TK at it again
Innocent Selatlhwa | Thursday February 9, 2017 13:25
Just late last year, the Minister was hauled over the coals for taking unilateral decisions and meddling in the Botswana Tourism Organisation (BTO) matters.
In the latest salvo aimed at him, Khama has been accused of not consulting Parliament and the community when adopting a position at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP17) regarding the up-listing of Botswana elephants from Appendix II to Appendix I.
Chobe legislator, Machana Shamukuni had asked the Minister to state Botswana’s position and how other stakeholders in Botswana were involved or consulted in developing the stated position. He also wanted to know the number of neighbouring countries that shared Botswana’s position on the elephant issue.
In response, Khama said Botswana’s position was premised on the international and global threat on elephants for their ivory. “The current trend of elephant poaching and the corrupt tendencies accompanying the illegal killing and trafficking of ivory requires international cooperation for the protection of the species. We strongly believe that when the now inspired and more resourced criminal elements diminish elephants elsewhere, they will find their way into our presumed safer environments and attempt to take away this iconic species that is important to our tourism,” he said.
On consultations, Khama said even though his Ministry usually engages all relevant stakeholders in these matters, in this instance, the only possible option was to consult within the Botswana delegation that comprised Government officials, Non-Governmental Organisations, traditional and community representatives that attended the CoP17 meeting. He said it was so because they had to respond to situations that emerged during the discussions. “Therefore, the nature of the crisis engulfing the African elephant as discussed during the CoP17 dictated that we send a clear message to the unscrupulous gangs dissipating the elephant species that their hideous acts could not be tolerated,” he said.
On the question of the number of neighbouring countries sharing the position with Botswana, Khama said Angola was the only neighbour supporting the position alongside other 29 African elephant range states. “Botswana is conscious of her regional obligation and it should further be understood that countries could exercise their sovereign rights as and when they do not have same positions on certain matters,” he said.
Shamukuni would then contest the answer, stating that the Parliamentary committee responsible and the community were not consulted. In response Khama said: “The was no time to consult with the Parliamentary committee as we had to decide there with not much time, as for the community they were represented, and we all agreed, if they then backtracked on that, it is not my fault, I cannot take responsibility for their change of hearts,” he said.
Shamukuni later told Mmegi that he was met with fury when addressing Kgotla meetings recently. “The people told me they are against the move. I also am; we cannot move to Appendix 1 when we have elephants terrorising our people. It seems like the Minister unilaterally decided on this as even those who accompanied him told me that they were surprised to hear the Minister propose the move without consulting anyone,” he said.
Shamukuni said there is no way the people could have supported the move and that they will use any opportunity to stop the up-listing.
The CITES Appendices
Appendices I, II and III to the Convention are lists of species afforded different levels or types of protection from over-exploitation.
Appendix I lists species that are the most endangered among CITES-listed animals and plants. They are threatened with extinction and CITES prohibits international trade in specimens of these species except when the purpose of the import is not commercial, for instance for scientific research. In these exceptional cases, trade may take place provided it is authorised by the granting of both an import permit and an export permit (or re-export certificate). Article VII of the Convention provides for a number of exemptions to this general prohibition.
Appendix II lists species that are not necessarily now threatened with extinction but that may become so unless trade is closely controlled. It also includes so-called “look-alike species”, i.e. species whose specimens in trade look like those of species listed for conservation reasons. International trade in specimens of Appendix-II species may be authorised by the granting of an export permit or re-export certificate. No import permit is necessary for these species under CITES (although a permit is needed in some countries that have taken stricter measures than CITES requires). Permits or certificates should only be granted if the relevant authorities are satisfied that certain conditions are met, above all that trade will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild.
Appendix III is a list of species included at the request of a Party that already regulates trade in the species and that needs the cooperation of other countries to prevent unsustainable or illegal exploitation. International trade in specimens of species listed in this Appendix is allowed only on presentation of the appropriate permits or certificates.
Species may be added to or removed from Appendix I and II, or moved between them, only by the Conference of the Parties, either at its regular meetings or by postal procedures. But species may be added to or removed from Appendix III at any time and by any Party unilaterally (although the Conference of the Parties has recommended that changes be timed to coincide with amendments to Appendices I and II).
The names of species in the Appendices may be annotated to qualify the listing. For example, separate populations of a species may have different conservation needs and be included in different Appendices (e.g. the wolf populations included in Appendix I are only those of Bhutan, India, Nepal and Pakistan, whereas all others are included in Appendix II).
Such specifications can appear next to the species name or in the Interpretation section. For this reason, the Appendices should always be consulted alongside the Interpretation with which they are presented.
Parties may enter reservations with respect to any species listed in the Appendices in accordance with the provisions of Articles XV, XVI or XXIII of the Convention. (Additional information sourced from CITES website)