Baraza

Category: wildlife trade | Date: Oct 08 2008 | By: baraza

After going through the IUCN reports yesterday I was shocked to read Glaucia’s latest blog post from Brazil about 225 MORE baby parrots seized - this was in addition to the 400 parrots seized earlier. Parrots, are among the most intelligent birds. Their popularity stems mostly from their ability to mimic human voices. This site tries to match your needs with the characteristics of differn parrot types - criteria include ‘noise level”, “talking ability”, and “cuddliness”. According to the site, the Amazon  Blue fronted and it’s relatives all score high on these criteria - and all will live to at least 50 years of age (African Grey parrots go up to 60). They are popular because like dogs they bond with indivduals.

Because of these factors, and perhaps the declining sociability of people, the popularity of keeping parrots as pets is growing and as a result they are subjected to more exploitation than any other group of birds.  A study done in Tanzania a few years ago revealed that only 1 in 100 taken from the wild actually makes it to a pet store!

Why would anyone get into such business? Money of course. Amazon parrots sell for $600 while African Greys go for 900 according to this website . Even if the poacher in Africa only gets 1/100th of the price for each parrot, it’s worth it - afterall, most people survive on less than 1$ per day. I believe that it is these prices that drive the illegal trade.

While working for the KWS I discovered  that thousands of parrots are held illegally in Kenya - most are caught by children in neighbouring countries, transported by dealers and arrive over the borders quietly in bags and tubes. They are purchased and kept clandestinely by wealthy people, some get exported. Everyone knows it’s illegal so to avoid detection by the authorities many are kept in small cages in back rooms… resulting in serious maltreatment and are sometimes kept in deplorable conditions. Talking to the owners I realised that these were not bad people, they loved the parrots, they felt that they had ‘rescued’ the bird from certain death…..they didn’t  understand why they were being victimized. They had also bonded very strongly with these charismatic birds and considered them a member of the family.

If the person  left Kenya they could not take the parrot as it did not have ‘papers’ so they would leave it with a well wisher …and so the cycle continued.

When I met I met Jane Goodall she told me about her experiences with African Greys. She believes that they don’t just mimic, that they are intelligent enough to actually ‘talk’. She told me this story  which is apparently related in this book  “Of Parrots and People: The Sometimes Funny, Always Fascinating, and Often Catastrophic Collisions of Two Intelligent Species.”..in a review of the book in the Los Angeles Times state “Jane Goodall learned of one such New York parrot and scheduled a visit. In advance of her arrival, the “parront” (a parrot’s human “parent”) showed the parrot pictures of the primatologist with chimpanzees and explained her work. When Goodall arrived, the parrot looked at her and asked, “Got a chimp?”

Ie. they say things for a purpose. Dr Goodall is not alone in this thinking. Though there are many skeptics out there, I agree with the view that parrots are special and intelligent. This story of a lost parrot that told the police it’s name and address convinces me.

KWS rules were to conduct an all out seizure of all these thousands of illegal parrots but we knew that nobody had the means to look after them if they were seized. So we turned a blind eye.  After I met Jane I decided to take her advice and began planning to offer an amnesty to those who came clean - to enable parrot keepers to get papers which would allow them to take care of these special birds more openly, get veterinary support, and start a parrot owners association that would set standards, advise, and provide networks for parrot lovers, plus provide the much needed register of birds and owners to prevent them from returning into trade illegally. I also wanted to build a huge aviary so that any owners who wanted to let go of their parrot could do so and create an environment for the parrots to live in a flock.  Once big enough a flock could be returned to a suitable safe place in the wild.

My colleagues at the KWS however didn’t agree with me - they felt that an amnesty would drive further illegal trade further and lead to even more poaching. I could see that but if the only solution was to arrest and charge anyone with a parrot - the trade would remained underground and parrots would continue to suffer, and we’d never get information on the scale of the trade.

After I left the Wildlife Service the status quo remained.  I think about the parrots situation all the time and wonder whether the amnesty would have helped. I wonder what we should have done.

If you had the power to decide… what would you do?

Tags: African grey parrots, blue fronted parrot, illegal trade, Parrots

4 responses so far

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

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

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

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

Sky News says

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

While the Environment News Service says

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

And the BBC says

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

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

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

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

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

7 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.

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

One response 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.

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

3 responses so far