Is CITES promoting or destroying the African Wildlife Economy?

Written by Ms Rose Mandisodza-Chikerema

The decision-making body of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Conference of Parties (CoP), is currently meeting in Panama City to decide on international trade measures for endangered species. The decisions will be in force after 28 days from the last day of the CoP, but who benefits from these decisions and resolutions?

So far, all decisions that have been recommended for adoption are against the principle of sustainable use which is the basis for successful wildlife conservation in countries in Southern Africa. Decisions are being made based on emotions and not science. The CoP is now a platform for who has more powerful political muscle, who has more money, and who speaks louder. Those who bear the burden of having large wildlife populations of fauna such as elephant and rhinos are not listened to. How do the African countries which depend on sustainable use promote wildlife economies with restricted trade. How do we support communities and livelihoods of indigenous peoples living with wildlife?

Southern African countries submitted several proposals to the CoP as discussed below and some key ones with impact of these decisions on the African Wildlife Economy.

• A proposal was submitted that seeks to open trade in African Ivory and support the establishment of a leather industry in a source country – more than 50% of the world’s elephant population is in Southern African countries while in other parts of the African continent the population is declining or locally extinct. The growing elephant population is proof that these countries are doing something right and hence they must be supported and motivated for the job well done. But how can this be done? There is need to support regulated trade that supports the wildlife economies. There is need to provide a mechanism for trade. The trade in wildlife and wildlife products will provide the much-needed revenue to support conservation. At the same time, the revenue earned will sustain livelihoods and provide incentives to communities living with wildlife. The world needs to recognize that there is a cost associated with having wildlife.

• A proposal was submitted to allow communities to provide advice to CITES – communities are the first line of defense in wildlife areas. We have armies who provide a security service to countries, and they are paid to do so. So why cannot communities derive benefits or incentives as they protect and defend their countries’ wildlife stock? Community voices need to be heard at international forums as decisions that are made at these forums have a direct impact on their livelihoods. Th CoP has failed in not allowing community voices at international forums. 

• A proposal was submitted to consider wildlife population estimates of specific countries when voting. The CITES convention allows for one country one vote, and the proposal was to have votes equated to the number of species being voted for. Zimbabwe proposed an amendment to the rules of procedure, with an aim to highlight that the decision made at the CoP places a heavy burden on countries with large populations and destroys the wildlife economy. A country without any elephants does not understand the cost of looking after an elephant for 60 years in a country that struggles to raise funds for conservation. Surely there is need for elephant owners to get some revenue from their 60 years investment. Even in livestock production there is financial benefits at the market.

By restricting wildlife trade, not listening to local communities, and not empowering those countries that actually are conserving wildlife, CITES CoP decisions are undermining the African Wildlife Economy which is not good for wildlife, livelihoods, or the landscapes in which wildlife and people live.

Roseline Mandisodza-Chikerema is a Chief Ecologist for Terrestrial Ecology at Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority and an AWEI Fellow