CITES constraints on trade in ivory and elephant products are exerting a negative effect on Namibia's aspirations for conservation of elephant and, more generally, acting as a disincentive to the adoption of wildlife management as a primary form of land use. The listing of the Namibian elephant population on Appendix II of CITES is accompanied by an annotation which makes trade in ivory and other elephant products very difficult. The achievement of full market prices for elephant commodities is needed to realise the ultimate objectives of this management plan. For this reason, the removal of the particular constraints affecting Namibia should be tackled with renewed vigour by the Government at an early stage in the inception of the management plan.

In a sense, these constraints which go beyond the provisions of the original Articles of the treaty impose conditions beyond those which were in place at the time a Party acceded to the treaty. However, there is little that any individual Party can do about it if such 'annotations' are adopted by a majority vote. Under the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article XXIII, a Party may enter a reservation against an annotation such as that which affects trade in elephant specimens but such a reservation must be entered within 90 days of the listing of a species on Appendix I or II or the transfer of a species between Appendices - a procedure which was not followed after the Namibian elephant population was transferred to Appendix II in 1997. The proliferation of annotations which go beyond the provisions of the Articles is a clear indicator that the original Treaty is deficient.

This leaves Namibia with three options.

1. to accept the status quo.
2. to proceed with trade in elephant products disregarding the annotation.
3. to denounce the treaty.

The perspectives included in Namibia's submission to the 13th CITES meeting to amend the annotation affecting Namibian elephants (MET 2004) are extremely powerful. They provide cogent reasons why the constraints on trade are acting against conservation in Namibia. The presentation 'Elephants and People' which was distributed to all CITES Parties (Martin 2004b) reiterates Namibia's determination to oppose measures imposed externally which act detrimentally on local people and national development aspirations. Namibia should reject the first option.

If Namibia were able to find willing partners to trade in ivory and other elephant products and followed the procedures of Article IV for trade in specimens of species included in Appendix II, there is very little that the CITES Parties or the Secretariat could do about it. It requires only that an export permit is issued which meets the conditions that the Namibian Scientific Authority advises that the export will not be detrimental to the survival of the species and that the Namibian Management Authority is satisfied that the specimen was obtained in conformity with the laws of Namibia. There are no conditions for importing Party to satisfy. If Namibia were to pursue this option, there should be nothing clandestine about the action. In the end it will serve the same purpose as the last option.

Namibia has considered withdrawing from CITES. This is perhaps the most powerful way Namibia could express its frustrations with the treaty and, if it is accompanied by a strong statement from the highest political level, it should cause many CITES Parties to take notice. When a country denounces CITES because it believes the treaty is acting against conservation, it will attract world wide publicity.

It is unlikely that Namibia would be able to remain outside CITES for very long: there will be a succession of representatives from the most powerful nations of the world and the CITES Secretariat beating a path to the door of the Minister of the Environment. Pressures on Namibia will be considerable, ranging from intense cajolery to direct threats affecting the delivery of international assistance. International NGOs will inflame the global media to cast Namibia in the worst light possible and it will be essential that the Namibian authorities ensure that their arguments are consistent and watertight. The best strategy may be one of total surprise. A comprehensive statement should be released at the time the denunciation is submitted to the Depositary Government and the Namibian authorities should enter into a minimum of public debate following this.

When Namibia is forced to re-accede to the Treaty, it will do so under an enhanced status. Its proposals for amendments of annotations should find ready acceptance.