Tanzania Elephant Proposal
Tanzania’s proposal was to downlist its elephant to Appendix II with an annotation that the trade be limited to trophies and a single one-time sale of its ivory stockpile under special conditions and the pledge that the proceeds be expended wholly on elephant conservation and related community benefits. Though it has the second largest elephant population in the world, the proposal met with substantial opposition. As usual, many Parties deferred to the opinion of the Panel of Experts which is a panel of select elephant experts that go into the country, make a first-hand inspection and render an opinion on the proposal. The Expert Panel’s review blew Tanzania’s proposal out of the water. When the Panel rendered its last-minute opinion it was negative because it had not been able to meet in first person with the Customs authorities in Tanzania during its inspection, had not been furnished substantial requested information from Tanzania authorities, poaching was on the uprise in southern Tanzania and very large amounts of smuggled ivory had been identified as originating in Tanzania.
The Panel found that the population might actually be declining though still viable. The 2006 best estimate was 142,788 ± 12,405 but the 2009 estimate was only 109,622 ± 6,135. The decline was “attributed largely to the downward trend recorded in the Selous-Mikumi ecosystem.” The Panel described this to be a “significant decline” or “loss” of 31,000 elephant over three years. Some of this may have been due to a “large scale movement” from Selous to Niassa Reserve that had an increase of approximately 9,000 elephant. Regardless, the Panel concluded that illegal killing of elephants in Tanzania “is not only important but has been increasing.” There also have been “progressive increases in the number of large-scale seizures involving Tanzania.” There was a sense that Tanzania has the capacity to better manage its elephant and should better manage them.
Kenya and a number of Parties made a new argument against any downlisting that should be noted. Kenya and 26 primarily West, Central and East African countries have formed the African Coalition which is affecting the political balance over the issues. That Coalition was formed to assist its members to be beneficiaries of the new Elephant Fund that was created at CoP14 at The Hague. Their concept is to give elephant issues a rest for another six years and to build the Fund to help those that need the financial help the most – themselves – not those that are and have demonstrated the capacity to conserve elephant on their own. Their self-serving interpretation of the 9-year waiting period for the four countries already downlisted to Appendix II is that it applies to all African range states.
Of course, that was not the agreement in The Hague. An Elephant Fund was created in The Hague and a partially drafted African Action Plan has since been created that the Fund is intended to serve. It is now clearly in the financial interest of those in the new 26-member African Coalition to focus on their interests and deny the proposals of those successfully managing elephant. That said, though it has taken on form and structure, the divide between those that have managed their elephant the best and those that have managed their elephant the worst dominated the debate. Regardless, the balance may not change much in number or final voting tally.
Tanzania divided and amended its proposal and brought it up again in the final Plenary. In the three instances the best support it received was 57 in favor, 45 against and 32 abstentions, a majority but not the necessary two-thirds of cast votes. The EU obviously abstained in that secret vote.
The 19-page Expert Panel report is too rich with information to repeat here, but is posted on Conservation Force’s website under News and Alerts at http://www.conservationforce.org/news.html.