WILDLIFEDIRECT About Blogs Videos Press Contact

Tag Archive '717'

Jul 22 2008

Profile Image of baraza
baraza

Ignoring the evidence - guns, cash and ivory in Africa

Filed under Uncategorized

I am perplexed by the statements by WWF, TRAFFIC and CITES about China being in control of illegal trade in ivory, especially when the scientific head of IUCN stated that illegal trade in China was ‘out of control’. The Chinese authorities are apparently very convincing

China’s Foreign Ministry has disputed concerns that China cannot adequately police its trade in ivory“.

The facts speak otherwise. We know that illegal killings of elephants are on the increase in Africa. Here’s  part of an article from All Africa.com

“The slaughtering of fourteen elephants in May 2008, in the Virunga National Park, smuggled through Burundi and Congo is believed to produce, ivory destined for the Chinese black -market.

According to The UK Independent, in a two-week period, four elephants were killed by the FDLR militia, comprising members of the former Rwandan Interahamwe, five by the Congolese military, three by the local Mai-Mai militia, and two by villagers.

GA_googleFillSlot(”AllAfrica_Story_Inset”);

Emmanuel de Merode, director of Wildlife Direct, said that the elephants were the victims of international pressures.

“The upsurge in elephant killings in Virunga is part of a widespread slaughter across the Congo Basin and is being driven by developments on the international scene: the liberalization of the ivory trade, being pushed by South Africa, and the increased presence of Chinese operators on the ground, who feed a massive domestic demand for ivory in their home country,” he said.

It remains to be seen whether the CITES decision on China, will worsen elephant poaching in Africa, as widely thought, but whatever the case, the division between range countries in Africa over ivory trade might turn out to be the boon for elephants, in the struggle to conserve this endangered species.”

Well,  I am at a loss about how anyone can imagine that illegal killing of elephants can be controlled in countries like  Congo, Sudan and many other African countries where there is no rule of law and no penalties, but an abundance of automatic weapons as a result of the raging conflicts. Where do these guns come from? I would’nt be surprised if countries like China, Russia, India, UK, South Africa and USA come top of the lists…..

Sometimes I feel helpless, then I think “What changes would actually make a difference?”

Well,…if you could have three wishes, what would they be?

4 responses so far

Jul 22 2008

Profile Image of Maina
Maina

Illegal Wildlife Trade: China is bad, US is close

Filed under China, wildlife trade

This may not be news to you but I find it rather disturbing that the US has stayed up there in the list of leading centers for illegal wildlife trade despite the growth in the number of conservation conscious individuals.

An AFP report I stumbled upon in the ABC site (dated 10 June) quotes the US Assistant Secretary of State for Environment, Claudia McMurray, saying that China is the largest market for illegal wildlife products, but, disturbingly, the US comes second in the $10-Billion a year trade. So, first, we can confirm what we’ve always known: China is bad for wildlife. Second, it is time for you to carefully consider what you, as an individual, can do to help your country get a good name, and most important, save wildlife.

Perhaps this should help. The US market is not driven by deliberate and insensitive demand for wildlife products but by lack of information about which products are illegal. Most ”culprits” of the trade in US buy their products while traveling, online, or in shops in the US. Most of the time, they think the products are perfectly legal, which is not the case.

So why is the US staying up there with the bad boys? Yes, you guessed right. Traditional CHINESE medicine is gaining popularity in the US and nowadays it is not just being practiced by people of Asian origin. All sorts of people are administering and consuming this service. Americans are also into live exotic pets, which disturbs the equation further. But again, they believe it is legal.

US Special Envoy for wildlife trafficking issues, actress Bo Derek, is quoted saying, “It was very embarrassing for me to find out that the US is number two in consuming endangered wildlife,”

So what is your role as a caring and conscious American? Don’t leave the entire awareness creation process to your government - for they have launched a campaign to educate people on these issues. Go ahead and tell your neighbor that having a pet Iguana might actually be illegal. Tell them about the scale of illegal wildlife trade worldwide and help them form the graphic image of wildlife slaughter in Africa, Asia and South America to supply the market. Tell them about the wars fueled by the competition for the exctraction of these resources, and the women and children that suffer the consequences. That should convince them.

But who will educate China? Am sure there are many Chinese people who have resolved to change their countrymen’s perception about wildlife, and they are really working at it. Let us encourage them. Help them in any way you can. We cannot give up on China. Giving up on China, is giving up on wildlife.

Now, go do your country - and wildlife - some good.

14 responses so far

Jul 16 2008

Profile Image of baraza
baraza

Chinese caught smuggling ivory in Nairobi

Filed under China, Ivory, elephants

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”.

8 responses so far

Jul 16 2008

Profile Image of baraza
baraza

Sad day for elephants, China gets the Nod from CITES

Filed under China, Ivory, elephants

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.

7 responses so far

Jul 14 2008

Profile Image of baraza
baraza

China and Ivory News

Filed under China, Ivory, elephants

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.

5 responses so far

Jul 14 2008

Profile Image of baraza
baraza

Environmental Investigation Agency - how China lost ivory from 11,000 elephants!

Filed under China, Ivory, elephants

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.

One response so far

Jul 14 2008

Profile Image of baraza
baraza

IUCN science chief on China and Ivory trade

Filed under China, Ivory, elephants

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!

4 responses so far

Jul 13 2008

Profile Image of baraza
baraza

Illegal ivory trade rocks Botswana

Filed under Ivory, elephants

This was on the Sunday Standard

Illegal ivory network rocks Botswana
by REUBEN PITSE
13.07.2008 10:47:17 A

Botswana and South African police are investigating local elephant poachers believed to be linked to “international organized crime which run sophisticated trafficking networks.”
Detective superintendent Monthusi Ben of the Criminal Investigation Department confirmed this week that they are following leads that may lead to the arrest of a criminal syndicate that specializes in illegal ivory.

Information raised from other sources suggests that the syndicate, which operates from the Chobe area where the biggest population of Botswana elephants is found, maybe linked to international organized crime that runs sophisticated trafficking networks dealing in drugs, arms and other contraband.

Botswana Police and their South African counterparts mobilized the joint operation after it emerged that Botswana ivory is being smuggled into the South African black market from where it is believed to be shipped to China, United States of America and Japan.

“We have mounted joint investigation with our counterparts in South Africa where some of Botswana ivory has been confiscated by the South African Police Service,” Ben told the Sunday Standard.
He said they have not yet arrested anyone but have names of some locals who are believed to be part of the syndicate.

Ben further revealed that they are also investigating a related case in which a middle age woman was recently found in possession of 7 pieces of ivory. He said the woman will be charged after investigations are complete.

In a paper recently published in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Samuel Wasser, director of the University of Washington Center for Conservation Biology says that “compounding the problem, ivory smuggling has become increasingly the province of organized crime, with narcotics and other contraband often being shipped with the tusks. Ivory prices have skyrocketed, Wasser said, and the incentives for killing elephants for their tusks have never been higher”.

Wasser says that Chinese demand for ivory is driving the black market where the material sells for $750 per kilogram, up from $100 in 1989 and $200 in 2004. The high prices have attracted organized crime, which runs sophisticated trafficking networks.

Another report released last month by the conservation group, Care for the Wild International, revealed that the commercial trade in elephant ivory is thriving despite an international ban. The report finds that the U.S. is a major importer of ivory, second only to China.
From 1979 to 1989, about 600,000 African elephants were killed for their tusks, the report says, which is about half of the continent’s elephant population.

International trade in ivory was banned in 1989 by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) an international agreement that regulates trade in threatened and endangered species.
However, the report charges that the U.S. has failed to comply with CITES regulations and to enforce domestic laws, such as provisions of the Endangered Species Act, that regulate ivory import and export.

Earlier this year, an illegal shipment of ivory was nabbed in Japan on March 1. Japan is one of the top destinations for poached ivory.
The findings may complicate Botswana, South Africa and Namibia’s case in the next round of CITES slated for next week.

CITES last year approved that exports of 20 tons of elephant ivory from Botswana, Namibia (10 tons) and South Africa (30 tons) be granted the status of trading partner allowed to import the approved ivory.

The ivory exports were agreed in principle in 2002 but were made conditional on the establishment of up-to-date and comprehensive baseline data on elephant poaching and population levels (MIKE-Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants). Botswana has since adhered to MIKE.
The CITES Standing Committee (which oversees the implementation of CITES decisions between the major conferences) determined that this condition has been satisfied and that the exports may proceed.

“The CITES Secretariat will closely supervise these new exports and monitor future trends in elephant poaching and population levels throughout Africa. By basing future decisions on reliable field data, CITES can develop an approach to elephant ivory that benefits States relying on elephants for tourism as well as those seeking income from elephant products in order to finance wildlife conservation,” said the Secretary-General of the Convention, Willem Wijnstekers.

CITES banned the international commercial ivory trade in 1989. Then, in 1997, recognizing that some southern African elephant populations were healthy and well managed; it permitted Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to make a one-time sale of ivory to Japan totaling 50 tons. This sale took place in 1999 and amounted to some USD 5 million.
In 2004, requests by several Southern African States for annual ivory quotas were not accepted by the Conference of the Parties (CoP) to the Convention. Legal sales of ivory derive from existing stocks gathered from elephants that have died as a result of natural causes or problem-animal control.
Today the elephant populations of southern Africa are listed in Appendix II of the Convention (which allows trade through a permit system), while all other elephant populations are listed in Appendix I (which prohibits all imports for commercial purposes).

The Standing Committee also decided that Japan has established sufficiently strong domestic trade control systems to be granted the status of trading partner allowed to import the approved ivory. Recent reports revealing that Japan is a major destination for poached ivory is expected to complicate the CITES deal that the Asian country can buy Botswana, South Africa and Namibia’s ivory.

China, which has also been lobbying to be allowed to buy ivory, has also been caught out by reports that it is the biggest market for illegal ivory.
The director of Wild Life, Trevor Mmopelwa, who is leaving for next week’s CITES meeting, confirmed the investigation. He, however, would not discuss details saying this could jeopardize investigations.

3 responses so far

Jul 11 2008

Profile Image of baraza
baraza

Kenya Wildlife Service opinion about China

Filed under Ivory, elephants

Probably the Standing Committee country with the strongest views about China is Kenya. And with good reason too.

I have just spoken to Patrick Omondi there who is in charge of Elephants. He told me that the CITES Secretariat had moved to a vote on letting China recieve the ivory at the last Standing Committee meeting. They lost by one solitary vote!

It turns out that Cameroon didn’t vote. Cameroon is no longer on the SC, this time round its DRC that is worrying. The DRC often votes with it’s friends down south even though the country with the most at stake is DRC - we’ve already been hearing about an escalation of poaching on the Atamato and Gorilla blogs.

Germany is another country that used to be a friend of elephants but is likely to turn against them this time. On it’s own it’s not a big problem, but Germany currently heads the EU, and EU votes as a block. So, they are extremely dangerous because they visited China and actually influenced the SC position on Chinas ability to control illegal ivory trade.

We know that this is a load of crock!

Patrick didn’t sound very hopeful in our discussion. He revealed that just this March 350 kg of ivory was siezed en route to China from DRC! The CITES Secretariat is aware but is just being quiet about it. He said that the Kenya Wildlife Service is seriously worried about a vote going in favour of China because they believes that the presence of legal ivory in China will make it impossible to tell what’s legal and what’s not, making it virtually impossible to monitor the illegal trade as there will be more smuggling and laundering legal with illegal ivory.

The KWS prediction? If China wins the right to buy the southern African ivory, there will be an escalation of smuggling because of the enormous market for ivory in China, combined with the massive and growing Chinese presence in Africa - especially DRC, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Asked how we could help Patrick replied, lobby all European governments as they can influence the EU block even if they attend only as observers. Also, lobby the USA government as they wield a lot of power.

The main

3 responses so far

Jul 11 2008

Profile Image of baraza
baraza

Letter to members of Standing Committee on Ivory and China

Filed under Ivory, elephants

Friends, here is the letter that I just sent out to all members of the CITES Standing Committee (except China). I leave tonight for USA and will be in Chattanooga Tennessee until the 17th of July atending the Society for Conservation Biology Meeting. If any of you are in that city let me know, lets meet! Paula

July 09, 2008

Dear [name]

As the CEO of WildlifeDirect, and with prior experience in CITES and ivory issues, this letter is an appeal to you, as the only organ that can prevent China from being endorsed as a buyer of ivory, to vote against the proposal the proposal before you to endorse China as the recipient of ivory that is available for sale from four southern African countries.

As you may already be aware, the conservation community is alarmed at the endorsement already given by the CITES Secretariat, because there is significant data and evidence that shows China’s inability to control illegal trade in endangered species. Endorsing China at the 57th Standing Committee meeting will fly in the face of facts and will damage the credibility of CITES.

We are especially concerned that reports and recommendations from MIKE, ETIS and TRAFFIC, all financed by CITES, have not taken the advice of these agencies. According to the documents available on the CITES website (SC 57 doc 33.2), it is clear that the CITES Secretariat has made a decision to endorse China and this decision is based entirely upon impressions made during missions to China by members of the Secretariat. While Secretariat missions are useful, there is no question that the data gathered in these visits can replace or over rule the detailed scientific findings of the professional agencies listed above.

We acknowledge that all evidence points to better controls in China today than five and ten years ago. However, clearly the controls are not good enough yet and allowing China to receive ivory at this time will have serious repercussions on elephants especially in Africa.

We urge you to consider the findings and recommendations of these organizations, as well as those of Esmond Bradley-Martin who has conducted investigations in Asia, Europe and Africa.

The risk of making a mistake at this SC meeting is a precedent for allowing the CITES Secretariat to overrule it’s own agencies recommendations and therefore wasting donor funding, undermining the relevant CITES related research agencies like ETIS, MIKE and TRAFFIC and a significant increase in illegal trade in ivory and the poaching of elephants in Africa and Asia.

We hope that you will use your vote wisely, examine the evidence and listen to your conscience.

Yours Faithfully

Dr. Paula Kahumbu

CEO WildlifeDirect

Nairobi

Kenya

http://wildlifedirect.org

2 responses so far

Older Posts »