Every now and then, significant decisions in international politics catch the public eye. Recently, India refrained from casting a vote against a proposal to revive international trade in ivory at the ongoing assembly of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This development has ignited discussions about the controversial subject of ivory trade.
A Look at the Ivory Trade Dispute
The ivory trade was put on hold worldwide in 1989. This happened when all African elephant populations were listed in CITES Appendix I. However, some African elephants were later moved to Appendix II; Namibia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe’s elephants in 1997 and South Africa’s in 2000.
In a unique move, CITES permitted Namibia along with Zimbabwe, Botswana, and South Africa, to sell ivory stockpiles collected from naturally deceased elephants and from seizures of poached ivory in 1999 and 2008. However, proposals from Namibia and others to regularize such sales through delisting of their elephant populations from CITES Appendix II were rejected in the CoP17 (2016) and CoP18 (2019) meetings. Despite repeated rejections, these countries argue that their elephant populations have recovered enough to allow for such a relaxation in the rules. These countries also maintain that sales of accumulated ivory could potentially result in significant funds for conservation efforts.
Opponents of this idea stress on the fact that any kind of supply triggers demand. They underline the surge in elephant poaching globally, observed around the periods of permitted one-time sales in 1999 and 2008.
India’s Position on The Issue
India has consistently been an active opponent of the international ivory trade for the past three decades. It is noteworthy that this is the first instance India has abstained from voting against a proposal to reopen the ivory trade since it became a member of CITES in 1976.
Interestingly, there seems to be a quid pro quo at play here. In the same CoP19 meeting, Namibia voted against India’s proposal for sustainable commercial utilization of North Indian rosewood or Dalbergia sissoo – a proposal that was rejected eventually. While ivory wasn’t explicitly mentioned, there’s speculation that Namibia was seeking India’s support for its ivory trade proposition.
India’s Efforts to Prohibit Ivory Trade
Asian elephants were listed as endangered in the CITES Appendix I in 1975, which led to a ban on ivory exports from Asian countries. In 1986, India introduced an amendment to The Wild Life (Protection) Act,1972, effectively banning domestic ivory trade. Just after the global ban on ivory trade, India updated this law to prohibit the import of African ivory in 1991.
India’s commitment to the cause of elephant conservation and opposition to ivory trade is reflected in the iconic CITES logo – an elephant, which India had designed when New Delhi hosted the CoP3 meeting in 1981. Over the years, India’s stand has remained solid on the issue of ivory trade— opposing proposals to down-list elephant populations from Appendix I to II and voicing concerns over consequent repercussions for the Asian elephant population, particularly concerning poaching.
The UPSC Civil Services Examination Link
The UPSC Civil Services Examination often includes questions related to significant international conventions and organizations. A previous year question (2015) about the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and CITES is a case in point, underlining the relevance of these discussions for aspirants preparing for competitive examinations.
