In an all to common occurrence, a large gang of poachers, obviously forewarned, have taken advantage of the withdrawal for training of eight out of twelve Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) and village scouts from the Nyalugwe chiefdom in Zambia’s southern Luangwa Valley, to poach elephant, buffalo and hippo. Ominously, one of a number of camouflaged men carried a light machine gun and a belt of ammunition across his shoulders. Are rogue elements of the army involved here?
On 13 October, a Nyalugwe villager, Yesai Lungu, phoned Peter Nyalugwe to report that three elephant had been killed, one falling dead in the Chilinga reserve, the other on the privately owned Piamanzi ranch, the other in the West Petauke hunting block – the latter’s tusks being removed by the poachers. Villagers report widespread killing of elephant with only a few of the carcasses being found.
On 18 October, Peter Nyalugwe visited his country, interviewed a fisherman, Langizulu, who reported coming on the machine-gun toting gang of poachers – none of whom he recognized, while he was a kilometer or so from the carcass of a bull elephant busily being stripped by villagers under the supervision of Chief Nyalugwe. The poachers were obviously wary of trying to recover the ivory while the chief was there. In the Chilinga reserve, Peter came on a patrol of ZAWA, which included the notorious Joseph Mbo, whom I had caught hunting earlier this year and who has merely been transferred for his many sins from his former camp, Kalansha, to Nyimba. Present also were Frank Mwaza, Chitambo, and Perry Daka. They had been sent by the regional headquarters at Mfuwe - from their base at Nyimba, as a result of a report Peter had sent through to me, and which I had forwarded. They stayed one week and left; another patrol from Mfuwe itself reportedly patrolled for a period in the Nyalugwe portion of the West Petauke hunting block. Of course, these patrols rarely stay for longer than a week, so the area remains protected by one ZAWA officer at Kasolo camp, one village scout and one ZAWA officer at Mulilanama camp, and in the remaining camp called Fundu, one ZAWA officer and 2 village scouts. What this means is that the area has been left to the poachers for a period of three months while eight of the twelve ‘protectors’ are given a refresher course many miles away. As this is a Norwegian Aid (NORAD) supported project, one wonders at the thinking.
And where, in the absence of ownership rights to wildlife being transferred to the community under a chiefdom trust arrangement, is all this to end? There is just not enough money coming in from hunting concessions to protect wildlife, even were it not shared with ZAWA and the community. Our Luembe Conservancy Trust in the chiefdom north of Nyalugwe, rather than receiving the support of ZAWA and the current UNDP/GEF ’Reclassification of Protected Areas Project’ is left to its own devices, the hope being that it will simply wither and die away, for we are viewed as being people inciting villagers against the Government. Although an assessment of the NORAD project: ‘Focus on environment in NORAD and decentralised management of natural resources in rural development - a project case from Zambia” stated: “The most exiting finding from a political science point of view was the role of the community-programme in empowering the local people and the democratic effects this has.” http://wo.uio.no/as/WebObjects/theses.woa/wa/these?WORKID=9450
It seems that if you are a donor project going about community empowerment it is fine, but if you are an investor/advocacy conglomerate, you are considered to be inciting the community against Government, even a threat to state security.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
Elephant anarchy descends on Nyalugwe chiefdom
Peter Nyalugwe of the Nyalugwe Chiefdom in eastern Zambia reports as follows:
"The incident of elephants killing last week on unknown date but this month of October 2007. A group of 45 poachers invaded the Nyalugwe hunting block and open area. A report reached me that three elephants were shot from afar in the open area and died near the Chilinga villages where they were found dead
The community rushed to skin out the meat where the three carcasses were. While they were skinning a mob of poachers came and asked about the village scout, Abiya Daka, his whereabouts. Instead the one they were talking to was the same scout. When they left one of the poachers knew him and came back to him but they found him gone into hiding. Abiya Daka was left out for the Nyamaluma training course. The rest of the village scouts are at Nyamaluma in Mfuwe for training.
Meanwhile all the villagers have meat in their homes. The cause of this trouble of poaching is due to hiked hunting licenses and the absence of the village scouts who were taken away for training. The same mob is planning to burn the Kasolo Wildlife Camp which is 5 km away from the Chief's palace.
However investigations must take place immediately and about the ivories we don't know the one who got them.
"The incident of elephants killing last week on unknown date but this month of October 2007. A group of 45 poachers invaded the Nyalugwe hunting block and open area. A report reached me that three elephants were shot from afar in the open area and died near the Chilinga villages where they were found dead
The community rushed to skin out the meat where the three carcasses were. While they were skinning a mob of poachers came and asked about the village scout, Abiya Daka, his whereabouts. Instead the one they were talking to was the same scout. When they left one of the poachers knew him and came back to him but they found him gone into hiding. Abiya Daka was left out for the Nyamaluma training course. The rest of the village scouts are at Nyamaluma in Mfuwe for training.
Meanwhile all the villagers have meat in their homes. The cause of this trouble of poaching is due to hiked hunting licenses and the absence of the village scouts who were taken away for training. The same mob is planning to burn the Kasolo Wildlife Camp which is 5 km away from the Chief's palace.
However investigations must take place immediately and about the ivories we don't know the one who got them.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Zambia Wildlife Official pays labourers with ele meat...
This documents is signed by 27 villagers who worked for the Luembe based Wildlife Police Officer cum poacher and thief, Benson Mwale, in exchange for the elephant meat he had poached. He, and other fellow ZAWA poachers, have not been suspended, let alone prosecuted.
15 February 2008
Lakwisha says that Zambians who live on less than a dollar a day need to eat elephant meat, therefore the end justifies the means i.e. killing elephant. So, to the bushfolk's everyday burden of survival with very slender support services (primary health-care, basic education, clean water...) must be added that of being a criminal. But these are Zambian civil servants who are poaching, not villagers; and applications by the community for harvesting rights of game such as impala - despite it being their right under the Wildlife Act of 1998, have been refused. Where to now Lakwisha?
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Nyalugwe village scout found with tusks...
On 15 August 07, a Nyalugwe Community Resource Board village scout, Davy Zulu, paid for and controlled by the Zambia Wildlife Authority, but from hunting concession fee money obtained from Mbeza Safaris, was found in possession of a pair of tusks. He is shortly to appear in the Nyimba Magistrate's Court. Japha Mbewe, the Mbeza and Luembe Trust legal officer, is investigating.
Latest
On 22 August 2006, Zulu and his wife appeared in the Magistrates Court in Nyimba and were each sentenced to five years in prison. She apparently has a young child. Village scouts and their families are local people; that they are involved in such activities is the direct responsibility of their Zambia Wildlife Police Officer (ZAWA WPO) supervisors, one of whom is always placed in a village scout encampment. None of them, though most are involved in the poaching racket being run by the ZAWA office in Nyimba, has so far been brought to court, let alone sentenced. And word has it that the organizer of much of this, the notorious Goodson Chibeka - officer in charge at Nyimba, is now merely being transferred to Mfuwe. A disgrace, but very much a local tradition when remembering that some years ago, the then officer in charge was found with a lot of ivory and merely transferred to the provincial ZAWA HQ at Mfuwe.
Latest
On 22 August 2006, Zulu and his wife appeared in the Magistrates Court in Nyimba and were each sentenced to five years in prison. She apparently has a young child. Village scouts and their families are local people; that they are involved in such activities is the direct responsibility of their Zambia Wildlife Police Officer (ZAWA WPO) supervisors, one of whom is always placed in a village scout encampment. None of them, though most are involved in the poaching racket being run by the ZAWA office in Nyimba, has so far been brought to court, let alone sentenced. And word has it that the organizer of much of this, the notorious Goodson Chibeka - officer in charge at Nyimba, is now merely being transferred to Mfuwe. A disgrace, but very much a local tradition when remembering that some years ago, the then officer in charge was found with a lot of ivory and merely transferred to the provincial ZAWA HQ at Mfuwe.
A follow up on the Nyalugwe poaching syndicate...
24 August, 07
by
Peter Nyalugwe
Mbeza Safaris Liaison Officer
Ten days ago a report was made to the MD of Mbeza Safaris, Mr Ian Manning, by the owners of the game ranch in Nyalugwe on the Nyimba/Luangwa rivers, that across the river, in the West Petauke Hunting Block, many rounds were fired. They said that law and order had broken down. Mr Manning said, that he had paid out money for anti-poaching (paying $21, 000 for this in 2005), but that it was the 12 village scouts and three ZAWA Wildlife Police Officers – who his company paid concession fees to support, which were directed by Wildlife Act of 1998 to protect the wildlife resource so that safari hunting could be done.
Mr Manning then instructed me to go to Nyalugwe and to report on the situation.
19 August, 07
I met the Community Resource Board (CRB) Chairperson for Nyalugwe and he briefed me how the CRB is being disorganized. If he calls a meetings the members do not gather as they were elected due to financial and food problems for them to attend.
a) I asked him what’s the way forward? He said he suspected that my absence as Secretary of the CRB left a gap for I worked with the previous CRB nicely and able to submit returns to South Luangwa Management Unit (SLAMU) and Chilanga (ZAWA HQ) head office respectively
b) No bank statement has been received from the CRB account in Petauke.
c) The analysis book is with the Community Liaison Officer (Nkhoma) in Nyimba for auditing
d) The Nyalugwe village scouts have not been paid since the last payment in march 2007
e) The community also complains over the hiked prices of the citizens game license hunting fees for 2007 which they say will now encourage them to poach. A poor villager can he afford to buy the animals. We doubt.
20 August, 07
Met the camp-in-charge, Whyson Daka. I reported about the many shots which had been heard in the hunting block. Daka mentioned that the shootings were the combined force of the ZAWA Wildlife Police Officers (WPOs) to chase away the elephants from crop raiding in the GMA residents fields. I asked him further about who were patrolling and he had no answer. For ammunitions I asked him how are issued at the camp. He said there is a field data form which they fill in when going out for patrols and where they have used them on what purpose and finally for the returns space. These ammunitions are being kept by the camp-in-charge. This was the answer given by the camp-in-charge. Ths same Daka left for Nyimba to hand over an old man called Zuwua Ibale from Fundo village, caught with snares and game meat on the Lunsefwa river. He had been beaten and had a very swollen eye.
21 August, 07
Met one of the village scouts at Kasolo camp and told me about a suspect who was caught with an illegal muzzle loader at Nyalugwe village hanging in his verandah. The man is Yesaya Lungu who appeared in court last Friday 17, 2007. I haven’t heard the ruling. ZAWA also within the same week on 19 August, caught three men selling game meat on the Great East road at Saulo village.
The quota setting meeting on 26 July 07 heard complaints that the monitoring officers (village scouts) sent by ZAWA to check on hunters coming to hunt in Nyalugwe from other parts of Zambia (urban dwellers) were corrupting these same officers – and shooting more animals than on license. As most village scouts cannot read or write they cannot do the job very well.
The negative point of it is they have the immunity on the ZAWA Wildlife Act No 12 of 1998 section 118 part xiii which whatever thy can practice will be protected. I don’t know what proper evidence can we take.
Peter Nyalugwe
Lusaka
24 August, 07.
COMMENTS OF IAN MANNING
Clearly Daka was aware that ZAWA personnel and CRB scouts were engaged in their normal activity of killing animals and preparing it for collection by the Nyimba ZAWA office. Why did he not go and investigate the presence of such a large gang in the area? Because they were his own staff. And once again village scouts are unpaid and therefore help themselves under the eager ZAWA meat syndicate. And what of the rural poor? Well they now have increased hunting license fees, are refused game harvesting rights as is allowed under the Wildlife Act of 1998, are assaulted and hauled off to a prison unfit for decent people who simply are trying to survive, and have to stand by and watch while the Government officials kill the very animals living on their own traditional land, animals they are supposed to protect. And what can Mbeza do, the company whom Chief Nyalugwe, with the help of Asian businessmen, tried to have removed from his area simply because it had seen to it that no more customary land was stolen from the community and sold off for 99 years. Not much. Jealousy is poison.
JAMES MILANZU, I/C SLAMU RESPONDS
Hi,
Thanks for the information. ZAWA-SLAMU is equally concerned of these activities. For own information we are now sending patrols from Mfuwe and combine with scouts from there. We also had a combined team from Mfuwe and Lower Zambezi where several arrests have been made. The Saulo village arrests were from Mfuwe. It is costly but we have a mandate to protect wildlife in that area. We are making several changes in leadership like transfering those incharge, some WPOs from Mfuwe and increased investigative operations from Mfuwe and Chilanga. A lot of information has been gathered and we will continue to help until the sector is able to stand on its own again.
On salaries we have sent names of all VS for their salaries for previous months and the remaining months in the year.
Again thanks for the info.
James
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Zambia poaching mayhem unabated...
A few days ago, a visitor to the Nyalugwe Open Area, on a number of occasions heard numerous shots being fired across the Luangwa river in the Nyalugwe section of the West Petauke Game Management Area. It is presumed that this is the work of the ZAWA Wildlife Police Officers and the Nyalugwe Community Resource Board village scouts, who, together with other units working within the Nyimba sector, receive unlimited amounts of ammunition from the officer in charge, the notorious Mr Chibeka, who later drives in with a ZAWA vehicle to collect the meat. Peter Nyalugwe has gone to investigate.
And in Luembe, ZAWA and Luembe village scouts caught poaching by me, continue in their posts.
In Rufunsa GMA, south of West Petauke GMA, ten ZAWA Police Officers and village scouts have this year been suspended for poaching.
Zambia's wildlife is being decimated by the very people employed to protect it.
And in Luembe, ZAWA and Luembe village scouts caught poaching by me, continue in their posts.
In Rufunsa GMA, south of West Petauke GMA, ten ZAWA Police Officers and village scouts have this year been suspended for poaching.
Zambia's wildlife is being decimated by the very people employed to protect it.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
ELEPHANT HUNTING…
2 NOVEMBER 2006
I respond to Eugene Lapointe’s article in BBC News weekly Green Room where the former head of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) makes the case for hunting and why it can be a part of wildlife management policies, posing the question: “Are bans on hunting and trade the best way to conserve species?”
In so far as trade bans are concerned, Lapointe makes a general point, which requires further elucidation. In general prohibitions don’t work, either because the prohibitors are embarked on some crusade without moral or practical merit, or because those being so prohibited from having access to something or other are convinced of their right to the prohibited entity, or are without moral scruple – or both. In the case of the ivory trade, those without scruple are the traders of the Far Eastern nations who require ivory for an ever growing market and who go to any lengths to obtain it. Therefore, if you allow the trade in ivory they will access what is available – and more by illegal means in order to satisfy demand, and if not available they will simply get hold of it by any means. There will therefore always exist a drive to satisfy demand, which means obtaining more than what is legally available; and if that legal harvest is 100 tons or no tons, the effect will be the same. Hunting of elephant, provided it is sustainable, and provided it does not damage your photo-tourism industry, is an excellent way to conserve the species, but by allowing the trade in ivory, this laudable goal is made impossible.
Poor African countries have many pressing demands on public money - with conservation standing in the queue. But the needs of the African ‘budget’ goes way beyond that, concentrating as it does on the ‘eternal scramble for Africa’ harvesting of donors so as to cover the shortfall for conservation, for education, for other development needs, but also for prestige projects having little to do with achieving the Millenium Development Goals.
It would be ideal were African conservation self-supporting, but then the conservation department, like the traffic department, the ministry of immigration, and all the rest, becomes yet another cash cow growing an ever over-centralized bureaucracy of non civil servants fattening on their slumbers and establishing yet another taxation tier set to drive investors dilly.
Eugene says that southern Africa countries have followed the philosophy of sustainable use with elephant hunting, and that they do not shoot breeding animals; this is simply not true of them all. In Zambia, despite the advisory note to the contrary from the cross-sectoral Natural Resources Consultative Forum (of which the safari hunting fraternity is a member) which cited the total lack of supporting scientific evidence as the reason for not allowing hunting, the Zambia Government, through its statutory body, the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), issued 20 bull elephant to safari operators – supposedly crop raiders - or so they told CITES. The animals - shot by those operators with little regard for conservation, were certainly breeding animals, but they were also the icons supporting the tourism industry, supposedly the panacea, along with agriculture, for rescuing us from our poverty.
Sport hunting produces the only income in many areas it is true, so you could call it significant, but it is not enough to offer the necessary incentive to local people to stop supplying meat for the bushmeat trade and denuding their own lands of something which actually should belong to them but which has been expropriated by central government. Over the last five years, ZAWA’s income has been sourced as follows: hunting 23%; donor grants 44%; National Parks 26%; and other, unspecified income 7%. However, very little of this is invested in conservation activities with between 7 – 18% only going on field operations. What investment there is comes from the private sector and the donors. In our hunting area, our hunting quota allows for maximum gross earnings of $50 per km2 – given what we spend on land use plans, training, anti-poaching support and food security studies. ZAWA earn $10 km2 from hunting, expending $3 km2 on scouts and retaining $7 km2 for their HQ costs. The Community Resource Board, which represents the community and has the unenviable unpaid task of paying village scouts, receive $5 km2 from ZAWA as their share of hunting but have costs of $6.26 km2 for their scouts alone, though they are supposed to spend income on community projects and the like; and over the last four years – including the purchase of the hunting company, we have invested $200 km2 – an amount we actually require annually if the biodiversity and the people are to prosper. But where is it to come from?
Eugene argues that because Kenya has banned hunting and the sale of ivory, that poaching is encouraged. Zambia’s experience does not bear this out. As we speak elephant and hippo continue to be poached and our good Zambian poachers are doing the same in Zimbabwe, and doubtless in Angola where CITES is unknown and ivory sold without hindrance. While safari hunting was on the go in Zambia, between 1994 and 2002, 123.5 tons of illegal ivory went out from here via Lilongwe in Malawi to the Far East (confirmed by the Malawian Anti-Corruption Commission) – most of it probably coming from our Luangwa Valley.
It is true that elephant do wreak havoc in some areas on people, and we do need to provide income and supports to offset this, but having elephant hunted has little effect on this. We have always had animal depredations, and it will continue, hunting or no, for we have failed to deal with the problem of land tenure and wildlife ownership, and Government refuses to compensate villagers, even though under English common law – on which our law is based, and under customary law, it is allowed. And we suffer very little from elephant damage to natural vegetation where as a keystone species elephant can have an extremely beneficial effect on the ecology, something we are trying to expand upon with the development of transfrontier conservation areas.
We do need to foster sustainable use but much of its failure to take hold is not due to the protectionists abroad but due to African governments themselves being unwilling to devolve power to their rural people, to decentralize – in this being supported by the donors, paradoxically following the system they inherited at independence. And Kenya, protectionist it may be, today stands out for its vigorous programme of game conservancies, something here we are trying to do but receiving no encouragement from Government, even though statutory and customary law is in place to support it.
I respond to Eugene Lapointe’s article in BBC News weekly Green Room where the former head of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) makes the case for hunting and why it can be a part of wildlife management policies, posing the question: “Are bans on hunting and trade the best way to conserve species?”
In so far as trade bans are concerned, Lapointe makes a general point, which requires further elucidation. In general prohibitions don’t work, either because the prohibitors are embarked on some crusade without moral or practical merit, or because those being so prohibited from having access to something or other are convinced of their right to the prohibited entity, or are without moral scruple – or both. In the case of the ivory trade, those without scruple are the traders of the Far Eastern nations who require ivory for an ever growing market and who go to any lengths to obtain it. Therefore, if you allow the trade in ivory they will access what is available – and more by illegal means in order to satisfy demand, and if not available they will simply get hold of it by any means. There will therefore always exist a drive to satisfy demand, which means obtaining more than what is legally available; and if that legal harvest is 100 tons or no tons, the effect will be the same. Hunting of elephant, provided it is sustainable, and provided it does not damage your photo-tourism industry, is an excellent way to conserve the species, but by allowing the trade in ivory, this laudable goal is made impossible.
Poor African countries have many pressing demands on public money - with conservation standing in the queue. But the needs of the African ‘budget’ goes way beyond that, concentrating as it does on the ‘eternal scramble for Africa’ harvesting of donors so as to cover the shortfall for conservation, for education, for other development needs, but also for prestige projects having little to do with achieving the Millenium Development Goals.
It would be ideal were African conservation self-supporting, but then the conservation department, like the traffic department, the ministry of immigration, and all the rest, becomes yet another cash cow growing an ever over-centralized bureaucracy of non civil servants fattening on their slumbers and establishing yet another taxation tier set to drive investors dilly.
Eugene says that southern Africa countries have followed the philosophy of sustainable use with elephant hunting, and that they do not shoot breeding animals; this is simply not true of them all. In Zambia, despite the advisory note to the contrary from the cross-sectoral Natural Resources Consultative Forum (of which the safari hunting fraternity is a member) which cited the total lack of supporting scientific evidence as the reason for not allowing hunting, the Zambia Government, through its statutory body, the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), issued 20 bull elephant to safari operators – supposedly crop raiders - or so they told CITES. The animals - shot by those operators with little regard for conservation, were certainly breeding animals, but they were also the icons supporting the tourism industry, supposedly the panacea, along with agriculture, for rescuing us from our poverty.
Sport hunting produces the only income in many areas it is true, so you could call it significant, but it is not enough to offer the necessary incentive to local people to stop supplying meat for the bushmeat trade and denuding their own lands of something which actually should belong to them but which has been expropriated by central government. Over the last five years, ZAWA’s income has been sourced as follows: hunting 23%; donor grants 44%; National Parks 26%; and other, unspecified income 7%. However, very little of this is invested in conservation activities with between 7 – 18% only going on field operations. What investment there is comes from the private sector and the donors. In our hunting area, our hunting quota allows for maximum gross earnings of $50 per km2 – given what we spend on land use plans, training, anti-poaching support and food security studies. ZAWA earn $10 km2 from hunting, expending $3 km2 on scouts and retaining $7 km2 for their HQ costs. The Community Resource Board, which represents the community and has the unenviable unpaid task of paying village scouts, receive $5 km2 from ZAWA as their share of hunting but have costs of $6.26 km2 for their scouts alone, though they are supposed to spend income on community projects and the like; and over the last four years – including the purchase of the hunting company, we have invested $200 km2 – an amount we actually require annually if the biodiversity and the people are to prosper. But where is it to come from?
Eugene argues that because Kenya has banned hunting and the sale of ivory, that poaching is encouraged. Zambia’s experience does not bear this out. As we speak elephant and hippo continue to be poached and our good Zambian poachers are doing the same in Zimbabwe, and doubtless in Angola where CITES is unknown and ivory sold without hindrance. While safari hunting was on the go in Zambia, between 1994 and 2002, 123.5 tons of illegal ivory went out from here via Lilongwe in Malawi to the Far East (confirmed by the Malawian Anti-Corruption Commission) – most of it probably coming from our Luangwa Valley.
It is true that elephant do wreak havoc in some areas on people, and we do need to provide income and supports to offset this, but having elephant hunted has little effect on this. We have always had animal depredations, and it will continue, hunting or no, for we have failed to deal with the problem of land tenure and wildlife ownership, and Government refuses to compensate villagers, even though under English common law – on which our law is based, and under customary law, it is allowed. And we suffer very little from elephant damage to natural vegetation where as a keystone species elephant can have an extremely beneficial effect on the ecology, something we are trying to expand upon with the development of transfrontier conservation areas.
We do need to foster sustainable use but much of its failure to take hold is not due to the protectionists abroad but due to African governments themselves being unwilling to devolve power to their rural people, to decentralize – in this being supported by the donors, paradoxically following the system they inherited at independence. And Kenya, protectionist it may be, today stands out for its vigorous programme of game conservancies, something here we are trying to do but receiving no encouragement from Government, even though statutory and customary law is in place to support it.
Zambia Wildlife Authority officers implicated in poaching
18 November,06
On Sunday 12 November 06, a matriarchal herd of elephant was attacked in Zambia’s Luangwa Valley by an AK47 wielding poacher, accompanied by seven unarmed meat carriers; an adult female and a juvenile killed - possibly another killed, and one seen crossing the river with blood on its side. Twenty-three shots were heard at the nearby Malone safari camp – closed for the rainy season, between 8.00 and 11.00 a.m.. Later that afternoon, at 4.00 p.m. two Wildlife Police Officers of the Zambia Wildlife Authority appeared at Malone and requested transport from the camp-in-charge, David Chileka – also a police reservist, and were driven inland for some 30 km to where four other officers were waiting. Nearby lay two elephant carcasses, their tusks removed and much of their flesh, numerous pieces of clothing, bedding, food and pots lying nearby, evidence of the gang. Seeing some vultures in trees in the distance, Chileka was told that there was probably another dead elephant there. No attempt was made to verify this.
The six scouts, all armed similarly with AK47’s, stated that the camp in-charge, Benson Mwale, had heard shots at their nearby camp, Ndevu, had then sent someone on foot to another camp, Kalansha – some 15 km away, for reinforcements, then much later in the day, after guards from Kalansha had arrived on foot, the armed group of six walked in the direction of the shots, eventually coming on the gang of eight, who had then run away. Firing a few shots in the air, and showing no inclination to go in pursuit, the officers then settled down to cut off as much meat as possible, the officers-in-charge of the two anti-poaching camps, Mbo and Mwale, walking to the Malone camp to request transport. A full load of meat was then delivered to the river crossing point at the nearby Ndevu game camp (where early that morning a fishermen, Gandi, had seen the gang collecting water), the officers explaining that local villagers could not have the meat as it was needed in the nearby town of Nyimba, and that they were waiting for their boss. When the Nyimba officer- in-charge of ZAWA, a Mr Chibeka, came, he reportedly recovered one bag of meat, another nine having disappeared.
On Tuesday, 14 November, the two camp officers-in-charge were seen on the Ndevu-Nyimba road, both drunk, and later, on Thursday 16th seen drinking at 9.00 a.m. in a nearby village.
Two weeks earlier an elephant had been killed in the same area and the ivory removed. Two other cases of poaching, one of a buffalo by a village scout, another of an ex-scout found in full uniform and hunting a hippo with a muzzle loader, unaccompanied by a monitoring scout as is required, is being investigated.
These disturbing events, given that in 2005 ZAWA village scouts had been caught poaching a buffalo, hippo and bushbuck, swopping some of the meat for village beer, suggest the collusion of ZAWA and village scouts in a meat and ivory poaching ring. Investigations are currently underway by the Chairman of the Community Resource Board, Mr Axon Lungu.
Conservationists continue to be alarmed at the well organized bushmeat and ivory trade in Zambia, it being recently revealed by the Malawi Anti-Corruption Commission that 23 tons of ivory had passed through Lilongwe on its way to the Far East over an eight year period. No arrests have been made.
On Sunday 12 November 06, a matriarchal herd of elephant was attacked in Zambia’s Luangwa Valley by an AK47 wielding poacher, accompanied by seven unarmed meat carriers; an adult female and a juvenile killed - possibly another killed, and one seen crossing the river with blood on its side. Twenty-three shots were heard at the nearby Malone safari camp – closed for the rainy season, between 8.00 and 11.00 a.m.. Later that afternoon, at 4.00 p.m. two Wildlife Police Officers of the Zambia Wildlife Authority appeared at Malone and requested transport from the camp-in-charge, David Chileka – also a police reservist, and were driven inland for some 30 km to where four other officers were waiting. Nearby lay two elephant carcasses, their tusks removed and much of their flesh, numerous pieces of clothing, bedding, food and pots lying nearby, evidence of the gang. Seeing some vultures in trees in the distance, Chileka was told that there was probably another dead elephant there. No attempt was made to verify this.
The six scouts, all armed similarly with AK47’s, stated that the camp in-charge, Benson Mwale, had heard shots at their nearby camp, Ndevu, had then sent someone on foot to another camp, Kalansha – some 15 km away, for reinforcements, then much later in the day, after guards from Kalansha had arrived on foot, the armed group of six walked in the direction of the shots, eventually coming on the gang of eight, who had then run away. Firing a few shots in the air, and showing no inclination to go in pursuit, the officers then settled down to cut off as much meat as possible, the officers-in-charge of the two anti-poaching camps, Mbo and Mwale, walking to the Malone camp to request transport. A full load of meat was then delivered to the river crossing point at the nearby Ndevu game camp (where early that morning a fishermen, Gandi, had seen the gang collecting water), the officers explaining that local villagers could not have the meat as it was needed in the nearby town of Nyimba, and that they were waiting for their boss. When the Nyimba officer- in-charge of ZAWA, a Mr Chibeka, came, he reportedly recovered one bag of meat, another nine having disappeared.
On Tuesday, 14 November, the two camp officers-in-charge were seen on the Ndevu-Nyimba road, both drunk, and later, on Thursday 16th seen drinking at 9.00 a.m. in a nearby village.
Two weeks earlier an elephant had been killed in the same area and the ivory removed. Two other cases of poaching, one of a buffalo by a village scout, another of an ex-scout found in full uniform and hunting a hippo with a muzzle loader, unaccompanied by a monitoring scout as is required, is being investigated.
These disturbing events, given that in 2005 ZAWA village scouts had been caught poaching a buffalo, hippo and bushbuck, swopping some of the meat for village beer, suggest the collusion of ZAWA and village scouts in a meat and ivory poaching ring. Investigations are currently underway by the Chairman of the Community Resource Board, Mr Axon Lungu.
Conservationists continue to be alarmed at the well organized bushmeat and ivory trade in Zambia, it being recently revealed by the Malawi Anti-Corruption Commission that 23 tons of ivory had passed through Lilongwe on its way to the Far East over an eight year period. No arrests have been made.
Out there in Old Africa...
The letter from the Luembe Community Resource Board of Nyimba district , Zambia, was quite straightforward. They needed funds to pay some volunteer teachers.
“As a Board, we strongly request for this help because we fell and accept that the government has failed to send teachers there. On this point , we ask you to to come to the aid of M’Shalira Basic School community found in the Game Management Area No. 17 to assist”.
As the rains threatened, and accompanied by Gordon Mace - a supposed agent based in Johannesburg, as well as the Chairman of the Board, Axon Lungu, we drove the six hours or so to my camp on the Luangwa river from the capital Lusaka, first dropping off Axon at his family village some 12 km away. The river was low, my pontoon of a dozen 44 gallon drums and angle iron stranded, so we crossed in the banana boat, skirting a hippo on the way. That evening, lightning played continuously on the horizon. We would have to hurry.
In the morning, we made ready for the short trip to M’Shalira school, first being briefed by my staff and the village scout, Emmanuel (only there as I had needed his protective help for some Belgian volunteers I had brought out to carry out a food security assessment), on the poaching incident some four days previously where a gang had killed two elephant – possibly another, and had wounded two, all from the same matriarchal group. My suspicions were aroused, for government wildlife police officers and the village scouts working under them, though paid by the Board from funds generated by our company, Mbeza Safaris, had appeared at the camp and asked for transport to collect the meat.
An hour after leaving Malone camp, not another person or hut to be seen, we drew up to the maize grinding mill which my sons had repaired two months ago, deposited diesel for the engine, and cement for the laying of a concrete slab, being watched by the friendly villagers from a village unchanged from that of their forefathers. And when one of my men emptied a sack of empty tins and bottles I had rescued from our Malone camp garbage hole, they rushed forward to claim them. Such are the treasures of a people forgotten by the world.
We then drove the short distance up to M’Shalira Basic school: and basic it is. Close to the road, I found the headmaster, Mr Daka, resting in his grass and pole Chitenje, the crumbling and cracked staff quarters standing close-by. We drove up to the school: six classrooms of mud brick and mud floors - one new classroom built of grass walls had been added on, and signs of flooding all around. Children beavered away inside at arithmetic, unsupervised, but as quiet as the surrounding bush.
“My only teacher is away in Petauke to get his pay. We have to go every month to collect it and it takes a week. As you see I am the only one here now, ” said Daka.
“When last were you visited by someone from the Department of Education?”
“Oh, they never come here. They can’t drive. You can see.”
“And the elephant, they give us a hard life here”, he said, waving towards some mangled pawpaw trees nearby.”
I thought of how an elephant can eat 4% of his body weight in a night of garden raiding.
Later I interviewed three volunteer teachers, one a member of the CRB whom I knew, the other the Village Area Group Chairman, part of the group of six with whom I was developing a landuse plan for the 1 million acre area. We settled on K250 000 each per month, the same sum I paid to keep the village scouts employed, unpaid by Government for seven months: $50 each a month; it did not sound much but it would feed them and their families; the villagers after all earned about $.30 cents a day – if that.
Daka showed me the book store-room, which seemed well stocked. Picking up a few work books, mud fell from between the pages. The termites were at work. Looking up at the dividing wall I could see that the bricks would soon fall onto the books.
On the way back to the camp we saw a group in the distance, obviously out hunting. One of them was in the green uniform of a village scout, but it turns out that he had resigned a month ago. He is hunting with a muzzle loader for a hippo, and as required, has no monitoring scout to see that he kills and marks the animal off on his resident hunting permit. We take his name and details which I will pass on to Axon. Later I hear of another village scout who has shot a buffalo legally but had not marked it off, therefore facing a poaching charge. And word was that the Zambia Wildlife Authority had issued four buffalo to residents, when last year they had agreed not to do so, given their decimation by the bushmeat trade.
That night the full loom of the rains rents our world asunder, and the following morning, once across the river, we only extricate ourselves with the help of my cheerful gang who take it in turns to look after our camp during the rains. In the nearest line of villages we see a group of men gathered under the eaves of a hut, drinking; there among them are the two ZAWA officers in charge of the game camps. Meat for beer. Cheers.
“As a Board, we strongly request for this help because we fell and accept that the government has failed to send teachers there. On this point , we ask you to to come to the aid of M’Shalira Basic School community found in the Game Management Area No. 17 to assist”.
As the rains threatened, and accompanied by Gordon Mace - a supposed agent based in Johannesburg, as well as the Chairman of the Board, Axon Lungu, we drove the six hours or so to my camp on the Luangwa river from the capital Lusaka, first dropping off Axon at his family village some 12 km away. The river was low, my pontoon of a dozen 44 gallon drums and angle iron stranded, so we crossed in the banana boat, skirting a hippo on the way. That evening, lightning played continuously on the horizon. We would have to hurry.
In the morning, we made ready for the short trip to M’Shalira school, first being briefed by my staff and the village scout, Emmanuel (only there as I had needed his protective help for some Belgian volunteers I had brought out to carry out a food security assessment), on the poaching incident some four days previously where a gang had killed two elephant – possibly another, and had wounded two, all from the same matriarchal group. My suspicions were aroused, for government wildlife police officers and the village scouts working under them, though paid by the Board from funds generated by our company, Mbeza Safaris, had appeared at the camp and asked for transport to collect the meat.
An hour after leaving Malone camp, not another person or hut to be seen, we drew up to the maize grinding mill which my sons had repaired two months ago, deposited diesel for the engine, and cement for the laying of a concrete slab, being watched by the friendly villagers from a village unchanged from that of their forefathers. And when one of my men emptied a sack of empty tins and bottles I had rescued from our Malone camp garbage hole, they rushed forward to claim them. Such are the treasures of a people forgotten by the world.
We then drove the short distance up to M’Shalira Basic school: and basic it is. Close to the road, I found the headmaster, Mr Daka, resting in his grass and pole Chitenje, the crumbling and cracked staff quarters standing close-by. We drove up to the school: six classrooms of mud brick and mud floors - one new classroom built of grass walls had been added on, and signs of flooding all around. Children beavered away inside at arithmetic, unsupervised, but as quiet as the surrounding bush.
“My only teacher is away in Petauke to get his pay. We have to go every month to collect it and it takes a week. As you see I am the only one here now, ” said Daka.
“When last were you visited by someone from the Department of Education?”
“Oh, they never come here. They can’t drive. You can see.”
“And the elephant, they give us a hard life here”, he said, waving towards some mangled pawpaw trees nearby.”
I thought of how an elephant can eat 4% of his body weight in a night of garden raiding.
Later I interviewed three volunteer teachers, one a member of the CRB whom I knew, the other the Village Area Group Chairman, part of the group of six with whom I was developing a landuse plan for the 1 million acre area. We settled on K250 000 each per month, the same sum I paid to keep the village scouts employed, unpaid by Government for seven months: $50 each a month; it did not sound much but it would feed them and their families; the villagers after all earned about $.30 cents a day – if that.
Daka showed me the book store-room, which seemed well stocked. Picking up a few work books, mud fell from between the pages. The termites were at work. Looking up at the dividing wall I could see that the bricks would soon fall onto the books.
On the way back to the camp we saw a group in the distance, obviously out hunting. One of them was in the green uniform of a village scout, but it turns out that he had resigned a month ago. He is hunting with a muzzle loader for a hippo, and as required, has no monitoring scout to see that he kills and marks the animal off on his resident hunting permit. We take his name and details which I will pass on to Axon. Later I hear of another village scout who has shot a buffalo legally but had not marked it off, therefore facing a poaching charge. And word was that the Zambia Wildlife Authority had issued four buffalo to residents, when last year they had agreed not to do so, given their decimation by the bushmeat trade.
That night the full loom of the rains rents our world asunder, and the following morning, once across the river, we only extricate ourselves with the help of my cheerful gang who take it in turns to look after our camp during the rains. In the nearest line of villages we see a group of men gathered under the eaves of a hut, drinking; there among them are the two ZAWA officers in charge of the game camps. Meat for beer. Cheers.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Zambia Wildlife Authority crime syndicate being investigated...
News from Luembe, Nyimba district, is that Zambia Wildlife Authority officers from the Eastern Province headquarters at Mfuwe are currently in the area investigating the crime syndicate being operated by local ZAWA officers. This syndicate issues ammunition to ZAWA scouts and village scouts to poach animals for meat, and elephant and hippo for their ivory. As this syndicate has been in operation for many years it would be optimistic to hope for people being investigated, charged and imprisoned. However, there is little question that as a result of our work with the community over the last four years they now have some idea of their rights and obligations for the care of their land and its resources, and are now more determined to deal with outsiders stealing their resources, especially government officials.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
The Zambia Office of the President investigates elephant poaching in Nyimba district...
The Chairman of the soon to be registered Luembe Development and Caretaker Community Association (LDCCA) reports that officers of the Office of The President (OP) are carrying out an investigation of the role of ZAWA officers in the poaching of elephant and other wildlife in the district. LDCCA has been carrying out its own investigation for some time and has pinpointed the source of more ivory.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Lebanese in Zambia seized for unlawful possession of elephant tusks
16:10, July 21, 2007
A Lebanese has been arrested in Zambia for unlawful possession of 55 pieces of elephant tusks worth nearly 80,000 U.S. dollars and 58 rounds of ammunition, Times of Zambia reported Saturday.
The 65-year-old Lebanese was arrested in Kitwe, Copperbelt Province after a tip-off and then handed over to the Zambia Wildlife Authority for prosecution, Rosten Chulu, public relations and press liaison officer of the Drug Enforcement Commission, was quoted as saying.
Chulu warned Zambians and foreign nationals to stay away from such criminal activities.
Source: Xinhua
A Lebanese has been arrested in Zambia for unlawful possession of 55 pieces of elephant tusks worth nearly 80,000 U.S. dollars and 58 rounds of ammunition, Times of Zambia reported Saturday.
The 65-year-old Lebanese was arrested in Kitwe, Copperbelt Province after a tip-off and then handed over to the Zambia Wildlife Authority for prosecution, Rosten Chulu, public relations and press liaison officer of the Drug Enforcement Commission, was quoted as saying.
Chulu warned Zambians and foreign nationals to stay away from such criminal activities.
Source: Xinhua
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Zambia Ivory cache owners sentenced to 5 years hard labour...
In Nyimba today, two Zambian nationals, one of them, Reg Gray, the elder brother of the former M.P. Lloyd Gray, were sentenced to five years hard labour for being in possession of 24 elephant tusks. The district has for some time been in the grip of an elephant poaching gang.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
The killing of another elephant in West Petuake GMA... by Japha Mbewe
I am here reporting the above mentioned.
It was on 3rd July when we received the above report from Martin who is the MBEZA SAFARIS driver. According to the report, the workers who were clearing the hunting road in Ilinda area as they were clearing the road, one of the' ten poachers approached the workers and invited them to have the elephant meat which, these poachers had removed the Ivory from it these people saw the dead elephant and decided to inform Martin about the development, Martin without delay he rushed to the CRB Chairperson Mr. Ackson Lungu, who immediately informed Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) Nyimba and your office. Martin also confirmed that there were also gun shots heard in Ilinda area.
After you had provided the ZAWA with the transport, they were deployed to the same area the same day. Two days later the Petauke ZAWA Officers were also deployed to the same area but via Luangwa Bridge route. These poachers had AK47 assaulted rifles. According to the ZAWA officers they confirmed that they had also the same information about these poachers and they said they suspected these poachers to have come from Lukwipa Lufunva area.
The Luembe Community Resource Board (C.R.B) meeting is to be held at 14th July to discuss, what would be the solution for those officers who were involved in poaching, because under the village scout the procedure is that if the village scout is involved in poaching he has to be fired from work with immediate effect, now the question will be what of the ZAWA Officers what will be the procedure for the ZAWA Officers who were involved in poaching.
So far, one Village Area Group (VAG) meeting was conducted and the community during their meeting supported the idea of writing a letter to the ZAWA and requiring them to remove and transfer these officers from our area.
Yours faithfully,
Japher Mbewe dip. pub. pros.
LUEMBE TRUST PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
C/O Luembe CRB
Nyimba, Zambia.
It was on 3rd July when we received the above report from Martin who is the MBEZA SAFARIS driver. According to the report, the workers who were clearing the hunting road in Ilinda area as they were clearing the road, one of the' ten poachers approached the workers and invited them to have the elephant meat which, these poachers had removed the Ivory from it these people saw the dead elephant and decided to inform Martin about the development, Martin without delay he rushed to the CRB Chairperson Mr. Ackson Lungu, who immediately informed Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) Nyimba and your office. Martin also confirmed that there were also gun shots heard in Ilinda area.
After you had provided the ZAWA with the transport, they were deployed to the same area the same day. Two days later the Petauke ZAWA Officers were also deployed to the same area but via Luangwa Bridge route. These poachers had AK47 assaulted rifles. According to the ZAWA officers they confirmed that they had also the same information about these poachers and they said they suspected these poachers to have come from Lukwipa Lufunva area.
The Luembe Community Resource Board (C.R.B) meeting is to be held at 14th July to discuss, what would be the solution for those officers who were involved in poaching, because under the village scout the procedure is that if the village scout is involved in poaching he has to be fired from work with immediate effect, now the question will be what of the ZAWA Officers what will be the procedure for the ZAWA Officers who were involved in poaching.
So far, one Village Area Group (VAG) meeting was conducted and the community during their meeting supported the idea of writing a letter to the ZAWA and requiring them to remove and transfer these officers from our area.
Yours faithfully,
Japher Mbewe dip. pub. pros.
LUEMBE TRUST PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
C/O Luembe CRB
Nyimba, Zambia.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Encouraging news from Zambia for the elephant poaching war...
The news that Gerald Musoni has oncemore taken up the position of Chief Investigations Officer with the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) lends encouragement for our efforts in combating elephant poaching - now running at epidemic levels. Perhaps he had something to do with the recent ivory bust in Nyimba involving the elder brother of the former Member of Parliament, Lloyd Grey.
Musomi was removed from ZAWA a few years ago, along with the present Director-General, Dr Lewis Saiwana (who went back to his farm for two years), by the hapless Hapenga Kabeta, the D-G at the time. As Saiwana represents about all of the institutional memory of ZAWA, and as Musomi was building up a reputation as a concerned and honest crime fighter, this was a grave error on Kabeta's part, as well as a severe misjudgement on the part of the ZAWA Board. Fortunately, the pair are oncemore united, reversing somewhat the recent spate of resignations and firings of senior personnel in the embattled organization. But they are going to need all the help they can get; time surely for the donors to fund the necessary technical supports for a much leaner and fully funded regulatory body. But this will require that Saiwana continue his innovative work in developing public private partnerships in the management of our National Parks - with Africa Parks leading the way, and that he address the very pressing problem of the poaching and fire situation within Game Management Areas by embracing the concept of land trusts in which the ownership of wildlife is held on behalf of the villagers. Ownership is the key here; without it the tragedy of the commons will continue.
I.P.A. Manning
Musomi was removed from ZAWA a few years ago, along with the present Director-General, Dr Lewis Saiwana (who went back to his farm for two years), by the hapless Hapenga Kabeta, the D-G at the time. As Saiwana represents about all of the institutional memory of ZAWA, and as Musomi was building up a reputation as a concerned and honest crime fighter, this was a grave error on Kabeta's part, as well as a severe misjudgement on the part of the ZAWA Board. Fortunately, the pair are oncemore united, reversing somewhat the recent spate of resignations and firings of senior personnel in the embattled organization. But they are going to need all the help they can get; time surely for the donors to fund the necessary technical supports for a much leaner and fully funded regulatory body. But this will require that Saiwana continue his innovative work in developing public private partnerships in the management of our National Parks - with Africa Parks leading the way, and that he address the very pressing problem of the poaching and fire situation within Game Management Areas by embracing the concept of land trusts in which the ownership of wildlife is held on behalf of the villagers. Ownership is the key here; without it the tragedy of the commons will continue.
I.P.A. Manning
The tusk detective...by Emma Marris
Published online: 5 July 2007; | doi:10.1038/news070702-12
The tusk detective
Samuel Wasser is a conservation biologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, and an outspoken opponent of elephant poaching. He talks to Emma Marris about his genetic methods for tracing poached ivory.
Emma Marris
Q. Tell me about some of the ivory seizures you've worked on.
A. There was a seizure in 2002 in Singapore of 6,500 kilograms of ivory — 531 tusks, many of which were huge. The authorities knew that poachers were carrying tusks across Zambia and into Malawi. One day they got a tip it was on the move. They went on a truck and then travelled by ship to Singapore. Hong Kong authorities got to the dock just hours before they arrived. The strong smell suggested that at least some of the ivory was fresh.
The ivory was high quality and going to an infrastructure that could get it to wealthy buyers. This is not your small-time village poacher. Everyone thought the ivory had come from multiple locations. We showed it was all from Zambia.
In May 2006, we got another seizure, in Hong Kong. It was 3,900 kg. The tusks were found when officials x-rayed a container from Cameroon. We analysed the tusks and the pieces and found that they were all from elephants in southern Gabon and maybe a bit of the southern part of the Republic of Congo. Everyone thought the poachers were a bunch of little guys operating all over. That's not what seems to be happening here. This is highly organized.
Q. Has it always been this way?
A. Before 1989 there was a period of massive killing of elephants. The population went from 1.3 million to 600,000 in 10 years. That comes out to about 7% annual mortality. It was so bad that CITES — the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna — banned the ivory trade, and the ban stopped poaching across the whole continent. It was probably the most effective international wildlife legislation in history.
The legislation was so effective that by 1993, western countries withdrew a lot of their aid for law enforcement. Meanwhile, people started to log the forests of central Africa, which created unprecedented access to its forest elephants, which are almost a different species and have desirable harder ivory with a pinkish hue. It was really easy for the poaching to get really bad really fast. Those elephants are getting creamed.
Q. Are things worse now than before 1989?
A. Between August 2005 and August 2006, 25,000 kilograms of ivory were seized. If you estimate that customs catches 10% of what goes through, we are talking almost 37,000 elephants. So now we are at 7.8% annual mortality, higher than the 7% pre-ban.
Q. What's driving the trade?
A. You've got a dramatic increase in the price of high-quality ivory, from US$200 a kilogram in 2004 to $850 now. In China and Japan, the rising middle class has created a tremendous new demand for ivory carvings and signature stamps — hankos. Plus, the CITES rules against illegal trade just apply between nations. Once you get the ivory into the destination country, there are no laws or no enforcement. So it is a formula for disaster.
There is heavy involvement of organized crime. There may also be a strong connection between the ivory trade and gun-runners.
Q. How does determining the origin of ivory through DNA help?
A. When you identify the place of origin you show where the poaching hotspots are and how these guys are actually operating. They seem to be focusing on an area and working it hard. It also forces these countries to take responsibility for the poaching going on inside their borders, because right now few of them do.
Q. How does it work?
A. The secret is to pulverize the ivory without heating it up, which denatures the DNA. We use a freezer mill. It submerges a tube containing a small piece of ivory and a magnet into liquid nitrogen. This freezes the ivory and makes it brittle. We rapidly switch the magnetic field back and forth, causing the magnet to act as a battering ram, smashing the ivory. It's fantastic. I got the idea from this marvellous Canadian dental forensics scientist named David Sweet.
We amplify and sequence the genes of interest in the standard way. The hardest part of the whole project is assembling the reference map of DNA from all over the continent. I am still working on that. Whenever I am at a meeting like this, I work the crowd to fill in any gaps we have in our map.
My genius collaborator Matthew Stephens, a professor of statistics at the University of Chicago, Illinois, developed a new statistical method to assign the ivory. Taking advantage of the fact that two populations close together are much more likely to share genes than are two farther apart, he could generate the probable gene frequencies for areas we don't have data for. That allowed us to ask "where in Africa did this tusk come from", as opposed to "which of our reference samples is this most like?"
Q. Have your studies made a difference?
A. In the Singapore seizure, practically nobody was prosecuted, including customs officials who stamped the shipment identifying the ivory as soapstone. They only prosecuted one guy in Singapore. There are so many wildlife officials and high-level government officials that are getting filthy rich on poaching. Organized crime can afford to bribe everyone.
Q. So what can be done?
A. We need a major infusion of law enforcement in Africa. What you are talking about is a bunch of Land Rovers, guns and ammunition and a little bit of a salary hike. We are not talking about a lot of money here. And legalized ivory trades aren't helping. We need to cool this market down.
Q. And if governments decide to cull certain elephant populations, what should they do with the ivory?
A. Burn it.
The tusk detective
Samuel Wasser is a conservation biologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, and an outspoken opponent of elephant poaching. He talks to Emma Marris about his genetic methods for tracing poached ivory.
Emma Marris
Q. Tell me about some of the ivory seizures you've worked on.
A. There was a seizure in 2002 in Singapore of 6,500 kilograms of ivory — 531 tusks, many of which were huge. The authorities knew that poachers were carrying tusks across Zambia and into Malawi. One day they got a tip it was on the move. They went on a truck and then travelled by ship to Singapore. Hong Kong authorities got to the dock just hours before they arrived. The strong smell suggested that at least some of the ivory was fresh.
The ivory was high quality and going to an infrastructure that could get it to wealthy buyers. This is not your small-time village poacher. Everyone thought the ivory had come from multiple locations. We showed it was all from Zambia.
In May 2006, we got another seizure, in Hong Kong. It was 3,900 kg. The tusks were found when officials x-rayed a container from Cameroon. We analysed the tusks and the pieces and found that they were all from elephants in southern Gabon and maybe a bit of the southern part of the Republic of Congo. Everyone thought the poachers were a bunch of little guys operating all over. That's not what seems to be happening here. This is highly organized.
Q. Has it always been this way?
A. Before 1989 there was a period of massive killing of elephants. The population went from 1.3 million to 600,000 in 10 years. That comes out to about 7% annual mortality. It was so bad that CITES — the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna — banned the ivory trade, and the ban stopped poaching across the whole continent. It was probably the most effective international wildlife legislation in history.
The legislation was so effective that by 1993, western countries withdrew a lot of their aid for law enforcement. Meanwhile, people started to log the forests of central Africa, which created unprecedented access to its forest elephants, which are almost a different species and have desirable harder ivory with a pinkish hue. It was really easy for the poaching to get really bad really fast. Those elephants are getting creamed.
Q. Are things worse now than before 1989?
A. Between August 2005 and August 2006, 25,000 kilograms of ivory were seized. If you estimate that customs catches 10% of what goes through, we are talking almost 37,000 elephants. So now we are at 7.8% annual mortality, higher than the 7% pre-ban.
Q. What's driving the trade?
A. You've got a dramatic increase in the price of high-quality ivory, from US$200 a kilogram in 2004 to $850 now. In China and Japan, the rising middle class has created a tremendous new demand for ivory carvings and signature stamps — hankos. Plus, the CITES rules against illegal trade just apply between nations. Once you get the ivory into the destination country, there are no laws or no enforcement. So it is a formula for disaster.
There is heavy involvement of organized crime. There may also be a strong connection between the ivory trade and gun-runners.
Q. How does determining the origin of ivory through DNA help?
A. When you identify the place of origin you show where the poaching hotspots are and how these guys are actually operating. They seem to be focusing on an area and working it hard. It also forces these countries to take responsibility for the poaching going on inside their borders, because right now few of them do.
Q. How does it work?
A. The secret is to pulverize the ivory without heating it up, which denatures the DNA. We use a freezer mill. It submerges a tube containing a small piece of ivory and a magnet into liquid nitrogen. This freezes the ivory and makes it brittle. We rapidly switch the magnetic field back and forth, causing the magnet to act as a battering ram, smashing the ivory. It's fantastic. I got the idea from this marvellous Canadian dental forensics scientist named David Sweet.
We amplify and sequence the genes of interest in the standard way. The hardest part of the whole project is assembling the reference map of DNA from all over the continent. I am still working on that. Whenever I am at a meeting like this, I work the crowd to fill in any gaps we have in our map.
My genius collaborator Matthew Stephens, a professor of statistics at the University of Chicago, Illinois, developed a new statistical method to assign the ivory. Taking advantage of the fact that two populations close together are much more likely to share genes than are two farther apart, he could generate the probable gene frequencies for areas we don't have data for. That allowed us to ask "where in Africa did this tusk come from", as opposed to "which of our reference samples is this most like?"
Q. Have your studies made a difference?
A. In the Singapore seizure, practically nobody was prosecuted, including customs officials who stamped the shipment identifying the ivory as soapstone. They only prosecuted one guy in Singapore. There are so many wildlife officials and high-level government officials that are getting filthy rich on poaching. Organized crime can afford to bribe everyone.
Q. So what can be done?
A. We need a major infusion of law enforcement in Africa. What you are talking about is a bunch of Land Rovers, guns and ammunition and a little bit of a salary hike. We are not talking about a lot of money here. And legalized ivory trades aren't helping. We need to cool this market down.
Q. And if governments decide to cull certain elephant populations, what should they do with the ivory?
A. Burn it.
Monday, July 02, 2007
More ele plunder in West Petauke, Zambia.
A report received from my field workers an hour ago - relayed to the Chairman of the Luembe Community Resource Board, is that a fresh elephant carccass was discovered yesterday on the Ilinda stream ( and they suggest that there are more dead ones to be discovered), the recent site of our uncovering of two poached impala in which the local ZAWA officials imprint resonates (www.zambiaconservation.blogspot.com). But hang on, enter, one, James Milanzi, the acting o/c Eastern Province, who is doing something about it. His troops are being deployed as I write this, and we are assisting, of course. Why is there this frenzy of killing? Look at the recent CITES agreement and at the dsienfrachisement of the rural poor from legally derived benefits from natural resources. Surely, a matter of ownership under an honest and capable trust structure suggests the way forward. Are the donors and Government listening?
Friday, June 29, 2007
Nylaugwe game scouts caught poachingin the Lower Zambezi National Park...
The Nyalugwe Community Resource Board reports that some of their scouts were recently apprehended poaching in the Zambezi National Park by ZAWA Wildlife Police Officers . When questoned they reportedly said they had been sent there to obtain meat by the ZAWA Sector i/c, Collins Chibeka, based in Nyimba. Recently Chibeka organized a poaching foray by ZAWA WPOs and village scouts in the West Petauke GMA (see www.zambiaeletimes.blogspot.com). He and other ZAWA WPOs and Luembe village scouts are being investigated for their part in the killing of elephant and the removal of meat and ivory.
Ivory cache found in Nyimba, Zambia.
Nyimba Police informed me on 24 June that a few days previously, the Zambia Wildlife Investigations Unit had raided the house belonging to the former FDD member of Parliament for Nyimba, Mr Grey, and had confiscated 24 elephant tusks. A woman who had been trying to sell the tusks to a ZAWA officer, and who had recieved a downpayment of 7 million kwacha, was being held in custody. Mr Grey let it be known that another 1 ton of ivory was available for sale.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
PR man for Zambia Ministry of Tourism issues statement of dubious ecological clarity...
Five Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries have struck a nine-year waiver deal for a one-off sale of ivory, ZANIS reported on Sunday. This follows successful negotiations for the sale of ivory at the just ended 14th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in the Hague, Netherlands. Bwalya Nondo, spokesman for Zambia's Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources, said in a statement that the decision to sell ivory was in view of the ecological need to strike a balance between animal conservation and protection of the environment. "Zambia's desire to offload ivory on the market is keeping with the need not to threaten the carrying capacity of the environment against a growing population of elephants," he said. He said international ivory trade was an important source of revenue to support conservation and promotion of rural livelihood. He explained that Zambia and other SADC countries where elephant populations have already run beyond the CITES qualification for conditional international ivory trade pressed hard to amend the current trade ban in endangered animals. Other SADC countries that joined Zambia in negotiating for the sale of ivory are Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Zambia became a signatory to CITES in 1980.
Source: Xinhua
Source: Xinhua
Sunday, June 17, 2007
The CITES ivory quid pro quo...I.P.A. Manning
While it is good news that official ivory trading was banned at CITES COP 14 for nine years, to hear that the quid pro quo for this was to allow Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to sell all their ivory registered before 31 January of this year, an amount unknown to CITES, is not good news; for it might, as was suggested at COP 14, be double the 70 tons which these countries had first applied to export. No one can control and regulate the ivory business in Japan and the flow of illegal ivory will join the legal. I predict that our hippo and elephant populations will, in some areas, now face eradication in the short term. From the field in Zambia, I can report a massive assault on our elephant and hippo; and elephant sport hunting of 20 bulls a year is allowed here, recently accounting for a 72 pounder, an animal of massive value to our tourist industry. Government intend increasing this number, as well as allowing the annual 150 or so animals shot on crop protection to be taken instead by sport hunters. All efforts to stop this have failed.
The only way we are going to see matters improve is if conservation and development money goes directly to villagers who share the elephant range. In some of these areas are trusts and associations which can care for the funds and see that it is not stolen. We need to support village schools, clinics and conservation agriculture as a start to encourage villagers to the view that destroying their wildlife resources will only make them poorer and more dependent on food aid. We need to make a direct connection between the conservation of elephant and hippo and development assistance. We need to prosecute the poachers. We need villagers to take responsibility for their land and natural resources.
Inquiries on conservation trusts, which are responsibly managed, may be addressed to gamefields@zamnet.zm
The only way we are going to see matters improve is if conservation and development money goes directly to villagers who share the elephant range. In some of these areas are trusts and associations which can care for the funds and see that it is not stolen. We need to support village schools, clinics and conservation agriculture as a start to encourage villagers to the view that destroying their wildlife resources will only make them poorer and more dependent on food aid. We need to make a direct connection between the conservation of elephant and hippo and development assistance. We need to prosecute the poachers. We need villagers to take responsibility for their land and natural resources.
Inquiries on conservation trusts, which are responsibly managed, may be addressed to gamefields@zamnet.zm
Saturday, June 16, 2007
A Trojan Horse...
Happy Faces all around the Conference Center
The International Fund for Animal Welfare's Lynn Levine is on the ground at CITES in the Hague...she filed this story about the situation in committee with elephants yesterday...
June 14 - E-Day
At the end of the day yesterday, the African elephant range states met once again to try and hammer out an agreement. Later in the evening, a representative from Chad flew in and deliberations continued well into the night (some have heard up until the morning). From these meetings, a new proposal, jointly submitted by Chad and Zambia (!) incorporating a significant amount of the philosophy of the pro-conservation range states, emerged. The accord calls for a nine-year suspension of all trade in ivory. It also states that there will be no discussions on ivory trade until the nine-year period has ended. Another element that proponents of the original Kenya and Mali proposal were pushing for was cross-border cooperation among all range states plus an African Elephant Action Plan. The concession for gaining this suspension was the release of additional stockpiles from South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Botswana, but only ivory which was already part of the officially registered government stockpile by January 31, 2007. The quantities are somewhat unclear: several African delegates have stated that these additional stockpiles total around 70 tonnes, but the Secretariat announced in its press conference earlier today that it was more than double. Such a higher number than expecting could be worrying, but everyone is still feeling positive that 1) all four of these countries wanting to dump their stockpiles must pass CITES scrutiny before the clock starts ticking on the nine years, so the resting period could actually be much more than just the stated nine years and 2) this is a great day for both the elephants and the African countries that support conservation efforts on their behalf.
Everyone here is not surprisingly, exhausted. Still, we're off to celebrate!
Lynn
The International Fund for Animal Welfare's Lynn Levine is on the ground at CITES in the Hague...she filed this story about the situation in committee with elephants yesterday...
June 14 - E-Day
At the end of the day yesterday, the African elephant range states met once again to try and hammer out an agreement. Later in the evening, a representative from Chad flew in and deliberations continued well into the night (some have heard up until the morning). From these meetings, a new proposal, jointly submitted by Chad and Zambia (!) incorporating a significant amount of the philosophy of the pro-conservation range states, emerged. The accord calls for a nine-year suspension of all trade in ivory. It also states that there will be no discussions on ivory trade until the nine-year period has ended. Another element that proponents of the original Kenya and Mali proposal were pushing for was cross-border cooperation among all range states plus an African Elephant Action Plan. The concession for gaining this suspension was the release of additional stockpiles from South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Botswana, but only ivory which was already part of the officially registered government stockpile by January 31, 2007. The quantities are somewhat unclear: several African delegates have stated that these additional stockpiles total around 70 tonnes, but the Secretariat announced in its press conference earlier today that it was more than double. Such a higher number than expecting could be worrying, but everyone is still feeling positive that 1) all four of these countries wanting to dump their stockpiles must pass CITES scrutiny before the clock starts ticking on the nine years, so the resting period could actually be much more than just the stated nine years and 2) this is a great day for both the elephants and the African countries that support conservation efforts on their behalf.
Everyone here is not surprisingly, exhausted. Still, we're off to celebrate!
Lynn
Friday, June 15, 2007
AT LAST; GOOD NEWS OUT OF AFRICA!
GLOBAL IVORY TRADE SUSPENSION APPROVED
IS THE FUTURE SECURE FOR AFRICA’S BELEAGURED PACHYDERMS?
THE HAGUE, The Netherlands, June 14, 2007 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- Government delegates today approved a compromise document to deal with the highly contentious continent-wide debate over the future of elephant conservation and the international sale of elephant ivory. After two weeks of intense deliberations, closed-door meetings, and Ministerial interventions, Parties accepted a plan to allow sale of current ivory stockpiles from Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, while instituting a moratorium on further ivory trade for a period not less than nine years following the sale.
"The message must be heard across the planet today—by ivory poachers and profiteers alike—that CITES decision-makers have tired of the divisive debate over elephant ivory," said Will Travers, CEO of the Born Free Foundation and Chairman of the Species Survival Network. "Although we’re surely disappointed that the controversial stockpile sales have been allowed, we are thrilled that the Parties listened to the dozens of African elephant Range States, united under Kenya’s and Mali’s strong leadership, and have finally agreed to an ivory trade moratorium."
The deal, struck in middle of the night Wednesday, opens a new chapter in the ongoing, decades-long ivory debate under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The ivory trade ban, which achieved such significant improvements in the security of elephants in the early 1990's has been the subject of sustained, deliberate long-term erosion for the last decade. Travers, commenting on the discussions, said, "Negotiations have been protracted and relentless and, while both sides can claim success, the acid test will be the impact on Africa’s most fragile elephant populations."
Notwithstanding the efforts of various African Elephant Range State Dialogue Meetings to reach consensus, the debate thus far has divided Africa with a small number of the most highly developed African elephant Range States strongly arguing for relaxations in the trade ban, and a large number of under-resourced African elephant Range States with vulnerable elephant populations arguing for sensible continent-wide conservation programs.
Parties have broadly agreed since 1997 to maintain the global prohibition on a continuous legal ivory trade, yet have relented under significant pressure to allow limited sales from verified ivory stockpiles. Members of the Species Survival Network, however, expressed continued concern over these stockpile sales, as it is hard to say exactly what the cumulative impact of the approved trade has been and will be on elephants.
Mary Rice of the Environmental Investigation Agency asked, "Will the stockpile sales approved at this COP be a green light to the poaching community and organized crime, or will the resting period truly deliver to Africa’s elephants an era of stability and security and increased wildlife law enforcement?"
However, it remains unclear as to what the "resting period" will mean in reality over these nine years. The compromise document states there will be no consideration of proposals for trade from countries with elephant populations already on Appendix II of the Convention. This, therefore, only applies to Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe. SSN wonders whether this means that any of the other 30 or more African countries with elephants can continue to apply to have their population downlisted to Appendix II and submit ivory trade proposals.
"Sadly," Travers concluded, "I have a sinking feeling that we shall still be debating ivory trade proposals throughout the resting period—despite what I believe to be the intention of Parties that this should not be the case. However, we hope that the countries with elephants still on Appendix I will respect the spirit of the decision taken today by the Parties and resist the temptation to seek ivory trade."
The SSN and its members nevertheless will continue their commitment to respond positively to the needs of African Elephant Range States and the elephant conservation challenges they face. It must be hoped that the resting period, so many have worked so hard to achieve, is full of elephant conservation action to the benefit of real conservation.
CONTACT:
Adam M. Roberts
Press Officer
Species Survival Network
In The Hague: 31-06-5213-6798
Globally: 1-202-445-3572
IS THE FUTURE SECURE FOR AFRICA’S BELEAGURED PACHYDERMS?
THE HAGUE, The Netherlands, June 14, 2007 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- Government delegates today approved a compromise document to deal with the highly contentious continent-wide debate over the future of elephant conservation and the international sale of elephant ivory. After two weeks of intense deliberations, closed-door meetings, and Ministerial interventions, Parties accepted a plan to allow sale of current ivory stockpiles from Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, while instituting a moratorium on further ivory trade for a period not less than nine years following the sale.
"The message must be heard across the planet today—by ivory poachers and profiteers alike—that CITES decision-makers have tired of the divisive debate over elephant ivory," said Will Travers, CEO of the Born Free Foundation and Chairman of the Species Survival Network. "Although we’re surely disappointed that the controversial stockpile sales have been allowed, we are thrilled that the Parties listened to the dozens of African elephant Range States, united under Kenya’s and Mali’s strong leadership, and have finally agreed to an ivory trade moratorium."
The deal, struck in middle of the night Wednesday, opens a new chapter in the ongoing, decades-long ivory debate under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The ivory trade ban, which achieved such significant improvements in the security of elephants in the early 1990's has been the subject of sustained, deliberate long-term erosion for the last decade. Travers, commenting on the discussions, said, "Negotiations have been protracted and relentless and, while both sides can claim success, the acid test will be the impact on Africa’s most fragile elephant populations."
Notwithstanding the efforts of various African Elephant Range State Dialogue Meetings to reach consensus, the debate thus far has divided Africa with a small number of the most highly developed African elephant Range States strongly arguing for relaxations in the trade ban, and a large number of under-resourced African elephant Range States with vulnerable elephant populations arguing for sensible continent-wide conservation programs.
Parties have broadly agreed since 1997 to maintain the global prohibition on a continuous legal ivory trade, yet have relented under significant pressure to allow limited sales from verified ivory stockpiles. Members of the Species Survival Network, however, expressed continued concern over these stockpile sales, as it is hard to say exactly what the cumulative impact of the approved trade has been and will be on elephants.
Mary Rice of the Environmental Investigation Agency asked, "Will the stockpile sales approved at this COP be a green light to the poaching community and organized crime, or will the resting period truly deliver to Africa’s elephants an era of stability and security and increased wildlife law enforcement?"
However, it remains unclear as to what the "resting period" will mean in reality over these nine years. The compromise document states there will be no consideration of proposals for trade from countries with elephant populations already on Appendix II of the Convention. This, therefore, only applies to Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe. SSN wonders whether this means that any of the other 30 or more African countries with elephants can continue to apply to have their population downlisted to Appendix II and submit ivory trade proposals.
"Sadly," Travers concluded, "I have a sinking feeling that we shall still be debating ivory trade proposals throughout the resting period—despite what I believe to be the intention of Parties that this should not be the case. However, we hope that the countries with elephants still on Appendix I will respect the spirit of the decision taken today by the Parties and resist the temptation to seek ivory trade."
The SSN and its members nevertheless will continue their commitment to respond positively to the needs of African Elephant Range States and the elephant conservation challenges they face. It must be hoped that the resting period, so many have worked so hard to achieve, is full of elephant conservation action to the benefit of real conservation.
CONTACT:
Adam M. Roberts
Press Officer
Species Survival Network
In The Hague: 31-06-5213-6798
Globally: 1-202-445-3572
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Organized crime fuels illegal ivory surge in Africa
10 May 2007
Gland, Switzerland – Asian-run organized crime syndicates based in Africa are being implicated in the increase in illegal trade in elephant ivory, according to a new study by TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network of WWF and IUCN-The World Conservation Union.
The study identified the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cameroon and Nigeria as the three nations most heavily implicated as the sources of ivory in this illegal trade.
TRAFFIC’s report is based on an analysis of almost 12,400 ivory seizure cases from 82 countries recorded since 1989 in the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) — the world’s largest database of elephant product seizure records.
“With myriad conflict zones, Central Africa is currently hemorrhaging ivory, and these three countries are major conduits for trafficking illicit ivory from the region to international markets, particularly in Asia,” says Tom Milliken, Director of TRAFFIC’s Africa programme and the principal author of the study.
The illicit trade is directly correlated to the presence of large-scale, poorly regulated domestic ivory markets in parts of Africa and Asia. These markets are in direct contravention of decisions adopted by Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), aimed at prohibiting unregulated domestic sale of ivory.
“Four years ago, CITES drew up an action plan for tackling these domestic ivory markets, but so far, it appears to have had little impact,” says Milliken.
One exception is Ethiopia, which has effectively clamped down on its domestic ivory market by implementing the plan.
“Ethiopia has set a fine example for other countries to emulate,” says Dr Susan Lieberman, Director WWF’s Global Species Programme. “It shows what other countries could do if only they had the political will to do it.”
Markets in China create a high demand for illicit ivory, which arrives either directly or through ports such as Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. Japan and Thailand are also important final destinations, whereas the Philippines mainly acts as a transit country linked to the major importers. Together, these seven countries and territories account for 62 per cent of the ivory recovered in the 49 largest seizure cases recorded by ETIS.
World-wide, the number of ivory seizures averages 92 cases a month, or three per day. Large-scale ivory seizures (of 1 tonne or more) have increased both in number and in size in recent years — from 17 between 1989 and 1997 to 32 between 1998 and 2006.
“This demonstrates greater sophistication, organization and finance behind the illegal movement of ever larger volumes of ivory from Africa to Asia,” says Dr Lieberman. “This is clearly a negative consequence of the ongoing globalization of African markets and economies.”
There has been significant improvement in law enforcement efforts and policing of local markets in mainland China, but ETIS records show that Chinese citizens have been arrested, detained or absconded in at least 126 significant ivory seizure cases in 22 African elephant range states.
“It is imperative that China reaches out to the growing Chinese communities in Africa with a clear message that involvement in illegal ivory trade will not be tolerated,” adds Milliken.
END NOTES:
• The establishment of ETIS was mandated under CITES in 1997 to monitor illicit trade in ivory and to assess whether any limited resumption of ivory trade would have negative impacts on elephant populations. Since its inception, ETIS has received funding from the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the CITES Secretariat and the European Union.
• The analysis was carried out with the assistance of the Statistical Services Centre of the University of Reading, UK.
• The TRAFFIC report will be a formal agenda item at the upcoming meeting of CITES Parties in the Hague, Netherlands, from 3–15 June 2007.
• Between 1989 and 1997, all elephant populations were listed in Appendix I of CITES, which imposed a global ban on international commercial trade in elephant products. Subsequently, CITES Parties have twice approved limited, conditional one-off sales of ivory from four southern African countries (South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe) whose elephant populations have been transferred to Appendix II.
For further information:
Tom Milliken, Director
TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa
Tel: +263 4 252 533
E-mail: milliken@wwfsarpo.org
Joanna Benn, Communications Manager
WWF Global Species Programme
Tel: +39 06 84497 212
E-mail: jbenn@wwfspecies.org
Gland, Switzerland – Asian-run organized crime syndicates based in Africa are being implicated in the increase in illegal trade in elephant ivory, according to a new study by TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network of WWF and IUCN-The World Conservation Union.
The study identified the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cameroon and Nigeria as the three nations most heavily implicated as the sources of ivory in this illegal trade.
TRAFFIC’s report is based on an analysis of almost 12,400 ivory seizure cases from 82 countries recorded since 1989 in the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) — the world’s largest database of elephant product seizure records.
“With myriad conflict zones, Central Africa is currently hemorrhaging ivory, and these three countries are major conduits for trafficking illicit ivory from the region to international markets, particularly in Asia,” says Tom Milliken, Director of TRAFFIC’s Africa programme and the principal author of the study.
The illicit trade is directly correlated to the presence of large-scale, poorly regulated domestic ivory markets in parts of Africa and Asia. These markets are in direct contravention of decisions adopted by Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), aimed at prohibiting unregulated domestic sale of ivory.
“Four years ago, CITES drew up an action plan for tackling these domestic ivory markets, but so far, it appears to have had little impact,” says Milliken.
One exception is Ethiopia, which has effectively clamped down on its domestic ivory market by implementing the plan.
“Ethiopia has set a fine example for other countries to emulate,” says Dr Susan Lieberman, Director WWF’s Global Species Programme. “It shows what other countries could do if only they had the political will to do it.”
Markets in China create a high demand for illicit ivory, which arrives either directly or through ports such as Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. Japan and Thailand are also important final destinations, whereas the Philippines mainly acts as a transit country linked to the major importers. Together, these seven countries and territories account for 62 per cent of the ivory recovered in the 49 largest seizure cases recorded by ETIS.
World-wide, the number of ivory seizures averages 92 cases a month, or three per day. Large-scale ivory seizures (of 1 tonne or more) have increased both in number and in size in recent years — from 17 between 1989 and 1997 to 32 between 1998 and 2006.
“This demonstrates greater sophistication, organization and finance behind the illegal movement of ever larger volumes of ivory from Africa to Asia,” says Dr Lieberman. “This is clearly a negative consequence of the ongoing globalization of African markets and economies.”
There has been significant improvement in law enforcement efforts and policing of local markets in mainland China, but ETIS records show that Chinese citizens have been arrested, detained or absconded in at least 126 significant ivory seizure cases in 22 African elephant range states.
“It is imperative that China reaches out to the growing Chinese communities in Africa with a clear message that involvement in illegal ivory trade will not be tolerated,” adds Milliken.
END NOTES:
• The establishment of ETIS was mandated under CITES in 1997 to monitor illicit trade in ivory and to assess whether any limited resumption of ivory trade would have negative impacts on elephant populations. Since its inception, ETIS has received funding from the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the CITES Secretariat and the European Union.
• The analysis was carried out with the assistance of the Statistical Services Centre of the University of Reading, UK.
• The TRAFFIC report will be a formal agenda item at the upcoming meeting of CITES Parties in the Hague, Netherlands, from 3–15 June 2007.
• Between 1989 and 1997, all elephant populations were listed in Appendix I of CITES, which imposed a global ban on international commercial trade in elephant products. Subsequently, CITES Parties have twice approved limited, conditional one-off sales of ivory from four southern African countries (South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe) whose elephant populations have been transferred to Appendix II.
For further information:
Tom Milliken, Director
TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa
Tel: +263 4 252 533
E-mail: milliken@wwfsarpo.org
Joanna Benn, Communications Manager
WWF Global Species Programme
Tel: +39 06 84497 212
E-mail: jbenn@wwfspecies.org
Zambia denies it has proposed sale of its ivory
UPDATED: 09:44, May 12, 2007
Zambia Friday denied that it has submitted a proposal to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) for the sale of its ivory. Director general Lewis Saiwana of the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) described as a misrepresentation the reports that it has submitted the proposal. He told a press briefing in Lusaka that his country has however supported the proposals by other countries in the region to benefit from the wildlife. He said Zambia's support is in line with the country's intention to offload its 28 tons of government-owned ivory stockpiles, which is in ZAWA custody.
Recently Namibia and Botswana submitted a proposal to the 14th conference of parties to CITES to take place next month requesting for an amendment to the conditional sales to include other activities that will benefit conservation and rural livelihood. Saiwana said Zambian government's intention has nothing to do with the killing of elephants for the sake of obtaining ivory for sale. However, the ZAWA official said Zambia would place a notification to sale its ivory during the next CITES conference to be held in 2010.
Currently the country has a stockpile of 28 tons of ivory owned by the government and which came from elephants that either died naturally or were killed after they killed people, he said. The ZAWA director general said Zambia has a big role to play as the regional representative and as a party to the CITES. Saiwana said wildlife resources when used sustainably can add economic value of the nation and to the conservation efforts of the same wildlife resources. He said those countries with good management strategies should be rewarded and not punished for the weakness of others. Zambia has a population of 25,000 elephants, Zimbabwe about 100, 000, Botswana 108,000 elephants. "Southern Africa should be rewarded for the healthy populations of the African elephants coupled with good conservation ethics hence the outcry for a chance to accord an opportunity to benefit from the resources they are conserving," he said.
Source: Xinhua
Zambia Friday denied that it has submitted a proposal to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) for the sale of its ivory. Director general Lewis Saiwana of the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) described as a misrepresentation the reports that it has submitted the proposal. He told a press briefing in Lusaka that his country has however supported the proposals by other countries in the region to benefit from the wildlife. He said Zambia's support is in line with the country's intention to offload its 28 tons of government-owned ivory stockpiles, which is in ZAWA custody.
Recently Namibia and Botswana submitted a proposal to the 14th conference of parties to CITES to take place next month requesting for an amendment to the conditional sales to include other activities that will benefit conservation and rural livelihood. Saiwana said Zambian government's intention has nothing to do with the killing of elephants for the sake of obtaining ivory for sale. However, the ZAWA official said Zambia would place a notification to sale its ivory during the next CITES conference to be held in 2010.
Currently the country has a stockpile of 28 tons of ivory owned by the government and which came from elephants that either died naturally or were killed after they killed people, he said. The ZAWA director general said Zambia has a big role to play as the regional representative and as a party to the CITES. Saiwana said wildlife resources when used sustainably can add economic value of the nation and to the conservation efforts of the same wildlife resources. He said those countries with good management strategies should be rewarded and not punished for the weakness of others. Zambia has a population of 25,000 elephants, Zimbabwe about 100, 000, Botswana 108,000 elephants. "Southern Africa should be rewarded for the healthy populations of the African elephants coupled with good conservation ethics hence the outcry for a chance to accord an opportunity to benefit from the resources they are conserving," he said.
Source: Xinhua
Thursday, May 10, 2007
TRAFFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE APPENDICES TO CITES AT THE 14TH MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES (COP14)
CoP14 Prop. 4 [Botswana, Namibia] Maintenance of the populations of African Elephant Loxodonta africana of
Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe in Appendix, with the replacement of all existing annotations
with the following annotation:
“1) The establishment of annual export quotas for trade in raw ivory is determined in accordance with Resolution Conf.
10.10 (Rev. CoP12);
2) Trade in raw ivory is restricted to trading partners that have been certified by the Secretariat, in consultation with the
Standing Committee, to have sufficient national legislation and domestic trade controls to ensure that the imported ivory
will not be re-exported and will be managed in accordance with the requirements of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev.
CoP12) concerning manufacturing and trade; and
3) The proceeds of the trade in raw ivory are to be used exclusively for elephant conservation and community
development programmes.”
1
Recommendation
This Proposal seeks to replace the current annotation governing trade in specimens of the four African Elephant
populations currently listed in Appendix II and seeks to establish annual commercial quotas for trade in raw ivory
subject to certain conditions. However, the Proposal fails to address the guidelines in Resolution Conf. 11.21 (Rev.
CoP13) which state: “for species transferred from Appendix I to II subject to an annotation that specifies the types of
specimen included in the Appendix, specimens that are not specifically included in the annotation shall be deemed to be
specimens of species included in Appendix I and the trade in them shall be regulated accordingly”. As a result, it
appears that the effect of this Proposal, if accepted, would be that other elephant specimens—including those currently
eligible for trade—would be regarded as specimens of species included in Appendix I. Amending the Proposal to
resolve this apparent impact would constitute an expansion of the scope, something disallowed under the CoP Rules of
Procedure.
It is premature to establish annual commercial export quotas for raw ivory, as called for in Resolution Conf. 10.10, since
the MIKE (Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants – one of the CITES elephant monitoring systems) baseline has not
yet been established. This was a key condition envisaged by the Parties when a one-off sale for specimens from three
elephant populations in Appendix II at CoP12 was agreed in 2002. Further analysis of ivory seizure data in ETIS
(Elephant Trade Information System – the other CITES monitoring system) will, for the third time, demonstrate an
increasing trend in illicit trade in ivory since the mid-1990s. This trend is most directly correlated to unregulated
domestic ivory markets and, so far, the CITES action plan to curtail such markets in Africa appears to have failed to
achieve any significant positive results so far.
REJECT
CoP14 Prop. 5 [Botswana] Amendment of the annotation to the population of African Elephant Loxodonta
africana of Botswana to read as follows:
“For the exclusive purpose of allowing in the case of the population of Botswana:
1) trade in hunting trophies for non-commercial purposes;
2) trade in hides for commercial purposes;
3) trade in leather goods for commercial purposes;
4) trade in live animals for commercial purposes to appropriate and acceptable destinations (and as determined by the
national legislation of the country of import);
5) trade annually in registered stocks of raw ivory (whole tusks and pieces of not more than 8 tonnes) of Botswana
origin owned by the Government of Botswana for commercial purposes only with trading partners that have been
certified by the Secretariat, in consultation with the Standing Committee, to have sufficient national legislation and
domestic trade controls to ensure that the imported ivory will not be re-exported and will be managed in accordance
with the requirements of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12) concerning manufacturing and trade; and
6) trade in registered stocks of raw ivory (whole tusks and pieces of not more than 40 tonnes) of Botswana origin owned
by the Government for commercial purposes on a one-off sale immediately after the adoption of the Proposal. Botswana
will trade only with trading partners that have been certified by the Secretariat, in consultation with the Standing
Committee, to have sufficient national legislation and domestic trade controls to ensure that the imported ivory will not
be re-exported and will be managed in accordance with the requirements of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12)
concerning manufacturing and trade.”
Recommendation
Botswana has at least a quarter of Africa’s elephant population, and an impressive conservation record. This Proposal
does not seek to change the current inclusion of Botswana’s elephant population in Appendix II with respect to hunting
trophies and trade in hides, but does seek to expand the scope of trade in leather goods and live animals to allow
transactions for commercial purposes, introduce annual quotas for raw ivory (in line with the requirements of
Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12)) and provide for another one-off conditional sale of not more than 40 tonnes of
stockpiled raw ivory.
Trade in elephant hides and leather items is essentially a by-product of management action and sport hunting, and there
is no evidence to suggest that such trade drives the illegal killing of elephants. There is therefore no reason to oppose
trade in leather goods for commercial purposes. Trade in live animals is not a threat to the Botswana population, nor to
the species as a whole, but there are wider conservation concerns which need to be taken into consideration. Given
recent research developments on elephant genetics and taxonomy, including the possibility of recognizing two or more
elephant species in Africa, the IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group has agreed guidelines for governing the
translocation of elephants within their historical range to prevent genetic mixing and achieve long-term genetic
viability. Clarification is needed as to whether Botswana intends to follow such guidelines in future transactions of live
animals.
The establishment of annual export quotas for raw ivory is premature before a MIKE baseline is established and whilst
the ETIS analysis shows an escalating illegal ivory trade. However, an extension to the previously agreed conditional
2
one-off sale of a specified volume of recently stockpiled raw ivory from legal sources would not present a significant
risk provided such ivory was incorporated into the still-pending one-off sale agreed at CoP12.
ACCEPT, if the proponent:
- withdraws the request for an annual quota of raw ivory;
- specifies that any trade in live animals will be carried out with due regard to available international
conservation guidelines on translocation of African Elephants
- commits to undertaking the additional one-off sale of raw ivory in conjunction with the sale agreed at
CoP12.
CoP14 Prop. 6 [Kenya, Mali] Amendment of the annotation regarding the populations of African Elephant
Loxodonta africana of Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to:
a) include the following provision:
“No trade in raw or worked ivory shall be permitted for a period of 20 years except for:
1) raw ivory exported as hunting trophies for non-commercial purposes; and
2) ivory exported pursuant to the conditional sale of registered government-owned ivory stocks agreed at the 12th
meeting of the Conference of the Parties”; and
b) remove the following provision:
“6) trade in individually marked and certified ekipas incorporated in finished jewellery for non-commercial purposes for
Namibia.”
B. Amendment of the annotation regarding the population of Zimbabwe to read:
“For the exclusive purpose of allowing:
1) export of live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations;
2) export of hides; and
3) export of leather goods for non-commercial purposes.
All other specimens shall be deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix I and the trade in them shall be
regulated accordingly.
No trade in raw or worked ivory shall be permitted for a period of 20 years.
To ensure that where a) destinations for live animals are to be appropriate and acceptable and/or b) the purpose of the
import is to be non-commercial, export permits and re-export certificates may be issued only after the issuing
Management Authority has received, from the Management Authority of the State of import, a certification to the effect
that: in case a), in analogy to Article III, paragraph 3 (b) of the Convention, the holding facility has been reviewed by
the competent Scientific Authority, and the proposed recipient has been found to be suitably equipped to house and care
for the animals; and/or in case b), in analogy to Article III, paragraph 3 (c), the Management Authority is satisfied that
the specimens will not be used for primarily commercial purposes.”
Recommendation
This Proposal by Kenya and Mali aims to introduce a 20-year moratorium on trade in raw or worked ivory from the four
countries whose elephant populations are currently listed in Appendix II, with exceptions for the CoP12-approved oneoff
sale of raw ivory from Botswana, Namibia and South Africa (as well as hunting trophies from those three countries,
but not Zimbabwe). The Proposal also aims to repeal part of the current annotation which permits Namibia to export
ekipas (a type of traditional ivory carving) and Zimbabwe to export worked ivory products for non-commercial
purposes. The Convention permits any Party to propose amendments to the Appendices, enabling Parties to respond to
changing situations, hence TRAFFIC considers it neither appropriate nor legally tenable to limit the rights of Parties to
submit Proposals at subsequent meetings of the Conference of the Parties. Furthermore, the Proposal would result in
more stringent conditions being applied to elephant populations that do not meet the conditions for inclusion in
Appendix I than for those elephant populations that are presumably of higher conservation concern and listed in
Appendix I.
REJECT
CoP14 Prop. 7 [United Republic of Tanzania] Transfer of the population of African Elephant Loxodonta africana
of the United Republic of Tanzania from Appendix I to Appendix II with an annotation that reads as follows:
“For the exclusive purpose of allowing:
1) trade in registered stocks of raw ivory in whole tusks and pieces;
2) trade in live specimens for non-commercial purposes to appropriate and acceptable destinations;
and
3) trade in hunting trophies for non-commercial purposes.”
Outcome: Proposal has been withdrawn
Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe in Appendix, with the replacement of all existing annotations
with the following annotation:
“1) The establishment of annual export quotas for trade in raw ivory is determined in accordance with Resolution Conf.
10.10 (Rev. CoP12);
2) Trade in raw ivory is restricted to trading partners that have been certified by the Secretariat, in consultation with the
Standing Committee, to have sufficient national legislation and domestic trade controls to ensure that the imported ivory
will not be re-exported and will be managed in accordance with the requirements of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev.
CoP12) concerning manufacturing and trade; and
3) The proceeds of the trade in raw ivory are to be used exclusively for elephant conservation and community
development programmes.”
1
Recommendation
This Proposal seeks to replace the current annotation governing trade in specimens of the four African Elephant
populations currently listed in Appendix II and seeks to establish annual commercial quotas for trade in raw ivory
subject to certain conditions. However, the Proposal fails to address the guidelines in Resolution Conf. 11.21 (Rev.
CoP13) which state: “for species transferred from Appendix I to II subject to an annotation that specifies the types of
specimen included in the Appendix, specimens that are not specifically included in the annotation shall be deemed to be
specimens of species included in Appendix I and the trade in them shall be regulated accordingly”. As a result, it
appears that the effect of this Proposal, if accepted, would be that other elephant specimens—including those currently
eligible for trade—would be regarded as specimens of species included in Appendix I. Amending the Proposal to
resolve this apparent impact would constitute an expansion of the scope, something disallowed under the CoP Rules of
Procedure.
It is premature to establish annual commercial export quotas for raw ivory, as called for in Resolution Conf. 10.10, since
the MIKE (Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants – one of the CITES elephant monitoring systems) baseline has not
yet been established. This was a key condition envisaged by the Parties when a one-off sale for specimens from three
elephant populations in Appendix II at CoP12 was agreed in 2002. Further analysis of ivory seizure data in ETIS
(Elephant Trade Information System – the other CITES monitoring system) will, for the third time, demonstrate an
increasing trend in illicit trade in ivory since the mid-1990s. This trend is most directly correlated to unregulated
domestic ivory markets and, so far, the CITES action plan to curtail such markets in Africa appears to have failed to
achieve any significant positive results so far.
REJECT
CoP14 Prop. 5 [Botswana] Amendment of the annotation to the population of African Elephant Loxodonta
africana of Botswana to read as follows:
“For the exclusive purpose of allowing in the case of the population of Botswana:
1) trade in hunting trophies for non-commercial purposes;
2) trade in hides for commercial purposes;
3) trade in leather goods for commercial purposes;
4) trade in live animals for commercial purposes to appropriate and acceptable destinations (and as determined by the
national legislation of the country of import);
5) trade annually in registered stocks of raw ivory (whole tusks and pieces of not more than 8 tonnes) of Botswana
origin owned by the Government of Botswana for commercial purposes only with trading partners that have been
certified by the Secretariat, in consultation with the Standing Committee, to have sufficient national legislation and
domestic trade controls to ensure that the imported ivory will not be re-exported and will be managed in accordance
with the requirements of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12) concerning manufacturing and trade; and
6) trade in registered stocks of raw ivory (whole tusks and pieces of not more than 40 tonnes) of Botswana origin owned
by the Government for commercial purposes on a one-off sale immediately after the adoption of the Proposal. Botswana
will trade only with trading partners that have been certified by the Secretariat, in consultation with the Standing
Committee, to have sufficient national legislation and domestic trade controls to ensure that the imported ivory will not
be re-exported and will be managed in accordance with the requirements of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12)
concerning manufacturing and trade.”
Recommendation
Botswana has at least a quarter of Africa’s elephant population, and an impressive conservation record. This Proposal
does not seek to change the current inclusion of Botswana’s elephant population in Appendix II with respect to hunting
trophies and trade in hides, but does seek to expand the scope of trade in leather goods and live animals to allow
transactions for commercial purposes, introduce annual quotas for raw ivory (in line with the requirements of
Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12)) and provide for another one-off conditional sale of not more than 40 tonnes of
stockpiled raw ivory.
Trade in elephant hides and leather items is essentially a by-product of management action and sport hunting, and there
is no evidence to suggest that such trade drives the illegal killing of elephants. There is therefore no reason to oppose
trade in leather goods for commercial purposes. Trade in live animals is not a threat to the Botswana population, nor to
the species as a whole, but there are wider conservation concerns which need to be taken into consideration. Given
recent research developments on elephant genetics and taxonomy, including the possibility of recognizing two or more
elephant species in Africa, the IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group has agreed guidelines for governing the
translocation of elephants within their historical range to prevent genetic mixing and achieve long-term genetic
viability. Clarification is needed as to whether Botswana intends to follow such guidelines in future transactions of live
animals.
The establishment of annual export quotas for raw ivory is premature before a MIKE baseline is established and whilst
the ETIS analysis shows an escalating illegal ivory trade. However, an extension to the previously agreed conditional
2
one-off sale of a specified volume of recently stockpiled raw ivory from legal sources would not present a significant
risk provided such ivory was incorporated into the still-pending one-off sale agreed at CoP12.
ACCEPT, if the proponent:
- withdraws the request for an annual quota of raw ivory;
- specifies that any trade in live animals will be carried out with due regard to available international
conservation guidelines on translocation of African Elephants
- commits to undertaking the additional one-off sale of raw ivory in conjunction with the sale agreed at
CoP12.
CoP14 Prop. 6 [Kenya, Mali] Amendment of the annotation regarding the populations of African Elephant
Loxodonta africana of Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to:
a) include the following provision:
“No trade in raw or worked ivory shall be permitted for a period of 20 years except for:
1) raw ivory exported as hunting trophies for non-commercial purposes; and
2) ivory exported pursuant to the conditional sale of registered government-owned ivory stocks agreed at the 12th
meeting of the Conference of the Parties”; and
b) remove the following provision:
“6) trade in individually marked and certified ekipas incorporated in finished jewellery for non-commercial purposes for
Namibia.”
B. Amendment of the annotation regarding the population of Zimbabwe to read:
“For the exclusive purpose of allowing:
1) export of live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations;
2) export of hides; and
3) export of leather goods for non-commercial purposes.
All other specimens shall be deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix I and the trade in them shall be
regulated accordingly.
No trade in raw or worked ivory shall be permitted for a period of 20 years.
To ensure that where a) destinations for live animals are to be appropriate and acceptable and/or b) the purpose of the
import is to be non-commercial, export permits and re-export certificates may be issued only after the issuing
Management Authority has received, from the Management Authority of the State of import, a certification to the effect
that: in case a), in analogy to Article III, paragraph 3 (b) of the Convention, the holding facility has been reviewed by
the competent Scientific Authority, and the proposed recipient has been found to be suitably equipped to house and care
for the animals; and/or in case b), in analogy to Article III, paragraph 3 (c), the Management Authority is satisfied that
the specimens will not be used for primarily commercial purposes.”
Recommendation
This Proposal by Kenya and Mali aims to introduce a 20-year moratorium on trade in raw or worked ivory from the four
countries whose elephant populations are currently listed in Appendix II, with exceptions for the CoP12-approved oneoff
sale of raw ivory from Botswana, Namibia and South Africa (as well as hunting trophies from those three countries,
but not Zimbabwe). The Proposal also aims to repeal part of the current annotation which permits Namibia to export
ekipas (a type of traditional ivory carving) and Zimbabwe to export worked ivory products for non-commercial
purposes. The Convention permits any Party to propose amendments to the Appendices, enabling Parties to respond to
changing situations, hence TRAFFIC considers it neither appropriate nor legally tenable to limit the rights of Parties to
submit Proposals at subsequent meetings of the Conference of the Parties. Furthermore, the Proposal would result in
more stringent conditions being applied to elephant populations that do not meet the conditions for inclusion in
Appendix I than for those elephant populations that are presumably of higher conservation concern and listed in
Appendix I.
REJECT
CoP14 Prop. 7 [United Republic of Tanzania] Transfer of the population of African Elephant Loxodonta africana
of the United Republic of Tanzania from Appendix I to Appendix II with an annotation that reads as follows:
“For the exclusive purpose of allowing:
1) trade in registered stocks of raw ivory in whole tusks and pieces;
2) trade in live specimens for non-commercial purposes to appropriate and acceptable destinations;
and
3) trade in hunting trophies for non-commercial purposes.”
Outcome: Proposal has been withdrawn
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
SADC does not support ban on ivory trade
Southern Africa: SADC Environment Ministers Plot Strategy
Mmegi/The Reporter (Gaborone)
April 30, 2007
Posted to the web May 1, 2007
Thato Chwaane
With environmental degradation threatening international peace, food security and over all economic development, southern African ministers met in a bid to thrash out remedial measures. Southern African Development Community (SADC) acting executive secretary Toao Caholo said in Gaborone that the region had no choice but to face the issues head on. Speaking at the first meeting of the SADC ad hoc committee of ministers responsible for the environment and sustainable development held at Boipuso Hall over the weekend, Caholo said there was pressure on the environment manifested in the form of land degradation, global, water contamination and other forms of environmental problems. He said 50 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the region was derived from primary products, which included fisheries, forestry, wildlife, mining and agriculture. He said these had sustained the region for generations but with an estimated 230 million people there had been a rise in demands and services. He said SADC proponents saw regional integration and cooperation on the environment and natural resources as part of a solution to the problems. He said they needed to collaborate in managing the environment and embrace the Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) approach.
Delegates at the meeting unanimously urged SADC member states to support the proposals from the region on sustainable utilisation of elephants and products during the upcoming Convention on the International Trade In Endangered Species (CITES) meeting. They called on the region to oppose the counter proposal of Kenya and Mali for a 20-year ban on trade in live elephants and elephant products. They said member states should oppose the proposal by Kenya to repeal the annual hunting quotas for black rhinos allocated to Namibia and South Africa during the previous CITES meeting. Ministers also endorsed the SADC Elephant Conservation and Management Strategy as a tool for supporting the conservation and utilisation of elephant populations.
Ministers and officials attending the meeting came from Angola, host country Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The meeting was partly meant to monitor progress and provide direction on SADC's environmental and sustainable development issues.
Mmegi/The Reporter (Gaborone)
April 30, 2007
Posted to the web May 1, 2007
Thato Chwaane
With environmental degradation threatening international peace, food security and over all economic development, southern African ministers met in a bid to thrash out remedial measures. Southern African Development Community (SADC) acting executive secretary Toao Caholo said in Gaborone that the region had no choice but to face the issues head on. Speaking at the first meeting of the SADC ad hoc committee of ministers responsible for the environment and sustainable development held at Boipuso Hall over the weekend, Caholo said there was pressure on the environment manifested in the form of land degradation, global, water contamination and other forms of environmental problems. He said 50 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the region was derived from primary products, which included fisheries, forestry, wildlife, mining and agriculture. He said these had sustained the region for generations but with an estimated 230 million people there had been a rise in demands and services. He said SADC proponents saw regional integration and cooperation on the environment and natural resources as part of a solution to the problems. He said they needed to collaborate in managing the environment and embrace the Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) approach.
Delegates at the meeting unanimously urged SADC member states to support the proposals from the region on sustainable utilisation of elephants and products during the upcoming Convention on the International Trade In Endangered Species (CITES) meeting. They called on the region to oppose the counter proposal of Kenya and Mali for a 20-year ban on trade in live elephants and elephant products. They said member states should oppose the proposal by Kenya to repeal the annual hunting quotas for black rhinos allocated to Namibia and South Africa during the previous CITES meeting. Ministers also endorsed the SADC Elephant Conservation and Management Strategy as a tool for supporting the conservation and utilisation of elephant populations.
Ministers and officials attending the meeting came from Angola, host country Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The meeting was partly meant to monitor progress and provide direction on SADC's environmental and sustainable development issues.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Environmental Investigation Agency says...
Campaign Update: 05 April 2007
THE ELEPHANT DEBATE AT COP14: THE NEED TO THINK BIG
As the elephant debate heats up for COP14 and the one-off ivory sales loom, levels of illegal ivory trade continue to rise, prompting new calls for the adoption of an holistic approach to elephant conservation and ivory trade
In June 2007, the 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP14) to CITES (Conference on the International Trade in Endangered Species) takes place in The Hague, the Netherlands. The meeting promises to be wrought with contention over the ivory trade issue, as Botswana, Namibia and South Africa seek the final go-ahead to sell their ivory stockpiles to CITES-approved trading partners. In addition, all three countries have submitted new proposals in a bid to further relax current restrictions on international trade in ivory and other elephant products.
At present, only Japan has been approved as a designated buyer, subject to the provision of a satisfactory progress report on the implementation of their domestic ivory trade controls at the next CITES Standing Committee meeting. This takes place immediately prior to COP. The only other outstanding condition of the ivory stockpile sales related to the submission of MIKE (Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants) data from a number of Asian sites. This was reportedly submitted at the end of 2006, making it extremely likely that the sales will be given the go ahead at the forthcoming meeting.
China is also seeking approval as a designated buyer and, although the CITES Secretariat highly commended China’s new domestic trade laws in 2005, they have so far refrained from recommending them as a trading partner. China is lobbying hard for this decision to be overturned, anxious not to be excluded from the imminent sales.
All this is taking place against a backdrop of a steady increase in global levels of illegal ivory trade. According to EIA’s records, since the last COP in October 2004, over 32 tonnes of ivory has been seized in more than 150 incidents worldwide, representing in excess of 5,000 poached elephants. Of these, the vast majority have been intercepted en route to South East Asia, where market demand for ivory continues to flourish. A recent report by Professor Samuel Wasser of the University of Washington in Seattle states that between August 2005 and the same month in 2006, over 23 tonnes was seized alone. Enforcement agencies typically put the percentage of ivory seized over that which goes undetected at between 10-20%, which means that the true number of elephant being poached is far greater.
A second emerging and equally alarming trend relates to the increase in the quantities of ivory being seized in individual incidents. Since 2005, there have been at least seven seizures of between 1.8 and 6 tonnes of ivory (listed below). Not only does this indicate the existence of significant black markets in South East Asia, including China and Japan, it also implies the presence of sophisticated and well-resourced criminal networks, responsible for procuring, trafficking and – in many cases - laundering the illegal ivory onto legal markets. Demand for ivory in South East Asia is increasing, with a kilogram reportedly now fetching up to USD $750 in China. Clearly, ivory trafficking is a highly profitable business and, given the current low detection rates and lack of enforcement, the incentive to stop is virtually non-existent.
Large seizures since 2005
September 2005: 6,000kg of ivory seized in the Philippines on a shipping container reportedly originating from Zambia; the vessel had departed from Tanzania
May 2006: 1,800kg seized in China
May 2006: 3,900kg intercepted in Hong Kong SAR on board a ship from Cameroon
May 2006: 4,000kg confiscated in Zimbabwe, allegedly destined for China
August 2006: 2,800kg seized in Japan on board a ship from Malaysia
July 2006: 3,060kg intercepted in Taiwan, originating from Tanzania
July 2006: 2,158kg confiscated in Taiwan, again originating from Tanzania
EIA believes that the forthcoming ivory sales only threaten to exacerbate the current negative situation. Botswana, Namibia and South Africa were granted permission to sell their ivory stockpiles (20, 10 and 30 tonnes respectively) in 2002 having demonstrated to the satisfaction of the CITES parties that their elephant populations are healthy and well protected. According to the data provided, elephant numbers in these countries have grown dramatically in recent years, so much so that Botswana and South Africa have recently mooted the possibility of reintroducing culling as a means to control population levels.
However, it is clear from the increasing reports of poaching and ivory seizures that the international illegal trade continues to pose a serious threat to elephants worldwide. This is particularly true of those occurring in countries other than Botswana, Namibia and South Africa, which are often poorly resourced and unable to provide the necessary levels of protection. For example, the forest elephants of Central and Western Africa are currently being hit hard by poaching, as once remote areas of habitat are progressively opened up to logging and road-building activities. The limited availability of data makes the full impact of this trend difficult to quantify, but a new report by Steven Blake et al (available at www.biologyosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=getdocument&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050111) succinctly illustrates the precarious situation faced by such forest dwelling pachyderms.
The current situation suggests the need for a holistic, pan-African and long-term approach to elephant conservation and the ivory trade issue, rather than one which focuses on the status of distinct national populations (elephants are migratory animals so, apart from those living in fenced wildlife areas, frequently transgress international boundaries anyway). Such an approach is reflected in the proposal submitted by Kenya and Mali to COP14. This calls for a 20-year moratorium on all ivory trade in order to allow sufficient time to assess any impacts of the forthcoming sales, particularly in terms of poaching and illegal trade. Needless to say, their proposal will be vehemently opposed by the pro-trade lobby, and may even be perceived as too ‘extreme’ by some of the more moderate parties, including the EU. In addition, the CITES Secretariat has already stated that a 20-year ban would be impossible to guarantee, as parties are permitted to submit amendments to proposals at any time.
Nonetheless, what is certain is that current international trade regulations and global enforcement capacity is not enough to deter illegal traders and prevent thousands of elephants from being killed every year to feed the increasing market demand for ivory. And this demand is only likely to be stimulated further by the forthcoming sales, placing an added strain on the already limited resources of those countries struggling hardest to protect their elephants from the poacher’s gun.
EIA will be attending COP14 in June in order to lobby against any further relaxation of the ivory trade ban. Look out for further updates on the website nearer the time.
THE ELEPHANT DEBATE AT COP14: THE NEED TO THINK BIG
As the elephant debate heats up for COP14 and the one-off ivory sales loom, levels of illegal ivory trade continue to rise, prompting new calls for the adoption of an holistic approach to elephant conservation and ivory trade
In June 2007, the 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP14) to CITES (Conference on the International Trade in Endangered Species) takes place in The Hague, the Netherlands. The meeting promises to be wrought with contention over the ivory trade issue, as Botswana, Namibia and South Africa seek the final go-ahead to sell their ivory stockpiles to CITES-approved trading partners. In addition, all three countries have submitted new proposals in a bid to further relax current restrictions on international trade in ivory and other elephant products.
At present, only Japan has been approved as a designated buyer, subject to the provision of a satisfactory progress report on the implementation of their domestic ivory trade controls at the next CITES Standing Committee meeting. This takes place immediately prior to COP. The only other outstanding condition of the ivory stockpile sales related to the submission of MIKE (Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants) data from a number of Asian sites. This was reportedly submitted at the end of 2006, making it extremely likely that the sales will be given the go ahead at the forthcoming meeting.
China is also seeking approval as a designated buyer and, although the CITES Secretariat highly commended China’s new domestic trade laws in 2005, they have so far refrained from recommending them as a trading partner. China is lobbying hard for this decision to be overturned, anxious not to be excluded from the imminent sales.
All this is taking place against a backdrop of a steady increase in global levels of illegal ivory trade. According to EIA’s records, since the last COP in October 2004, over 32 tonnes of ivory has been seized in more than 150 incidents worldwide, representing in excess of 5,000 poached elephants. Of these, the vast majority have been intercepted en route to South East Asia, where market demand for ivory continues to flourish. A recent report by Professor Samuel Wasser of the University of Washington in Seattle states that between August 2005 and the same month in 2006, over 23 tonnes was seized alone. Enforcement agencies typically put the percentage of ivory seized over that which goes undetected at between 10-20%, which means that the true number of elephant being poached is far greater.
A second emerging and equally alarming trend relates to the increase in the quantities of ivory being seized in individual incidents. Since 2005, there have been at least seven seizures of between 1.8 and 6 tonnes of ivory (listed below). Not only does this indicate the existence of significant black markets in South East Asia, including China and Japan, it also implies the presence of sophisticated and well-resourced criminal networks, responsible for procuring, trafficking and – in many cases - laundering the illegal ivory onto legal markets. Demand for ivory in South East Asia is increasing, with a kilogram reportedly now fetching up to USD $750 in China. Clearly, ivory trafficking is a highly profitable business and, given the current low detection rates and lack of enforcement, the incentive to stop is virtually non-existent.
Large seizures since 2005
September 2005: 6,000kg of ivory seized in the Philippines on a shipping container reportedly originating from Zambia; the vessel had departed from Tanzania
May 2006: 1,800kg seized in China
May 2006: 3,900kg intercepted in Hong Kong SAR on board a ship from Cameroon
May 2006: 4,000kg confiscated in Zimbabwe, allegedly destined for China
August 2006: 2,800kg seized in Japan on board a ship from Malaysia
July 2006: 3,060kg intercepted in Taiwan, originating from Tanzania
July 2006: 2,158kg confiscated in Taiwan, again originating from Tanzania
EIA believes that the forthcoming ivory sales only threaten to exacerbate the current negative situation. Botswana, Namibia and South Africa were granted permission to sell their ivory stockpiles (20, 10 and 30 tonnes respectively) in 2002 having demonstrated to the satisfaction of the CITES parties that their elephant populations are healthy and well protected. According to the data provided, elephant numbers in these countries have grown dramatically in recent years, so much so that Botswana and South Africa have recently mooted the possibility of reintroducing culling as a means to control population levels.
However, it is clear from the increasing reports of poaching and ivory seizures that the international illegal trade continues to pose a serious threat to elephants worldwide. This is particularly true of those occurring in countries other than Botswana, Namibia and South Africa, which are often poorly resourced and unable to provide the necessary levels of protection. For example, the forest elephants of Central and Western Africa are currently being hit hard by poaching, as once remote areas of habitat are progressively opened up to logging and road-building activities. The limited availability of data makes the full impact of this trend difficult to quantify, but a new report by Steven Blake et al (available at www.biologyosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=getdocument&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050111) succinctly illustrates the precarious situation faced by such forest dwelling pachyderms.
The current situation suggests the need for a holistic, pan-African and long-term approach to elephant conservation and the ivory trade issue, rather than one which focuses on the status of distinct national populations (elephants are migratory animals so, apart from those living in fenced wildlife areas, frequently transgress international boundaries anyway). Such an approach is reflected in the proposal submitted by Kenya and Mali to COP14. This calls for a 20-year moratorium on all ivory trade in order to allow sufficient time to assess any impacts of the forthcoming sales, particularly in terms of poaching and illegal trade. Needless to say, their proposal will be vehemently opposed by the pro-trade lobby, and may even be perceived as too ‘extreme’ by some of the more moderate parties, including the EU. In addition, the CITES Secretariat has already stated that a 20-year ban would be impossible to guarantee, as parties are permitted to submit amendments to proposals at any time.
Nonetheless, what is certain is that current international trade regulations and global enforcement capacity is not enough to deter illegal traders and prevent thousands of elephants from being killed every year to feed the increasing market demand for ivory. And this demand is only likely to be stimulated further by the forthcoming sales, placing an added strain on the already limited resources of those countries struggling hardest to protect their elephants from the poacher’s gun.
EIA will be attending COP14 in June in order to lobby against any further relaxation of the ivory trade ban. Look out for further updates on the website nearer the time.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Investing in elephant futures
(Originally published in The Observor some ten years ago)
Should Africa's elephants be harvested for their ivory, or should they be left to live their lives in peace? The question is nothing like so simple as at first it may seem. One issue that seems to have been overlooked in debates on the ethics of international trade in ivory is the basic biology of the elephant. Because of the rate at which elephants' tusks grow, it may make economic sense for dealers not to buy ivory today, but to invest in "elephant futures" and thus conserve the great beasts of Africa.
Everyone who loves animals would like the elephants to be left " in peace". But it is clear, first of all, that populations of elephants, left to themselves, swell and collapse like those of lemmings - albeit on a timescale of decades or centuries. When elephants had the entire continent to roam in, then fair enough: such space could absorb the enormous ecological shock of their peaks and troughs. But, if they are confined to national parks, as they are now, then they are bound to run into ecological disaster unless their numbers are regulated. So if we care about the elephants' long- term survival we have to be prepared to cull them. And if they have to be culled anyway, then why not take their tusks to pay local people to maintain the parks? Local people are important: and all wildlife is doomed - probably - unless local people acquiesce in its protection.
Others point out, again with justice, that if there is a legitimate trade in ivory based on elephants culled systematically (from parks) then an illegitimate trade could ride on its back: based on
poached elephants. Africa's elephants have declined from an estimated 1.2 million at the end of the 1970s to 600,000 by the end of the 1980s, and 80 percent of the ivory that has appeared on the market in the past decade has been poached. The only way to cut out the poaching is to eliminate the ivory trade altogether. It was this argument that recently prompted the Kenyan government to order a vast cache of tusks to be burnt. Some people just feel a general disgust for the trade. Dr John Leger, a South African conservationist, said: "Ivory belongs in the same league as ashtrays made from the hands of gorillas."
On purely rational grounds, it seems impossible to choose between the two strategies. Any decision seems bound to be based either on guesswork or on simple emotion; and although emotion is a sine qua non, it should not be the sole guide to action.
Yet there is a possible compromise. It derives from work at Dr John Beddington's Renewable Resources Assessment Department at Imperial College, London. For it could be in everybody's interests, when harvesting ivory, simply to let the animals die of old age and to take tusks only from animals that have died a natural death. It should pay the harvesters of ivory assiduously to protect tuskers throughout their lives, and to ensure that they live as long as possible. Then, when the animal finally dies (after a peaceful life), the financial reward would be enormous. Thus, the demands of commerce and of humanitarianism would be reconciled.
This notion is based on the biology of the elephant. Most of an animal's physical attributes - its ears, its liver, and its brain - reach a certain size as it matures, and then stop growing. They may even shrink in old age. But the teeth of some animals continue to grow throughout life, and so it is with elephants' tusks.
Furthermore, the growth of elephants' tusks is exponential." Exponential" does not mean "fast",
as the sub-editors of The Economist apparently suppose. It means that the rate of growth increases as time passes. Thus a 30-year old, and the 50-year old's might be twice as big as the 40-year old's. The bull that ran its biblical span of threescore years and ten should be marvellously endowed.
The argument also works the other way round. Suppose, for example, that you decide the first year to harvest a certain weight of ivory from a particular elephant population. You do this, sensibly enough,
by killing the elephants with the largest tusks. But if you decide the following year to harvest the same amount again - having established a market in the first year to harvest the same amount again - having established a market in the first year - then you will find that you have to kill more elephants than you killed the first year, because those that are left have smaller tusks. The following year the position will be worse, because those that are left will have much smaller tusks. Such a harvesting policy - taking more and more animals, of younger and younger age, each year - sounds insane. Nevertheless, says Dr Beddington, this is precisely what has been happening among many African herds, which is why the decline is not only continuing, but accelerating.
Suppose now, though, that you are a Japanese dealer in ivory (it is, after all, the Japanese who account for most of the trade). You could simply arrange with your African contacts to go and kill elephants. But if you were astute, you would realise that if you waited a year, or five, or 10, you could harvest enormously more than if you struck immediately. It could pay you, in fact, not to buy ivory, but to buy futures in ivory. Of course you have to make a living in the meantime. But as the growth rate of the ivory is exponential, and the interest rate on borrowed money is not, it could well pay you, even in naive cash terms, to borrow money for the immediate protection of the elephants - provided only that you are guaranteed to take possession of the tusks eventually. And again, because the rate of growth of the ivory is exponential, this waiting strategy would become more and more attractive with each passing year. It would pay you, indeed, to keep it up until the friendly animal finally keeled over, a happy and fulfilled septuagenarian.
Such a strategy would raise new problems. Big old animals are obstructive: it would put an enormous strain on parks (and on fellow elephants), if all the old males were encouraged to stay on. But when they are old they are largely solitary; and it would not be inhumane to keep them apart corrals. The younger herd of the forest would then be regarded (by the commercial dealers) as seed corn for the future. Of course, the argument that a legitimate trade would open the door for an illegitimate trade would still apply. However, if the ivory trade was run on these rational lines, and if the price of ivory was maintained, there would be so much money in the business that it would profit the traders to pay today's poachers to act as guardians; and there is no finer gamekeeper than an erstwhile poacher.
John Beddington's general aim at Imperial is to "found workable technologies upon sound ecological principles". Here is one possibility.
Colin Tudge presents BBC radio's science programme, "Spectrum". He is writing a book on animal conservation, "Last Animals at the Zoo", to be published by Century Hutchinson.
Should Africa's elephants be harvested for their ivory, or should they be left to live their lives in peace? The question is nothing like so simple as at first it may seem. One issue that seems to have been overlooked in debates on the ethics of international trade in ivory is the basic biology of the elephant. Because of the rate at which elephants' tusks grow, it may make economic sense for dealers not to buy ivory today, but to invest in "elephant futures" and thus conserve the great beasts of Africa.
Everyone who loves animals would like the elephants to be left " in peace". But it is clear, first of all, that populations of elephants, left to themselves, swell and collapse like those of lemmings - albeit on a timescale of decades or centuries. When elephants had the entire continent to roam in, then fair enough: such space could absorb the enormous ecological shock of their peaks and troughs. But, if they are confined to national parks, as they are now, then they are bound to run into ecological disaster unless their numbers are regulated. So if we care about the elephants' long- term survival we have to be prepared to cull them. And if they have to be culled anyway, then why not take their tusks to pay local people to maintain the parks? Local people are important: and all wildlife is doomed - probably - unless local people acquiesce in its protection.
Others point out, again with justice, that if there is a legitimate trade in ivory based on elephants culled systematically (from parks) then an illegitimate trade could ride on its back: based on
poached elephants. Africa's elephants have declined from an estimated 1.2 million at the end of the 1970s to 600,000 by the end of the 1980s, and 80 percent of the ivory that has appeared on the market in the past decade has been poached. The only way to cut out the poaching is to eliminate the ivory trade altogether. It was this argument that recently prompted the Kenyan government to order a vast cache of tusks to be burnt. Some people just feel a general disgust for the trade. Dr John Leger, a South African conservationist, said: "Ivory belongs in the same league as ashtrays made from the hands of gorillas."
On purely rational grounds, it seems impossible to choose between the two strategies. Any decision seems bound to be based either on guesswork or on simple emotion; and although emotion is a sine qua non, it should not be the sole guide to action.
Yet there is a possible compromise. It derives from work at Dr John Beddington's Renewable Resources Assessment Department at Imperial College, London. For it could be in everybody's interests, when harvesting ivory, simply to let the animals die of old age and to take tusks only from animals that have died a natural death. It should pay the harvesters of ivory assiduously to protect tuskers throughout their lives, and to ensure that they live as long as possible. Then, when the animal finally dies (after a peaceful life), the financial reward would be enormous. Thus, the demands of commerce and of humanitarianism would be reconciled.
This notion is based on the biology of the elephant. Most of an animal's physical attributes - its ears, its liver, and its brain - reach a certain size as it matures, and then stop growing. They may even shrink in old age. But the teeth of some animals continue to grow throughout life, and so it is with elephants' tusks.
Furthermore, the growth of elephants' tusks is exponential." Exponential" does not mean "fast",
as the sub-editors of The Economist apparently suppose. It means that the rate of growth increases as time passes. Thus a 30-year old, and the 50-year old's might be twice as big as the 40-year old's. The bull that ran its biblical span of threescore years and ten should be marvellously endowed.
The argument also works the other way round. Suppose, for example, that you decide the first year to harvest a certain weight of ivory from a particular elephant population. You do this, sensibly enough,
by killing the elephants with the largest tusks. But if you decide the following year to harvest the same amount again - having established a market in the first year to harvest the same amount again - having established a market in the first year - then you will find that you have to kill more elephants than you killed the first year, because those that are left have smaller tusks. The following year the position will be worse, because those that are left will have much smaller tusks. Such a harvesting policy - taking more and more animals, of younger and younger age, each year - sounds insane. Nevertheless, says Dr Beddington, this is precisely what has been happening among many African herds, which is why the decline is not only continuing, but accelerating.
Suppose now, though, that you are a Japanese dealer in ivory (it is, after all, the Japanese who account for most of the trade). You could simply arrange with your African contacts to go and kill elephants. But if you were astute, you would realise that if you waited a year, or five, or 10, you could harvest enormously more than if you struck immediately. It could pay you, in fact, not to buy ivory, but to buy futures in ivory. Of course you have to make a living in the meantime. But as the growth rate of the ivory is exponential, and the interest rate on borrowed money is not, it could well pay you, even in naive cash terms, to borrow money for the immediate protection of the elephants - provided only that you are guaranteed to take possession of the tusks eventually. And again, because the rate of growth of the ivory is exponential, this waiting strategy would become more and more attractive with each passing year. It would pay you, indeed, to keep it up until the friendly animal finally keeled over, a happy and fulfilled septuagenarian.
Such a strategy would raise new problems. Big old animals are obstructive: it would put an enormous strain on parks (and on fellow elephants), if all the old males were encouraged to stay on. But when they are old they are largely solitary; and it would not be inhumane to keep them apart corrals. The younger herd of the forest would then be regarded (by the commercial dealers) as seed corn for the future. Of course, the argument that a legitimate trade would open the door for an illegitimate trade would still apply. However, if the ivory trade was run on these rational lines, and if the price of ivory was maintained, there would be so much money in the business that it would profit the traders to pay today's poachers to act as guardians; and there is no finer gamekeeper than an erstwhile poacher.
John Beddington's general aim at Imperial is to "found workable technologies upon sound ecological principles". Here is one possibility.
Colin Tudge presents BBC radio's science programme, "Spectrum". He is writing a book on animal conservation, "Last Animals at the Zoo", to be published by Century Hutchinson.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Another two elephant killed in West Petauke GMA of Zambia...
The Natural Resources Chairman of the Luembe Community Resource Board reports today that a gang of elephant poachers were arrested by the Nyimba ZAWA Unit a few days ago in the West Petauke Game Management Area, and two pairs of tusks and meat confiscated. Three more poachers are therefore in the Nyimba jail awaiting trial. Community investigations continue into the role of the Nyimba ZAWA Unit and ZAWA and village guards in the current wave of elephant slaughter. ZAWA HQ have yet to report on progress in this regard, although they promised to do so.
Zambia Wildlife Authority Elephant Policy...
Elephant management strategies
The strategies recognize the elephant’s economic potential at local and national levels in terms of creation of employment and income generation, through consumptive and non-consumptive uses. It should be noted therefore, that in this context, elephants have an incomparable economic potential than all the other species of wildlife currently being utilized in Zambia (save for the black rhino). It also has the potential to out compete several other land use options, given a level playing field.
In order for Government to realize maximum economic potential from the elephant, it is critical that species protection through effective management and cooperation with local communities are enhanced. This requires a succinct policy and subsidiary legislation to support management strategies. This initiative, therefore, constitutes the first effort to develop specific guidelines on how elephant will be managed in Zambia and is being issued for four main reasons as follows:
That the Government of the Republic of Zambia considers elephant as an economic asset in terms of non-consumptive and consumptive tourism, but has not been given due prominence in the past so that it can compete with other land use options; Proper management of the species is critical so that it realizes its full potential to generate significant income for the nation and local community in particular; Proper ivory management system will enable government to dispose of the ivory stockpile to raise forex for the nation and income for ZAWA and local communities who often lose their crops to elephants; As a keystone species in the environment and critical to the maintenance of biodiversity
The summation of the above issues and problems have raised national debate and present new challenges that must be addressed continuously.
The strategies recognize the elephant’s economic potential at local and national levels in terms of creation of employment and income generation, through consumptive and non-consumptive uses. It should be noted therefore, that in this context, elephants have an incomparable economic potential than all the other species of wildlife currently being utilized in Zambia (save for the black rhino). It also has the potential to out compete several other land use options, given a level playing field.
In order for Government to realize maximum economic potential from the elephant, it is critical that species protection through effective management and cooperation with local communities are enhanced. This requires a succinct policy and subsidiary legislation to support management strategies. This initiative, therefore, constitutes the first effort to develop specific guidelines on how elephant will be managed in Zambia and is being issued for four main reasons as follows:
That the Government of the Republic of Zambia considers elephant as an economic asset in terms of non-consumptive and consumptive tourism, but has not been given due prominence in the past so that it can compete with other land use options; Proper management of the species is critical so that it realizes its full potential to generate significant income for the nation and local community in particular; Proper ivory management system will enable government to dispose of the ivory stockpile to raise forex for the nation and income for ZAWA and local communities who often lose their crops to elephants; As a keystone species in the environment and critical to the maintenance of biodiversity
The summation of the above issues and problems have raised national debate and present new challenges that must be addressed continuously.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Zimbabwe: States to Hold Preparatory Meeting Ahead of Cites
The Herald (Harare)
April 2, 2007
Posted to the web April 2, 2007
Harare
ELEPHANT range states from southern Africa are holding a preparatory meeting on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species in Botswana next week. Botswana, South Africa, Namibia, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe are expected to come up with a common position ahead of the proposal by Kenya and Mali to ban all trade in elephant products. If adopted, the proposal would seriously affect hunting in Botswana, South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe. A Zimbabwean delegation headed by Secretary for Environment and Tourism Mrs Margaret Sangarwe will present its submissions on the wildlife hunting situation in the country. "The main focus will be on elephant hunting and the effects this proposal will have on the sector if it sails through during the Cites meeting," Mrs Sangarwe said.
April 2, 2007
Posted to the web April 2, 2007
Harare
ELEPHANT range states from southern Africa are holding a preparatory meeting on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species in Botswana next week. Botswana, South Africa, Namibia, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe are expected to come up with a common position ahead of the proposal by Kenya and Mali to ban all trade in elephant products. If adopted, the proposal would seriously affect hunting in Botswana, South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe. A Zimbabwean delegation headed by Secretary for Environment and Tourism Mrs Margaret Sangarwe will present its submissions on the wildlife hunting situation in the country. "The main focus will be on elephant hunting and the effects this proposal will have on the sector if it sails through during the Cites meeting," Mrs Sangarwe said.
More from the ele killings fields of Zambia...
Last week ten people were arrested at the Luangwa Bridge as they attempted to smuggle elephant meat and four tusks through to Lusaka on a lorry. Alerted by a Nyalugwe Community Resource Board member, in whose country the two elephant were poached, paramilitary arrested the group, delivered some impromptu corporal punishment, then released - for reasons unknown, the driver and the lorry, and sent the poachers to Nyimba town jail. Two sporting rifles (.375 and 30.06), a shotgun and a muzzle loader were confiscated. The poaching group are from the hamlet of Lukwipa, forty miles East of the Luangwa bridge, a roadside village notorious for its game meat market; two of the members are prominant citizens in the village, one a schoolmaster, the other the dispensary assistant. This continuing onslaught on our elephant is having the unfortunate effect of forcing them to take refuge around villages, attacking grain bins, huts and villagers.
Reports have also been received of an attack by poachers on personnel looking after a safari lodge at Mushika in the Lower Zambezi National Park; and in the adjoining Rufunsa Game Management Area a wildlife officer recently poached a kudu, calling in his friends on his cell phone.
Reports have also been received of an attack by poachers on personnel looking after a safari lodge at Mushika in the Lower Zambezi National Park; and in the adjoining Rufunsa Game Management Area a wildlife officer recently poached a kudu, calling in his friends on his cell phone.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Friday, March 30, 2007
Elephant killed near tourists in Zambia...
It was reported by a tourist lodge manager that two elephant were killed within a hundred yards of tourists in Zambia's Lower Zambezi National Park. Zambia Wildlife guards arrived, sprayed the area with gunfire and picked up two tusks which the poaching gang had been carrying
Zambia’s raiding elephant…. by Peter Nyalugwe
In our Nyalugwe chiefdom in the Eastern Province of Zambia, our people suffer from animal attacks on people and from crop damage. Complaints being made are not attended to by the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) wildlife officers and village scouts of our Community Resource Board. Elephants, wildpigs, baboons are the most notorious animals to crop damage. One day a baboon walked away with a 25 kg bag of mielie meal to the bush thinking that was maize whilst chasing the other flock of the mammals. This happened at the Kasolo streams in my brother’s (Chief Nyalugwe) chiefdom. I witnessed this incident. During the 2006 and 2007 farming season none of the villagers had tasted a mango fruit because of the very notorious animals. Elephants again terrorized villagers from their granaries in search of food. There are two big bull which have brought havoc to the Nyalugwe community i.e. starting from the villges called Chamilala, Kasansamula, Nkondasoka, Kasolo gardens, Nylaugwe Palace, Kautukilo, Mzenje, Mankomba, Chilanga Gardens.
The community around the Nyalugwe Palace never sleep in their house, when the sun sets and a partial darkness i.e. around 1800 hrs the very elephants arrive then they sleep. This time the breating of drums and all sorts of irregular noise prevails i.e. chasing them away. Meanwhile ZAWA office of Nyimba sector have brought some bags of chilly for making buffer fences which another process of chasing them away from the community. A named resident of Mankhomba village was attacked (Astone Daka) around 0400 hrs whilst trying to sleep in his house thinking that the elephants have gone away which resulted in drama situation of him and the wife came out in adam suit. The very animals abruptly damaged his house due to the maize smell in their house. The couple were assisted with their neighbours to dress themselves. Another incident happened at Miss Lineli Mumba of the next village named Mzenje was equally the same. On the same day of 18 March 2007. This matter was reported to ZAWA Nyimba sector but no action has taken place.
There is also the increase in the killing of elephant for ivory. From observations, this is caused by poverty, corruption, availability of illegal weapons and lack of enforcement resources. To this regard you will found a village scout going for patrol without a uniform , boots, and a bag. Carrying their rations . This has made no different with civilians or villagers. They carry with them weapons for controlling the situation. I appeal to the responsible authoritites to motivate scouts with full kit as proper officers on duty.
Meanwhile the office of the Vice President thorugh the District Copmmissioner jof Nyimba district has assisted the community with some relief foood i.e maize and wheat which being distributed by ADRA. Remember ZAWA doesn’t compensate affected victims, even though it is their animals which damage our land and property.
An elephant bull was killed near the Chilinga reserve a few days ago by five villagers. ZAWA recovered some meat but the ivories have gone.
The community around the Nyalugwe Palace never sleep in their house, when the sun sets and a partial darkness i.e. around 1800 hrs the very elephants arrive then they sleep. This time the breating of drums and all sorts of irregular noise prevails i.e. chasing them away. Meanwhile ZAWA office of Nyimba sector have brought some bags of chilly for making buffer fences which another process of chasing them away from the community. A named resident of Mankhomba village was attacked (Astone Daka) around 0400 hrs whilst trying to sleep in his house thinking that the elephants have gone away which resulted in drama situation of him and the wife came out in adam suit. The very animals abruptly damaged his house due to the maize smell in their house. The couple were assisted with their neighbours to dress themselves. Another incident happened at Miss Lineli Mumba of the next village named Mzenje was equally the same. On the same day of 18 March 2007. This matter was reported to ZAWA Nyimba sector but no action has taken place.
There is also the increase in the killing of elephant for ivory. From observations, this is caused by poverty, corruption, availability of illegal weapons and lack of enforcement resources. To this regard you will found a village scout going for patrol without a uniform , boots, and a bag. Carrying their rations . This has made no different with civilians or villagers. They carry with them weapons for controlling the situation. I appeal to the responsible authoritites to motivate scouts with full kit as proper officers on duty.
Meanwhile the office of the Vice President thorugh the District Copmmissioner jof Nyimba district has assisted the community with some relief foood i.e maize and wheat which being distributed by ADRA. Remember ZAWA doesn’t compensate affected victims, even though it is their animals which damage our land and property.
An elephant bull was killed near the Chilinga reserve a few days ago by five villagers. ZAWA recovered some meat but the ivories have gone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)