Elephants of southern Africa must now "pay their way."

Delegates of 140 countries have agreed to allow three countries to resume limited trade in ivory and other elephant products. The decision to "downlist" the African elephant from Appendix I to Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) came in response to the proposals of Botswana, Zimbabwe, and Namibia, to permit those three countries to trade ivory under strictly controlled conditions.

Those three countries, unlike other countries farther north, demonstrated in their proposals that they have large, increasing elephant populations (80,000 in Botswana, over 60,000 in Zimbabwe, and 7,000 in Namibia), and that those populations were both outstripping the carrying capacity of their land and coming into growing conflict with their human populations. The proposals were made at the 10th "Conference of the Parties" to the Convention in Harare, Zimbabwe, in June.

Before they were accepted, the proposals were amended to provide protections against illegal trade and poaching in other countries that have smaller elephant populations, or where the elephants are still considered endangered. The agreement will allow no international trade in ivory until 18 months after the downlisting goes into effect. Thereafter, an experimental quota will be allocated for each country: 25.3 tons for Botswana, 20 tons for Zimbabwe, and 13.8 tons for Namibia. It will also allow limited export of sport hunting trophies and, from Zimbabwe only, a limited export of hides, leather goods, and ivory carvings.

The three countries will be able to trade only with Japan, and only provided that effective controls are in place. A standing committee of CITES can halt trade and immediately re-transfer downlisted populations to Appendix I if it finds that illegal hunting or trade has escalated as a result of the downlisting. A key condition of the agreement is that all revenue from the sale of ivory will be deposited in conservation trust funds, the proceeds from which are to be used for wildlife conservation and monitoring and for local community-based programs.

The decision climaxed a passionate global debate on the question of whether the trading of ivory should ever be permitted under any circumstances. An article in the May/June 1997 WORLD WATCH, "The Price of Habitat," summarized that debate, noting the arguments of the southern African countries that elephant populations arc no longer subject to the kinds of natural controls that stabilized them in the past, and that if allowed to rise unchecked they may eventually collapse (but only after overrunning both their own habitat and many human communities and farms), and would suffer more losses than if their populations were controlled through culling. (See letters in response to that article on page 5.)

The CITES delegates were persuaded by the southern African observations that a total ban on international trade in species has not stopped poaching, and that, in fact, it is community-based conservation and development programs such as the "CAMPFIRE" programs described in the WORLD WATCH article that have been found most effective at stopping poaching. Moreover, the downlisting will provide funding for the continuation of such programs. CAMPFIRE owns at least one-third of Zimbabwe's existing 33-ton ivory stock.