When CITES was first agreed upon by the international community in 1973 it was believed that international trade was the main cause of the extinction of various species.  Perceptions change, and it is now recognized that other factors (such as habitat loss and introduced species) contribute to the process of endangerment and extinction (Hutton).  Unfortunately, CITES has not changed and some now believe that the Convention

has become a tool for the developed world's booming animal protection industry to ursue an agenda fundamentally at odds with that of the Convention: the prohibition of trade … For animal protection NGOs, an Appendix I listing for their preferred species has become a Holy Grail that can be sold to donors as a major victory for conservation.  Meanwhile, voting governments with no vested interest in a species find it politically expedient to concede to NGOs' demands in return for cheap green points that can be cashed in when it comes to tackling real issues, such as pollution (Hutton).

The South feels that CITES is biased because it prevents them from exploiting the resource where they have a competitive advantage: wildlife.  Furthermore, trade restrictions are imposed on the South (although in the case of elephants, there were at least three African countries supporting the ban) but no help is forthcoming to accommodate the costs (Hutton).  Because of the exemption allowing trade for non-commercial purposes, "[e]ndangered species flow virtually unimpeded to Northern laboratories and zoos" thus perpetuating the economic development and dominance of the North (Hutton).  Finally, while there are Northern species listed on the various Appendices to CITES, protection of those that are commercially important, such as sturgeon for caviar, is slow in coming or does not materialize at all (Hutton).

    CITES is part of a broader picture of international environmental agreements that now includes such things as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.  The degree to which developing nations have been able to influence the subject matter of these accords has been somewhat minimal, at least until the UN Conference on the Environment and Development in 1992:

The capacity to determine the international agenda has rightly been identified as a particularly effective form of power.  The industrialized countries have successively focused international attention on those issues which affect them most directly: marine pollution, ozone depletion, global climate change, biodiversity, and deforestation.  By contrast, the states and people of the South have had less success in securing prominence for environmental problems closely associated with development (Hurrell and Kingsbury 1992, 37).

The African elephant, then, is simply one piece of the much larger puzzle of international environmental relationships.

What Emerged from COP10

    The debate between the animal rights movement and the African range states culminated in June 1997 in Harare, Zimbabwe at the tenth COP to CITES.  Namibia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe petitioned to have their elephant populations downgraded to Appendix II of CITES in order that they may resume a limited trade in elephant products.  The proposal eventually passed with the support of "an overwhelming majority of CITES Parties" (WWF FAQ File 1997).  For the moment, then, the African countries have a tentative victory.  The change is not immediate, though, and the three states will have to meet stringent conditions before the ban is lifted.  The most important of these conditions are that:

the trade control and management deficiencies … in the proponent countries [Namibia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe] and Japan are remedied; … the range states support and commit to international cooperation in law enforcement; the three proponent countries have established or strengthened mechanisms to reinvest trade revenues into elephant conservation; the Standing Committee agrees to a mechanism to halt trade and immediately retransfer downlisted populations to Appendix I in the event of non-compliance, the escalation of poaching, or illegal trade in elephant products due to the resumption of trade; … an international reporting and monitoring system for poaching and for legal and illegal trade are established (WWF TRAFFIC 1997).

The countries have 21 months to implement these measures and then if their actions are approved by various CITES committees, the ban will be lifted in March 1999 and trade with Japan will once again be legal (WWF TRAFFIC 1997).

    The limitations of this outcome are twofold: only ivory in existing stockpiles can be traded, and secondly, the proponent countries will have to submit new proposals at the next COP if they wish to continue trading elephant products.  COP11 is planned for the year 2000, approximately one year after the ban is first lifted (WWF TRAFFIC 1997).  The first of these limitations means that while some income can be generated from ivory, the supply of revenue will still not be constant.  While mechanisms are to be developed to ensure that the income is reinvested in elephant conservation, the limited quantity of ivory that can be traded may make sustaining conservation initiatives more difficult over the long term.  The fact that only ivory from existing stockpiles will be sold still prevents programs such as CAMPFIRE from reaching their full potential. 

    Because no new elephants should be killed, the outcome of COP10 was also a partial victory for the animal rights NGOs.  It remains to be seen whether their prediction of increased poaching due to the resumption of trade will occur.  Because the Appendix I listing must be renewed in the year 2000, the animal rights groups will have another opportunity to push for the prohibition of the international trade in elephant products.

Conclusions

    Since the African elephant was listed on Appendix I of CITES in 1989, the African range states have largely been responsible for ensuring the recovery of this species' populations.  In some of the southern range nations, populations have certainly recovered sometimes beyond the ability of the land to support them.  In attempting to solve elephant over-population and human-elephant conflicts, the governments of these countries have devised innovative and effective ways to manage both problems.  Now, however, the regulations enacted by CITES are preventing the full implementation of these management measures.  Not only this but opposition to the management strategies by the international animal rights movement as well as the biased nature of CITES in favour of Northern countries puts the African range states at a disadvantage in trying to push for change.  While the last Conference of the Parties to CITES did result in a favourable outcome for the petition of Namibia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe, the victory was only partial and only tentative.  Little changed in the decision-making process of the Convention leaving the African range states once again in an inferior position to he North and its NGOs.  One might even call it a colonial relationship, and a 'green' colonial one at that.