In 2014 EPI countries agreed that the moratorium on commercial international trade in ivory, first introduced by CITES in 1989, should be observed for a minimum of a further 10 years and ‘thereafter until African elephant populations are no longer threatened.’ So 2024 provides the perfect opportunity to assess how the EPI has performed on one of its key objectives.
EPI member states and secretariat at CITES CoP18, Geneva, 2019
The one-off sales of ivory which CITES permitted in 1999 and, especially 2007, were followed by significant increases in elephant poaching in Africa. During the past decade, EPI countries have successfully resisted attempts to end the moratorium. At each of the CITES meetings of the Conference of the Parties (CoPs) during the past decade, Southern African countries have sought to loosen restrictions on the international trade of ivory. They argue that a well-regulated trade in ivory would help fund their conservation efforts. In Johannesburg in 2016 (CoP 17) proposals by Namibia and Zimbabwe were defeated, with 100 or more countries voting against each proposal, and less than 30 voting in favour. In Geneva in 2019 (CoP 18) similar proposals by Zambia and Botswana (a founding member of the EPI which changed its position on ivory trade) suffered the same fate. Again, more than 100 countries voted against each proposal to loosen restrictions, and fewer than 25 voted in favour.
Finally, in Panama in 2022 (CoP 19), Zimbabwe prepared another proposal to allow limited ivory trade. Before this proposal was put to a vote, Zimbabwe amended it, deleting the reference to ivory, but including trade in elephant leather. This was also rejected. However, more countries (53) voted for Zimbabwe’s proposal than against (48), with a high-level of abstention (32). (Amendments to CITES listings require a
two-thirds majority of Parties present and voting).
Counter-proposals presented at these three CoPs to up-list all African elephant populations to CITES’ Appendix I, providing its highest level of protection, were likewise defeated. These proposals were put forward at different times by various countries, including Kenya, Uganda, Gabon and Burkina Faso. For example, the most recent such proposal, by Burkina Faso at CoP19, was supported by 44 countries, but rejected by 59. (It should be noted that of the four populations of elephants on CITES Appendix II, the listings include legally binding annotations that their ivory is deemed to be on Appendix I, thereby prohibiting commercial international trade.)
Two recent EPI editorials in the Independent newspaper
In summary, the maintenance of the international ban on commercial trade has been one of the EPI’s greatest successes, even if the diplomacy around it has often been divisive. Southern African countries continue to advocate for a resumption of trade in ivory, but a majority of African elephant range states believe this would lead to a dangerous increase in poaching and smuggling. Any change to the status quo
seems highly unlikely in the foreseeable future, and yet the history of recent CITES meetings suggests the debate about ivory sales may remain a contentious issue. The EPI Foundation argues that Africa needs further international financial support for elephant conservation, in recognition of the multiple benefits that flow from maintaining healthy elephant populations, including their many ecosystem services.1
In recent newspaper editorials - for example ‘To save Africa’s elephants we need to look beyond ivory’ and ‘Stop talking about selling ivory – it’s time to move on’ - we’ve explained that Africa, and the international community, need to take a more holistic approach to conservation. We believe the financial resources now
flowing to address the inter-related crises of climate change and biodiversity loss present African countries with an historic opportunity to unite and confront common environmental challenges.
Download our 10-year report here.
Comments