"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.
"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.