While CITES fancies itself as a saviour of wild species which are under siege from all sides, facing habitat destruction and poaching, its laws have become divisive, controversial and problematic. Why does CITES prohibit or severely restrict trade in body parts of endangered species, but allow those same CITES-listed species to be shot by trophy hunters?
The idea of getting a CITES permit in order to hunt an animal and use its head for ‘personal use’ or ‘educational’ purposes’ is fine with the treaty, but when Botswana wants to sell animal body parts acquired through natural deaths, confiscations and culling, it becomes abhorrent.
Wildlife biologist, CITES Delegate and member of INTERPOL Wildlife Crime Working Group is asking the question on the lips of some Batswana: Why does CITES permit the export and import of wild animal products identified as “hunting trophies” when other products from the same wildlife are prohibited from trade? The Wildlife biologist hazards an answer with a muted warning: “Politics”.
A report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Banning Trophy Hunting goes into detail explaining how CITES is becoming a problem despite its sustainable trade in wildlife doctrine. The report which is the most wide-ranging inquiry into trophy hunting is very critical about the CITES treaty. “CITES prohibits or severely restricts trade in endangered species, but allows those same CITES-listed species to be shot by trophy hunters,” states the report, adding that “the exemption is controversial, not least because it relies upon a claim that trophy hunting does not constitute ‘commercial’ trade. While hunting trophies may not be primarily acquired for personal profit (although many trophies are sold at auctions and indeed are occasionally to be found in shops and online), few would contest the fact that trophy hunting is a commercial industry”.
CITES is an international agreement between governments whose aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten the survival of the species. The government of Botswana is butting heads with CITES over the latter’s refusal for southern African countries to sell stockpiled ivory acquired through natural deaths, confiscations and culling. Both are headed for a collision course when this week in Panama.
Awkwardly, while CITES prides itself for sustainable wildlife trade, the APPG report notes much of the killing of famed animals such as rhinos is done for traditional Chinese medicines. This is again a result of a loophole in CITES law which is reported to have resulted in over $300 million worth of horns finding their way to the black market.
“You are allowed to shoot rhinos and take their horns if you say you are a trophy hunter. The same process has been used to kill huge numbers of bears for their gall bladders, used to make bile, and to kill crocodiles for the skin trade,” notes the report.
The report also adds that: “an inspection of the CITES database also reveals multiple instances of items clearly identified as hunting trophies that are inexplicably not included in the hunting trophy section of CITES’ database but rather in one of the many other sections including ‘personal use’, ‘educational’ purposes, or – most confusingly of all – commercial trade”.
Karl Ammann who is a conservationist, photographer, author and documentary film-maker specialising in wildlife trade and crime says dealers in animal body parts know how to evade the CITES system which he says “is extremely weak because there is no enforcement, and people know that nothing is ever going to happen to them”.
He also says “CITES has become part of the problem. They have enforcement tools but they are hardly ever used. CITES is no longer an obstacle to any serious dealer, and allowing body parts of endangered species to be traded legally under the cover of a CITES hunting trophy permit has allowed illegal trade to flourish”.
In the same report, Dr Bertrand Chardonnet who is a Wildlife adviser to numerous African governments and IUCN scientist with the African Lion Working says CITES needs serious reform.
“An important point to remember is that CITES is a trade agreement. It will never ban trade: if it did, no-one would need CITES to regulate it. So CITES depends on trade to exist,” he says. He also calls for the need to revisit and address the loopholes which allow people to escape the consequences of their actions. As an example, he says “we have seen just very recently in Poland a number of people in court charged with being in possession of rhino horns from South Africa. Those rhinos were legally hunted under the terms of CITES, however. They were taken as hunting trophies, which is allowed under CITES rules, despite the fact they were destined for Vietnam and for the illegal markets there”.
The APPG on Banning Trophy Hunting estimates that the number of animals shot each year by trophy hunters ranges between 105 000 and 170 000. The report also notes that it is difficult to come up with an accurate figure because: “animals not listed as protected under CITES may not require import or export permits, making it difficult to accurately count the total volume of trade in hunting trophies”.
It remains to be seen if Botswana will stand up to CITES and prevail at the ongoing 19th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP 19) in Panama City.
