Why Can’t We Leave Cites?

“African Wildlife will not be protected through Western conservation approaches but through the involvement of local communities,” says Namibian conservationist Margaret Jacobsohn.

And rightly so, because who is better placed to decide how to manage and run this African wildlife than those who live with it daily and are exposed to potentially life-threatening animals?

How many countries have a better track record of a successful and sustainable conservation model than Namibia, a reality that should entitle Namibians to run, manage and trade their sustainably managed wildlife resources.

It is a conservation model that has become a global showcase, emulated by many countries. Yet, the irony is that countries with few wildlife resources are dictating to those that have managed to maintain or repopulate theirs.

Trading in our ivory, which was mostly obtained through legal means, will enable us to solve many of Namibia’s socio-economic challenges, especially those facing rural communities that are exposed to these wildlife species daily. The existing stock of 46 286kg of registered raw ivory that Namibia wants permission to trade comes from wildlife management operations and elephants that died of natural causes.

Keep in mind that many inhabitants in those areas have lost their livelihoods as a result of these successful conservation efforts, particularly in the arid Erongo and Kunene regions where fences are broken daily and subsistence farmers struggle to eke out a living.

Many subsistence farmers have lost their animals, including cattle and goats, because of this consistent damage to fences and water infrastructure which leaves livestock exposed to theft and predators and results in the loss of livelihoods for these communities.

Frequent damage to water infrastructure necessitates constant repair and maintenance, which creates a financial burden for the government and often leaves infrastructure broken for months or even years.

Again, it is not the armchair conservationists or the tourists who suffer the consequences but rather the impoverished Namibian men and women on the ground.

Similarly, in the north and northeastern regions where horticultural production is common, elephants destroy gardens and deprive people of their hard-earned income.

According to Namibian conservation scientists, the primary long-term threat to Namibia’s elephant population is not poaching but habitat loss, which leads to blocked migration routes and growing human-wildlife conflict in areas where there are no incentives to protect wildlife.

So, again, my question is: are Namibians not able to make their own decisions when it comes to their livelihoods?

Can there be a thorough explanation for the layperson to understand why we should not break away from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites) if its decisions do not benefit the ordinary Namibian, and why we should follow the ‘world order’ if others are able to break it left and right?

I believe Namibia, together with Angola, Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe – which make up the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area – joined by South Africa, have the power to withdraw from Cites to send a strong message.
These countries are home to more than two-thirds of the African elephant population of about 450 000.

Again, I ask: why can we not withdraw from Cites if those in the know are of the opinion that there is no conservation or scientific problem, or is it perhaps a political problem or some hidden benefit that we are unaware of?

– Irene !Hoaës is a former journalist.

In an age of information overload, Sunrise is The Namibian’s morning briefing, delivered at 6h00 from Monday to Friday. It offers a curated rundown of the most important stories from the past 24 hours – occasionally with a light, witty touch. It’s an essential way to stay informed. Subscribe and join our newsletter community.