The Secretariat for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) has issued a cautious response to Namibia’s proposal to sell its government-owned ivory stockpiles, highlighting gaps in the plan and warning that precautionary measures may not be fully met.
At the upcoming CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP20) taking place later this year, Namibia is seeking approval to sell more than 44 000 kilograms of raw ivory from its government-held stockpiles. The ivory, made up of tusks and pieces, comes only from elephants that died naturally or were destroyed as problem animals.
Namibia has asked that this ivory be traded with international partners approved by CITES as having strong domestic laws and controls to ensure the ivory is not re-exported and is managed responsibly. The country also hopes to achieve full Appendix II status for its elephant population, which would allow regulated trade in elephant products, including ivory.
Namibia’s justification
Namibia argues that its elephant population is stable and growing, increasing from around 7 500 animals in 1995 to more than 25 600 in 2023. The population roams over a wide area of more than 100 000 square kilometres during the wet season, and government data suggests illegal killing is not a significant threat.
Instead, Namibia believes the absence of legal, regulated trade poses the greatest risk to elephants. It said that elephants will only be protected if local communities see them as a valuable asset. Revenue from ivory sales would be channelled into the Game Products Trust Fund, which supports conservation and community-based development programmes.
The government also noted in its proposal that keeping ivory in storage is expensive and difficult in Namibia’s dry climate. Past controlled ivory sales in 1999 and 2008 were tightly monitored, with proceeds directed to conservation. Namibia stresses that no elephants will be killed to supply the proposed trade.
Secretariat’s response
While recognising Namibia’s conservation record and healthy elephant numbers, the CITES Secretariat has raised several concerns about the proposal in its preliminary assessment.
The Secretariat noted that Namibia’s request is vague on key points. It said that Namibia does not specify whether the country seeks a one-time sale of ivory stockpiles or permission for ongoing trade. Nor does it explain in detail how future ivory sales would be managed, monitored, and enforced.
Another area of concern is the proposed system for verifying trading partners.
According to the assessment, Namibia suggests CITES would confirm that importing countries have strong laws and controls in place, but the proposal does not explain how such verification would be carried out or who would fund it.
Most importantly, the Secretariat warned that allowing legal ivory sales could increase the risk of poaching and smuggling.
It said that even if Namibia’s ivory is strictly controlled, the existence of legal trade could provide cover for illegal activity elsewhere.
Based on these uncertainties, the Secretariat concluded that Namibia’s proposal does not yet meet all the precautionary requirements set out under CITES rules.
It recommended that Namibia clarify its request, provide precise wording for changes to the current ivory trade rules, and explain exactly how trade would be regulated if approved.
At the upcoming CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP20) taking place later this year, Namibia is seeking approval to sell more than 44 000 kilograms of raw ivory from its government-held stockpiles. The ivory, made up of tusks and pieces, comes only from elephants that died naturally or were destroyed as problem animals.
Namibia has asked that this ivory be traded with international partners approved by CITES as having strong domestic laws and controls to ensure the ivory is not re-exported and is managed responsibly. The country also hopes to achieve full Appendix II status for its elephant population, which would allow regulated trade in elephant products, including ivory.
Namibia’s justification
Namibia argues that its elephant population is stable and growing, increasing from around 7 500 animals in 1995 to more than 25 600 in 2023. The population roams over a wide area of more than 100 000 square kilometres during the wet season, and government data suggests illegal killing is not a significant threat.
Instead, Namibia believes the absence of legal, regulated trade poses the greatest risk to elephants. It said that elephants will only be protected if local communities see them as a valuable asset. Revenue from ivory sales would be channelled into the Game Products Trust Fund, which supports conservation and community-based development programmes.
The government also noted in its proposal that keeping ivory in storage is expensive and difficult in Namibia’s dry climate. Past controlled ivory sales in 1999 and 2008 were tightly monitored, with proceeds directed to conservation. Namibia stresses that no elephants will be killed to supply the proposed trade.
Secretariat’s response
While recognising Namibia’s conservation record and healthy elephant numbers, the CITES Secretariat has raised several concerns about the proposal in its preliminary assessment.
The Secretariat noted that Namibia’s request is vague on key points. It said that Namibia does not specify whether the country seeks a one-time sale of ivory stockpiles or permission for ongoing trade. Nor does it explain in detail how future ivory sales would be managed, monitored, and enforced.
Another area of concern is the proposed system for verifying trading partners.
According to the assessment, Namibia suggests CITES would confirm that importing countries have strong laws and controls in place, but the proposal does not explain how such verification would be carried out or who would fund it.
Most importantly, the Secretariat warned that allowing legal ivory sales could increase the risk of poaching and smuggling.
It said that even if Namibia’s ivory is strictly controlled, the existence of legal trade could provide cover for illegal activity elsewhere.
Based on these uncertainties, the Secretariat concluded that Namibia’s proposal does not yet meet all the precautionary requirements set out under CITES rules.
It recommended that Namibia clarify its request, provide precise wording for changes to the current ivory trade rules, and explain exactly how trade would be regulated if approved.
