Baraza

Category: Ivory, elephants, enforcement, poaching, wildlife trade | Date: Nov 18 2008 | By: Maina

A coordinated swoop on illegal ivory traders and poachers across 5 African countries yielded one ton of poached ivory and 57 illegal dealers this weekend. The swoop, coordinated by INTERPOL and involving more than 300 personnel from the Lusaka Agreement Task Force (LATF) local police, wildlife authorities and intelligence agencies in the 5 countries, is being described as the biggest crackdown on illegal wildlife trade in the world.

The operation - a result of 4 months of intensive intelligence work which started in June 2008 - was conducted in Kenya, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Uganda and Zambia. In Kenya alone, forces consisting of INTERPOL, the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), LATF, the National Security Intelligence Services and local police bagged 36 suspects and seized 113 pieces of ivory items weighing 358-kilograms. The Kenya Police and KWS are still tracking four suspects who slipped through the highly coordinated dragnet.

The huge Kenyan operation is summarized thus by the KWS:

A total of 10 KWS field units in areas most prone to illegal ivory trade and trafficking in Kenya participated in the operation. The Kenya Police, Lusaka Agreement Task force, National Security Intelligence Service, Customs Department, the Judiciary and the INTERPOL supported KWS. The operation was conducted in Nairobi, Amboseli, Tsavo East, Mombasa, Isiolo, Marsabit, Narok, Maralal, Nakuru and Aberdares.

The law enforcement agencies in all 5 countries had decided to synchronize the operation in each country so that any suspect who tried to cross borders would be sniffed out and stung at the airports or other crossing points. The approach seems to have worked.

According to the INTERPOL Secretary General Ronald K. Noble, Operation Baba is the first in a series of operations of this nature being planned worldwide.

“International co-operation is key to law enforcement today. With the ‘globalisation’ of criminal syndicates, people who abide by the law have no alternative than to confront those syndicates in the international arena,” said Mr. Noble. “This is where INTERPOL’s core function of operational police support services, which can facilitate co-operation between law enforcement agencies in multiple countries, proves its worth.”

I commend all the law enforcement agencies that were involved in this operation and all those who supported the operations either financially, tactically or otherwise. I think with more of these kind of operations in the future, we are finally headed somewhere in the fight against elephant poaching.

Quick Facts:
Operation Baba was so named in honor of Ranger Gilbert Baba, a Ghanaian ranger who was shot and killed by poachers in the line of duty some 10 years ago

The Lusaka Agreement Task Force was created in 1994 by governments in this region as a mechanism for regional co-operation to fight illegal trade in wild animals and plants.

Share This

Tags: elephant, INTERPOL, Ivory, KWS, Lusaka Agreement Task Force, poaching, wildlife trade

3 responses so far

Category: China, Ivory, Zimbabwe, elephants, wildlife trade | Date: Nov 10 2008 | By: Maina

Our fears that the one-off ivory auction by four southern Africa states to China and Japan was not going to end well may come true. Not that that is any cause for us to wear a smirk and say “we told you so”, but a time for us to ask CITES to open their eyes.

There are reports in a Zimbabwean newspaper saying that Robert Mugabe’s government - cash strapped and hungry for foreign exchange to pay for imports - is planning to have the Chinese government pay for the ivory with guns Mugabe’s people ordered just before this year’s Zimbabwean presidential run-off. Apparently, Mugabe was facing an imminent end to his three-decade grip on power and decided to buy guns to wage war against the opposition should he loose the elections. The best place to buy these guns was from China since they are not participating in the arms embargo by western nations on Zimbabwe.

The report, published in the Zim Daily, indicate that part of the $480,000 Zimbabwe raised when they auctioned 3.5 tons of ivory last week is earmarked as payment for a cache of military hardware set to be flown into the capital Harare soon. The reports also indicate that in the run up to the ivory auction, “substantial quantities of high caliber weapons” had disappeared from the armory of Zimbabwe’s department of parks and wildlife near State House, Harare. During the same period, 200 elephants are reported to have been killed in the Zambezi Valley bordering Zambia. The Zimbabwe government blames this carnage on foreign animal rights groups which “want to thwart Mugabe’s bid to have CITES relax its trade rules”.

These reports have put the “fear of Mugabe” in conservationists who are now worried that Zimbabwe’s claim of being protector of the elephant is just a sham. Official Zimbabwe reports indicate that the country has 70,000 elephants in the wild, but experts think this is just window dressing by the government to get CITES to approve their proposal to sell all their alleged 20 tons of ivory stockpiles. The head of the wildlife department, Brigadier Albert Kanunga, a retired army officer, had lobbied CITES to allow them to sell 10 tons of ivory but only 3.5 tons were approved.

It is alleged that the ivory auctioned by Zimbabwe was flown out of Harare Airport on Thursday 6 November. If, then, the ivory for guns scam is true, the Chinese will bring Mugabe the guns sooner than latter. Apparently, an earlier shipping of Chinese military equipment bound for Harare had been turned away in the South African port of Durban. That could be the reason why China will fly in the new cache of arms.

Eight years ago in July 2000, a Nairobi based German wildlife conservation organization, ECOTERRA had revealed that Mugabe had sold 8 tons of ivory to China in exchange for firearms. According to the report on BNet website, the ivory had been flown out of Zimbabwe through Libya.

With such a record, it would be feasible to believe that last weeks CITES-backed auction will indeed be used to pay for more guns and ammo some of which - given the mysterious disappearance of arms from the wildlife department’s armory and consequent upsurge of elephant poaching- could be used in “harvesting” more ivory for Mugabe’s government. Which then negates the CITES claim that one-off sales will help elephant protection by reducing the attractiveness of poaching and investing the funds into conservation.

Moreover, Zambian and Senegalese middlemen operating in Zimbabwe organize underground deals through the “close-knit Chinese community” in South Africa to service the high demand for illegal ivory in China. This would imply that even South Africa, the allegorical “Big Brother” of Africa, is not fully in control of the ivory situation. In as much as Big Brother may have a tab of it’s own ivory stockpiles, they cannot rule out being used as a conduit for illegal ivory from tattered Zimbabwe. In short, the entire African continent is not ready for these - in Dr Richard Leakey’s words - ill advised one-off auctions.

In the end, what will save the elephant, in my view, is not how cheap ivory becomes - a la CITES - but how well we convince ordinary Chinese, Japanese and other Asian communities that they can practice their cultural beliefs without Ivory. Remove the demand for ivory and let the elephant roam the sunny grasslands of Africa without fear - like they did for millennia gone by. Legally selling government-held stockpiles will not kill demand.

Share This

Tags: China, CITES, elephant, guns, Ivory, ivory auctions, Japan, Mugabe, poaching, richard leakey, wildlife trade, Zimbabwe

One response so far

Category: Ivory, elephants | Date: Nov 06 2008 | By: baraza

Mainstream media like Reuters are reporting good news that Cameroon court has just sentenced a poacher to five years in jail and fined him equivalent of several years of wages for killing eight elephants Local villagers informed the government officials and park guards who caught a young man, Job Akah, 33, with nine elephant tusks and eight tails, fire arms and ammunition in a remote village near the Korup National Park on Cameroons eastern border with Nigeria.

A heavy sentence was passed to deter others. Akah pleaded guilty and will serve his sentence, but something is nagging me. Has justice really been served or are we brushing something really important under the carpet here because it’s easy to do so?

My question is this.. Is Akah’s sentence really justice? Is he really the bad guy? Why would a 33 year old be risking five years of his life and all that money….there’s a slim chance that he’ll survive that ordeal. Even if he does, will he be reformed?

I have been so sad reading all the blog reactions to the story calling this poacher a scumbag, hoping he will rot in jail and that he should even be killed on Care2 website here.

It’s hard to see things from the outside for many people, but having met poachers, I can’t help feeling mad that things are so unfair when it comes to our justice system. Yes he is guilty of killing the elephants and he said so.  But think about it, there is almost no way that this guy was acting alone, the story does not give any other clues.

I for one need three simple answers.

1. Who really is driving the ivory trade in Cameroon? This poacher? Please!
2. Who gave him the guns and ammo? He’s a poor 33 year old….probably one of an army of poachers under someones employment.
3. Who ordered the ivory? Think about it, he is not going to make chopsticks and eat fried rice, he doesn’t need any trinkets, carvings or  ivory jewelry….who is ordering this stuff?

We should be asking who should really be on the docks, in shackles, paying fines, doing time,….not this guy, he’s seeking out a living in a poverty stricken country. Yes he’s wrong, but someone else will continue because we are not addressing the real issue here.

Ofir Drori, director of the Last Great Apes Organisation Cameroon (LAGA) is aware that the trade ivory has flourished in Cameroon in recent years due to the corruption and complicity of some local government officials. This article shows that the corruption is up to the level of the guy who dispenses justice, the police chief!

So, on a personal level I’m not celebrating Akah’s arrest and conviction, I’m weeping for him, because I suspect that those who were involved in arrested him and laying down his sentence, may know better who really should be paying the price for this crime. This system of justice works well for those in the end markets, dealers, traders… especially those from foreign countries.

The recent CITES decision to allow ivory trade auctions has as Richard Leakey says in his latest blog post, “done conservation a great disservice”. Once again ivory prices are rising, and consequently elephants in countries where enforcement is weak like Congo, Cameroon, Kenya and Zimbabwe are up for grabs.

I understand every ones anger every time an elephant dies but maybe I’m getting soft, but I don’t for a second believe that locking up Akah is not going to save a single elephant. I’d appreciate hearing other more balanced views on western blogs especially.

Well, those are my early morning angry thoughts on an issue that really touches a nerve with me..- what do you think about this conviction, has justice been served in this case?

Share This

Tags: Cameroon, CITES, Convictions, elephant killing, ivory trade, richard leakey

3 responses so far

Category: Ivory, Uncategorized | Date: Nov 03 2008 | By: baraza

Zimbabwe has just sold almost 4 tons of ivory for over $450,000 which they claim will go to the wildlife authority which is practically broke.

The auction of ivory that was sanctioned by CITES started in Botswana  on October 28. The United Nations’ Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites) allowed the countries to sell elephant ivory in a one-off trade.

As we’ve mentioned before, to everyones surprise China was approved in July this year as a buyer of legally stockpiled ivory in Zimbabwe, Botswana. Namibia and South Africa. China was approved even though many believe that they do not have adequate means to address illegal domestic ivory trade and to regulate legal trade effectively.

I was especially surprised to read this quote from Crawford Allan, director of TRAFFIC North America - the wildlife trade monitoring network earlier this year in July.

“Now that China has been approved, it has an opportunity to assist African countries, particularly in Central Africa, where elephant poaching and domestic trade goes unchecked, to improve law enforcement capacity, and support conservation programmes,”

It seems terribly premature to state this …even with the ivory sales money, Zimbabwe cannot put elephants protection measures into place at the moment.

Now that Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe have their dosh, it’s South Africa’s turn. They hope to raise R100-million this week, by selling 51 tons of elephant tusks, many of them from culled elephants. Namibia which has the lowest quality ivory (due to low humidity there) realized $150 per kg. If South Africa raises at least this amount per kg they will generate US $750,000 but it’s likely to be more.

Sounds like a lot of money for conservation until you recall that South Africa is not a poor country, with all those diamonds, coal and uranium etc this is small change. One cant help feeling that the glee on some faces is more to do to with winning an argument (that ivory should be sustainably used), rather than relief that a real problem has been solved. Nobody seems to be worried that these sales will put the burden of financing elephant protection in all other African elephant range states. Even if this money was given to other African states it would not make a difference, elephant ranges are notoriously difficult to protect especially when there is a thriving legal trade in a country like China that can bleach any ill gotten ivory.

It’s too late to cry now, but hopefully what these auctions will do is reignite the debate about the value of the ivory trade in this world to elephant conservation.  Is it just me or is there something insane about the lack of logic here. The fact is that the production of ivory trinkets threatens to decimate elephant populations in many parts of Africa and Asia. After spending more than 20 years working on this issue, I know I’ve got a very specific views. But I’m curious about what you think? Should we be legalizing ivory sales to generate funds to protect elephants?
Some people think that there is hope in the 9 year moratorium that will fall into place after the close of auctions. I recommend we all read  the small print, this moratorium is for these four countries only. I predict that Tanzania, Sudan, Congo, Zambia, Mozambie and possibly Angola will seek to sell their ivory stockpiles at the next CITES conference.

Moreover, I suspect that South Africa is likely to continue stockpiling ivory for future sales through it’s elephant culling program which was recently adopted through the new policy “norms and standards for elephant management” dealing with problem elephants in conservation areas.

Unlike elephants we humans seem to have short memories and have forgotten that we put a ban on ivory after we lost more than 80% of Africa’s elephants due to the ivory trade. The culprits were mainly in Japan and China – the same players are still in the game today.

Share This

Tags: Botswana, elephants, illegal killing of elephants, ivory trade, Namibia South Africa, Zimbabwe

3 responses so far

Category: Ivory, elephants | Date: Nov 01 2008 | By: baraza

Botswana auctions 44 tonnes of ivory

Agence France Presse

October 31, 2008

GABARONE (AFP) — Botswana auctioned 44 tonnes of ivory Friday to buyers from China to Japan at a luxurious resort, officials said, in a closed-door sale expected to rake in millions of dollars.

The auction is the second sale of elephant tusks this week approved by CITES, the international convention that governs trade in endangered species, after Namibia on Tuesday sold more than seven tonnes of ivory for 1.1 million dollars.

Botswana’s wildlife ministry conducted the invitation-only sale at the prestigious Phakalane Resort, but officials declined to give any details of the auction.

The ministry’s deputy permanent secretary Edmont Moabi said a statement would be issued later.

Based on the results of Namibia’s auction, Botswana was expected to earn several million dollars, which CITES requires the country to invest in elephant conservation programmes.

About 108 tonnes of tusks are going on the block around in four southern African countries, in a once-off sale to China and Japan approved by CITES in July.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) approved the auctions — the first in nearly a decade — to sell off tusks from government stocks only to buyers from China and Japan.

While elephant populations in many parts of Africa have been decimated by poaching, CITES says that herds in Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe are healthy.

The four countries are home to 312,000 elephants, and their stocks of tusks came from natural deaths or the culling of herds to keep the population under control.

Some conservationists have raised concerns that the sudden arrival of so much legal ivory on the market could make it easier for poachers to slip their ill-gotten wares past regulators.

Share This

Tags: auction, Botswana, China, CITES, ivory sales

No responses yet

Category: China, Ivory, Trade, elephants, wildlife trade | Date: Oct 28 2008 | By: Maina

Today, 28 October 2008, Namibia opened bidding for the 9 tonnes of ivory stockpiles it wants to auction in the controversial CITES backed one-off sale. The media has been shut out of this auction. According to a report appearing in the Namibian, a national paper, The Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) never made an official announcement about the international auction. Most people would wonder if the government is ashamed or it’s trying to hide something.

Tonnes of applications and requests by international and national media houses piled into the Ministry’s in boxes but nobody was going to bother. When asked on Monday, the Deputy Environment and Tourism Minister Leon Jooste told media representatives that “It is too late to change the Ministry’s strategy with regard to the ivory auction.”

Local and regional conservation NGOs will also not be let into the auction. A request by the southern Africa office of the International Association for Animal Welfare (IFAW) to be allowed observer status was curtly rejected some two weeks ago. “The [MET] official just flatly denied us the possibility,” Christina Pretorius, Programme Manager of IFAW Southern Africa, is quoted as having told The Namibian on Monday.

Botswana will sell it’s 44 tonnes on Friday 30 October while South Africa, with the largest sale of 51 tonnes, and ZIMBABWE, 4 tonnes, will follow suit on 2 and 5 November respectively. In total, a whooping 108 tonnes of ivory will enter the market. The effect of this massive influx of ivory in the Chinese and Japanese markets, according to most conservationists, will be a corresponding increase in poaching to affect the rest of Africa. Traffic, the trade monitoring body under CITES however maintains that there is no evidence to support these allegations. Whatever happened to taking precautions?

The southern Africa states participating in this one off sale of ivory stockpiles first approved - in principle - by CITES in 2002, made $ 5-million in the last one off sale some 9 years ago in 1999. This year, according to the BBC, they expect to make $ 30-million - quite an increase occasioned just by the entry of China into the fray. They say this money will go towards elephant conservation. Traffic says that the ivory will not leave China and Japan into other markets. The two governments have promised to ensure that that does not happen but that is another story. There is evidence - overwhelming evidence - that illegal ivory trade is still alive and far outsells the legal trade.

The wisdom of this sale is quite questionable. If elephants are still endangered in most African states, then there is no logic really to let the sale of ivory - with the potential of fanning poaching - to anyone. Inasmuch as the data that Traffic presented does not show any increase in illegal trade, the fact remains that illegal trade will not go away just because the stockpiles have been sold and $30-million is injected into conservation (and this - if the money does indeed end up in conservation - will be in states where elephant populations are already growing).

Moreover, reports from Zimbabwe indicate that a large percentage of the wildlife has been eaten by desperate country folk or hunted illegally by unscrupulous safari hunting companies as the country’s governance sunk into an abyss. How can anyone justify allowing Zimbabwe to sell ivory? Besides, who knows when South Africa, Namibia and Botswana would end up with a dysfunctional government resulting in massive poaching and - perhaps - eventual extinction of elephants?

The insertion that selling these stockpiles will help conservation is myopic. This sale will only keep demand for ivory alive. And when the southern states have no more ivory to sell, who will feed China’s growing hunger for ivory? Is it not the rest of Africa where elephants are not properly protected? Is it not poaching?

One Kevin C from Taipei commenting on the BBC article puts things rather candidly:

Sounds like It is also a very good idea to sell drug stockpiles in police office. It will reduce the market value and make it less profitable to smuggle and produce it underground.

You are always welcome to have your say. This is a matter that needs all your input. Tell us what you think.

Share This

Tags: auction, China, CITES, hunting, Ivory, ivory stockpiles, Japan, Namibia, poaching, southern Africa, wildlife trade, Zimbabwe

7 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: 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