Uneasy start for Botswana at CITES
“We are opposed to this proposal and we feel that there’s no need to waste any more time on this debate because there’s no consensus emerging.”
The Senegalese representative at the CITES’ Conference of Parties (CoP) taking place until November 25 in Panama City appeared to get exasperated with the debate on the proposal by Botswana and Zimbabwe to change the voting rules at the wildlife trade organisation.
The two Southern African neighbours have proposed that “the rules on the right to vote need to be adjusted to take account of the key roles played by some parties in the conservation of endangered species and the burden/liabilities of conservation of the same”. Essentially, Botswana and Zimbabwe want the CoP to move from a “one country, one vote” standard to giving more votes to “countries whose ecosystems and human lives are suffering due to overabundance of these species or animals” to allow them to have a bigger voice in decision-making. “We met as Southern Africa to discuss CITES and our ministers challenged us to say why is that countries that don’t have elephants are dictating to us how we should be managing these,” Wildlife and National Parks director, Kabelo Senyatso told Mmegi ahead of the Panama meeting.
“We put together a proposal to say CITES should reflect on its procedures to perhaps amend and that one is not about elephants, but a general principle. “This is to say perhaps it should be amended to say that countries that support a large proportion of the species are allowed more weight or their vote should carry more weight than those that don’t.”
He continued: “For instance, we are landlocked and don’t have sharks. Really if there’s a proposal on sharks, why should Botswana be
A proposal by Botswana and Zimbabwe to change the voting rules and give more weight to countries directly affected by major proposals, narrowly avoided defeat on the first day of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) this week. West African states once again led the charge against Botswana and its neighbours, notes Staff Writer,
very vocal and perhaps to the detriment of a country that has sharks? “It’s the same principle to say CITES should reform its processes to allow countries that hold particular species to be the ones that are allowed to have a greater say.” The proposal, if adopted, would fundamentally shake CITES, the 184-member strong global
wildlife trade organisation which regional countries have increasingly criticised as being hijacked by the anti-hunting lobby over the years.
At the CoP, the highest decision-making meeting held every three years, Botswana and its elephant range neighbours face an attempt by Burkina Faso, Equatorial Guinea, Mali, and
Senegal to essentially ban the export of elephant trophies. Botswana and its neighbours are also pushing for a once-off ivory sale of government-owned ivory stockpiles with the restriction that the funds are used for conservation initiatives.
The last such sale took place in 2008 and before that, another sale was permitted in 1999. The proposals on the elephants are due for debate from Monday next week, but ahead of that, the debate on the change in voting rules exposed the stark divisions and even acrimony between the West and Southern African countries at CITES.
The proposal to change the voting rules was meant to “test the waters” and introduce the idea into CITES’ members’ minds, with Mmegi informed that the region did not realistically expect to be successful. However, the backlash seen on Monday during the debate was still surprising.
“With respect, I think it would be very dangerous for the future of this Convention if we take these decisions,” continued the Senegal representative. “I have been involved in this Convention for 12 years and this is the best Convention. Let’s not call things into question. “Talking about having decisions made on particular weights would be in fact a matter of backtracking on the global approach that we have.
“We see our work as planetary and we have been working with this arrangement for nearly 50 years. “I don’t think we should change anything now and so we are opposed to this.” In the debate on the changes in voting rules, African countries that spoke out in support of Botswana and Zimbabwe included South Africa,
the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Tanzania, all SADC members. Others from outside the continent included Indonesia and South Korea.
Those speaking out against the proposal from within Africa included Senegal, Cote d’Ivoire, the Gambia, Benin, Gabon, Nigeria and Niger. From outside the continent, brief statements on the opposition were made by Argentina, the European Union and the United States, the representative of the latter giving just a single sentence speech.
By comparison, the West African bloc made lengthy statements in opposition, with the Niger representative at one point listing countries he said were united in rejecting the proposal. These, he said, were Niger, Cote d’Ivoire, the Gambia, Benin, Nigeria, and Senegal. The countries are part of a larger bloc of 32 African states, known as the African Elephant Coalition which have rallied against the region’s proposal for a once-off sale of ivory stockpiles at previous CoPs.
The opposition this week and the failure to secure a clear consensus in favour of changing the voting rules led CITES’ chair for the session, Milciades Concepción, to move that the proposal be struck off, a decision that stood until South Africa intervened. “Our issue is on fairness and we believe that there’s merit in the proposal that has been made by Zimbabwe and Botswana,” the country’s representative said. “We would then request your indulgence if there could be more time provided for future engagement later in the programme for this proposal.”
Concepción agreed with the request, helping buy Southern Africa more time to finetune their proposal and potentially address the challenges raised by opponents.
With more contentious proposals due this week, including a push by Botswana for greater community participation in decision-making at CITES, the meeting in Panama appears to have merely postponed the inevitable showdown between fellow Africans.
The divisions apparent during the debate on changing the voting rules set the stage for even greater conflict on the more substantial proposals around the future of international trade in elephant trophies.