Do you see the one-day old elephant? It is on the bottom of the photo, under the big elephant's swinging tail.
|
CITES Needs to Focus
|
In June 2013 CITES identified eight countries “as the most heavily implicated in the illegal ivory trade chain” (“Press Elephant”). China and Thailand were named as the final destination countries for most ivory. Malaysia, The Philippines and Vietnam were named as transit countries, meaning the ivory tusks pass through their ports, although these countries may also be the final destination for some ivory. Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda were named as source countries, or as countries where elephant tusks leave the continent. In July 2014 CITES added eleven countries to the list: Angola, Cambodia, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, the Lao PDR, Mozambique and Nigeria. CITES has required these nineteen countries to develop and implement National Ivory Action Plans which are supposed to outline urgent measures to combat illegal trafficking and poaching, “including legislative, enforcement and public awareness actions. . . along with specified timeframes” (Cruise, “Hunting”). Countries that do not comply may face “a suspension of international trade in all CITES listed species,” meaning CITES could recommend an international ban on the trade of thousands of animal and plant products and their derivatives, thus disrupting that country’s food, fashion, cosmetics, manufacturing, housing and health care industries (Heath). For instance, in early 2016 CITES voted to ban the trade of certain CITES-listed species with Nigeria, Angola and Laos because they failed to submit their elephant poaching action plans (Cruise, “Hunting”).
Some people have mentioned that China is not doing enough to stop poaching. Several years ago, China promised to implement a comprehensive control system for its legal ivory, but it has yet to begin. According to John Sellar, a consultant on organized crime and smuggling and a former member of the CITES Secretariat, there is “reasonable grounds to question whether China, if not exactly having broken that promise, has done sufficient to fulfill it” (Sellar). Although the common refrain is that CITES should require China to do more, or force a trade ban with them, Scanlon explains that it is difficult to enforce sanctions because such “decisions need high-level political buy-in” (Cruise, “For Nations”). In other words, once CITES recommends a ban against one country, the other countries in the world must enact the ban. Asking the USA and other countries to ban trade with China simply sounds impractical.
At the moment, the most important thing CITES can do to help protect elephants is remain focused on these 19 countries' action plans, both by helping them reach their goals and following through on the threat of international sanctions if they do not reach their goals.
At the moment, the most important thing CITES can do to help protect elephants is remain focused on these 19 countries' action plans, both by helping them reach their goals and following through on the threat of international sanctions if they do not reach their goals.
