CITES CoP19 increases barriers to African wildlife trade

06 Dec 2022

Written by Francis Vorhies

The recent 19th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES CoP19) mostly increased or maintained non-tariff barriers to the trade in African wildlife products. A notable exception was to allow Namibia to sell live rhinos to conservation areas elsewhere on the continent.

The Summary Records of CoP19 on the outcomes of the Appendices proposals for African species indicate that many African countries continue to support trade barriers over trade liberalisation. Though southern African countries tend to want to remove trade barriers, other African countries submitted proposals to increase trade barriers. Most, except for the listing of hippos and elephants in Appendix I, were adopted.

These CoP19 Appendices decisions are at odds with commitments under the recently launched African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) “to eliminate trade barriers and boost intra-Africa trade.” There is clearly a need for consultation among the Member States of the African Union on how to “enhance policy coherence for sustainable development” (SDG Target 17.14) with respect to decision-making on trade measures under CITES and AfCFTA.

Hippos remain under Appendix II trade measures

A group of ten African countries - Benin, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Gabon, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Togo – proposed to up list hippos from Appendix II to Appendix I, with a zero-export quota annotation. In so doing, they aimed to stop the trade in hippo products. Their proposal argued that “Legal international trade in hippo parts and products is having a detrimental impact on hippos by providing an avenue to market illegally acquired specimens from poached hippos into trade.”

The outcome as reported in the CITES summary records:

The Chair of Committee I reported that proposal CoP19 Prop. 1 (Rev. 1) amended to retain listing in Appendix II for Hippopotamus amphibius (Hippopotamus) with the following annotation: “A zero export quota for wild specimens traded for commercial purposes.” had been rejected by Committee I after a vote with 56 Parties in favour, 56 against and 13 abstentions. Togo, supported by Niger, asked to re-open the debate. Botswana, supported by the United Republic of Tanzania, opposed this. With a vote of 44 in favour, 37 against and 48 abstentions, the debate was reopened.

Togo, supported by Benin (also speaking on behalf of other co-proponents of the proposal), Congo, the Central African Republic, Mali, and Mauritania, noted that hippopotamus populations in West Africa were in decline and commercial trade, in particular illegal trade, in the species from any range State could potentially have negative effects on the species as a whole owing to pressures from demand and laundering of specimens.

The European Union and its Member States, echoed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Africa, reiterated their opposition to the proposal stating that hippopotamus populations in parts of the range were stable or increasing.

With a vote of 53 in favour, 58 against and 21 abstentions, proposal CoP19 Prop. 1 (Rev.1) was rejected.

Live Namibian rhinos can be sold for in-situ conservation in Africa

There were two proposals on the CoP19 agenda to remove non-tariff barriers on the trade in white rhino products – one from Namibia and the other from Eswatini.

Botswana and Namibia proposed to move the Namibian population of white rhinos from Appendix I to Appendix II with an annotation that trade would only be allowed for live animals for in-situ conservation and for hunting trophies. Eswatini proposed to further liberalise trade requesting that its rhinos were down listed to Appendix II to enable “regulated legal trade in Eswatini’s white rhinos, their products including horn and derivatives.”

The outcome as reported by the CITES summary records:

The Chair of Committee I reported that the amended proposal CoP19 Prop. 2 to transfer the population of Ceratotherium simum simum (White rhinoceros) in Namibia from Appendix I to Appendix II with the following annotation: “For the exclusive purpose of allowing international trade in live animals for in-situ conservation only and only within the species’ natural and historical range in Africa” had been accepted in Committee I.

The Chair of Committee I proposed an amendment to the annotation to read: “For the exclusive purpose of allowing international trade in live animals for in-situ conservation only and only within the species’s natural and historical range of Ceratotherium simum in Africa”, in order to avoid confusion regarding the definition of “species” under Article I of the Convention and to correctly reflect the spirit of the discussion in Committee I.

Proposal CoP19 Prop. 2 as amended was adopted.

The Chair of Committee I reported that amended proposal CoP19 Prop. 3 to remove the existing annotation on the Appendix II listing of Eswatini’s population of Ceratotherium simum simum (White rhinoceros) was rejected in Committee I after a vote with 15 in favour, 85 against and 26 abstentions.

Amended proposal CoP19 Prop. 3 was rejected.

Barriers to trade in elephant products remain in place

There were two proposals to change the regulations in the trade in elephant products – one from Zimbabwe and one from four West African countries.

Under CoP19 Prop. 4, Zimbabwe proposed amendments to the Appendix II annotations on the elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. For example, trade in elephant leather goods for commercial purposes is not allowed by Zimbabwe, and they requested that this was changed. They also wanted to trade ivory with the revenues used “exclusively for elephant conservation and community conservation and development programmes.”

The outcome as reported in the CITES summary records:

The Chair of Committee I reported that proposal CoP19 Prop. 4 to amend Annotation #2 pertaining to the populations of Loxodonta africana (African elephant) in Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe, was rejected in Committee I after a vote with 15 in favour, 83 against and 17 abstentions.

Zimbabwe, supported by South Africa, made a motion to re-open the debate on proposal CoP19 Prop. 4. Mali, supported by another Party, opposed this motion. With a vote of 31 in favour, 55 against and 47 abstentions, the debate was reopened.

Discussion resumed on proposal CoP19 Prop. 4. Zimbabwe stated that it wished to reopen debate solely on annotation 2e) relating to trade in leather goods; it wished to be included in the range States allowed to trade in leather goods for commercial or non-commercial purposes along with Botswana, South Africa and Namibia, considering that uniformity of the annotation for southern African range States would ease implementation.

The Central African Republic, Congo, Gabon, Israel, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Senegal and Togo opposed the proposed change, variously querying whether natural mortality would provide sufficient hides for the leather trade and stating their concern that further opening trade in leather products would incentivise hunting of younger elephants with higher quality skin. Botswana, China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Namibia and South Africa supported the amended proposal.

Botswana, China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Namibia and South Africa supported the amended proposal.

Zimbabwe called for a vote on the amended proposal.

With 53 votes in favour, 48 against and 32 abstaining, the proposal to amend paragraph 2e) of the annotation to include Zimbabwe in the list of Parties allowed to trade in leather products for commercial purposes was rejected.

Proposal CoP19 Prop. 5 and the amended version of proposal CoP19 Prop. 13 were rejected.

Burkina Faso, Equatorial Guinea, Mali, and Senegal in CoP19 Prop. 5 proposed that all African elephants, including the southern African populations currently listed on Appendix II, should be listed on Appendix I. They argued that the current split listing of elephants has been detrimental and that “A unified pan-African approach, listing all of Africa's elephants in Appendix I, sends a clear signal to consumers and criminal syndicates that international ivory trade is, and will remain, prohibited.”

The outcome as reported in the CITES summary records:

The Chair of Committee I reported that the Committee had rejected proposal CoP19 Prop. 5… following a vote.

Appendix II trade measures for the Helmethead gecko

In CoP19 Prop. 16, Mauritania and Senegal proposed that the Tarentola chazaliae (Helmethead gecko) be placed on Appendix II. They argued that: “This species is threatened… by urbanization and fragmentation of its coastal habitats.” It is harvested for the pet trade, notably for exports. Presumably this is mostly wild harvesting, however, little information is available.

The outcome as reported in the CITES summary records:

Mauritania, speaking also on behalf of the co-proponent Senegal, introduced proposal CoP19 Prop. 16 for the inclusion of Tarentola chazaliae in Appendix II, noting the attractive appearance and vocal behaviour of the species made it a target for the international pet trade. Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, the European Union and its Member States, India, Israel, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Somalia, and the United States of America supported the proposal, citing restricted distribution, continuing loss and degradation of habitat, and the negative impact collection for trade may be having on wild populations. Conservation Force considered the species did not meet the criteria for inclusion in Appendix II. Proposal CoP19 Prop. 16 to include Tarentola chazaliae in Appendix II was accepted by consensus

Having been accepted by consensus in Committee I, the following proposals were adopted: … Prop. 16 (Rev 1).

Appendix II trade measures for guitarfishes

Kenya, Senegal, and others submitted CoP19 Prop. 40 to list six species of the family Rhinobatidae (guitarfishes) in Appendix II. The species is threatened with habitat deterioration and harvesting. Their proposal stated: “Guitarfishes are utilized for their meat, skin and fins (dorsal and caudal fins). Often the meat is for domestic use, while skin and fins often enter international trade.”

The outcome as reported in the CITES summary records:

Proposal... Prop. 40… had been accepted by Committee I following votes and [was] adopted. As part of consideration of proposal CoP19 Prop. 40, a number of standard nomenclatural references for the family Rhinobatidae, as detailed in section 11 of document CoP19 Prop. 40, as accepted by Committee I, were adopted.

Appendix II trade measures for all African populations of pod mahoganies

Proposed by Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Liberia, and Senegal, CoP19 Prop. 46 called for the inclusion of all African populations of Afzelia africana, A. bipindensis, A. pachyloba and A. quanzensis in Appendix II. Their proposal, however, noted that there are several livelihood benefits from harvesting this species: “Afzelia spp. are locally important for subsistence harvest of traditional medicine ingredients, livestock fodder, wood for carving and construction, charcoal and fuelwood.”

The outcome as reported in the CITES summary records:

Proposal CoP19 Prop. 46 had been agreed after a vote in Committee I with 95 votes in favour, 12 against and 17 abstentions. Gabon, with support from the Congo, proposed debate be reopened on the proposal to remove the species Afzelia bipindensis from the proposal. The Democratic Republic of the Congo and other Parties opposed the proposal. The Chair proceeded to a vote: with 30 in favour, 71 opposing and 38 abstentions, the proposal to reopen debate was rejected. Proposal CoP19 Prop. 46 was adopted.

Appendix II trade measures for all African populations of Parauk

Côte d'Ivoire, Liberia, Malawi, Senegal, and Togo put forward CoP19 Prop.50 for the inclusion of all African populations of Pterocarpus (Parauk) species in Appendix II of CITES with some annotations.

The outcome as reported in the CITES summary records:

Having been accepted by consensus in Committee I, the following proposals were adopted: … Prop. 50.

Appendix II trade measures for the African mahoganies

Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Liberia, and Senegal under CoP19 Prop. 51 proposed that the African populations of the genus Khaya (African mahoganies) be included in Appendix II noting that “the Khaya spp. are valuable commercial timber trees that are part of the African mahogany species group and are also used in traditional medicine.” Other uses include: “an intercrop species in groundnut agriculture,” “bark is harvested for the fermentation of palm wine,” “woodworking, carpentry,” “dye production”, and “planted as ornamentals and for water conservation.”

The outcome as reported in the CITES summary records:

Having been accepted by consensus in Committee I, the following proposals were adopted: … Prop. 51.

Regarding proposal CoP19 Prop. 51, the use of 'Plants of the World Online' as the standard nomenclatural reference for the genus Pterocarpus was adopted.

A livelihoods pathway to policy coherence?

In our note on the CITES CoP19 Appendices proposals, we explored possible livelihood implications of changes to listings. Our review recognised that global value chains for wild products can enhance the livelihoods of those involved in these value chains. If CITES trade barriers impact on these livelihoods, then the trade could be driven underground or the habitats supporting the listed species could be converted to other uses.

An increase in non-tariff barriers – e.g., a transfer from Appendix II to Appendix I – may inhibit legal trade leading to diminished livelihoods, illegal trade, and habitat loss. On the other hand, a decrease in non-tariff barriers – e.g., a transfer from Appendix I to Appendix II – may facilitate legal trade leading to enhanced livelihoods and conserved species and habitats.

Under AfCFTA, there is a Non-Tariff Barriers Reporting Mechanism which might be a useful instrument for addressing the impact of CITES trade barriers, specifically for intra-African trade in wildlife products. Use of such a Mechanism might facilitate greater consideration of the livelihood impacts of Appendices proposals. This may help to improve the effectiveness of decision-making by CITES Parties and enhance trade policy coherence among the Member States of the African Union.

Francis Vorhies, AWEI Director, WildCRU Research Visitor, IUCN SULi Member