Jan 15, 2020 | News
You’d think with birds this ubiquitous, the “experts” could come to an agreement. That doesn’t seem to be the case.
By Ken Bailey
Sitting on my desk are five of the most universally accepted and highly regarded books describing the birds of southern Africa. I’ve looked up in each of them the species of birds similar to the Hungarian partridge common to North America and Europe. In trying to determine the commonly accepted names of the dozen or so most familiar of these gamebirds, there is no consensus.
Some books refer to them as grey-winged or red-winged francolin, others as greywing or redwing francolin. This spelling difference is not an unforgiveable offense, so let’s not get too concerned about it. The real problem lies in the fact that some books describe these two species as partridge, not francolin, reserving the francolin name for a list of other specific species. Unfortunately, the confusion doesn’t end there.
Take the widely distributed bird of the dry savanna named for the English ornithologist of the early 1800s, William Swainson. Two of the reference books refer to this bird as a Swainson’s francolin, two others as a Swainson’s spurfowl. Keep in mind that each book describes both francolin and spurfowl distinctly, so it’s not just a case of them using the terms interchangeably. No, the fact is there seems to be little concurrence on which birds should be called francolin, which should be referred to as spurfowl, and which are partridge.
To further confound the issue, it appears that the scientific names for these birds, the Latin-based Genus and species names you see printed in italics, have also changed in recent years. Don’t worry, I won’t bore or confuse you by describing how these names have changed. What’s important to understand, however, is that scientific names are used, in part, to specifically identify a species for the expressed purpose of eliminating the potential confusion caused by regional differences in common names. When scientific names change, as they can and do for legitimate reasons, one of the unintended consequences can be a furthering of the incompatibility as to what the accepted common name will be for any given species, at least until all the reference books and field guides catch up. Often, the laymen on the ground, in this case hunters, outfitters and PHs, never do become “current”; like most of us they’re creatures of habit.
Of course, at the end of the day, most within the hunting community would say that all of this confusion surrounding what we call these birds is much ado about nothing. After all, in the field, when you’re swinging a well-balanced double on a hard-banking bird, neither your guide, your tracker, the dog handler or even the bird dog gives a hoot about what you call that winged target, nor whether you spell its name with or without a hyphen. All they care about is that you dust the bird they’ve worked so hard to put in front of you.
No matter where you hunt in the popular areas of southern Africa, from Tanzania to the Cape, there is one or more of these species available. (For our purposes here, I’ll call them all francolin, as that’s the name for them I learned on my first African safari more than 30 years ago.) They’re common and widely distributed birds that you’ll undoubtedly encounter whether hunting the peaks of the Drakensburg Mountains, stalking the thornbush of central Namibia, or walking the miombo woodland of the Selous. Most often, hunters, focussed on more important game, note them only in passing. That is until a knot of francolin flush noisily from underfoot when you’re closing the distance on a buffalo or kudu, scaring you half to death and simultaneously alerting the animal you’re hunting that something untoward is afoot. At those times, francolin are considered little more than a nuisance.
What many are missing, however, is how sporting francolin can be as game birds. I’m constantly surprised by how many hunters, even wingshooters, overlook francolin, focussing instead on doves and pigeons, guineafowl or geese. And it’s not that you shouldn’t pursue those species, but rather that it’s well worth the effort to dedicate some time to francolin.
The crown prince among these birds is the grey-winged partridge, often regarded as one of the premier upland birds in the world; they’re spoken of in the same sentences and with an equal reverence as the renowned red grouse of the Scottish highlands or the robust capercaille of Eurasia. Greywings make for a physically demanding hunt, as they’re generally found in montane grassland habitats above 5000 feet. That makes for lots of ups and downs as, even in the best habitats, coveys are generally widely dispersed. These hunts are invariably conducted behind well-trained pointing dogs and, while you may be forewarned of an impending flush, uneven footing and the greywing’s tendency to flush downslope makes for challenging shooting. You earn every grey-winged partridge you manage to collect.
While you have to make a dedicated effort to find and hunt greywings, and their close kin, redwings, most other francolin are found in the same habitats where you’d typically hunt big game. You’ll encounter them across an array of habitat types although they’re predominantly associated with arid bushveld, savanna or grasslands, often adjacent to gullies or dry riverbeds.
On a recent hunt in central Namibia, the leopard gods were smiling on us and we finished earlier than anticipated. With time on our hands we elected to dedicate a day and a half to hunting birds, including red-billed francolin. These birds are widespread across Namibia and Botswana, and can also be found in northwestern South Africa. They’re reluctant fliers by nature, preferring, much as Hungarian partridge do, to run and hide beneath thorn thickets. We didn’t have a lean and graceful pointer at our disposal, so we engaged the next best thing, our PH’s rambunctious Jack Russell terrier. What he may have lacked in bird dog refinement he more than made up for in hell-bent enthusiasm. Whenever we’d see a redbill or two scuttle into a thornbush, we’d send Bushy in after them. Invariable they’d flush, offering a shot or two. It proved to be great sport and an enjoyable and relaxing way to spend time after the intensity of hunting leopard.
On a hunt in Limpopo in 2018, we hunted Swainson’s and crested francolin behind a brace of fine English pointers. Over two days we experienced hunting that rivals the best upland bird hunting I’ve enjoyed anywhere, with 20 to 25 flushes each day.
As noted, some species of francolin would rather run than fly when pressured. This split personality is largely responsible for the conflicting stories you hear about hunting them. Certainly dogs, particularly pointing breeds, are a huge asset whenever you’re hunting francolin, but the dogless hunter can also enjoy fine sport if he’s determined. Admittedly, in bushveld habitats hunting francolin without a dog can be difficult. Where they’re found in grassland habitats, alternatively, they’re much quicker to flush, and if you’re willing to put in some miles on your boots, the gunning can be both rewarding and fruitful.
Some species get an undeserved bad rap, and francolin appear to be one of them. My advice is to not listen to rumor and innuendo, but hunt them and see for yourself. Their meat is absolutely superb and the shooting can be terrific; what more could you ask of a game bird?
As to all confusion about whether to call any given species a francolin, a spurfowl or a partridge, I guess we’ll all just have to wait until the scientists and those who write the bird identification books to reach some sort of agreement. Until then, perhaps Shakespeare said it best. Does not a rose by any other name still smell as sweet?
Nov 15, 2019 | Archive, News
By John Ledger
The triennial World Wildlife Conference, known formally as CoP18 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), concluded in Geneva, Switzerland on 28 August 2019. In a press release the organizers claimed to have adopted an impressive list of decisions advancing the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife across the globe. Southern African states were once again disappointed by the outcome of CITES, and certainly not at all impressed by its achievements.
Some excerpts from the CITES Press Release include the following:
“The Conference revised the trade rules for dozens of wildlife species that are threatened by unstainable trade linked to overharvesting, overfishing or overhunting. These ranged from commercially valuable fish and trees to charismatic mammals such as giraffes, to amphibians and reptiles sold as exotic pets.
Noting that giraffes have declined by 36-40% over the past three decades due to habitat loss and other pressures, the conference added the world’s tallest animal to Appendix II.
The Parties established the CITES Big Cat Task Force with a mandate to improve enforcement, tackle illegal trade and promote collaboration on conserving tigers, lions, cheetahs, jaguars and leopards.
In addition, the critical role of local and indigenous communities that live on the frontlines of wildlife conservation and sustainable management, and their need for adequate incomes and livelihoods, was widely recognized. Overcoming a wide range of differing views, the conference asked Parties to begin considering how to best engage indigenous peoples and local communities in CITES decision-making and implementation. The aim is to better achieve the objectives of the Convention while recognizing those people whose use of CITES-listed species contributes significantly to their livelihoods.
The Conference also:
- increased quotas for trophy hunting of adult male black rhinos, almost doubling the current quota of five, subject to strict controls; however, proposed trade in southern white rhino horns from eSwatini (Swaziland) and live animals and hunting trophies from Namibia were not accepted.
- reviewed the measures for the export of live African elephants to ‘appropriate and acceptable destinations’, whereby exports outside their natural range will be permitted in ‘exceptional circumstances’ only, in consultation with relevant CITES and IUCN bodies, and only if they provide in ‘situ conservation benefits’
- did not accept proposals to permit some limited trade in ivory from African elephants, which means that the existing trade ban remains in place.
- held a meeting on the African Elephant Action Plan to encourage cooperation among the African elephant range states.
CoP18 was attended by 169 member governments (plus the EU) and some 1,700 delegates, observers and journalists. CoP19 will be held in 2022 in Costa Rica.”
Prior to CoP 18, an African Wildlife Economy Summit was held at Victoria Falls, June 23-25, 2019. Attended by heads of state, business leaders, technical experts and community representatives, the meeting aimed to radically change the way the continent’s nature-based economy is managed. Convened by UNEP and the African Union and hosted by the president of Zimbabwe, the summit was an African-led vision of conservation that linked the private sector with national authorities and local communities to design and finance conservation-compatible investments that deliver sustainable economic and ecological benefits to countries, people and the environment. Over 40 community representatives of 12 countries across Africa met prior to Africa’s Wildlife Economy Summit, to share their experiences of living with and among Africa’s wildlife. They sought a ‘New Deal’ that would recognise the rights of ownership, management and use of wildlife resources.
How pathetic then was it for the CITES conference to have “asked Parties to begin considering how to best engage indigenous peoples and local communities in CITES decision-making and implementation. The aim is to better achieve the objectives of the Convention while recognizing those people whose use of CITES-listed species contributes significantly to their livelihoods.”
They want to “begin considering” something that Namibia has already practiced for some 30 years – empowering indigenous people and local communities in decision-making and implementation of wildlife policies on their land!
The southern African countries that have the best success in conserving elephants and rhinos on the continent were again denied the opportunity to market wildlife products to enhance the value of wildlife resources for those who live with large and dangerous animals.
Clearly angered and once again frustrated by the outcome of CITES, the Tanzanian delegation took the floor on behalf of the following Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries: Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eswatini, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Here is the text of their submission:
This Declaration is made to express the grave concern that the SADC Parties mentioned here have with regards to the implementation of this Convention.
As members of the global multilateral system and democratic, representative governments, we are obliged to ensure that we meet our commitments to all those international agreements and declarations to which we are signatories, as well as responsibilities to our citizens.
Recognizing that CITES is one of the oldest wildlife and trade agreements, we are obliged to give it due consideration but within the context of subsequent and contemporary agreements and declarations to which it bears relevance and to which we are also signatories.
CITES in its Preamble accepted the principle of: “Recognizing that peoples and States are and should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora” and the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 in Article 3 provides that: “States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.”
We contend that CITES, in form, substance and implementation, is not aligned with other international agreements of equal weight and arguably greater relevance to the challenges of today. These agreements emphasize the following principles: – sovereignty over the use of national resources; – inclusive, equitable development through the sustainable use of natural resources; – recognizing that rural communities living with wildlife have inalienable rights over the use of their resources; and – recognizing that in today’s world of rapid changes in climate and land use and the accelerating pace of transformation of wildlife habitat, the survival of wildlife depends on the perceptions and development needs of people living with wildlife. The way CITES is currently operation is contrary to its founding principles.
Today CITES discards proven, working conservation models in favour of ideologically driven anti-use and anti-trade models. Such models are dictated by largely western non-State actors who have no experience with, responsibility for, or ownership over wildlife resources. The result has been failure to adopt progressive, equitable, inclusive and science-based conservation strategies. We believe this failure has arisen from the domination of protectionist ideology over science decision in making within CITES.
This anti-sustainable use and anti-trade ideology now dominates decisions made by many States who are party to CITES. States are increasingly influenced by the dominance both at meetings of the decision-making structures of CITES and in their run up by protectionist NGOs whose ideological position has no basis in science or experience and is not shared in any way by the Member States of SADC and their people.
This conservation model is based on entrenched and emotive rhetoric and discourse, backed up by intense lobbying, as opposed to science. Foremost amongst these motifs now dominating CITES is the unfounded belief that all trade fuels illegal, unsustainable trade, ignoring clear evidence to the contrary.
Examples of this are the attempts by others to impose new trade restrictions for species that are effectively conserved – and utilized – in our States, such as lions and giraffe, while the real threats in those States where such species are in decline due to habitat loss and human-wildlife conflict continue to go unattended.
The Southern African countries have observed, with great discomfort the polarised discussions on African charismatic large mammals at this CoP 18. It is very disturbing to see the North South divide across the African continent rearing its head again.
We are further concerned that positions of some Parties appear to be based on national political considerations aimed at catering to the interests of national, intensively lobbied constituencies, as opposed to proven, science-based conservation strategies. This undermines the SADC States, on whom the responsibility to manage species falls, and our ability to do so effectively.
As it is currently implemented, CITES undermines the rights of people living in rural areas of SADC States to have access to and use in a sustainable manner the natural resources present in their communities that are required to enjoy adequate living conditions and the right to participate in the management of these resources. The consensus expressed through CITES by the majority of States undermines our region in our efforts to secure social and environment justice through the sustainable use of our natural resources. In doing so it is compromising our ability to meet obligations and responsibilities to other multilateral agreements and to our peoples.
The populations of iconic African wildlife species in our region illustrates the effectiveness of our conservation models. Similar examples of successful conservation outcomes have not been forthcoming under ideologically driven approaches to conservation. Yet, at previous meetings of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, efforts made by us to advance and strengthen the same conservation strategies that have worked so well have been rejected.
Those who bear no cost of protecting our wildlife, nor bear any consequence for decisions of CITES on our species, vote without any accountability against working conservation models in southern Africa. To this end, we have had to invoke measures such as announcing a dispute, the first time ever in CITES. As members of the global community we fully appreciate the importance of multilateral negotiations, such as those that take place within CITES, in identifying and collectively working towards solutions for the greater good of humanity.
We have been committed Parties to CITES since its inception or our accession to it and would wish to remain so. But we can no longer ignore these glaring shortcomings and threats to our national interests and to our commitments to the broader multilateral context. Mr Chairman, the time has come to seriously reconsider whether there are any meaningful benefits from our membership to CITES. I thank you.
This constitutes a real threat to the future of CITES, and many would agree that it is time for bold action to leave an organisation that has lost its way and is today dominated by politics, animal-rights, anti-use and anti-hunting lobbyists.
What has happened to the World Conservation Strategy of 1980 which defined the principles of ‘living resource conservation’ as
- To maintain essential ecological and life support systems;
- To preserve genetic diversity; and
- To ensure the sustainable utilisation of species and ecosystems for the benefit of mankind.
If the SADC countries leave CITES, how would the rest of the world react? There would certainly be pressure on all remaining CITES countries not to deal with SADC in wildlife products, but how long would that last in those powerful and rich countries where demand for wildlife products may be temporarily suppressed but never eliminated?
In the declaration by the SADC countries, mention is made of the divisive impacts of CITES in Africa:
“The Southern African countries have observed, with great discomfort the polarised discussions on African charismatic large mammals at this CoP 18. It is very disturbing to see the North South divide across the African continent rearing its head again.”
The big divisive example here was the group of ten countries proposing that the elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe be moved from Appendix II to Appendix I. These countries are Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Kenya, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic and Togo.
For goodness’ sake, what are these countries up to? The four countries they targeted have been the most successful elephant conservationists on the continent, with burgeoning populations now decimating habitat and biodiversity in places like South Africa’s Kruger National Park. Kenya’s schizophrenic policies on wildlife have seen its rich heritage start to crumble because of its ambivalence towards the principles of the World Conservation Strategy.
If the SADC countries are bold enough to leave CITES, a key role will be that played by South Africa. This country has an excellent record of wildlife management and conservation, but also hosts the continent’s biggest concentration of animal rightists, and anti-hunting lobbyists, many with ties to rich overseas partners. South Africa also has a new Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries who will be subjected to intensive lobbying by the animal rights activists. South Africa will need very strong leadership to throw its weight behind its African neighbors and raise a unified voice against an organisation that seems to be hell-bent on frustrating those countries that look after their wildlife better than others.
To those who think that the SADC countries will not have the resolve to leave CITES for fear of international excommunication, remember how Japan walked away from the International Whaling Commission in 2018, totally frustrated by the intransigence of the IWC? Has Japan since been ostracised by the world? Hardly – the Rugby World Cup tournament is taking place there right now!
Dr John Ledger is an independent consultant and writer on energy and environmental issues, based in Johannesburg, South Africa. John.Ledger@wol.co.za
Some excerpts from the CITES Press Release include the following:
“The Conference revised the trade rules for dozens of wildlife species that are threatened by unstainable trade linked to overharvesting, overfishing or overhunting. These ranged from commercially valuable fish and trees to charismatic mammals such as giraffes, to amphibians and reptiles sold as exotic pets.
Noting that giraffes have declined by 36-40% over the past three decades due to habitat loss and other pressures, the conference added the world’s tallest animal to Appendix II.
The Parties established the CITES Big Cat Task Force with a mandate to improve enforcement, tackle illegal trade and promote collaboration on conserving tigers, lions, cheetahs, jaguars and leopards.
In addition, the critical role of local and indigenous communities that live on the frontlines of wildlife conservation and sustainable management, and their need for adequate incomes and livelihoods, was widely recognized. Overcoming a wide range of differing views, the conference asked Parties to begin considering how to best engage indigenous peoples and local communities in CITES decision-making and implementation. The aim is to better achieve the objectives of the Convention while recognizing those people whose use of CITES-listed species contributes significantly to their livelihoods.
The Conference also:
- increased quotas for trophy hunting of adult male black rhinos, almost doubling the current quota of five, subject to strict controls; however, proposed trade in southern white rhino horns from eSwatini (Swaziland) and live animals and hunting trophies from Namibia were not accepted.
- reviewed the measures for the export of live African elephants to ‘appropriate and acceptable destinations’, whereby exports outside their natural range will be permitted in ‘exceptional circumstances’ only, in consultation with relevant CITES and IUCN bodies, and only if they provide in ‘situ conservation benefits’
- did not accept proposals to permit some limited trade in ivory from African elephants, which means that the existing trade ban remains in place.
- held a meeting on the African Elephant Action Plan to encourage cooperation among the African elephant range states.
CoP18 was attended by 169 member governments (plus the EU) and some 1,700 delegates, observers and journalists. CoP19 will be held in 2022 in Costa Rica.”
Prior to CoP 18, an African Wildlife Economy Summit was held at Victoria Falls, June 23-25, 2019. Attended by heads of state, business leaders, technical experts and community representatives, the meeting aimed to radically change the way the continent’s nature-based economy is managed. Convened by UNEP and the African Union and hosted by the president of Zimbabwe, the summit was an African-led vision of conservation that linked the private sector with national authorities and local communities to design and finance conservation-compatible investments that deliver sustainable economic and ecological benefits to countries, people and the environment. Over 40 community representatives of 12 countries across Africa met prior to Africa’s Wildlife Economy Summit, to share their experiences of living with and among Africa’s wildlife. They sought a ‘New Deal’ that would recognise the rights of ownership, management and use of wildlife resources.
How pathetic then was it for the CITES conference to have “asked Parties to begin considering how to best engage indigenous peoples and local communities in CITES decision-making and implementation. The aim is to better achieve the objectives of the Convention while recognizing those people whose use of CITES-listed species contributes significantly to their livelihoods.”
They want to “begin considering” something that Namibia has already practiced for some 30 years – empowering indigenous people and local communities in decision-making and implementation of wildlife policies on their land!
The southern African countries that have the best success in conserving elephants and rhinos on the continent were again denied the opportunity to market wildlife products to enhance the value of wildlife resources for those who live with large and dangerous animals.
Clearly angered and once again frustrated by the outcome of CITES, the Tanzanian delegation took the floor on behalf of the following Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries: Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eswatini, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Here is the text of their submission:
This Declaration is made to express the grave concern that the SADC Parties mentioned here have with regards to the implementation of this Convention.
As members of the global multilateral system and democratic, representative governments, we are obliged to ensure that we meet our commitments to all those international agreements and declarations to which we are signatories, as well as responsibilities to our citizens.
Recognizing that CITES is one of the oldest wildlife and trade agreements, we are obliged to give it due consideration but within the context of subsequent and contemporary agreements and declarations to which it bears relevance and to which we are also signatories.
CITES in its Preamble accepted the principle of: “Recognizing that peoples and States are and should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora” and the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 in Article 3 provides that: “States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.”
We contend that CITES, in form, substance and implementation, is not aligned with other international agreements of equal weight and arguably greater relevance to the challenges of today. These agreements emphasize the following principles: – sovereignty over the use of national resources; – inclusive, equitable development through the sustainable use of natural resources; – recognizing that rural communities living with wildlife have inalienable rights over the use of their resources; and – recognizing that in today’s world of rapid changes in climate and land use and the accelerating pace of transformation of wildlife habitat, the survival of wildlife depends on the perceptions and development needs of people living with wildlife. The way CITES is currently operation is contrary to its founding principles.
Today CITES discards proven, working conservation models in favour of ideologically driven anti-use and anti-trade models. Such models are dictated by largely western non-State actors who have no experience with, responsibility for, or ownership over wildlife resources. The result has been failure to adopt progressive, equitable, inclusive and science-based conservation strategies. We believe this failure has arisen from the domination of protectionist ideology over science decision in making within CITES.
This anti-sustainable use and anti-trade ideology now dominates decisions made by many States who are party to CITES. States are increasingly influenced by the dominance both at meetings of the decision-making structures of CITES and in their run up by protectionist NGOs whose ideological position has no basis in science or experience and is not shared in any way by the Member States of SADC and their people.
This conservation model is based on entrenched and emotive rhetoric and discourse, backed up by intense lobbying, as opposed to science. Foremost amongst these motifs now dominating CITES is the unfounded belief that all trade fuels illegal, unsustainable trade, ignoring clear evidence to the contrary.
Examples of this are the attempts by others to impose new trade restrictions for species that are effectively conserved – and utilized – in our States, such as lions and giraffe, while the real threats in those States where such species are in decline due to habitat loss and human-wildlife conflict continue to go unattended.
The Southern African countries have observed, with great discomfort the polarised discussions on African charismatic large mammals at this CoP 18. It is very disturbing to see the North South divide across the African continent rearing its head again.
We are further concerned that positions of some Parties appear to be based on national political considerations aimed at catering to the interests of national, intensively lobbied constituencies, as opposed to proven, science-based conservation strategies. This undermines the SADC States, on whom the responsibility to manage species falls, and our ability to do so effectively.
As it is currently implemented, CITES undermines the rights of people living in rural areas of SADC States to have access to and use in a sustainable manner the natural resources present in their communities that are required to enjoy adequate living conditions and the right to participate in the management of these resources. The consensus expressed through CITES by the majority of States undermines our region in our efforts to secure social and environment justice through the sustainable use of our natural resources. In doing so it is compromising our ability to meet obligations and responsibilities to other multilateral agreements and to our peoples.
The populations of iconic African wildlife species in our region illustrates the effectiveness of our conservation models. Similar examples of successful conservation outcomes have not been forthcoming under ideologically driven approaches to conservation. Yet, at previous meetings of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, efforts made by us to advance and strengthen the same conservation strategies that have worked so well have been rejected.
Those who bear no cost of protecting our wildlife, nor bear any consequence for decisions of CITES on our species, vote without any accountability against working conservation models in southern Africa. To this end, we have had to invoke measures such as announcing a dispute, the first time ever in CITES. As members of the global community we fully appreciate the importance of multilateral negotiations, such as those that take place within CITES, in identifying and collectively working towards solutions for the greater good of humanity.
We have been committed Parties to CITES since its inception or our accession to it and would wish to remain so. But we can no longer ignore these glaring shortcomings and threats to our national interests and to our commitments to the broader multilateral context. Mr Chairman, the time has come to seriously reconsider whether there are any meaningful benefits from our membership to CITES. I thank you.
This constitutes a real threat to the future of CITES, and many would agree that it is time for bold action to leave an organisation that has lost its way and is today dominated by politics, animal-rights, anti-use and anti-hunting lobbyists.
What has happened to the World Conservation Strategy of 1980 which defined the principles of ‘living resource conservation’ as
- To maintain essential ecological and life support systems;
- To preserve genetic diversity; and
- To ensure the sustainable utilisation of species and ecosystems for the benefit of mankind.
If the SADC countries leave CITES, how would the rest of the world react? There would certainly be pressure on all remaining CITES countries not to deal with SADC in wildlife products, but how long would that last in those powerful and rich countries where demand for wildlife products may be temporarily suppressed but never eliminated?
In the declaration by the SADC countries, mention is made of the divisive impacts of CITES in Africa:
“The Southern African countries have observed, with great discomfort the polarised discussions on African charismatic large mammals at this CoP 18. It is very disturbing to see the North South divide across the African continent rearing its head again.”
The big divisive example here was the group of ten countries proposing that the elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe be moved from Appendix II to Appendix I. These countries are Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Kenya, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic and Togo.
For goodness’ sake, what are these countries up to? The four countries they targeted have been the most successful elephant conservationists on the continent, with burgeoning populations now decimating habitat and biodiversity in places like South Africa’s Kruger National Park. Kenya’s schizophrenic policies on wildlife have seen its rich heritage start to crumble because of its ambivalence towards the principles of the World Conservation Strategy.
If the SADC countries are bold enough to leave CITES, a key role will be that played by South Africa. This country has an excellent record of wildlife management and conservation, but also hosts the continent’s biggest concentration of animal rightists, and anti-hunting lobbyists, many with ties to rich overseas partners. South Africa also has a new Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries who will be subjected to intensive lobbying by the animal rights activists. South Africa will need very strong leadership to throw its weight behind its African neighbors and raise a unified voice against an organisation that seems to be hell-bent on frustrating those countries that look after their wildlife better than others.
To those who think that the SADC countries will not have the resolve to leave CITES for fear of international excommunication, remember how Japan walked away from the International Whaling Commission in 2018, totally frustrated by the intransigence of the IWC? Has Japan since been ostracised by the world? Hardly – the Rugby World Cup tournament is taking place there right now!
Dr John Ledger is an independent consultant and writer on energy and environmental issues, based in Johannesburg, South Africa. John.Ledger@wol.co.za
