What a New Anti-Poaching Agreement Will Do to Protect Elephants

This week, key nations along the illegal ivory trade route met in Botswana and agreed to implement a host of new measures aimed at stemming the trade. But agreements to crack down on the ivory trade have been made before; the trade is illegal, after all. With around 22,000 African elephants killed last year, what does the new agreement offer?

The agreement made between 30 nations, including African host countries like Kenya, and Zambia; ivory trafficking hubs like Vietnam and Malaysia; and demand countries like China and Thailand, came at the first African Elephant Summit, which was touted by the IUCN, which hosted the meeting, as being "the first-ever meeting focusing on the dynamics of the entire ivory value chain."

That's important because comprehensive action is need if skyrocketing poaching rates can be slowed. (And it must be, at current rates, as much as 20 percent of African elephants could be killed in the next decade, after two-thirds of Africa's forest elephants were killed in the last one.) As the poaching trade now mirrors the drug war in many ways, localized action—even threatening to shoot poachers on sight—won't stop poachers and traders from expanding elsewhere.

But the international sale of ivory has already been banned since 1989, and at this year's CITES conference, countries involved in the wildlife trade already agreed to make progress or face sanctions. Yet poaching does not appear to be slowing. The new measure hopes to break the impasse with 14 urgent measures agreed upon by all the signatories. While some of them don't appear to be more than diplomatic fluff—Urgent Measure 11 says the countries agree to "develop and implement strategies to eliminate the illegal trade in ivory," which is kind of the whole point—but there are a few positive steps outlined in the agreement.

Zero tolerance approach

The first measure agreed upon is key: All parties will "secure and report on maximum, and therefore deterrent, sentences for wildlife crime using a combination of existing laws and strengthened regulatory frameworks." Hopefully, streamlined regulations can make authorities' job easier in making arrests. But considering the fact that even a big bust doesn't prevent elephants from being killed in the first place, the deterrent effect of stricter penalties—if there is one, which is a big "if"—may be of even bigger importance.

Make wildlife trafficking a national security issue

Measure 4 advocates for getting countries' national security officials involved in fighting the trade. This is a line the US has trumpeted as of late, and could be a key path to getting more resources for anti-trafficking efforts.

Improve monitoring and tracking of live elephants and ivory

Solid data is key to assessing the scope of the problem. Measure 5 calls for increased monitoring of the population levels of elephants, rates of poaching, and the scope of trafficking networks. Measure 14 is a big one: It calls for the "development of a network of accredited forensic laboratories able to determine the origin of seized ivory." It's crucial step towards figuring out where ivory is coming from and—considering that pre-ban ivory stockpiles are legal for trade in China, the world's largest market—ensuring that illegal ivory is indeed illegal.

Lock down ivory stockpiles

While the US's recent crushing of its ivory stockpile was largely symbolic, that symbolism is valuable: If every ivory stockpile worldwide were crushed, and the legal trade were quashed, it'd be a lot harder for any trader to launder illegal ivory. If officials knew on sight that ivory was illegal, it'd make enforcement easier. Measure 10 calls for registering and securing ivory stockpiles so there's less confusion over what is legal and not. It'd be better to ban legal ivory altogether.

Education and community support is crucial

Measures 11 and 12 both speak towards the most important aspect of quelling the wildlife trade: Convincing people that it's actually a destructive thing. That means "evidence-based campaigns for supply and demand reduction," as well as engaging "engage communities living with elephants as active partners in their conservation." We've seen such campaigns succeed with a commodity no one thought possible: shark fin, which has declined immensely in popularity, following years of campaigning against the finning industry. Similar efforts could make big headway in the wildlife industry.

@derektmead