https://allafrica.com/stories/201908270054.html



Zimbabwe: CITES - Zimbabwe Considers Pull-Out


27 AUGUST 2019

The Herald (Harare)

By Walter Nyamukondiwa

Marongora — Zimbabwe is contemplating pulling out of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to fully benefit from its conservation of natural resources.

Speaking at the ground-breaking ceremony for the upgrading of a 6,5-kilometre stretch along Harare-Chirundu Highway, President Mnangagwa said Zimbabwe would express its reservations before pulling out of the body, if need be.

At its 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES in Geneva this week, the body rejected a proposal by SADC countries to open trade to clear existing stockpiles of ivory, with Zimbabwe sitting on US$600 million worth of stock.



The President said the clearing of the ivory stockpile would aid conservation efforts through procurement of equipment and fences for buffer zones to curtail human-wildlife conflict.

"We have our friends like Japan and China whom we can negotiate with to buy our ivory after we express our reservations with CITES," said President Mnangagwa, while speaking in Shona.

"We are sitting on ivory stockpiles worth US$600 million. It's a lot of money we can use for big projects. Our wild animals are being discussed in Geneva (at the ongoing CITES summit), an irrelevant place to the animals. We now know what to do about the issue."



The President said it was unfair that Zimbabwe carried the burden of conserving its wildlife, but did not benefit from the resource. "CITES is made up of people who have exhausted their wildlife resources and those who have managed to conserve them," he said.

"Europeans have consumed all their animals, but they want to set rules for us who have managed to conserve theirs.

"They bar us from killing our animals for selling ivory, but they want us to protect them from being poached."

President Mnangagwa said the country needed resources to train rangers to look after the animals and the erection of fences to demarcate buffer zones to minimise human and wildlife conflict.

"We want the hides, ivory and other essentials to be sold so that we get money to invest in looking after the animals," he said. "At the moment we have more than 84 000 elephants for a carrying capacity of around 56 000.

"We have an excess population of elephants, but they bar us from selling. Just the day before yesterday they were saying we cannot sell products from our wildlife, but we rejected that. We cannot be denied such a privilege by people who no longer have the elephants. They now know elephants from pictures and films."

President Mnangagwa said Zimbabwe was looking forward to cooperating with Japan in the promoting sustainable wildlife management.

"We also look forward to partnering with Japan to build greater resilience in our agriculture sector, and issues related to sustainable management of wildlife resources should be strengthened," he said.

CITES rejected the proposal by Zimbabwe, Namibia and Botswana to open the trade of ivory to clear existing stockpiles, alleging that it would encourage poaching and reverse gains in wildlife management.

Yet the argument from the SADC countries has always been that they need the funds to help protect the animals from poaching and enhance conservation efforts.

He is right!

Tell Europe and America to a bloody hike!

It's well past time for Africa to cut lose from CITES.

Dave

quote:

Zimbabwe sitting on US$600 million worth of stock.

And that is Zimbabwe alone.

Tanzania also has its fair share that it bluntly refused to put on the funeral pyre and is just biding time.

We were in Zim in June. The group we hunted with speculated openly that withdrawal would be coming...

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
He is right!

Tell Europe and America to a bloody hike!

Agreed!

.

https://www.reuters.com/articl...-eased-idUSKCN1VH1WM



ENVIRONMENT AUGUST 27, 2019 / 11:17 AM / UPDATED AN HOUR AGO

Namibia considers withdrawal from wildlife convention unless rhino trade eased
3 MIN READ

WINDHOEK (Reuters) - Namibia is considering withdrawing from the rules that govern the global trade in endangered species, after countries voted last week to reject proposals to relax restrictions on hunting and exporting its white rhinos.


Namibia has the second largest population of white rhinos after South Africa. It wants to allow more trophy hunting of rhinos and export of live animals, arguing that the funds it would raise would help it to protect the species.

But countries that are party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) voted last week against downgrading Namibia’s white rhinos from appendix I, the list of species threatened with extinction, to appendix II, a list of species with looser protections.

Minister of Environment and Tourism Pohamba Shifeta said in Geneva on Tuesday that Namibia would convene a meeting with other Southern African Development Community (SADC) member states to consider withdrawing from CITES.


“We had several submissions from SADC for downlisting our white rhino from appendix I to appendix II, but there are some who feel that Namibia’s population is still small and we contested that Namibia’s population is the second largest in the world,” said Shifeta.

The Namibian government estimated its white rhino population at 1,037 in 2017/2018. The white rhino populations of South Africa and eSwatini, formerly Swaziland, are already in appendix II.

“If CITES does not really help us to conserve our wild animals but frustrating those that are doing good I think there is no need for us to stay in CITES,” said Shifeta.

Botswana’s environmental and conservation minister Kitso Mokaila said that he was greatly disappointed by the outcome.


Mokaila said people in SADC countries have sacrificed to protect wild animals.

“They don’t plough, they don’t rear cattle or sheep or goats because wildlife destroys our livelihood,” said Mokaila.

Countries on Thursday also voted overwhelmingly to regulate international trade in giraffes, an endangered species, overcoming objections by southern African states and drawing praise from conservationists.

Reporting by Nyasha Nyaungwa; Editing by Peter Graff

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Cites going the way of the UN.......


.

Typical first world eco-colonialism.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
Typical first world eco-colonialism.

Much worse than that my friend.

It is nothing short of eco-terrorism!

Led by a bunch of totally ignorant, self serving idiots.

The only problem as I see it for them cutting CITES is that they will lose much of their hunting market.

US import is based on CITES quotas. If the country is not a CITES member, no quota. I really doubt that USFWS is going to allow the import after they boot CITES.

Similarly, the European nations are CITES members.

There is only so much market for hunting in the Middle and Far East.

Sure, Japan and China may be willing to buy ivory and rhino products- but we all know the corruptibility of Africa, and once they lose hunting, then it will be commercial level poaching and while the range states may want to have a sustainable harvest, we all know who is really footing the antipoaching presence in non national parks lands- and that will be gone.

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

I agree CITES has gotten pretty far afield from actual conservation with its elitism, but this is not the solution to that problem...

and it would be the beginning of the death knell for big game hunting in Africa.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The only problem as I see it for them cutting CITES is that they will lose much of their hunting market.

US import is based on CITES quotas. If the country is not a CITES member, no quota. I really doubt that USFWS is going to allow the import after they boot CITES.

Similarly, the European nations are CITES members.

There is only so much market for hunting in the Middle and Far East.

Sure, Japan and China may be willing to buy ivory and rhino products- but we all know the corruptibility of Africa, and once they lose hunting, then it will be commercial level poaching and while the range states may want to have a sustainable harvest, we all know who is really footing the antipoaching presence in non national parks lands- and that will be gone.

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

I agree CITES has gotten pretty far afield from actual conservation with its elitism, but this is not the solution to that problem...

and it would be the beginning of the death knell for big game hunting in Africa.

That is not strictly true.

The West has not been sticking to CITES quotas at all.

They make their own rules as they go along.

I believe CITES members have access to all the quotas of their member states.

Example, an American hunter applies for a leopard from Zimbabwe. CITES America checks that Zimbabwe has leopard on quota to sell, CITES America should issue the import permit without any hassle!

This has not been the case from any of the Western countries have not been doing this at all.

I see in the news from the UK that both Labor government officials and Boris Johnson Bimbo girl friend are promising to stop ALL trophy imports!

We went to Tajikistan in 2008, husband shot a Marco Polo sheep and he had an import permit from USFWS prior to leaving the USA.

He brought a copy of the permit and left the original at home.


Tajikistan was NOT a member of CITES at the time. All the hunters rams were shipped to Moscow for processing the export permit.

Once the trophy arrived in New York he sent the original to the broker.

After Tajikistan became a member of CITES hunters were allowed to bring their trophies home as Tajikistan issued their own export permits.


If these South African countries opt out of CITES will the trophies have to be shipped to another country for export?

Does anyone seriously think the Zim government will put even $10 mill of their stated $600 mill ivory stockpile towards “saving” wildlife? It’ll go to the continued repression of the Zimbabwe people and the pockets of the untouchables in the ruling party.

quote:

Originally posted by longwing:
Does anyone seriously think the Zim government will put even $10 mill of their stated $600 mill ivory stockpile towards “saving” wildlife? It’ll go to the continued repression of the Zimbabwe people and the pockets of the untouchables in the ruling party.

Regardless.

The West has no right to dictate to them how they utilize their animals.

The West has become so aggressive in dictating what others do in their own countries, it is about time someone tells them they are not going to take it any more!

Not so Saaed. We have USFW here as well, that have their own set of rules as to what can and cannot be imported!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The only problem as I see it for them cutting CITES is that they will lose much of their hunting market.

US import is based on CITES quotas. If the country is not a CITES member, no quota. I really doubt that USFWS is going to allow the import after they boot CITES.

Similarly, the European nations are CITES members.

There is only so much market for hunting in the Middle and Far East.

Sure, Japan and China may be willing to buy ivory and rhino products- but we all know the corruptibility of Africa, and once they lose hunting, then it will be commercial level poaching and while the range states may want to have a sustainable harvest, we all know who is really footing the antipoaching presence in non national parks lands- and that will be gone.

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

I agree CITES has gotten pretty far afield from actual conservation with its elitism, but this is not the solution to that problem...

and it would be the beginning of the death knell for big game hunting in Africa.

That is not strictly true.

The West has not been sticking to CITES quotas at all.

They make their own rules as they go along.

I believe CITES members have access to all the quotas of their member states.

Example, an American hunter applies for a leopard from Zimbabwe. CITES America checks that Zimbabwe has leopard on quota to sell, CITES America should issue the import permit without any hassle!

This has not been the case from any of the Western countries have not been doing this at all.

I see in the news from the UK that both Labor government officials and Boris Johnson Bimbo girl friend are promising to stop ALL trophy imports!

CITES states that members can have more strict rules.

CITES is the “scientific basis” for allowing import to much of USFWS. I suppose it would be possible to reinvent that data, but it would be a lot of money and time and the antis would fight it in court.

I’m not supporting the elitism that is at work in world government, and honestly do think some regulated trade might make sense... but to get that you are throwing the baby out with the bath water in this circumstance.

Look how much the US rules hurt Tanzania. Now make it no hope for import of anything, and see how many folks go.

It would be a true horror show.

The only real alternative is to get CITES to work better.

I 100% agree with Saeed
There might have been time for CITES but it became rallying convention for anti hunters

If you want to know how far CITES has been taken over by the nutcases, they are going to ban zoos too!!

Apparently this got slightly watered down because of what African countries threatened to do.

I do hope they leave CITES, so that silly organization became irrelevant, as it has been made by the West!

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The only problem as I see it for them cutting CITES is that they will lose much of their hunting market.

US import is based on CITES quotas. If the country is not a CITES member, no quota. I really doubt that USFWS is going to allow the import after they boot CITES.

Similarly, the European nations are CITES members.

There is only so much market for hunting in the Middle and Far East.

Sure, Japan and China may be willing to buy ivory and rhino products- but we all know the corruptibility of Africa, and once they lose hunting, then it will be commercial level poaching and while the range states may want to have a sustainable harvest, we all know who is really footing the antipoaching presence in non national parks lands- and that will be gone.

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

I agree CITES has gotten pretty far afield from actual conservation with its elitism, but this is not the solution to that problem...

and it would be the beginning of the death knell for big game hunting in Africa.

That was exactly my first thought

This is the correct stance to take.

They are expected to follow the CITES quotas... But then the US and European countries don't allow imports, making elephants worth half of what they previously were.

We all know that African wildlife has to be a financial benefit to Africans. So tell CITES to piss off. That may wind up getting the desired result.

Kind of sounds like "The Art Of The Deal" to me...

I agree with Doc Butler.

With the decline in safari market and antipoaching programs, commercial bush meat trade will go unchecked.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The only problem as I see it for them cutting CITES is that they will lose much of their hunting market.

US import is based on CITES quotas. If the country is not a CITES member, no quota. I really doubt that USFWS is going to allow the import after they boot CITES.

Similarly, the European nations are CITES members.

There is only so much market for hunting in the Middle and Far East.

Sure, Japan and China may be willing to buy ivory and rhino products- but we all know the corruptibility of Africa, and once they lose hunting, then it will be commercial level poaching and while the range states may want to have a sustainable harvest, we all know who is really footing the antipoaching presence in non national parks lands- and that will be gone.

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

I agree CITES has gotten pretty far afield from actual conservation with its elitism, but this is not the solution to that problem...

and it would be the beginning of the death knell for big game hunting in Africa.

That was exactly my first thought

https://www.chronicle.co.zw/co...-cites-pullout-plan/



Conservationists hail President Mnangagwa Cites pullout plan


Emmanuel Koro in Geneva, Switzerland

President Mnanagwa’s announcement that Zimbabwe plans to pullout of the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES) has triggered excitement in Geneva, Switzerland at the CITES CoP18. The pro-sustainable use delegates from different parts of the world who view CITES as having continued to punish SADC countries by denying them their sovereign rights to trade in ivory and rhino horn said that Zimbabwe should do what is right for its elephants and its people – pullout and trade in ivory.

“That’s the way to go (reservations and pullout), said Namibia’s Minister of Environment and Tourism, Pohamba ‘. “I think many other SADC countries, especially those who have burdens of living with wildlife. In fact we are going to sit and take stock. We are not happy with CITES CoP18 and also not happy with CoP17. We can pullout, we have other partners who can help us to support our conservation by trading with us. We don’t want donations. We are being punished and not punished at every CITES.”

He said that the Western animal rights group had an agenda to frustrate and restrict the SADC countries’ wildlife products trading agenda.



“Southern Africa will take a position as from now, now,” said Minister.

The Herald, Zimbabwe’s oldest and biggest daily newspaper reported today, “Speaking at ground-breaking ceremony for the upgrading of a 6.5 kilometre stretch along Harare-Chirundu Highway, President Mnangagwa said Zimbabwe would express reservations before pullout of the body (UN CITES), if need be.”

According to CITES articles XV, XVI and XXIII, a reservation over a particular species means that Zimbabwe in this context or SADC countries are no longer members of CITES with respect to a particular species (in this case the elephant) and no longer restricted from trading in ivory with other countries that might also pullout of CITES or the ones that are not the members of the Convention. On the other hand pullout (denounciation), according to article XXV is a total exit from the Convention but you can still trade with countries that are not members of CITES. It must be lodged within 90 days after CoP18 in this instance. Then it takes effect after 12 months after the concerned government has submitted the pullout notification to CITES.

However, the reservation ad pullout processes have to be done over a 90-day period and they should lodge their pullout notice to CITES. Therefore, the next three months shall be crucial for the future of Zimbabwe’s elephants and people who continue to be compromised with extinction and limited socioeconomic benefits, respectively as long as CITES ivory ban continues to be enforced. Zimbabwe has never gone on reservations in 1989, but didn’t because the ivory buying countries that had also planned to pullout so that they could buy from Zimbabwe didn’t pullout.



“I can understand the frustration of Southern African countries and Zimbabwe, whereby they have made immense efforts to save their elephants and other species and yet more and more the CITES Convention and this CoP18 is not rewarding the SADC countries’ conservation efforts,” said Italian wildlife management and sustainable use expert, Marco Pani. “Leaving CITES, it’s in the text of the Convention – if the Western countries continue to unfairly deny SADC countries their sovereign rights to benefit from ivory and rhino, it’s in the text of CITES that they can leave.”

Mr Pani said that CITES has been hijacked by animal rights groups and I would not be surprised if other parties leave CITES because they continue to be deny opportunity to trade in their resources.

“Trade is what is making the world go round, our cell phones, clothes are being sold and providing benefits to the people,” he said. “Why should wildlife not bring benefits to the people, especially the poor rural communities? The continued prevention of people from benefiting from wildlife is no longer a wildlife issue, it’s much more a human rights issue.”

He said that the happiest people when trade continues to be banned are poachers. The poachers and “smugglers and Western animal rights groups (through fundraising) are the ones who benefit and not the owners of wildlife when the ban continues.”

A consultant of the Chinese Government was seen excitedly asking people about President Mnangagwa’s announcement but China recently shut down its ivory markets. However, Zimbabwe and SADC countries have many markets including one of the biggest ivory markets Japan to which they could sell all their ivory.

Speaking in his personal capacity, former Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority employee and also board member, Mr George Pangeti said that he was excited to note that Zimbabwe was planning to exercise its sovereign rights to benefit from the sales of its US$600 million valued ivory stockpiles to benefit wildlife conservation and the people. Mr Pangeti said that he supported anything that has to do with sustainable use.



“The reaction of SADC countries to CITES’ continued trade ban on ivory is that of disappointment and they will certainly be consulting on another on the way forward,” said Mr Pangeti. “President Mnangagwa’s statement is attracting attention and both ministers of Botswana and Namibia are all frustrated with the ivory trade ban. This points to a SADC-wide consultative process in the next 90 days.”

The Zimbabwe CITES reservations and pullout plan comes at a time when SADC countries are beginning to think owning elephants and rhinos is a ‘curse’ because CITES continues to ban international trade in their stockpiled ivory and rhino horn.

“We fought for political independence and we now have it,” said Tanzania Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism Director of Wildlife, Dr Maurus Msuha. “The next fight for us is now the fight for the right to use our resources for the development of our own people. This needs political pressure from our governments who should say that we don’t need this anymore (being denied our sovereign rights to trade in our wildlife products).”

Dr Msuha said that the SADC media “needs to be here” (CoP18) to cover these controversial decisions and explain to our people how they will affect us positively or negatively in the future.

Meanwhile, Antigua and Barbuda declared that the CITES Secretariat needed to note for the record that it believed the rejection of SADC countries’ ivory trade bid was inconsistent, and might be construed as “racist.”

Observers of the ongoing SADC countries ivory trade frustrations said sadly, the Western animal rights groups and their governments don’t care that the anti-trade decisions continue to create a wildlife-poaching crisis in SADC. This in turn is driving thousands of elephants and rhinos annually toward extinction.

SADC conservationists have continued to argue that the ban on ivory trade doesn’t stop poaching; it ironically fuels it. It has not and will never save a single rhino and elephant. The ban has been in force for the past 44 years but poaching and illegal trade in ivory and rhino horn continue daily. The media is awash with stories of poaching and illegal trade.

Observers at CITES CoP18 noted that such massive wildlife destruction could be shown in real time as the Amazon fires are being shown live on television, then the G7 leaders that met in Southern France this week might have seen how the West is guilty of destroying wildlife by sponsoring trade bans that not only harm wildlife but also continue to trap Africans in untold poverty.



“CITES is a strange fish,” said the Managing Director of the U.S. based Ivory Education Institute, Godfrey Harris. “The treaty is a U.S. invention created by the animal welfare groups and the US, not the UN, is its depository. Every three years it brings the signatories to the treaty together, but paid the expenses of 94 of the 140 or so delegations registered for the Geneva meeting. Each delegate gets about $8000 each to come and attend. Notably, getting to and from the 6th-most-expensive-city-in-the-world Geneva is not cheap.

There appears to be enough padding in the stipend to put these delegations in the ‘pockets’ of the US and the EU which meet the CITES budget, through government funds and private contributions. The numbers in attendance give the appearance of its worldwide importance, but in fact this is an organization controlled by a few countries and the major non-governmental organizations.

About the writer: Emmanuel Koro is a Johannesburg-based international award-winning environmental journalist who has written extensively on environment and development issues in Africa.

The African countries should tell the West to get lost!

Pull out of CITES, and sell whatever they wish to the Far East.

Then they will be in a better position to bargain with the clueless idiots in America andEurope who are bending backwards to support the stupid, ignorant, so called “animal lovers”

Who are in fact nothing but eco-terrorists!

If the money from ivory and hide sales REALLY went to conservation efforts, I am all for it. But then again, this is Zimbabwe.............

USFW are not allowing CITES quota even now so it seems irrelevant.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The only problem as I see it for them cutting CITES is that they will lose much of their hunting market.

US import is based on CITES quotas. If the country is not a CITES member, no quota. I really doubt that USFWS is going to allow the import after they boot CITES.

Similarly, the European nations are CITES members.

There is only so much market for hunting in the Middle and Far East.

Sure, Japan and China may be willing to buy ivory and rhino products- but we all know the corruptibility of Africa, and once they lose hunting, then it will be commercial level poaching and while the range states may want to have a sustainable harvest, we all know who is really footing the antipoaching presence in non national parks lands- and that will be gone.

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

I agree CITES has gotten pretty far afield from actual conservation with its elitism, but this is not the solution to that problem...

and it would be the beginning of the death knell for big game hunting in Africa.