JAPAN
highlighted national efforts to prevent illegal trade and noted that
the Standing Committee had approved its importing system. |
|
|
INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE COALITION challenged the scientific validity
of the Secretariat's conclusions, describing the report as "shockingly
bad science". (web site: http://www.iwc.org/)
|
INDIA said
national figures indicating increased elephant poaching since 1997
were not included in the Secretariat's report.
|
|
|
CAMEROON,
speaking for a friends of the Chair group, announced a compromise
whereby ivory trade will be prohibited until COP-12, with the African
Elephant populations for Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe and South Africa
listed on Appendix II. |
TRAFFIC
contested NGO figures on poaching, suggesting double counting. |
|
|
SOUTH AFRICA introduced its proposal to transfer its elephant
population to Appendix II (Prop. 11.20). He stressed that conservation
cannot be separated from countries' socioeconomic realities. He amended
his proposal to a zero-quota for ivory trade. |
BOTSWANA introduced
its proposal to maintain its African Elephant population on Appendix
II and to allow for an annual trade quota of 12 tonnes of ivory
(Prop. 11.21). He noted Botswana's elephant populations have a 5%
annual growth rate and described conflicts between local communities
and elephant populations. He withdrew the proposal.
|
|
|
NAMIBIA
withdrew its proposal on its elephant population (Prop. 11.22). He
noted that proper management, law enforcement and involvement of local
communities, rather than trade prohibition, would deter poaching.
He regretted that developing countries were incapacitated in their
free use of national natural resources. |
KENYA
introduced a resolution to modify the terms of non-commercial disposal
of ivory stockpiles established by decision 10.2 (Doc. 11.31.4). She
suggested the obligation to establish a trust fund discouraged donors
from participating in such disposal and proposed that funds go directly
into capacity building instead. |
|
|
ZIMBABWE
also withdrew its proposal for an annual ivory trade quota of 10 tonnes
(Prop. 11.23). He supported the use of elephant products rather than
killing for ivory, declared that conservation would come through legalization
and called for an efficient monitoring system. |
Miscellaneous:
|
|
From
left to right: Willem Wijnstekers, CITES Secretary-General; Margarita
Clemente, Chair of Committee I; Amb. Bagher Asadi, Chair of COP-11
and Michael Williams, UNEP Press Officer, hold a mid-conference press
briefing to answer questions from members of the media. |
IN
THE BREEZEWAYS
While no one side claimed victory in the highly anticipated debate
on the African Elephant and ivory trade, the compromise reached left
delegates with a sense of relief. Both sides of the divide entered
the negotiating room prepared for a long day of debate, and possible
defeat, when the many days of subtle bilateral negotiations paid off
and a sudden spirit of African solidarity pervaded, resulting in a
compromise that has lifted the contentious elephant topic from the
limelight. While some delegates are pleased with the outcome and expect
that it will bode well for the future possibility of ivory trade,
others see the compromise as merely buying a bit of time until COP-12,
when the ivory battle will continue. |