The 41st Standing Committee of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) approved the commercial sale of elephant ivory from Zimbabwe and Namibia to Japan at its meeting in February. Approval for Botswana followed shortly thereafter. The decision was taken over the objection of many African elephant range states and the United States government, as well as African, Japanese and other non-governmental organizations.

At the June 1997 meeting of the CITES Conference of the Parties, elephants in Zimbabwe, Namibia and Botswana were "downlisted" from Appendix I (no commercial trade allowed) to Appendix II (regulated commercial trade allowed). The contentious decision specified that certain conditions must be fulfilled if trade in ivory from these downlisted elephant populations was to occur – and that even then, the sale would be a one time deal and only to one buyer, Japan. It was the Standing Committee's responsibility to determine whether those conditions were sufficiently met.

Illegal ivory pieces seized by ghe US Fish and Wildlife Service	The elephant's survival is threatened by the resurgence of the international ivory market.

When the Standing Committee met in Geneva, African elephant range states including Zambia, Kenya, Mali, Liberia and others distributed a letter to the Chairman and all Parties urging the rejection of the opening of this ivory trade. The letter noted that one of the most important conditions for resuming the ivory trade had not been achieved: there is no appropriate monitoring system in place to assess poaching increases resulting from resumption of the commercial ivory trade. Thus, there is no agreed "trigger" to stop trade and transfer these elephant populations back to Appendix I if poaching does, in fact, escalate.

Additionally, the letter lamented the fact that there had not been adequate consultation with other African elephant range states whose elephant populations will likely be the targets of increased poaching. One of the countries whose elephant population may be significantly impacted by the renewed commercial ivory trade is Kenya. Kenya Wildlife Service Director Richard Leakey is quoted in a recent Los Angeles Times story contending: I believe very strongly, like many other people, that the sale of ivory will lead to poaching.... We would expect that to be reflected here."

One of the United States' representatives to the meeting echoed these fears: "We also share the concerns expressed by a number of Asian and African elephant range states that poaching may increase significantly if the Standing Committee approves this one-time sale." This statement followed a Congressional letter to Secretary of the US Department of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, signed by 21 Representatives and 20 Senators urging the US delegation "to firmly oppose the export of ivory from Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe to Japan unless all conditions for such export... are fully satisfied in both letter and spirit." Since an appropriate mechanism is not in place to monitor elephant poaching after the resumption of commercial ivory trade, appropriate safeguards are clearly not in place to justify the Standing Committee's decision.

This sentiment was further bolstered by internal opposition to Japan's role in this unacceptable trade. A document produced by the Japan Wildlife Conservation Society was distributed at the meeting. The report acknowledges that "there potentially exists a huge demand for ivory" in Japan and that "there is great fear that the trade resumption may encourage potentially huge [ivory] demand as a result.... The import from three African countries is insufficient to fulfill the whole potential demand. Therefore, it is likely to increase demand for more supply from outside [Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe], augmenting incentive for illegal trade." Thus, any legal ivory trade, no matter how limited, will likely stimulate ivory demand and subsequently increase elephant poaching in other African, as well as Asian, countries.

Japan is not the only market that stimulates poaching. Esmond Martin, reporting in the March 1999 issue of BBC Wildlife magazine, states that elephants are being poached in Central Africa and their ivory sold in Egyptian markets. Martin notes that most of the tusks that yield this ivory "originate from elephants that were poached or died of natural causes in southern Sudan, Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of Congo." This is especially disheartening since Egypt is a Party to CITES. Additionally, the wife of a North Korean diplomat had over half a ton of elephant tusks confiscated while changing planes in Russia this April. The ivory market appears to be on the rise once again.

The decision to allow ivory trade from Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to Japan was a remarkably dangerous one that may lead to increased elephant poaching across Africa and in Asia. It would be especially disastrous if highly endangered Asian elephants ended up poached so that their ivory could be laundered in with African elephant ivory by unscrupulous ivory traders looking to profit once again in the ivory black market. It is a shame that the powerful forces of greed can partially undo in such a short time one of the most significant conservation achievements of our time - the 1989 prohibition on international trade in African elephant ivory.

AWI Quarterly, Spring 1999, Vol. 48, No. 2 p. 4