Baraza

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 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 14 2008 | By: baraza

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Big problem’

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

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

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

Nice argument !

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

Really persuasive

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

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

:(:(:(:(

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share This

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

5 responses so far

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share This

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

One response so far

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

Greetings everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I nodded but my mind was screaming

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

What do you think? Am I over reacting here?

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

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

Share This

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

4 responses so far

Category: Ivory, elephants | Date: Jul 13 2008 | By: baraza

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.

Share This

Tags: Botswana, China, CITES, illegal trade, ivory trade

3 responses so far

Category: Ivory, elephants | Date: Jul 12 2008 | By: baraza

Why is there such a massive demand for ivory? Is this is the kind of crap that people want ivory for?

It just doesn’t make sense does it?

There are some very well through through recommendations developed by a group of NGO’s called the Species Survival Network on the decision before the CITES Standing Committee on the issue of allowing China to buy ivory.

You can get their full analysis on all issues under debate at the Standing Committee here

Share This

Tags: CITES

5 responses so far

Category: Ivory, elephants | Date: Jul 11 2008 | By: baraza

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

Share This

Tags: China, CITES, elephants, ivory trade

3 responses so far

Category: Ivory, elephants | Date: Jul 11 2008 | By: baraza

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

Share This

Tags: China, CITES, ETIS, ivory trade, MIKE, SCB, Standing Committee, TRAFFIC

2 responses so far

Category: Uncategorized | Date: May 14 2008 | By: admin

Greetings everyone. This morning I had to apply for my USA Visa - I had to wake up at 6 am to get to the visa center in time - 7 am. I got there early but there was already quite a crowd. After a body search and bag search I was allowed into the compound. Then I joined the queue, it started raining, luckily the path is covered, which wasn’t the case last year when I had to stand in the rain for an hour - you see if you miss your visa appointment its virtually impossible to get another one. The lady in front of me had an open basket and I could see a whole picnic in there! I teased her about it and she confirmed to me that she was anticipating a 4 hour wait in the queue! After an hour of slowly nudging forwards, I got to the window and then into a door - it’s like an obstacle course. There the search is repeated and my computer was wiped and tested chemically - to my horror the alarms went of in screeching bleeps. They tried another box of the wipes, same thing. They did something to the machine turned the machine and tried again. The alarms screamed. They started to look at me with great suspicion, ask questions, make phone calls, ‘had anyone else used my computer?’ they asked. No! The problem they said was that the machine was registering chemicals… I asked if they could be agricultural chemicals and they said ‘organophosphates” …bugger, I told them about the pot of Furadan on my desk which I bought and wrote about a few posts ago in our Stop Poisoning Wildlife campaign. I was told to step out of the building, and after a few more phone calls I was asked to take my computer away and come back without it!

Luckily my car was nearby so I dropped it off, returned to the queue and there was no further drama, I submitted my documents and had my fingerprints taken, two and a half hours later and 150$ poorer I was back in the sunshine. I have to return tomorrow to pick up the passport. It felt like the longest morning although it was nothing compared to my last visit where I was rained on, insulted by guards and stood in queues for many hours.

Actually, I’m not here to write and complain about the visa process (it’s truly miles better than last year) but to give you an update about the baby gorilla sales. Well, several people have tried calling and faxing, but nobody seems to be at the other end of that telephone number. However, Botha middle farm does exist and infact has a church and a school on it. I found several references to it on the interenet. It is in LImbe and very close to the Limbe sanctuary We have contacted the folks at Limbe as well as at LAGA the Last Great Ape Organization which is based in Cameroon. They are amazing and solve wildlife crimes by working with local authorities. They sent me this report.

“The first two arrests of the week were of leopard and Caracal skin dealers in the North of Cameroon. The third succeeded just today, of an internet dealer. He was arrested following a complaint from Malaysia and caught with a falsified CITES permit for sulcata tortoises. He admitted regularly carrying these illegal activities, falsifying CITES permits for several protected animals including chimps for more than a year. He stated that he has many collaborators around the world, including a Cameroonian based in China , that sends him contacts and “blank” CITES permits to “fill in”. As Sone’s work gets us more and more Internet trade and fraud arrests, our strategies are improved. I renew my call for more collaboration - please forward us any relevant complaints.

All 3 dealers are locked behind bars after blocking several attempts of obstruction of justice. A forth case of this week was initiated by the Ministry asking for our legal support.

I want to renew my appeal for financial assistance urgently needed in Congo . Our short mission in Congo can result in a sustainable impact if we use the momentum to set up a local structure. Project proposal is available for a structure that would be run by The Aspinall Foundation, financially audited by WCS and with technical support of LAGA.”

I told them about the baby gorilla and they promised to look into it.

I also invited them to start blogging with us as I’m sure they have one or two great stories to tell. I’ll keep you posted on developments.

In the meanwhile if you haven’t already done it, please take our online survey to help us with our strategic planning process. Just click here to start

Share This

Tags: CITES, enforcement, Gorillas, Great apes, illegal willdife trade, LAGA

2 responses so far