Ivory Trading Ban Retained

After a passionate debate, the world’s environmental leaders on Tuesday narrowly rejected a proposal to relax a ban on the trade of elephant ivory, although several African nations were preparing to renew their effort today.

Tuesday’s vote--at an international summit in Zimbabwe to revise the world’s largest conservation treaty--pitted nation against nation in a three-hour session marked by emotional and bitter debate.

Three southern African countries sought permission to sell and export their huge stockpiles of elephant tusks, saying the species is flourishing and they want to resume control over their own natural resources. But others, including the United States and some African nations, argued that relaxing the ban could revive the poaching and smuggling throughout Africa that brought elephant populations perilously low a decade ago.

Of 123 countries voting in a secret ballot, 75 supported easing the restrictions--three short of the two-thirds majority needed to lift the ban. With seven nations abstaining, supporters needed 78 votes to win approval.

The elephant wars could resume today, when Zimbabwe, Botswana and Namibia can try again individually to win approval for lifting the ban, develop a new compromise or drop their proposals.

“It was extremely tense,” said John Perrine, a program associate for the U.S.-based environmental group Defenders of Wildlife. “They recounted the vote five times before they announced it. Emotions have run very high. People here feel very, very strong on this issue.”

The environmental ministers from around the globe also rejected requests from Japan and Norway to loosen restrictions on commercial whaling. Norway, which has 600 tons of Atlantic minke whale products it would like to export, lost its bid with 57 supporters and 51 opponents--again far short of the two-thirds approval needed. Japan’s proposal to allow limited trade in West Pacific minke whales failed, winning only 45 votes in favor.

It was the second time that the signatories of CITES--the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species--refused to ease their 1989 ban on trade in elephant parts. In 1994, South Africa withdrew a similar request after it was clear it would fail.

The 24-year-old wildlife treaty aims to control exploitation of the world’s rare animals and plants. Exporting and importing are restricted or prohibited for thousands of species, from orchids to crocodiles. Every 2 1/2 years, the member nations meet to update the treaty’s provisions.

The level of support for easing the elephant and Atlantic whale trade bans worries many environmentalists from Western nations, who say it could signal a global turn toward opening up trade in many types of wildlife.

If Tuesday’s elephant measure had passed, 59 tons of ivory from Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe could have been sold in 1999. Exportation of hunting trophies and live animals also would have been allowed, and Zimbabwe could export elephant hides and leather souvenirs for noncommercial purposes.

As hosts to the summit, Zimbabwean officials mounted an intense campaign to end the ban. Along with Botswana and Namibia, they argued that their herds are now so large--exceeding 150,000 elephants--that they are overrunning many communities, injuring people and damaging crops. They promised to use revenue from ivory sales, perhaps reaching millions of dollars, to fund wildlife conservation and park management. The governments would sell tusks from elephants culled to control herds.

Japan--which would be the main market for ivory--teamed with the southern African nations to lead the campaign.

At the start of the two-week summit, the three African countries submitted separate proposals. But at Tuesday’s session, South Africa proposed a compromise that would merge them and initiate an 18-month moratorium before allowing trade of fixed quotas of ivory in 1999.

Many nations were confused by the last-minute changes. During debate that included comments from representatives of 62 nations, some delegates--including those representing the European Union--said they were unsure what they were voting on.

“Unfortunately, I think a lot of the vote was cast out of confusion,” said Perrine, the program associate.

Opponents of the effort generally agree that limited ivory trade in the three nations would not threaten elephant populations there because the governments have strong enforcement programs. But they worry that any leeway could ignite a wave of poaching elsewhere in Africa. A CITES panel of experts found illegal ivory trade is thriving despite the international ban.

Don Barry, assistant secretary of the U.S. Interior Department, commended the three African nations for “managing healthy wild elephant herds” but said the United States “remains firmly opposed to resumption in commercial trade in ivory.”

Delegates from African nations were at odds Tuesday. Some were opposed to lifting the ban because they believe it will undermine their own elephant anti-poaching programs. Some were angry that South Africa labeled its proposal an African consensus when some nations on the continent remained undecided.

After the vote, African delegates gathered to develop another compromise to take before the convention this morning. If that fails, the three countries could still try individually.