unfortunately compared any attempt to hunt them to attempting to kill the last remaining army generals in Australia who survived the Second World War. Where is the science in this comparison? What we see is an irreconcilable comparison of black rhinos to human beings wherein lies the agenda of animal rights groups. They like giving animals the same rights as those of human beings and hence their fierce opposition to any form of sustainable use. It is now very clear that animal rights groups are no longer being taken seriously. Even government officials from their home countries are no longer taking them seriously, as long as they use emotional and unscientific arguments.

For example, a delegate representing the European Union attending COP13 demonstrated that they were no longer taking animal rights groups seriously when he said, “we spent most of the time looking at their shoes rather than listening to what they were saying when they invited us to a briefing meeting.”

“Previously, the animal rights groups were very powerful,” said George Pangeti, Vice Chairman of Zimbabwe’s Parks and Wildlife Authority. “But I think the wildlife managers and governments are now listening to the science.”

Some of the positive changes in CITES include a beneficial consultation and cooperation process among the Parties. Dr. Cecil Machena, the Executive Director of the Africa Resources Trust, a Zimbabwe-based NGO, said of the changes within CITES, “There has been willingness to negotiate, primarily prompted by the need to understand in detail the background for the various proposals and also the willingness to compromise and avoid fierce confrontation either on the Committee floor or in the plenary. This is a very positive development within the Convention and very different from the past COPs.”

The proposed synergy between CITES and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) which supports sustainable use of natural resources was also highlighted by representatives of pro-sustainable use countries as having immensely contributed towards promoting the spirit of sustainable use. In February 2004, the Parties to CBD met in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and adopted the Addis Ababa principles and guidelines for sustainable use and called for a synergy between CBD and CITES in implementing them as an important tool for conservation of flora and fauna. Central to these principles and guidelines is the need to eliminate and reduce policies or laws that generate perverse incentives to conservation and sustainable use. It was emphasized that in order to promote these principles and guidelines, policies, laws, research and institutions should be harmonized.

This article reflects solely the opinion of the author.

---

** Emmanuel Koro is an environment and development communication specialist based in Zimbabwe. He is also President of the Sub-Saharan Africa Forum for Environment Communicators (SAFE), which aims to promote the conservation and development views and interests of rural communities in the media. Your emails to will be forwarded to him by contacting the editor at: ScienceTech@islam-online.net.

Health & Science Please feel free to contact the Health & Science editor at: ScienceTech@islam-online.net Science News | Health and Alternative Medicine   Faith and Science/Medicine | Institutions and Scientists Environment | Computers and Communications | Genetics| Technology Natural Sciences | Muslim Heritage back