Clarification needs to be made as to
the scope of the proposal
-
the call
for a general closure of domestic
ivory markets does not seem
justified but the EU could show
openness to initiatives aiming to
restrict domestic ivory trade,
provided that the measures are
proportionate (for example call for
closure of domestic market except
for pre-Convention ivory
or in cases where there have been
evidences that domestic legal
markets have been used as a cover
for illegal ivory trade).
Oppose the transfer to Appendix I
of the populations of BW, NA, ZA,
ZW. These four national
populations have an increasing
population trend (tbc for Zimbabwe)
and do not meet the
criteria for transfer to Appendix I.
Recognizing the efforts made by
Southern African countries to
sustainably manage their elephant
population and combat poaching,
those countries should better be
encouraged to pursue their efforts.The second seems like they are taking a technical interpretation of some rules without looking at the bigger picture.
I can see that there is logic to both cases. Saying one side is "simply not true" doesn't make your case. Is there any firm evidence either way.
The prohibition created a robust black market which all but disappeared when alcohol production came back into the light by legal means. The same logic should hold true for ivory through farming or artificial production (see several comments to this point above).
Your turn.
http://www.bisbeesconservationfund.org/conservation/savether...
The wisest thing to do would be to give it away for free to anyone interested. That would ruin black market.
It is not about changing the world overnight, it is about moving 1 inch every time.
"Oppose the transfer to Appendix I of the populations of BW, NA, ZA, ZW. These four national populations have an increasing population trend (tbc for Zimbabwe) and do not meet the criteria for transfer to Appendix I. Recognizing the efforts made by Southern African countries to sustainably manage their elephant population and combat poaching, those countries should better be encouraged to pursue their efforts"
The PDF also says, for Namibia and Zimbabwe:
"Given the continuous high levels of elephant poaching and illegal ivory trade, it is premature to agree on a resumption of trade. The efforts by Namibia for wildlife conservation and to combat poaching and illegal trade should nonetheless be recognised and further encouraged."
So, as is often the case, a nuanced statement by the EU that gets misrepresented in the press.
Moving elephants to appendix I would make it harder or even prohibit South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe, countries where the elephant population grows, to shoot down elephants to keep their total number under control.
What the EU says basically is that those countries should be allowed to shoot elephants (in theory, that would give them the freedom to kill all 'their' elephants, but they aren't that stupid, as it would kill tourism, too.) but that Botswana and Namibia shouldn't be allowed to sell the ivory to (partly) make up for the costs they make for protecting their wildlife. South Africa and Botswana apparently are deemed to have poaching under control.
I guess this means there are ways to determine where an elephant lived from its teeth. That's not surprising, given that we can do that for humans, too.