by Maxwell Chivasa
The Southern African Development Community member states may break the bottlenecks posed by the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) which bans international ivory trade, by reopening such business among themselves alone.
The international ivory trade ban was imposed in January 1990. Under CITES it is illegal to trade in anything from endangered animals, and that includes elephants. Western countries successfully lobbied to place the elephant under the list although most African countries appealed for delisting so that they could cull sustainably.
Since then, southern African states have been battling to have the elephant downgraded to Appendix II which gives it less than full protection and would allow ivory trade.
At the SADC’s Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Workshop held in Harare from November 20-24
1995 under the theme “Omnibus Community Building”, a natural resources working group examining the region’s environmental constraints recommended a number of solutions to some of its member states’ problems, one of which is the extensive damage to habitats caused the elephants.
The working group discussed the negative impacts of CITES, which include loss of income from ivory products exports. There are about 220,000 elephants in Angola, Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
In view of the abundance of elephants that have been culled to keep the populations under control and to avoid the current unsustainable levels, the working group proposed that southern African countries trade ivory products within the region to circumvent the CITES framework .
Although such trade might not generate much foreign exchange for the region, it brings much pressure to bear on countries refusing to delist the elephant The culling programme has enabled the SADC states to raise finance to manage the parks and wildlife through ivory trade.
The Southern African Centre for Ivory Marketing (SACIM) has been seeking alternative ways to market ivory in consultation with the countries of this region. And at the recent SADC meeting, delegates stepped up the campaign to have the ban lifted describing the elephant population as having reached unsustainable levels.
Zimbabwe is venue for the 1997 CITES meeting and a founder member of the SACIM. SADC states have planned a sustained campaign that will reach a climax at the meeting. Lobby groups in favour of the ban have proposed a shift of venue to Israel which they deemed to be “neutral”.
Sustainable harvesting of the natural resources, elephants in this case, is in line with some of the recommendations of the SADC F ANR, which set goals to ensure recognition of the value of natural resources so that they can contribute optimally to the welfare and development of the people of the region.
Analysts says elephants can be “harvested” or culled to manageable levels while the ivory is marketed in a controlled trade. Western nations have refused to accept this argument.
The elephant population in southern Africa grew because of a successful conservation programme. Now the elephants are destroying their own habitat due to overgrazing.
Some of the topics discussed by the natural resources working group of the SADC-FANR concluded or recommended that there be efficient and sustainable use, effective management, and conservation of natural resources.
There is need to incorporate environmental considerations in all policies and programmes and to integrate the sustainable use of natural resources with development needs.
It is also important to raise the living conditions of households, through increased income and employment derived from the efficient and sustainable use of agricultural and natural resources.
Other environmental issues raised include lack of cross border management of rivers or catchments, poor soil fertility and management affecting water quality, and land degradation.
The major constraints are poor or a lack of inputs or information about environmentally friendly technologies, and poor linkages with extension services.
It was also realized that some land tenure systems are inappropriate or inadequate for the community’s effective management of natural resources. Communities generally do not look after land or natural resources that they do not have title deeds to.
Some rural and urban areas in southern Africa have poor capacities for planning and implementing plans and as a result, there is reduced economic opportunities in some of these areas.
Delegates also proposed a number of training programmes to arrest land degradation and measures to reduce deforestation through use of alternative energy sources.
There is a general lack of awareness on effects of deforestation among many communities. The other major constraint is the inappropriate tree tenure arrangements which resulted in communities not caring for trees in their areas.
Inefficient management and over-exploitation of inland and marine fisheries and aquatic resources is also another problem.
Opportunities to solve southern Africa’s environmental problems exist. These include harmonisation of legislation or policies, information exchange, knowledge of the resource base, policy education and coordination as a basis for regional action on natural resource conservation and utilisation, increased community participation and improving tenure of natural resources.
On water, the natural resources working group felt that member states in southern Africa should take advantage of the newly signed Protocol on Shared Water Courses or use the existing models of cooperation.
These include the Nkomati Water agreement between South Africa and Swaziland, South Africa and Lesotho’s Highlands Water Project, and the Okavango Basin Water agreement between Angola, Namibia and Botswana. (SARDC)
