At a meeting between the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) and safari hunting operators on 23 February, 2007, ZAWA stated that they wished to make changes to the Statutory Instrument No. 40 of 2005 (The Zambian Wildlife (Elephant) (Sport Hunting) Regulations, 2005) so that parts of elephant - other than their tusks, could be exported. I pointed out that the Natural Resources Consultative Forum - supported at the time by the hunting industry, had advised that elephant should not be hunted in Zambia for a variety of reasons, and that this advice had been ignored in 2005 (9 killed) and in 2006 (15 killed), and now in 2007 it was expected that much of the quota of 20 animals would be killed. The Director-General, who had previously given his word to me that no elephant hunting permits would be issued without stakeholder consultations, said that more than 20 elephant a year needed to be killed so as to provide income for communities, and that the 100 or so animals shot to protect crops should be sport hunted so as to provide additional benefits. Doubtless this will require the Statutory Instrument to be altered i.e. section (2) (a) "The hunting of elephants for sport shall not include the hunting of elephant for purposes of controlling problem elephants."
Some operators - whom had previously supported the hunting ban, requested that they be allowed to hunt elephant in their areas, asking that CITES agree to increased offtakes, and that they be allowed to bring clients in as soon as crop raiding occurred. The fact that much of the crop raiding is carried out by non trophy bull elephant, and that it takes place in the rains when much of Zambia is impassable, escaped the meeting, as is the escalating wave of elephant poaching currently taking place in the country.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
African carnage -- 1 year's seized ivory likely came from 23,000 elephants
African elephants are being slaughtered for their ivory at a rate unprecedented since an international convention banning ivory trade took effect in 1989, a University of Washington biologist says.
The problem is so serious that the giant creatures might be on the path to extinction unless western nations reinstate strong enforcement efforts that all but halted black-market ivory trade in the four years immediately after the ban was enacted, said Samuel Wasser, director of the UW Center for Conservation Biology. He is the lead author of a paper detailing the problem published the week of Feb. 26 in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and he argues the continued loss of elephants will have serious consequences.
"Elephants are majestic animals and are not trivial to the ecosystem. They are a keystone species and taking them out significantly alters the habitat," he said. "It has ripple effects on lots of different species."
For the year ending in August 2006, authorities seized more than 23,400 kilograms, or nearly 24 tons, of contraband ivory, Wasser said. But the paper notes it is commonly assumed that customs agents typically detect only about 10 percent of contraband, so the actual amount of poached ivory probably is closer to 234,000 kilograms. That means more than 23,000 elephants, or about 5 percent of Africa's total population, likely were killed for that amount of ivory.
China's burgeoning economy is a major force driving the black-market ivory trade, escalating prices and attracting organized crime, Wasser said. In 1989 a kilogram of high-quality ivory sold for $100 on the black market. That rose to $200 in 2004 but by last year had ballooned to $750 per kilogram.
"If it really is organized crime that's driving this, then the only hope we have of stopping it is to stop the ivory at the source, to not let it into the international market. Because once it's in the international market, the trade is very hard to stop," Wasser said.
He and colleagues at the UW are working with other scientists and law enforcement agencies, primarily Interpol, to track the source of poached ivory. In June 2002 authorities in Singapore seized a 20-foot container packed with 6.5 tons of contraband ivory bound for the Far East from Malawi. It was the second-largest seizure of contraband ivory on record, the largest since the 1989 ban took effect, and represented ivory from 3,000 to 6,500 poached elephants. Authorities assumed the ivory had been collected from many different places, especially from forest elephants, but the assumption proved to be incorrect.
Over several years, Wasser and his colleagues have collected genetic information from a variety of populations by sampling tissue and dung from known populations, then compiled the information into a DNA-based map showing genetic differences between elephant populations. Using that information, the scientists grouped the tusks by common characteristics and then sampled randomly from those groups. They examined 67 tusks from the 532 seized in Singapore and showed that the ivory came from elephants on Africa's broad savannahs, not in forests. Further testing showed the ivory came from a small area of southern Africa, most likely centered on Zambia. Law enforcement agencies have identified many participants in the poaching, yet not one person has been prosecuted, Wasser said.
The tusks in the seized shipment weighed an average of 11 kilograms apiece, more than twice the weight normally seen in the market, indicating they came from a large number of older elephants. The shipment also contained 42,000 hankos, small blocks of solid ivory used to make signature stamps, or chops, that are widely used in the Far East, particularly in China and Japan.
Wasser noted that shortly before the seizure, Zambia had petitioned for permission to sell its ivory stockpiles internationally, stockpiles that were supposed to have existed before the international ban took effect in 1989. But the application said only 135 elephants were known to have been killed illegally in Zambia in the previous 10 years, far fewer than would have had to be slaughtered to produce the ivory in just the single seizure in 2002.
The paper's co-authors are Matthew Stephens, formerly of the UW and now at the University of Chicago; Celia Mailand and Rebecca Booth of the UW; Benezeth Mutayoba of the Sokoine University of Agriculture in Tanzania; Emily Kisamo of the Lusaka Agreement Task Force in Kenya; and Bill Clark of the Interpol Working Group on Wildlife Crime and the Israel Nature and Parks Authority. The work was funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service African Elephant Conservation Fund, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the Center for Conservation Biology.
The authors wonder how a poor nation such as Zambia, with only slight international assistance, can fend off organized criminals fueled by the booming Far East economy, and they argue that Western nations must resume efforts to halt ivory trafficking. They note that western nations contributed heavily to enforcement efforts when the international ban took effect in 1989, and in the next four years poaching was virtually eliminated. But the success apparently left a sense that the problem was solved and the nations withdrew their funding.
Wasser and colleagues want to see reinstatement of strong enforcement, and also want to see education programs established to teach people in Africa to better manage their wildlife and persuade people in Asia not to use ivory, much of which is obtained illegally.
"If people really realized what is happening they would be ashamed to be part of the crisis," he said. "We don't want to spend our time catching criminals, we want to stop the crime from happening. That's the most effective enforcement you can do."
###
Embargoed by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences For release at 5 p.m. EST, 2 p.m. PST, Monday, Feb. 26, 2007
For more information, contact Wasser at (206) 543-1669 or wassers@u.washington.edu
The problem is so serious that the giant creatures might be on the path to extinction unless western nations reinstate strong enforcement efforts that all but halted black-market ivory trade in the four years immediately after the ban was enacted, said Samuel Wasser, director of the UW Center for Conservation Biology. He is the lead author of a paper detailing the problem published the week of Feb. 26 in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and he argues the continued loss of elephants will have serious consequences.
"Elephants are majestic animals and are not trivial to the ecosystem. They are a keystone species and taking them out significantly alters the habitat," he said. "It has ripple effects on lots of different species."
For the year ending in August 2006, authorities seized more than 23,400 kilograms, or nearly 24 tons, of contraband ivory, Wasser said. But the paper notes it is commonly assumed that customs agents typically detect only about 10 percent of contraband, so the actual amount of poached ivory probably is closer to 234,000 kilograms. That means more than 23,000 elephants, or about 5 percent of Africa's total population, likely were killed for that amount of ivory.
China's burgeoning economy is a major force driving the black-market ivory trade, escalating prices and attracting organized crime, Wasser said. In 1989 a kilogram of high-quality ivory sold for $100 on the black market. That rose to $200 in 2004 but by last year had ballooned to $750 per kilogram.
"If it really is organized crime that's driving this, then the only hope we have of stopping it is to stop the ivory at the source, to not let it into the international market. Because once it's in the international market, the trade is very hard to stop," Wasser said.
He and colleagues at the UW are working with other scientists and law enforcement agencies, primarily Interpol, to track the source of poached ivory. In June 2002 authorities in Singapore seized a 20-foot container packed with 6.5 tons of contraband ivory bound for the Far East from Malawi. It was the second-largest seizure of contraband ivory on record, the largest since the 1989 ban took effect, and represented ivory from 3,000 to 6,500 poached elephants. Authorities assumed the ivory had been collected from many different places, especially from forest elephants, but the assumption proved to be incorrect.
Over several years, Wasser and his colleagues have collected genetic information from a variety of populations by sampling tissue and dung from known populations, then compiled the information into a DNA-based map showing genetic differences between elephant populations. Using that information, the scientists grouped the tusks by common characteristics and then sampled randomly from those groups. They examined 67 tusks from the 532 seized in Singapore and showed that the ivory came from elephants on Africa's broad savannahs, not in forests. Further testing showed the ivory came from a small area of southern Africa, most likely centered on Zambia. Law enforcement agencies have identified many participants in the poaching, yet not one person has been prosecuted, Wasser said.
The tusks in the seized shipment weighed an average of 11 kilograms apiece, more than twice the weight normally seen in the market, indicating they came from a large number of older elephants. The shipment also contained 42,000 hankos, small blocks of solid ivory used to make signature stamps, or chops, that are widely used in the Far East, particularly in China and Japan.
Wasser noted that shortly before the seizure, Zambia had petitioned for permission to sell its ivory stockpiles internationally, stockpiles that were supposed to have existed before the international ban took effect in 1989. But the application said only 135 elephants were known to have been killed illegally in Zambia in the previous 10 years, far fewer than would have had to be slaughtered to produce the ivory in just the single seizure in 2002.
The paper's co-authors are Matthew Stephens, formerly of the UW and now at the University of Chicago; Celia Mailand and Rebecca Booth of the UW; Benezeth Mutayoba of the Sokoine University of Agriculture in Tanzania; Emily Kisamo of the Lusaka Agreement Task Force in Kenya; and Bill Clark of the Interpol Working Group on Wildlife Crime and the Israel Nature and Parks Authority. The work was funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service African Elephant Conservation Fund, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the Center for Conservation Biology.
The authors wonder how a poor nation such as Zambia, with only slight international assistance, can fend off organized criminals fueled by the booming Far East economy, and they argue that Western nations must resume efforts to halt ivory trafficking. They note that western nations contributed heavily to enforcement efforts when the international ban took effect in 1989, and in the next four years poaching was virtually eliminated. But the success apparently left a sense that the problem was solved and the nations withdrew their funding.
Wasser and colleagues want to see reinstatement of strong enforcement, and also want to see education programs established to teach people in Africa to better manage their wildlife and persuade people in Asia not to use ivory, much of which is obtained illegally.
"If people really realized what is happening they would be ashamed to be part of the crisis," he said. "We don't want to spend our time catching criminals, we want to stop the crime from happening. That's the most effective enforcement you can do."
###
Embargoed by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences For release at 5 p.m. EST, 2 p.m. PST, Monday, Feb. 26, 2007
For more information, contact Wasser at (206) 543-1669 or wassers@u.washington.edu
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Arrests made in record Japan ivory haul...
Saturday, 10 February 2007, 1:05 pm
Press Release: CITES
9 February 07
Arrests have been made in the record-breaking elephant ivory seizure case of this past August in Osaka, Japan. The confiscated ivory totalled nearly three tons, costing the lives of hundreds of endangered African elephants. Two suspects have just been taken into custody for their alleged violation of the international trade ban on ivory.
While claims have previously been made by the CITES (Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species) Secretariat that Japan no longer has significant involvement in the ivory trade industry, this 2.8 ton seizure clearly disproves such statements. “IFAW encourages the strictest penalties for those convicted in this crime. The poaching of elephants has spiralled out of control in recent years and international law must be strictly enforced,” said Rebecca Keeble, IFAW Asia Pacific Campaigns Officer.
Given that the seizure took place in August 2006, the official reporting, which occurred in October, raises major concerns about the forthrightness of Japanese authorities. The failure to promptly disclose these events occurred at a time that was all too convenient for Japan, just up for their consideration to become a trading partner by CITES for ivory stockpiles. With the seizure under wraps, Japan was approved as a trading partner.
“This behaviour cannot be ignored, and the trading partner status of Japan must be reconsidered by CITES standing committee,” said Ms Keeble.
Fuelled by a growing demand for ivory in Asian regions, the wholesale price of ivory in Japan and China has skyrocketed in recent years, going from $100/kg in the late 1990’s to the current staggering $750/kg.
The ivory found in this shipment is enough to create approximately 80,000 “hankos”, which is equivalent to roughly 40% percent of Japan’s annual consumption. Hankos are traditionally used by the Japanese to seal letters, and are representative of a certain status within society. Between March 2005 and August 2006, over 26 tons of ivory has been seized, the highest ever in such a period since the 1989 CITES ban went into effect (which was later resanctioned). This single seizure has been identified as the largest ivory seizure ever in Japan.
Press Release: CITES
9 February 07
Arrests have been made in the record-breaking elephant ivory seizure case of this past August in Osaka, Japan. The confiscated ivory totalled nearly three tons, costing the lives of hundreds of endangered African elephants. Two suspects have just been taken into custody for their alleged violation of the international trade ban on ivory.
While claims have previously been made by the CITES (Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species) Secretariat that Japan no longer has significant involvement in the ivory trade industry, this 2.8 ton seizure clearly disproves such statements. “IFAW encourages the strictest penalties for those convicted in this crime. The poaching of elephants has spiralled out of control in recent years and international law must be strictly enforced,” said Rebecca Keeble, IFAW Asia Pacific Campaigns Officer.
Given that the seizure took place in August 2006, the official reporting, which occurred in October, raises major concerns about the forthrightness of Japanese authorities. The failure to promptly disclose these events occurred at a time that was all too convenient for Japan, just up for their consideration to become a trading partner by CITES for ivory stockpiles. With the seizure under wraps, Japan was approved as a trading partner.
“This behaviour cannot be ignored, and the trading partner status of Japan must be reconsidered by CITES standing committee,” said Ms Keeble.
Fuelled by a growing demand for ivory in Asian regions, the wholesale price of ivory in Japan and China has skyrocketed in recent years, going from $100/kg in the late 1990’s to the current staggering $750/kg.
The ivory found in this shipment is enough to create approximately 80,000 “hankos”, which is equivalent to roughly 40% percent of Japan’s annual consumption. Hankos are traditionally used by the Japanese to seal letters, and are representative of a certain status within society. Between March 2005 and August 2006, over 26 tons of ivory has been seized, the highest ever in such a period since the 1989 CITES ban went into effect (which was later resanctioned). This single seizure has been identified as the largest ivory seizure ever in Japan.
Monday, February 05, 2007
China and its influence on the illegal trade in ivory
China was identified in the 2005 CITES Secretariat Technical Mission Report as the single most important
influence on the increasing trend in illegal trade in ivory since 1995 (SC53 Doc. 20.1 Annex). Evidence and
intelligence indicates that citizens of China based in Africa are engaged in illegal trade (SC 54 Doc.26.1 Rev.
1). The table in Annex 1 shows that since CoP13, 6.2 tonnes of illegal ivory was seized in China and Hong
Kong (with a further 5.2 tonnes seized in Taiwan). A further one tonne was seized in Zimbabwe (partly from
government owned stockpiles), reported to be destined for China, while Chinese dealers were reportedly
caught in Zimbabwe with another 7 tonnes; China is also reported to be a destination for illegal ivory being
smuggled through South Africa.
influence on the increasing trend in illegal trade in ivory since 1995 (SC53 Doc. 20.1 Annex). Evidence and
intelligence indicates that citizens of China based in Africa are engaged in illegal trade (SC 54 Doc.26.1 Rev.
1). The table in Annex 1 shows that since CoP13, 6.2 tonnes of illegal ivory was seized in China and Hong
Kong (with a further 5.2 tonnes seized in Taiwan). A further one tonne was seized in Zimbabwe (partly from
government owned stockpiles), reported to be destined for China, while Chinese dealers were reportedly
caught in Zimbabwe with another 7 tonnes; China is also reported to be a destination for illegal ivory being
smuggled through South Africa.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
CITES Convention for June 2007...
1
CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES
OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA
__________________________
Fourteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties
The Hague (Netherlands), 3-15 June 2007
Interpretation and implementation of the Convention
Conservation of elephants and trade in elephant specimens
ILLEGAL IVORY TRADE AND CONTROL OF INTERNAL MARKETS
1. This document has been prepared by Kenya and Mali.
Introduction
2. This document is intended to support CoP14 Prop. XX submitted by Kenya and Mali on the African elephant
and outlines proposed submissions to the 14th Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP14) to assist with
control of the ivory trade. These include a 20 year moratorium on trade in raw and worked ivory and
strengthened CITES requirements for ivory trade controls through amendments to Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev.
CoP12). It is intended to support and strengthen the Action Plan for the Control of Trade in African Elephant
Ivory, which Kenya and Mali fully support.
3. The illegal trade in ivory and uncontrolled domestic markets for ivory around the world present a considerable
problem, not only for the long term survival of many elephant populations, but also for wildlife law enforcement
authorities in range States and consumer countries. Since the last Conference of the Parties to CITES, CoP13
in Bangkok in October 2004, there have been a significant number of large seizures of ivory. The estimated
total amount of ivory reported seized since CoP13 is 41,043 kg (see table in Annex 1). Note that this is higher
than the figure quoted in CoP14 Prop. XX because in the short time since preparing the proposal two more
large seizures have been reported, one in Vietnam and one in France. On the basis of these seizures it is
estimated that somewhere in the order of 20,000 or more elephants have been poached annually since Cop13
to supply illegal ivory markets (see below).
4. At the 54th CITES Standing Committee meeting (SC54) in October 2006, the Director of ETIS (Elephant Trade
Information System) confirmed an “upsurge of seizures” in the last year. He also emphasized an increase in
organized crime and reported that government stockpiles were disappearing in some countries; this is also
confirmed in the Central African Elephant Conservation Strategy1.
5. An investigation in China in May and June 2006 found that the price of ivory on the illegal market was
US$560-750 / kg, representing up to a three fold increase in two years2. In Sudan and Egypt there has been a
twofold to fourfold increase in recent years. Further rises in ivory prices will continue to increase the incentive
for those involved in poaching and the illegal sale of ivory.
6. Thus demand for ivory has increased significantly since CoP13. Continued debate in CITES about re-opening
trade serves to fuel this demand, bringing with it increased enforcement challenges, particularly for elephant
range States. Such challenges demand fresh approaches. One such approach is DNA profiling, which has been
used to analyse the 6.5 tonnes of ivory seized in Singapore in 2002 (the results indicating that the majority of
the ivory was from elephants in Zambia (SC54 Doc. 26.1 (Rev. 1)).
7. Meanwhile, an essential element of any system to control ivory trade is the ability to monitor the flow of ivory
and to trace worked ivory back to the tusk or original piece of raw ivory and the country from which it
originated. This will require each State, particularly those with elephant populations on Appendix II and those
designated as ivory importing countries, to introduce a computerised registration system, by which all tusks
and cut pieces are marked and recorded on a database that is compatible with the databases of other Parties.
8. A moratorium on ivory trade would allow time - free from effects of any further CITES decisions on ivory trade
- to bring illegal trade under control; to develop new methodology (e.g. using DNA profiling) to meet the
considerable enforcement challenges facing African (and Asian) elephant range States; to allow for the proper
development of a standardised computer-based registration and tracking system; to determine the effects of
1 Strategy for the Conservation of elephants in central Africa, 2005 (Anon). http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/sgs/afesg/tools/
2 Ivory Market in China: China Ivory Trade Survey Report, IFAW, Jun 2006.
CoP14 Doc. XX
2
the one-off stockpile sale agreed to conditionally at CoP12; to determine and address the factors that are
driving the expanding illegal market; and to provide time to refine MIKE (the programme for Monitoring Illegal
Killing of Elephants) so that it can become an instrument more capable of detecting problems with poaching at
an early stage.
9. Meanwhile, Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12) on trade in elephant specimens needs to be amended and
improved. Originally concluded at CoP10 in Harare, it is widely recognized that the Resolution is flawed. The
requirements it lays out for controlling internal trade in ivory are not adequate. Nevertheless these requirements
provide the measure for determining – under the Action Plan for the Control of Trade in African Elephant Ivory -
whether domestic ivory markets outside Africa comply with CITES.
Ivory seizures and poaching
10. The significant number of large seizures of ivory since CoP13 illustrates that demand for ivory has increased
substantially in the last two years. Clearly, many thousands of elephants are dying annually to supply the illegal
ivory markets. Among the most recent seizures are 3,000 kg in Osaka, Japan, in August 2006 and 1,500 kg in
France in November 2006, while over 5 tonnes were seized in two shipments in Taiwan in July 2006 (see
table in Annex 1 which summarizes information reported on these seizures at the time of writing). The ivory
seized totals 34,108.5 kg3 plus a further 155 tusks (of unspecified weight). A report distributed at SC54 in
October 2006 records another 5,639 kg and 197 tusks seized in many small seizures,4 bringing the total
reported in less than two years to 39,747.5 kg and 352 tusks, an estimated total of 41,043 kg.5 This is the
highest amount of ivory reported seized during any period between CITES conferences since African elephant
populations were listed on Appendix I in 1989. Using an average tusk weight of 3.68 kg6 and 1.88 tusks per
elephant,7 these seizures equate to 5,932 dead elephants. If enforcement authorities seize 15% of illegal
shipments of ivory (a generous estimate), the figures indicate that nearly 274 tonnes of ivory were in trade and
that approximately 39,550 elephants (or possibly more considering the need to supply the domestic markets)
have been poached since CoP13.
11. A report for CoP12 on data gathered by ETIS stated that 150 countries were implicated in the illegal ivory trade
(CoP12 Doc. 34.1). Analysis of ETIS ivory seizure data demonstrated that illicit ivory trade is most directly
correlated with the presence of large-scale, unregulated domestic ivory markets, which exhibit a poor degree of
enforcement effort. At CoP13, it was reported that illicit trade in ivory continued to be most directly related to
the presence of these markets in Asia and Africa (CoP13 Doc. 29.2). Furthermore, the ETIS report stated that
“to some extent, such markets have become more active since 1997” (notably, the year three populations of
African elephants were downlisted to Appendix II). The report concluded, inter alia, that “Cameroon, China, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Nigeria and Thailand are most highly implicated in the illicit
trade in ivory, and have held this distinction since CoP12.”
12. At CoP12, ETIS data showed a declining trend in ivory seizures from 1989 to 1994, followed by a period of
stability from 1994 to 1998 and an increasing trend from 1998 to 2002. The report linked the increasing trend
with the emergence of demand for ivory in China rather than the one-off sale of ivory that took place in 1999.
This finding was contested by the Executive Director General of the CITES Management Authority of China
who stated that many Chinese people misunderstood the decision to allow a one-off sale of ivory, and that the
apparent legality of ivory on sale in some elephant range States gives the wrong signal to Chinese people
working or touring in those countries.8 At CoP13, based on more than 1,000 additional ivory seizures reported
since CoP12, analysis of the ETIS data showed a decline from 1989 to 1994 and then a gradual increase from
1995 to 2002 (data from 2003 was considered deficient). It “continue[d] to confirm the findings of the ETIS
analysis to CoP12 that identified China as the single most important country in the ivory trade today”. (CoP13
Doc. 29.2).
13. The increasing trend in illegal ivory trade presents a clear threat to elephant populations, particularly in areas
most vulnerable to poaching. Section 5 of CoP14 Prop. XX documents recent heavy poaching in DRC,
particularly Salonga, Kahuzi Biega, Virunga and Garamba National Parks and Okapi Fauna Reserve. Widespread
and uncontrolled poaching has been reported in and around Zakouma National Park in Chad, while a recent
census found no elephants in Nigeria’s Sambisa Game Reserve (a MIKE site), where elephants had been subject
to heavy poaching in the three years before the survey.
3 Note that further verification is merited as to whether the 7 tonnes reported in illegal trade in Zimbabwe in May 2006 has been seized.
4 Ivory Update, compiled by Born Free Foundation and SSN for SC54, 2-6 Oct 2006.
5 Using an average tusk weight of 3.68 kg (Hunter, N., Martin, E. and Milliken, T. Determining the number of elephants required to supply
current unregulated ivory markets in Africa and Asia, Pachyderm No.36, Jan-Jun 2004).
6 Ibid.
7 Parker, I.S.C., and Martin, E.B. How many elephants are killed for the ivory trade, Oryx 16 (3): 235-239, 1982.
8 Chen Jianwei. Letter to TRAFFIC, 14 Oct 2002.
CoP14 Doc. XX
14. At a symposium on elephant conservation in Accra, Ghana in August 2006,9 participants from wildlife
authorities reported that poaching was the main cause of decline for elephants in Central African Republic
(CAR), Cameroon and Ethiopia and a serious threat in Niokolo Koba National Park in Senegal, as well as in
Benin and Niger. Organised poaching syndicates also pose a challenge in Malawi. In Liberia, with the end of the
civil war, poachers were reported to have returned to the bush. Poaching was confirmed to be a problem in
Kakoum and Mole national parks in Ghana.
15. Poaching also presents an on-going threat in east Africa. In Kenya, despite an elaborate enforcement network,
a total of 212 elephants have been confirmed poached to obtain their ivory since CoP13: 91 in 2004, 68 in
2005, and 53 from January to November 2006. Between January 2004 and November 2006, a total of
2,180.65kg of ivory and 55 pieces have been seized in Kenya. In 2006 alone, up to September, there were 54
seizures of ivory totalling 907.1 kg and 18 pieces. Since 2002, there have been three major seizures of ivory
shipments originating from Tanzania: more than 5 tonnes in July 2006 in Taiwan; almost two tonnes in Hong
Kong in October 2003; and 3.2 tonnes recovered in Dar es Salaam in January 2002 (see Annex 2 Table B of
CoP14 Prop. XX).
16. Elephants in Zambia have come under heavy pressure from poaching. Six tonnes of ivory seized in the
Philippines in January 2006 is believed to have come from Zambia. The country has also been confirmed as the
source of 6.5 tonnes of ivory shipped from South Africa and seized in Singapore in 2002. The same route has
allegedly been used 19 times before, involving 123.5 tonnes of ivory between 1994 and 2002, possibly also
originating from Zambia.10
CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES
OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA
__________________________
Fourteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties
The Hague (Netherlands), 3-15 June 2007
Interpretation and implementation of the Convention
Conservation of elephants and trade in elephant specimens
ILLEGAL IVORY TRADE AND CONTROL OF INTERNAL MARKETS
1. This document has been prepared by Kenya and Mali.
Introduction
2. This document is intended to support CoP14 Prop. XX submitted by Kenya and Mali on the African elephant
and outlines proposed submissions to the 14th Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP14) to assist with
control of the ivory trade. These include a 20 year moratorium on trade in raw and worked ivory and
strengthened CITES requirements for ivory trade controls through amendments to Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev.
CoP12). It is intended to support and strengthen the Action Plan for the Control of Trade in African Elephant
Ivory, which Kenya and Mali fully support.
3. The illegal trade in ivory and uncontrolled domestic markets for ivory around the world present a considerable
problem, not only for the long term survival of many elephant populations, but also for wildlife law enforcement
authorities in range States and consumer countries. Since the last Conference of the Parties to CITES, CoP13
in Bangkok in October 2004, there have been a significant number of large seizures of ivory. The estimated
total amount of ivory reported seized since CoP13 is 41,043 kg (see table in Annex 1). Note that this is higher
than the figure quoted in CoP14 Prop. XX because in the short time since preparing the proposal two more
large seizures have been reported, one in Vietnam and one in France. On the basis of these seizures it is
estimated that somewhere in the order of 20,000 or more elephants have been poached annually since Cop13
to supply illegal ivory markets (see below).
4. At the 54th CITES Standing Committee meeting (SC54) in October 2006, the Director of ETIS (Elephant Trade
Information System) confirmed an “upsurge of seizures” in the last year. He also emphasized an increase in
organized crime and reported that government stockpiles were disappearing in some countries; this is also
confirmed in the Central African Elephant Conservation Strategy1.
5. An investigation in China in May and June 2006 found that the price of ivory on the illegal market was
US$560-750 / kg, representing up to a three fold increase in two years2. In Sudan and Egypt there has been a
twofold to fourfold increase in recent years. Further rises in ivory prices will continue to increase the incentive
for those involved in poaching and the illegal sale of ivory.
6. Thus demand for ivory has increased significantly since CoP13. Continued debate in CITES about re-opening
trade serves to fuel this demand, bringing with it increased enforcement challenges, particularly for elephant
range States. Such challenges demand fresh approaches. One such approach is DNA profiling, which has been
used to analyse the 6.5 tonnes of ivory seized in Singapore in 2002 (the results indicating that the majority of
the ivory was from elephants in Zambia (SC54 Doc. 26.1 (Rev. 1)).
7. Meanwhile, an essential element of any system to control ivory trade is the ability to monitor the flow of ivory
and to trace worked ivory back to the tusk or original piece of raw ivory and the country from which it
originated. This will require each State, particularly those with elephant populations on Appendix II and those
designated as ivory importing countries, to introduce a computerised registration system, by which all tusks
and cut pieces are marked and recorded on a database that is compatible with the databases of other Parties.
8. A moratorium on ivory trade would allow time - free from effects of any further CITES decisions on ivory trade
- to bring illegal trade under control; to develop new methodology (e.g. using DNA profiling) to meet the
considerable enforcement challenges facing African (and Asian) elephant range States; to allow for the proper
development of a standardised computer-based registration and tracking system; to determine the effects of
1 Strategy for the Conservation of elephants in central Africa, 2005 (Anon). http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/sgs/afesg/tools/
2 Ivory Market in China: China Ivory Trade Survey Report, IFAW, Jun 2006.
CoP14 Doc. XX
2
the one-off stockpile sale agreed to conditionally at CoP12; to determine and address the factors that are
driving the expanding illegal market; and to provide time to refine MIKE (the programme for Monitoring Illegal
Killing of Elephants) so that it can become an instrument more capable of detecting problems with poaching at
an early stage.
9. Meanwhile, Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12) on trade in elephant specimens needs to be amended and
improved. Originally concluded at CoP10 in Harare, it is widely recognized that the Resolution is flawed. The
requirements it lays out for controlling internal trade in ivory are not adequate. Nevertheless these requirements
provide the measure for determining – under the Action Plan for the Control of Trade in African Elephant Ivory -
whether domestic ivory markets outside Africa comply with CITES.
Ivory seizures and poaching
10. The significant number of large seizures of ivory since CoP13 illustrates that demand for ivory has increased
substantially in the last two years. Clearly, many thousands of elephants are dying annually to supply the illegal
ivory markets. Among the most recent seizures are 3,000 kg in Osaka, Japan, in August 2006 and 1,500 kg in
France in November 2006, while over 5 tonnes were seized in two shipments in Taiwan in July 2006 (see
table in Annex 1 which summarizes information reported on these seizures at the time of writing). The ivory
seized totals 34,108.5 kg3 plus a further 155 tusks (of unspecified weight). A report distributed at SC54 in
October 2006 records another 5,639 kg and 197 tusks seized in many small seizures,4 bringing the total
reported in less than two years to 39,747.5 kg and 352 tusks, an estimated total of 41,043 kg.5 This is the
highest amount of ivory reported seized during any period between CITES conferences since African elephant
populations were listed on Appendix I in 1989. Using an average tusk weight of 3.68 kg6 and 1.88 tusks per
elephant,7 these seizures equate to 5,932 dead elephants. If enforcement authorities seize 15% of illegal
shipments of ivory (a generous estimate), the figures indicate that nearly 274 tonnes of ivory were in trade and
that approximately 39,550 elephants (or possibly more considering the need to supply the domestic markets)
have been poached since CoP13.
11. A report for CoP12 on data gathered by ETIS stated that 150 countries were implicated in the illegal ivory trade
(CoP12 Doc. 34.1). Analysis of ETIS ivory seizure data demonstrated that illicit ivory trade is most directly
correlated with the presence of large-scale, unregulated domestic ivory markets, which exhibit a poor degree of
enforcement effort. At CoP13, it was reported that illicit trade in ivory continued to be most directly related to
the presence of these markets in Asia and Africa (CoP13 Doc. 29.2). Furthermore, the ETIS report stated that
“to some extent, such markets have become more active since 1997” (notably, the year three populations of
African elephants were downlisted to Appendix II). The report concluded, inter alia, that “Cameroon, China, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Nigeria and Thailand are most highly implicated in the illicit
trade in ivory, and have held this distinction since CoP12.”
12. At CoP12, ETIS data showed a declining trend in ivory seizures from 1989 to 1994, followed by a period of
stability from 1994 to 1998 and an increasing trend from 1998 to 2002. The report linked the increasing trend
with the emergence of demand for ivory in China rather than the one-off sale of ivory that took place in 1999.
This finding was contested by the Executive Director General of the CITES Management Authority of China
who stated that many Chinese people misunderstood the decision to allow a one-off sale of ivory, and that the
apparent legality of ivory on sale in some elephant range States gives the wrong signal to Chinese people
working or touring in those countries.8 At CoP13, based on more than 1,000 additional ivory seizures reported
since CoP12, analysis of the ETIS data showed a decline from 1989 to 1994 and then a gradual increase from
1995 to 2002 (data from 2003 was considered deficient). It “continue[d] to confirm the findings of the ETIS
analysis to CoP12 that identified China as the single most important country in the ivory trade today”. (CoP13
Doc. 29.2).
13. The increasing trend in illegal ivory trade presents a clear threat to elephant populations, particularly in areas
most vulnerable to poaching. Section 5 of CoP14 Prop. XX documents recent heavy poaching in DRC,
particularly Salonga, Kahuzi Biega, Virunga and Garamba National Parks and Okapi Fauna Reserve. Widespread
and uncontrolled poaching has been reported in and around Zakouma National Park in Chad, while a recent
census found no elephants in Nigeria’s Sambisa Game Reserve (a MIKE site), where elephants had been subject
to heavy poaching in the three years before the survey.
3 Note that further verification is merited as to whether the 7 tonnes reported in illegal trade in Zimbabwe in May 2006 has been seized.
4 Ivory Update, compiled by Born Free Foundation and SSN for SC54, 2-6 Oct 2006.
5 Using an average tusk weight of 3.68 kg (Hunter, N., Martin, E. and Milliken, T. Determining the number of elephants required to supply
current unregulated ivory markets in Africa and Asia, Pachyderm No.36, Jan-Jun 2004).
6 Ibid.
7 Parker, I.S.C., and Martin, E.B. How many elephants are killed for the ivory trade, Oryx 16 (3): 235-239, 1982.
8 Chen Jianwei. Letter to TRAFFIC, 14 Oct 2002.
CoP14 Doc. XX
14. At a symposium on elephant conservation in Accra, Ghana in August 2006,9 participants from wildlife
authorities reported that poaching was the main cause of decline for elephants in Central African Republic
(CAR), Cameroon and Ethiopia and a serious threat in Niokolo Koba National Park in Senegal, as well as in
Benin and Niger. Organised poaching syndicates also pose a challenge in Malawi. In Liberia, with the end of the
civil war, poachers were reported to have returned to the bush. Poaching was confirmed to be a problem in
Kakoum and Mole national parks in Ghana.
15. Poaching also presents an on-going threat in east Africa. In Kenya, despite an elaborate enforcement network,
a total of 212 elephants have been confirmed poached to obtain their ivory since CoP13: 91 in 2004, 68 in
2005, and 53 from January to November 2006. Between January 2004 and November 2006, a total of
2,180.65kg of ivory and 55 pieces have been seized in Kenya. In 2006 alone, up to September, there were 54
seizures of ivory totalling 907.1 kg and 18 pieces. Since 2002, there have been three major seizures of ivory
shipments originating from Tanzania: more than 5 tonnes in July 2006 in Taiwan; almost two tonnes in Hong
Kong in October 2003; and 3.2 tonnes recovered in Dar es Salaam in January 2002 (see Annex 2 Table B of
CoP14 Prop. XX).
16. Elephants in Zambia have come under heavy pressure from poaching. Six tonnes of ivory seized in the
Philippines in January 2006 is believed to have come from Zambia. The country has also been confirmed as the
source of 6.5 tonnes of ivory shipped from South Africa and seized in Singapore in 2002. The same route has
allegedly been used 19 times before, involving 123.5 tonnes of ivory between 1994 and 2002, possibly also
originating from Zambia.10
Friday, February 02, 2007
Why elephant should not be hunted in Zambia...
As the Natural Resources Consultative Forum advisory note on sport elephant hunting sent to the Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources goes some way to explaining, elephant should not be hunted in Zambia for the following reasons:
1. We lack the necessary scientific information on populations to support it
2. Zambia does not maintain proper records of poached elephant (MIKE: Monitoring of the Illegal Killing of Elephant), nor are elephant protected
3. CITES refused Zambia permission to sell its stockpile of ivory or to change the endangered status of elephant in the country
4. The application to CITES to hunt 20 elephant a year was based on the fact - according to government, that some specific elephant were raiding village gardens and therefore needed to be controlled. CITES apparently agreed to this ludicrous claim, though I have not yet been able to confirm that they gave permission for the kill
5. Elephant permits were issued for three areas, one of which has some 30 or so lodges. Icon bulls, the basis of much of our photo and eco tourism, have already been shot within this area - the Zambezi tourist area.
6. The Us Fish & Wildlife Service refuse to allow elephant ivory in to the country; America being our main source of hunting clients, solidarity is therefore required.
7. Elephant poaching is ongoing, and in one part of the Luangwa river government wildlife scouts are part of a poaching syndicate and are currently being investigated
8. No arrests have been made as a result of the Singapore seizure of 6 tons of ivory which came from the Luangwa; and now that we know that another 123.5 tons (14, 500 elephant) went out through the same route between 1994-2002, the failure to investigate points to major failings in the investigative machinery.
9. The hunting fraternity voted for the ban
10. Given all of this, our ratification of the Biodiversity Convention requires us to invoke the precautionary principle and ban any hunting
1. We lack the necessary scientific information on populations to support it
2. Zambia does not maintain proper records of poached elephant (MIKE: Monitoring of the Illegal Killing of Elephant), nor are elephant protected
3. CITES refused Zambia permission to sell its stockpile of ivory or to change the endangered status of elephant in the country
4. The application to CITES to hunt 20 elephant a year was based on the fact - according to government, that some specific elephant were raiding village gardens and therefore needed to be controlled. CITES apparently agreed to this ludicrous claim, though I have not yet been able to confirm that they gave permission for the kill
5. Elephant permits were issued for three areas, one of which has some 30 or so lodges. Icon bulls, the basis of much of our photo and eco tourism, have already been shot within this area - the Zambezi tourist area.
6. The Us Fish & Wildlife Service refuse to allow elephant ivory in to the country; America being our main source of hunting clients, solidarity is therefore required.
7. Elephant poaching is ongoing, and in one part of the Luangwa river government wildlife scouts are part of a poaching syndicate and are currently being investigated
8. No arrests have been made as a result of the Singapore seizure of 6 tons of ivory which came from the Luangwa; and now that we know that another 123.5 tons (14, 500 elephant) went out through the same route between 1994-2002, the failure to investigate points to major failings in the investigative machinery.
9. The hunting fraternity voted for the ban
10. Given all of this, our ratification of the Biodiversity Convention requires us to invoke the precautionary principle and ban any hunting
Thursday, February 01, 2007
ZAMBIA JUMBO JUMBLE…by I.P.A. Manning
The newspapers here in Zambia are full of the horrors of corruption - the cancer which renders development impossible and which has reduced this country – now in the top-ten hit parade of world corruption, to a pale shadow of what it once was. They also, in a marvelous example of their editorial capacity to hold two contradictory views simultaneously, blame the West (the imperialists) for our poverty, despite a recent report from Transparency International Zambia revealing that since independence only 16% of national government expenditure went on health, education, agriculture and local government – surely a heinous and deeply shameful shortfall of funds needed to alleviate the woeful plight of the poor; and, to add salt to the wounds, over the last 20 years almost a years’ worth of that expenditure was stolen or unaccounted for.
And there is a continuing 33 year long tide of corruption in our magnificent wilderness, our native black rhino killed, our wildlife slaughtered daily for the bushmeat trade, including, our elephant. Once it was for their tusks only, many thousands killed since1973, and now DNA analysis revealing that between 1994 - 2002, 123.5 tons of ivory - the equivalent of 14,500 elephant, were taken from the Luangwa Valley of Zambia and shipped by a single syndicate through Malawi and on to the Far East. Not surprisingly, with such a lamentable conservation record since then, Zambia is not allowed by CITES to sell its ivory stockpile (if still there), though since 2005, CITES, apparently persuaded by a Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources’ ludicrous assertion that they had identified 20 crop raiding elephant and that these should be killed on sport hunting permits, allowed it to issue 20 permits annually for elephant sport hunting, though the US Fish & Wildlife Service bars them from entry into the USA, the source of most hunting clients. Zambia of course needs money to run its statutory body responsible for wildlife; hence, you might conclude, it needs to sell some elephant permits – though the $100,000 share to the Government hardly pays for two vehicles. But the sad fact is that the Minister, advised by his head of the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), has ignored the advice of the Zambia Natural Resources Consultative Forum – a cross-sectoral body drawn from Government departments, civil society and the donors (suppliers of 50% of Zambia’s financial needs) - which includes hunting organizations in its membership, to ban elephant hunting until such time as elephant populations and their management allow for it.
And undertakings given on 3 January at a meeting convened by the Minister with the private sector and rural community representatives - supposedly to rectify past mistakes and to consult widely with them on all issues, have fallen asunder; this followed by the lie that elephant hunting permits would not be issued unless all the people and organizations involved were consulted, and certainly not, said Dr Saiwana of ZAWA, before a ministerial visit to the Safari Club International hunting convention in Reno at the end of January.
But there was more to come on that trip to America, the Minister visiting the US Fish & Wildlife Service and lobbying not only for the ivory of the 20 elephant to be allowed in, but for increased numbers as well, he looking enviously at Zimbabwe and the 500 or so elephant it is culling (so he says), saying that Zambia’s paltry quota of eight elephant are far too few, neglecting to mention that elephant on the Zambia side are not part of the Hwange/Chobe population, and that those that are there form the basis of a thriving tourism business on the Zambezi, some of them already shot not far from the lodges.
The present Minister of Tourism etc, Kabinga Pande - guided by the dictates of politics and economics rather than wildlife management, is hard on the spoor of the previous Minister who stated that only the 20 identified crop-raiding bulls would be hunted, although the Statutory Instrument No 40 of 2005 made clear that the ‘hunting of elephants for sport (a) shall not include the hunting of elephant for purposes of controlling problem elephants’. And this SI states that nothing less than an elephant carrying 33 pounds of ivory side may be taken, thus opening the door for the killing of young breeding bulls. And what of the communities this is supposed to benefit. Evidence is to hand that communities within hunting concessions are owed a fortune by ZAWA, many of them unable to pay village scouts, encouraging them to poach the very animals they are charged to guard. One community with whom I work, with the help of the ZAWA crimes investigation unit - once it became clear we would brook no alternative, is playing a large part in bringing to book a poaching syndicate run by wildlife police officers. They shot two matriarchal herds of elephant and took the meat to the nearest roadhead where it was collected by their senior officer and transported into town in the Government pick-up.
The Minister of Tourism etc, Pande, in pursuit of economic justification, states that the 115 elephant shot as a result of village garden raiding in 2006 would have brought in $10,000 each ($1,115 000). But he clearly is unaware that a large percentage of these animals were females carrying small ivory. Not much of a trophy there. Well if we take the 14,500 elephant which were removed without let or hindrance from those charged to protect them, following the Pande formula they would have brought in $145, 000,000. And a thorough investigation of the disribution of the meat from garden raiders and elephant shot by safari hunters will surely reveal that little of it went to the villagers on whose lands the animals fell.
But it is the continuing slur on foreign investors in the safari industry, repeating in the press non-proven charges of the electronic calling of lion to the hunter’s rifle, which flies in the face of undertakings given at the truce meeting that the dirty linen would not be washed in public. And the Minister's charge that some of us send e-mails to America saying that safari hunting in Zambia is corruptly handled, is true. It would be silly to do so were it not true, and were one not able to prove it.
And today comes news of the issuing of a deportation notice by the Minister of Home Affairs against the safari operator, Ross Michelson - like me, one of those accused of calling lion with ‘louder speakers‘ but not yet found guilty in the courts (difficult when two of the three of us so charged had not been in the area where the crime was supposed to have been committed), something in defiance of habeus corpus, whose origins lie in our Magna Carta of 1215. His ‘sin’, and mine, is that he fell foul of a syndicate of anti-western imperialists; and mighty powerful they are here. And in my case, according to the present Director of Research of ZAWA, I am also inciting the local community against ZAWA. Well, as an old Game Department man here, I am merely carrying on a tradition of local villagers empowerment, kicked off by the doyen of conservationists, Norman Carr, and my friend and former colleague, Barry Shenton, in 1949/50. It is a fine and worthy tradition to follow.
Conservationists are dumbfounded by all this, donors alarmed and bunching like buffalo when a lion is about - for they know they control the purse strings, and the soldiers of civil society are both contemptuous and ashamed of what is happening. And the latter are a growing force, buoyed by their victory in defeating ZAWA and the Ministry in their proposed sale of Mosi oa Tunya National Park land and the building there of an 18 hole golf estate.
And what be the life of a paleface conservationist investor here: phone tapped, threats of deportation, ‘action targeted’, defamed, sullied and abused. Well, it be ‘faga moto’ and tilting at the windmill.
As a woman once said to me in Ireland, “It’s hard to know where you’r goin’ when you’r lost!”
Lusaka, Zambia.
31 January 2007
Chartered Wildlife Biologist
Steering Committee Member: The Natural Resources Consultative Forum of Zambia
Corporate Member: Business Action for Africa.
Foreign Investor and MD: Mbeza Safaris Ltd
Member: Professional Hunters’ Association of Zamb
And there is a continuing 33 year long tide of corruption in our magnificent wilderness, our native black rhino killed, our wildlife slaughtered daily for the bushmeat trade, including, our elephant. Once it was for their tusks only, many thousands killed since1973, and now DNA analysis revealing that between 1994 - 2002, 123.5 tons of ivory - the equivalent of 14,500 elephant, were taken from the Luangwa Valley of Zambia and shipped by a single syndicate through Malawi and on to the Far East. Not surprisingly, with such a lamentable conservation record since then, Zambia is not allowed by CITES to sell its ivory stockpile (if still there), though since 2005, CITES, apparently persuaded by a Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources’ ludicrous assertion that they had identified 20 crop raiding elephant and that these should be killed on sport hunting permits, allowed it to issue 20 permits annually for elephant sport hunting, though the US Fish & Wildlife Service bars them from entry into the USA, the source of most hunting clients. Zambia of course needs money to run its statutory body responsible for wildlife; hence, you might conclude, it needs to sell some elephant permits – though the $100,000 share to the Government hardly pays for two vehicles. But the sad fact is that the Minister, advised by his head of the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), has ignored the advice of the Zambia Natural Resources Consultative Forum – a cross-sectoral body drawn from Government departments, civil society and the donors (suppliers of 50% of Zambia’s financial needs) - which includes hunting organizations in its membership, to ban elephant hunting until such time as elephant populations and their management allow for it.
And undertakings given on 3 January at a meeting convened by the Minister with the private sector and rural community representatives - supposedly to rectify past mistakes and to consult widely with them on all issues, have fallen asunder; this followed by the lie that elephant hunting permits would not be issued unless all the people and organizations involved were consulted, and certainly not, said Dr Saiwana of ZAWA, before a ministerial visit to the Safari Club International hunting convention in Reno at the end of January.
But there was more to come on that trip to America, the Minister visiting the US Fish & Wildlife Service and lobbying not only for the ivory of the 20 elephant to be allowed in, but for increased numbers as well, he looking enviously at Zimbabwe and the 500 or so elephant it is culling (so he says), saying that Zambia’s paltry quota of eight elephant are far too few, neglecting to mention that elephant on the Zambia side are not part of the Hwange/Chobe population, and that those that are there form the basis of a thriving tourism business on the Zambezi, some of them already shot not far from the lodges.
The present Minister of Tourism etc, Kabinga Pande - guided by the dictates of politics and economics rather than wildlife management, is hard on the spoor of the previous Minister who stated that only the 20 identified crop-raiding bulls would be hunted, although the Statutory Instrument No 40 of 2005 made clear that the ‘hunting of elephants for sport (a) shall not include the hunting of elephant for purposes of controlling problem elephants’. And this SI states that nothing less than an elephant carrying 33 pounds of ivory side may be taken, thus opening the door for the killing of young breeding bulls. And what of the communities this is supposed to benefit. Evidence is to hand that communities within hunting concessions are owed a fortune by ZAWA, many of them unable to pay village scouts, encouraging them to poach the very animals they are charged to guard. One community with whom I work, with the help of the ZAWA crimes investigation unit - once it became clear we would brook no alternative, is playing a large part in bringing to book a poaching syndicate run by wildlife police officers. They shot two matriarchal herds of elephant and took the meat to the nearest roadhead where it was collected by their senior officer and transported into town in the Government pick-up.
The Minister of Tourism etc, Pande, in pursuit of economic justification, states that the 115 elephant shot as a result of village garden raiding in 2006 would have brought in $10,000 each ($1,115 000). But he clearly is unaware that a large percentage of these animals were females carrying small ivory. Not much of a trophy there. Well if we take the 14,500 elephant which were removed without let or hindrance from those charged to protect them, following the Pande formula they would have brought in $145, 000,000. And a thorough investigation of the disribution of the meat from garden raiders and elephant shot by safari hunters will surely reveal that little of it went to the villagers on whose lands the animals fell.
But it is the continuing slur on foreign investors in the safari industry, repeating in the press non-proven charges of the electronic calling of lion to the hunter’s rifle, which flies in the face of undertakings given at the truce meeting that the dirty linen would not be washed in public. And the Minister's charge that some of us send e-mails to America saying that safari hunting in Zambia is corruptly handled, is true. It would be silly to do so were it not true, and were one not able to prove it.
And today comes news of the issuing of a deportation notice by the Minister of Home Affairs against the safari operator, Ross Michelson - like me, one of those accused of calling lion with ‘louder speakers‘ but not yet found guilty in the courts (difficult when two of the three of us so charged had not been in the area where the crime was supposed to have been committed), something in defiance of habeus corpus, whose origins lie in our Magna Carta of 1215. His ‘sin’, and mine, is that he fell foul of a syndicate of anti-western imperialists; and mighty powerful they are here. And in my case, according to the present Director of Research of ZAWA, I am also inciting the local community against ZAWA. Well, as an old Game Department man here, I am merely carrying on a tradition of local villagers empowerment, kicked off by the doyen of conservationists, Norman Carr, and my friend and former colleague, Barry Shenton, in 1949/50. It is a fine and worthy tradition to follow.
Conservationists are dumbfounded by all this, donors alarmed and bunching like buffalo when a lion is about - for they know they control the purse strings, and the soldiers of civil society are both contemptuous and ashamed of what is happening. And the latter are a growing force, buoyed by their victory in defeating ZAWA and the Ministry in their proposed sale of Mosi oa Tunya National Park land and the building there of an 18 hole golf estate.
And what be the life of a paleface conservationist investor here: phone tapped, threats of deportation, ‘action targeted’, defamed, sullied and abused. Well, it be ‘faga moto’ and tilting at the windmill.
As a woman once said to me in Ireland, “It’s hard to know where you’r goin’ when you’r lost!”
Lusaka, Zambia.
31 January 2007
Chartered Wildlife Biologist
Steering Committee Member: The Natural Resources Consultative Forum of Zambia
Corporate Member: Business Action for Africa.
Foreign Investor and MD: Mbeza Safaris Ltd
Member: Professional Hunters’ Association of Zamb
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)