Baraza

Category: elephants | Date: Oct 07 2008 | By: baraza

Elephants generally evoke strong reactions from anyone who has to deal with them. Long term studies on a number of populations of elephant have taught us so much about the species by Cynthia Moss, Katy Payne, Joyce Poole, Ian Douglas-Hamilton and others have revealed how they are similar to people in terms of their social structure, and how intelligent they are. This knowledge has contributed significantly to our ability to empathize with the individual animals. But does this help us manage elephants?

In Kenya elephants are sometimes killed by the authorities if they are deemed problem animals and a threat to people. Last month, one elephant was saved by cell phone technology. Dr. Iain Douglas-Hamilton of Save the elephants was able convince authorities not to kill a problem bull because it’s radiocollar data revealed that Mountain Bull was not a habitual crop raider. Mountain Bull’s leather collar carries a cellphone that text-messages his GPS location every hour. If the team sees him headed for the fields again some night, they can probably call the Kenya Wildlife Service to avert any dangers to local communities.

Further south a debate is currently raging in Namibia about whether to hunt elephants or not. Voice of America has raised the alarm about trophy hunting of desert elephants in Kunene and Conservationists are seeking support and funds to pay for the trophy hunting permit to save a single desert elephant. Ethics and Animals report that ten women from all around the world will trek 120 km through Damaraland to raise money for the purchase of the remaining trophy hunting permit. Conservationists accuse the Namibian Government of ignorance - they believe that the 6 hunting permits per year will decimate this small and rare population.

But Dr Kieth-Legget who has been studying the Kunene population of desert elephants for the last ten years says “My understanding of the new quotas is that 6 bulls will be shot in the Kunene Region (eastern and western sections) over a 2 year period. While the elephant population of the region is capable of sustaining this level of off-take at the present time, the question remains as to whether they are able to sustain this level of off-take in the longer term, and I suggest that they are probably not. However, the MET has stated that this is a one-off quota and, while this is always subject to political will, the quota will probably not be repeated for several years so the longer-term sustainability of such an off-take rate does not need to be considered at present.”

Elephants are native to Angola; Benin; Botswana; Burkina Faso; Cameroon; Central African Republic; Chad; Congo; Congo, The Democratic Republic of the; Côte d’Ivoire; Equatorial Guinea; Eritrea; Ethiopia; Gabon; Ghana; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Kenya; Liberia; Malawi; Mali; Mozambique; Namibia; Niger; Nigeria; Rwanda; Senegal; Sierra Leone; Somalia; South Africa; Sudan; Tanzania, United Republic of; Togo; Uganda; Zambia and Zimbabwe

They have been  have reintroduced into Swaziland.

Although elephant populations are stable or increasing in eastern and southern Africa, the trend is unknown in other regions and the IUCN says that overall there is insufficient information inform current trends at the continental level, it seems that elephant numbers have always been dictated by humans, as research reveals that elephants have gone through population booms and busts over the last few centuries. When populations increase they reach a threshold and then poaching escalates causing a population crash. The easy access to guns combined with habitat loss means that elephant populations cannot return to former ranges or densities and I fear that unless we can persuade governments to prioritise these spectacular animals, we will lose many more of our elephants and will one day end up with pockets of elephants in fenced enclosures. The increasing populations in Southern Africa have convinced some countries to support the exploitation of elephants for products like meat and ivory. By keeping the ivory trade alive however, we put vulnerable populations at risk, they could blink out. This has already happened in some places, elephants are extinct in Burundi; Gambia; Mauritania.

Despite what we know from the history of elephant exploitation, legal ivory trade has been re-opened which may be fueling the poaching of elephants in vulnerable locations like eastern DR Congo as reported on Gorilla.cd where there is evidence of increased elephant poaching in the Virunga National Park, and reports also suggest an increase in poaching and ivory seizures in Kenya, China and Zambia. Because many conservation agencies supported the decision for the reopening of ivory trade as a ‘pro development’ move, none of them seem willing to raise alarms again.

But it’s not just ivory trade, war and arms - it seems that the mix has just gotten deadlier with the influx of Chinese workers across Africa. In the first eight months of this year, 57 carcases have been found across Kenya with their tusks hacked out, 15 per cent more than the total for all of 2007. It  was the third annual increase in a row. This week the Telegraph reported what everyone has been thinking but too afraid to say … the carcasses seem to be eerily correlated with locations where Chinese workers are operating.  Since many Chinese firms in Africa are private and not state controlled, the Chinese government is unlikely to do anything about it. In the worlds of Ian Taylor “It is not China’s responsibility to “look out” for Africa’s interests”. He reminds us that “while China has an Africa policy, Africa does not have a China policy”.

Share This

Tags: China, elephant poaching, elephants, ivory trade

12 responses so far

Category: China, Ivory, Trade, elephants, wildlife trade | Date: Jul 30 2008 | By: Maina

In an earlier post, I reported that the US is second only to China in the size of the ivory blackmarket. Well, although most American buyers were said to be unaware of the legality of their ivory purchases, it turns out that there are glaring legal loopholes that traders are exploiting to fan the blackmarket.

Acclaimed wildlife trade investigators, Dr Esmond Bradley Martin and Daniel Stiles, spent several months in the US visiting 16 of America’s main towns and cities where ivory is sold between 2006 and 2007. Their report, Ivory Markets in the USA, has just been published. The report shows that even though the US is far ahead in its control of illegal ivory trade compared to Africa and Asia (US only comparable to Europe), its large population and vast buying power renders stringent control of ivory trade critical.

And there are controls. The US Endangered Species Act (ESA) and various other legislation conform with CITES stipulations but there is leeway that can be exploited. Antique worked ivory (at least 100 years old), for example, can legally be imported and sold (according to both CITES and US laws). This leaves the market wide open for fake antiques (fabricated using smoke, dyes and exposure to heat and acidity). Trophy tusks can also be imported legally from the southern African countries that allow hunting but the raw ivory cannot be used commercially. This opens shady alleys where ivory from anywhere can easily find its way into the market with fake documents of origin. The same law allows sale of trophy tusks imported before July 1975, when CITES came into force, which again makes it that much easier to sell all and any purported trophy.

Twenty-two states have integrated federal wildlife laws into state laws and there is generally good cooperation between state and federal agencies. When wildlife specimens originate outside the US, however, law enforcement agencies find it hard to deal with and ivory is no exception. “Once ivory enters the US, it can move free of inspection within the 50 states. Neither state nor federal agencies regularly inspect shops or antiques fairs for wildlife products.” say Martin and Stiles in an article published in Swara magazine.

In a country where 24,000 worked ivory items on sale in 657 outlets were recorded by this particular investigation, it is no wonder that the market should be second only to China’s statistics. Of the 16 cities investigated, New York had by far the most ivory for sale: a minimum of 11,376 ivory items in 124 outlets, which is almost 5 times higher than the second highest, San Fransisco Bay Area with 2,777 items in 49 outlets. Greater LA records a close 2,605 items although in more outlets (170) closing the top three. Ivory workers are however difficult to find since they mostly work from home and are widely scattered throughout the 50 state colossus.

Interestingly, most of the recent imports of ivory into the US came from China! Since the US has never conducted any census on ivory and maintains no stockpile, it is difficult to know how much ivory is out there.

Granted, the US authorities hold the record for the highest number of ivory seizures in the world. But they also seize large quantities of illegal drugs but that does not mean that they are winning the war on drugs. Illegal ivory, like these drugs, still gets in.

The problem is that although CITES resolutions have called for various actions to control ivory trade, the US has implemented none of them. Particularly, according to the article by Martin and Stiles in Swara magazine, the US should pay attention to these actions:
1) Prohibit the unregulated domestic sale of ivory. the owner of the ivory should prove lawful possession
2) Register or license all importers, wholesalers, and retailers dealing in ivory items
3) Establish nationwide procedure, especially in retail outlets, informing tourists and other non-nationals not to purchase ivory in cases where it is illegal for them to import it into their own home countries
4) Introduce recording and inspection procedures to enable government agencies to monitor the flow of ivory within the country

Share This

Tags: CITES, elephants, Ivory, US, wildlife trade

No responses yet

Category: Gorillas, elephants | Date: Jul 28 2008 | By: baraza

Many years ago I was called in my office at the Kenya Wildlife service and alerted to a truckload of elephants en-route to the airport. This sounded extremely suspicious and timely, we were preparing for the CITES conference in Nairobi and Kenya could not be be aiding in illegal trade of live elephants!

As I neared the roundabout there was a truck and coming out of it was a herd of elephants of all sizes, some were already all standing around on the grassy circle. Cars were moving at a snails pace as curious onlookers witnessed one of Kenya’s most renown artists, Kioko Mwitiki arranging a family of metal sculptured elephants.

Today the sight of this herd is one of the most memorable introductions to Kenya for visitors arriving at Nairobi’s Jomo Kenyatta International Airport.

One of the ele’s

From a distance, the elephants look real but they are actually are made from scraps of junk metal scrap and other discarded items.

My friendship with Kioko started I found out that his life as a mechanic in Nakuru was transformed when he started to play with the scrap and a blow torch, to create the animals he loved to watch. A passerby bought his creatures and he made more, and he thought it was a great business until one day he saw his works going for astronomical prices in a shop window in Nairobi. He gave up the mechanics job and started life as an artist there and then. I was hugely impressed that he spends hours observing the animals he makes in order to capture their unique stance or behaviors. We commissioned him to create a menagerie of animals for the banquet at the start of the CITES conference, giving our event an amazing atmosphere - we had porcupines, giraffes, bushbabies, warthogs, and all manner of curious birds.

Today Kioko is world famous and sells his works globally, but despite the fame he’s still the cute guy that I met so many years ago. He does interesting pieces for conservation like this life sized whale named Mfalme (King in Kiswahili) for which he designed the frame, and local community members built the body using flip flops that had washed up on the Indian Ocean beach - thus supporting another ‘recycling art’ venture and raising awareenss about the dangers of wastes in the sea.

Here’s Mfalme under construction. He’s now at Haller Park in Mombasa where I used to work.

I visited Kioko at his house a couple of weeks ago to see if I could rent a gorilla for our “Looking for Miza” book launch - His garden is his show room and I wasn’t surprised to see the usual masses of animals. But at the entrance, on the driveway, stood a life sized metal Gorilla! Perfect. But not available. Turns out he was preparing to take a troop of gorillas to San Diego Zoo in USA and was doing the final touches!

If you are anywhere near San Diego Zoo, look out for Kioko Mwitiki who will be there for an entire month or more promoting his work and their gorilla exhibit. Here’s their promotional blurb…

Kioko Mwitiki, a renowned metal sculptor from Kenya, breathes life into recycled metal. These unique metal animal designs have been exhibited across East Africa, Europe, and now the San Diego Zoo! Recognized as a pioneer, Kioko doesn’t use any new iron sheets for his artwork; instead, he uses what most of us would consider rusty recyclables, from food cans to vehicle parts. Visit Kioko at Sun Bear Forest July 7–September 2.

If you get a chance, write to us and let us know how the exhibit is!

Share This

Tags: African art, Kioko Mwitiki, metal Art, San Diego Zoo, wildlife

5 responses so far

Category: China, Ivory, elephants | Date: Jul 17 2008 | By: Maina

An AFP article reproduced in Yahoo! news reports that South African animal rights people are enraged by the decision to allow China to buy Ivory from Africa.

In a strong statement, the rights group said that the South African government “is already licking its lips at the prospect of this dishonorable and blood-soaked deal. We are also horrified that Britain and the EU supported this sale.” The group has accused their government of being “one of the main proponents for the continuation of the immoral ivory trade.”

This, my friends, is a good sign. If there are people in those countries that are seen to benefit from the ivory sale who are already up in arms against it, then those of us - in East, Central and Western Africa - who know that this deal, and the ensuing upsurge of poaching, will hurt us more, should also join in the foray. We should roll our sleeves, clench our fists and get ready to bruise someone. We should make so much noise as to make China’s trade in African ivory impossible.

We now know that CITES is not a pro-animal group but a pro-trade organization that has totally failed to protect our wildlife. The time has come for CITES to step aside. Anyone who endorses China on anything that concerns animals does not deserve life on this earth. For crying out loud, they have dog meat in their menus!

Part of the deal (which sailed through on a 9-3 vote) is for China to support anti-poaching and conservation activities in Africa. Can we honestly expect China to do this given its animal rights record? Who’s fooling who?

Anyway, Here is the link to the AFP story if you need to go read further about the sentiments of the South African rights people.

Share This

9 responses so far

Category: China, Ivory, elephants | Date: Jul 16 2008 | By: baraza

Within hours of China being approved as the legal traders for the southern African ivory, here’s the AP story about 3 Chinese nationals are caught smuggling ivory in Kenya!

NAIROBI (AFP) — Kenyan authorities on Wednesday detained three Chinese nationals at the country’s main airport on suspicion of smuggling ivory, an official said.

“The three Chinese nationals — two women and a man — were arrested at the airport in Nairobi while in possession of 2.2 kilogrammes (4.8 pounds) of ivory,” Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) spokesman Gichuki Kabukuru told AFP.

Oddly,  different press were told different things..AP say

The trio, who had stayed in Kenya for four days, were en route to the Zimbabwean capital Harare, he added.

While IOL say” The women were stopped at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport on Wednesday morning, said Kentice Tikomo, a spokesperson for the Kenyan Wildlife Service. They were booked on a flight to China, she said”.

Share This

Tags: China, CITES, ivory trade, Kenya

8 responses so far

Category: China, Ivory, elephants | Date: Jul 16 2008 | By: baraza

I’m still in Chattanooga in bed nursing a terrible cold. To make things worse, despite all our efforts the Standing Committee did the illogical thing and China will buy the ivory from southern Africa. Poor elephants.

I predict that the southern African countries will not get the prices they anticipate - last time this happened Japan bough the ivory in an auction that took place in Zimbabwe. The hope was to have bidding to drive up prices, but the bidders had another plan, they fixed prices through agreements and gave Africa very little. They hope that China will be ‘fairer’, it’s is a long shot.

I’m surprised at the statements I’m reading and hearing.

Sky News says

“The decision to approve China as an ivory buyer goes against recommendations from the African Elephant Coalition (AEC) meeting held in June in Mombasa, Kenya.”

While the Environment News Service says

The [ETIS] report finds that the five countries most heavily implicated in the illicit trade in ivory are Cameroon, China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria and Thailand. “All of these countries featured in previous ETIS analyses as countries of concern, but only China demonstrates significant progress in addressing illicit ivory trade issues,” the report states.

And the BBC says

“China has acted rather successfully against its own illegal domestic ivory market,” said Tom Milliken, a director for Traffic, the wildlife trade monitoring network.

“Now China should help other countries to do the same, especially in central Africa where elephant poaching is rampant.”

But Robbie Marsland, UK director for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), condemned the decision, saying it could prove disastrous for the world’s elephant populations.

I think Richard Leakey will make a comment on this, will keep you all updated.

Share This

Tags: Africa, China, conservation, elephants, illegal trade, Ivory, wildlifedirect

7 responses so far

Category: China, Ivory, elephants | Date: Jul 14 2008 | By: baraza

The Canadians received my letter and promised to ‘consider it’. That’s a start. I hope all your letters have gone out - I think it really makes people think when they get letters.

Here are some of the latest news stories which it seems all predict the worst

The Guardian says “A controversial decision to allow China to buy stockpiles of African elephant ivory looks set to go ahead this week after monitors from the group Traffic said the country had cracked down on its illegal domestic trade.

” China also has the recommendation of the Cites Secretariat which says that anti-smuggling initiatives by China, the largest blackmarket for illegal ivory, have been effective. Cites’s standing committee, meeting in Geneva, will decide if China’s controls on the illegal trade are stringent enough to prevent illegal ivory being laundered with stock from the sale or it being re-exported.

“In 2002, China was the principal driver of the illegal trade and made very few seizures,” said Tom Milliken, director of eastern and southern African operations for Traffic, which monitors the trade and advises Cites.

“Now it has been making seizures left, right and centre. They’ve added 100 seizures this year alone. On the domestic front China has moved aggressively.”

‘Big problem’

The increase in seizures in the past six years has been dramatic. According to the Elephant Trade Information System (Etis), the world’s largest database of elephant ivory seizures compiled by Traffic, China is now involved in around 63% of seizures. In 2002 the figure was 6%. Milliken said the contrast with some central African countries is stark: Nigeria has made 12 seizures in 20 years.

Milliken said that China was also cracking down on retailers and had developed systems of certification. “When we go back to stores we flagged up as having illegal ivory they aren’t selling it anymore or have been closed down. Product identification cards come with items legally sold and for items over a certain amount you get a photo ID.”

Dr Meng Xianlin, head of the Chinese delegation to the Cites meeting in Geneva, said China needed legal ivory to maintain ancient carving traditions. He accepted that Chinese demand for ivory presents a “big problem” for elephant conservation, but argues that “the stockpiles are a positive way to solve this problem.”

Nice argument !

He added: “There is high pressure to control the illegal trade and we have the mechanism to prohibit illegal ivory going into the legal channel.” However, he conceded “we cannot guarantee 100%” effectiveness.

Really persuasive

While those supporting approval of the sale believe that linking legal ivory supplies with China’s huge demand will reduce poaching and illegal trade, wildlife conservation groups say it still stimulates demand and will have the opposite effect.

“Milliken said the chances of a sale are high: “There’s real motivation for this sale. Last July a nine-year rest period after the sale was agreed by Cites so the southern African countries are keen to get this done. I think a sale will go ahead within months of this decision.”

:(:(:(:(

Meanwhile Michale McCarthey reporting in The Independent says what I’d like to say
If China’s application is approved, the resulting huge increase in the legal ivory trade will give the biggest possible shot in the arm to the enormous illicit trade which is supplied by poachers killing elephants across Africa – 23,000 a year at the most recent estimate.

With its own problems of poverty and disease, Africa has no money to enforce wildlife conservation, and the only way to stop mass-scale elephant poaching is by choking off demand for ivory. Many experienced conservationists – not to mention the 148 British MPs who have signed an early day motion in the Commons – feel that if China gets the go-ahead tomorrow, the African elephant will be getting a death sentence.

Chinese consumer demand for shark fins for soup is already driving down shark populations across the world. The demand from traditional Chinese medicine for tiger bones and other body parts is a principal reason for the collapse of tiger numbers in India, even in what are supposed to be protected areas. A report from Greenpeace in 2005 alleged that Chinese demand for tropical timber was already the biggest driver of rainforest destruction in Asia. And now this rapacious, remorseless and unending demand for natural resources is about to be unleashed on elephants.

The moment is all the more critical because it has come out of the blue – the world has not yet woken up to what is happening, and until the situation was disclosed on The Independent’s front page on Saturday, it had received virtually no publicity. The British Government appears to have been preparing to go along with China’s application to be an ivory buyer, hoping that, since it was happening in an obscure committee meeting in Geneva, no one would notice.

Even the Herald Tribune have a piece on China and ivory here Amazingly all these articles make it sound like Tom Milliken of TRAFFIC supports the sale of ivory to China but that’s not what I hear from his friends. So, why are the IUCN agencies saying one thing to the press and another to their colleagues? It feels like something very sinister is going on.

Daniel Cressey did a post about the China ivory debate in The Great Beyond which pointed me to this AP report that seriously raises doubts about China’s ability to control the illegl ivory trade.

It’s a great article - part of it is here

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — China’s government lost track of 121 tons of elephant ivory over a dozen years that probably was sold on illegal markets, according to a previously undisclosed Chinese report to U.N. regulatory officials.

The “shortfall” in ivory described in the document between 1991 and 2002 — equal to the tusks from about 11,000 dead elephants — could provide fodder for representatives of a U.N. accord to reject China’s attempt next week to gain permission to import more ivory.

“We have not been able to account for the shortfall through the sale of legal ivory by the selected selling sites in the country,” Chinese officials reported in 2003 to the Swiss-based U.N. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES. “This suggests a large amount of illegal sale of the ivory stockpile has taken place.”

The Associated Press obtained the Chinese report from the Environmental Investigation Agency, a watchdog group based in Washington and London. EIA also has compiled a briefing for nations that signed on to CITES to try to prevent China from gaining permission to trade ivory at a CITES meeting in Geneva, Switzerland next week.

Share This

Tags: Africa, China, CITES, elephants, ivory trade, wildlifedirect

5 responses so far

Category: China, Ivory, elephants | Date: Jul 14 2008 | By: baraza

There may be a light at the end of this dark tunnel folks.

The Environmental Investigation Agency has hard evidence on Chinas inability to manage their ivory stocks. Apparently ivory from 11,000 elephants got lost in China’s ivory black market.

As the country this week seeks legal elephant ivory trade status, EIA has revealed how 110 tonnes of ivory - equivalent to the tusks of 11,000 elephants – has gone missing from its government controlled ivory stockpiles.

The ivory’s embarrassing disappearance is revealed in a confidential, unpublished Chinese government document, obtained EIA.

EIA is releasing details of the document today on the eve of China’s attempt to win approval to resume international ivory trade from the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. (CITES).

I’m not going to ask how they got this confidential report, but I hope we will be soon celebrating a NO to China vote!

And, I hope that noChinese people reading this blog think that this is a China bashing blog, we are not anti-China we are anti-killing-of-elephants for ivory. Ivory trade in China is the biggest threat facing African elephants today and this vote could lead to a massive upsurge in illegal killings of elephants.

Share This

Tags: China, CITES, EIA, elephants, illegal trade, Ivory, ivory trade

One response so far

Category: China, Ivory, elephants | Date: Jul 14 2008 | By: baraza

Greetings everyone,

I’m in Chattanooga Tennessee attending the Society for Conservation Biology Meeting (SCB).

Today the plenary speaker was Jeffry McNeely, the IUCN chief scientist, and someone I and all scientists I know, have enormous respect for. In his stunning slide presentation he introduced us to Asia and China where the next SCB meeting will take place next year. He gave a wonderful overview of the region from prehistoric times to today, and raised issues about the great biodiversity in the region, an highlyighted the concerns.

In this post I’m going to focus on the trade issue that he raised since I’m preoccupied with ivory and china .. so Yes he did bring up illegal trade as a major concern for biodiversity. He said and I quote

“Wildlife Trade is a huge problem, most of it is illegal, most of it is not controlled by CITES, most of it is going to China”

So at the end I politely raised my hand thanked him for the great presentation, reminded him about the massive population, fantastic economic growth in China, and reminded him about his statement about illegal trade. I then asked how CITES, which was aware of yet was unable to control illegal trade to China, could endorse China as the sole buyer of the southern African ivory? And, if it goes through at the Standing Committee this week, what were his predictions?

He restated and emphasized that there is basically no control of wildlife trade and that the worst situation was across teh Chinese borders with Laos, Vientam and Myanmar (Burma) but he also said

“When China puts their mind to something they can do anything”.

He used the example of rhino horn trade and said that it had been stamped out. So, his conclusion was

“Maybe there will be a payoff, maybe they will negotiate and China will be allowed to trade on condition that they will have to reign in the illegal trade on these borders”

I nodded but my mind was screaming

“WHAT, WHERE THE HELL IS THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN ALL THIS? Shouldn’t they have proven this capability BEFORE they asked for permission to buy the ivory? Since when did CITES start operating on FAITH?”

What do you think? Am I over reacting here?

Is it true that China can do anything it puts it’s mind to? Will giving China ivory be a means to force the country to adopt proper illegal ivory trade controls?

I am going to go back to Jeffrey and continue the conversation so send me your questions and I’ll get them answered!

Share This

Tags: China, CITES, IUCN, ivory trade, Jeffrey McNeely

4 responses so far

Category: China, Ivory, elephants | Date: Jul 14 2008 | By: Maina

I followed the run-up to the CITES CoP14 which happened on in June last year at The Hague, Netherlands and even wrote an article in SWARA magazine of the East African Wild Life Society. Before this 14th Conference of Parties (CoP14), the Standing Committee had met (that weekend) and endorsed Japan as the buyer of a stockpile of about 60 tons of ivory from Botswana (20 tons of ivory), Namibia (10 tons) and South Africa (30 tons), after a report from the Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) Programme had given Japan a clean bill on Japan’s control of illegal ivory trade. MIKE had been researching Japan’s trade since 2002. It was in 2002 that CITES had passed a motion to allow the southern Africa states to sell their ivory stockpiles pending this MIKE report

I interviewed Mr Hadley Becha, the Deputy Director and Head of Conservation Programmes at EAWLS, who had attended the CoP14 as part of the NGO observers, and he told me that even though the nine-year moratorium on the sale of ivory was a win for anti-trade states, things would get worse. He told me that as the Standing Committee of CITES concluded their 55th meeting (SC55), just a day before the CoP14 started, China had asked to buy ivory stockpiles from Africa. Apparently, during this discussion, the tension that ensued was so high it could have morphed into a living, breathing monster. Luckily, China’s proposal was not granted. China was not given the green-light because they have a bad record when it comes to monitoring illegal ivory trade. It has been proven - time and again.

Now, the CITES Secretariat has ignored it’s own scientists and endorsed China. Why? Did China have something to do with this decision? What did China offer the Secretariat? Experts, like Dr Esmond Bradley-Martin, cannot believe that the Secretariat has endorsed China because they know China’s poor record.

Now, as has become customary in all CITES meetings, ivory trade is expected to dominate the proceedings in the upcoming 57th meeting of the Standing Committee (SC57). This time, though, the stakes are higher since ”big bad China” could get the go-ahead to purchase ivory stockpiles - unless, of course, the parties to the Standing Committee say NO! to China. The BBC have summarized their view of the expected showdown here, and Paula has written letters to CITES Authorities.

You can help by encouraging your leaders to send a strong NO! message against China’s trade in ivory before the SC57, you can sign the IFAW petition here, but by all means, lets STOP! China from trading in Ivory.

Share This

No responses yet