Baraza

According to IFAW Tanzania has reportedly withdrawn her proposal to sell her ivory – though this has not yet been confirmed by CITES, the news has been met with elation by conservationists in Kenya.

Joyce Poole of Elephant Voices an organization that monitors elephants in the Masai Mara ecosystem stated

“Elephants are under extreme threat from an ivory trade spiraling out of control. Inserting more ivory into the mix would send the wrong message to consumers, and further stimulate the illegal trade. I congratulate the Tanzanian authorities for the wise decision to withdraw their proposal”.

Tanzania had proposed to downlist her elephant population from Appendix I to Appendix II and sell 137 tons of ivory at the next years 16th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild Flora and Fauna, CITES, which takes place in March 2013 in Bangkok. This is the third time that has failed to win support for a similar proposals to sell ivory at CITES. Apart from a few southern African countries and China, Tanzania’s proposal received virtually no support locally and had been termed “ludicrous” by some conservation organizations like the Environemental Investigation Agency, EIA – the government had admitted that 30 elephants were being killed each day to poachers, and together with Kenya, Tanzania is a major player in the illicit ivory trade an issue that has been linked to corruption in the government.

The decision to withdraw the proposal comes after other positive statements including a commitment to step up anti-poaching, and after the Chinese embassy in Dar es Salaam stated commitment to working with Tanzanian authorities to combat poaching, and ivory trafficking. The Kenya government will be welcoming this news wholeheartedly.

Through expert submissions from the Kenya Wildlife Service, Kenya’s position has been fiercely against Tanzania’s proposal. Despite huge investment in anti poaching and enforcement poaching is rampant in Kenya as a result of the demand for ivory which has been whetted by the limited renewal of legal trade.

And, this decision does not alter Kenya commitment to extend a 9 year moratorium on ivory trade to all elephant range states. This would prevent any country from proposing to trade in ivory until after 2017. Most conservation organizations back Kenya’s proposal including Save the Elephants, WildlifeDirect, Elephant Voices, the Amboseli Elephant Project, Born Free Foundation, IFAW, and others many of whom will travel to Thailand to lobby for Kenya.

Elephant poaching in Kenya is out of control

For the first time in this dark period of elephant poaching, there is cause for hope. The Kenyan Minister for Forestry and Wildlife and the Director of the Kenya Wildlife Service have raised the alarm and renewed commitment to anti-poaching efforts. The US Secretary for State Hilary Clinton has raised the issue in congress, and the Tanzanian government has requested support from the USA improve park management.  While China is the main market for ivory, major markets also exist in other Asian countries like Thailand, Vietnam, and Malaysia. What we hope for now is for all of these countries to make a commitment by jointly denouncing illegal domestic ivory trade, and contributing to a fund that will enhance African elephant range states enforcement, investigations, and management of elephants.

Royal Malaysian Customs have just announced the seizure of 24 tons of ivory in Port Klang. This is the largest ever seizure of ivory in transit through the country, and is equal in size to all of the ivory seized in  2011 from Africa. The 1,500 pieces of ivory came from over 750 elephants were exported from Togo, a tiny west African country that has fewer than 200 elephants. The ivory was hidden in containers containing wooden crates that were built to look like stacks of sawn timber. The two crates were shipped from the port of Lomé in Togo, and was going to China via Algeria, Spain and Malaysia. Here are some reactions on text, twitter and facebook

“What the hell is going on?”

“Oh My God, this is Crazy! There must be some major crime ring in this. Chinese Mafia?”

“very sad”

“Folks, that’s 750 dead elephants right there! Completely atrocious.”

“When will these countries see the light? Money,money,Money thats all it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Disgusting”

While the rest of the world is in a state of shock at the scale of the seizure, Bonadventure Ebayi, CEO of the Lusaka Agreement Task Force the African Interpol for wildlife, says he is not surprised. Togo has virtually no law enforcement to speak of. It is a country through which timber from other central African countries is exported by both China and Malaysia. The ivory, he believes, came from several central African countries.

The size of this shipment reveals that it probably took months for the dealers to accumulate this volume of ivory and it was brought in on small boats plying the waters in this area. Togo is notorious for slack enforcement and is considered something of a free port with zero law enforcement.  The dealers of this ivory, clearly operated without any hindrance. They are probably a mafia like syndicate, took their time in packing the consignment, and the shipping route was not direct, but a rather lazy route via several other countries. Asked if there were officials involved Bonadventure laughed cynically “nothing would make a consignment of 1 ton, or even 500 kg of ivory through a port without corrupt practices”. He emphasizes that the smuggling of trophies is only possible through corrupt practices. The Togolese government seems not to care about the illegal trade going on at Lome and neither is it likely that the Malaysian or Chinese governments will do anything about this seizure.

Apart from one seizure of ivory in Singapore from several African countries which was returned to Kenya and later burned, none of seizures of African ivory in Asia have been returned to the country of origin. Investigations are not carried out, and there is no system of monitoring the specimens. At the end of the day this ivory will become “owned” by Malaysia.

The reason for this apparent lapse in investigations and monitoring of illegal ivory is money, or rather, lack of money. The law enforcement agencies of Africa are extremely poorly resourced in terms of man power, equipment and funds considering the work that they are expected to do.  The ivory syndicates are operating on mega budgets of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. African enforcement agencies which are expected to monitor all ports, and all wildlife, are cash strapped.

Moreover, there is a general lack of political will in the governments concerned. Many African countries wildlife agencies are dependent on support from the US Fish and Wildlife Agency, which is its self a national agency in USA, not an international agency. The US Fish and Wildlife Agency receives it’s funding from the US government. Why aren’t African governments financing their wildlife agencies adequately? International agencies and CITES agencies are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on monitoring elephants and writing reports for CITES conferences – their budgets often exceeding those of the government agencies. The reports often say that the problem is that law enforcement is lacking in Africa. It’s a tail chasing exercise. Hillary Clinton has raised concern in Congress about the scale of illegal trade of wildlife in Africa, but the silence from African leaders is deafening. Not one of them has echoed her call for addressing the problem.

AFrican governments have lamented for too long that there is inadequate funding for wildlife conservation, enforcement and security. We need to rethink our priorities in Africa and recognize the colossal economic loss due to criminal syndicates that are illegally exploiting our natural resources and national heritage.

To turn things around Africa must take responsibility.

1. Quantify the economic impact of illegal trade of African wildlife. It is estimated that only 10% of exported natural resources from Africa are legal! It’s not just elephants and rhino that are being illegally exported from Africa everyday. Many other mammals, insects, plants, reptiles and birds are also being illegally exported but nobody notices them because we are all looking at elephants and rhinos.  In fact, Africa is losing most of her natural wealth to criminals, and is hemorrhaging her heritage. Wildlife agencies tend to be positioned low on the economic ladder and are minimally resourced.  Moreover, the impact of poaching on nascent eco tourism outfits threatens investments and therefore jobs and revenues.

2: Reform law enforcement: Poaching and ivory dealing is not just a wildlife crime which is treated as a misdemeanor in most countries.  It is an economic crime that is deeply associated with corruption. Handling of wildlife crime cases as economic and organized crimes needs to be prioritized. This will take sentsitization of leaders, and bringing all the relevant agencies together nationally and internationally. And it will require a lot of money.  The criminally organized and militarized nature of elephant poaching and ivory trading in Africa, means that the syndicates are extremely well resourced. African governments must invest in raising these funds to reform the judiciary and educate the relevant agencies.

3: Create effective communication and collaboration between different security wings: It is generally known that the ivory and rhino horn trade is controlled by high level cartels who also deal in drugs, money laundering, human trafficking and gun smuggling.  The revenues generated are believed to be contributing to armed conflicts which threaten communities and significantly impact on tourism.  To deal with wildlife crime will mean collaborating with agencies involved in dealing with corruption arms  dealing, money laundering and other forms of organized crime.

4: Initiate effective monitoring: The impact of elephants poaching in Africa is very poorly documented and must be stepped up. In addition, investigations of the ivory seizures must be conducted, and ivory seizures must be monitored and national stockpiles across Africa and Asia audited to ensure that ivory does not escape into the illegal markets.

I asked Mr Ebayi what he thought of the recently announced Memorandum of understanding between Vietnam and South Africa. Would it make a difference for rhino, and should we pursue a similar arrangement with China on ivory. He wondered aloud what a piece of paper would achieve. “So long as the culture of consuming ivory and rhino horn are not addressed the demand will remain”.  He asked for proof that Vietnam was serious in the form of a government statement banning the use of rhino horn in country, and a significant contribution towards anti-poaching in South Africa. China will need to do the same for ivory if she expects her promises of support to be taken seriously.

Rhino’s are worth more than gold

The recent signing of a memorandum of understanding between Vietnam and South Africa stunned the world – it revealed Vietnam’s recognition of her role in the record poaching levels of rhino in South Africa.  It is estimated that Vietnam consumes 75% of the worlds rhino horns. It is true that rhino are once again facing extinction due to poaching for the horn and it’s not just Vietnam and South Africa or even rhino that are affected by the wave of poaching and illegal trade. Many species are threatened by Asian demand including elephants, to lions, rhino, chimpanzees, gorillas, snakes, turtles, sharks, pangolins and many other species. Indeed it is surprising that Vietnam was the first country to step up and take leadership in this crisis, after all, it is well known that China is the main market for illegal wildlife trade from Africa.

Horrific suffering and immense waste

Is it too much pressure from trade, or too little resistance against poaching in rhino range states?

Last weekend 4 rhino’s were shot dead in Lewa Conservancy, and another one was killed at Oserian Wildlife Sanctuary in a devastating weekend for Kenya.  Are rhino’s being massacred due to demand in Asia or is it failed enforcement in Africa? Much time has been wasted in debates about what is driving the poaching and attempts to enforce the provisions of the Convention on International trade in Endangered Species (CITES) have been fruitless. The convention made up of member states, tip toes around and behaves as if all are helpless against the giant, China. Once a powerful convention, CITES seems rather toothless nowadays and sanctions against countries that violate the provisions of the convention are rarely used.  CITES and even some scientists even argue that the science does not prove the links between legal trade in rhino horn in Asia and illegal trade, and they push responsibility to poor African countries which they blame for enabling the illegal trade by failing to curb corruption. We agree that corruption is a problem but lets be honest, if there was no demand for rhino horn, there would be no killing of rhino’s.

Think of it as pressure vs resistance. Imagine a dam wall under the pressure of rising water levels. If there was no pressure, the dam wall would not need to be heavily reinforced. However, under increasing pressure the wall will requires greater investment to resist. It becomes an arms race. But the wall can also be breached if someone chips away even the most highly reinforced dam wall.

if a dam has cracks, water pressure will eventually destroy it

Similarly, the pressure to poach rhino’s comes from demand for rhino horn in Asia. African countries have invested heavily in enforcement, but corruption reduces the effectiveness of the antipoaching and enforcement measures. We argue that it is in fact the demand for horn has led to such an increase in price that rhino horn now rivals gold and it is this demand and price which has created the opportunity for corruption and this in turn has led to the breeding of organized crime. The water in the dam is filling up at a dizzying pace, and though dam wall has been reinforced, in most countries there are busy people drilling holes into it and in some countries, the entire wall has collapsed and rhino’s have been poached to extinction.

We are losing the arms race to keep rhino’s safe

Black rhino’s (Diceros bicornis) were declared critically endangered in the 1980’s after they had suffered catastrophic declines reducing Africa’s rhino from 65,000 in 1972 to fewer than 2,500 by 1992. Kenya was hit particularly hard, her population of 20,000 black rhino crashed to fewer than 400 between 1970 and 1990. To reverse the trends, Kenya adopted an intense rhino program to rebuild the rhino populations. The strategy included the creation of a rhino program with massive investment in security and paramilitary training for a special rhino force, intelligence, enforcement, training, monitoring, and equipment, ring fencing all remaining populations of wild rhino, individually tagging each individual, and keeping a 24/7 vigil on every single rhino. Kenya is particularly key in rhino conservation because she holds 85% of the world’s population of the eastern black rhino, (D. b. michaeli ). Kenya is also home to a larger population of southern white rhino’s which were introduced after the northern whites went extinct. Last year, Kenya imported the last remaining 4 northern White rhino. The investment paid off and over the last 20 years, Kenya’s elephant populations have grown. The situation in South Africa has been critical and to protect her rhino’s, the South African Parks have taken an extreme position of engaging the army in anti-poaching in Kruger National Park which is particularly vulnerable.

Despite the investment and reinforcement of rhino anti-poaching, record numbers of rhino’s are being poached across Africa and Asia. This year the last Javan rhino in Vietnam was been poached and the species is now extinct. The West African black rhino has also been declared extinct, the Sumatran rhino is on the verge of extinction in Indonesia. South Africa has been losing more than 2 rhino per day to poachers for the last 18 months.

Is poaching driven by ancient tradition or recent rumours?

Like ivory, rhino horn has been used traditionally for millennia in the Middle and Far East. In the Yemen, rhino horns have been used for the handles of curved daggers called “jambiya,” which are given to muslim boys at the age of 12 as a relious sign of manhood. The daggers are extremely valuable and are often studded with jewels. Imports of rhino horn were banned into Yemen in 1982. Use of rhino horn in China dates to at least the 7th century AD where it is carved into ceremonial cups, and used for buttons, belt buckles, hair pins, and paperweights.

The most significant and rising use of rhino horn however is in the traditional medicine systems of many Asian countries, including Malaysia and South Korea, Vietnam, India and China. Legend has it that rhino horn has been used as an aphrodisiac, however this is not true. It is ground up and boiled to produce a cure for fever, gout, snakebites, hallucinations, typhoid, headaches, carbuncles, vomiting, food poisoning, and “devil possession” and other disorders.

But the reason for the sudden increase in rhino horn demand in recent years is a belief that it can cure cancer. Apparently a rumor began to circulate about 6 years ago that rhino horn had cured cancer in a Vietnamese politician. The rumor quickly spread by word of mouth, mobile phone and Internet. The value of horn rose so sharply that Vietnamese rhino’s were hunted to extinction, thieves began breaking into museums to steal rhino horn and Vietnamese “hunters” flooded South Africa where they paid for legal hunts in order to get the trophies. Poaching in South Africa rose dramatically with poachers using helicopters, dart guns and chainsaws to obtain horns. Illegal horns were laundered with legal permits to enable tens of horns to leave South Africa. Police now say that the poaching and dealing of rhino horn has become an organized crime involving global criminal syndicates.

All of this because of a rumour that rhino horn cures cancer! Rhino horn is basically hair and scientists have examined the properties to determine whether it really does have medicinal properties.  Comprised mainly of keratin, they also contain some calcium and melanin. In structure and composition they are similar to horses’ hooves, turtle beaks, and cockatoo bills. Scientists have found little evidence of any medicinal properties apart from in one experiment where high concentrations of rhino horn mildly reduced fever in rats.

The fact that science has proven that rhino horn has no medicinal properties against cancer has not helped rhinos. The price of rhino horn now exceeds gold, and collectors in China are now hoarding horns to increase their value as rhino numbers decline and availability of horns decreases. One rhino farmer in South Africa slaughtered his own herd to store the horns. The problem is exacerbated by the growing wealth in Asia which is driving demand and the advent of internet commerce, and presence of Asian investors in Africa makes trading in illegal products much easier than ever before.

Some economists are even suggesting that rhino horn trade should be legalized to manage and regulate the demand and supply. However, others argue that legal trade is virtually impossible to regulate, and others wonder if the primary use of horn is for medicine, and the horn has no medicinal properties what does this legal trade really achieve? Indeed one study has already shown that only trace amounts of rhino  horn are actually used in the medicines, and more than 70% of medications claiming to contain rhino horn have none at all, all instead have traces of buffalo horn and deer antler.

Vietnam has made a commitment, on it’s own it’s not enough. China must step in and take the lead for Asia

It is true that corruption in Africa is a major facilitator of illegal trade of any sort and African countries have an enormous challenge to end impunity if they are to save their spectacular heritage. However Asian countries also have a critical role to play. It is no secret that Asian economies are driving the unsustainable exploitation of African animals from great apes, to pangolins, lions, elephants, rhino’s, sharks, snakes, and many other species.  Top of the list of culprits is China who scientists claim consumes between 70 and 90% of ivory, rhino horn and other wildlife products from Africa.  It will take a new kind of courageous leadership in Asia to reverse the trend. Vietnam has led the way by signing an MOU with South Africa “to promote cooperation between the two countries in the field of biodiversity management, conservation and protection. Particularly aimed at curbing the scourge in rhino poaching, the MOU seeks to promote cooperation in law enforcement, compliance with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and other relevant legislation and Conventions on the basis of equality and mutual benefit.”

Conservationists are celebrating this collaboration but it won’t mean much unless China, Thailand, The Philippines and other Asian countries adopt similar leadership positions as part of their global responsibility.

Richard Leakey and WildlifeDirect seek to end the killing of rhino’s. Support our work by making a donation now to help us raise awareness, lobby our governments, and protect rhino’s . Thank You.

Despite an global ban on international trade in elephant ivory, elephants continue to be slaughtered in Africa and Asia, because the demand for trinkets and jewelry continues to grow, especially in the far east.  I had the pleasure of conducting an in-depth discussion with Esmond Martin on the findings of his recent research with his wife Chrysee Martins that reveals that mammoth ivory from Russia is filling that demand. Russia he reveals, sells about 60 tons of mammoth ivory to China every year.

Mammoth ivory for sale in China - credit Esmond Martin

Esmond Martin

Click here to listen to the podcast about mammoth ivory here

Not surprisingly, me and many other conservationists are alarmed that the replacement of elephant ivory with mammoth ivory could simply be stoking the demand for ivory and this could further escalate the killing of elephants to feed the illegal trade in ivory which is the major threat to the African and Asian survival. But some people say that mammoth ivory from long extinct elephant relatives is “guilt free ivory” and claim that even Michelle Obama wears it!

Is that Mammoth ivory?

To find out more listen to this podcast in which WildlifeDirects Paula Kahumbu interviews Esmond Martins about what he thinks this means for the remaining African and Asian elephants.

Mammoths were hunted to extinction thousands of years go

Lets hope that African and Asian elephants don’t go the way of their woolly relatives.

Another mammoth/elephant relative ...small tusks ...so safe

Please share this blog and podcast, and send us your comments!

For more interesting articles on this breaking story read these articles

1. Africa Geographic on Does Mammoth ivory make ethical ivory?
2. Mammoth Ivory Trade could Threaten Modern Elephants
3. Samuel Maina’s Theatre of Inconvenience blog Russia’s ‘Guilt-free’ Mammoth Ivory: How will it affect illegal elephant ivory trade?

Well CITES is over and the ivory trade has not reopened, but according to one new documentary Africa’s elephants are no safer. Last year we helped Aidan Hartley of UK’s Channel 4 in an investigative story on the ivory trade. It was not an easy task for him and his team to do the undercover work to reveal what is really happening on the ground and in African government offices. We are happy to announce that this multi part documentary called End of the Elephant. Part 1  aired on the 26th of March and Part 2 will air on Friday the 2nd of April on Unreported World on Channel 4 in UK. You can also watch this series online here UNREPORTED WORLD

The Tanzanian government clearly has done little to stem the illegal killings of elephants, to the disgust of tour operators and conservationists. Indeed  this was the main reason that Tanzania failed in her bid to sell off her ivory stockpiles at the just concluded CITES conference  in Doha.

The slaughter of Tanzania’s elephants has been an open secret for some time. Corruption in official offices and threats to tour operators who ‘speak’ have kept it out of the official news.

Who buys Tanzania’s ivory? Aiden discovered that Chinese in the country are the main buyers

“we met Salim and another dealer, Daudi, at a petrol station. They got in our car and Daudi produced a tusk that still had dried blood on it. I asked, ‘Do many mzungus [white people] buy these, or is it mainly the Chinese?’

‘All the time the Chinese come. Many, yes! Yes!’ exclaimed Daudi.”

According to the seller Salim, ivory is purchased by the Chinese and exported through the main airport after paying bribes. This ivory is fresh and still bloody and the sales and exports are happening openly everyday. Clearly the ivory is arriving in China without any problems on that end. Amazing considering that all the Chinese authorities would need to do is search the luggage of every person travelling from Tanzania t catch them. If they could track every tourist into China during the Swine flu epidemic, why can’t they do this? I believe it’s due to a total lack of political will on the part of the Chinese government.

But Aidan says it’s worse than mere negligence. His source, Daudi  revealed that  Chinese government officials travelling through Tanzania including Hu Jintao’s entourage use their diplomatic status and immunity to move ivory. To me this stinks much more than the sickly smell of 31,000 rotting maggot ridden elephant carcasses.

I hope that Aidans film End of the Elephant will wake up the Tanzanians, the world – especially the Chinese to do something about this state condoned corruption which is destroying Africa’s greatest mammal.

Note to Aidan - CONGRATULATIONS and we are really glad that we could help. From all of us at WildlifeDirect

East African battle on sale of ivory to take centre stage at Brussels forumBy WALTER MENYA, Daily Nation

January 18 2010 at 21:00

The silent wars involving Kenya and Rwanda on one side against their East African partner Tanzania over trade in ivory heads to Brussels from January 22.

Kenya and Mali will be co-chairing a six-day meeting that brings together 27 countries which are members of the Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species (Cites).

They will be aiming at forging a united front against Tanzania and Zambia’s proposal for permission for a one-off sale of ivory.

The meeting in Brussels comes less than two months before the 15th Cites Conference of the Parties (COP15) between March 13 and 25 in Doha, Qatar.

Kenya and Rwanda are accusing Tanzania of betraying the Cites and East African Community spirit of consultation before taking a major step like the one it has proposed. Kenya has also accused Uganda of sitting on the fence when issues of wildlife conservation come up for debate.

Tanzania and its Southern African Development Community (SADC) partner, Zambia, sent a proposal to the COP 15 secretariat on November 17, 2009 seeking “to transfer the population of the African elephant, Loxodonta africana, from Appendix I to Appendix II”.

Appendix I include species threatened with extinction. Trade in these species is permitted only in exceptional circumstances.

Appendix II, on the other hand, includes species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilisation incompatible with their survival.

In the proposal, Tanzania is seeking to be allowed to carry out a one-off sale of 90 tonnes of ivory from registered government-owned stocks originating in Tanzania, but excluding seized ivory and stocks of unknown origin, to trading partners that have been already designated by the Cites Standing Committee.

The committee has designated Japan and China because of their domestic trade controls that ensure the ivory is not re-exported. Zambia wants to sell 22 tonnes of its ivory stockpiles.

But Kenya has been joined by six other elephant range states, namely Rwanda, Congo, Ghana, Liberia, Mali and Sierra Leone, to oppose any such sale, arguing that it contravenes the spirit of COP14 that imposed a nine-year moratorium on ivory trade “from the time of the one-off sale by Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa”, says Mr Patrick Omondi, the senior assistant director and head of species at the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS).

Tanzania and Zambia exploited a loophole in the moratorium that appeared to bar only those who were allowed to conduct a second one-off sale of 108 tonnes of ivory to Japan and China in 2007.

The first experimental sale took place in 1997 during which Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa were allowed to dispose off 67 tonnes of ivory to Japan. Also, due to their population, Cites classifies South African elephants under Appendix II.

During 2007 meeting in The Hague, Kenya and Mali’s bid to impose a 20-year moratorium was defeated by the South’s great influence and eventually reduced to nine years with the insistence of the African Elephant Coalition.

The moratorium was meant to develop an African Elephant Action Plan before any proposal to downlist would be accepted. The plan included developing strategies for increasing population and dealing with trans-boundary concerns.

The countdown was to start once the 108 tonnes left the four countries, the resolution stated, and this only took place in November 2009. Thus, Tanzania and Zambia are asking for permission to sell their stockpiles before a year has elapsed.

Kenya has therefore accused the Cites secretariat of open bias for admitting the proposal against the 2007 resolution.

The seven countries responded by also depositing a counter proposal that seeks to extend the moratorium to 20 years.

Mr Willem Wijnstekers is the secretary general of the 175-member Cites, and he is answerable to the United Nations Environmental Programme.

Dismissed

The secretariat has dismissed studies relating legal sale and heightened rate of poaching despite evidence to the contrary. Studies have shown, for instance, that Kenya has seen an increase in poaching, with 47 elephants killed in 2007, 145 in 2008 and 220 in 2009.

Today, Kenya has 35,000 elephants, mainly due to the rigorous protection efforts which include daily helicopter patrols, a real-time communication centre and 24-hour ranger surveillance.

Elephant populations have also deteriorated in Senegal, which now has less than 10, while Liberia, Democratic Republic of Congo and Chad have less than 50 each.

Botswana leads in Africa with 110,000 elephants, followed by Zimbabwe (105,000), Tanzania (91,000), then Kenya.

Tanzania projects its elephant population to be 136,753 in 2006 up from 55,000 in 1989. However, Mr Omondi insists the figure has been exaggerated to convince the world to allow trade in ivory.

“Should Cites approve the sale of Tanzania’s stockpile, the floodgates will open and the African elephant in Tanzania faces a very uncertain future. Tourism will be affected,” states a presentation by Kenya.

Kenya and Tanzania share three national parks that are among the most inhabited by elephants consisting of Mkomazi and Tsavo, Kilimanjaro and Amboseli and Serengeti and Maasai Mara.

And since there is currently no technology to identify Kenyan elephant from a Tanzanian, KWS alleges the ivory listed for sale could actually belong to Kenya. Kenya is in the process of putting collars on its elephants for identification.

Article at the following link:
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/-/1056/845178/-/vpd592/-/
————————————

As the date of the CITES meeting in Doha draws near, Kenyan media is starting to get interested. On Saturday, Cynthia Vukets of Kenya’s NTV reported on the dangerous move Tanzania is making to have it’s elephants downlisted from Appendix I to Appendix II of the CITES Red List of Endangered Species thus allowing them to trade in their 89,848.74 kg of stockpiled ivory to Japan and China. This report, which aired in prime time TV slot (9pm news), also criticizes Zambia’s similar proposal for downlisting. The news item is now available on NTV’s You Tube channel and is embedded here.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/ihKj1MP3ttI " width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Listening to the broadcast, you learn that Sierra Leone lost its entire elephant population to poachers in one day, even though it only had 6 elephants. Six elephants are better than no elephants

Our prayer is that with increased media coverage and more public awareness throughout the world, Delegates to the 15th CITES Conference of Parties (CoP15) will  feel obliged to reject Tanzania and Zambia’s proposals for downlisting of their elephants and vote for a 20-year moratorium on trade in ivory as proposed by Kenya, Congo, Ghana, Liberia, Mali and Sierra Leone.

To understand the epic battle for the elephant that is coming up in 2 months, when African Elephant range states lock horns in Doha, Qatar, to contest for amendments to CITES Appendix I and Appendix II, one must understand what is in the proposals submitted by both sides of the ivory trade divide.

On the one hand is the anti-trade range states consisting of Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Mali and Sierra Leone. On the other hand, each with it’s own proposal is Zambia and Tanzania, who want to be allowed to sell their ivory stockpiles come the March 13-25 Doha   meeting – the 15th CITES  Conference of Parties (CoP15). Both sides have sent their proposals to the CITES secretariat and the secretariat has generously (or is it by requirement) posted the proposals on their website. The southern African states of Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia and kingpin South Africa are silent in this one. After all, they already sold their stockpiles.

The anti-trade block has renewed the Kenya/Mali proposal made in 2007 for a 20 year moratorium on the trade in ivory, including one-off sales. This moratorium in the language of the proposals is presented as an amendment to both apendices by including an annotation regarding ALL populations of Loxodonta africana, as follows:

“No further proposals concerning trade in African elephant ivory, including proposals to downlist elephant populations from Appendix I to Appendix II, shall be submitted to the Conference of the Parties for the period from CoP14 and ending twenty years from the date of the single sale of ivory that took place in November 2008. Following this twenty year resting period, any elephant proposals shall be dealt with in accordance with Decisions 14.77 and 14.78.”

This change should be accompanied by the deletion of two paragraphs from the last meetings resolutions. One on the elephants of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe that says:

“h) no further proposals to allow trade in elephant ivory from populations already in Appendix II shall be submitted to the Conference of the Parties for the period from CoP14 and ending nine years from the date of the single sale of ivory that is to take place in accordance with provisions in paragraphs g)i), g) ii), g) iii), g) vi) and g) vii). In addition such further proposals shall be dealt with in accordance with Decisions 14.77 and 14.78.”

and another one concerning the elephants of Namibia and Zimbabwe allowing

f) trade in individually marked and certified ekipas incorporated in finished jewellery for non-commercial purposes for Namibia and ivory carvings for non-commercial purposes for Zimbabwe;

Ekipas are traditional Namibian ivory carvings.

Tanzania which has the second largest population of eleohants in the continent (136,753) has proposed to be allowed to trade its ivory stockpiles by transfer of their elephant population from Appendix I to Appendix II  with an annotation that says:

“for the exclusive purpose of the following:
a)  trade in hunting trophies for non-commercial purposes;
b)  trade in registered raw ivory (whole tusks and pieces) subject to the following

They therefore directly ask for a one off sale of 89,848.74 kg of ivory from registered government-owned stocks, originating in Tanzania (excluding seized ivory and ivory of unknown origin) to registered buyers – which at the last CITES meeting included only Japan and China. They insist that they will not sell the ivory until the CITES Secretariat has verified the stocks and ‘assure’ the secretatriat that “the proceeds of the trade are used exclusively for elephant conservation, community conservation and development programmes within or adjacent to the elephant range in Tanzania”

Tanzania doesnt stop there. In addition to saying that they will not ask for more trade in the next 6 years after their proposed sale (which means they may ask at the end of that period), they also ask to be allowed to trade in raw hide and to sell live animals to “appropriate and acceptable destinations”.

Zambia on the other hand with a population of only 27,000 animals (population smaller than Kenya’s) wants more or less what Tanzania wants: its population moved from Appendix I to Appendix II so that they can trade in hunting trophies for non-commercial purposes, live animals, raw hides and trade in registered raw ivory. For the latter item, the Zambians propose a one-off sale of  21,692.23 kg as ivory from registered government-owned stocks, originating in the country.

So that is the long and short of it. Zambia and Tanzania clamoring for an opportunity to sell a total of 111,540.97 kg of ivory and the Kenya led block gunning for a 20 year moratorium.

We could be headed back to the ‘dark ages’ of African elephant poaching going by the recent spate of ivory seizures in the continent. Wildlife enthusiasts will remember the horrible days back in the 1980s when the Kenyan elephant population was brought down to its knees by the large scale poaching that was also affecting most of the range states for the African Elephant (Loxodonta africana). Those days may well be back.

A few days ago, the Kenya Wildlife Service seized a large cache of illegal ivory at Nairobi’s Jomo Kenyatta International Airport. Capital FM of Nairobi report in their website that “Police and Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) personnel on Wednesday seized 61 tusks of raw ivory weighing 532 Kilograms (1,172 pounds) at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA).”The large haul is believed to have been headed to Bangkok, Thailand, through Addis Abab, Ethiopia. KWS Director Julius Kipng’etich reports that:

“The unaccompanied luggage was to be air-freighted to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on the way to Bangkok, Thailand,” he said adding that the ivory had been falsely declared as “POLISHING BENCH” in the Airway Bill and was packed in four boxes.

As luck would have it, the KWS also received reports from Ethiopian Airlines that another larger consignment – 637 kg (1,404 pounds) – of similarly disguised ivory had been intercepted in the capital Addis Ababa two days earlier. “This consignment had also originated from JKIA destined to Bangkok via Addis Ababa by the same consignee,” said Kipng’etich.

The total of 1,169 kg (2,577 pounds) of ivory seized is suspected to be from Kenyan elephants, which would then prove that there is indeed a rise in elephant poaching. According to KWS data, this year, 145 elephants have been killed illegally. This compared to the 47 reported illegally killed elephants in the last two years, is indeed a cause for panic. The rise in number of illegally killed elephants is alarming!

The story of the tough times for elephants doesn’t end at the horn of Africa. On October 1, the same day that the KWS seized ivory in Nairobi, five suspects are reported to have been arraigned in a Harare, Zimbabwe court charged with possession of 30,8 kilograms of ivory worth more than $4 500 (American dollars, not Zimbabwean).

These outlaws had, withing their residence, a high caliber rifle used to kill elephants – .303! The Harare court remanded them out of custody, so they’ll be staying in their residence, probably shoot a few more elephants with another .303 rifle then go back to court on the appointed date for the hearing of the current case.

In Central Africa Republic, the French news agency, AFP, reports that “Police detained two major ivory traffickers in the Central African Republic as a part of a joint operation with animal rights activists”. So the cancer is spreading. According to the AFP, this is the first arrest of this kind in this central African state since they instituted a law against wildlife trade in some 30 years ago. This lot of thugs are said to have their own large stash of illegal ivory.

One of the suspects had 157 ivory objects weighing more than 200 kilogrammes (440 pounds). Unfortunately, these crooks will only get 1-year jail terms each should they be found guilty, which is a ridiculously soft punishment for someone who is probably responsible for the death of tens of elephants, if not hundreds.

Experts say some 38,000 African elephants are killed each year for their tusks. Most believe that the upsurge in poaching in recent months is due to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES) decision to allow the southern African states of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe(!) to sell their ivory stockpile to the highest bidder in China and Japan. It is believed this prompted a spike in the illegal market for ivory, which, needless to say, is responsible for the upsurge in poaching.

I personally blame CITES for the mess that is ivory poaching. It is difficult and expensive to trace the origin of ivory, especially after it has been worked. What logic did they use to agree to the one-off auction of ivory?

Unless the illegal trade in ivory is completely stumped out, nobody should sell an ounce (or a milligram) of this item. In my opinion, there should not be any ivory trade at all, whether it is properly controlled or not.

Besides, what do humans need ivory for? If humans truly needed ivory, then God (or evolution) would have equipped them with a fine long pair each.

Hello friends. This is another post from China which is a reflection of the cultural differences that really shocked and disturbed me. I had expected to be exposed to new things but I had no idea it would be this bizarre.

We first came across a caged cricket in our hostel. I tried to release by asking kindly to the staff – who gave me incredulous looks as if what I was proposing was sacrilege. Cruelty to a cricket does not resonate. The poor screaming creature gave me nightmares.

The friendly hostel staff told me that crickets are important in Chinese superstition, – they are thought to reflect intelligence and to bring good fortune.  In fact, if a person were to harm a cricket, it would bring great misfortune.

So how does holding a cricket in a tiny cage not equate to harm?

We found hundreds of caged crickets in the markets. These miniature cages are hand made from various materials wood and reeds.  The cages are tiny, measuring only about 3×4 inches.  The crickets sing or is it cry, all day and all night.

Cricket keeping in China dates back 2000 years. During the Tang Dynasty from 500 BC to 618 AD, crickets were captured and kept in cages so their songs could be heard all the time.  In the Song Dynasty from 960 to 1278 AD, “cricket fighting” began as an important sport. It was so popular that hundreds of people committed suicide because of a losing or injured cricket.

Crickets are also used to tell the time to start preparing the fields for the spring harvest.  This indicator of climate change is called Jing-Zhe, or “Walking of the Insects”.

It’s hard to believe that the cricket is so revered in China yet they are eaten and are kept in tiny cages. It’s like a noise cricket prison camp.

I doubt that cricket welfare is on the radar in China, there are much more serious animal welfare concerns that many have noted. In a future post I’ll tell you about food street in Wangfujing, also in Beijing where you can buy all manner of wildlife including endangered species like Tibetan antelope, silk worm chrysalis, cicadas, water beetles, centipedes, seahorses, star fish, sea urchins, scorpions, bee larvae and strange body parts of sheep.