tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/cites-cop-17-31655/articlesCITES COP 17 – The Conversation2018-04-25T13:08:48Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/953182018-04-25T13:08:48Z2018-04-25T13:08:48ZHow to overcome fierce debates about banning all trade in ivory<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216141/original/file-20180424-57578-1cprbn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Africa’s elephants are under siege from <a href="https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/SSC-OP-060_A.pdf">rampant poaching</a> for their ivory. Everyone agrees that Africa’s elephants need protecting from the ongoing slaughter. But countries with wild elephant populations (range states) disagree vehemently on a central policy issue: should we ban all trade in ivory or not?</p>
<p>Debates on ivory trade dominate the world body that determines which wildlife products can and cannot be traded. Discussions at the Conferences of the Parties (CoP) of the Convention of the Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) can become fierce, consume scarce conservation resources and create a combative environment among elephant conservationists and policymakers.</p>
<p>Kenya – along with most central and West African countries – argues that <a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/17/WorkingDocs/E-CoP17-57-02.pdf">prohibiting all trade in ivory</a> is the only way to protect elephants. The supporters of ivory prohibition also advocate for the public destruction of ivory stockpiles to <a href="https://theconversation.com/ivory-up-in-flames-but-who-really-noticed-how-messages-on-elephant-poaching-might-be-missed-92987">stigmatise ivory consumption</a>. </p>
<p>The opposite position is held by southern African countries such as Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe. They criticise ivory prohibition arguing that trade bans and stockpile destruction have a perverse effect of reducing supply, increasing prices and therefore incentivising further poaching. These pro-trade countries also argue that revenue from regulated ivory sales can be put to good use. The money can be used to finance the protection of elephants and their habitats and provide socio-economic benefits to communities who bear the costs of living with elephants. </p>
<p>Prohibition countries strongly oppose this view and argue that any legal trade facilitates laundering of illegally poached ivory and stimulates further demand, therefore increasing poaching.</p>
<p>This prohibition position has more policy momentum. The US, China, and the UK have all introduced domestic ivory bans in recent years. Yet, the fierce debates continue and the policy gridlock persists. </p>
<p>The result of these dramatically divergent positions is an inability to develop an evidence based consensus policy. We <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6369/1378.summary">have argued</a> in <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6386/277.2">two publications</a> that overcoming the deadlock needs understanding of what drives the two divergent views. This can only happen if there’s a recognition that different values are at play. And that they influence the way in which evidence is interpreted.</p>
<p>Values also affect how people view trade-offs – what people are willing to give up in exchange for something else. But trade-offs are emotive when they pit money against sacred moral values – what are known as <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2000-03212-003.html">“taboo trade-offs”</a>. These are very evident in the ivory debate.</p>
<h2>Taboo trade-offs</h2>
<p>Some elephant conservation stakeholders view any trade in elephant products as <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-populist-tighter-ivory-trade-ban-is-not-enough-to-save-africas-elephants-66433">morally unacceptable</a>, akin to trading human body parts. The ivory trade debate pitches this value against the secular value that ivory is a source of conservation revenue. The taboo trade-off represented in this debate explains why it has been so long-standing, contentious and impassioned and remains unresolved. </p>
<p>Taboo trade-offs can only be managed through a process that involves divergent views and stakeholder values being discussed and evaluated in a structured way that <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6369/1378.summary">incorporates evidence</a>.</p>
<p>Such an approach has the potential to increase awareness of the trade-offs, promote discussion of what is acceptable, and potentially identify and strengthen successful policy and management compliance.</p>
<p>Discussions among small groups of key stakeholders help to build trust and help understand the perspectives of others. This approach has been successful at resolving other long standing conflicts. The best, and most recent example, is the negotiation of the <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-paris-agreement-on-climate-change">Paris Climate accord</a>.</p>
<p>Other examples include the peace deal in Colombia and the end of apartheid in South Africa. In both cases the discussions yielded more than having open debates in the media.</p>
<p>Adam Kahane, who facilitated discussions in both South Africa and Colombia, authored two books. One was on <a href="https://reospartners.com/publications/transformative-scenario-planning-working-together-to-change-the-future/">transformative scenario planning</a> and <a href="https://reospartners.com/publications/introduction-collaborating-enemy/">collaborating with the enemy</a>. He details how small group processes worked in situations of conflict. </p>
<h2>African range states</h2>
<p>Our suggestion isn’t that discussions on ivory should take place outside of CITES. Rather, we believe that space is provided to African elephant Range States, the ultimate custodians of Africa’s elephants, to take ownership and work through such a process. This will feed into and contribute to CITES policy decisions. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://cites.org/eng/news/pr/2002/021102_eledialogue.shtml">African Range State Dialogues</a> provide an example of how this could work. These dialogues brought together African range states in a forum where they could discuss and debate issues on elephant conservation with less external pressure than at CITES CoPs. The outcomes of these dialogues fed into CITES policy decisions. </p>
<p>Discussion on the ivory debate could also include the consideration of other pressing threats to elephants – including <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-populist-tighter-ivory-trade-ban-is-not-enough-to-save-africas-elephants-66433">habitat loss and human wildlife conflict</a>. Such discussion could help identify novel solutions to tackle threats facing Africa’s elephants that are acceptable to a broader group of African range states.</p>
<p>We believe that this approach will help ensure that policies and actions to conserve Africa’s elephants are more acceptable and sustainable. Moreover, that it incorporates the values and perspectives of African governments and societies responsible for, and that bear the costs of, conserving elephants.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95318/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carly Cook receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Duan Biggs, Kent Redford, and Matthew H. Holden do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Should trade in ivory be banned or not? There may be a solution.Duan Biggs, Senior Research Fellow Social-Ecological Systems & Resilience, Griffith UniversityCarly Cook, Lecturer Head, Cook Research Group; School of Biological Sciences , Monash UniversityKent Redford, Adjunct Research Professor, University of New England, United StatesMatthew H. Holden, Lecturer, Centre for Applications in Natural Resource Mathematics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/701552017-04-04T13:32:44Z2017-04-04T13:32:44ZDevil rays get worldwide protection – and genetic tools could catch out illegal traders<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163804/original/image-20170404-5700-1rtll5i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/mobula-ray-jumping-out-water-munkiana-596704280?src=th_DwFFZevxPfe6P-UOzSA-1-18">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Devil rays, close cousins of the enormous manta rays, are stars of nature documentaries. They tend to collect together in large numbers, and some species leap from the water. Because of this they are popular with divers and, like mantas, important for tourism. But as is so often the case with some of our favourite species, these charismatic creatures are under threat from humans, specifically, because of the gill plate trade. </p>
<p>Devil rays are pulled out of the sea in huge numbers, all over the world, and butchered on beaches for <a href="http://www.mantatrust.org/threats/gill-plate-trade/">their gill plates</a>, the feather-like organs that they use to filter plankton and small fish – their preferred prey – from the oceans. The gill plates are then sold in <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aqc.2670/full">markets in parts of Asia</a> as a purported health tonic, despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support this claim. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, these rays are both vulnerable to targeted fishing and often victims of bycatch. To make matters worse, the nine described species of devil ray are known to be some of the slowest reproducing of any elasmobranch, the group which includes sharks and rays. Females take many years to reach maturity, and only produce a single live pup every few years. Huge declines of these rays have been documented all over the world – <a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/17/prop/060216/E-CoP17-Prop-44.pdf">at a rate of to 99%</a> in some places.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fracingextinction%2Fvideos%2F1234330619994382%2F&show_text=0&width=560" width="100%" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" height="400"></iframe>
<h2>New law</h2>
<p>So what is being done? In September and October 2016, the <a href="https://www.cites.org/">Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species</a> (CITES) met in Johannesburg, South Africa, for its 17th conference. This is the same organisation which is responsible for regulating trade in some of the world’s most infamous wildlife products, including elephant ivory and rhino horn. The meeting happens every three years, and delegates from the 183 signatory countries discussed listing all nine devil ray species under the convention, to regulate the trade in the species and their parts. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163809/original/image-20170404-5725-1rz6xtx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163809/original/image-20170404-5725-1rz6xtx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163809/original/image-20170404-5725-1rz6xtx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163809/original/image-20170404-5725-1rz6xtx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163809/original/image-20170404-5725-1rz6xtx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163809/original/image-20170404-5725-1rz6xtx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163809/original/image-20170404-5725-1rz6xtx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The famed leap.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/manta-ray-354977180?src=th_DwFFZevxPfe6P-UOzSA-1-1">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I was lucky enough to be present at the meeting, and to see the devil ray proposal achieve the required two-thirds majority vote. These new regulations are being implemented in April 2017 – so it is becoming illegal to trade in devil rays, or any of their parts, such as gill plates, across international borders without permits approving that the trade is not detrimental to the wild population. </p>
<h2>Genetic identification</h2>
<p>One of the main concerns about enforcing the devil ray regulations is identifying between species, which are visually very similar. Compound that with the fact that those monitoring the fisheries – and customs officials – are often presented with gill plates, and not the whole specimen. Despite these issues, the devil ray listing will also greatly benefit the existing protections for manta rays, as manta gill plates can no longer be hidden among devil ray gill plates.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163807/original/image-20170404-5739-1nc4oh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163807/original/image-20170404-5739-1nc4oh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163807/original/image-20170404-5739-1nc4oh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163807/original/image-20170404-5739-1nc4oh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163807/original/image-20170404-5739-1nc4oh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163807/original/image-20170404-5739-1nc4oh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163807/original/image-20170404-5739-1nc4oh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Manta ray: will also benefit from devil ray protection.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/manta-ray-354977180?src=th_DwFFZevxPfe6P-UOzSA-1-1">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A large part of my work focuses on <a href="http://saveourseas.com/project/the-manta-code-continues/">developing traceability tools</a> that can identify a devil ray, or any of its parts, and which region it has come from. The intention is that this will assist with enforcement and monitoring of the new CITES regulations. I am also doing the same for the manta rays, which were listed on CITES in 2013.</p>
<p>Essentially, we take tissue samples from individuals of known species and sequence short fragments of the DNA that they contain. This allows us to build up a picture of the genetic signatures of each species and population, to which we can compare samples from an unknown individual or part. What we are looking for is a minimum number of regions within the genome that are unique enough within species to give us confidence in assignment and this assists us in identifying which species it came from. </p>
<p>The project is fortunate to have had a lot of support from international researchers and organisations, and therefore has access to one of the world’s most comprehensive sets of manta and devil ray tissue samples, which will allow the final tool to be as robust as possible. The hope is, that with regulations such as CITES effectively enforced, marine life will still be as vibrant and exciting for many generations to come.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70155/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jane Hosegood is studying for a PhD within the Molecular Ecology and Fisheries Genetics Laboratory at Bangor University. The PhD project is funded as a CASE studentship by the Natural Environment Research Council through the ENVISION DTP with the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland as CASE partner. There are also links with TRACE Wildlife Forensics Network and Jane is Genetics Project Manager to the Manta Trust. Jane has also received funding from the Save Our Seas Foundation, the People’s Trust for Endangered Species, the Fisheries Society of the British Isles, and the Genetics Society.</span></em></p>Technology will help in fight to save celebrated creatures, as new law comes into force.Jane Hosegood, PhD Candidate, Bangor UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/738792017-03-08T14:41:39Z2017-03-08T14:41:39ZWhy the habit of wanting to own a piece of nature’s beauty needs to be broken<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159283/original/image-20170303-16352-3humhg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The US banned trade in salamanders for spreading a disease that threatened wild populations.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When thinking about wildlife, what image first comes to mind? Elephants rubbing up against trees, or perhaps tigers stalking deer through the jungle? Unfortunately humans’ love affair of wildlife is also associated with a darker side: the desire to have a little piece of it for ourselves.</p>
<p>World Wildlife Day, celebrated each year on March 3 commemorates the day on which the <a href="https://www.cites.org/">Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)</a> was signed. Trade in wildlife is defined as the sale or exchange of wild animal and plant resources by people. </p>
<p>The legal side of this trade was valued at US$ 160 billion in the 1990s. But by 2009 the wildlife monitoring network <a href="http://www.traffic.org/trade/">TRAFFIC</a> estimated that the value of global imports in wildlife trade had risen above US$ 323 billion. Trade in wildlife is on the increase in many economies, and that’s the reason World Wildlife Day is a good chance to have everyone think harder about their role in wildlife trade.</p>
<h2>The illegal trade in wildlife</h2>
<p>The size and scale of the illegal wildlife trade is practically impossible to quantify. It’s been <a href="http://www.traffic.org/trade/">estimated</a> as being worth hundreds of billions of dollars, but the impact on biodiversity is probably far costlier. Some of the species that are being traded play important roles in our lives. </p>
<p>Trade in animals is out of control. This has a negative effect not only on the species that are removed from the wild, but may subsequently lead to the spread of diseases, and some may even form invasive populations that threaten biodiversity in other areas.</p>
<p>For example, the trade in amphibians, both for frogs’ legs (yes, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01165.x/full">there is still a global demand</a>) and as pets, has led directly to invasive populations of many species which now threaten amphibian diversity. In addition, these animals may be responsible for the spread a fungal disease around the world, which has <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10393-007-0093-5">already driven many frog species to extinction.</a></p>
<h2>The motivation to own a piece</h2>
<p>Trade in wildlife is driven on three fronts.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The dwindling resources in many areas, especially urban areas, send people back to rural <a href="http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/608621468139780146/Whats-driving-the-wildlife-trade-A-review-of-expert-opinion-on-economic-and-social-drivers-of-the-wildlife-trade-and-trade-control-efforts-in-Cambodia-Indonesia-Lao-PDR-and-Vietnam">settings to gather timber or bush meat</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>The strong beliefs that pieces of animals and plants can cure ailments or enhance and restore ageing, failing organs; think of <a href="https://journals.co.za/content/healthr/2007/1/EJC35481?crawler=true&mimetype=application/pdf">the plight of vultures or rhinos</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>The growing appreciation of the beauty of the biodiversity that the world offers. Images you’ll see on the pages of news sites, your TV and magazines all promote the magnificence of plants and animals. Something we’ve failed to be able to synthesise or recreate. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>But how can we break the vicious circle that links our appreciation of wildlife with our desire to have a piece in our own homes?</p>
<p>The demand for unusual pets has grown at an alarming rate. Governments and NGOs are rightly concerned about this growing trend to move ever increasing numbers of different species of live animals and plants around the world. These all have a potential to become future invasive species which could carry high economic and environmental costs.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159281/original/image-20170303-16372-1fsdmpj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159281/original/image-20170303-16372-1fsdmpj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159281/original/image-20170303-16372-1fsdmpj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159281/original/image-20170303-16372-1fsdmpj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159281/original/image-20170303-16372-1fsdmpj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159281/original/image-20170303-16372-1fsdmpj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159281/original/image-20170303-16372-1fsdmpj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159281/original/image-20170303-16372-1fsdmpj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There are strong beliefs that pieces of animals like rhinos can cure ailments.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>When is trade likely to cause a problem?</h2>
<p>A group of international scientists have applied their minds to this <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001850">problem to produce</a> a scheme that can help governmental agencies decide whether a species should be traded. The information will also be made available to the public, so that you and I can be informed in the decision we make next time our offspring voice their desire to own an unusual or exotic pet.</p>
<p>The scheme is called <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001850">Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa</a> (EICAT). It attempts to categorise the impact caused by species which could be traded or moved accidentally with trade. It looks rather similar to the <a href="http://www.iucnredlist.org/">IUCN red list</a>, the most comprehensive global list of determining biodiversity’s conservation status, and that’s because it has now been adopted by the IUCN as a non-partisan way to advise governments on which species are likely to cause most problems. </p>
<p>The team is made up of international scientists including researchers from <a href="http://academic.sun.ac.za/cib/">Stellenbosch University’s Centre for Invasion Biology</a> where I work. We are now trying to assess the thousands of species that have already formed invasive populations around our planet.</p>
<p>My own input has been to lead a team <a href="http://neobiota.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=10376">evaluating the impact of the world’s invasive amphibians</a>. We discovered a startling impact that outwardly humble and harmless looking frogs may have. For example, in Florida the foam nests of <a href="http://john.measey.com/media/04b7de1b-5634-4e72-b685-7a6f05c92f55/xqRrVw/PDFs/Rebelo%20Measey_2017.pdf">invasive Cuban Tree Frogs</a> can cause shorts in transformers resulting in power cuts.</p>
<p>Perhaps most upsetting is the invasion of toxic Asian toads in Indonesia where people regularly eat native frogs, but the poison glands of this invasive species has led to the death of at least one child. <a href="http://www.abcjournal.org/index.php/ABC/article/view/2117">In another study</a> we have now found that these same toads are occasionally unintentionally brought into South Africa with furniture shipments.</p>
<p>And trade in salamanders (newts and their relatives) spread a disease which threatened wild populations in North America and Europe. In 2015, only 2 years after the discovery of the fungus that infects salamanders and newts (<em>Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans</em>), the US banned all trade and <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6247/481">movement of salamanders</a>.</p>
<p>The ban alone won’t solve our problems. It’s crucial for the public to be well informed about the consequences of participating in both legal and illegal trade as well as the consequences of apparently well meaning actions, like taking an unwanted pet to the nearest park, and the potential negative consequences. These include spreading of disease and invasion of non-native species.</p>
<p>We recognise the need to provide impartial advice to governmental agencies and the public on the risk of trading animals and plants. We do this in our capacity as a honest broker, using scientific literature to base assessments of the impact of each species. We believe that this work will have a positive impact on trade, not by reducing numbers or stopping people having pets, but by informing the public of the impact that species may have on our natural ecosystems. </p>
<p>Our fascination and admiration of the natural environment may draw us closer to it, but we need to remain responsible about any desire to own a piece.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73879/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Measey works for the Centre for Invasion Biology at Stellenbosch University. He receives funding from the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology and the National Research Foundation of South Africa. </span></em></p>The fascination and admiration of the natural environment may draw people closer to it, but it’s crucial to remain responsible about any desire to own a piece.John Measey, Senior Researcher at the CIB based in the Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/736122017-03-02T14:58:49Z2017-03-02T14:58:49ZConservation efforts must include small animals. After all, they run the world<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159096/original/image-20170302-14695-1sqmgff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ladybugs stop pests from eating our food and destroying crops.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Inhabitat</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Humans like to think that they rule the planet and are hard wired to do so. But our stewardship has been anything but successful. The last major extinction event, 66 million years ago, was caused by a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jul/14/asteroid-killed-dinosaurs-by-setting-oil-alight-and-spreading-soot-says-study">meteorite</a>. But the next mass extinction event, <a href="http://www.mysterium.com/extinction.html">which is under way right now</a>, is our fault. </p>
<p>Geologists have even given this era in the history of the Earth a new name to reflect our role: <a href="http://www.anthropocene.info/">the Anthropocene</a>, the age of humans. </p>
<p>It’s the first time in the history of the Earth in which one species dominates all the others. These “others” numbers are <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/science/30species.html">probably around 10 million</a>. The vast majority are the invertebrates, the animals without backbones. Not all are so small – some squids and jellyfish are several metres long or across.</p>
<p>Most, though, are small and unassuming. And they are hidden in plain view. They are busy maintaining the fabric of the world around us. They are the warp and weft of all natural systems. They make the soil, pollinate the flowers, spread seeds, and recycle valuable nutrients back into the soil. They are also food for many birds that are so loved, and keep other small animals in check by eating or parasitising them.</p>
<p>Yet most of us are oblivious of the many roles of these mostly small, even tiny, animals. If all their services were gone tomorrow, many plants would soon go extinct. Crops would be lost overnight. Many birds would die from lack of food, and soil formation would largely halt. The knock-on effects would also be huge as food webs collapse, and the world would quite literally <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/31/world-without-animals-pollinating-crops">fall apart</a>.</p>
<p>So how can all the small animals be saved? </p>
<h2>Saving small animals</h2>
<p>Future generations depend on these small animals, so the focus must be on increasing awareness among the young. Research has shown that children <a href="http://naturalstart.org/feature-stories/nurturing-childrens-love-animals">are intrinsically interested</a> in what a bee, cricket, butterfly or snail is. Their small world is at the same level as this small world of insects and all their allies without backbones. Yet strangely, while we care about our children, we care so little for all the small creatures on which our children depend on now and into the future.</p>
<p>Children must be shown that the <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/not-bad-science/bees-learn-which-flowers-have-pollen/">bee is keeping the flowering plant species alive and well</a>, <a href="http://animals.mom.me/grasshoppers-beneficial-5185.html">the grasshopper</a> is recycling scarce food requirements for plants, <a href="http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Millipede">the millipede</a> is making the soil, and <a href="http://www.buglogical.com/garden-ladybugs/">the ladybug</a> is stopping pests from eating all our food. Showing children that this miniature world is there, and that it’s crucial, is probably one of the best things to do to help them survive the future in this world of turmoil.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159097/original/image-20170302-14721-1yof21.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159097/original/image-20170302-14721-1yof21.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159097/original/image-20170302-14721-1yof21.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159097/original/image-20170302-14721-1yof21.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159097/original/image-20170302-14721-1yof21.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159097/original/image-20170302-14721-1yof21.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159097/original/image-20170302-14721-1yof21.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159097/original/image-20170302-14721-1yof21.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Children need to be shown that the bee is keeping the flowering plant species alive and well to help them understand the importance.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/RDPixelShop</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Being aware of what the various species actually do for maintaining ecosystems is crucial to understanding how complex the world around us is. Pointing out that a bee is intimately connected with flowers and so seeds are produced, and an ant is <a href="http://www.rainforesteducation.com/ants/ants1.htm">the cleaner of the forest floor</a>, taking away all the debris from other small animals, and <a href="http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Caterpillar">the caterpillar</a> is feeding the soil by pooing on it. Then we can conceptually jump to the whole landscape, where there are millions of little claws, mandibles and tongues holding, munching and sucking nectar all the time, even though we rarely see it happening.</p>
<h2>Natural communities</h2>
<p>A good way to understand this complexity is to view a small community of 1000 species. This can lead to potentially half a million interactions between the various species. Yet the natural communities around us are usually much larger than that. This makes understanding this world too mind boggling, and conserving its complexity too unwieldy. What this means is that for conservation, while we use conceptual icons, like the bee and the butterfly, the actual aim is to conserve landscapes so that all the natural processes can continue as they would without humans.</p>
<p>Conservationists have developed <a href="http://www.esa.org/esa/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/issue4.pdf">approaches and strategies</a> that maintain all the natural processes intact in defined areas. The processes that are conserved include behavioural activities, ecological interactions and evolutionary trends. This umbrella approach is highly effective for conserving the great complexity of the natural world. This doesn’t mean that particular species are overlooked.</p>
<p>Small-creature conservationists in reality work on and develop strategies that work at three levels. The first is at the larger scale of the landscape. The second is the medium scale of the features of the landscape, which includes features like logs, ponds, rock crevices, patches of special plants, among many others. The third is the still smaller scale of the actual species. </p>
<p>The third is really about a conceptual scale because some particular species actually need large spatial areas to survive. At this fine scale of species, conservationists focus attention on identified and threatened species that need special attention in their own right. The beautiful Amatola Malachite damselfly, which is endangered, and lives in the Eastern Cape mountains of South Africa, is a case in point.</p>
<p>The common thought is that it’s only tigers, whales and parrots that need conserving. But there are hundreds, if not thousands, of small creatures that all need special conservation focus like bees for example. And this focus becomes increasingly and critically important every year, if not every day, that passes. It’s crucial to think and conserve all these small animals that make up the platform for our future survival on the planet.</p>
<p>Time is short as the Anthropocene marches on. Putting in place strategies that conserve as many animals as possible, along with the rest of biodiversity, is not a luxury for the future. New strategies are possible, especially in agricultural and forestry areas where the aim is to optimise production yet maximise on biodiversity conservation and the maintenance of natural ecosystem function.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73612/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Samways receives funding from the National Research Foundation, South Africa and Mondi Group (UK). </span></em></p>Small animals are the fabric of the world around us. Without them everything would crumble.Michael Samways, Professor, Conservation Ecology & Entomology, Stellenbosch UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/664332016-10-10T17:39:11Z2016-10-10T17:39:11ZA populist tighter ivory trade ban is not enough to save Africa’s elephants<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140847/original/image-20161007-8965-qb6sce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The 27-year old ban on international ivory trade has clearly failed to deliver a sustained solution to the poaching crisis.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A disproportionate amount of the agenda at The 17th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) was dominated by African elephants and the controversial issue of the ivory trade. African elephants have declined by more than 100,000 over the past <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/714180/Thousands-African-elephants-poached-ivory-numbers-decline-conservationist">decade</a>. This is driven to a large extent by the <a href="https://www.iucn.org/news/poaching-behind-worst-african-elephant-losses-25-years-%E2%80%93-iucn-report">surge in poaching</a> due to the rising price of <a href="https://www.iucn.org/news/poaching-behind-worst-african-elephant-losses-25-years-%E2%80%93-iucn-report">ivory</a>. </p>
<p>The debate on how to respond to this crisis is very polarised. On the one side countries like Namibia, supported by pro-use NGOs, argue that hundreds of thousands of elephants have been lost to poaching since the ban was put in place in 1989 and that it has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/01/debate-can-legal-ivory-trade-save-elephants?0p19G=c">served as an incentive to poachers</a> because it reduces supply and increases prices. </p>
<p>Their proposed solution is a highly regulated legal trade in ivory that <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-ban-on-ivory-sales-has-been-an-abject-failure-a-rethink-is-needed-65665">will provide funds</a> for conservation and incentives to rural people to conserve elephants and their habitat.</p>
<p>The opposing argument is that only a complete trade ban - both domestic and international - can work because the continued existence of domestic ivory markets, and one-off sales of ivory stockpiles, enables poached ivory to be laundered. This in turn <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/01/debate-can-legal-ivory-trade-save-elephants?0p19G=c">fuels the poaching crisis</a>. Countries like Kenya, strongly supported by animal welfare organisations and some conservation NGOs, hold this view. </p>
<p>It is this second perspective that has the strongest support as reflected by a large majority of member countries of the World Conservation Union adopting a motion to support the closure of domestic <a href="https://portals.iucn.org/congress/motion/007">ivory markets</a>. This momentum continued at the CITES CoP17 with an agreed resolution encouraging the closure and tighter enforcement of domestic ivory markets.</p>
<p>But the 27-year old ban on international ivory trade has clearly failed to deliver a sustained solution to the poaching crisis. Yes, it has helped reduce poaching in some areas, but it is unclear that the stronger ban that includes the closing down of domestic markets will help conserve elephants. </p>
<h2>Resounding no to ivory trade</h2>
<p>The proposals by Namibia and Zimbabwe to sell ivory were defeated. Opponents of these proposals argued that any sale was likely to further stimulate demand and would enable laundering of illegal ivory. </p>
<p>The strong opposition is despite the fact that studies commissioned by CITES - that the parties to CITES agreed to and participated in - found no evidence that previous stockpile sales resulted in an increased poaching. The last one took place in 2009. Instead, these studies, and peer-reviewed research found that variables such as poverty levels, law enforcement capacity, governance and corruption, and commodity and investment cycles were more important <a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/17/WorkingDocs/E-CoP17-57-05.pdf">in explaining poaching</a> <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914002717">levels</a>. </p>
<h2>An era of populism</h2>
<p>But we live in an era of populism where simple silver bullet solutions to complex problems gain support. Examples include BREXIT and building walls to keep out unwanted <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/05/donald-trump-wall-mexico/483156/">immigrants</a>. A global international and domestic ban on ivory is a similarly appealing simple solution to a complex challenge that manifests differently in different countries. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140850/original/image-20161007-8965-1rvk47c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140850/original/image-20161007-8965-1rvk47c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140850/original/image-20161007-8965-1rvk47c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140850/original/image-20161007-8965-1rvk47c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140850/original/image-20161007-8965-1rvk47c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140850/original/image-20161007-8965-1rvk47c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140850/original/image-20161007-8965-1rvk47c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Many African
countries bid to trade their natural ivory stockpiles. They believe this will fund conservation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In both South Africa and Namibia, for example, sustainable use of wildlife is enshrined in the constitution. And enforcing a domestic ban faces serious legal difficulties. In addition, China, one of the largest consumer countries, has already agreed to enforce <a href="http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?253490/China-and-US-pledge-to-end-domestic-ivory-trade">a domestic ivory ban</a>. </p>
<p>It is therefore unclear what additional gains there are from a continued push for a domestic ban in all countries. Critics feel that the underlying reasoning and motivations are simplistic and questionable. Yet the path of stricter bans is what the world has chosen on ivory at this point - and pro-use southern African countries and NGOs need to come to terms with this. </p>
<h2>Taking a new view</h2>
<p>The push for a global ban of international and domestic markets should be seen as a policy experiment. It may work to reduce poaching which will be a tremendous outcome for Africa’s elephants. But the conservation community needs to make sure that this stronger ban is not just rhetoric. The impact of actions like the continued ban on international trade and the closure of the Chinese and other domestic ivory markets need to be monitored, and measured. To this effect, the following measures are urgently needed.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>An agreed, independent, rigorous, framework and mechanism in which the price of ivory is monitored on the black market. If the strategy of more encompassing bans is successful in reducing demand, the price of ivory will drop, and continue to drop.</p></li>
<li><p>Attitudes towards purchasing ivory in demand countries. The motivations of buyers of ivory in countries like China <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320714003371">are diverse</a>. Rigorous surveys that draw from disciplines like psychology, economics, and criminology are needed to assess whether the attitudes, intentions and behaviour of potential buyers and ivory investors are changing.</p></li>
<li><p>In African range states, where ivory is sourced, robust monitoring, research, and analyses are needed to understand whether changes in the demand market are ultimately leading to decreased poaching levels, and lower poaching effort.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>By setting in place mechanisms to track these variables, the conservation community can track the success of this strategy. If the current push for a stricter ban fails, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-ban-on-ivory-sales-has-been-an-abject-failure-a-rethink-is-needed-65665">as some scholars predict</a> a system is needed to recognise this sooner rather than later, so that alternative strategies can be pursued. At the same time, if the closure of domestic markets succeeds in reducing the price of ivory and poaching – the pro-use nations and NGOs need to accept this. </p>
<p>Critically, even if a tighter ban resolves the poaching crisis - this is only one challenge facing elephants. Elephants require habitat to survive. The ivory trade is one important source of revenue in countries like Namibia to support elephant and habitat conservation. If this option disappears, and with increasing pressure on trophy hunting and the revenue it generates, alternative finance mechanisms urgently need to be sought.</p>
<p>Non-consumptive tourism is often touted, but tourism is a volatile market and can probably only sustainably support a fraction of Africa’s elephant populations. Novel finance mechanisms must be developed to ensure that community attitudes towards elephants and conservation do not worsen and that habitats for elephants are not transformed to agriculture and other non-conservation land-uses. </p>
<p>Ultimately, holistic, nuanced conservation strategies that are based on evidence and that are sustainable are required if African elephants are to be conserved for future generations.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66433/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Duan Biggs receives funding from Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>Ivory was a major talking point at the CITES CoP17 conference.Many feel the ban on trade doesn’t work while others believe the ban is the only way to save the iconic species.Duan Biggs, Senior Research Fellow Social-Ecological Systems & Resilience, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/666412016-10-06T20:14:15Z2016-10-06T20:14:15ZLions are better protected, but loopholes mean threats remain<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140760/original/image-20161006-32708-1c7rk2u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Parties to CITES (CoP17), rejected a proposal from nine African nations to upgrade the status of lions.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Stronger measures to protect lions in Africa from commercial trade failed to <a href="http://traveller24.news24.com/Explore/Green/shockwildlifetruths-lions-fail-to-get-uplisted-at-cites-cop17-20161003">pass</a> at the recent meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (<a href="https://cites.org/">CITES</a>) in Johannesburg.</p>
<p>CITES is a treaty between 183 national governments, known as the Parties, to control international trade in live wildlife and their parts. In a vote to up-list the lion from Appendix II to Appendix I – the highest category covering species threatened with extinction, in which trade is permitted only in exceptional circumstances – the Parties to CITES (CoP17) rejected a proposal from nine African nations to upgrade the status of lions.</p>
<p>At first glance, the decision is alarming and disappointing. The lion has undergone widespread decline in Africa, mainly from habitat loss, illegal trade in bush meat and retaliatory killing by people protecting their <a href="http://letlionslive.org/LionReport.pdf">livestock</a>. Although the species is not in immediate danger of extinction and trade is not the primary driver of declines, upgrading some lion populations to Appendix I was warranted.</p>
<p>Sadly, all indications are that lions will continue to decline in a significant proportion of their <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283293215_Lion_Panthera_leo_populations_are_declining_rapidly_across_Africa_except_in_intensively_managed_areas">range</a>, and increasing demand for their parts will likely fuel those declines. But had the parties voted “yes”, would it have helped?</p>
<h2>Trophy hunting and the bone trade</h2>
<p>Strengthening the ban would not have eliminated one of the main targets of up-listing proponents, the trade in lion trophies from sport hunting. Legal trade in hunting trophies is readily accommodated by CITES, regardless of the Appendix on which a species is listed. For example, the <a href="https://cites.org/eng/gallery/species/mammal/cheetah.html">cheetah</a> and <a href="https://cites.org/eng/gallery/species/mammal/leopard.html">leopard</a> are both included on Appendix I, yet exports of trophies are permitted by a number of countries. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140763/original/image-20161006-32734-y00ih2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140763/original/image-20161006-32734-y00ih2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140763/original/image-20161006-32734-y00ih2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140763/original/image-20161006-32734-y00ih2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140763/original/image-20161006-32734-y00ih2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140763/original/image-20161006-32734-y00ih2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140763/original/image-20161006-32734-y00ih2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140763/original/image-20161006-32734-y00ih2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A lion skull. Full skeletons are legally sold, aside from the skull which the hunter normally keeps.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Nor would an Appendix I listing preclude trade in captive-born lions or their parts. So an upgrade would not necessarily have affected South Africa’s ongoing trade of lion bones scavenged from canned hunts of captive-bred lions. Full skeletons – minus the skull, which the hunter usually keeps – are legally <a href="http://www.traffic.org/species-reports/traffic_species_mammals83.pdf">sold</a> to Lao People’s Democratic Republic, China and other Asian nations that value big cat parts for “medicinal” uses. This takes place despite the complete absence of evidence demonstrating any therapeutic value.</p>
<h2>One step forwards, two backwards?</h2>
<p>This is not to say that CITES was unable to address some serious issues that affect lion conservation. CoP17 <a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/17/Com_I/E-CoP17-Com-I-29.pdf">adopted a new resolution</a> to ban all trade in wild lion parts; specifically bones, bone pieces, bone products, claws, skeletons, skulls and teeth removed from the wild and traded for commercial purposes. This is welcome news.</p>
<p>Unfortunately though, the loophole that perpetuates South Africa’s lion farming industry has been left open. As seen from failed <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w22314">experiments</a> allowing legal ivory sales, legalised trade may fuel demand and creates pathways to sell the products from illegally killed wildlife. </p>
<p>The legal trade in bones from captive-bred lions perpetuates the demand for big cat parts - not only of lions but also of leopards, jaguars and highly endangered tigers. These bones are largely indistinguishable except to experts. Deciding what is lion or tiger, and legal versus illegal, presents a formidable challenge for local authorities in Africa and Asia.</p>
<p>The Parties to CITES should be congratulated for recognising that trade in wild lions needs to be addressed. But I fear that, in failing to take on the captive bone trade, their efforts will be undermined. As long as South Africa continues to trade in body parts from farmed lions, an escalation in wild African cats being killed for the same markets in Asia is inevitable.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66641/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke Hunter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A stronger ban on lion trade by CITES would have helped to lessen some of the threats lions face but it would have not have protected the animals from sport hunting.Luke Hunter, President and Chief Conservation Officer of Panthera, Research Associate, University of KwaZulu-NatalLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/665102016-10-05T19:24:29Z2016-10-05T19:24:29ZThe ban on rhino horn sales leaves open the question of conservation funding<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140323/original/image-20161004-30459-hmcg5q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Swaziland is home to 73 white rhino.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="http://commonwealth-opinion.blogs.sas.ac.uk/2016/swaziland-thinking-the-unthinkable-to-save-rhinos-by-legalising-trade-in-horn/">Swaziland’s proposal</a> to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to be able to trade in rhino horn has been decisively defeated. Member states at Cop17 <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/10/wildlife-watch-vote-rhino-horn-sales-illegal/">overwhelmingly</a> rejected the mountain kingdom’s request to be allowed to sell its stocks of rhino horn and small annual quantities of horn from natural morality.</p>
<p>Swaziland, which is home to 73 white rhino and an estimated <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/28/swaziland-unveils-plan-to-legalise-rhino-horn-to-pay-for-anti-poaching-efforts">18 black rhino</a>, wanted to use funds from the sale to increase conservation measures and provide incentives for local people to give their support to the efforts. Its <a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/17/prop/SW_Rhino.pdf">official bid</a> to CITES said that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Proceeds from the sale of stocks would have raised approximately $9.9 million at a wholesale price of $30,000 per kg. That would have been placed in an endowment fund to yield approximately $600,000 annually.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>South African private rhino owners also want a legal trade and are currently fighting their own government <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/160523-rhino-horn-ban-south-africa-cites-smuggling-john-hume-rhino-ranching-swaziland/">in the courts</a> to get a moratorium on domestic trade in horn lifted. </p>
<p>Western conservation and animal welfare NGOs such as the <a href="http://www.ifaw.org/international/news/cites-parties-reject-swaziland-request-trade-white-rhino-horn">International Fund for Animal Welfare</a> were jubilant about the result. </p>
<p>In my view the outcome presents two challenges. The first is that it remains unclear how the fight against poaching and rhino conservation can be financed sustainably without a legal trade. The second is that the ban on all trade has been in place for 39 years and has not led to an improvement in protection. Demand for rhino horn has continued to <a href="https://www.savetherhino.org/rhino_info/thorny_issues/poaching_crisis_in_south_africa">rise</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/16/rhino-horn-demand-in-vietnam-drops-by-more-than-33-in-one-year">prices</a> have gone up. These have served to encourage poach. New methods are needed but there is little sign of any being developed.</p>
<h2>Who pays</h2>
<p>One of the arguments in favour of loosening the ban is that the proceeds could be directed to communities. Without this they could become increasingly alienated which in turn would increase the likelihood that they will help poachers. </p>
<p>In addition, everyone agrees that conservation efforts need to be stepped up, and better surveillance introduced. But as Tom Milliken of the international trade monitoring group TRAFFIC <a href="http://www.startribune.com/swaziland-s-bid-to-sell-rhino-horn-fails-at-un-meeting/395649761/">asked,</a> after the vote: who will pay for it?</p>
<p>In my view NGOs wield disproportionate influence in the debate. They are a major source of funds for conservation and can use funding - or the denial of it - to persuade countries to adopt anti-trade policies. The effect of this is that states like Swaziland, Namibia, Zimbabwe and South Africa, which have the majority of the world’s rhino and are struggling against a severe poaching epidemic that <a href="https://www.savetherhino.org/rhino_info/poaching_statistics">kills around 1250 rhinos</a> across the continent every year, are left to pick up the bill.</p>
<h2>What next</h2>
<p>The CITES vote against legal trade comes at a time of optimism that the rate of <a href="https://theconversation.com/rhino-poaching-in-south-africa-are-numbers-falling-or-focus-shifting-65358">poaching is being reduced.</a>. Before the CITES meeting 702 rhinos had been killed in South Africa as a whole this year, compared with 796 in the same period <a href="http://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/minister-releases-rhino-poaching-figures">last year</a>.</p>
<p>But this may be a brief respite. There is growing evidence that poaching has not been halted but diverted from South Africa’s Kruger National Park, where poaching numbers are down, to other areas, <a href="http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/kwazulu-natal/six-kzn-rhino-killed-on-rhino-day-2072033">particularly the Hluhluwe-iMfolozi park in Kwa-Zulu Natal</a>.</p>
<p>What is clear is that the illegal trade in rhino horn, which <a href="http://www.earthtouchnews.com/environmental-crime/illegal-trade/top-10-shocking-figures-of-the-illegal-rhino-horn-trade">fetches $65,000</a> a kilo in Vietnam and China, persists.</p>
<p>Poor rural dwellers, former professional hunters, corrupt ex-staff of wildlife parks and even some current wildlife personnel are part of a complex mix of people who work with criminal syndicates to poach rhinos and smuggle their horn. Anti-poaching patrols can kill or catch poachers but have had little success in smashing the syndicates.</p>
<p>A more realistic mix of approaches is needed. To me the only answer in the long run would be to bite the bullet by adopting regulated trade that brings in funds to make conservation self-sustainable. </p>
<p>The rejection of the Swazi bid will not end attempts to find solutions involving the reintroduction of legal and regulated trade, despite the emotively-expressed opposition of wildlife NGOs.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66510/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Keith Somerville received funding from the Comanis Foundation to undertake a research trip to South Africa and Swaziland to look into the issues surrounding the rhino horn trade proposals.
</span></em></p>Swaziland hoped to be allowed to legally trade rhino horns but the idea was rejected by vote at the CITES conference.Keith Somerville, Visiting Professor, University of KentLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/657432016-09-28T06:42:39Z2016-09-28T06:42:39ZStop the slaughter of African elephants by banning the ivory trade for good<p>The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) conference in South Africa provides a unique opportunity to make a ban on the ivory trade legally binding. The convention has already <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37479072">rejected a call</a> to legalise the sale of ivory; the next step is a worldwide ban.</p>
<p>The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) <a href="http://www.iucnworldconservationcongress.org/">passed a motion</a> on September 10 to <a href="https://portals.iucn.org/congress/motion/007">ban all trade in ivory</a> by halting the legal domestic trade that exists in some countries. But its ban is not legally enforceable. </p>
<p>Unlike the IUCN, CITES commands legal powers as most countries have signed and ratified its agreements, so they’re legally obliged to follow its policies. The success of a similar motion during its conference could mean the difference between the continuing existence of African elephants and their current slaughter. </p>
<h2>A dwindling population</h2>
<p>African elephants were first listed as a species of concern by CITES in 1977, with trade permitted only under the proviso of stringent regulation and monitoring. But by 1989, after a decade supposedly “<a href="http://www.hsi.org/assets/pdfs/Elephant_Related_Trade_Timeline.pdf">well-regulated</a>” international markets, the African elephant population had dropped by 60%. </p>
<p>Indeed, the population of African elephants has declined <a href="http://africageographic.com/blog/elephants-decline-97-less-century/">by up to 97%</a> in the past century. Every year, <a href="http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/21/opinion-why-destruction-of-ivory-stockpiles-might-not-be-a-good-idea/">around 30,000 elephants</a> are slaughtered for their tusks, and this may drive African elephants to extinct within the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/24/african-elephants-could-be-extinct-in-wild-within-decades-say-experts">next decade</a>. </p>
<p>Even this trend masks a more serious decline. Despite strong scientific evidence that African elephants are <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101222-african-elephants-two-species-new-science/">two unique species</a> that diverged from each other millions of years ago, vested interests aiming to maintain the ivory trade only acknowledge one species. This strengthens their argument that populations are high enough to withstand slaughter for ivory harvesting. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.voanews.com/a/3229115.html">Forest elephants</a> (<em>Loxodonta cyclotis</em>) are particularly vulnerable to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/31/forest-elephants-are-vanishing-and-they-might-never-recover-from-poaching/">extinction</a>, having lost <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/05/two-thirds-forest-elephants-killed">two-thirds</a> of their population in just the past decade. Savannah elephants (<em>Loxodonta africana</em>) have declined by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/31/poaching-drives-huge-30-decline-in-africas-savannah-elephants">a third</a>.</p>
<p>Illegal poaching is the main driver of population decline for both species.</p>
<h2>Well-regulated markets?</h2>
<p>Regulating the ivory trade is hard because of the difficulty in differentiating ivory obtained before the 1989 ban and illegal, post-1989 ivory. It’s currently impossible to assess the <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/4228.full">age of ivory</a>, so many countries have created certification systems. </p>
<p>A lack of rigorous checking, along with the creation of false certification, allows dealers to sell new ivory using certificates created for ivory taken before the ban. And even the best technologies fail to provide a mechanism to trace or <a href="https://theconversation.com/save-the-elephant-what-we-can-learn-from-failures-of-the-war-on-drugs-64839">register individual tusks</a>.</p>
<p>The picture is further complicated by the <a href="http://eia-global.org/images/uploads/EIA_Japans_Illegal_Ivory_Trade_12102015.pdf">CITES-approved sale</a> of stockpiles of 49 tonnes of seized ivory in 1997 to Japan. The sale was justified as providing funding for conservation but it legitimised trade and stoked demand to such a degree that it could not be met through legal sources. It’s thought to have driven further poaching, and increased smuggling by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/legal-ivory-sale-drove-dramatic-increase-in-elephant-poaching-study-shows">as much as 71%</a>.</p>
<p>Another sale of stockpiled ivory to <a href="https://cites.org/eng/news/pr/2008/081107_ivory.shtml">Japan and China in 2008</a> created a system where the mechanisms implemented to regulate released ivory allowed certificates to be falsely reused to launder illegal stock and create a limitless supply of ivory for sale. </p>
<p>With each sale, there have been guarantees of effective regulation, but each release has instead driven an <a href="https://www.iucn.org/news/poaching-behind-worst-african-elephant-losses-25-years-%E2%80%93-iucn-report">increase in poaching</a> and illegal trade. And despite repeated attempts to <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320714001220">effectively regulate</a> the ivory trade, each sale has stoked demand and driven laundering. </p>
<h2>Getting around regulations</h2>
<p>In the early 2000s, pressure from the governments of Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa – the same countries that sought the reintroduction of the ivory trade at the current conference – saw African elephants downlisted by CITES in these countries to allow limited trade, provided <a href="https://cites.org/eng/prog/ETIS/index.php">the ivory was registered</a> and closely monitored, and that elephant populations within those countries remained stable. </p>
<p>But these countries provide a <a href="https://eia-international.org/tangled-routes-global-elephant-ivory-trafficking">conduit for trade</a> globally, and drive poaching across the native African elephant range states. Forensic testing proves that ivory sold in these countries <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/4228.full">frequently originates elsewhere</a>, where it must have been poached illegally.</p>
<p>In China, the encouragement of the ivory trade as “cultural heritage” in 2002 and releases of “controlled volumes” of ivory led to a more than <a href="http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/Making%20a%20Killing.pdf">170% increase</a> in its value, and 59.6% of “legality-certificates” were used to launder <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320714003371">illegal stock</a>. </p>
<p>This boom in ivory prices <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320714003371">lasted from 2009</a> until the <a href="http://africageographic.com/blog/us-and-china-ban-ivory-sales-in-historic-move/">ban announced by Chinese President Jinping Xi</a> in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/ivory-price-drop-in-china-signals-fall-in-demand-report-says">September 2015</a>. Since then, the value of ivory in China has halved.</p>
<p>Japan currently has the <a href="http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/26/conservationists-call-on-japan-to-ban-all-trade-in-ivory/">largest “legal” ivory market</a> globally, including 7,570 registered dealers, 537 wholesalers, and 293 manufacturers. But irrefutable evidence shows <a href="http://eia-global.org/images/uploads/EIA_Japans_Illegal_Ivory_Trade_12102015.pdf">increasing levels of laundering</a> within the trade in Japan, thanks to an ineffective regulation system that allows anyone to <a href="http://eia-global.org/news-media/japanese-wildlife-official-promoted-illegal-ivory-trade">decide on the legality of their ivory</a>. </p>
<p>Sales in Japan are thought to have <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/151210-Japan-ivory-trade-african-elephants/">almost quadrupled</a> from the equivalent of US$2 million in 2010, to US$7 million in 2014. It’s not feasible for this volume of ivory to have been legally registered. </p>
<p>Online markets for ivory have been targeted <a href="http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/Making%20a%20Killing.pdf">within China</a>, and <a href="http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/157301/26245505/1432122394320/China-monitoring-report.pdf">internationally</a> by retailers including eBay, Taobao and Alibaba, but Japan has made <a href="http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/08/15/reference/japan-slow-ban-ivory-trade-online-shops-even-slower/#.V9oYqvl96Uk">no effort</a> to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/10/japans-blind-eye-fuelling-illegal-ivory-trade-as-demand-rises-study-finds">do the same</a>, despite <a href="http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/26/conservationists-call-on-japan-to-ban-all-trade-in-ivory/">repeated calls</a> from non-governmental organisations, scientists and other governments. </p>
<p><a href="http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/06/13/study-finds-global-legalization-trial-escalates-elephant-poaching/">Legalising</a> any form of trade has been shown to drive illegal trade. It’s impossible to produce enough ivory legally <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982216310053">to meet demand</a>. </p>
<h2>Stopping the slaughter</h2>
<p>The United States, France, and China have all recognised the impossibility of regulating the trade, and banned sales of domestic ivory. There is <a href="https://eia-international.org/on-world-elephant-day-today-eia-is-calling-on-world-governments-to-vote-yes-and-support-the-closure-of-legal-domestic-ivory-markets">support for a global ban across a range states</a>. And by NGOs aiming to implement the “<a href="http://www.bloodyivory.org/stop-the-ivory-trade">African Elephant Action Plan</a>”, which provides a strategy to sustainably manage and conserve African elephant populations.</p>
<p>Support for a global ban has come from the public <a href="http://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/crush-and-burn-destroying-illegal-ivory">burning of ivory stockpiles</a> in more than <a href="http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/29/wcs-praises-kenya-for-massive-elephant-ivory-and-rhino-horn-burn-scheduled-for-saturday-april-30/">21 countries</a> to date. These burnings, such as the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/29/kenya-to-burn-biggest-ever-stockpile-of-ivory">105-ton ivory and rhino horn stockpile burning in Kenya</a> in April, show that elephants are worth more than just their ivory, and that any ivory trade represents a threat to their survival.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/17/InfDocs/E-CoP17-Inf-61.pdf">IUCN has set a precedent</a> through its call to ban the domestic ivory trade, but the critical next step is the decision to be made at the CITES conference in Johannesburg. If the conference passes the motion to ban the sale of ivory for good, it might just manage to stop the massacre of African elephants that the trade inevitably allows.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65743/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alice Catherine Hughes is affiliated with Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation
</span></em></p>Historical evidence shows African elephants are endangered by the ivory trade, despite any attempt at regulating the market. A total ban is the only hope for the world’s largest living land animal.Alice Catherine Hughes, Associate Professor in Landscape Ecology & Conservation, Chinese Academy of SciencesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.