CoP19: we’re against over-regulation of trade

The 19th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP) to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES CoP19) will take place in Panama next month. Zimbabwe will be represented by a high-powered delegation that will lobby for, among other things, the removal of restrictions on the international trade in elephants and elephant products. The Sunday Mail‘s TANYARADZWA RUSIKE (TR) spoke to Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZimParks) director-general Dr Fulton Mangwanya (FM) on what Zimbabwe seeks to achieve at the meeting.

**************

TR: Can you outline issues that are set for discussion at the forthcoming CITES conference?

FM: CITES is an international trade and conservation agreement, whose primary establishment is to control international trade in rare and endangered plant and animal species, as well as facilitating sustainable trade in listed species. The convention functions by listing species in its appendices with corresponding trade controls based on scientific criteria; that is, Appendix I, Appendix II and Appendix III.

The appendices are annexes to the convention.

CITES comprises 184 parties, precisely 183 countries and the European Union as a regional economic bloc.

Its primary focus is mainly on animal and plant species that are or may be affected by trade and are now, or may potentially become, threatened with extinction.

At this year’s conference, issues to do with listing of species will be discussed.

There are outstanding issues from the previous conference held in 2019, the Conference of the Parties (CoP18), which Zimbabwe is still pursuing as we are convinced the issues were not fairly and satisfactorily addressed during and after CoP18.

Of particular interest to Zimbabwe and many other countries is the listing of African elephants.

Zimbabwean elephants fall under Appendix II, but with an annotation or additional note stating conditions that prohibit the country from exporting live elephants to ex-situ environments or captive facilities like zoos.

Before the unprocedural amendment of a certain CITES resolution referred to in the said annotation, it was legally possible to trade in live elephants, hence Zimbabwe would easily trade in its live elephants for international destinations. These notes or this annotation pertaining to the listing of the African elephant population for Zimbabwe, South Africa, Namibia and Botswana were amended at CoP18 in 2019 indirectly by amending the said resolution, whose effect is to effectively prohibit the export of live elephants to ex-situ environments or captive facilities like zoos.

It is this change in the annotation that we still contest.

As Zimbabwe, we expressed our dissatisfaction over the unprocedural amendment of the referenced resolution done at CoP18 by registering our reservation with CITES.

The effect of the reservation, if adopted, would ordinarily make the change of the resolution of no force and effect on Zimbabwe.

There is no agreement on the legal effect of our reservation, hence it remains a grey area subject to debate at CoP19.

The annotation to Appendix II on elephants imposed a nine-year moratorium on trading in registered raw ivory from 2007.

The nine-year moratorium has since passed, but Zimbabwe still cannot trade in ivory because there is no decision-making mechanism and the annotation has still not been amended to allow trade.

The issue remains outstanding, hence it is a matter we are taking up at CITES CoP19.

Zimbabwe submitted a proposal on the establishment of a rural communities’ committee in CITES at CoP19.

The motivation is in line with our national and conservation philosophy of inclusivity.

Establishment of a rural communities’ committee as an advisory body to CITES would ensure that community voices are represented at the decision-making table.

Community representation would ensure active participation in economic issues, as wildlife is an integral component of the rural economy through tourism and other forms of sustainable utilisation.

We are a pro-sustainable trade country; therefore, we are generally against increased regulation and curtailment of trade.

Regarding our approach to proposals by other countries, we will support proposals or actions that will not negatively affect our populations and those which promote sustainable international trade, as well as those which enhance population growth and better species protection.

Generally, as a country, we are against over-regulation of trade, especially unwarranted trade restrictions. We will oppose proposals and draft decisions that disregard credible scientific advice and local community livelihood considerations, as well as closure of domestic ivory markets.

In line with our conservation philosophy, Zimbabwe does not agree with some West African countries whose view is that elephants taken from the wild should be limited to in-situ conservation programmes or secure areas in the wild, within the species’ natural and historical range in Africa.

Zimbabwe is in agreement with proposals from SADC (Southern African Development Community) countries as all such proposals are pro-sustainable trade, for example, Namibia’s proposal to down-list the white rhino from Appendix I to Appendix II.

Zimbabwe supports Eswatini’s proposal for the removal of restrictions on the Appendix II status for its white rhinos, thereby permitting the regulated legal trade in Eswatini’s white rhinos, their products, including horn and derivatives. Zimbabwe opposes the proposed transfer of species like hippopotamus and giraffes from CITES Appendix II to Appendix I.

Hippos are generally in over-abundance, not only in Zimbabwe, but in many other countries as shown by a number of surveys. They are also a source of serious human-wildlife conflict and the species is one of the highest causes of deaths in Africa among all species.

The proponents of the proposal are again from west Africa. Zimbabwe will continue to engage these countries on the subject.

Zimbabwe will defend the continued listing of elephants in Appendix II regardless of some proposals to uplist the species to Appendix I.

Many other species of both animals and plants will be discussed with regards to their listing at the conference. There will also be discussions of documents on ivory stockpiles, anti-poaching, control of zoonotic diseases, research, ivory domestic markets, conservation funding and wildlife management in general.

TR: Government recently hosted the inaugural African Elephant Summit in Hwange in preparation for the CITES meeting. What were the key declarations from the meeting?

FM: The Hwange African Elephant Conference’s major purpose was to rally the African voice around a common position in preparation for CITES CoP19 in line with Article 3 of the Constitutive Act of the African Union.

This common position encompassed the inclusion of rural communities in CITES decision making, the gazetting of an instrument that allows African countries to sell their ivory stockpiles to raise revenue for conservation, to agree on innovative ways of conserving the African elephant as well as combating illegal wildlife trade.

African elephant range states with increasing elephant populations must be commended for good management practices and be allowed to educate others on conservation.

The Hwange Declaration recognises the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the sovereign right of African states to manage their wildlife resources and the corresponding responsibility to sustainably use and conserve these resources.

CITES has, to a greater extent, violated this right by restricting international trade to unacceptable limits. The conference does not want CITES to interfere with domestic trade but to recognise the different population status and threats to the two different elephant sub-species (Savannah and Forest elephants) at CoP19.

The Savannah population is doing well as opposed to the Forest population in West Africa, hence the two must be treated differently. CITES must make decisions that are science-based and must promote sustainable international trade, not to needlessly curtail trade.

TR: What does Zimbabwe stand to benefit from participating at CoP19?

FM: Parties to the convention meet periodically (every two to three years) to review the implementation of CITES, including amending appendices.

Attending allows Zimbabwe to contribute to such big decisions and to defend and possibly spread our conservation philosophy.

Decisions on proposals that will bring financial and material support, like monitoring of the illegal killing of elephants, will be made at the conference. Many proposals are adopted by consensus or are subjected to voting. Zimbabwe must, therefore, exercise its right to vote on matters of interest to us, especially trade issues.

TR: Zimbabwe has a growing ivory stockpile. How does the country plan to ensure this stockpile is sold off and how will communities benefit from the sales?

FM: The proposal to amend Annotation 2 stated above to allow ivory disposals failed at CoP18, partly because of the absence of this decision-making mechanism and resistance from proponents of prohibition of ivory trade.

This issue is technically coupled to the issue of resumption of trade in live elephants and its conclusion is dependent on the amendment of Annotation 2 referred above.

Zimbabwe will again pursue this issue on ivory disposals by arguing for the adoption of our proposal. There must be benefits from the destruction of the stockpile. We are against destruction without financial benefits as elephant conservation comes at a cost.

Money raised for ivory trade will be invested in conservation and improvement of communities co-existing with wildlife.

TR: Which other countries are behind Zimbabwe’s position to remove strict restrictions on elephant trade?

FM: Several meetings were held to ensure that SADC speaks with one voice at CITES, and that objective was achieved as most SADC members have a common position.

At the African Union level, efforts to rally the African voice around a common position are hitting a brick wall as the gulf in conservation philosophies between African regional economic blocs like Southern and West Africa is proving very difficult to narrow.

Apart from West Africa, Kenya seems to have an approach very different from Zimbabwe’s, as it is against live elephant and ivory trade. The reason for opposition is the assumption that resuming international trade in ivory and live elephants would increase elephant poaching. This is despite the absence of a science-determined correlation between poaching and legal trade.

TR: What strategies have you put in place to transform ZimParks into a modern wildlife management organisation?

FM: There is a five-year strategic plan that is normally reviewed annually, and its implementation is going on as planned despite the setbacks imposed by Covid-19. In spite of the usual financial challenges, we have at least managed to procure anti-poaching equipment for use by our field operation staff, and this includes all-terrain vehicles, navigation gadgets like modern global positioning systems, camping equipment and drones.

We now use database management and surveillance systems like the Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool, the Earth Ranger and even the Digital Antenna System in some of our parks.

This allows real-time information gathering and spatial analysis of illegal activities and other events that are of interest to us, and this will, in turn, influence deployments.

All this has been possible due to various partnerships we have with conservation organisations like African Wildlife Foundation, International Fund for Animal Welfare, African Parks, and Gonarezhou Conservation Trust.

Internationally, we are a member of various conventions and organisations, and this enables us to adopt international best practices in the way we operate for continued membership to such institutions.

We collaborate closely with our neighbours through a number of trans-frontier conservation initiatives and programmes, and this unlocks access to funding and helps to harmonise both administrative and ecological scales in wildlife management.

We conduct several capacity-building activities for all our staff to increase their competence levels as well as motivating them.

TR: What role is ZimParks playing to drive Zimbabwe towards the attainment of Vision 2030 goals?

FM: ZimParks is apparently a significant player in the tourism industry by virtue of being in charge of a vast network of protected areas populated with a lot of charismatic wildlife species and characterised by beautiful scenery.

The maintenance of the ecological integrity of these protected areas is fundamental in attracting tourists and maintaining their interests.

Article 160 of the National Development Strategy 1 (NDS1) makes it no secret that Zimbabwe’s tourism is anchored in abundant natural resources such as wildlife and scenery, and the country looks up to ZimParks to manage such landscapes.

ZimParks is making all efforts to protect and even increase keystone species by channelling more resources, both material and financial, to areas or habitats of such species.

This is one of the biodiversity objectives in NDS1.

NDS1 outlines the need to improve the status of protected areas.

To achieve this target, ZimParks has intensified its law-enforcement operations by enhancing joint operations with other local security agencies, as well as increasing transboundary collaborations with neighbouring countries through initiatives such as the Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area, the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area and many more.

The CAMPFIRE (Community Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources) policy, whose main objective is to enhance benefits accruing to rural communities, is near completion.

ZimParks fully appreciates its role in improving the rural economy, hence provides opportunities for local communities to run curio shops in protected areas like Matobo National Park and other parks wherever this is possible.

As an organisation, we are assisting communities to establish their own conservancies, which they can run commercially.

One is being set up in Binga and another one in Mbire Rural District Councils.