Japan and South Africa angered an entire congress for the conservation of nature to oppose a proposal to ban the domestic trade of elephant ivory.
The hunters poachers kill an elephant in Africa every 15 minutes just to sell their tusks, according to results released by the Great Census Elephants .
The motion to halt domestic trade in ivory , presented at the World Congress of Nature that takes place in this city of Hawaii, is considered one of the most significant and controversial that delegates have to vote.
The Conservation International Union of Nature(IUCN) is responsible for the organization of the congress, held from 1 to 10 of this month in Honolulu.
But Japan and South Africa opposed the ban on Wednesday 7 when a contact group of government representatives and civil society organizations tried to promote a consensus text resolution and sponsored by the United States and Gabon.
A sign of the sensitivities generated by the motion is that the media were expelled from the conference room by the president of the contact group IUCN.
The negotiations lasted until Wednesday night, but the Japanese and South African delegations withdrew after the session was decided to maintain the harsh terms of the text, which calls for the ban.
This Friday 9th plenary session of the Congress of IUCN, which takes place every four years is performed.
Conservationists civil society defending the ban were stunned with attempts to Japan and South Africa, sometimes backed up by Namibia, diluting the strength of the motion.
“It ‘s an atrocity , ” said Mike Chase, founder of Elephants Without Borders and principal investigator of the Great Elephant Census, conducted in 18 countries.
“Six were killed elephants as they discussed a prayer , ” Chase said after the first session of 90 minutes, checking his watch.
Meanwhile, Susan Lieberman, vice president of international policy of the Society for the Conservation of Wildlife and one of the promoters of the motion, said: “There is a crisis and people denied. What good is IUCN if we can not do something forceful by the ivory ?. ”
Japan and South Africa say they are interested in saving the elephants of Africa as everyone, but the best way is through firm control and trade regulation, and not banning.
“Regular is sit idly by while Rome burns,” Lieberman argued.
Naohisa Okuda, director of the division of biodiversity policy of the Ministry of Environment of Japan, argued that the ban “is not appropriate”.
“We have to stop all illegal trade. It is not necessary to ban the legal trade in ivory , “he told reporters, before putting as example the pieces that mattered Japan before the entry into force ofthe ban on international trade in 1989.” The problem is to identify what is legal and what is illegal ,”he said.
The international community must find effective control system for trade in ivory , which is able to benefit the conservation of African elephants, he said.
“The Japanese control system is very good and very effective, as recognized by the IUCN,” Okuda said. “Other countries should follow the example it,” he said. But many environmentalists do not share their opinion and question the amount of ivory pieces produced by Japan.
South Africa argues that elephant populations are stable and even grow, and that some sacrifices are necessary, if part of the income that leaves ivory sales to conservation efforts is intended. The South African government also organized a timely sale of surplus ivory, but activists argue that only triggers the activity of hunters poachers.
Morgan Griffiths, of the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa organization, said that despite the sophisticated technology used by South Africa ‘s Kruger National Park, the hunterspoachers made increasing efforts torque to enter from Mozambique, where they are about to extinguish the elephants.
But conservation efforts in South Africa are stretched to the limit with the protection of rhinos, also victims of hunting poaching. Griffiths is among those urging the government to accept a ban on all domestic trade.
“One-off sales of ivory pieces derived in a hunting mass , ” he warned.
Other African countries call for prohibiting internal trade in ivory, knowing that should exert the greatest possible pressure on China and Vietnam, a major importer of illegal ivory to curb demand.
IUCN, with 1,300 members with voting power between NGOs and governments have no legal authority to impose any ban. But a call of such an institution with greater authority on conservation involves considerable moral weight and is a strong pressure on governments to act.
The motion seven, which deals with ivory, is one of several that have generated controversy at the World Congress of Nature , as prohibited areas, such sacred indigenous sites with strict protection laws, a marine reserve that covers 30 percent of the oceans and guidelines for “biodiversity offset” destined for the industrial sector.
China is by far the largest consumer of illegal ivory smuggling, most of which passes through Hong Kong and Vietnam. A year ago, the Asian giant and the United States announced that they would impose a ban on their internal trade. Beijing has not offered an implementation schedule and is now kept silent in Honolulu.
Hong Kong, meanwhile, announced that it would ban the domestic trade for 2021.
“It is unacceptable that these animals are killed by vanity and trinkets. To stop the ivory trade, we must end the supply and demand, “said Tony Banbury, head of Vulcan Inc., founded by billionaire philanthropist Paul Allen, who financed the Great Elephant Census.
The study, an aerial survey that took almost three years and tracked 350,000 square miles, shows that the population of elephants in the savannah of 15 countries decreased 30 percent, about 144,000 copies least between 2007 and 2014.
The rate of decline is accelerating and currently stands at eight percent per year, mainly because ofhunting furtive; some 27,000 elephants are killed each year for their tusks. The steepest reduction was recorded in Tanzania and northern Mozambique.
