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. In its early days, CITES was credited for its conservation and sustainable development views. However, over the years, this has since changed with many conservationists accusing the treaty of being too “politicised” and with an “agenda to divide and rule African states”.
As the November, 2022, date for 19th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP 19) nears, questions remain over what CITES exactly stands for. According to a report prepared by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Banning Trophy Hunting released on June 29, 2022 entitled Trophy Hunting & Britain: The Case for a Ban, 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”.
The 278 paged report also highlights something damning 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. Many conservationists say this exception is contentious, particularly because it is dependent upon an assertion 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,” adds the report.
Awkwardly, while CITES prides itself on its sustainable development dogma, the treaty seems to pay no regard to the cruel acts of trophy hunting which kill sentient creatures for selfies and mementoes.
The Trophy Hunting & Britain: The Case for a Ban report states 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”.
While poaching is a danger to wildlife, 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. It is also reported that this loophole has 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.
Some conservationists have also poured cold water on the process involved in getting a CITES permit. For example, it is reported that a person can fork out as much as P50 000 bribe in order to get a permit. The report also corroborates this: “If you want to export chimps or gorillas or any of the higher profile species, you pay a higher bribe. In the Congo, they had a quota for thousands of African grey parrots every year. The quota was held by the minister personally. Dealers would go to the minister and he would issue them CITES permits for $1,000. The minister personally conducted the sale of all the quota of African grey parrots”.
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”.
Meanwhile, Botswana and other southern African countries are lobbying for the lifting of the ivory ban at the upcoming CITES meeting. These countries had their request to sell stockpiled ivory acquired through natural deaths, confiscations and culling rejected at the last CITES meeting held in Switzerland in 2019.
Environmentalists argue that in order to counter restrictions imposed by CITES, unity among African countries is vital ahead of the summit. It is argued that if African countries challenge CITES as a bloc, it would shield them from undesirable economic harm from the West.
A commentator who spoke to this publication indicated that CITES does not have the interests of Africans at heart and is heavily biased. He indicated that representatives from various popular animal rights groups make up CITES. “These groups have the ability to sway the votes in CITES’ favour. That is why CITES always has an upper hand and are always calling the shots,” says Ronald Dintle. He also said the request by southern African countries to sell ivory stockpiles is likely to be vetoed by majority of the 183 signatory countries to CITES at the November summit.
As things stand, CITES is in serious need of real reform. Since CITES is just a trade agreement, it means it will never ban the trade of wildlife parts. There is also need to address and fix the loopholes in the CITES law which allow the trade in animal body parts to flourish.
