Zimpapers Logo

Elliot Ziwira

“Africa is never seen as possessing things and attributes properly part of ‘human nature’. Or, when it is, its things and attributes are generally of lesser value, little importance, and poor quality.

“It is this elementariness and primitiveness that makes Africa the world par excellence of all that is incomplete, mutilated, and unfinished, its history reduced to a series of setbacks of nature in its quest for humankind,” bemoans Achille Mbembe in “The Postcolony” (2001).

Africa, it appears, is never taken at the same level with regards to humankind and the progression of world order in a global village that owes its existence to the continent’s human and natural resources. The plunder and mutilation that Africa endured as a result of slavery and colonisation do not seem to ebb, since efforts to move on by leveraging on natural resources are scuttled at every turn through conventions that are mostly skewed in the continent’s disfavour.

It is well that nations join hands to bolster collectivity, a precursor and precondition to progressive outcomes, which is why the inaugural Africa’s Wildlife Economy Summit held in Victoria Falls recently oozes hope to Zimbabweans, and indeed, all African peoples looking forward to outcomes that will not only hinge on conservation, but those translating to economic benefits.

Officially opening the summit President Mnangagwa reaffirmed Government’s commitment to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) rules, but decried the one-size-fits all approach that CITES applies.

Yes, being signatory to or ratifying conventions may be progressive, if the reasons for being part to are known and shared accordingly. But if the tendency to elitism and dictatorship remain an impediment to the progress of the so called smaller members, then, game rules save no other purpose than to impoverish others while purporting to help them.

Africa should speak with one voice when it comes to the issue of its resources, because they are an inheritance, which should benefit current and future generations. Africa is endowed with vast mineral resources, among them wildlife, which should be used to better the lifestyles of its citizens.

Early this year, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia and South Africa applied to CITES, appealing to have a ban on the commercial trade of their registered stockpiles of ivory from the African elephant lifted. The same issue of stockpiles and the need to offload them was raised again at Africa’s Wildlife Economy Summit in Victoria Falls, with President Mnangagwa highlighting that Zimbabwe is sitting on US$600 million worth of registered ivory that could go a long way in meeting conservation targets and mitigating poverty in communities that have to bear the burden of coexistence with wildlife.

African elephants, black rhinoceros and tigers are among endangered animals said to be at risk of extinction if trade in ivory, horns and skins is not regulated, hence, CITES’s ban on international commercial ivory trade in 1990. Although CITES approved a one-off sale of 49,4 tonnes of stockpiled ivory from Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to Japan in 1999, and again in 2008 when 102 tonnes of ivory stockpiles where sold by the same countries to Japan and China, Zimbabwe alone has 70 tonnes of registered stockpiles, while Botswana, Namibia and South Africa have 20 tonnes, 10 tonnes and 30 tonnes, respectively.

Whereas CITES’s argument is that trade in ivory leads to poaching, hence, the depletion of the African elephant numbers, a close analysis reveals otherwise. Figures do not lie; and history is the best teacher. It has to be highlighted here, also, that Africa has a rich history of conservation.

There are two species of African elephants; the loxodonta Africana, the largest elephant species in the world, which thrives in the African Savannah and in the Sahel Desert in Mali, and the slightly smaller loxodonta cyclotis found in the rainforests of Central and West Africa.

Researchers believe that before European colonisation Africa was home to 20 million elephants. Due to plunder associated with imperialistic carelessness, by 1979, only 1,3 million elephants were left on the continent. Between 1979 and 1989, numbers plummeted to about 600 000. When nations or Parties to CITES agreed to ban commercial trade on ivory in 1989, by placing the African elephant on Appendix 1, there were around 600 000 of them.

The ban has been in place for 30 years, yet the numbers have come down to around 400 000. While there has been an overall decline in numbers, nations like Zimbabwe, Namibia, Botswana and South African have seen the numbers of elephants soaring out of the countries’ carrying capacities. The four nations account for 61 percent of the remaining elephants on the continent, yet they seem to be punished for it.

At around 130 000 elephants, Botswana has the largest number of elephants in the world, followed by Zimbabwe at 84 000. Zimbabwe has a carrying capacity of 50 000, meaning an excess of more than 30 000.

Banning ivory trade, therefore, is as atrocious as it is insensitive, not only to the Zimbabwean people, but to the same elephants that CITES, and other so called animal lovers purport to protect.

A ban creates a gap for illegality. Poachers, who are part of well-knit and well-oiled syndicates, know that there is a market for ivory, thus, they pounce and make a killing, while communities are impoverished, maimed and killed, their crops destroyed and their livestock devoured as human-wildlife conflict intensifies.

Similarly, the ban on rhino horn trade had not saved the endangered animal. Poaching of the rhino has not stopped, more than 40 years after the ban.

It costs more than money to conserve wildlife, and those that have destroyed their own ecosystems should not dictate terms to those, who, for centuries have managed to preserve theirs. Through totemic respect for animals as culturally defined, Africans have managed to preserve their wildlife heritage. Why should those with nothing, tell those with excess numbers what to do with their animals and stockpiles of their ivory, skins and horns? It is rather hypocritical and smacks of double standards.

Elephants suffer a worse fate in the West, and live like kings in the jungles of Africa, yet Africans are the ones to be punished. Why? The United States of America had no elephants, not even a single one, before 1796. The first elephant to be brought to the US was a two-year old female, from India, which arrived on April 13, 1796.

There are between 65 and 69 elephants owned by circuses and travelling shows, where they are kept in chains or cages for 96 percent of the time. The elephants can travel up to 100 consecutive hours in confined spaces. About 30 elephants are said to have died due to ill-treatment since 1992.

In the Hwange National Park, for example, where more than 50 000 elephants roam the wild unfettered, the carrying capacity is 40 0000. And Hwange National Park, which is 14 651 km2, is half the size of Belgium, and there is no single river. The park relies on borehole water. Borehole water, which should be pumped for 53 949 elephants, and other wild animals on a daily basis.

An elephant needs about 150kg of food, and 190 litres of water per day, translating to 8 092 350kg of food and 10 250 310 litres of water.

One can imagine the destruction that elephants can cause if they are to get in contact with human habitats. The Zimbabwe Government through Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (Zimparks) carry the burden of sustaining wildlife. And communities carry the same burden.

If communities are to love animals and carry the message of conservation to future generations; animals should begin to prove their worth to them. Already the law does not allow them to hunt without licences, which are way above their punching weight. Foreigners can afford to hunt for trophies, locals cannot afford to watch their livelihoods destroyed.

Now, as if banning trade in ivory were not enough, some quarters are even advocating for the burning of stockpiles in show of solidarity with conservation calls. Asking a community that has lost more than hope, to burn registered stockpiles of ivory to the tune of US$600 million is the worst form of terrorism.

Of the 183 nations or Parties to CITES, how many can really be said to be doing enough to preserve the African heritage epitomised by the African elephant? Can they claim to be doing it more than the Africans, who have demonstrated their commitment through numbers reflected on the ground?

Surely, asking to be allowed to sell stockpiles, legally acquired, and not appealing for approval to kill excess animals is humbling enough.

Natural resources are a people’s inheritance, and those that lay game rules should be sensitive to that. An inheritance should be beneficial and remain heritable as a territorial right, which is neither negotiable nor transferable, for it is a birth right.

Africa, therefore, should speak with one voice, and refuse to be kowtowed into setting ablaze a whole people’s birth right.