https://neweralive.na/posts/na...raw-cites-membership



Namibia threatens to withdraw CITES membership

2024-06-04 Albertina Nakale

Namibia threatens to withdraw CITES membership

LIVINGSTONE - Environment and tourism minister Pohamba Shifeta has come out strongly against CITES’ decision to ban ivory from being sold on international markets.

In an interview with New Era on the sidelines of the just-ended KAZA summit in Livingstone, he said if the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) refuses member states to sell off ivory stockpiles, they will withdraw their membership.

“If CITES refuses, we have some alternatives and plans. We can go for arbitration. This arbitration is provided for by the World Trade Organisaton, which international law allows especially when we are unnecessarily or unreasonably refused or restrained from exercising our rights as member states. Or, we have to look at other alternatives to completely withdraw from CITES,” he threatened.

Shifeta said Namibia is ahead of many countries when it comes to community-based natural resources' management programmes' which are well-planned. Equally, he lauded Namibia for having more well-managed conservancies.

“CITES should be flexible in this matter because we must utilise these natural resources. When it comes to our wildlife, we must be allowed to sustainably utilise, especially for conservation hunting. It should be part of it. We have stockpiles of ivory and rhino horns. We must be allowed to sell them on the international markets. This time, we have decided that KAZA and the SADC region which has the largest population of the big five, will take it up at CITES next year when we go to Geneva for COP20, that we should be allowed to sell off these stockpiles. KAZA alone has more than a US$1 billion in monetary value. We need to sell off these stockpiles so we can plough back into conservation efforts of our five countries,” he insisted.

“KAZA has so many natural resources. It has the largest population of African elephants in the whole world. We are saying we must be allowed to utilise sustainably our natural resources to benefit our local communities who live side by side with these animals. We have more than 228 000 elephants that live in the KAZA area. And with this large elephant population, the carrying capacity can no longer take it because we have more elephants in this KAZA area,” Shifeta mentioned.

His views were re-affirmed, as the summit considered options available within and outside CITES, including diplomatic engagement, withdrawal, reservations, arbitration and trading with non-CITES parties to benefit from wildlife and wildlife products.

As part of the summit communique, KAZA partner states were urged to fully prepare and participate at the upcoming dialogue meeting planned for August 2024 in Botswana, including the holding of at least two preparatory meetings to develop a Regional Common Position for CITES COP20.

-anakale@nepc.com.na


2024-06-04 Albertina Nakale

I would. It is too political be relevant...

In principle CITES is a good idea. At least some regulation of the planets wild resources will help conservation and protection. Sustainable utilisation is proven to work well despite the antis claims to the contrary.
Trouble now is the Cites organisation has been captured by western idealogues who reject management approaches other than their own leading to resentment and division. Now Cites is deviating badly from the objectives it was initially set up to achieve. It's becoming a joke and less relevant. I hope some African nations do cancel their memberships. Cites needs a few swift kicks in the butt to get them back on track.

Kinda like Un was once maybe relevant and now UN is as worthless as tits on a boar hog
CITES is now used for political purposes and pretty much has nothing in common with conservation
It became whip in US and EU hands

when countries dealing with elephants are taking the control us and eu will not like the outcome. the rest will come too.

Countries sitting on huge stockpiles of ivory should all withdraw from CITES and dump their ivory on the open market. The price would take a dramatic drop afterwards , with less poaching incentive..

quote:

Countries sitting on huge stockpiles of ivory should all withdraw from CITES and dump their ivory on the open market. The price would take a dramatic drop afterwards , with less poaching incentive..

I agree…and there are huge stockpiles of ivory. And rhino horn…

Great!

I hope all countries which have CITES relevant animals get out of it!

CITES is NOT being applied as it should.

The stupid West is making rules as they go along!

No worries. The East is ignoring them just as fast. Supply and demand . Flood the supply side, prices drop, demand lessens..

Remember, it's never about conservation, it's always about who gets to skim a percentage off of ivory sales.

quote:

Originally posted by Ongwe:
Remember, it's never about conservation, it's always about who gets to skim a percentage off of ivory sales.

I have heard, from different sources, that the ivory burnt by Kenya was NOT actual ivory!

Also heard some highly placed individuals had travelled to China before, and after the actual show of burning!

My ivory from 2015 has about a zero chance of ever being imported into the US. I'd be more than happy if countries started ignoring CITES and Buzz could at least sell the ivory with the profit going to DAPU.

If they withdraw from cites would that mean we couldn't import any trophies of any species into cites member countries???

100%

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
Countries sitting on huge stockpiles of ivory should all withdraw from CITES and dump their ivory on the open market. The price would take a dramatic drop afterwards , with less poaching incentive..

For sure there must be some shenanigan's there! Burnt 100 kilos and smuggled out 10 tons saying it was all burnt!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Ongwe:
Remember, it's never about conservation, it's always about who gets to skim a percentage off of ivory sales.

I have heard, from different sources, that the ivory burnt by Kenya was NOT actual ivory!

Also heard some highly placed individuals had travelled to China before, and after the actual show of burning!