REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL ELEPHANT
ACTION COMMITMENTS TO CITES OF ‘THE GANG OF EIGHT’
Adam Cruise
Conservation Action Trust
December 2013
Page 1 of 7
Introduction
After a relatively stable period, the last three years have seen an unprecedented spate in the
illegal trafficking of ivory. It has been argued the threat is so severe that unless urgent
practical measures are taken, elephant populations, especially in West and Central Africa,
will decline to the point of no return.
Wildlife crime has developed into a multi-billion dollar industry and is, by some estimates,
the fifth largest international criminal activity after narcotics, counterfeiting, illicit
trafficking of humans and oil. As with narcotics, wildlife crime has become increasingly
well organized and violent, posing a new level of threat to those responsible for managing
and protecting wildlife. Problems are escalating fast, in terms of both the scale of poaching
and the audacity with which poachers take high value species like elephants. Mass killings
of elephants in individual protected areas have now occurred in several African countries,
while crime syndicates operate with seeming impunity across many Asian countries where
the demand for ivory is greatest.
Preamble
In March this year, the twenty-member Standing Committee of CITES, at its 16th meeting
of the Conference of the Parties (CoP16), singled out 8 countries most heavily implicated
in the large-scale illegal ivory trade. Vilified by the media as The Gang of Eight, three of
the countries are African, the African Elephant range states, which are the knot of countries
that make up the bulk of the East African sub-continent where ivory is sourced: Kenya,
Tanzania, and Uganda. Three are considered transit states, the gateway nations for the
trafficking of ivory: Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines. The last two are referred as
ivory destination countries where demand for the product is greatest: China and Thailand.
The Standing Committee then put forward a motion stating that unless each of the
offending countries submit a detailed national elephant action plan to curb the illegal trade
of African elephant ivory by May 15th 2013, a ban on all legitimate wildlife trade on each
nation would be enforced. Such a ban could have significant consequences on these
countries as they rely heavily on the economic benefits of such trade. The trade in orchids
and crocodile skins in Thailand and China is apparently big business, big enough to take
the Standing Committee’s threat seriously.
The CITES body have also demonstrated that they mean business. The stringent no-trade
measure has already been enforced on Somalia, Afghanistan, Lesotho and Mauritania,
while during the conference the West African nation of Guinea was slapped with the ‘All
Trade’ ban for its persistent violation in the trade of great apes.
In lieu of a possible ban, all eight countries, according to the Standing Committee report
made directly after CoP16, immediately ‘demonstrated a strong commitment to take
immediate, decisive actions in combating the illegal trade in elephant ivory, and
collaborating with the Standing Committee and the CITES Secretariat in developing and
implementing national ivory action plans’. The Secretariat, in collaboration with CITES
Page 2 of 7
sub-bodies, MIKE and ETIS, laid out the timeline and framework parameters for all eight
national plans to adhere to.
The guidelines that each national elephant action plan had to adhere to were:
-
-
to include legislation and regulation that must be imposed and enforced both at a national
and international level, the latter to have measures in place for collaboration with other
countries
and programs of outreach and public awareness to be widely disseminated and effectuated
among government bodies, traders and consumers.
The plans were to be urgently implemented, to begin no later than July 2013 with a deadline
for full implementation the following July when the Standing Committee met for their
annual sitting for the 65th time since inception (SC65). During the course of the next 12
months each country was to continually report to the Secretariat on the development and
progress of each of their plans.
At face value, it appeared the Standing Committee meant business, but the big question
since March is whether the Gang of Eight, despite paying lip-service to a full commitment
of the CITES demands, have actually submitted any plans. If so, have they followed the
framework dictated by CITES? Also, now that we are halfway through the 12-month
period, have the plans been implemented, or have the governments of these nations simply
green-washed the whole affair with a basic draft in order to maintain a stay of execution?
Nothing to date has been officially publicised, either from CITES or the eight offending
nations but with a little scratching I can report that all eight have timeously submitted their
drafts (I know this because all eight plans have somehow, as they say in some parts of
Africa, fallen on my head).
The submitting of the eight plans are, at least, a step in the right direction but what
immediately struck me when I glanced over them was the lack of in-depth detail in all of
them. I understand these were mere drafts but each country, it seems, submitted a plan
according to the bare minimum set out by the CITES framework, just enough to prove
compliance. For all eight drafts there are a mere 50 pages in total, including title and cover
letters. Vietnam’s entire draft was printed on a single page. Thailand’s was the most
detailed with eleven.
Report on plans by ‘Gang of 8’
What follows is an outline and comment of each country’s draft.
CHINA
China have actually submitted two plans – one for mainland China and the other for the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, perhaps because HKSAR is somewhat
different in the ivory saga than the mainland. As the main gateway of ivory into China,
HKSAR could be considered both as a transit and a destination.
Page 3 of 7
Mainland China’s plan is concerned primarily with making clear distinctions between the
legal and illegal trade in ivory. In short, they don’t see a problem with killing elephants, as
long as it’s ‘legal’. The plan consists of implementing an improved certification card
system for traders, which would be revoked for non-compliance. There is no mention of a
prosecution process for illegal trade. The certification card system is to be in place by the
end of 2013. Also they have committed to ‘organise at least one [just one?] targeted
operation on illegal trade in ivory each year’ for both manufacturers and retailers, and there
is to be an undertaking to make consumers aware of the difference between buying legal
versus illegal ivory. Other than a further undertaking to improve policing and co-operation
with other nations and some financial assistance with policing and investigation in the
African range states, as per the set parameters, this is the sum total of mainland China’s
game plan.
Hong Kong, being a gateway port, concentrates more on illegal shipments and influx at
point of entry. Improved custom control is very much part of the HKSAR plan but again it
is thin on detail other than a broad commitment to improve technology in detection of
shipments, like container x-ray machines and DNA forensic analysis on seized products.
They have also agreed to work closely with CITES, INTERPOL and other nations with
intelligence exchange. It was interesting to read in the cover letter of the HKSAR’ s
Director of Fisheries, Agriculture and Conservation, Patrick Lai, who made a point of
reminding John Scanlon, the CITES Secretary-General, of a joint CITES/HKSAR
inspection conducted in January and February 2013 of 100 art and craft and antique shops
that sell ivory. Amazingly, all 100 shops were found compliant and each possessed a valid
license to trade in ivory, a barely belivelable outcome given that Hong Kong sees more
illegal movement and trade in illegal ivory than any other region. Nonetheless, it was a
gentle reminder from HKSAR that they did not necessarily have to add much to their action
plans other than to improve point-of-entry surveillance. Hong Kong, at least as a consumer
or destination market, is, according to Lai, already compliant with CITES regulations.
THAILAND
Thailand’s plan although the longest of the eight drafts is less detailed than both China and
HKSAR. Five of those pages are dedicated first to remind the Secretary-General that
Thailand was one of the original signatories of CITES when it was formed in 1973 and
therefore one of the important forerunners in management and regulation in the trade in
ivory. Second, there is a wafty undertaking to revise the current law on the use domestic
elephants as draft animals in Thailand, notwithstanding that it is the illegal trade in African
Elephants that are in question, not Asian elephants. Thailand, in the African Elephant
context, is a destination country, not a range state, so their plan is incongruous to the
framework laid out by CITES.
Thailand does briefly admit in the draft that there are no provisions controlling the
possession of African Elephant ivory in Thailand. They have pledged to revise the current
legislation, especially by marking stockpiles and setting up a system to distinguish between
illegal African and legal Asian ivory, but for the statute to be revised it first has to pass
Page 4 of 7
cabinet for approval and then both the House of Representatives and Senate before a draft
revision can be enacted into law – a process, they reckon, that would take 4 years and six
months. This excludes the subsequent monitoring and policing of the revised law, so it
could take more than a decade before favourable results are shown. Thailand has, however,
committed to a public relations campaign discouraging consumers and tourists from buying
ivory. Although, again, it has to pass through the lengthy governmental process before it is
enacted.
KENYA
Kenya, as a range state, has different problems to the destination countries. Firstly, they
have to deal with the increasingly militaristic proclivity of the poachers as well as trying to
seal their ever-porous points of exit, particular at the port of Mombasa. As with the other
two range states cited, Kenya furthermore lacks the necessary wherewithal and funding to
deal with such issues. Which is why CITES, and China, have pledged financial aid in
assisting with combatting illicit trade crime in Kenya. Nevertheless, Kenya cannot simply
plead poverty and wash their hands of the issue. Good governance is at the heart of the
matter. At present Kenyan prosecution policies are woefully lenient. An offender caught
smuggling ivory recently was fined just a dollar. Accordingly Kenya have been instructed
to get tougher on offenders, which they have promised to do in their action plan, but again
this requires government approval and may take time to implement. The security of ivory
stockpiles is also under scrutiny and Kenya have endeavoured to better mark and audit
stockpiles and introduce a DNA-controlled database. Cross border raids in co-operation
with Tanzania and Uganda are also on the cards with a promise of continued reporting on
progress to CITES but thus far no concrete results have been produced.
UGANDA
Uganda, like Kenya, promises to get tougher on offenders. They have also promised a
complete revision of their National Wildlife Act ‘to address gaps in the legislation’. In the
meantime, they would employ more wildlife authorities at exit/entry points, especially at
the borders with the DRC and South Sudan. They have, however, stated that in order to
create effective public and governmental awareness campaigns, solicitation of outside
funding is paramount. In a nation where donor funding is notoriously mismanaged, such
an inclusion in the action plan is suspect at best. As with many of the other eight, the
Ugandan Elephant Action Plan appears to paying lip-service to the basic framework
requirements set out by the Standing Committee.
TANZANIA
The Tanzanian plan was flippantly submitted to the Secretariat by Herman Keraryo, the
Director of Wildlife, with the rider that since Tanzania ‘is still planning to submit its
elephant down-listing proposal at CoP17 in 2016, we request the Secretariat to provide us
with technical and financial assistance.’ In other words, ‘we don’t really agree about having
to submit a plan since we already propose to down-list elephants but since we are forced
to provide one, we require money to do so’. The actual plan reflects this desire as it
Page 5 of 7
demands 4-wheel drive vehicles, a helicopter, guns, ammunition, more game scouts to be
recruited and trained, inspection facilities and equipment installed and more wildlife areas
demarcated before any ‘action’ can take place. There is also the usual promise of marking
and auditing stockpiles and tougher prosecution on offenders. Like China with HKSAR,
Tanzania has a separate plan for Zanzibar, which they regard as the primary offending port
for the exit of ivory contraband.
PHILIPPINES
As with Tanzania, the Philippines were expressive in their demand for financial assistance
and even gave a figure of US$30,000 for the training of ivory identification and marking
systems for law enforcement officers. But the Philippines, at least, seem serious about
committing to their national action plan. This is demonstrated by the subsequent crushing
of their ivory stockpiles on 21st June 2013, a first for a country outside Africa. At least, we
the public know they have begun to implement their plan. They are also the only country
of the eight to show positive results with their implementation. As part of their plan, the
Philippines undertook to form a governmental investigative operations group on ivory
(POGI), which was in operation by June and the body has already had some notable
successes against ivory smugglers. The Philippines appears to be the only country of the
Gang of Eight to commit whole-heartedly to their national elephant action plans, a trend
noticeable with their much-publicised desire to eradicate all illegal wildlife trade within
their borders.
MALAYSIA
As one of the main transit countries in illegal ivory Malaysia has come under particular
scrutiny. Like the Philippines they have wasted no time in implementing their plans which
were to revise current legislation in accordance with CITES’ demands. In particular, the
increase of administrative power of customs officials and port authorities to inspect, seize
and hold ivory shipments. These proposals have all been gazetted so far. Malaysia claim
they will be conducting 20 raids or random checks on all points of entry and exit throughout
the nation within the 12 month timeframe as well as cross-border collaboration with
Thailand. However, the effectiveness of the Malaysian authorities remains dubious. Just
last month two separate shipments weighting a combined three tons of illegal ivory were
seized in Hong Kong and Vietnam respectively. Both had passed through Malaysian ports
in crates labelled as seashells. Malaysia thus continues to remain the worst offender of the
three transit states.
VIETNAM
Like Hong Kong, Vietnam is a primary entry point of illegal ivory into China. As a result
their plans have consisted mainly of securing their northern border, as well as the points of
entry, particularly the port cities of which, like Malaysia, there are many. As we have seen,
Vietnam recently seized two tons of ivory that had passed through Malaysia at their
Page 6 of 7
northern port city of Hai Phong. So it appears, despite their sketchy draft plan, the
implementation thereof is working. Yet, the biggest hurdle for Vietnam is widespread
corruption, particularly among senior officials and although noises about addressing these
issues have been made, this issue remains an almost insurmountable challenge.
Conclusion
To conclude, my preliminary findings on the implementation and success of the various
elephant action plans at midpoint of the timeframe issued by CITES are sketchy at best as
many of the countries as well as CITES are officially keeping mum on information
garnered. Having said that, we, the concerned citizens, can make educated guesses based
on secondary information. Reports of rampant poaching continues unabated throughout
Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania but trends are indicating that poachers are now targeting
other African countries, as witnessed with the case of the mass elephant slaughter in CAR
in April this year and poisonings in Zimbabwe in August/September. Perhaps this is as a
result of tougher measures within the three East African nations? Ivory smugglers no longer
seem to prefer Mombasa or Zanzibar as an exit point and are increasingly making use of
Mozambique and a variety West African ports to smuggle ivory.
Malaysia remains a major problem as a transit country with authorities being unable or
unwilling to halt or reduce the amount of illegal ivory getting through. Vietnam and Hong
Kong have both made an effort with some success, but while we know of some stocks
seized, we will never know how many shipments get through undetected, so its impossible
to gauge the real success of their action plans. The Philippines is the shining example within
the Gang of Eight. They have not only demonstrated a public readiness but a strong
commitment to halting the trade in ivory. The crushing of their stockpiles sent a clear
message in that regard. Thailand have muddied the issue with an inclusion of their domestic
elephant population, and anyhow their legal system seems to be mired in red-tape, so I
doubt we will be seeing positive results from them soon, if at all. China, as the major
consumer country, on the other hand, is the true bogie of the group. Their insistence on
keeping ivory as a consumer product will continue to fuel the trade in illegal ivory and
unless they commit 100% to the complete halt of ivory sales, elephants will continually get
slaughtered throughout Africa.
Page 7 of 7