The international conservation community has taken an important step towards saving African elephants from mass slaughter by voting at a major congress to call on all governments to ban their domestic trade in ivory.

A resolution at the World Conservation Congress of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) was passed overwhelmingly by governments and NGOs on its last day on Saturday despite fierce opposition from a minority of countries led by Japan, South Africa and Namibia.Tusks end up smuggled by criminal organisations to Asia where they are carved and sold openly -- mostly in China, Vietnam and Hong Kong -- under the guise of legal ivory imported before a ban on international trade came into force in 1989.

Motion 007 was the last and most contentious of 105 resolutions voted on at the 10-day IUCN congress in Honolulu. Delegates cheered and applauded as some 20 amendments put forward by Namibia and Japan were defeated, and the text of the resolution was approved.

The resolution, sponsored on the government side by the United States and Gabon, aims to deprive illegal poachers of market demand for elephant ivory. Results of a recently released Great Elephant Census of 18 African countries showed that poachers are killing some 27,000 savanna elephants a year, resulting in an annual population decline of 8 percent.

Activists say an elephant is being shot for its ivory every 15 minutes. Tusks end up smuggled by criminal organisations to Asia where they are carved and sold openly — mostly in China, Vietnam and Hong Kong — under the guise of legal ivory imported before a ban on international trade came into force in 1989.

“It is fantastic this was approved,” commented Susan Lieberman of the Wildlife Conservation Society, an NGO co-sponsor of the motion. “It is a great victory for elephants. We are calling on governments to say it is over, it is done — no more domestic trade in ivory.”

The IUCN does not have legal authority to force governments to adopt policies, but as the most authoritative voice on conservation issues – grouping nearly 1,400 states, government agencies and NGOs – its policy decisions carry considerable weight.

Next stop for conservationists on this issue is the meeting of parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in Johannesburg on September 24. CITES banned the international trade in elephant ivory in 1989 but allowed two major auctions of ivory in the late 1990s and again in 2008. These sales led to a spike in poaching in Africa and resulted in CITES declaring a 10-year moratorium which expires in 2017.

Delegates in Honolulu said the IUCN policy decision would make it virtually impossible that the CITES conference would agree to South Africa or other nations being allowed to resume limited sales of ivory. A motion will also be put to CITES to call for a ban on the domestic trade in ivory.

Lieberman highlighted the push by most African states and civil society to ban domestic trade in ivory. Speakers at the IUCN congress calling for the ban included Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Benin, Congo, Senegal and Gabon.

“The loudest voices were African from the range countries who spoke out,” Lieberman noted.

But South Africa and Namibia argued that their elephant populations were growing because of their countries’ successful conservation efforts, funded in part by domestic sales of ivory. Both countries said they should not be penalised for the failings of others and that it would be a breach of their sovereignty to be ordered how to manage their wildlife.

Similarly Japan said it had strictly controlled its internal market and prevented the smuggling of ivory, and that efforts should focus on helping other countries achieve tougher regulation. A total ban on domestic trade also contradicted the concept of sustainable development championed by IUCN, Japanese Ministry of Environment official Naohisa Okuda told the Congress.

“Conservation and sustainable use should go hand in hand,” Okuda said.

NGOs however challenge Japan’s claims to have stopped the flow of illegal ivory across its borders. Activists also suspect that the opposition coalition between Japan and the two African nations concealed an intention by Tokyo to try to persuade CITES to allow Japan to buy ivory once more.

IUCN’s proposed ban will also encourage and support China to close its booming domestic trade in ivory where smugglers can earn over $1,000 a kilogram for tusks.

China and the US announced jointly a year ago their intention to ban ivory from their respective markets. The US went ahead – with limited exceptions such as ivory used in musical instruments – while China has not set a timetable.

Chinese government delegates did not speak during the debate over motion 007 but told activists privately that China welcomed the worldwide ban. NGOs are hopeful China will set a timeframe for its domestic ban by the end of this year.

The US urged all IUCN members to support the motion. “Legal markets mask illegal markets. To think otherwise masks the truth,” a State Department official told the plenary session.

At times the debate was heated. A speaker for Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, a South African provincial agency which funds much of its budget from business operations, denounced what she called the “pseudo-science theories” of “smart people” who wanted to tell South Africans how to manage their wildlife.

Safari Club International, a pro-hunting lobby group, said the proposed ban violated the sovereignty of nations.

One of the strongest statements in support of the ban came from Uganda, speaking on behalf of 29 states grouped in the African Elephant Coalition. “The people benefiting from ivory are criminals and terrorists,” said a Ugandan wildlife official, accusing the Lord’s Resistance Army which operates across four countries, of funding its operations through ivory. “I have buried 100 of my Rangers in this war,” he said.

Ivory crush at Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge on November 14, 2013. Credit: Robert Segin/USFWS

By Guy Dinmore
HONOLULU, Hawaii, Sep 8 2016 (IPS)

Japan and South Africa have ignited a furore at a major conservation congress by coming out against a proposed appeal to all governments to ban domestic trade in elephant ivory.

Elephants in Africa are being killed by poachers for their tusks at the rate of one every 15 minutes, according to the results of the recently released Great Elephant Census. A motion that would seek to halt the domestic trade in ivory was seen as one of the most significant and contentious to be voted by delegates at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Honolulu.

But Japan and South Africa expressed their opposition to such a ban on Wednesday when a contact group of government and NGO representatives attempted to hammer out an agreed text of a resolution sponsored by the United States and Gabon.

In a sign of the sensitivity over the motion, the media was expelled from the conference hall by the International Union for Conservation of Nature chair of the contact group. Negotiations continued into Wednesday night but the Japanese and South African delegations walked out of the talks after the session decided to stick with the original strong wording of the motion calling for a ban. A vote by the plenary session of the IUCN congress, which convenes every four years, is to be held on Friday.

Conservationists from NGOs pushing for the ban on domestic trade were livid at the attempts by Japan and South Africa, backed apparently at times by Namibia, to significantly water down the motion.

“This is atrocious,” commented Mike Chase, founder of Elephants Without Borders and the principal investigator for the Great Elephant Census carried out in 18 countries.

“Six elephants were killed while they were deliberating over one sentence,” said Chase of the first 90-minute session, checking his watch.

Susan Lieberman, vice president of international policy for Wildlife Conservation Society, a co-sponsor of the motion on behalf of NGOs, commented: “There is a crisis going on here. People are in denial over the crisis. What good is IUCN if we cannot do something strong on ivory?”

Japan and South Africa say they are just as much for saving Africa’s elephants as everyone else but that the right way forward is through regulated and tightly controlled domestic trade, not a ban.

“Regulating is fiddling while Rome burns,” commented Ms Lieberman.

Naohisa Okuda, director of the Biodiversity Policy Division of Japan’s environment ministry, said a ban was “not appropriate”.

“We have to stop all the illegal trade. It is not necessary to ban legally traded ivory,” he told this reporter, giving the example of ivory imported by Japan before the 1989 ban on international trade in ivory came into force. “The problem is identifying what is legal and what is illegal,” he added. He said the international community should find an effective control system for the trade of ivory, which could be used to benefit conservation of African elephants.

“The Japanese control system is very good and highly effective, as the IUCN recognises,” Okuda said. “Other countries should follow.” However some activists dispute this and question the amount of carved ivory artefacts produced in Japan.

South Africa argues that its elephant populations are stable or even growing and that culls are needed, with the proceeds from ivory sales going to conservation efforts. The government has also held one-off sales of ivory stocks, but activists say these sales have triggered a spike in raids by poachers.

Morgan Griffiths of the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa said that despite the sophisticated technology used in Kruger National Park, poachers were increasingly trying to infiltrate from Mozambique where they are driving the elephants to extinction. But South Africa’s conservation efforts are “totally stretched” protecting the endangered rhinoceros from poachers and Griffiths is among those urging the government to accept a ban on all domestic trade.

“One-off sales of ivory will trigger massive outbreaks of poaching,” he said.

Other African countries are calling for the ban on domestic trading of ivory, knowing that as much pressure as possible must be brought to bear on China and Vietnam, the main importers of illegal ivory, to stem demand.

The IUCN, whose voting members include some 1300 NGOs and governments, does not have the legal authority to impose bans on domestic trade. But such an appeal by the world’s most authoritative conservation organisation – if broadly supported — would carry considerable moral weight and put pressure on governments to act.

Motion 7 on ivory is among several contentious issues under debate at the IUCN Congress. Others include proposals to create “No Go” areas, such as indigenous peoples’ sacred sites, with stricter protection laws; to set up marine reserves for 30 percent of the world’s oceans; and policy guidelines for “biodiversity offsets” by industrial companies.

China is by far the biggest consumer of illegally smuggled ivory, much of it passing through Hong Kong and Vietnam. A year ago China and the US announced jointly that they would enact a ban on their respective domestic ivory trade. China has not given a timetable, however, and has remained silent during the debate in Honolulu. Hong Kong says it will ban its domestic trade by 2021.

“It is unconscionable that these animals are being killed for vanity and trinkets. To stop the trade in ivory we have to stop supply and the demand side,” said Tony Banbury, chief philanthropy officer of Vulcan Inc which was set up by billionaire philanthropist Paul Allen and funded the Great Elephant Census.

The Great Elephant Census, an aerial survey that took almost three years and tracked 350,000 square miles, showed that savanna elephant populations in 15 countries had declined by 30 percent – equal to some 144,000 elephants – between 2007 and 2014. The rate of decline is accelerating and is currently running at an annual 8 percent primarily due to poaching, meaning that some 27,000 elephants a year in those countries are being slaughtered for their ivory. Comparative data did not exist for three countries. The sharpest declines were seen in Tanzania and northern Mozambique.

Savanna elephant populations in 15 countries declined by an average of 30 percent – equal to some 144,000 elephants – between 2007 and 2014. Credit: Malini Shankar/IPS

By Guy Dinmore
HONOLULU, Hawaii, Sep 3 2016 (IPS)

A dramatic decline in Africa’s savanna elephant populations caused by poaching – as exposed by the results of a three-year aerial survey released this week – has piled pressure on reluctant governments to back proposals that would lead to bans on domestic trade in ivory.

The United States and Gabon, plus nine NGOs, are co-sponsoring a motion at the IUCN World Conservation Congress underway in Honolulu that would push all governments to extend an existing international ban on the ivory trade to their own domestic markets.“It is unconscionable that these animals are being killed for vanity and trinkets. To stop the trade in ivory we have to stop supply and the demand side.” -- Tony Banbury, Vulcan Inc’s chief philanthropy officer

But several rich nations, as well as some African countries, are opposed to the measure which could prove to be among the most hotly disputed of some 100 motions to be voted on by the 1,300 members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature who hold a congress every four years. A vote is scheduled to take place on Sep. 7, although it is possible that negotiators could first reach agreement on a revised text.

Susan Lieberman, vice president of international policy for Wildlife Conservation Society, a co-sponsor of the motion, told IPS she expected a close vote, but that the shocking results of the Great Elephant Census (GEC) could tip the balance.

“The GEC puts pressure on governments. It shows this is not the time to wring your hands but the time to take action,” she said.

Statistical analysis of the census findings showed that savanna elephant populations in 15 countries had declined by an average of 30 percent – equal to some 144,000 elephants – between 2007 and 2014.

The rate of decline accelerated in that period and is currently running at an annual 8 percent “primarily due to poaching”. Those figures indicate poachers are slaughtering some 27,000 elephants a year

The aerial survey, carried out by spotters in low-flying planes, spanned nearly 350,000 square miles in 18 countries. The data, after statistical analysis, came up with a count of 352,271 elephants. Comparative data only existed for 15 countries. The spotters also counted carcasses that helped compile estimates on the percentage of illegally killed elephants. Forest elephants, more difficult to spot by air, are to have a separate census.

The sharpest declines were seen in Tanzania and northern Mozambique, while some areas showed slight increases or a stable population, including South Africa and parts of Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi and Kenya. Relatively high carcass ratios in Uganda and the W-Arli-Pendjari conservation complex spanning Benin, Niger and Burkina Faso suggested that numbers there had been swelled by elephants moving in from surrounding areas.

Mike Chase, founder of Elephants without Borders, was the principal investigator for the census which was funded at a cost of 7 million dollars and by Vulcan Inc, created by Paul Allen, billionaire philanthropist and co-founder of Microsoft.

“Armed with this knowledge of dramatically declining elephant populations, we share a collective responsibility to take action and we must all work to ensure the preservation of this iconic species,” Allen said in a statement on Aug. 31 accompanying the release of the census at the start of the 10-day IUCN congress.

Tony Banbury, Vulcan Inc’s chief philanthropy officer, told a press conference on Sep. 2 that it was highly important that motion 007 seeking a ban on domestic trade was passed with broad support.

“It is unconscionable that these animals are being killed for vanity and trinkets,” he said. “To stop the trade in ivory we have to stop supply and the demand side.”

The U.S. has paved the way by imposing its own ban on domestic trade in ivory in June. China, the biggest consumer of illegally smuggled ivory, has pledged to stop its domestic trade. Its prohibition is not yet in force but the announcement had the effect of sharply reducing market prices.

However, according to James Deutsch, Vulcan Wildlife Conservation director, “many countries in the EU are sitting on the fence” over the issue. He mentioned the powerful lobbying of the fine arts and antiquities sectors, even though ivory more than 100 years old would be exempt, singling out the UK. France is among those backing the proposed ban.

A vote by IUCN members to stop domestic trade in ivory would not be legally binding. However, as noted by Lieberman of the Wildlife Conservation Society, such a move by the world’s leading conservation movement would in turn pile pressure on governments to back a similar resolution at the triennial meeting of CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, to be held in Johannesburg later this month.

There is debate over whether CITES, which regulates international trade in certain threatened animal species, can use its remit to ban domestic trade, but a vote to that effect would be seen as highly influential if not binding.

Lieberman said Japan was known to be against the motion at IUCN, as were Namibia and South Africa, while other African nations had appealed for help in imposing bans.

Brian Child, a South African professor at the University of Florida, interjected during Vulcan Inc’s press conference to protest that a ban on his country’s domestic and controlled trade of ivory would be a “breach of sovereignty” that penalised South Africa for what he said was its good husbandry of elephants.

Turning to Europe, Lieberman said Germany wanted the issue of the domestic ban raised not at IUCN but at CITES, while the position of the UK was unclear. The EU votes as a bloc at CITES but member states vote separately at the IUCN.

The UK had not even sent a representative to the IUCN congress, apparently as a result of confusion over funding following the referendum decision to quit the European Union, she added.

“It is inconsistent that the UK is not showing leadership on this,” Lieberman said. However, she added, Prince William, a patron of the Royal Foundation which puts conservation among its top priorities, was known to be against the domestic trade in ivory while the royal family had withdrawn its extensive collection of ivory objects from public display.

Elephants in a solar-powered holding pen in Malawi, which is carrying out a major translocation between conservation parks. Credit: Charles Mkoka/IPS

By Charles Mkoka
LILONGWE, Jul 20 2016 (IPS)

One of the world’s largest and most significant elephant translocations kicked off earlier this month within Liwonde National Park in southern Malawi.

Patricio Ndadzela, Malawi country director of African Parks, a non-profit conservation group based in South Africa that is leading the relocation, told IPS that so far, 10 bulls and 144 family groups of elephants have been successfully captured from the park and transported 300 kilometers by truck to their new home in the Nkhotakota Wildlife Reserve in central Malawi.

A few decades ago, around 1,500 elephants roamed Malawi’s biggest wildlife reserve, but now only a few herds totaling about 100 remain. The park is poised to be revitalised and serve as a critical elephant sanctuary for populations nationwide.

Nkhotakota Wildlife Reserve covers 1,800 square kms of Miombo woodlands and afro-montane forest along Chipata Mountain on the border with Ntchisi district. The relocation, which began on July 3, involves tranquilising the elephants by dart from a helicopter and loading them by crane onto trucks for the journey to Nkhotakota."It's a story of hope and survival. It is a story of possibility." -- Peter Fearnhead, CEO of African Parks

The World Wildlife Federation notes that elephants remain under severe threat from ivory poaching, habitat loss, and human-wildlife conflict. Since 1979, African elephants have lost over half of their natural range. Less than 20 percent of African elephant habitat is currently under formal protection.

Local engagement for a balanced ecosystem

But Malawi is setting an example for the rest of the continent in how to protect elephants with the full consent and assistance of local communities. Before embarking on this major translocation exercise, African Parks engaged peripheral communities after taking over the reserve in July last year from government. Zonal area committees were established at the traditional authority level. These are chiefs of jurisdiction in the four districts that border the reserve. The districts are Nkhota Kota, Mzimba, Ntchisi and Kasungu.

“We have had a good working partnership with African Parks, together with the local people. They are managing the reserve for 25 years.  So far a number of activities have been done in consultations with the local people,” says Malijani Kachombo, the Traditional Authority Mphonde in Nkhota Kota district.

“They then brought the issue of restocking endangered species so that we have a more balanced ecosystem. This promise that they made has now been fulfilled today. The translocation of 500 elephants is no more a promise but reality.”

The animals will be well secured now as a new fence is already under construction and communities have been given ownership of the reserve, said the chief.

Other animals were also relocated, including 23 zebras, 25 elands, 220 waterbuck, 284 impalas, 32 warthogs, 99 kudu, 200 sables and two collared black rhinos.

A special landing site

As part of their integration into the reserve, a special landing site for the animals was chosen that provided for basic needs. According to Samuel Kamoto, African Parks Manager for Nkhotakota Wildlife Reserve, the site was identified after confirming that it had adequate water, shelter and food for the animals.

More importantly, they considered the proximity of the landing site’s accessibility to the road, since the heavy trucks carrying the animals need to align the doors with the entrance of the holding pen.

“Elephants started arriving last night and we let them inside the holding pen so that they can rest and regroup as social beings and families. This enables the animals to settle down first other than just letting them out, which confuses them,” Kamoto told IPS.

Senior Lecturer in Ecology and Wildlife at Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, John Kazembe, said that the move was a good option considering the fact that Liwonde National Park was relatively small. Overcrowding of elephant populations in Liwonde had led to the animals devouring large areas of vegetation and coming into conflict with local people.

“Elephant herds should be moved into the reserve at intervals so that the ecosystem is not overwhelmed by a one-off relocation,” Kazembe said.

Peter Fearnhead, Chief Executive Officer of African Parks, said “Most stories we hear about elephants in Africa are doom and gloom. This translocation of 500 elephants, which is a pivotal moment for Malawi who is emerging as a leader in African elephant conservation, is a story of hope and survival. It is a story of possibility.”

It’s hoped that this rich reserve, coupled with a good working partnership with the local populace, will enable the animals to resettle quickly.

The giant seven-week translocation is costing 1.6 million dollars, and has been made possible with support from the Dutch Postcode Lottery, the Wyss Foundation, the Wildcat Foundation, Donna and Marvin Schwartz, Dioraphte and the People’s Post Code Lottery.

Mother and young rhinoceros killed for their horns. The poaching of elephants and rhinos is becoming “increasingly militarized." Credit: Hein waschefort/cc by 3.0

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 1 2015 (IPS)

The ongoing military conflicts in the Middle East and Africa continue to be fuelled by the proliferation of small arms and light weapons (SALW), primarily assault rifles, sub machine guns, hand grenades, portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns, rockets and self-loading pistols.

But the latest Small Arms Survey 2015, released Monday, says some of these weapons are also being used to destroy wild life and help misappropriate the earth’s mineral riches."Poor law enforcement and corruption among government officials and security officers facilitate wildlife crime and trafficking." -- Paula Kahumbu of WildlifeDirect

The poaching of elephants and rhinos is becoming “increasingly militarized,” says the report, while the negative impact of climate change is triggering human interactions, including on underlying causes for armed conflicts, as well as on actual fighting.

Besides the killing of thousands of humans in current military conflicts, perhaps the next most devastating impact of small arms and light weapons is on the destruction of wildlife.

As the demand for ivory and rhino horn remains high, both poachers and anti-poaching forces are becoming increasingly militarised using military-style weapons and adopting more aggressive tactics.

In Africa, elephant populations are in decline, and the illicit killing of rhinos has escalated sharply over recent years, according to the survey.

“The actors involved in poaching these animals include armed militias, rogue military officers, commercial poachers and bush meat and subsistence hunters.”

The illegal rhino horn trade reportedly threatens all African species of rhino. But despite some successful efforts to re-introduce rhinos to protected areas in South Africa, which is home to 80 percent of all African rhinos, the rate of poaching continues to accelerate, according to the World Wildlife Fund International (WWF).

Paula Kahumbu, a leading conservationist and executive director of WildlifeDirect, says today’s wildlife crime threatens the survival of endangered and vulnerable species in many African countries.

She said evidence documented by her Kenya-based non-governmental organisation (NGO) shows that legal penalties designed to deter such crimes have had little impact on poachers and traffickers.

“Worse, poor law enforcement and corruption among government officials and security officers facilitate wildlife crime and trafficking,” she warns.

The survey also points out the role of climate change in present and possibly future conflicts.

In tropical war zones, fighting traditionally stops during the rainy season, only to resume when the soil hardens enough for vehicles to navigate unpaved roads.

And even battle tactics are determined and influenced by the state of terrain.

“In some parts of the world, rainy seasons are now shifting in time and intensity. As global warming alters temperature, rainfall and sea levels, as many expect it will, it is almost certain to affect armed violence and armed conflict in ways that for now are predictable,” according to the survey.

The proliferation of small arms is also responsible for the illegal extraction of natural resources, transforming remote outposts into urban hubs virtually overnight.

As a result, it spurs insecurity and violence as different groups compete over spoils and local communities protest perceived wrongs.

The extraction of oil, gas and precious minerals is accompanied by significant urbanisation of adjoining areas and the effort to control and secure resources can attract a variety of armed actors, including security forces and predatory groups.

The survey, produced annually with the support of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and several other Western nations, also focuses on the small arms trade, floating armouries, the increasing number of private security firms, the Arms Trade Treaty and the U.N.’s Programme of Action to track the flow of illegal weapons.

According to the latest available U.N. statistics, the biggest exporters of small arms and light weapons include the United States, Italy, Germany, Brazil, Austria, South Korea, Russia, China, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Turkey, Norway and Japan.

With weapons continuing to all into the hands of armed groups, the survey says these groups “are better armed (today) than they were a decade ago”.

The arms in their possession include large calibre weapons. And “of particular concern is jihadist possession of man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS), although many of these may be inoperable.”

The weapons used by most insurgent groups consists largely of Cold War-era Soviet and Chinese arms and ammunition, ”but they also use more recently-produced materiel from Bulgaria and China, among other states.”

Focusing specifically on the politically volatile Middle East, the survey says parts of the Middle East and North Africa suffer from high levels of armed violence, armed conflict and political instability, as well as the risk of small arms misuse and diversion.

According to the survey, there is little evidence the “Arab Spring” has had a significant impact on the policies of major exporters of small arms to the region.

Libya is the only state affected by the uprisings to be subject to a U.N. arms embargo.

And efforts to impose such an embargo on Syria have failed, and the option has not been discussed with regard to Egypt.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@aol.com

Protected from external dangers, an elephant family roams peacefully in the Mikumi National Park in Tanzania. Credit: UN Photo/B Wolff

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 25 2015 (IPS)

The wildlife trade monitoring network, TRAFFIC, is deploying a new forensic weapon – DNA testing – to track illegal ivory products responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of endangered elephants in Asia and Africa.

Widely used in criminal cases, forensic DNA examination (Deoxyribonucleic acid) can help identify whether the elephant tusk is from Asia or Africa.“The ability to use DNA and other forensic expertise provides great support to law enforcement." -- Adisorn Noochdumrong

Asked whether this is a first, Dr Richard Thomas, global communications coordinator at the UK-based TRAFFIC, told IPS: “It’s the first time I’m aware of when it’s been used to test ivory items for sale to prove their (illegal) provenance.”

However, he added, it’s worth noting that at the March 2013 meeting of CITES (the 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species), State Parties to the Convention were instructed that forensic information should routinely be gathered from all large-scale seizures of ivory (500kg).

Hence this is also an important demonstration of one technique that can be employed in the fight against the illegal trade in endangered species, he said.

The current project is a collaborative effort between Thailand’s Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP) and TRAFFIC, to battle the widespread illegal trade of ivory in Thailand.

Asked whether African countries have similar projects in collaboration with TRAFFIC, Dr. Thomas told IPS, “Not currently, although the scope of DNA and stable isotope analysis of ivory are being examined by others as means to determine the geographic origin of ivory within Africa.”

He also pointed out that any wildlife product, by definition, is associated with life and therefore open for DNA examination.

“So, in theory it could be a very widely employed technique in addressing wildlife trafficking.”

According to the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the Sri Lankan and Sumatran elephants are on a list of endangered species, along with the black rhino, mountain gorilla, Bengal tiger, the blue whale and the green turtle, among others.

WWF says the global illicit wildlife trade is estimated at over 10 billion dollars annually and is controlled by criminal networks.

Specifically on the ivory trade, Dr Thomas told IPS, “We’re very wary about speculating over black market prices – in part, because they’re black market and therefore unverifiable, but more because of anecdotal evidence that high prices quoted in the media can lead to interest from the criminal fraternity in getting involved in trafficking.”

In a report released here, TRAFFIC said 160 items of small ivory products legally acquired by researchers, primarily from retail outlets in Bangkok, were subjected to DNA analysis at the DNP’s Wildlife Forensics Crime Unit (WIFOS Laboratory).

The aim of the exercise was to determine whether the ivory products were made from African elephant or Asian elephant tusks.

The African elephant Loxodonta africana is found in 37 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, and the Asian elephant Elephas maximas is found in Thailand and 12 other Asian countries.

The study also said forensic results show that African elephant ivory accounted for a majority of the items tested.

“Whilst the relatively small number of samples cannot be considered as representative of the entire ivory market in Thailand, it indicates that African elephant ivory is prominently represented in the retail outlets in Bangkok,” it noted.

This capability supports the enforcement component of Thailand’s revised National Ivory Action Plan (NIAP) submitted to CITES in September 2014.

The plan was developed to control ivory trade in Thailand and strengthen measures to prevent illegal international trade and includes a strong focus on law enforcement and regulation, including the execution of a robust ivory registration system, according to the report.

“The ability to use DNA and other forensic expertise provides great support to law enforcement,” said Adisorn Noochdumrong, acting deputy director general of DNP.

“We are deeply concerned by these findings which come just at the moment a nationwide ivory product registration exercise is being conducted pursuant to recently enacted legislation to strengthen ivory trade controls in Thailand,” he added.

The report said the Thai government last month passed new legislation to regulate and control the possession and trade of ivory that can be shown to have come from domesticated Asian Elephants in Thailand.

With the passing of the Elephant Ivory Act B.E. 2558 (2015), anyone in possession of ivory – whether as personal effects or for commercial purposes – must register all items in their possession with the DNP from Jan. 22 until Apr. 21, 2015.

Penalties for failing to do so could result in up to three years imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of Thai Baht 6 million (nearly 200,000 dollars).

“We remind anyone registering possession of raw ivory or ivory products under Thailand’s new laws that African Elephant ivory is strictly prohibited and ineligible for sale in Thailand,” said Noochdumrong.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@aol.com

A carpenter organises a load of mahogany, precious wood seized by the authorities in Cuba's Ciénaga de Zapata wetlands. Credit: Jorge Luis Baños/IPS

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 28 2014 (IPS)

A coalition of international organisations, led by INTERPOL and backed by the United Nations, is pursuing a growing new brand of criminals – primarily accused of serious environmental crimes – who have mostly escaped the long arm of the law.

Described as a worldwide operation, it is the first of its kind targeting individuals wanted for a wide range of crimes, including logging, poaching and trafficking in animals declared endangered species.

Widespread poaching, particularly in central Africa, has resulted in the loss of at least 60 percent of elephants in that region during the last decade.

Last week, INTERPOL, the world’s largest international police organisation, released photographs of nine fugitives charged with these crimes – and who are on the run.

The individuals targeted include, among others, Feisal Mohamed Ali, alleged to be the leader of an ivory smuggling ring in Kenya, according to the U.N. Daily News.

The international coalition is seeking help from the public for information that could help track down the nine suspects whose cases have been singled out for the initial phase of the investigations.

Rob Parry-Jones, manager of international policy at World Wildlife Fund (WWF), told IPS, “It sends a strong message that environmental crime is not merely an animal being illegally shot here or a tree illegally felled there. Environmental crime is highly organised crime and can have devastating impacts.”

He said INTERPOL’s response is something that WWF has wanted for some time. “It is also something that enforcement agencies have wanted for some time.”

The political platform and enabling environment for INTERPOL and other institutions to undertake the necessary research, and to be in a position to release such findings, is a welcome advance from a few years back when WWF and TRAFFIC first started their campaign to raise the political profile of wildlife crime, Parry-Jones said.

TRAFFIC (Trade Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce) is a wildlife trade monitoring network supported by WWF.

Code-named INFRA-Terra (International Fugitive Round Up and Arrest), the global operation is supported by the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) – which is a collaborative effort of the Secretariat of the 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), along with INTERPOL, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the World Bank and the World Customs Organisation.

In a press statement last week, Ben Janse van Rensburg, chief of enforcement support for CITES, said, “This first operation represents a big step forward against wildlife criminal networks.”

He said countries are increasingly treating wildlife crime as a serious offence, and “we will leave no stone unturned to locate and arrest these criminals to ensure they are brought to justice.”

Nathalie Frey, deputy political director at Greenpeace International, told IPS her organisation strongly supports the INTERPOL initiative to strengthen law enforcement against environmental crimes.

“Whilst INTERPOL has been looking more closely into environmental crimes for a number of years, this is the first time we have seen them reach out to the public appealing for further information and leads,” she said.

By giving environmental criminals a name and a face, she said, “it shows that law enforcement agencies are finally starting to take crimes such as illegal logging and fishing as seriously as murder or theft.”

WWF’s Parry-Jones told IPS that addressing environmental crimes effectively across international borders requires legal frameworks that can talk with each other.

Dual criminality where crimes of this scale are recognised in countries’ legal frameworks as serious crimes — a penalty of four-plus year’s imprisonment — brings the crimes within the scope of the U.N. Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC), enabling international law enforcement cooperation and mutual legal assistance, he said.

The nature of the crimes illustrates the links with other forms of transnational crime, including people trafficking and arms smuggling, and reinforces the argument over the past few years, both by WWF and TRAFFIC, that environmental crime is a cross-sectoral issue and a serious crime, he added.

Greenpeace’s Frey told IPS environmental crime is “big business”, and at an estimated 70-213 billion dollars per year, the earnings are almost on a par with other criminal activities such as drugs and arms trafficking. That estimate includes logging, poaching and trafficking of a wide range of animals, illegal fisheries, illegal mining and dumping of toxic waste.

Behind these perpetrators, she pointed out, are large networks of criminal activities, with corruption often permeating the whole supply chain of valuable commodities such as timber or fish.

Illegal logging, for example, is rife in many timber-producing countries, and is one of the main culprits for wiping out vast areas of forest that are often home to endangered species.

“Consumer markets are still awash with illegal wood despite regulations to ban the trade,” Frey said.

This, she said, is reflected in the staggering figures released by INTERPOL that illegal logging accounts for 50-90 percent of forestry in key tropical producer countries.

“Whilst we strongly welcome INTERPOL’s initiative to track down offenders and crack down on corruption it is very important that CITES [the U.N. convention to regulate international trade in endangered species] takes much greater action to encourage its parties to step up enforcement and controls,” Frey said.

She singled out the example of Afrormosia, a valuable tropical hardwood found in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

This species is under threat and has been listed as requiring special trade regulation under CITES, yet a blind eye continues to be turned to many cases of illegal trade.

Industrial loggers have a free pass to harvest Afrormosia in the country, despite illegal logging estimated to be almost 90 percent, she said.

CITES is supposed to verify legality, yet hundreds of CITES permits were unaccounted for. Traceability in the country is also non-existent, Frey added.

By allowing the continued trade of species that have been illegally harvested, CITES fails to protect species from extinction, and its lack of controls and weaknesses only serve to fuel environmental crimes, she declared.

According to the U.N. Daily News, wildlife crime has become a serious threat to the security, political stability, economy, natural resources and cultural heritage of many countries.

The extent of the response required to effectively address the threat is often beyond the sole remit of environmental or wildlife law enforcement agencies, or even of one country or region alone, it said.

Last June, the joint U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP)-INTERPOL Environmental Crime Crisis report, pointed to an increased awareness of, and response to, the growing global threat.

It called for concerted action aimed at strengthening action against the organised criminal networks profiting from the trade.

According to the report, one terrorist group operating in East Africa is estimated to make between 38 and 56 million dollars per year from the illegal trade in charcoal.

“Wildlife and forest crime also play a serious role in threat finance to organized crime and non-State armed groups, including terrorist organizations,” it said.

Ivory provides income to militia groups in the DRC and the Central African Republic. And it also provides funds to gangs operating in Sudan, Chad and Niger.

Last week, Uganda complained the loss of about 3,000 pounds of ivory from the vaults of its state-run wildlife protection agency.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@aol.com

Some 50,000 elephants are being killed each year in Africa, alongside 1,000 rhinos, leaving perhaps as few as 250,000 elephants in the wild globally. Credit: PJ KAPDostie/cc by 2.0

By Carey L. Biron
WASHINGTON, Jul 2 2014 (IPS)

Environmentalists are formally urging President Barack Obama to enact trade sanctions on Mozambique over the country’s alleged chronic facilitation of elephant and rhinoceros poaching through broad swathes of southern Africa.

Investigators say substantial evidence exists of Mozambique’s failure to abide by international conventions against wildlife trafficking, including to back up allegations of state complicity.“We believe that there are ex-military officials who are providing political protection to the [trafficking] syndicates who are arming and funding these poaching teams." -- Allan Thornton

While President Obama last year mounted a new initiative by the U.S. government to tackle international wildlife trafficking, with a particular focus on ivory, some say Mozambique’s actions are undermining those efforts – and threatening these species worldwide.

A new petition, publicly announced Wednesday, now provides evidence on the issue and urges the president to make use of legal authorities to encourage Mozambique to crack down on poachers.

“Mozambique continues to play an ever-growing and uncontained role in rhinoceros and elephant poaching,” Susie Ellis, executive director of the International Rhino Foundation, one of the petitioners, told IPS.

“Although they have been given direction by the international community to enact certain controls, those have been only superficial and have had no meaningful effect. If you look at the large-scale poaching and illegal trade in rhino horn and elephant ivory out of Mozambique, it’s directly undercut President Obama’s [efforts] on wildlife trafficking.”

Increasingly working hand in hand with organised crime, poachers over the past three years have killed record numbers of elephants and rhinoceroses, particularly in Africa. Some 50,000 elephants are being killed each year in Africa, alongside 1,000 rhinos, leaving perhaps as few as 250,000 elephants in the wild globally.

Driving this illicit market is increased consumer demand in Asia, particularly in China and Vietnam. According to a U.N. report from last year, large seizures of ivory bound for Asia have more than doubled since 2009.

The new petition focuses on the central international agreement around wildlife trafficking, known as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), and warns that Mozambique’s outsized role in African ivory poaching is diluting the convention’s effectiveness. The CITES standing committee is meeting next week in Switzerland.

“Available evidence indicates that Mozambican nationals constitute the highest number of foreign arrests for poaching in South Africa. Organized crime syndicates based in Mozambique are driving large scale illegal trade in rhino horn and elephant ivory,” the petition states.

“Given the scope and depth of the illegal killing and trade in rhino and elephant products by Mozambican nationals, we urge the United States to … enact substantial trade sanctions.”

High-level complicity

Supporters say that strong action by the Mozambican authorities would have a significant and immediate impact on the global supply of illicit ivory.

Officials reportedly estimate that 80 to 90 percent of all poachers in South Africa’s massive Kruger National Park are Mozambican nationals. Local groups say that on most nights more than a dozen separate poaching parties can be prowling the park, most from well-documented “poaching villages” located across the border in Mozambique.

Meanwhile, enforcement of wildlife-related legislation in Mozambique is said to be essentially non-existent, with penalties for poaching and trafficking thus far not effective. Yet changing that situation has been complicated by what appears to be state collusion.

“It’s impossible for that level of illegal activity to be going on without high-level complicity,” Allan Thornton, president of the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), a watchdog group based here and in London that co-authored the new petition, told IPS.

“We believe that there are ex-military officials who are providing political protection to the [trafficking] syndicates who are arming and funding these poaching teams. There is substantial evidence implicating both the police and military.”

Mozambique keeps strict control over the types of weapons used by the country’s poachers, Thornton notes, yet such weapons are available to the military. Similarly, police and military uniforms have repeatedly been found in poaching camps.

Thornton says that putting together the new petition took several months, due to the mass of evidence available.

“If all Mozambican citizens were prevented from illicitly crossing over the border, poaching would drop significantly. But there has been no enforcement on the Mozambique side, despite legal obligations under CITES,” he says.

“We believe that the Mozambique government should be held accountable for their activities and act rapidly against these poachers, criminal syndicates and those protecting them. They could close this trade literally in a week.

Unparalleled scope

Thornton says his office is not yet clear on whether the Obama administration has exerted diplomatic pressure on the Mozambique government over the issue of wildlife trafficking. But in filing the new petition, these groups are highlighting the fact that the president does indeed have the legal backing to act on the issue.

Under U.S. legislation known as the Pelly Amendment, the president is allowed to impose trade sanctions if a country is certified to be “diminishing the effectiveness” of an international conservation programme. (U.S. officials could not be reached for comment for this story.)

Further, there is notable precedent under which past determinations – set in motion by EIA petitions – have met with particular success. Two decades ago, for instance, a similar petition was lodged around the trafficking of rhinoceros and tiger parts through Taiwan into China.

That effort resulted in U.S. trade sanctions. Over the following two years, both the Taiwanese and Chinese governments engaged in a broad crackdown on these trades.

“This had a huge impact on reducing demand [for ivory] and reducing the poaching of rhinos virtually around the world,” Thornton says.

“We saw rhino populations stabilise worldwide, because two of the biggest markets had closed for demand. This is the same thing we’re now looking for in Mozambique.”

He continues: “And we’re hoping for a particularly prompt response, because the scope of illegal activities we’re currently seeing – where one country is sending hundreds of poachers into another country – is almost unparalleled.”

A white rhino at a sanctuary in South Africa’s Limpopo Province. In 2011, poachers killed 668 rhinos in South Africa. Credit: Jennifer McKellar/IPS

By Ramy Srour
WASHINGTON, Jan 11 2014 (IPS)

Top diplomats and retired U.S. military officials are urging Western and African governments to step up the global fight against illegal wildlife poaching.

Adding new pressure ahead of a major February summit slated to take place in the United Kingdom on the subject, a growing body of evidence suggests that wildlife poaching is funding criminal and terrorist organisations in several parts of Africa. These groups include Al-Shabaab in Somalia, and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda and South Sudan, who have reportedly turned to the killing of wild rhinoceros, elephants and other protected species to sell their tusks."On one end, you have the poor local tribesman with no job who just needs the money. On the other, you have the organised criminal gangs." -- Andrea Crosta

Such trafficking is associated with a massively lucrative illicit trade.

“Although there’s been a lot of progress [against poaching], we still haven’t been able to stop this crime. We still haven’t achieved momentum,” Gen. Carter Ham, a recently retired U.S. Army general who headed the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) until April of last year, said Friday. “Now is the time.”

Ham suggested that an effective response to poaching in Africa could be to include a strong military component, possibly involving the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), more commonly known as drones.

“The use of drones is not only desirable, but is also likely to be very effective,” Gen. Ham said.

Peter Westmacott, the British ambassador to the United States, seconded the call for a greater security mentality in the fight against wildlife poaching and trafficking.

“The illegal wildlife trade is a tragedy for the natural world, but also for international security,” he said. An important next step, he said, would be the London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade, to be hosted by his government next month.

Also this week, the Washington-based Stimson Centre, a think tank, published a comprehensive report on the growing link between poaching and terrorism. That study, the result of research conducted last fall in Kenya, notes that “the spike in poaching and wildlife crime coincides with the increased involvement of sophisticate transnational organized criminals and terrorist organizations.”

“Although we don’t know the full extent of [this] relationship, we know that there is an important link between poaching and … security,” Jonah Bergenas, deputy director of the Managing Across Boundaries Initiative at the Stimson Centre and the report’s author, told IPS.

“We have to treat this issue not just as a conservation challenge but also as a security challenge that will require a holistic approach, one that entails the building of partnerships both within and outside government.”

Western and African governments, Bergenas says, should cooperate with local actors in order to provide a truly comprehensive solution.

Lucrative temptation

According to the report, wildlife poaching funds a 19-billion-dollar industry worldwide, extending from Africa to East Asia and Western countries. Much of this demand continues to be powered by China.

The impact on wildlife has been stark, and has grown significantly in recent years. In 2012 and 2013 alone, nearly 60,000 elephants and over 1,600 rhinos were illegally killed for their tusks.

The driving force behind this practice is clearly the significant money that can still be made from these products. According to expert estimates, a rhino horn is worth 50,000 dollars per pound on the black market, more than the value of gold or platinum.

This, activists say, makes poaching very hard to resist.

“Most people know that this is wrong, but you need to make a distinction between poacher and poacher,” Andrea Crosta, the executive director of Elephant Action League (EAL), a U.S.-based group that fights poaching and illegal trafficking, told IPS.

“On one end, you have the poor local tribesman with no job who just needs the money. On the other, you have the organised criminal gangs, with weapons and money, who are able to bribe rangers and get their information.”

Crosta says a pair of tusks can be worth a few years’ salary in many African countries.

“To someone with no job and a large family to feed, that’s a lot of money,” he says. “They know it’s wrong, but the temptation is just too strong.”

Together with a team of EAL members, Crosta spent much of 2010 to 2012 investigating poaching in East Africa. According to their findings, large quantities of ivory were getting into Somalia in a systematic, organised way.

Later, they discovered this process was being run by Al-Shabaab.

“We were undercover, pretending to be researchers and zoologists, and that way we were able to speak with small and big traders, poachers and middlemen,” Crosta, who is currently based in the Netherlands, told IPS.

His team was able to unveil an undercover trafficking system that saw between one and three tonnes of ivory getting into Somalia, facilitated by Al-Shabaab, every month.

Blood ivory

Diplomats and others are now calling on Western and African governments to pool resources in order to put an end to this illicit market.

“People need to understand that wildlife trade is no different than the well-known blood diamond issue,” Peter Knights, the executive director of WildAid, an advocacy group that seeks to end the illegal wildlife trade worldwide, told IPS.

Knights noted that a public awareness campaign, similar to the one aimed at delegitimising the “blood diamond” phenomenon, could be successful in stopping illegal poaching.

“One of the best ways to do this is to defund [poaching] from the demand side by educating consumers in Asia and other consuming countries, urging them not to buy these products,” he said.

“Consumers need to understand that these products are not from natural mortality and that their purchase is driving this activity, that poachers are being killed and that the proceeds are being used for the financing of illegal activities.”

Indeed, activists say the human aspect of poaching is often overlooked. Thousands of poachers are reportedly killed every year while hunting for elephants and rhinos, often leaving behind families with no income.

Meanwhile, this week the Chinese government for the first time publicly destroyed several tonnes of ivory (the United States took a similar action in November). The step was widely lauded, particularly given China’s outsized influence on the global wildlife trade.

“This was an important public gesture, but it’s definitely not enough,” EAL’s Crosta. “The Chinese government needs to be seriously pressured, including by the U.S., in order to cut down its internal demand.”

A poached elephant carcass in Bouba Ndjida National Park in Cameroon. Credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife/cc by 2.0

By Carey L. Biron
WASHINGTON, Nov 14 2013 (IPS)

The United States has become the first developed country to destroy its stock of seized ivory, a move being widely lauded by conservation groups pushing for an outright ban on domestic ivory sales.

“Efforts like this are motivated by social change, and through this destruction the U.S. government is saying that ivory has no value – that it is a shameful product,” Jeff Flocken, North American regional director for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), told IPS from the sidelines of the ivory crush.“As long as ivory can be openly purchased, there will be an opportunity for illegal ivory to be laundered." -- Jeff Flocken

“In order for any lasting change to take place, we need to see consumer demand go away, and making ivory products be seen as shameful is the way to address this problem.”

On Thursday, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service crushed some six tonnes of African and Asian elephant ivory, the result of seizures that have taken place mostly over the past 25 years. Importing commercial or private ivory of any kind is a criminal act under U.S. law, unless the item has been certified by an international group, although its domestic sale remains legal.

The government says the destroyed ivory, which includes both full tusks and carved items, likely represented “a couple thousand” dead elephants, and notes this figure could be far higher.

“We want to send a clear message that the United States will not tolerate ivory trafficking and the toll it is taking on elephant populations, particularly in Africa,” the Fish & Wildlife Service notes in a factsheet released ahead of Thursday’s ivory crush.

“Destroying this ivory tells criminals who engage in poaching and trafficking that the United States will take all available measures to disrupt and prosecute those who prey on and profit from the deaths of these magnificent animals.”

The ivory destruction comes just a day after the U.S. State Department announced its first-ever reward – a million dollars – for information leading to the dismantling of an alleged wildlife trafficking syndicate called the Xaysavang Network. On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry noted that the group, based in Laos but with affiliates in Africa, Southeast Asia and China, “facilitates the killing of endangered elephants, rhinos, and other species for products such as ivory”.

Elephant poaching is currently at its worst point in a decade, with an estimated 95 elephants being killed every day, particularly in Africa. Activists say a two-decade-old international anti-trafficking regime, known as CITES, is unable to withstand new pressures increasingly brought by militant groups slaughtering elephants and rhinoceroses as a money-making enterprise.

Consumer demand is also spiking in Asia, particularly in China. According to a U.N. report released earlier this year, large seizures of ivory bound for Asia have more than doubled since 2009.

“We’re hoping the government’s destruction of this ivory sends a strong message that wildlife poaching will not be tolerated and that ivory shouldn’t be considered an investment commodity,” Lisa Handy, a senior policy advisory with the Environmental Investigation Agency, a global watchdog group, told IPS from the ivory crush.

“We’re also hoping this will send a signal to – and we call on – other CITES parties to take similar actions. Currently some other CITES countries are still seeking a legal sale of their stockpiled ivory, while others are stockpiling it for its value.”

Shaming consumers

Under current international agreement, seized ivory cannot be resold.

Yet with this action, the United States joins just three other countries to have destroyed state ivory stockpiles. The Philippines did so in June, while both Kenya and Gabon have also destroyed seized ivory in the past two years.

Both of the latter countries have large elephant populations and have faced significant poaching problems. Like the United States, on the other hand, the Philippines is a major destination country for ivory, and thus these actions could potentially impact on the critical consumer demand that continues to create a value for ivory, legal or illegal.

Currently, the United States remains second only to China as the primary destination country for ivory. While applauding the U.S. administration’s new moves on the issue of trafficking, Flocken and others are now pushing for legislative action.

“We’re hoping the U.S. Congress will now introduce a bill to ban the sale of ivory in the United States, or a moratorium for 10 or 15 years until it can be shown to be effective,” he says.

“As long as ivory can be openly purchased, there will be an opportunity for illegal ivory to be laundered. Currently the U.S. laws on ivory are so riddled with loopholes that they are almost impossible to enforce. A clear-cut ban, on the other hand, would remove the U.S. as a major demand country.”

Legal versus illegal ivory, Flocken notes, is almost impossible to differentiate.

Closing loopholes

According to the White House, worldwide wildlife trafficking could be bringing in upwards of 10 billion dollars a year. In Africa, environmentalists point to such high-profile groups as Al Shabaab in Somalia and Boko Haram in Nigeria as increasingly turning to this relatively easy and lucrative illegal trade.

This confluence, and the illicit funding it enables, has clearly caught the attention of U.S. officials. Over the past year the administration of President Barack Obama has significantly stepped up its engagement on the issue of global wildlife trafficking, and today the issue is receiving higher priority than ever seen at the upper echelons of U.S. government.

In July, President Obama issued an executive order that made available millions of dollars for new coordination and training, including 10 million dollars earmarked for Africa. In September, the White House announced the formation of a high-level advisory council on wildlife trafficking, which is now tasked with coordinating federal government agencies on anti-poaching efforts both domestically and internationally.

Also at that time, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell announced the government’s plan to destroy its ivory stocks, depicted as the first of a series of related actions in coming months. The department is now reportedly preparing to propose multiple changes to close loopholes in U.S. law and regulation that currently facilitate the smuggling of ivory and other wildlife products.

“The United States is part of the problem, because much of the world’s trade in wild animal and plant species – both legal and illegal – is driven by U.S. consumers or passes through our ports on the way to other nations,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe says. “We have to be part of the solution.”

The World Wildlife Fund has declared the forest-dwelling Congo Basin elephants an endangered species. Credit: Richard Ruggiero/USFWS/CC By 2.0

By Taylor Toeka Kakala
GOMA, DR Congo , Jul 25 2013 (IPS)

At a popular tourist art market in Goma, in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, paintings and art sculptures made from bronze, copper, malachite, stone or wood attract visitors. It seems like an ordinary tourist market. But only the regulars know that this is also a black market for ivory products.

“Even though it’s illegal, the ivory market still attracts art lovers, especially foreigners who hire brokers,” a craftsman who requested anonymity told IPS.

Although an almost blanket ban on trading in ivory has been in place since 1989, the black market trade in ivory from forest-dwelling Congo Basin elephants is alive and well in the DRC’s large urban centres.

Major John Bonyoma, a judge in the Goma Military Court, told IPS that poachers were generally  “rogue FARDC (the French acronym for the Congolese army) soldiers and militia commanders.”

As far back as 2010, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora accused the Congolese army of being “responsible for 75 percent of poaching in nine out of 11 sites” in the country. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has declared the forest-dwelling Congo Basin elephants an endangered species.“Deportation undermines the fight against poaching. Legislation should be applied scrupulously to protect the animals and arrest foreigners.” -- Goma Military Court Judge, Major John Bonyoma

The Congolese Nature Conservation Institute, known by its French acronym ICCN, estimates that around 1,000 elephants were poached in DRC between 2010 and 2013. The organisation also believes that local chiefs have been complicit in elephant poaching.

According to ICCN, 70 percent of the Congo Basin’s forests, home to the forest-dwelling elephant, are in the DRC. A WWF study published last May stated that there are currently only 7,000 elephants in the country, compared to the 100,000 that existed 20 years ago.

“The demand for ivory sculptures and curios in Asian markets is driving elephant poaching,” Emmanuel de Mérode, ICCN director in North-Kivu, told IPS. He added that a kilogramme of ivory sells for 1,500 euros on the black market.

He said that poaching has become “an organised crime network which is virtually using arms of war.” De Mérode was referring to a poaching incident in the Garamba National Park in the country’s north-east in March 2012. In that case a combat helicopter, manned by suspected Ugandan soldiers, was used to shoot dead 22 elephants.

The DRC has nine national parks and about 60 reserves and hunting grounds managed by the ICCN.

Altogether this represents 10.47 percent of the DRC’s territory, about 250,000 square kilometres, and includes five protected areas on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation World Heritage List.

But the ICCN is powerless to secure these areas against heavily-armed poachers who regularly cross the DRC’s eastern frontier equipped with technology such as Global Positioning Systems and satellite phones.

Congolese law also hinders the attempts to save the country’s elephants as it allows for foreigners caught poaching to be deported.

“Deportation undermines the fight against poaching. Legislation should be applied scrupulously to protect the animals and arrest foreigners,” Bonyoma said.

Environmentalist Justin Mufuko told IPS that forest elephants play a vital role in preserving biodiversity. They distribute grains, roots and fruits from tropical trees through their dung, which is also compost for new plants.

He believes that the incentive scheme put in place by the ICCN in 2010 to protect DRC parks is the only solution to combat elephant poaching. The ICCN has been encouraging villagers to expose poachers and in turn provides financial grants to community-based organisations with viable projects.

“By financing small-scale agriculture and livestock community projects, the ICCN is discouraging villagers from becoming accomplices to poachers and getting involved in illegal activities,” Mufuko said.

The total amount provided in grants depends on the overall project cost, but most projects are relatively small.

Mufuko added that this awareness campaign has helped slow down the rampant rate of elephant shootings in the DRC.

The problems faced by the DRC affect the other Congo Basin countries of Cameroon, Congo-Brazzaville, Gabon, Equitorial-Guinea and the Central African Republic, De Mérode said. He added, “the elephant is a global heritage that is in danger of disappearing.”

WWF has warned that if nothing is done to stop this process of extinction, there will be no elephants left in Central Africa within the next few years.