[Senate Hearing 114-797]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-797
WILDLIFE POACHING
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND
GLOBAL HEALTH POLICY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 16, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
29-843 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).E-mail,
[email protected].
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
BOB CORKER, TENNESSEE, Chairman
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MARCO RUBIO, Florida BARBARA BOXER, California
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
CORY GARDNER, Colorado CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
RAND PAUL, Kentucky TIM KAINE, Virginia
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Lester Munson, Staff Director
Jodi B. Herman, Democratic Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
------------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND
GLOBAL HEALTH POLICY
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona, Chairman
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RAND PAUL, Kentucky CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARCO RUBIO, Florida BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Jeff Flake, U.S. Senator From Arizona....................... 1
Ian Saunders, Chief Operations Officer, The Tsavo Trust,
Washington, DC................................................. 2
Prepared Statement........................................... 5
Jean Marc Froment, Conservation Director, African Parks,
Bryanston,
Johannesburg, South Africa..................................... 7
Prepared Statement........................................... 9
Dr. George Wittemyer, Chairman, Scientific Board for Save the
Elephants, Fort Collins, CO.................................... 12
Prepared Statement........................................... 15
Ginette Hemley, Senior Vice President, Wildlife Conservation,
World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC............................ 22
Prepared Statement........................................... 24
Hon. Ed Markey, U.S. Senator From Massachusetts.................. 40
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Dr. George Wittemyer to Questions Submitted by
Senator
Tom Udall...................................................... 46
(iii)
WILDLIFE POACHING
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Flake
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Flake, Markey, and Udall.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FLAKE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator Flake. This hearing on the Senate Foreign Relations
Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy will come to
order.
I appreciate the attendance of certainly the witnesses and
all others here. I am glad to have Governor Adato from Kenya
here as well. Thank you for coming.
I would apologize from the outset. We are in the middle of
votes right now. I voted on the first one and will wait, as
long as I can, to go and vote on the second one. Hopefully, we
can get as much testimony in as possible. And Ranking Member
Markey is in a meeting and voting, and he will be here as soon
as he can as well. So given our short timeframe this afternoon,
we thought it best to get started. So thank you for your
indulgence there and apologize for the lack of members here.
They will likely trickle in as we go along and votes end.
But today we are examining the wildlife poaching in sub-
Saharan Africa. Illegal wildlife trade is one of the most
lucrative illicit practices in the world, generating between $8
billion and $10 billion each year. Wildlife trafficking has
been especially stark in sub-Saharan Africa where poacher
activity is just decimating African elephant and rhino
populations, two of the big five animals that provide a
significant draw for visitors to southern and east Africa in
particular.
The poaching crisis, which is driven by demand from outside
of the continent hampers Arizona--I am sorry. Arizona. I slip
every once in a while. Africa, my two loves--hampers Africa's
economic growth potential, threatening good governance by
fueling corruption and undermining security. The social impact
of trafficking is also significant at the local level, and we
will hear about some of that today, where the practice
threatens jobs in game reserves and the communities that
surround them.
Poaching has also had ramifications on the security front.
Rangers and other law enforcement officials have been killed at
the hands of poachers, and the need to address wildlife
trafficking draws resources away from other much needed
security efforts.
Today's hearing will focus on efforts to address poaching
at the source. We are also going to hear our witnesses'
thoughts on wildlife trafficking legislation that has been
introduced in Congress. Each of our witnesses today brings a
unique perspective to the issue at hand. I have no doubt that
it will contribute greatly to the debate that we are having
here. I thank you for your time and for sharing your expertise.
I enjoyed reading the testimony last night and look forward to
the testimony here today.
We will go ahead and introduce and then go from there.
Mr. Ian Saunders, cofounder and chief operating officer of
the Kenyan conservation NGO, Tsavo Trust. In this role, he
oversees the implementation of stabilization through
conservation strategy. Previously Mr. Saunders worked with
Africa's largest private antipoaching unit at that time in
Tanzania. In addition, he previously served as the senior
security advisor to the United Nations in Afghanistan.
Mr. Jean Marc Froment currently is conservation director at
African Parks, a conservation management organization with
parks in eight African countries. Mr. Froment has advanced
conservation efforts in the DRC's Garamba National Park and, as
an independent expert, has also worked as a manager in national
parks and protected areas in Cameroon and the Congo.
George Wittemyer is the chairman of the Scientific Board
for Save the Elephants, as well as assistant professor of fish,
wildlife, and conservation biology at Colorado State
University. As a Fulbright fellow in 1997, Dr. Wittemyer
founded a long-term Samburu elephant monitoring project in
northern Kenya. Since that, Dr. Wittemyer's more than 40 peer-
reviewed articles have received over 2,000 academic citations.
I found that what is going on there with the testimony quite
interesting.
Ms. Ginette Hemley is a senior vice president for
Conservation at the World Wildlife Fund. In this role, she
tracks execution of World Wildlife Fund's local to global
strategy to conserve ecologically important places and leads
conservation advocacy campaigns. She also chairs the WWF
network's Global Conservation Committee, which sets strategy
and policy for WWF's international conservation program.
Again, thank you all for being here today. Your full
testimony will be, without objection, entered into the record.
So if you could please keep your remarks to around 5 minutes,
that would help us get through the testimony and to questions.
With that, the committee recognizes Mr. Saunders.
STATEMENT OF IAN SAUNDERS, CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER, THE TSAVO
TRUST, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Saunders. Thank you, Chairman Flake, Ranking Member
Markey, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you
for inviting me to testify at this important hearing on
wildlife poaching. And I appear before you in my capacity as
chief operations officer and cofounder of the Tsavo Trust. I
request that my full statement be included in the record.
My family have lived and worked in Kenya and Tanzania for
the last three generations, and I have served in various
security, governance, wildlife management, and sustainable
development positions over the last 30 years, including with
the British Army, the United Nations in both security and
counterterrorism capacity, and I am a trained ecologist. During
the early to mid-1990s, I recruited, trained, and operated what
was at the time the largest private antipoaching unit in
Africa, working closely with the Tanzania Wildlife Division.
Tsavo Trust's mission in Kenya is to secure strategic areas
in the Greater Tsavo Area for the benefit of wildlife and
people through innovation, partnership, and stewardship. Tsavo
Trust is focused on building the capacity of communities to
manage their own land, wildlife, and natural resources and to
implement their own enterprises and to develop their own
revenue, infrastructure, and community governance frameworks.
We call this our Stabilization through Conservation approach.
At 16,000 square miles, or twice the size of the State of
Massachusetts, the iconic Tsavo landscape is Kenya's largest
and most important intact natural ecosystem. The Greater Tsavo
ecosystem is located in the southeast part of Kenya and forms
part of Tsavo-Amboseli-Chyulu Hills ecosystem and hosts Kenya's
largest elephant population at approximately 12,000 elephants.
Its Chyulu Hills catchment area feeds Mombasa, Kenya's second
city, with most of its fresh water. Over the past 10 years,
populations of elephants have dropped by 50 percent in Africa
primarily due to wildlife poaching.
Tsavo occupies a strategically pivotal space between the
coastal belt and the interior of Kenya. The Tsavo region is a
potential security buffer against destabilizing forces seeking
to infiltrate deeper into East Africa through Kenya's coastal
entry points and from Somalia. But this critical landscape is
now at risk from a complex, interrelated array of threats,
including wildlife trafficking, human-wildlife conflict, small
arms proliferation, human poverty, biodiversity loss,
transboundary organized crime, and even violent extremism.
The poaching of wildlife threat presents a complex law
enforcement and social challenge. Much of the illegal activity
occurs or is initiated in a remote and expansive rural areas
where wildlife and humans coexist, which is outside the Kenya
Wildlife Service managed national parks. Most rural people in
Tsavo view wildlife as a threat to their lives and livelihoods
or competition for resources such as grazing, land, and water.
They see few direct or indirect benefits from wildlife and, in
the absence of other income opportunities, will resort to
poaching on behalf of others as a form of employment.
I believe the term ``wildlife management'' is a misnomer.
Wildlife will prosper and natural resources will bring more
equitable, more sustainable benefits if we as the dominant
species can provide a conducive environment for both humans and
wildlife. So, in essence, it is human management that we are
addressing.
In Kenya, as elsewhere across the world, the exposure to
widely accessible modern communications and new media has given
impoverished rural people a wider perspective and created new
and high expectations, in some cases far beyond what is
realistically achievable. In some areas, this has resulted in
resentment, dissent, despondency, and even anger, which is an
ideal environment for exploitation by extremists or organized
illegal entities.
So in response to this complex challenge faced by the Tsavo
ecosystem, the Tsavo Trust is implementing its Stabilization
through Conservation, or StabilCon, approach, which provides a
holistic culturally aware and nature-based approach to
undermining the spread of organized crime and reducing illegal
wildlife trafficking. It helps curb radicalization through
strengthening rural communities and protecting biodiversity
while populating vulnerable spaces with robust community
government systems.
StabilCon utilizes conservation infrastructure not only to
protect wildlife but also to help stabilize the human terrain,
thereby supporting the national security effort and giving
wildlife and the natural environment a much greater value than
tourism dollars alone.
In Tsavo, rural communities are the most important actors
in countering wildlife crime and other illegal activities at
source, but they will only have the ability and resolve to act
against these destructive influences if they have the
opportunity to prosper themselves and have realistic prospects
for the future.
StabilCon can bring stability to vulnerable regions from
the inside out rather than the outside in. It does not seek to
impose ownership or control over communities. It works
alongside Tsavo's rural communities, the Kenya Wildlife
Conservancies Association, the Kenya Wildlife Service, national
government law enforcement agencies, local and international
academic institutions and other partners delivering similar on-
the-ground development and conservation projects.
StabilCon is readily exportable not only to other countries
in Africa but also to other parts of the world where
marginalized rural communities inhabit vulnerable and natural
resource-rich environments. Any structured organization that
can work in the rural space can implement StabilCon, including
commercial businesses, faith-based institutions, local or
national governments, community groups, NGO's, or civil-
military partnerships.
StabilCon can play a key role in contributing to the
existing and ongoing success of community conservancies in
Kenya, particularly in currently under-represented areas.
Community conservancies are nature reserves owned and managed
by local rural communities with support from stewardship
organizations when required. The areas are zoned to allow a
range of sustainable and complementary land uses, such as
cattle ranching. Conservancies have already proved successful
in Mongolia, Namibia, and Kenya, based on the original concepts
developed right here in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss this important issue. I look
forward to answering any questions the committee members may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saunders follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ian Saunders
Chairman Flake, Ranking Member Markey, and distinguished members of
the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify at this important
hearing on wildlife poaching. I appear before you in my capacity as
Chief Operations Officer and Founder of the Tsavo Trust. My family have
lived and worked in Kenya and Tanzania for three generations. I have
served in a various security, governance, wildlife management and
sustainable development positions, including with the British Army and
the United Nations in a security and counterterrorism capacity. During
the 1990s I recruited, trained and managed what was at the time the
largest private antipoaching unit in Africa, which worked closely with
the Tanzania Wildlife Division.
Tsavo Trust's mission in Kenya is to secure strategic areas in the
Greater Tsavo Area for the benefit of wildlife and people, through
innovation, partnership, and stewardship. Tsavo Trust is focused on
building the capacity of communities to manage their own land,
wildlife, and natural resources to implement their own enterprises and
to develop their own revenue, infrastructure, and community governance
frameworks. We call this stabilization through conservation or
StabilCon.
At 16,000 square miles or twice the size of the State of
Massachusetts, the iconic Tsavo landscape is Kenya's largest and most
important intact natural ecosystem.
The Greater Tsavo ecosystem is located in the southeast part of
Kenya and forms part of the Tsavo-Amboseli-Chyulu Hills ecosystem.
Tsavo hosts Kenya's largest elephant population and its Chyulu Hills
catchment area feeds Mombasa, Kenya's second city, with fresh water. It
is estimated there are approximately 12,000 elephants in the Greater
Tsavo Ecosystem--the largest population in Kenya. Over the past 10
years, populations of elephants have dropped by 50 percent in Africa,
primarily due to wildlife poaching.
Tsavo occupies a strategically pivotal space between the important
coastal belt and the interior of Kenya. It lies at a crossroads of
cultures, religions, and perspectives. Importantly, the Tsavo region is
a potential security buffer against destabilizing forces seeking to
infiltrate deeper into East Africa through Kenya's coastal entry points
and from Somalia. But this critical landscape is now at risk from
complex interrelated threats including wildlife trafficking, human-
wildlife conflict, small arms proliferation, human poverty,
biodiversity loss, transboundary organized crime and violent extremism.
poaching and the challenges faced by communities in the tsavo region
Poaching of wildlife has evolved into an illegal, organized
commercial business, increasingly controlled by transnational criminal
gangs that exploit the poverty and desperation of rural people. These
organized criminal networks deal not only in illegal wildlife products
like ivory and rhino horn, but also in other contraband such as drugs
and illegal weapons.
Poaching in regions like Tsavo not only destroys a valuable
economic resource and threaten the safety of people (for example,
through the proliferation of illegal firearms and organized crime), it
also destabilizes the natural environment. The commercialization of the
bushmeat trade (the killing of wild animals for food) and the exotic
trade in animal parts such as pangolin scales and lion bones are having
a devastating impact on multiple species from small antelope to large
predators and other megafauna.
The poaching and wildlife trafficking threat presents a complex law
enforcement and social challenge. Much of the illegal activity occurs
in remote and expansive rural areas where wildlife and humans coexist
and outside the Kenya Wildlife Service managed National Parks. Most
rural people in Tsavo view wildlife as a threat to their lives and
livelihoods, or as competition for resources (grazing, land, water).
They see few direct or even indirect benefits from wildlife, and in the
absence of other income opportunities will resort to poaching on behalf
of others as a form of employment.
Wildlife conservation for its own sake is a new concept to most of
Tsavo's rural inhabitants, in which they currently see little value.
Conservation is viewed primarily as a foreign indulgence.
In seeking solutions, I believe the term ``wildlife management'' is
a misnomer. To conserve wildlife and other natural resources, we need
to first and foremost manage ourselves, and mitigate the negative
impact of our own human activities. Wildlife will prosper and natural
resources will bring more equitable, more sustainable benefits, if we--
as the dominant species--can provide a conducive environment.
Kenya is developing at a fast rate. With the undeniable benefits of
development also come many challenges, some of which, such as internal
security, are shared with the United States and other countries.
Kenya's human population is increasing, new and essential
infrastructure is appearing in remote rural areas, new centers of human
settlement are increasing the demands on ecosystem services.
In Kenya as elsewhere across the world, the exposure to widely
accessible modern communications and new media has given impoverished
rural people a wider perspective and created new expectations, in some
cases far beyond what is realistically achievable. In some areas, this
has resulted in resentment, dissent, despondency, and anger: an ideal
environment for exploitation by extremist or organized illegal
entities.
tsavo trust's approach--stabilization through conservation
In response to the complex and multifarious challenges faced by the
Tsavo ecosystem, Tsavo Trust is implementing its Stabilization Through
Conservation (StabilCon) approach, which is a holistic strategy to
securing both human and wildlife populations against the various
threats currently facing this strategically and ecologically important
region and its people.
StabilCon rests on the premise that sustainable development and the
management of natural resources, including wildlife, can only succeed
in a stable environment; conversely, prudent management of natural
resources can be used as a catalyst for creating that stability.
StabilCon utilizes conservation infrastructure not only to protect
wildlife but also to help stabilize the human terrain, thereby
supporting the national security effort and giving wildlife and the
natural environment a much greater value than tourism dollars alone. It
provides a holistic, culturally aware and nature-based approach to
undermining the spread of organized crime, reduce illegal wildlife
trafficking, it helps curb radicalization through strengthening rural
economies and protecting biodiversity while populating vulnerable areas
with robust community governance systems.
Today, many of the world's remaining natural environments are
subject to physical, economic, environmental or structural insecurity.
In Tsavo, rural communities are the most important actors in countering
wildlife crime and other illegal activities at source, but they will
only have the ability and resolve to act against these destructive
influences if they have the opportunity to prosper themselves and have
realistic prospects for the future. The StabilCon approach comprises
four interrelated goals:
(1) Reduce physical insecurity for people, wildlife and
natural resources to a manageable level as a mandatory first
step;
(2) Use the resulting physical security as the foundation on
which to build and diversify nature-based economic
opportunities and access the social services enabled by greater
prosperity;
(3) Strengthen environmental security so that the benefits of
a healthy environment, which underpins all life, can be shared
between this generation and those that follow; and
(4) Build more robust, equitable and representative community
governance systems.
By securing at-risk areas via nonaggressive, low-intensity
engagement, respecting traditional livelihoods while delivering
essential needs, StabilCon is a strategy, which can bring stability to
vulnerable regions from the ``inside-out'' rather than adopting a more
interventionist ``outside-in'' approach. StabilCon has the potential to
`inhabit the space' currently open to exploitation by destabilizing
forces.
StabilCon does not seek to impose ownership or control over
communities implementing the strategy; rather it provides a grounded
approach which, when adopted by rural people, gives them the ``tools''
and technical capacity needed to address their own livelihood
priorities in a sustainable way.
StabilCon is working alongside Tsavo's rural communities, the Kenya
Wildlife Conservancies Association (KWCA), Kenya Wildlife Service
(KWS), national government law enforcement agencies, local and
international academic institutions and other partners delivering on-
the-ground development and conservation projects.
Tsavo Trust's remains committed to creating a unified best practice
framework for potential adoption at the national level, both in Kenya
and elsewhere.
approach can be applied to other areas affected by poaching
While Tsavo Trust is implementing StabilCon in southern Kenya, this
strategy is readily exportable not only to other countries in Africa
but also to other parts of the world where marginalized rural
communities inhabit vulnerable, natural resource-rich environments. The
StabilCon model is being exported to Northeast India where similar
dynamics are at play and where poaching of elephants and rhino fuel
instability and create conflict with local people. Other areas of
Central Asia and Africa could benefit from the approach such as
conflict hotspots and natural resource rich Democratic Republic of the
Congo and Southern Sudan or even Afghanistan.
Any structured organization working in the rural space can
implement the StabilCon approach, including commercial businesses,
faith based institutions, local or national governments, community
groups, NGOs or civil-military partnerships.
In particular, Tsavo Trust believes that StabilCon, can play a key
role in contributing to the ongoing success of Community Conservancies
in Kenya, particularly in currently underrepresented rural areas.
Community Conservancies are essentially nature reserves, owned and
holistically managed by local rural communities with support from
stewardship organizations when required. The areas are zoned to allow a
range of sustainable and complementary land uses, such as cattle
ranching. Conservancies have already proved successful in Mongolia,
Namibia, and Kenya, based on initial concepts developed here in the
United States.
The United States Government has provided a significant boost to
Kenya's community-led conservation and development projects with the
goal of creating a more stable environment, with more productive, more
resilient rural communities contributing positively to Kenya's national
effort.
Ultimately, StabilCon puts conservation of wildlife and natural
resources agendas higher priorities for people and rural communities,
and serve as a catalyst for enhanced peace and stability.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss this important issue. I look forward to answering any
questions committee members may have.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Mr. Froment.
STATEMENT OF JEAN MARC FROMENT, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, AFRICAN
PARKS, BRYANSTON, JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Saunders. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank
you for giving the opportunity to African Parks to testify on
the subject.
My name is Jean Marc Froment. I am a biologist and I am
working for conservation in Africa since 40 years. I basically
work more in Central African countries.
I was born in Eastern DRC and at that time Africa only
counted 300 million inhabitants and the continent was quite
peaceful.
Very quickly, my passion for elephants and wildlife did
become the center of my life. In 1975, my first job in
conservation was an elephant translocation in Rwanda to Akagera
National Park due to demographic pressures.
Then I have been to Europe to get my master in biology. My
main concern was to go back to the wilderness of Africa and I
found a job in the 1980s as a U.N. volunteer in the north of
the Central African Republic at the boundary of Chad and South
Sudan. There I first met Richard Ruggiero and Mike Fay who were
also working in the same field. It was a really wild area,
completely untouched and inhabited with a lot of wildlife. But
at that time though, this region was already facing major
threats and security issues. Horsemen and Janjaweed from Darfur
linked with the Northern Sudan army had already started
slaughtering elephants, and at the same time, authorities and
communities had already began killing elephants and responding
to the demand of ivory and bushmeat trade.
So to show the dimension of the problem, I asked Iain
Douglas Hamilton, who has created ``Save the Elephants,'' to
come for a census survey to highlight the dimension of the
slaughter to the world at that time. Our job in that region
just consisted in supporting the Ministry of Water and Forests
to establish parks and fight the poaching.
All my life, we have tried to support the public services
to try to address the problem, but 20 years later, we are still
there seeking to aid these administrations. The wildlife and
the elephants were constantly decreasing, and in addition to
the loss of the pachyderm, we were quickly losing more and more
land. Why? Simply because if there were not more thank 300,000
inhabitants in Africa, we then have reached 1 billion people.
And 50 percent of the people in Africa are living with less
than $2 per day. The essence of the problems is this one: the
international demand and the demand linked to the demography.
And today in all countries, the weakness of the public
sector and the army are facts with all their consequences.
The demand for land, proteins and wood is increasing, and
in 2050, there will be 2.5 billion inhabitants. It is a big
dimension. Africa will go through major changes in the next 20
years.
Logically in that context, insecurity problems will
increase with the emergence of groups like Akni, Boko Haram,
Seleka, LRA, al-Shabaab. It is part of the problem of poverty.
The demand of high value commodities has increased with the
impact that we know on elephants and rhinos. Everybody is using
the opportunity, including rebel groups and armies. And it is
effectively using a network enabling to exchange guns,
munitions, money. Anyone: governments, armies, and rebels are
stakeholders in this.
In Garamba National Park in Democratic Republic of Congo,
where we are working, we must address the poaching of LRAs and
Janjaweeds, let alone the poaching linked to the Sudanese Army
and military helicopters probably coming from Uganda to kill
elephants.
It is essential that the international community
understands that the demand of high value products must be
avoided at all cost and very urgently. It is not the sole
action that we must undertake. Other solutions must be applied
to solve the problem of the increasing of population and
demography.
There is an emergency: simple and pragmatic solutions for
the management of natural resources must be implemented as fast
as possible to help the states to control their resources.
Given the size and the complexity of the crisis, but also
the urgency to intervene, it is important to fix some
priorities. It is widely accepted that the establishment of a
truly protected area or network of areas is an essential
element of the continental conservation strategy. The current
protected areas are a good representative of the biological
diversity of the continent and have legal statutes to allow
their protection. Giving priority to the protected areas is
certainly the establishment of the foundation of a pragmatic
conservation strategy at the continental level that will
snowball and will address more broadly the general problem of
the environment.
Natural resources and protected areas are not only the
sectors suffering from the deficiencies of the public sector.
Other sectors such as education, health, communications, could
find solutions by delegating part of their responsibilities to
the civil society, the NGOs, and the private sector.
Yet, in many countries, management of natural resources and
protected areas, wildlife remain in the prerogative of the
state institutions. If the underlying problem is the failure of
the public sector, then we need to find solutions to that. And
in other sectors, private-public partnerships through state
delegations and share of the responsibilities with the civil
society have brought solutions.
African Parks has certainly been a pioneer in that area of
management of protected areas.
The central concept of public-private partnership is the
separation of the responsibilities between the states and
African Parks. The state is the owner of the park and is
responsible for legislation, policy, and strategy. African
Parks is more responsible for the execution of the management
functions and accountable to the states on its performance.
This separation of functions is essential for the
accountability for both partners, and it is a largely alien
concept in the traditional conservation world.
By entering into long-term partnership with governments, we
assume the total responsibility for the national parks. We put
in place governance structures. We manage the skills and we
find funding solutions that are also desperately needed.
When the government gives us the mandate and the power to
manage, the results are formidable. In all parks that we are
managing, we are making very good progress, and most of the
wildlife population trends are increasing except maybe in two
parks. In Garamba National Park and in Chinko, we have still a
major problem with elephants facing the armed groups, the LRA
and the Janjaweed. The main problem of that is because we
cannot manage to get arms and ammunitions to train our guards
and fully address the problem of security linked to the LRAs
and other armed groups. And this is a major issue for us
because so many people can get guns easily. Ammunition is also
easy to find except for us who are legally bringing the
security in the parks.
I would like to add one point. I think it is very
important. There is a ``black hole'' between CAR, northern
Sudan, and northern DRC. It represents an area of 60 million
hectares with very little resident populations where all rebel
groups can find a refuge: Janjaweeds, LRAs, Senekas are present
in this big zone and they are not far from Boko Haram. They are
with the Janjaweeds. This wild area may become the most
difficult question to address in Africa in the next 10-20
years, and we ought to find a solution. Management of natural
resources in that particular region is certainly a key element
to prevent something that can become a tremendous disaster for
Africa.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Froment follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jean Marc Froment
introduction
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for giving the
opportunity to APN to testify today on this subject. My name is Jean
Marc Froment. I am a biologist and I am working for conservation in
Africa since 40 years.
My message is relatively simple and touches 2 points.
The first: Africa faces an unprecedented complex conservation
crisis. The second: A message of hope, which I believe, can be part of
the solution.
Two examples
But before developing these two points, I would start with the
examples of two parks that were thought lost: Majete National Park in
Malawi and Zakouma National Park in Chad.
Ten years ago Majete was a forgotten little park, 700 km2,
under strong demographic pressure. All wildlife had been
exterminated in the 1970s and 1980s. The trees were exploited
for construction and charcoal, the limits were not respected
and there were no more visitors. Today it is a protected area
completely repopulated with Black Rhinos, 280 elephants, lions
and leopards, and all other species. The park's infrastructure
has been rebuilt and a community conservation plan including
education, health, and tours in the park, is implemented. Three
lodges have been established and welcome 7,000 visitors a year
that generate 400,000 US$/year.
Zakouma National Park, 3,000 km2 in Chad, is located not far
from the border with Darfur and northern Central African
Republic. It has experienced an unprecedented wave of poaching.
Between 2004 and 2010, the elephant population has decreased
from 4,500 to about 450 elephants. This genocide was mainly due
to the rebellion organized from Darfur and the period of
insecurity that ensued in the region. Late 2010, APN has taken
over the total management of the park with a very strong
support of the Government of Chad. This allowed us to address
the first problem--security. In 2 years, after restructuring
the guard team, establishing a collaboration with the local
armed forces and having set up an intelligence system all
around the park, we have not only stopped the poaching but have
succeeded to secure a region of about 20,000 km2 around the
park. For the local communities, securing the area was the
first benefit and has opened a new economic and social
perspective.
With these two examples, I hope to have shown extreme demographic
and security contexts in which a large number of parks in Africa are
today. But, that good management is able to address the real problems
and can also quickly turn the dramatic situation in success carrying
hope and pride.
1. africa faces a conservation crisis
The conservation crisis is deep. It exposes the life and the
specificity of the continent to extremely rapid degradation with all
its consequences on biodiversity, the loss of ecological services, the
vulnerability of rural communities, economic, global warming, etc.
Two major factors lead the pressures:
Firstly, the demands related to global markets, and
Secondly, the demands related to population growth on the
continent.
The demands related to global markets
By observing the conservation status of only one emblematic species
of the continent one can realize one dimension of the threats.
In 1950, there were probably more than 2 million elephants. In 2000
the population was estimated at about 600,000. Currently, it is
considered that Africa loses 35,000 elephants each year (9 percent of
the total population). The Central African countries have lost 66
percent of their forest elephants in 10 years. The increase of price
and demand is the only reason of these trends.
Who is benefiting from these markets? Certainly not the States, but
a huge range of people from the authorities and army people, to
communities and local poachers, to local and international traders and,
even in some cases, armed groups. They are all linked, part of networks
that are providing ivory, rhino horns to the market.
Most certainly, armed groups, rebel and terrorist benefit from
these particular markets to dispose of weapons and ammunition. In
Central Africa, that I know well, the Janjaweets and their connections
with North Sudan army played a major role in the extermination of
elephants but also in terms of insecurity and the spread of weapons in
Chad, Central African Republic, southern Sudan and northern DRC. Ditto
for the Lord Resistance Army. But these are not the only ones that must
be pointed at.
The armed forces, or more precisely, elements of the armed forces
in different countries are involved directly and indirectly in the
killing of elephants and trafficking of ivory. Where do the weapons in
the hands of these rebels and poachers come from? Where do the military
helicopters that slaughter elephants in Garamba National Park last year
come from?
Again these are not the only ones. Many authorities supposed to
help preserving the wildlife benefit from this trafficking. How many
export licenses are issued each year illegally by those authorities?
Examples are numerous. So many public sector failures, including
concerned armed forces, failure in the control and management of vast
and rich territories, failure in law enforcement, failure in
controlling trades.
For species affected by high-value amenities that involve regional
and international networks for example ivory or rhino horn, the problem
must be addressed at three different levels:
By stopping their slaughter through better management of
parks and if needed by addressing the security questions;
By stopping the local trade by understanding the networks
and arresting those involved; and
By stopping the demand through consumer awareness, but this
will take time.
The question is ``how to do that''? How to support some states to
preserve their resources? How to support some states to identify the
networks and to arrest those involved? Is Public-Private Partnership
part of the solution?
The demands related to population growth on the continent
However, we cannot dissociate/forget the loss of habitat and fauna
related to demographics, from this crisis:
In 1950, Africa had 250 million inhabitants, in 2000 it
reached 1 billion and in 2050 it will be 2.5 billion!!! In
addition to that growth is the increased needs related to
education, health, etc. Fifty percent of the population lives
on less than US$2/day! The repercussions on land requirements
for both small farmers and for large farms and on markets are
enormous.
Sixty percent of deforestation is related to the demographic
factor and 20-to-30 percent to commercial holdings (logging and
agricultural purposes). The demand for firewood or charcoal is
one of the most important causes. Over 80 percent of the
African population relies on wood as energy. Its impact is
massive.
The need in protein. In the Congo Basin it is estimated that
5 million tons of bush meat are extracted, traded, and consumed
annually. African gigantic areas were completely depopulated
from their wildlife. Domestic livestock replaced wildlife with
overgrazing.
The rapid evolution of the Human Foot Print and the poverty
question is the essence of this crisis.
It is essential that the international community understands that:
If the demand for high value products has to be avoided at
all costs, this is not the only action to be undertaken.
Solutions to other ``requests'' more related to population
growth must also be found.
There is urgency and simple and pragmatic solutions must be
implemented quickly to allow the states to take control of
their resources.
The weakness of the capability not only of public administrations
but also of the security forces in a number of countries is the main
cause of the difficulty that the states meet to mitigate the effects of
these two factors--Demography and International Demand.
The consequences of the conservation crisis are obvious:
The natural areas and wildlife will continue to melt. With
this scarcity, their value will increase.
Although the importance of the network of Protected Areas in
Africa, many of the 1,200 of them will be lost if solutions are
not found quickly for their protection and management.
The states that are now investing in a pragmatic solution
for the preservation of their protected areas will benefit from
the increase in their value.
Given the size and complexity of the crisis but also the urgency to
intervene, it is important to fix it some priority. It is widely
accepted that the establishment of a truly protected area network is an
essential element in the continental conservation strategy. The current
protected areas are a good representation of the biological diversity
of the continent and have legal statutes that allow their protection.
Giving priority to the Protected Areas is certainly the establishment
of a foundation for a pragmatic conservation strategy at the
continental level that will snowball and will address more broadly the
general problem of the environment.
2. how to support the african states?
Natural resources, Protected Areas, are not the only sectors
suffering from the deficiencies of the Public Service. Other sectors
such as education, health or communications could find solutions by
delegating part of their responsibilities to other actors--businesses,
NGOs, etc.
Yet in many countries, management of natural areas, protected areas
and wildlife has remained the prerogative of state institutions. If the
underlying problem is the failure of the public sector, it is important
to look for solutions elsewhere. As in other sectors, the Public-
Private Partnerships through which states can delegate and or share
some of their responsibilities to civil society, NGOs, private, may be
solutions.
African Parks has certainly been a pioneer in this area for the
management of protected areas.
Central to the concept of a public-private partnership is a
separation of responsibilities between the state and African Parks. The
State is the owner of the park and is responsible for legislation and
policy. African Parks is responsible for execution of management
functions and is accountable to the state for its performance. This
separation of functions is essential for accountability of both
partners--a largely alien concept in traditional conservation circles.
African Parks is an African solution to Africa's conservation
challenges. By entering into a long-term agreement (25 years) with
governments, we assume the total responsibility for one or more of a
country's national parks. We put in place the governance structures,
the management skills and funding solutions that are all so desperately
needed.
We become responsible for all the Law Enforcement staff that
are seconded to APN, make sure they are properly equipped and
properly trained to face the challenges of the Protected Area
including security of an entire region. We develop relations
with army, tribunal, and authorities to bring them on board.
We reintroduce species and put in place all infrastructures
to manage a park.
We become responsible for implementing community programs to
ensure that local people benefit from the existence of a
national park and understand its value. They become very
supportive of our action and a key element in the intelligence
systems that we put in place
When our Government partners give us a mandate to manage--one that
empowers us to manage and take responsibility--the results are
formidable and all parks that we are managing, are making progress.
I opened with two such examples, Majete and Zakouma, but there are
numerous others among which:
In Liuwa Plain in Zambia the wildebeest migration has grown
by 300 percent in 10 years and species such as eland, lion, and
buffalo have been reintroduced and are thriving. At the same
time, the murder rate in the area has dropped from 52 per annum
to just 1.
In Rwanda, park income, a proxy for economic activity, has
grown fourfold in 4 years generating income for the
sustainability of the park as well as much-needed income for
community initiatives.
The benefits of good management are not just restricted to
wildlife--it benefits an entire region and the people living in it. The
conditions necessary for elephants to thrive, are the same conditions
that are necessary for people to thrive. A conservation solution is, in
fact, a governance, safety and security, economic development and
poverty alleviation solution.
As African Parks, we manage eight such areas totaling nearly 6 m
hectares. By 2020 we will manage 20, covering 10 m hectares.
Managing a single park will typically cost between $1m and $3m per
annum depending on scale and complexity.
By doing so, it is possible to not only bring about peace and
stability in otherwise often forgotten areas, a prerequisite for any
form of economic and social development, but it preserves the wildlife
and the ecosystem services on which we as mankind are dependent.
Senator Flake. Thank you so much.
Dr. Wittemyer.
STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE WITTEMYER, CHAIRMAN, SCIENTIFIC BOARD
FOR SAVE THE ELEPHANTS, FORT COLLINS, CO
Dr. Wittemyer. Thanks, Chairman Flake, Ranking Member,
members of the committee. I want to thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony for the record of this hearing.
My name is George Wittemyer. I am a professor at Colorado
State University, and I am the chairman of the Scientific Board
for the Kenya-based organization, Save the Elephants. I have
been studying the population of elephants in northern Kenya for
18 years, witnessing ivory poaching hit elephants I know
individually.
I would like to begin by summarizing our current scientific
knowledge on elephant poaching. Last September, I led with
colleagues a peer-reviewed paper that used surveys of elephant
carcasses across Africa to estimate the poaching of 100,000
elephants in the 3 years between 2010 and 2012. I updated this
analysis for this hearing finding poaching rates in 2013 and
2014 continued to exceed natural growth rates for elephants,
indicating the species has been in a poaching-driven decline
for the last 5 years.
Paul Allen's great elephant census of savanna populations
uncovered massive losses in Tanzania, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe.
Tanzania alone has lost over 50,000 elephants since 2009. That
is a 60-percent decline in that country's elephants.
The Wildlife Conservation Society documented a 62-percent
decline in forest elephants between 2002 and 2011, and the
decline in forest elephants continues.
The Elephant Trade Information System documented the
highest volumes of seized ivory ever recorded in 2013. Much of
this ivory is trafficked out of two ports, Mombassa, Kenya, and
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Scientific outputs have identified the
problem sites. We now need serious action to address them.
While these numbers are grim, it is important to recognize
that the slaughter of elephants is not happening everywhere. We
are seeing successes on the ground. I want to highlight our
experience in northern Kenya where a community conservation
model called the Northern Rangeland Trust supported by USAID
and in collaboration with the Lewa Wildlife Conservancy and
Save the Elephants has helped stop the poaching surge.
Information from the communities and partner organizations have
been critical in catalyzing effective policing actions by the
Kenya Wildlife Service. The success is occurring in a remote,
poorly policed region, awash in illegal small arms with few
governmentally protected areas, an area with significant
conservation challenges.
Four fundamental tenets for successful community
conservation can be drawn from this project.
The first is good governance models, which are built
through community-led decisionmaking with external oversights.
The second is effective incentive models that get to the
fundamental needs of the community. In our case, this is
enhancing security to bring peace between different ethnic
groups rather than a purely economic model.
The third is land use planning to ensure long-term
conservation viability.
And the fourth is effective policing, which in our case has
been enhanced through novel lines of intelligence provided by
the community, but ultimately the policing was conducted by
official enforcement agents making targeted and effective
interdictions.
Conditions that facilitate poaching and wildlife
trafficking vary by country and sites within countries across
Africa. There is not a single prescription that can solve the
issue of wildlife poaching in Africa.
Senator Flake. Doctor, can you hold that thought?
Dr. Wittemyer. Yes.
Senator Flake. They pulled a fast one and moved this from a
15-minute vote to a 10-minute vote. So I just have a couple of
minutes to go over and vote. So we will recess for just a few
minutes and get right back to your testimony. I apologize for
this, but hopefully Senator Markey will be here as well when we
return.
Dr. Wittemyer. Great.
Senator Flake. So we are in recess.
[Recess.]
Senator Flake. The hearing will come back to order. Thank
you for your indulgence.
We have been joined by Senator Udall from New Mexico.
Dr. Wittemyer, if you will go ahead and finish.
Dr. Wittemyer. All right. Thank you. Welcome, Senator
Udall.
So I had reached the point where I described the core
tenets of the successful community conservation programs that
we are working closely with in Kenya. I stopped at the point
where I was talking about how conditions that facilitate
poaching and wildlife trafficking vary by country and sites
across Africa and that there is not a single prescription that
can solve the issue of wildlife poaching in Africa.
Funding targeted projects with implementing partners that
are deeply knowledgeable and experienced in threatened areas is
the model of Save the Elephants Elephant Crisis Fund, a
tactical program seeing successes on the ground in a diversity
of contexts. I have attached our annual summary to my testimony
as an exemplar for the diversity of approaches and target areas
to tackle wildlife poaching, and to provide some detail on the
diverse portfolio of programs with which we are engaged.
This is also the model that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Species Conservation Fund, a program widely seen as offering
one of the greatest returns on investment for U.S. funding in
Africa. Increasing funding to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Elephant Conservation Fund is a mechanism for immediate
impact on the elephant crisis.
The U.S. Government plays a critical role in addressing
elephant poaching and U.S. funding, particularly by USAID and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the foundation of many
successful projects. But there are other agencies that can
contribute substantively as well. The DEA has a blueprint for
successfully combating criminal networks in Africa. The
Department of Defense Counter-Threats Office and the Treasury
Department are experienced in disrupting criminal networks,
expertise that could be highly effective in disrupting wildlife
trafficking syndicates. The White House Executive order on
wildlife trafficking has been critical to bring concerted
action by the U.S. Government, but direct appropriations can
ensure application of relevant expertise and experience to
illegal wildlife trade.
Ultimately, it is critical to enhance U.S. support of
projects focused on population protection, judicial oversight
and reform in source nations, and specialized criminal
investigative units.
Finally, the most obvious game-changer to end ivory
poaching would be a ban on domestic ivory trade by China.
Chinese rhetoric suggests that a domestic ivory trade ban by
the United States may be the most likely action to catalyze
this. We have reached the point where collectively we know how
to effectively combat wildlife crime. This is a winnable
battle. It is time to take action to dismantle the illegal
trade networks and build the wildlife sector in Africa as a
foundation for rural development.
Thank you, Chairman Flake, and distinguished members of the
committee. I look forward to answering any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wittemyer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. George Wittemyer
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and members of the committee, I
want to thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the
record of this hearing. I am honored to appear before your committee.
My name is George Wittemyer--I am a professor in the Department of
Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology at Colorado State University
and the Chairman of the Scientific Board of the Kenya-based
organization Save the Elephants. I have worked on elephant conservation
issues in Africa for the past 19 years and have been a member of the
IUCN African Elephant Specialist Group for the past 8 years. In
addition, I serve as a technical advisor on elephants to the Kenya
Wildlife Service.
Three years ago my colleague and mentor, Dr. Iain Douglas-Hamilton,
founder of Save the Elephants, testified before this committee to draw
attention to the resurgence of the ivory trade and the resulting
impacts to elephants and the human communities with which they
coexist.\1\ At that time, he highlighted the evidence for the surge in
ivory trafficking and summarized the history of ivory trade, making the
point that, collectively, we successfully mobilized to stop the mass
slaughter of elephants for ivory in the 1980s and can do so again. This
will require working together to secure elephants in the field, disrupt
trafficking, and reduce demand. We currently have a strong scientific
capacity to assess what is happening across the African Continent that,
with continued support, puts us in a position of strength to identify
problem locations and assess the efficacy of interventions. Today, for
this panel, I would like to (1) summarize the peer-reviewed scientific
data, quantifying the scale of this problem; (2) highlight those
populations currently being decimated and flag those under threat; (3)
discuss a community conservation initiative in our research site in
northern Kenya that provides an example of successful engagement on
poaching; and (4) highlight lessons we have learned over the past 3
years to curb elephant poaching and ivory trafficking.
current state of elephant poaching for ivory
The scientific community has provided devastating confirmation of
the scale of illegal killing. Leveraging data from a unified carcass
monitoring system instituted by the Convention on the International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) called the
Monitoring of the Illegal Killing of Elephant (MIKE) program, last
September I published with my colleagues from Save the Elephants, the
CITES MIKE program and Colorado State University a peer-reviewed paper
in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that
contributed to the quantitative assessment of the continental scale of
illegal killing. We estimated that 100,000 elephants had been killed in
the 3 years between 2010-2012, driving a probable decline in the
world's elephant population across its range.\2\ This paper helped to
unite sentiment regarding the severity and scope of the elephant
poaching problem.
For this hearing, I conducted a followup analysis of the CITES MIKE
data collected since the publication of that paper that suggests levels
of poaching continued to be unsustainable in 2013 and 2014, with
poaching levels persisting at just under 7 percent per year for the
continent (similar to that experienced in 2010, but below rates
experienced in 2011-2012). This suggests tens of thousands of elephants
continue to be poached every year on the African Continent, a level not
matched by the natural growth rate, signifying that the species has
experienced declines each year for the past 5 years (on the order of 2-
4 percent per annum).
We are now comparing these outputs with other data sources and
finding consistent evidence regarding the fate of African elephants.
Critical information from population surveys has been particularly
enlightening. In 2013, a peer-reviewed paper lead by Wildlife
Conservation Society scientists, with which I was involved, analyzed
forest survey data collected during the previous decade, quantifying a
62 percent decline in forest elephants between 2002-2011.\3\ The latest
evidence suggest this decline continues. The picture is no better for
African savanna elephants. The Great Elephant Census, a Paul G. Allen
Project peer reviewed by African Elephant Specialist Group, is
providing critical aerial survey data for savanna elephant populations.
Most notable is the loss of over 50,000 elephants in Tanzania alone
since 2009 (greater than 60 percent decline), with the loss of over
7,500 additional elephants ( 50 percent decline) in the adjoining
Niassa population of Mozambique.\4\ Illegal killing and subsequent
trafficking at this scale requires serious logistical organization, and
implies government agencies in these regions are extremely ineffective
at best and actively colluding at worst. The poaching problem in the
Selous-Niassa region of southern Tanzania and northern Mozambique was
recognized as early as 2009. Since then, the Tanzanian Government's
response to the problem has not met the challenge despite rhetoric on
international stages to the contrary. In order to stem this ``blood
bath'' (the Tanzanian Minister of Natural Resources' recent label for
the current situation in Southern Tanzania), serious action--law
enforcement, arrests, and prosecutions--is required.
While Tanzania has been the primary location of industrial scale
poaching on the continent over the last 5 years, censuses have now
documented severe losses of over 10,000 elephants within Zimbabwe and
Gabon.\3\,\4\) These losses are in addition to the killing
of hundreds to thousands of elephants within many countries, including
Kenya, Zambia, Cameroon, Republic of Congo and DRC.\3\ With some of the
more accessible populations having now been depleted, we are seeing
signs of increased pressures in adjoining areas. This puts countries
such as Zimbabwe, which holds large populations near the killing fields
of Tanzania and Mozambique, and Zambia under threat. Similarly,
population in Cameroon and Republic of Congo are experiencing
increasing pressure. We need to mobilize resources to protect these
susceptible areas as well as ensure the security of Botswana's and
Gabon's elephant populations, where respectively the majority of
savanna and forest elephants reside.
Long-term ivory seizure records collated and analyzed by the CITES
Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) by TRAFFIC, a joint program of
WWF and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN),
provides the best metric of global illicit ivory trafficking. Data from
ETIS have shown a massive increase in ivory seizures starting in 2010,
with 2013 showing the highest seized volume ever recorded. Large volume
seizures are increasingly driving these trends, a clear indicator of
organized criminal syndicates involvement in ivory trafficking.\5\ The
vast majority of ivory seized since the surge in 2010 was trafficked
out of the ports of Mombasa, Kenya, and Dar Es Salam, Tanzania destined
for China.\5\ Ivory from these seizures is being genotyped to identify
their source populations. A study published last month in Science out
of the University of Washington showed recent seizures were
overwhelmingly comprised of ivory from elephant poached in Tanzania and
Mozambique.\6\ These data also provide important insights about
trafficking routes within Africa, showing that most of this seized
ivory originating in Tanzania was trafficked out of Kenya's port in
Mombasa, potentially to hide trade routes. It is critical to end the
ability of the kingpins of illegal smuggling networks to operate with
impunity, but we have seen far too few successful prosecutions and
therefore little disruption of this illegal trade to date.
While horrifying, these numbers do not actually capture the total
impact on elephants, a deeply social species that maintain close,
lifelong family bonds--a social system similar to humans in many
ways.\7\ It is well documented that poaching for ivory tends to select
older, and therefore larger tusked, individuals in a population, namely
the primary breeding males and the matriarchs and mothers in
families.\8\ Poaching, thereby, leaves behind orphaned juveniles
without the support of their families. The repercussions of poaching on
these orphaned survivors is not fully understood, though we know they
have lower survivorship relative to nonorphaned
juveniles.\9\,\10\ As such, poaching likely leads to
indirect demographic effects.\11\ In addition, we know elephants
fulfill critical ecological roles as browsers and seed
dispersers,\12\,\13\ a force against bush encroachment, and
in maintaining habitat components on which other species are
dependent.\14\ The negative and varied impacts of the loss of such
species that fill such important ecological roles, termed ecological
engineers, is well documented,\15\ and a serious concern for rangeland
and forest health in Africa. The loss of elephants will drive a
transformation of Africa's ecology as we know it.
I want to emphasize the role of science in identifying the scale,
timing, and location of this slaughter of elephants, information
critical to mobilize global action to stem the problem. The analyses
and data highlighted here have identified the hotspots of killing and
trafficking hubs. These are the key nodes to be tackled in a complex
illegal trade chain. More generally, these data have revealed the scale
of this issue and catalyzed collaborative action by wildlife management
agencies, NGOs and global policy bodies, providing the political will
and funding to make an impact. Sustaining independent, scientifically
rigorous data collection efforts, often carried out by international
NGOs and supported in many cases by U.S. funding, is fundamental for
assessing the effectiveness of investments in frontline protection as
well as antitrafficking. The success of science in identifying and
monitoring elephant poaching and ivory trafficking has been a rare
bright spot in efforts to combat wildlife crime. The International
Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime with other global policy bodies
have recognized the successes in elephant monitoring, and are
interested to replicate this model on other species to gain greater
understanding of illicit wildlife trade generally.
implications for security
The scale of the illegal wildlife trade relative to other criminal
activities has been well documented, valued at billions of dollars
annually with proceeds ultimately strengthening criminal networks and,
in some cases, insurgent groups. Wildlife resources, like ivory, take
much less infrastructure to reap than guns, minerals, drugs, or oil and
are relatively easy to traffic. In addition, wildlife resources are
concentrated in remote areas with limited government capacity to police
or areas riddled with corruption (where poaching of elephants and
illegal trade in ivory is most acute, poor governance is a serious
contributing factor).\16\ This confluence of factors has driven the
illegal wildlife trade into the top five illegally trafficked goods
globally.
Illegal wildlife trade has a number of costs to local communities.
The increased militarization of poaching operations is leading to
destabilization of areas and this loss of law and order has cascading
effects on human populations. Illegal wildlife trade can enhance local
and national corruption by altering power bases, leading to less
effective judicial and governmental function. In addition, increased
insecurity and resource losses undermine both consumptive and
nonconsumptive tourism, which is often the most important direct source
of revenue from wildlife to local communities and can be a substantial
contributor to local economies. In addition, militias involved in
illegal killing of wildlife are often involved with other criminal
activities, some of which directly prey on local communities (e.g.,
banditry and livestock rustling). Links to insurgent groups have been
documented in multiple areas in Africa, as others on this panel will
speak to. Such groups extract a serious toll on the communities and
nations where they are operational.
example of success
While the numbers presented and conditions on the ground in many
countries are grim, it is important to recognize that the slaughter of
African elephants is not happening everywhere and that we are beginning
to see successes in populations that faced severe threats just last
year. The situation where we have been able to turn the tables
successfully that I know best is for the elephant population of
Northern Kenya, where Save the Elephants operates a field station and
works in close collaboration with neighboring private organizations
such as Lewa Wildlife Conservancy and the Northern Rangeland Trust, as
well as the Kenya Wildlife Service. I want to summarize what we know
demographically and economically about poaching in this population and
then summarize the conservation model implemented in this area that has
proved successful.
We have been monitoring the Samburu elephant population of northern
Kenya intensively over the past 18 years, from which we have collected
detailed demographic data on individual elephants that allow us to pull
out highly accurate poaching rates and demographic trends. This is the
finest resolution data on poaching impacts available for the species,
and provides the most direct metric of intervention success. We began
to experience increasing rates of illegal killing for ivory in 2009,
which rapidly grew to its peak of over 8 percent of the population
during 2011. The rapid increase closely tracked a surge in black market
ivory price in Isiolo, the local trade hub, where ivory prices were
below $30/kg in 2007, but rapidly increased to $150-$180/kg in 2011.\2\
Poaching rates, at 4 percent in 2012 and 2013, decreased after this
peak year but were still unsustainable. Black market ivory prices
remained high at over $100/kg during this time (though lower than the
peak of 2011). However, in 2014, poaching rate declined precipitously
to around 1 percent. This is a sustainable rate of offtake, and the
population increased in 2014 for the first time since 2008. While only
half way through the year, we continue to experience markedly lower
levels of illegal killing in 2015 with multiple signs of sustained
success.
This sustained decline in poaching was driven by effective
antipoaching operations carried by the Kenya Wildlife Service in
partnership with NGOs coupled with a successful community conservation
model. In this ecosystem, we have been working closely as part of a
public-private partnership between a consortium of pastoralist
community conservancies collectively called the Northern Rangelands
Trust (NRT), Lewa Conservancy, and the Kenya Wildlife Service. NRT is a
program supported by The Nature Conservancy and USAID to great effect,
where a good governance model of community led decisionmaking with
comanagement by partners has led to effective engagement and support
for conservation among nomadic pastoralist communities. In order to be
a member and access resources made available through NRT, communities
must elect officials to their governing board, which serves as the
primary decisionmakers on budget and natural resource management
matters. This transparent and grassroots governance model is
fundamental to NRT's success.
The primary incentive to join NRT and subscribe to its conservation
model is the provision of security. Due to northern Kenya being awash
with illegal small weapons, security is a fundamental concern for the
region's ethnic groups. The primary success of NRT, with USAID, support
has been to bring peace between different ethnic groups in the region.
Economic development is part of this model, but is directed toward
bringing new economic activity through enhancing access to cattle
markets (activities supported directly by USAID) and livestock
husbandry efficiency, as well as tourism where tourism development has
high potential (which is not in all conservancies). As a result,
markets are more accessible and jobs are created.
The training and equipping of community scouts, closely vetted and
overseen by community boards and comanaged through the NRT umbrella,
has helped ameliorate tribal tensions. These efforts have also brought
an effective informant network covering a broad and remote region. In
close partnership with the Kenya Wildlife Service, these communities
that were once antagonistic to the wildlife service now pass
information in support of government antipoaching activities. This
collaboration has been critical in turning the tide on poaching in
northern Kenya.
The importance of political will and support of the government is
vital to success. From 2012, the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) conducted
an antipoaching surge, assisted by the private sector. KWS was
effective in targeting the well-armed poaching groups, neutralizing
major field operators. More importantly, KWS with other Kenya
governmental policing groups neutralized known local traffickers.
Intelligence based interdiction of middlemen in Isiolo, the hub of
wildlife trafficking in our area, has had a perceptible effect of
driving down poaching rates. Most notably, the price of black market
ivory which had remained stubbornly high over the past 4 years has
finally started to decline. It is speculated that this is because
general fear of KWS intelligence on illegal wildlife trade networks has
moved many individuals out of the poaching arena. In addition, recent
Kenyan legislative advances that substantially increase penalties for
wildlife crime likely also contribute to this fear.
Telling is an event that I experienced last month in Samburu. A
tribal conflict over grazing lands and water access flared up south of
the protected areas where our research is based. As a result, the area
between the two ethnic groups was devoid of people, providing a void in
policing of the area. Three elephants were shot in the area, our first
poaching incident in direct vicinity of our research site in over a
year. We responded with KWS, visiting the carcasses to identify the
individual elephants killed as part of our monitoring program. To our
and KWS's great surprise, the ivory was not taken from these elephants,
though body parts had been removed presumably for black magic. The
individuals that poached the elephants decided not to take the ivory in
fear of retaliation by the KWS antipoaching unit. None of us had seen
an illegally killed elephant with its ivory in the last 7 years. I
believe this event speaks to the scale of the changes that have
occurred in Northern Kenya over the past 2 years.
The example of collaboration between the private sector,
communities, and government forces in Northern Kenya demonstrates the
success of a model where force against poachers is conducted with the
enhancement of community programs. The genuine interest in people's
welfare on the part of the conservation community has helped engender a
conservation oriented management scheme by the local government and
people, where poachers are viewed as destructive to the communities'
welfare and, therefore, ostracized. U.S. support through USAID in
northern Kenya has played a significant role in catalyzing a whole
chain of events from peace to reducing the wildlife trade, with new
economic incentives to sustain the gains.
key solution components
It is critical to recognize that the conditions that facilitate
poaching and wildlife trade vary by country and even within national
sites across Africa. As such, there is not a single prescription that
can solve the issue of illegal wildlife trade in Africa. However, we
have a number of approaches that are being applied with effect, which
need to be supported, amplified, and augmented where appropriate.
Across Africa, we see evidence of the importance of healthy
collaboration between the private sector, conservationists, and the
national wildlife management authorities. The success of such public-
private conservation models requires sustained funding and monitoring
of project objectives. In addition to funding and monitoring, I wanted
to highlight four fundamental tenets for success that are often
overlooked:
(1) Good governance: Examples of successful community engagement
uniformly invest in good governance fundamentals, being (i) community
engagement/leadership in decisionmaking; (ii) comanagement models with
external oversights to increase transparency and reduce options for
corruption; and (iii) functional legal frameworks/institutions that
provide license to operate (or facilitation of legal processes where
functionality is lacking as exemplified by the activities of the Last
Great Ape Foundation--LAGA).
(2) Land Use Planning: Africa is experiencing rapid agricultural
and infrastructural development, and we have evidence of communities
facilitating wildlife trafficking where it is perceived wildlife are
strictly a cost to livelihoods, as can occur where conflict with
wildlife is high (often in relation to crop raiding). To ensure
success, conservation projects need to address underlying problems
between local livelihoods and wildlife and be located in areas with
long-term prospects for wildlife. With enormous development aid and
investment in sub-Saharan agricultural expansion, it is critical that
wildlife-sensitive land use planning is a core part of development
implementations. A danger is where conflicting development projects
implemented in the same community undermine the goals of one another.
(3) Incentives: Development of the appropriate incentive model for
a site is key for success. Incentives must address underlying needs of
the communities, which are highly varied across locations. In Northern
Kenya, enhancing security and promoting peace across the ecosystem has
been the primary attractant. In Namibia, we see economic benefits from
hunting being core to successful community conservation projects (the
wildlife sector is a primary contributor to GDP in multiple elephant
range nations). Another part of this is ameliorating the costs of
wildlife to communities where they exist.
(4) Security and Policing: It is critical to have effective
security and policing activities in place to protect wildlife and
disincentivize criminal activity. Where policing activities also
provide security to local people, as in northern Kenya, greater
community support for efforts to reduce poaching emerge. In addition,
community buy-in to policing efforts provides critical lines of
communication for procuring intelligence. Accurately targeted
intelligence-based interventions are fundamental to disrupting illegal
wildlife trade and maintaining community support. However, the risk
exists that trained and armed local scouts can facilitate or conduct
illegal wildlife trade and concerns over the increased militarization
of antipoaching forces have been raised. Effective antipoaching only
works if oversight is in place.
It is increasingly important to build out these tenets for success
in areas that are at greatest risk from illegal wildlife trade. We are
seeing increased evidence that poaching moves to points of least
resistance quite fluidly. Elephant poaching was targeting areas outside
protected areas in Central Africa, with core protected areas providing
the few safe havens in this region. But increasing evidence suggests
these core areas are now under threat. It is critical to provide
immediate investment in these core areas that are serving as the final
strongholds of elephants in this region, in particular Odzala and
Nouabale-Ndoki in Republic of Congo, Lobeke, Boumba Bek and Nki
National Parks in Cameroon, and Minkebe National Park in Gabon. In
savanna systems, evidence suggests increasing pressures on Zimbabwe and
Zambia as well as continued poaching across Tanzania and Mozambique.
In recognition of the need for rapid targeted responses to the
fluid pressures of the illicit ivory trade, Save the Elephants with the
Wildlife Conservation Network created the Elephant Crisis Fund (see
Appendix 1). This is a zero overhead model to support targeted and
catalytic projects on the ground in Africa. The model relies on
implementing partners that are deeply knowledgeable and experienced in
the areas under threat, building on decades of individual relationships
within wildlife conservation circles across Africa, as well as global
cross-sectoral networking. In just over 2 years, the ECF has deployed
$4.2 million to support 25 different partners implementing projects
ranging from Africa to Asia addressing poaching, trafficking, and
demand reduction. It has seen marked successes in difficult to work
regions, highlighting that investing directly in experienced on the
ground partners is the most effective way to address the wildlife crime
problem. Programs like USFWS Multinational Species Conservation Funds
apply this same theory to great effect.
Save the Elephants has also been at the forefront of using GPS
animal tracking technology to enhance conservation effectiveness. Our
novel technological approach leverages real time GPS data on the
location of elephants to deploy antipoaching assets in the field,
identify when elephants enter danger zones to ready interventions, and
monitor individuals (great tuskers) that are at high risk. A real-time
analytical system sends alerts to wildlife managers and partners via
text messages and emails when individuals approach or enter high risk
areas. We also disseminate alerts when elephant behaviors suggest
problems, such as prolonged immobility which can mean poaching. These
tracking data also are put to task for land-use planning, including the
identification of important, unprotected areas and corridors connecting
hotspots across the ecosystem. We are working closely with Paul G.
Allen's Vulcan to further develop this system and make it publicly
available to all conservation organizations.
Higher up the trade chain, the impunity of kingpins in trafficking
networks remains a serious problem in addressing this issue. We have
seen models of success from other agencies that can be replicated to
impact wildlife trafficking networks. One example is a collaboration
between the U.S. DEA with Kenya's Anti Narcotics Unit, and others,
whereby a drug trafficking ring out of East Africa run by the Akasha
family was dismantled. A specialized, 16-man investigative unit was
formed, in which all personnel were highly screened using lie detectors
and drug tests. Some of the biggest drug busts of the year have been
directly attributed to this small focused unit. Means to attack the
underlying financial basis of these trafficking networks is another
important aspect to be mobilized. U.S. Departments like the Department
of Defense Counter Threats Office and the Treasury Department are
already engaged in this work for other types of criminal networks.
Their expertise could be highly effective in disrupting wildlife
trafficking networks.
At a macro scale, the African elephant range State led African
Elephant Action Plan, agreed upon by all 38 range states, prioritized
objectives and actions to address the threats facing African elephants,
with particular reference to poaching, ivory trafficking and habitat
loss. This is an initiative needing funding and technical assistance
support from the global community. The Elephant Protection Initiative
(EPI) seeks to raise the support needed for implementation of the
African Elephant Action Plan from global partners, including the
inventory and securing of ivory stockpiles and submission of stockpile
data to CITES. In addition, the EPI calls for a closure of domestic
ivory trade, which has been linked to international smuggling of ivory.
A number of range states have signed onto the EPI, with many now
conducting ivory stockpile inventories mandated by CITES. This includes
Kenya which is conducting a national level inventory starting this
week. Diplomatic support of this effort would greatly enhance its
effectiveness.
The International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC), a
collaborative partnership of the CITES Secretariat, INTERPOL, UNODC,
the World Bank and the World Customs Organization was established to
enable a more coordinated response to wildlife crime, including a
mechanism to collect robust data on illegal trade. This effort seeks to
enhance monitoring of ivory trade, but also build on what we have
learned from the monitoring efforts of ETIS and MIKE to implement more
effective monitoring of illegal wildlife trade in general. Such science
based initiatives are critical as discussed previously.
u.s. role
The U.S. has played a profound role in conserving African elephants
and continues to be a global leader in conservation efforts. I would
like to thank Congress for providing the funding for U.S. agencies that
are working to conserve elephants in the wild. Many of my colleagues
highlight the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Elephant Conservation Fund
as having the greatest return on investment of any government program
on the ground in Africa. In addition, USAID has done tremendous work
helping to conserve the large landscapes elephants and other species
across Africa require. The rapid agricultural expansion across Africa
is possibly the next greatest threat to elephants after ivory
trafficking and the work of USAID in facilitating proper land use
planning will be critical to the well being of the species in the long
term.
The White House Executive order on Wildlife Trafficking with the
activities of the U.S. State Department have played a central role in
bolstering wildlife trade enforcement efforts around the world and
bringing high-level diplomatic attention to this issue. Convening the
collective abilities of U.S. Government departments via this action
increasingly appears to be the key to disrupt wildlife trafficking
networks. It is vital this support continues and is increased to deal
with the current crisis. Funding is needed to enhance core area
protection in the areas under threat, catalyze judicial oversight and
reform, and activate specialized criminal investigative units to attack
criminal networks.
U.S. leadership on wildlife trafficking has been critical in
galvanizing the broader global community. Repeated diplomatic
engagement with China on wildlife trafficking has significantly
increased the attention and discussion paid to this issue. It is
critical for the U.S. to continue on this constructive course. China,
the destination of the vast majority of illegal ivory, has directly
expressed that the steps they are making on handling their domestic
ivory trade problems need to be matched by the U.S. The critical game
changer in turning the tide on ivory poaching would be a ban on
domestic ivory trade by China. Institution of a domestic trade ban by
the U.S., being the second-largest consumer globally, appears to be the
most likely action to catalyze this.
U.S. diplomacy in Africa has also been critical to stimulate action
by range states. President Obama's upcoming trip to Kenya offers a
great opportunity to publicly recognize the political will that has
been expressed and demonstrated through support of antipoaching efforts
from President Kenyatta and judicial reforms regarding wildlife crimes.
At the same time, the continued role of Mombasa in wildlife trafficking
needs to be raised at the highest levels. Increasing diplomatic
pressure on those countries demonstrating catastrophic failures to
address this issue need enhancing. In particular, the criminal
activities operating in Tanzania and Mozambique with impunity need to
be ``called out'' at high levels with threats of further actions. Where
diplomacy is not bearing fruit, it is time to back it up with tangible
penalties such as withholding USAID dollars and discussing sanctions.
It appears that the realistic threat of such actions is necessary to
elicit movement by these governments and save elephants.
----------------
End Notes
\1\ Douglas-Hamilton I (2012) Ivory and Insecurity: The Global
Implications of Poaching in Africa (Washington D.C.), (U.S.
Congressional testimony).
\2\ Maisels F, et al. (2013) Devastating Decline of Forest
Elephants in Central Africa. PLoS One 8(3):e59469.
\3\ Wittemyer G, et al. (2014) Illegal killing for ivory drives
global decline in African elephants. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111(36):13117-
13121.
\4\ Underwood FM, Burn RW, & Milliken T (2013) Dissecting the
Illegal Ivory Trade: An Analysis of Ivory Seizures Data. PlOS ONE
8(10):e76539.
\5\ Wasser SK, et al. (2015) Genetic assignment of large seizures
of elephanve ivory reveals Africa's major poaching hotspots. Science.
\6\ African Elephant Specialist Group (2015) African Elephant
Database (http://www.elephantdatabase.org).
\7\ Wittemyer G, Douglas-Hamilton I, & Getz WM (2005) The
socioecology of elephants: analysis of the processes creating
multitiered social structures. Animal Behaviour 69:1357-1371.
\8\ Wittemyer G, Daballen D, & Douglas-Hamilton I (2011) Rising
ivory prices threaten elephants. Nature 476(7360):282-283.
\9\ Gobush KS, Mutayoba BM, & Wasser SK (2008) Long-Term Impacts of
Poaching on Relatedness, Stress Physiology, and Reproductive Output of
Adult Female African Elephants. Conservation Biology 22(6):1590-1599.
\10\ Foley CAH, Pettorelli N, & Foley L (2008) Severe drought and
calf survival in elephants. Biology Letters 4:541-544.
\11\ Wittemyer G, Daballen D, & Douglas-Hamilton I (2013)
Comparative Demography of an At-Risk African Elephant Population. PLoS
One 8(1):e53726.
\12\ Blake S, Deem SL, Mossimbo E, Maisels F, & Walsh P (2009)
Forest elephants: tree planters of the Congo. Biotropica 41(4):459-468.
\13\ Jordano P, Garcia C, Godoy JA, & Garcia-Castano JL (2007)
Differential contribution of frugivores to complex seed dispersal
patterns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 104(9):3278-3282.
\14\ Pringle RM (2008) Elephants as agents of habitat creation for
small vertebrates at the patch scale. Ecology 89(1):26-33.
\15\ Terborgh J & Estes JA (2010) Tophic Cascades: Predators, Prey
and the Changing Dynamics of Nature (Island Press, Washington D.C.).
\16\ Burn RW, Underwood FM, & Blanc J (2011) Global Trends and
Factors Associated with the Illegal Killing of Elephants: A
Hierarchical Bayesian Analysis of Carcass Encounter Data. PLoS One
6(9).
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Ms. Hemley.
STATEMENT OF GINETTE HEMLEY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Hemley. Thank you very much, Chairman Flake and Senator
Udall and all the members of your subcommittee for the
opportunity to testify today and for all of your attention on
this issue. We greatly appreciate your efforts. World Wildlife
Fund is the largest private conservation organization working
internationally to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats, and
we currently sponsor programs in more than 100 countries.
I will not repeat points made by some of the previous
witnesses, particularly with respect to elephants. But what I
would like to do is touch briefly on the situation related to
African rhinos and focus on the needs and potential solutions
as related to community-based conservation, antitrafficking
measures, and reducing demand. I will talk about a couple of
examples from southern Africa.
Let me first reference your comment, Mr. Chairman, earlier
about the seriousness of this issue that we are dealing with.
We are talking about transnational organized crime as applied
to wildlife. And to that end, WWF strongly encourages support
for the legislation currently pending in both Houses: S. 27,
introduced by Senators Feinstein and Graham; and H.R. 2494,
introduced by Representatives Royce and Engel. These bills
would make large-scale wildlife trafficking a predicate offense
to other major crimes such as money laundering, racketeering,
and smuggling and provide critical tools for enforcement that
are available now for other big crimes that we also need to
apply to wildlife. So we are very encouraged to see this
legislation being considered.
Regarding rhino poaching, over the 50 years or so that WWF
has been involved in rhino conservation, we have seen great
strides in both the recovery of rhinos, both black and white
rhinos, in Africa as well as periods of severe poaching. Today
four countries hold the key to the black rhino's future in many
respects: Namibia, Kenya, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. And for
the white rhino, it is South Africa. However, the continued
recovery of these populations and the survival of rhinos in
other parts of Africa is now in doubt in many respects because
of the recent resurgence in trade and demand.
These days, all eyes are on South Africa where we have seen
a massive increase in poaching over the last 7 years. The
statistics are well known: 13 rhinos poached in 2007 to over
1,200 in 2014. And according to information we received earlier
this week, 2015 is on track to be the worst year yet for
rhinos. Current research in South Africa supported by WWF is
finding strong evidence that rhino horn trafficking is
controlled by sophisticated organized crime groups that are
involved in smuggling both people and narcotics, with
operations firmly embedded within South Africa.
In the last 3 years or so, tens of millions of dollars,
including from generous supporters in the United States,
including the U.S. Government, have contributed to the South
African Government and other key stakeholders in the country
and yet the poaching and trafficking problem is getting worse.
We are highly concerned about the persistent allegations of
serious levels of corruption there that occur hand in hand with
these organized crime activities. It is our view that until the
South African Government addresses these issues on a sufficient
scale, that nothing is going to change. So we see this as a
high priority and we encourage this committee to use its
influence to press the South African Government to do more to
help where we can as a country.
Turning next door to South Africa, Namibia; Namibia is
currently the continent's stronghold for black rhino, and the
country is, in many ways, a great example of how wildlife
resources, if properly conserved, can form the basis for both
economic growth in impoverished regions and effective
conservation. The community-run conservancies in Namibia are an
effective model, thanks in part to generous support over many
years from USAID and more recently the Millennium Challenge
Corporation working with WWF and other local partners. In these
conservancies, much as you have heard from other witnesses and
other countries, local communities own, manage, and profit from
their own wildlife resources, which has contributed to a
rebounding wildlife population as well as increased economic
benefits for local people.
Until recently Namibia's rhino and elephant populations
have been largely immune to poaching, but unfortunately, the
wave of poaching that is sweeping Africa is finally hitting
Namibia. About 70 rhinos have been poached this year, nearly
all in the western part of the Etosha National Park. In just
the last 3 weeks, though, we are encouraged that over 30
arrests have been made, mainly of low-level government
officials. So Namibia has got its own internal problem, but
they seem to be taking action through a no tolerance for
poaching approach that the country has taken on.
The next key step for Namibia is to ensure that the
judiciary prosecutes these crimes in a serious manner, and we
are working to help them ensure that they have a dedicated
wildlife prosecution specialist established.
So when it comes down to it, one of the reasons Namibia has
been successful, reflecting some of the comments made by other
witnesses in other countries, many of the arrests have been
achieved through information provided from community
intelligence and former networks which are then passed on to
enforcement officials.
I will just mention briefly an example in Asia where we
have also seen actually success in keeping poaching under
control. The country of Nepal similarly strongly focused on
community-based conservation with strong support for
enforcement from the highest levels of government, has resulted
in 3 of the last 5 years zero poaching of rhinos, elephants,
and tigers in Nepal. And so it is just another example of what
can be effective.
Let me just briefly mention that we are not going to
address this issue successfully unless we really disrupt these
transnational organized crime syndicates, and to that end, it
is critical to see enhanced intelligence and information
systems not only within these countries but across countries,
across borders. We do not yet have sort of proactive
intelligence collection systems that are integrated across
borders that will allow us to direct more strategically
enforcement efforts, and so that is an area that we see as a
weakness that could be remedied by training, support from the
United States for training, provision of intelligence analysis
software and additional resources that would allow enforcement
staff to allocate more strategic focus on the areas that are
the biggest problems.
I know this is a priority for the State Department and the
Fish and Wildlife Service. We urge continued support for these
activities and we feel they are strongly needed.
The last point I will make very briefly. A previous witness
touched on this well. Stopping demand is obviously critical. Of
the three areas that are critical for action in this whole
issue, antipoaching, antitrafficking, and demand reduction,
demand reduction has received by far the least investment over
the years. So we see a real need to emphasize that more. We are
encouraged by recent news from China as the big driver--
encouraged by the news that they are committed to limiting
their ivory market, but we have not seen that action yet and it
will be influenced by what the United States does as well for
its ivory market.
So I will stop there, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hemley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ginette Hemley
Chairman Flake, Ranking Member Markey, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the global
wildlife trafficking and poaching crisis and its implications for
conservation, economic growth and development, and U.S. security
interests. WWF is the largest private conservation organization working
internationally to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats. We currently
sponsor conservation programs in more than 100 countries with the
support of over 1.2 million members in the United States and more than
5 million members worldwide.
introduction
Illegal wildlife trafficking and poaching to supply the illegal
trade in wild fauna and flora is one of the greatest current threats to
many of our planet's most charismatic, valuable, and ecologically
important species. Wildlife poaching and trafficking also poses
significant threats not only to wildlife conservation and our shared
natural heritage but also to security, good governance, and economic
development objectives around the globe. In fact, wildlife trafficking
has become a transnational criminal enterprise worth billions of
dollars annually that is strongly connected to other transnational
organized crimes, such as drug and arms trafficking, and is helping to
finance agents of instability and corruption in many developing
countries.\1\ According to the best estimates, the illegal wildlife
trade has a value of $7.8-$10 billion per year, a figure which puts it
the top five largest illicit transnational activities worldwide, along
with counterfeiting and the illegal trades in drugs, people, and
oil.\2\ If the illegal trades in timber and fish are included in the
total, then the estimated value of illegal wildlife trafficking rises
to $19-$20 billion annually. In terms of its size, wildlife trade
outranks the small arms trade. It also has strong connections to other
illegal activities--guns, drugs, and ivory may be smuggled by the same
criminal networks and using the same techniques and smuggling routes.
Much of the testimony offered today, including my own, will
appropriately focus on two iconic African species: rhinos and
elephants. But wildlife trafficking impacts a wide range of species
across the globe. Tigers continue to be subjected to intense poaching
pressures throughout their range in Asia--the parts of almost 1,600
tigers were seized in tiger range countries over the past 15 years, an
average of 2 per week--and numerous other species are being rapidly
depleted to feed a voracious global trade, including marine turtles,
sharks, pangolins, totoaba, corals, tortoises and terrapins, tokay
geckos, song birds, and endangered plant species, such as orchids and
tropical hardwoods. Every year, an estimated 73 million sharks are
killed, primarily for their fins.\3\ Over the past decade, 20,500 tons
of abalone have been poached and illegally traded from South Africa.\4\
Between 2000 and 2012, 218,155 pangolins were reported in seizures--a
significant underrepresentation of the total estimated volume of
trade.\5\ In Thailand alone, 19,000 tortoises and freshwater turtles
were seized between 2008 and 2013.\6\ Illegal gillnet fishing and the
resulting bycatch in Mexico's Gulf of California to supply consumers in
Asia with the dried swim bladders of the totoaba fish is driving the
world's most endangered marine mammal--the vaquita--to extinction.\7\
At the root of this wildlife trafficking and poaching crisis is the
growing demand--primarily in Asia--for high-end products made from
wildlife parts, such as elephant ivory, rhino horn, and tiger skins and
bones. Products made from these and other increasingly rare species
command high prices on Asian black markets as purported medicinal cures
(e.g., rhino horn powder and tiger bone wine), culinary delicacies
(e.g., shark fins), or demonstrations of wealth and status (e.g., ivory
carvings). Growing wealth in Asia, particularly in countries such as
China and Vietnam, is a primary driver and has resulted in a steep
increase in Asian consumers with the means to purchase such products--
and in the prices being paid for them. However, the criminal networks
feeding Asia's growing demand are global in nature, reaching across
oceans and continents and operating in many countries, including the
U.S. Middleman traders often direct poaching activities and engage in
targeted efforts to corrupt law enforcement, border inspection, and
wildlife protection efforts in affected countries. In some cases,
organized Asian criminal syndicates, which are now increasingly active
in Africa, work with local economic and political elites to subvert
control systems and operate with relative impunity.
Overall, illegal wildlife trade produces a broad corrupting
influence on governments, which is a central challenge. The combination
of rapidly rising prices and inadequate enforcement regimes in many
countries makes poaching and illegal wildlife trafficking a high
profit, low-risk criminal enterprise and has led to a dramatic upsurge
in not just the amount of poaching and illegal wildlife trafficking,
but also its severity. Poachers supplying products such as elephant
ivory and rhino horn are less often local criminals armed with spears
or shotguns and more frequently resemble highly organized and heavily
armed gangs, at times including militia or military personnel. They
violate international borders, carry AK-47s and rocket-propelled
grenades, and possess strong connections to transnational criminal
networks. In some regions of Africa, trafficking in wildlife and other
natural resources has been strongly connected to the financing of
destabilizing forces, including armed insurgencies, groups responsible
for human rights abuses, and organizations with ties to terrorism.\8\
In many parts of Africa and Asia, poachers and wildlife traffickers can
operate largely with impunity due to weak laws or law enforcement, poor
capacity, governance shortfalls, and an overall failure of governments
to recognize wildlife crime as a serious crime.
It is on the ground, primarily in developing countries and rural
regions, where large-scale illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife
products is having its most devastating effects, negatively impacting
local communities by undermining regional security and economic growth
while exacerbating corruption and instability. Many developing
countries are witnessing the rapid decimation of their wildlife--a
potentially valuable resource on which to build sustainable growth and
eventually bring greater stability to impoverished and often conflict-
torn regions. At the same time that wildlife crime is taking a profound
toll on many ecological systems, it is also robbing some of the poorest
communities on earth of their natural wealth, breeding corruption and
insecurity, and disenfranchising them of sustainable pathways to
prosperity.
Over the past 3 years, the U.S. Government has taken strong and
significant steps to recognize that wildlife crime is a serious crime
with serious consequences, including President Obama's Executive Order
13648 and the administration's release in February 2014 of the National
Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking and in February 2015 of its
subsequent implementation plan for the Strategy. Congress has also
taken action, providing increased resources to U.S. agencies working to
implement the National Strategy, proposing new legislation to
strengthen U.S. laws and programs designed to combat wildlife
trafficking and build antipoaching capacity in developing countries,
and holding hearings such as this one, which have done much to bring
attention to the current poaching crisis and educate decisionmakers
about potential policy responses. In my testimony, I hope to present
not just the current state of the problem but also some examples of
both immediate and long-term solutions, as well as recommendations on
further actions Congress and the administration can take to implement
and enhance the National Strategy.
african rhinos
The poaching crisis facing Africa's rhinos today is exemplary of
the degree to which the current situation differs from the poaching
challenges we have faced in the past. Highly organized, transnational
criminal networks are taking advantage of emerging markets and
skyrocketing prices for a black market luxury product--rhino horn--and
have suddenly created a grave situation for a set of species that had,
until recently, been regarded as one of Africa's great conservation
success stories. WWF has been involved in rhino conservation and
management in Africa for nearly 50 years. During that time, we have
seen great strides in the recovery of both black and white rhinos on
the continent. Southern white rhinos, once thought to be extinct, have
recovered to number roughly 20,000 individuals in South Africa alone.
Black rhinos have doubled in number over the past two decades from
their low point of 2,480 individuals, though their total numbers are
still a fraction of the estimated 100,000 that existed in the early
part of the 20th century. Namibia is now the primary stronghold for the
black rhino, South Africa for the white rhino. However, the continued
recovery of these populations and the very survival of rhinos in parts
of sub-Saharan Africa is now in doubt as these animals are mercilessly
killed for their horns. Though trafficked in smaller amounts, rhino
horn is worth far more than ivory and priced higher than gold pound for
pound. Illicit traders can make more profit smuggling a kilo of rhino
horn than from smuggling any illicit drug, and the risks are minimal in
comparison.
South Africa
South Africa is home to over 80 percent of the world's remaining
rhinos and, through public and private efforts, has been largely
responsible for the return of the southern white rhino. However, in
just the past 7 years, it has seen the number of its rhinos killed
illegally rise by 10,000 percent. In the early 2000s, roughly a dozen
rhinos were poached in South Africa in any given year, but since 2007,
the number has risen exponentially: from 13 rhinos poached in 2007 to
over 1,215 in 2014.\9\ We anticipate that the South African Government
will soon announce that nearly 700 rhinos were poached in that country
in just the first 6 months of 2015--a figure that, if confirmed by the
government, would put 2015 on track to be the worst year yet for rhino
poaching in South Africa. Kruger National Park, which holds the
majority of South Africa's roughly 20,000 rhinos, remains the epicenter
of illegal activity: the Park lost 827 rhinos throughout 2014,
representing nearly two-thirds of all the animals killed that year. The
situation is all the more shocking given that South Africa is
recognized to have the most well developed park system in Africa, with
the highest capacity and best enforcement.
Rhino horn poaching and trading operations in South Africa are
closely associated with organized crime networks, some with access to
high-powered weapons, helicopters, and night vision goggles. These
paramilitary-type operations can easily outgun wildlife rangers, and
South Africa has even resorted to military support and interventions in
Kruger National Park--the primary site of the poaching surge--in order
to combat rhino poachers. However, with potential profits so high, even
some of those charged with protecting rhinos are becoming corrupted and
helping to facilitate poaching. Current WWF-supported research in South
Africa has found strong evidence confirming that rhino horn trafficking
in the country is controlled by serious organized crime groups that are
also involved in smuggling people and narcotics. The operations of
these groups are firmly embedded within South Africa, and in spite of
tens of millions of dollars in additional funding to the South African
Government and other stakeholders from various sources in recent years,
the poaching and trafficking is getting worse.
WWF is particularly concerned about the persistent allegations of
serious levels of corruption occurring hand in hand with serious
organized crime activities, which are facilitating rhino poaching and
trafficking within the government and private sector. For example: in
September 2014, Lawrence Baloyi, a South African National Parks
(SANParks) employee who was the section ranger for the Lower Sabie
region of Kruger Park, was caught poaching rhinos. He was arrested and
is awaiting trial. South Africa also faces the challenge of its long,
porous border with Mozambique, a 220-mile stretch of which comprises
the eastern border of Kruger National Park. Mozambique has come under
increasing scrutiny as a major driver of both rhino horn and ivory
trafficking, due to its role as a major transshipment point for illegal
wildlife products out of Africa and a major base for poaching
operations into Kruger National Park. It is estimated that 80 percent
of the rhino poaching occurring in the park is being carried out by
poaching gangs from Mozambique. The Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species (CITES) has placed increased scrutiny on
Mozambique's failure to curtail illegal trade of rhino horn and
elephant ivory, and some have called for stronger diplomatic action
against the country, including possible certification by the U.S. under
the Pelly amendment to the Fisherman's Protective Act.
Many African nations have watched South Africa's rhino poaching
rates with alarm, fearing that their rhinos would be targeted next--
particularly if South Africa somehow manages to prevent further
slaughter and the poachers seek out easier targets. Unfortunately, over
the past 2 years we have seen the situation not only worsen in South
Africa but also spread elsewhere. Kenya has seen an increase in rhino
poaching losses, which, as a percentage of their total rhino
population, are worse than those in South Africa, and Namibia, which
has remained largely immune to rhino poaching until recently, has seen
a sudden surge of its own over the past 12 months.
Namibia
Namibia is home to the largest free-roaming population of black
rhinos on the planet and is an inspiring example of how conservation
can benefit both people and wildlife when embraced by both the national
government and local communities. Having written conservation into its
constitution when it achieved independence in 1990, the Namibian
Government proceeded to devolve ownership over wildlife resources to
the local level, empowering local people in rural areas to establish
community-run ``conservancies,'' in which communities own and manage
their own wildlife resources and derive profits from ecotourism
opportunities and sustainable use of wildlife. The conservancy
movement, which has been strongly supported by WWF on the ground, has
grown over the past two decades to the point where over 20 percent of
Namibia's land area is now under conservancy management. This has
resulted in new local attitudes toward wildlife, rebounding populations
of such charismatic species as rhinos and lions, and an exponential
increase in the economic benefits that communities receive from their
wildlife resources, including income and employment. Due to joint-
venture lodges and related eco-tourism opportunities, community
conservancies now generate upward of 6 million USD annually for rural
Namibians--up from an insignificant amount in the mid-1990s. These
successful programs receive critical support from USAID and, more
recently, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, as well as WWF and
others. By demonstrating the value of wildlife to local communities,
these programs have made essential partners out of local people in the
long-term conservation of wildlife and defense against poaching,
helping to build successful informer networks and wildlife stewardship
among communities, which have helped keep wildlife poaching low to
nonexistent in communities where these programs have become
established.
Unfortunately, while Namibia's conservancies have overall seen low
levels of elephant and rhino poaching, over the past year the country
has seen a sudden uptick in rhino poaching centered on Etosha National
Park. Around 70 rhinos have been poached in Namibia this year, nearly
all in the more remote western area of the park. WWF has been concerned
that it was only a matter of time before rhino poaching came to
Namibia, and from our perspective, the biggest problem has been the
lack of antipoaching capacity and, in the case of Etosha, the
involvement of corrupt governmental officials. However, given the
recent spike in poaching incidents, the situation now seems to be
receiving high attention from very senior-level government officials,
including with the federal Cabinet, who have worked with the Ministry
of Environment and Tourism to appoint external investigators from the
police, military and Protected Resource Unit, which is responsible for
investigating crime related to diamonds, drugs, and rhino/ivory. It
appears that the government has responded by adopting a ``no
tolerance'' policy toward rhino and elephant poaching in Namibia, and
the past month has seen 22 arrests related to the rhino poaching in
Etosha National Park, as well as 9 additional arrests related to rhino
poaching in northwestern Namibia around Palmwag nature reserve and
nearby conservancies.
These strong enforcement actions by the Namibian Government are
promising signs and, demonstrate it is taking the new wave of rhino
poaching seriously. However, WWF remains concerned with respect to the
judiciary: we have seen magistrates release elephant poachers on bail
and then the same poachers go back to poaching more elephants. The
appointment this month of a new dedicated and experienced wildlife
prosecution specialist to work exclusively on prosecution of rhino and
elephant poaching cases is encouraging, but support for prosecutors is
critical. Successful prosecutions under organized crime legislation--
not just poaching legislation--will serve as the real disincentives to
additional poaching. This will take time and require greater
investigative and forensic support, and it applies everywhere, not just
in Namibia.
In addition to evidence of the Namibian Government's high-level
commitment to stop the poaching early and root out corruption, the
continued strength of Namibia's model is the strong ownership over
wildlife that communities possess through the conservancies. Many
arrests for poaching have been achieved via community intelligence and
community informer networks established through conservancies, which
have passed intelligence on to law enforcement officials. In several
instances when poaching incidents have occurred, the poachers have been
apprehended within 24 hours because of information provided by local
informers. WWF has seen similar successes through programs we support
in Nepal, where an approach combining Community-Based Anti-Poaching
Units, strong engagement by the government in park protection, and
enhanced intelligence sharing have led to 12 months free of poaching of
rhinos, tigers or elephants in that country on three separate
occasions--in 2011, 2013 and 2014.
Namibia's conservancy members increasingly resent both the
increased poaching and low arrest and prosecution rates of those
responsible--further evidence that conservancy members consider their
wildlife a point of pride and that the conservancy movement has built
wildlife conservation allies at the local level. In addition, it has
helped to create local governance structures and local democracy,
greater rural economic prosperity, and a respect for the rule of law in
the country's post-apartheid era. It is clear that antipoaching efforts
are not yet making a major difference to rhino poaching in South
Africa--in part because the land area is so large and borders porous.
The situation may be different in Namibia, however, where the poaching
is evolving rapidly and there are few resources to combat it. The
relationship between protected areas and neighboring communities is key
to combating poaching activities, and we must work to disrupt the
transnational organized crime syndicates that are funding poachers and
smugglers and corrupting officials. A balanced approach including law
enforcement efforts, successful prosecutions targeting organized crime
and building the enabling environment for effective law enforcement,
including core support from the local community, is the key to success
in Namibia.
Rhino Horn Trafficking and Demand
It is estimated that 3,000 kg of illicit rhino horn reaches Asian
markets each year. Evidence indicates that horn smuggled from South
Africa will go directly to consumer markets in Asia, but primarily to
the middlemen market in Bangkok. From there it is sold onward to buyers
from Vietnam, Laos and China and smuggled into those countries.
Increased law enforcement at Bangkok Airport also means that some horns
are now being smuggled to Malaysia and driven overland to Bangkok in
order to reduce the risk of detection. The spike in rhino poaching has
surged due largely to rising demand for rhino horn in Vietnam, where
some believe it to be a last resort cure for fever and even cancer and
others employ it as a party drug/hangover cure that doubles as a status
symbol due to its exorbitant cost. Wealthy buyers have driven up prices
and demand for rhino horn to a level where it is now being sourced not
just from live rhinos in Africa and Asia, but also from trophies,
antiques, and museum specimens in the U.S. and Europe. While trade in
rhino horn is illegal in Vietnam, possession is not. Rhino horns are
officially permitted in Vietnam only as personal effects, not for
commercial purposes (under CITES rules) and are not to be traded or
used post-import. Under the terms of the export permit from South
Africa, horns are not to be used for commercial purposes. However,
Vietnamese are not known for trophy hunting, and it is illegal for any
private individual to own a gun in the country, suggesting that the
large majority of legally imported horns are actually intended for
illegal purposes. Until recently, Vietnam had shown little willingness
to clamp down on illegal trade in rhino horn, but engagement by the
U.S. Government and recent CITES decisions regarding rhino horn have
helped move Vietnam to be more cooperative in addressing the problem.
Much more will need to be done to dry up the illegal trade in rhino
horn and educate the Vietnamese public, however, if current trends are
to be reversed and demand for the product is to be curtailed and
eliminated.
elephant ivory
WWF has over 40 years of experience in elephant conservation, and
through our African Elephant Program, we aim to conserve forest and
savanna elephant populations through both conservation projects and
policy development with elephant range state governments, local people
and nongovernmental partners. TRAFFIC, a strategic alliance of WWF and
IUCN--The World Conservation Union and the world's leading wildlife
trade monitoring organization, tracks illegal trade in elephant ivory
using records of ivory seizures that have occurred anywhere in the
world since 1989. The Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) managed
by TRAFFIC, one of the two monitoring systems for elephants under
CITES, comprises over 18,000 elephant product seizure records from some
90 countries, the largest such collection of data in the world.
African elephants once numbered in the millions across Africa, but
by the mid-1980s their populations had been devastated by poaching. An
international ban on the sale of ivory, put in place in 1989, helped to
slow the rate of decline significantly for the past two decades in many
parts of Africa. The status of the species now varies greatly across
the continent. Some populations have remained in danger due to poaching
for meat and ivory, habitat loss and conflict with humans. In Central
Africa, where enforcement capacity is weakest, estimates indicate that
populations of forest elephants in the region declined by 62 percent
between 2002 and 2011 and lost 30 percent of their geographical
range,\10\ primarily due to poaching. Elephants in Central Africa are
also heavily impacted by the existence of large, unregulated domestic
ivory markets, especially those still functioning in Kinshasa,
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Luanda, Angola.
In other parts of Africa, populations have remained stable or grown
until recently, but evidence now shows that African Elephants are
facing the most serious crisis since the 1989 ban, and gains made over
the past 25 years are in the process of being reversed. Tens of
thousands of African elephants are being killed every year to supply
the illegal ivory market, with an average of 18 tons seized per year
over the past 20 years and annual highs of over 32 tons seized. The
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and
Flora (CITES) reported that roughly 25,000 elephants were illegally
killed on the African Continent in 2011 and that another 22,000 fell
victim to poaching in 2012. Many independent experts see these
estimates as conservative and believe the number to be significantly
higher, with some estimates ranging from 30,000 to as high as 50,000.
The consensus is that in the 3 years from the start of 2012 through the
end of 2014, approximately 100,000 elephants were illegally killed
across the African continent--a brutal loss for the species.
Data show an increasing pattern of illegal killing of elephants
throughout Africa and demonstrate an escalating pattern of illegal
trade--one that has reached new heights over the past 5 years. Those
working on the ground throughout Africa have seen an alarming rise in
the number of elephants being illegally killed, even in areas that were
until recently relatively secure and free from large-scale poaching,
such as southern Tanzania and northern Mozambique.\11\ Reports out in
recent months from those two countries indicate that elephant
populations have declined by 60 percent in the former and 50 percent in
the latter in just 5 years time--shocking declines. Witnesses have also
seen a disturbing change in the sophistication and lethality of the
methods being used by the poachers, who are frequently well armed with
automatic weapons, professional marksmen and even helicopters. In most
cases, poachers are better equipped than park guards and supervisors.
In some instances, they are better equipped even than local military
forces. Illegal trade in ivory has been steadily increasing since 2004
with the real surge beginning in 2009. Each of the subsequent years has
hit historic highs for large-scale ivory seizures. Successive years of
high-volume, illegal trade in ivory is not a pattern that has been
previously observed in ETIS data. This represents a highly worrying
development and is jeopardizing two decades of conservation gains for
the African Elephant, one of Africa's iconic flagship species and an
animal that the U.S. public feels adamant about protecting.
Requiring greater finance, levels of organization and an ability to
corrupt and subvert effective law enforcement, large-scale movements of
ivory are a clear indication that organized criminal syndicates are
becoming increasingly more entrenched in the illicit trade in ivory
between Africa and Asia. Virtually all large-scale ivory seizures
involve container shipping, a factor that imposes considerable
challenges to resource-poor nations in Africa. Large-scale movements of
ivory exert tremendous impact upon illegal ivory trade trends.
Unfortunately, very few large-scale ivory seizures actually result in
successful investigations, arrests, convictions and the imposition of
penalties that serve as deterrents. International collaboration and
information-sharing between African and Asian countries in the trade
chain remains weak, and forensic evidence is rarely collected as a
matter of routine governmental procedure. Finally, the status of such
large volumes of ivory in the hands of Customs authorities in various
countries, which generally do not have robust ivory stock management
systems, remains a problematic issue and leakage back into illegal
trade has been documented.
Elephant Ivory Trafficking and Demand
In terms of ivory trade flows from Africa to Asia, East African
Indian Ocean seaports remain the paramount exit point for illegal
consignments of ivory today, with Kenya and the United Republic of
Tanzania as the two most prominent countries of export in the trade.
This development stands in sharp contrast to ivory trade patterns
previously seen whereby large consignments of ivory were also moving
out of West and Central Africa seaports. Whether the shift in shipping
ivory from West and Central African Atlantic Ocean seaports reflects a
decline in elephant populations in the western part of the Congo Basin
remains to be determined, but the depletion of local populations is
steadily being documented throughout this region, according to the
IUCN's Species Survival Commission's African Elephant Database. Data on
elephant poaching from the Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants
(MIKE) program, the other site-based monitoring system under CITES,
also show that illegal elephant killing has consistently been higher in
Central African than anywhere else on the African Continent. Now,
however, poaching is seriously affecting all parts of Africa where
elephants are found.
China and Thailand are the two paramount destinations for illegal
ivory consignments from Africa. While repeated seizures of large
consignments of ivory have occurred in Malaysia, the Philippines and
Vietnam since 2009, these countries essentially play the role of
transit countries to China or Thailand. Directing large shipments of
ivory to other Asian countries for onward shipment is an adaptation by
the criminal syndicates to the improved surveillance and law
enforcement action in China and Thailand where targeting of cargo from
Africa has increased. Importation into other Asian countries allows the
shipping documents to be changed, concealing the African origin of the
containers in question. In the case of Vietnam, which shares a long
terrestrial border with China, ivory is being smuggled overland into
China. CITES data also suggest that Cambodia, Laos, and most recently
Sri Lanka have been emerging as new trade routes into China and
Thailand, reflecting further adaptations by criminal trading networks.
Without any doubt, ivory consumption in China is the primary driver
of illegal trade in ivory today, and China remains the key for stopping
the growing poaching crisis facing Africa's elephants. The Chinese
Government recognizes ivory trafficking as the country's greatest
wildlife trade problem, and law enforcement officials are making almost
two ivory seizures every single day, more than any other country in the
world. Regardless, strict implementation of China's domestic ivory
trade control system seriously faltered in the wake of the CITES-
approved one-off ivory sale held in four southern African countries in
late 2008. Various observers to China, including TRAFFIC monitors, have
found government-accredited ivory trading retail outlets persistently
selling ivory products without the benefit of product identification
certificates, which previously were an integral discriminating feature
in the Chinese control system. The ability of retail vendors to sell
ivory products without these certificates means that they do not become
part of China's database system, which is designed to track ivory
products at the retail level back to the legal stocks of raw ivory at
approved manufacturing outlets. This circumvention creates the
opportunity to substitute products from illicit sources of ivory into
the legal control system. Within the country, stricter internal market
monitoring and regulation are needed, as well as scaled up and
dedicated investigative efforts directed at fighting the criminal
syndicates behind the ivory trade. Chinese nationals based throughout
Africa have become the principle middleman traders behind the large
illegal movements of ivory to Asia, and the advent of Asian criminal
syndicates in Africa's wildlife trade stands as the most serious
contemporary challenge. China needs to collaborate with African
counterparts to address the growing Chinese dimension in Africa's
illegal trade in ivory and other wildlife products.
Thailand also has one of the largest unregulated domestic ivory
markets in the world. But unlike China, until recently Thailand has
consistently failed to meet CITES requirements for internal trade in
ivory. Interdictions of several large shipments of ivory have occurred
at Thailand's ports of entry in recent years, and this past spring the
two largest-ever seizures were recorded in Thailand, yielding seven
tons of illegal ivory in a month. After intense pressure from CITES,
including the threat of sanctions, the Thai Government recently passed
long overdue new laws and regulations as part of a National Ivory
Action Plan. Reforms have been desperately needed for a system that
has, until now, allowed hundreds of retail ivory vendors to exploit
legal loopholes and offer tens of thousands of worked ivory products to
tourists and local buyers. CITES data underscore the global reach of
Thailand's ivory markets as more than 200 ivory seizure cases have been
reported by other countries regarding illegal ivory products seized
from individuals coming from Thailand over the last 3 years. As a
result of the new laws, Thai citizens have brought forward a massive
200 tons of ivory to be registered with officials. Questions remain
about how Thai officials will deal with this situation, given the
number of pieces this represents and the likelihood that much of the
ivory is from illegally poached African elephants. Given the presence
of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement and State Department
Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement on the ground in
Bangkok working on wildlife trafficking, we hope that U.S. agencies are
actively engaging with their Thai counterparts to address the current
situation, and we commend the chairman and ranking member for their
leadership of a recent letter to Presidential Task Force cochairs to
this effect.
We also encourage the U.S. Government to continue to be a strong
voice at CITES ensuring that the Thai Government delivers on its
commitments and responsibilities to that treaty. Last year, WWF ran a
campaign to generate public pressure on the Thai Government to take
serious action on illegal ivory trade in a way that would not violate
military restrictions on political organizing and in a culturally
appropriate manner. The campaign, called ``Chor Chang,'' condemned the
killing of elephants for ivory by asking supporters to symbolically
remove the letter representing elephant, ``Chor Chang,'' from their
names and sharing this on social media. The campaign tapped into
Thailand's ancient affinity with the elephant and creatively utilized
this deep cultural attachment to illustrate what an enormous loss it
would be if elephants disappeared. Nearly 1.3 million people and over
50 influential celebrities, politicians and bloggers participated,
taking the campaign viral.
Next to China, Thailand's domestic ivory market is perhaps the
second greatest driver of illegal trade in ivory at the present time.
After years of inaction, there are promising signs that Thailand may be
taking an active role in addressing this problem. Culturally tailored
approaches to demand reduction along with continued international and
bilateral engagement, particularly through CITES, will be needed to
ensure Thailand follows through on effective implementation and
enforcement of the long-overdue legal reforms to its ivory markets.
threats to security, stability & rule of law
Poaching, by definition, entails armed individuals, often gangs,
operating illegally in wildlife habitats which, in many cases, are
protected areas that attract tourists and contribute to the economic
development of many African countries. Where poaching is particularly
entrenched and pernicious, armed militias from one country temporarily
occupy territory in another country, destroying its wildlife assets and
posing serious national security threats on many levels. Every year,
throughout Africa, dozens of game scouts are killed by poachers while
protecting wildlife. Poachers who profit from killing elephants and
harvesting illegal ivory may also have ties to criminal gangs and
militias based in countries such as Sudan (in the case of Central
Africa) and Somalia (in the case of East Africa). Long-standing
historical ties between slave trading, elephant poaching and the tribes
that form Sudan's Janjaweed militia (responsible for many of the worst
atrocities in Darfur), mean that illegal ivory may well be being used
as powerful currency to fund some of the most destabilizing forces in
Central Africa. In parts of West and Central Africa, the situation has
been dire for some time, and severe poaching is already resulting in
the local extinction of elephant populations. In the past few years,
the situation has grown even worse as we have seen a disturbing change
in the sophistication and lethality of the methods being used by the
poachers, who are frequently well armed with automatic weapons,
professional marksmen and even helicopters. In most cases, poachers are
better equipped than the park supervisors and guards. In some
instances, they are better equipped even than local military forces.
Leadership in the region clearly understands the links between
wildlife crime, peace and security and economic development, as
demonstrated during the high-level round table on the links between
wildlife crime and peace and security in Africa organized by the French
Government on December 5, 2013 (one day before the Elysee Summit on
Peace and Security in Africa). Central African governments also agreed
to the language of the final Declaration \12\ of the London Conference
on Illegal Wildlife Trade, convened by the U.K. Government from
February 12-13, 2014, at Lancaster House, London to inject a new level
of political momentum into efforts to combat the growing global threat
posed by illegal wildlife trade.
economic growth and development
Wildlife resources, if properly protected, can form the basis for
future economic growth in impoverished, rural regions of the continent.
In several African and Asian countries, this is already happening. As
described above, Namibia's community-run ``conservancies'' allow local
communities to manage their own wildlife resources and derive profits
from ecotourism opportunities and sustainable use of wildlife. In
Central Africa, a wildlife-based economic success story can also be
told about Virunga National Park--Africa's oldest national park and one
of its most important in terms of biodiversity. It is also the
continent's best known park, because it is home to the last remaining
mountain gorillas. Gorilla-based tourism is a huge economic engine: the
annual revenue earned directly from gorilla tourism in the Virungas is
now estimated at 3 million USD. When combined with the additional
income received by related business, such as hotels and restaurants,
the total figure may exceed 20 million USD shared between Rwanda,
Uganda, and DRC. In Rwanda alone, the number of tourists visiting the
country from 2010 to 2011 increased 32 percent and tourism revenues
rose an amazing 12.6 percent, from $200 million to $252 million in
2011--much of it due to mountain gorillas and other eco-tourism
opportunities.
Through USAID, the U.S. is currently helping to support additional
community-based wildlife conservation efforts in other priority
landscapes for wildlife, including southern Africa's Kavango-Zambezi
Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA)--the largest transboundary
conservation area in the world, encompassing 109 million acres,
crossing five southern Africa countries (Angola, Botswana, Namibia,
Zambia, and Zimbabwe), and home to nearly half of Africa's remaining
elephant population. Given its rich wildlife resources, the KAZA
partnership in particular has the potential to improve the livelihoods
of the 2.5 million people who live in the Okavango and Zambezi river
basin regions through Community-Based Natural Resource Management
(CBNRM) approaches that ensure that local communities benefit
economically from wildlife on their land, through conservation of
animals and their habitats and the creation of a world-class tourism
experience while also bringing southern African countries together to
more effectively combat international wildlife trade and poaching
through information-sharing, joint patrols and surveillance, as well as
harmonized law enforcement policies.
The Namibian model of CBNRM offers lessons that may be applied
throughout the region, and the interest of multilateral donor agencies
like the GEF in supporting wildlife conservation linked to economic
development in KAZA is lending additional momentum. Even as we seek to
stop the bleeding of elephant populations in Central and Eastern
Africa, it is important that we consolidate our gains in southern
Africa and take strong steps to ensure that this last great stronghold
of Africa's elephants does not become its next battlefield and to
contain the rhino poaching that has begun to spread beyond its main
locus in South Africa. As always, continued U.S. Government support is
critical for programs such KAZA, which help to create clear economic
benefits for people to conserve wildlife, thereby incentivizing locally
driven conservation efforts and building immunity to poaching and
wildlife trafficking. They are an essential part of the long-term
solution to the current crisis.
the u.s. government role
The U.S. Government has demonstrated historic leadership on the
issue of wildlife trafficking, at all levels. Long an international
leader on the issue, the U.S. has, since 2012, helped to elevate
attention on wildlife crime both at home and abroad to a new apex. The
President's issuance of Executive Order 13648 and the creation of the
National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking by a Presidential
Task Force led by the Departments of State, Interior and Justice are a
profound recognition by the administration of the importance of this
issue and the will to address it. This U.S. leadership has also set the
stage internationally, putting the issue firmly on the agendas for our
international partners, including in fora such as APEC, ASEAN, UNODC,
the U.N. Security Council and--with renewed energy and impressive
success--at the most recent CITES CoP. And the leadership of many in
Congress, from both sides of the aisle, has already helped to raise the
profile of the issue and strengthen U.S. law to address it, and is
providing resources and oversight to ensure that the U.S. strategy is
implemented efficiently, effectively, and with the concerted energies
of all relevant U.S. agencies in a whole-of-government approach. This
whole-of-government approach should continue, guided by the strategy,
and can serve as a model that other countries will emulate to ensure
that they are bringing to bear not just their conservation resources
and expertise to solve this problem, but also the full range of law
enforcement, security, intelligence and diplomatic resources guided by
high-level leadership and political will.
Diplomatic Recommendations
The U.S. Government should continue to raise the issue of wildlife
trafficking at the highest levels with key countries and in
international forums and should strive to insert wildlife crime into
the agendas of relevant bilateral and multilateral agreements where it
is not yet addressed and where the work of those agreements could
benefit the fight against wildlife trafficking (as was done in 2013
with the U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice and
at APEC in 2012). The U.S. Government should also continue to use its
considerable diplomatic influence and technical capacity to work with
the primary consumer countries to shut down the illegal trade and
should ensure that countries are held accountable at this January's
CITES Standing Committee meeting for applicable decisions made at the
last CITES Conference of the Parties. Recent steps by China are
encouraging and need to be institutionalized and sustained through the
U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue. Thailand must effectively
implement the major legislative and enforcement reforms it has recently
put in place to control its internal ivory market. And Vietnam must
take action at all levels to enforce CITES rhino trade restrictions and
launch public initiatives to reduce demand. These countries must be
held accountable to CITES and the global community if they fail to live
up to their international commitments. To drive needed action, the U.S.
should consider application of the Pelly amendment and the sanctions
process that law offers in cases where CITES continues to be seriously
undermined. The Pelly amendment has been used sparingly but
successfully in the past to achieve swift reforms in countries where
endangered species trafficking was completely out of control,
specifically for the illegal trade in tiger and rhino parts in Taiwan,
China, South Korea, and Yemen. Each of those countries made major
positive wildlife trade control improvements as a result of action
under the Pelly amendment and parallel action through CITES. The ivory
and rhino trade today is as serious as any wildlife trade issue in the
past and warrants equally serious measures. The U.S. should also
continue to support efforts to elevate the issue within the U.N.
system, including the imminent passage of a UNGA resolution on wildlife
crime, as well as robust implementation and accountability of that
resolution once passed.
Anti-Poaching Recommendations
The men and women on the front lines who put their lives on hold,
and often their lives on the line, in order to prevent wildlife crime
are the thin green line between the poachers and the animals they wish
to kill. In order to effectively reduce poaching, we need to ensure
that they are up to the task when they are confronted with today's
poaching threats, which are more dangerous than they have ever been and
require more skills than have often been expected in the past. There
are two ways to look at antipoaching; the short-term emergency response
and the long-term solution. In terms of the emergence response,
effective on-the-ground protection requires: suitable operational
support, including trained rangers; knowledge of patrol tactics; access
to equipment and transportation; and adaptive management systems, such
as that provided by the SMART \13\ conservation tools. In order for on-
the-ground operations to be efficient and proactive they need to be
supported by intelligence, and this can be gained through community
relationships, informant networks, on-patrol interviews and through the
use of surveillance technology. Interdiction also needs to lead to
prosecution so that the cost of breaking the law outweighs the
benefits, requiring a whole-of-government approach even at the local
level. Crucially, the best antipoaching operations are focused on crime
prevention and not violator interdiction. This means working with
communities through a community policing framework where there is a
strong partnership between rangers and communities. These approaches
are enhanced where communities see direct benefits between conservation
and economic development. It is an integrated approach such as this
one, which WWF has helped to foster through its program in Nepal, which
has seen Nepal achieve zero rhino and elephant poaching in 3 of the
last 4 years.
We know what works and how to establish these systems at the local
level. But we have also been here before: in the 1980s,
conservationists worked to abate the last poaching crisis affecting
elephant, rhino and tiger populations. We successfully abated that
crisis, and with a concerted effort, we can abate the current one as
well, but what we have not been able to do is get ahead of the curve to
prevent the next crisis from happening in the first place. To do this
takes a more strategic, long-term approach; one of sector reform to
make being a ranger a profession one aspires too. In order to do this
we need to:
Establish accredited higher education training centers that
produce professionally trained rangers--in a similar fashion to
police academies, no ranger should be hired without receiving a
professional, accredited qualification;
Provide rewards and promotions based on performance and set
competencies--this means transforming the human resource
systems in many ranger departments;
Empower rangers with the legal authority to detain and
arrest suspects, to process a crime scene and present
admissible evidence in court, and to legally defend themselves
in life threatening situations;
Ensure rangers are reasonably protected by the law when they
are doing their duty; provide adequate insurances to rangers
and their families;
Ensure outposts provide shelter, basic amenities,
communications equipment and medical supplies.
The long-term solution to the poaching crisis is to reform the
ranger force just like the international community supports reform in
other sectors such as police, education, and health. Professionalizing
the ranger force will support rule of law, provide an additional layer
of good governance and provide protection for environmental services
including biodiversity, timber, fisheries, watersheds, and carbon
stocks. The U.S. Government should consider how it can support the
promotion of global standards and training and accreditation systems to
achieve the transformation outlined above, whether through existing
U.S. institutions, such as the State Department-run International Law
Enforcement Academies, or through partnerships with national or
regional training institutions that can help foster ``ranger
academies'' and the long-term professionalization of the wildlife law
enforcement sector in partner countries. Where suitable, the U.S.
Government should also explore possible collaboration and/or assistance
by the Department of Defense/AFRICOM with those local forces tasked
with wildlife and/or park protection as a mission in countries facing
militarized poaching threats, whether through training opportunities,
logistical support, or provision of equipment.
Anti-Trafficking Recommendations
In implementing the U.S. strategy, the U.S. should focus
significant efforts on disrupting and dismantling the illicit
trafficking networks and crime syndicates that are driving the poaching
and illegal trade, including advanced investigative and intelligence
gathering techniques and bringing to bear the same sorts of tools used
to combat other forms of trafficking, such as narcotics. As the
narrowest point in the trade chain, traffickers offer the best
opportunity to disrupt the flow of illicit goods, represent the
highest-value targets for arrest and prosecution, and their arrest,
prosecution and incarceration can serve as a strong disincentive to
others involved in or hoping to involve themselves in the illegal
wildlife trade. There is legislation currently pending in both the
Senate--S. 27 introduced by Senators Feinstein and Graham--and the
House--H.R. 2494 introduced by Representatives Royce and Engel--that
would make large-scale wildlife trafficking a predicate offence to
money laundering, racketeering, and smuggling offenses under title 18
and provide U.S. law enforcement with the same tools they have
available to go after other forms of trafficking, including narcotics.
WWF strongly supports both of these bills and encourages committee
members to consider cosponsoring S. 27 if they have not already done
so.
The U.S. should continue to support transregional programs, similar
to Wildlife TRAPS and Operation Cobra/Cobra II/Cobra III, which
coordinate joint law enforcement actions between demand, range, and
transit states and focus on multiple points in the illegal trade chain.
We would also encourage a focus on enhancing port and border security
at key transit points (e.g., seaports in Southeast Asia and East and
West Africa), including border detection efforts and investigative
techniques. The expertise of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and
others at the Department of Homeland Security could be of value in
these efforts, and their active involvement should be encouraged. The
U.S. should dedicate serious efforts to enhancing the prosecutorial and
judicial law enforcement capacity in priority countries in order to
ensure successful convictions and incarcerations of serious wildlife
traffickers, including anticorruption measures. The U.S. should support
development and dissemination of new technologies and tools, including
DNA testing of specimens, computer tracking of shipments, SMART or
similar patrolling software, the International Consortium to Combat
Wildlife Crime's (ICCWC) Forest and Wildlife Crime toolkit, and new or
repurposed technologies that can be developing in partnership with
innovations labs at the Department of the Defense.
The U.S. Government should also continue to improve wildlife crime
intelligence-sharing and cooperation in evidence-gathering between law
enforcement, security and intelligence agencies of the U.S. Government,
including the Department of Defense (on security linkages) and the
Department of the Treasury (on illicit financial flows). In many
countries in Africa and Asia there are not proactive intelligence
collection and analysis to direct enforcement efforts to tackle
organized crime poaching and trafficking in wildlife like rhinos. This
is a major flaw that could be remedied by training, provision on
intelligence analysis software and resources to allow enforcement staff
to spend time on collection, input and analysis of intelligence. NGOs
like TRAFFIC are gathering and analyzing information to provide law
enforcement agencies to assist their priority setting and for
operational use, but governments should be doing this themselves.
conclusion
We are once more at a crisis moment for elephants and rhinos and
numerous other species targeted by the illegal wildlife trade. U.S.
policymakers at the highest level have provided outspoken leadership
and strong statements of commitment and action, and these have played a
large part in galvanizing global action around this issue in an
unprecedented way. We must continue to implement strategies and plans
to combat wildlife trafficking with concerted efforts on the ground,
energetic diplomatic engagement, and the full range of law enforcement
tools. The United States Government at all levels has demonstrated its
willingness to lead on this issue and to provide expertise and
resources to back up its commitments. Such global leadership by the
U.S. will continue to be pivotal to solving this crisis and protecting
our planet's wildlife heritage over the long-term. WWF is redoubling
its efforts to combat this threat. We are heartened and grateful to see
the U.S. Government doing the same. Working in partnership with other
governments, civil society, the private sector, and communities on the
front lines, we can help turn the tide and bring an end to the global
poaching crisis.
On behalf of WWF, we thank you for the opportunity to provide
testimony to the subcommittee. We thank you for highlighting this
issue, and we look forward to continuing to work with Congress and the
administration to address this crisis.
----------------
End Notes
\1\ www.dni.gov/files/documents/
Wildlife_Poaching_White_Paper_2013.pdf.
\2\ http://transcrime.gfintegrity.org/.
\3\ TRAFFIC and the Pew Environment Group analysis produced for the
2011 meeting of the UN FAO's Committee on Fisheries (COFI).
\4\ South Africa's illicit abalone trade: An updated overview and
knowledge gap analysis, 2014, TRAFFIC.
\5\ Background report on illegal trade in elephant, rhino, big cats
and pangolins, 2013, TRAFFIC.
\6\ Seizures of Tortoises and Freshwater Turtles in Thailand 2008-
2013, 2014, TRAFFIC.
\7\ http://www.iucn-csg.org/index.php/vaquita/.
\8\ www.dni.gov/files/documents/
Wildlife_Poaching_White_Paper_2013.pdf.
\9\ http://wwf.panda.org/?uNewsID=203098.
\10\ Maisels F, Strindberg S, Blake S, Wittemyer G, Hart J, et al.
(2013) Devastating Decline of Forest Elephants in Central Africa.PLoS
ONE 8(3):e59469. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059469.
\11\ http://namnewsnetwork.org/v3/read.php?id=180566; http://
www.sanwild.org/NOTICEBOARD
/2011a/
Elephant%20poachers%20use%20helicopter%20in%20Mozambique%20National%20Pa
rk.
HTM; http://www.savetheelephants.org/news-reader/items/selous-the-
killing-fields-40tanzania41.
html.
\12\ https://www.google.cm/
?gws_rd=cr&ei=Gb90U4z_Eo7S4QSdpYGICA#qDeclaration+of+the
+London+Conference.
\13\ Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool: a GPS-based law
enforcement monitoring system that improves the effectiveness and
transparency of patrols, www.smartconservationsoft
ware.org.
Senator Flake. Thank you and thank you all and thank you
for enduring the interruption.
Mr. Saunders, we spoke before in my office, and we talked
about the model that you have there. And it is interesting.
Some of the community-based models elsewhere, the community
derives significant revenue from tourism or other means. That
is not the case necessarily with what you are talking about.
That will come hopefully later and is a part of the reason it
is being done. But what these communities get is security.
Tell us how wildlife trafficking diminishes security in
these communities and why this model works?
Mr. Saunders. Yes, thank you.
The area that we operate in, in the Tsavo ecosystem, is a
very remote and harsh area. There is very little government
police presence and a lot of lawlessness, and that is an issue
that any country has a great deal of difficulty in addressing.
What we are doing is we are working with the community and
galvanizing them together. They are a seminomadic community of
pastoralists. And of course, when you have got a seminomadic
community, it is very easy to put pressure on them from outside
agencies because there is no cohesion. What the conservancy has
done is brought the community together and given it cohesion
and given it strength, and in this way we have assisted through
that cohesion, gaining a much more security environment. And
the communities themselves are now a very robust community when
it comes to being the challengers of radicalization and other
external forces, including corruption.
I mean, yesterday we had a conference at CSS and everybody
was pretty sound on the idea that one of our biggest enemies is
corruption, and by galvanizing the--and I keep saying this--
rather than the community, let us say the electorate because
communities are impoverished people. The electorate is a
powerful individual. And so the galvanizing of the electorate
has now given communities, the ones at risk, now a much
enhanced sense of security.
Senator Flake. Mr. Froment, you had mentioned that the
model that you have, this public-private partnership where you
manage the parks, is better than government management of the
parks. Why is that? Why does this model work. You mentioned
that it leads to greater accountability. How is that so?
Mr. Froment. The main reason it works is because firstly,
we get the mandate from the government and we are accountable
for this. So we have to react to any problem arising. And the
when we face the issue of the security of the communities, we
need to react to that.
The second very important point is that you cannot be in an
area for a very long period of time without developing your
relationships with all of these communities, and when the
community has a problem, you need to address it.
Take for example Garamba, where the problem was security.
We addressed the security issues, but in other areas where
there were also other problems. In doing so we can address
these others and slowly bring the community inside the model.
The second element is that we have the capacity to develop
the team we are working with so we are not depending solely on
the people that are positioned by the government. We can also
train and build our skills and start having professional teams
who can address the different problems themselves.
And the third element is that because we have the
responsibility in the long term toward the government, we are
to find some funding solution. One of these solutions is the
resource you have inside the park itself, and we need to
develop that with all the effects in terms of economic and
social development possible around and based on the resources
of the park.
In one of the parks African Parks is managing, for example,
in 4 years' time, we have generated the revenue that can
sustain the park. So you build the resource and you put a value
on it, and you can use that for the park and the community.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Dr. Wittemyer, you mentioned the main transit points you
found from the most recent poaching is Mombasa and Dar es
Salaam. Has that changed over time? Does that shift depending
on where things are coming from, or is that the main transit
points where it is easiest to get to Asia, the markets there?
Or what explains that phenomenon?
Dr. Wittemyer. Yes, they have shifted to some extent. It
appears this is related to the locations of source populations
that are harvested. The greatest volumes of ivory are leaving
from the closest port to these sources. We have also seen
several West African ports and South African ports be the
source of significant trafficking or exit points for ivory from
Africa.
But it is difficult to pinpoint why we are seeing specific
trafficking routes. It is really an information gap for us as
to what about these two locations is allowing huge, really
massive volumes of ivory to flow off the continent from those
ports. My assumption would be that there has been very little
effective policing, and, therefore, it is seemingly a low-risk,
easy pathway for this ivory to leave. So putting barriers up on
these identified points of exit are really critical actions to
tackle the ivory trafficking chain.
Senator Flake. Well, thank you.
Ms. Hemley, I found your testimony really interesting,
going country by country or issue by issue there. And with
regard to Namibia, I happened to be there in 1989-1990 when the
constitution was drafted where they did have a strong
conservation element to it, a commitment there, and it has paid
off. This community-based approach has worked there.
What about Botswana? What are we seeing there? We have to
see some of the trends that we see in South Africa and Namibia,
or what makes Botswana different? They have had pretty stable
populations there.
Ms. Hemley. Well, Botswana has long been a stronghold for a
lot of wildlife species, as you no doubt know. And a stable
government and generally good governance has certainly
contributed to that end, a relatively strong economy.
Making it a high priority, high-end tourism certainly has
led to generally well managed parks with revenues going into
the parks, has made that, I think, effective.
I understand there have been some recent changes in
Botswana related to community-based conservation that we are
looking into that may be placing less emphasis on the
importance of communities, which would be a bit of a concern in
our view, given the model in Namibia. Thus far, Botswana has
not had the poaching that we have seen in South Africa, with
the emphasis being on rhinos in South Africa. But with the huge
herds of elephants in the north of Botswana, certainly that is
an area that is like Namibia we are starting to see a bit of
poaching around the borders in northern Botswana that we need
to help ensure do not get succumbed to the major poaching that
we are seeing in East Africa.
Senator Flake. Well, thank you.
Ranking Member Markey has generously deferred to Senator
Udall for questions first.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Markey, and thank you,
Chairman Flake. This is a very important hearing, and I
appreciate both of you working together on this and bringing
these issues forward.
I remember I was visiting with Ginette a little bit.
Senator Kerry, when he chaired this committee, I think 3 years
ago had Ian Hamilton from Save the Elephants here, and it was a
very emotional hearing. And all of us feel strongly. You look
at these charismatic animals and you just say how is this
happening to Africa across all of these countries.
Looking back at that hearing and what has happened over the
3 years, are we making a dent? Is there progress? Is there
success? I mean, what is it you think we should be doing to
further this?
I am, later in the month of August, going to go to
Tanzania. I hope to get out into the bush and get a chance to
visit with some of the officials out there, and I hope to
exchange ideas with you when I get back in terms of where we
are headed.
But I guess the big overall question is from that last
hearing--some of you may, or may not, have been aware of it,
but just think back 3 years ago. I mean, where are we? And what
is succeeding? I do not want this to just be a downer here. You
have talked about the models. Jeff has brought out the models
and maybe you an elaborate a little more on that. The question
is to all the panelists here.
Dr. Wittemyer. Yes. I might just follow up. One thing that
has happened since that time is we have had really definitive
data on poaching hotspots and trafficking hotspots that are
helping to triangulate and focus our attention on the problem
areas.
I also think when that hearing occurred, we were on the
upsurge of poaching, and depending on what records you are
looking at now, it looks like we may be plateauing. In our
ecosystem at that time--we were having 8 to 10 percent of the
population shot out a year. We are now down to levels we have
not seen since 2008. The elephant population increased for the
first time in 6 years in 2014. And so we are seeing definitive
successes in different areas.
We are also seeing massive problems, and Tanzania has been
the real disaster has been recording. Any engagement you can do
with the Tanzanian Government would be critical--I just want to
reiterate the scale of killing there--50,000 elephants--that is
from aerial census data--have been killed in that country in 5
years. That is industrial scale poaching. That is massive
volumes of ivory that are being funneled out of that country,
and there are very few arrests. There is very little action in
relation to this well recognized problem. There is constant
rhetoric by the Tanzanian Government that they are going to
address this problem. But we have seen little action on the
ground. And I think diplomatic pressure by the U.S. Government
can be beneficial in this context. What is going on there is a
disaster, and any attention, any help you can bring to that--
there must be knowledge within the government body of what is
happening and why. And anything you can do to elicit action
would be greatly appreciated.
Mr. Saunders. Can I just add to that actually? I often get
asked why in Kenya we do not have any wildlife champions in our
Parliament. And it is a continual question we get asked. I
think quite simply is that in Africa, as far as the Members of
Parliament, our Parliament, are concerned, is we will not get
any wildlife champions unless wildlife becomes an issue that
can win votes. And that is not going to happen until there is a
value for wildlife amongst the electorate. And so the community
approach by creating a higher value to the electorate is the
way and the pathway that we can start to gain more political
champions. All of the community-based organizations in Africa
that are doing that, they are the galvanizing communities that
are giving, again, the electorate the power and an
understanding that if they support wildlife, they get security.
They get a chance to build a rural economic bit of base for
themselves. Then we will start to get that traction in our
Parliaments.
But until we get to that phase, where we are going to be
pushed to try and get political traction--we might get
political rhetoric, which is positive, but when it comes to
voting, if it is not going to keep people in power, they are
not going to put their time and energy into it. They would
rather put it on other areas such as food and water, although
it is still linked. So talking from that community perspective
and empowering the electorate, I believe that is one of the
many areas I think we need to concentrate on.
Senator Udall. So, Ian, what you are talking about is you
are talking about where the community really sees it in their
interest to be preserving the entire ecosystem, the animals,
and that there is an economic benefit that is essential here.
And really, it is driving home the fact that if you have a
sustainable ecosystem, it is going to provide sustenance for
the community. But you need to drive all of those things home,
and then I think people working in and around the parks and
seeing the benefit of tourism, all of that, I think that is
what your partnership does--does it not--is to try to bring
that home.
Mr. Saunders. Yes. I mean, in our area, we--and Governor
Adato, who is sitting behind me here who is the county governor
of where the conservancy is, is proof that we have got support
at every single level. So from herdsmen to local government all
the way up to the governor himself.
And we do not have a tourism option in that part of Tana
River because of the destabilized element. So the most
important element is livestock. So we are looking at livestock
to provide a firm economic base into the future. When that
happens, tourism will come as a cherry on the cake. But
culturally livestock is at the center of their life, and if we
can enhance that, it provides stability because people start to
gain a firmer economic base. And then it becomes a political
issue. Then people want to be aligned to it, and that is when
we start to get results I think.
Ms. Hemley. Could I just add a bit to the conversation
here? You asked what has happened in the last 3 years that is
good, where we are seeing some progress. And George mentioned
possibly the plateauing of poaching. We will see.
Three important things internationally have happened that
we believe are helping but we need to sustain.
Congressional appropriations that have increased. There is
more resources going to the field to address this issue. That
is absolutely key.
President Obama launched his national strategy to combat
wildlife trafficking. That has had a huge impact globally in
terms of visibility, getting attention at the highest levels of
government around the world.
And we are beginning to also see on the demand side the
attention being paid in key consumer markets in China you heard
about, in Thailand as well, in Vietnam for rhino horn, where as
a couple of years ago some of those governments were in denial
that there was a problem. They are acknowledging it now. They
are beginning to make commitments to cracking down and
hopefully eliminating markets such as for ivory in China.
Through CITES, the Convention on International Trade and
Endangered Species, there has been a process of targeting the
problem countries. There were 8 or 10 countries identified that
were problematic that were required to put together full plans
for addressing these issues. That alone I think has triggered
great attention both in Africa, as well as in Asia, on demands.
So we have seen a lot of momentum that I think has been
critical to the progress that we are beginning to see.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you.
And thank you, Senator Markey. Thank you very much.
Senator Flake. Let me just say what a pleasure it has been
to work with Senator Markey on this. This is an issue that we
both felt needed to be addressed. Do you want to make any
opening remarks as well?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. If I may. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing. You are right. This is an issue which is
near and dear to both of our hearts, and I think it is a timely
and very important hearing. And it is critical that we keep a
spotlight on this.
And I will just say briefly as an opening that poachers
with ties to global organized crime syndicates and violent
groups continue to cross international borders to kill
elephants and rhinos for their tusks and are better equipped
than the park rangers who are charged to protect them. Park
rangers have been ambushed, attacked, lost their lives in the
line of duty after encountering poachers armed with weapons or
military grade weaponry and technology.
Last month, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service launched a
campaign on social media when the agency crushed 1 ton of
illegal ivory in New York City's Time Square to send a message
to wildlife traffickers and raise awareness about the
importance of these issues. Hashtag ``ivory crush'' was tending
all over Twitter and Facebook, and I think it just is a
reflection of how important people in our country and the world
see this issue.
Wildlife poaching and trafficking is a global problem but
one that has local solutions. This is not just a problem for
African nations. It is also an American problem. We are the
second-largest market for illegal wildlife products like ivory
and other precious goods.
China recently announced it will crack down on illegal
ivory trade, but has stated they will not act alone. They are
looking to the United States and other nations to partner on
the issue of illegal wildlife trafficking.
This is a bipartisan issue that Congress can and should
work together to put solutions in place. And that is my pledge
to Senator Flake, to work with him in that fashion.
The implementation plan released by the President's Task
Force on Combating Wildlife Trafficking is an important step
forward to developing solutions. And I am particularly
encouraged by efforts to use innovative technology in solving
this problem. I look forward to working on legislation that
would complement the administration's actions and supporting
our African policies.
So let me begin with you, if I may, Ms. Hemley. In 2012,
Google donated $5 million to your organization to provide
technology toward conservation and antipoaching efforts through
the Global Impact Awards. This technology assists in monitoring
the habitats and trafficking routes of wildlife and
additionally provides high-tech gear for rangers to ward off
poachers.
Has the technology been successful in reducing poaching
capabilities?
Ms. Hemley. Yes, Google did provide a generous grant for us
to test and pilot some new technologies.
You know, it is too soon to tell if we have found solutions
that can be scaled fully, but we are in some interesting tests
in both Namibia and Nepal with drones to help in aerial
monitoring of poaching, but that has often got a lot of
attention, that aspect of the funding. There are a lot of other
technologies that are as important to help out, and we need to
look at all of them, using infrared cameras in new ways, using
new kinds of software for collecting, analyzing data. It has to
all be integrated into the systems. And so we have got a
variety of efforts underway to do that. We hope to know in the
next 1 to 2 years what can be scaled and taken out to the field
in a practical way. One of the challenges we have seen in these
remote areas is when you are using IT, getting cell phone
coverage can often be a limitation. So we are talking to some
of the cell phone companies here in the United States to figure
out ways you can get connectivity in the national parks that is
critical----
Senator Markey. You should talk to Google about that as
well.
I think if you set the example you can show how technology
can work, then maybe we can find other companies to partner
with you.
Ms. Hemley. Absolutely.
Senator Markey. The next step comes when you go back again
after proving the success of the use of technology and trying
to get more wireless technology.
Dr. Wittemyer, technology is important but science is
important as well. So could you talk a little bit about the
role which science plays in helping to create an antipoaching
environment?
Dr. Wittemyer. Yes. I summarized the scientific data that
we have available on this problem today. Science has been the
foundation with which we have been able to actually measure the
scale of this problem, key in on the critical points, the
critical populations under threat, some of the aspects of
trade, although there are a lot of black boxes in regards to
trade routes. And science is fundamental to continued
monitoring and understanding, identifying where solutions are
working and where they are failing. Without proper monitoring,
we are not able to identify what we are having successes with.
One technological solution I wanted to speak to that we are
doing is through radio tracking data of animals. And right now,
actually on my computer we can visualize elephants moving
around in different parts of Africa, and we are using this to
help deploy antipoaching assets to identify when elephants
enter danger zones. Flagging entrance into an area of interest
is called geofencing. When an elephant enters a farm and starts
crop raiding, we can actually get a GMS message on my cell
phone that says this elephant entered this parcel and is likely
crop raiding.
These type of technologies enable rapid responses to
problems, help us to be much more effective in our deployment
of assets, especially when we are all asset-limited. And so
technology has a big place, and we actually have leveraged
private money to help develop these areas. So I agree
technology is a key.
Senator Markey. Science is the key, your science and
technology.
Dr. Wittemyer. Right.
Senator Markey. So I want to come back on the elephants,
come back over to you, Ms. Hemley. We have the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species. It gives us an
opportunity to think about diplomacy, how we are going to work
together. But yet, that convention was not successful in
stopping the sale of 24 elephants from Zimbabwe to China. So
talk about that and what needs to be done in order to ensure
that there is an enforcement capacity here to protect these
very precious resources that are diminishing by the day.
Ms. Hemley. We were just talking about that issue actually
in the taxi over here. That issue has us deeply concerned. The
permit to export those 24 live, young elephants was granted. On
the face of it, it is supposedly in compliance with the CITES
requirements. But in our view, other issues need to be
considered. And we know that Zimbabwe has had very serious
issues with elephant population numbers being reduced by poor
management and poaching in the conservancies there. And so we
share your concern and we would like to see more done.
Senator Markey. So give us a recommendation in terms of the
enforcement tools that you would like to see put in place or
the enforcement tools that are already in place and how you
would like to see them enforced. How can you give us the
instructions we need in order to act in a way that puts some
real teeth----
Ms. Hemley. Well, the Fish and Wildlife Service now has a
ban in place for the import of sport trophies from Zimbabwe,
which is a good thing because of that management. So they have
taken the action because of the concerns there.
Diplomatic pressure to Zimbabwe--we know it is a
complicated equation diplomatically with that country now. But
they cut a deal with China basically. And international
pressure and publicity over this issue is certainly something
we can do and help with.
But the CITES requirement in this case we do not believe
goes far enough into looking at the ultimate potential impact
of the removal of those animals from the populations.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
Dr. Wittemyer, Mr. Saunders, both of your organizations do
tremendous work. Are there enough U.S. resources put into this
effort? Does USAID have enough resources to help you to
successfully advance the cause? Could each one of you talk
about the resource issue here and what is needed in order to
really make this into a successful program?
Mr. Saunders.
Mr. Saunders. Yes. I mean, speaking from the Tsavo Trust
perspective and probably on behalf of a lot of the other of our
partners who work in a similar vein within what we call the
human terrain really, working with the communities, the
investment that the U.S. Government has made so far has been
the major driver for developing new attitudes and a consensus
on wildlife and its value within the communities.
I think that one of the issues we deal with on a daily
basis is that wildlife conservation is seen as sort of a
foreign luxury, and to overcome that, we have got to give solid
reasons and work with our neighbors in our communities to show
that it actually is of benefit. INL money has helped us
dramatically in doing that, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife money
has helped us do that with our engagement areas. In the area
that we work in, Malkalako area, there has not been an elephant
poached in that area for 11 months to date. That area was the
scene of the largest single poaching incident of elephants at
its time of 13 elephants shot at one go, and that was the last
major one. And that has all been all down to the ability to
move assets into the area and change perspectives.
But I think that the more that we can invest into that
approach, the better it will be. And I am very pleased to see
that the USAID has a fund for Amboseli and Tsavo.
Senator Markey. Dr. Wittemyer, what would you recommend so
that we can encourage U.S. agencies to do more in this area?
Dr. Wittemyer. In full disclosure actually, we are not
receiving U.S. funding in our activities.
Senator Markey. Would you like to?
Dr. Wittemyer. We would. Certainly we would, yes.
Senator Markey. You do not think there is enough funding.
Dr. Wittemyer. I do not think there is enough funding.
And particularly, I think we need resources that are
allocated to weak points in the conservation portfolio. USAID
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have done excellent work
with U.S. funding on the ground in Africa. We are seeing
evidence of other methods that can be implemented to great
effect. I mentioned an example from the DEA that was successful
in breaking up a criminal network in Kenya. The Presidential
Executive order on wildlife trafficking helps to bring all that
expertise together, but we have not seen appropriations
directed to the most effective agents that could be game-
changers.
And so one of the concerns I am hearing and that we are
seeing is that some of those individuals with relevant
expertise in the U.S. Government are very busy with other
activities. The Department of Defense has a lot of
responsibilities and putting wildlife trafficking on their
docket in a way that they are actually engaged with this
problem is difficult. Directed funding can help bring some of
the expertise, give them the operational capacity to put their
resources and expertise into wildlife trafficking where if you
just add it to their docket of objectives, it will not be
prioritized. You know, it is number 57 on the list. They cannot
get to it. So I think some of these appropriations,
particularly on intelligence-based criminal network disruption,
would be really helpful for us right now.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Wittemyer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. An excellent panel. Thank you.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Mr. Froment, can you talk a little about the differences
between the challenges we face with forest elephants in Gabon
and the DRC and the savanna elephants that we have been talking
mostly about today? I know a lot of your work is in Central
Africa. So you have a good grasp of this. The transit routes I
assume are different in terms of the traffic out, probably West
African ports. How are these issues different for us?
Mr. Froment. I think that the forest elephants are more
related to the problem of governance in the different
countries, except in Gabon where they are starting to develop a
huge national parks network and are trying to strengthen the
wildlife department to react to the problem of poaching in that
nation. For the other nations of the Central African countries,
I see that most of the elephant populations have already been
ripped off except a few elephants in Chad and DRC, a small
pocket remaining.
But the main threat in the savanna area is all the links
with the Janjaweeds, with South Sudan and the Lord's Resistance
Army, links we have also noted in Sudan. So these are the two
major different aspects. And what is above the problem of
Central African countries is that it is only a problem of
governance and courage. And, everybody is involved in ivory
trafficking and meat trafficking. Without addressing these
questions, I think it will be quite difficult to change
anything in this part of the world. And this is why I believe
the sole possibility we have in that context is to really try
to protect a few pockets with good management.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
Ms. Hemley, in South Africa, the big problem with rhino
poaching--that is mostly white rhino or black rhino in Kruger
Park?
Ms. Hemley. Mostly white rhino.
Senator Markey. And most of it makes it across the border
into Mozambique I understand. That is a 250-mile border, a very
difficult problem there. But you were saying that this amount
of poaching could not be done without some acquiescence or some
knowledge certainly at higher levels, and you have encouraged
us to take this up with the South African Government.
Has some of this been done? Are some of the problems being
acknowledged at this point? What state are we in? When you have
last year 1,200--this year I understand we are already over 700
for the year. It will be the highest yet. We cannot go on very
much longer like this. I think it is estimated there are--
what--about 20,000 left? So that does not take long to decimate
and be at levels that we were at years and years ago. So what
level are we at right now with South Africa?
Ms. Hemley. We know that South Africa has been a priority
for the State Department engagement on this issue. At the same
time, we are concerned that there is not acknowledgement that
there is an internal problem, and we do see a lot of
philanthropic dollars going into the country that do not seem
to be having the kind of impact that we would like to see in
terms of stopping the problem.
Mozambique has been a country of great concern. There is,
we know, a petition pending with the Interior Department under
the Pelley amendment to certify that country as a key transit
point for rhino, which we believe deserves consideration given
the need to crack down in that area.
But in terms of South Africa, I think we just need to keep
the pressure on and engage at the highest levels possible. I
know Secretary Clinton was there when she was at the State
Department a couple of years ago. Yet, the problem has
worsened. And so we just need the support from the highest
levels here to engage and press and get action.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
I will pose this to Mr. Saunders, but if the others can
think about it as well. Part of the purpose of this hearing is
this is oversight. We appropriate monies for Fish and Wildlife,
AID, and some of these programs that you are talking about. Can
you give us examples of--we have talked about programs,
community-based programs, that have worked. What does not work?
Can you give any examples of areas where our money could be
better spent? And I know some of this changes over time where
we focus more on trafficking one year. It may be better to
focus more on funding game rangers the next year. And I
understand some of that. But what areas have been proven not to
be effective here?
Mr. Saunders. I think that we are facing such a dynamic
challenge. Where we are not effective is that we are not moving
with the challenge, particularly from a wildlife security
perspective. We have been sedentary in our approach for many
years in Kenya and Tanzania, and being a former Tanzania
wildlife officer, I can tell you that our approach to
antipoaching started in the 1950s and it has not changed. The
threat has changed. The dynamism has changed. So I think that
is an area that we have to look at very closely.
The way we can address that would be to look at creating a
doctrine. I mean, we have a continent the size of Africa. We
have many countries carrying out antipoaching operations and
wildlife security. Yet, as far as I know, we have no doctrine
for wildlife security, which in essence is conservation and
counterinsurgency and a doctrine has to be monitored and
updated continuously through academic stress testing and
reports from the field. So I think that is an area that we have
not been very successful at doing, and that is what our
StabilCon philosophy wants to address through best practice. So
that is what I would say would be--because this is such a
complex matter, we could come up with 100,000 things, but that
is one that I think I would like to identify.
Senator Flake. And I do understand what works in Kenya may
not work in Gabon.
Mr. Saunders. Exactly.
Senator Flake. And there is a change and different threats.
But anybody else want to take a stab at that, looking at
areas that we have over time realized it is not enough bang for
the buck or it is just a misprioritization of funds? Anybody
else? And I know you do not want to throw any member
organizations under the bus and I am not trying to go there at
all. But as part of our oversight role, that is one area that
we want to focus on. If there are monies that are going
somewhere that should be better spent, could be better spent
elsewhere, then we want to know about it.
Dr. Wittemyer. So one point I would point out would be the
Tanzanian example, where the high-level officials in the
Tanzania Government have been brought forward and lauded and
awarded, despite no action on the ground taking place. USAID
money is going in there to actually change their wildlife
management scheme, their hunting based scheme, which
desperately needs revamping. It is really imperative. But at
the same time, as these actions to prop up and give coverage to
governments and individuals occurs, it needs to be directly
tied to and in recognition of successes.
So one of the concerns with the Tanzanian Government
example is that possibly they were given too much attention too
early in the hope that that would help elicit action. In fact,
it did not. And so we need to try the other side of really
forcing them to take action. ``Force'' is the wrong word.
Really encouraging them to take action before we award them for
their lack of action.
Senator Flake. Ms. Hemley.
Ms. Hemley. I will just add one thing.
We have seen a lot in the past support going toward
capacity-building in the field, which is important, but what we
think we need is really to take that up a level to increase the
professionalization of the ranger corps, the wildlife rangers
and the park rangers, in the field to upgrade their status
within their countries, within their systems, help with
training in that respect so that it is not just one-off
capacity-building opportunities but really to help kind of
upgrade the whole sector there, which is I think critical if
you are going to have the kind of credible and supported and
the capacities needed to really be effective at the level you
need when you are dealing with organized crime and increasingly
sophisticated poaching networks.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Well, thank you. I just want to thank you again for the
time that you have spent preparing. Like I said, I really
enjoyed reading all the testimony and hearing it today and
further explanations. This will be invaluable to us as we go
ahead and make policy and consider the legislation that is
before us. We hope that you will remain in touch. We will
certainly keep the hearing record open for the next couple of
days for other testimony.
And just as a point of personal privilege, I just want to
thank Mary Angelini who is here on our staff. She has been on
loan from the State Department for the past several months, and
this will be the last hearing that she will be able to put
together. She is leaving, going back in a couple of weeks. And
we just want her to know how much we appreciate her efforts.
And thank you again and thank you, Ranking Member Markey,
for your help here.
And this meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Dr. George Wittemyer to Questions
Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
Question. With regards to demand. We have recently agreed to work
with the Chinese to increase cooperation to combat wildlife trafficking
and restrict trade in ivory.
In your opinion has China made significant progress to
address the illegal trade in ivory, and what more can be done--
in your opinion--to decrease the demand in ivory in China and
throughout Asia?
Answer. In respect to the question of if China has made significant
progress to address the illegal trade in ivory, I would answer that
progress has been significant in certain areas and woefully lacking in
others.
Chinese Government has made significant impacts by:
(1) Closing ivory sales through public auctions (legislated and
implemented in late 2011), which appears to have made a significant
impact by reducing a critical avenue for laundering illegal ivory as
legal ivory. Experts have also stated at the time, this was the primary
means for marketing of ivory.
(2) Law enforcement activities with numerous arrests of different
individuals illegally importing ivory (primarily through airports) and
selling ivory in illegal venues. Notably, however, all evidence
suggests large-scale illegal ivory continues to flow into China despite
these efforts, so they are not enough (see below).
(3) We have seen positive movement from online venues in removing
ivory from their market spaces (though I believe this is by private
companies and may or may not be related to specific government
actions).
We have not seen significant efforts by the Chinese Government to
address the following identified areas that drive illegal trade in
ivory:
(1) Ensuring government legal ivory markets are unable to launder
illegal ivory. Widespread reporting of reusing and counterfeiting of
official documents (those that identify legal ivory products) occurs in
legal government market places. As such, the legal government markets
are thought to be major distributors of illegal ivory. We have seen the
occasional enforcement activity targeting these shops, but the problem
continues to be prolific. Similarly, markets in Hong Kong are a major
source of trafficking illegal ivory.
(2) Illegal trafficking of ivory into China continues at pace. The
Chinese Government is believed to have increased attempts to seize
trafficked illegal ivory, but large volumes continue to enter via
shipping containers. Recently, the large amount of illegal ivory being
sold in Hong Kong and moved into mainland China has also been flagged
as a major trafficking route. Little to no effort is put on screening
for such products of individuals moving from Hong Kong to mainland
China.
(3) Chinese companies in Africa have been flagged as primary
illegal wildlife product consumers. This is for ivory as well as a
whole portfolio of items from other wildlife products to conflict
minerals and timber. We would like to see much more concerted effort to
penalize rogue companies and award companies that are putting stringent
control measures in place.
(4) Possibly most importantly is the disruption of criminal
networks running smuggling syndicates which, in that, in some cases,
are thought to extend deep into Africa, possibly managing on the ground
poaching operations. This is a place where combined efforts of the
United States and China, as well as other strategic partners, could
bear fruit and make a huge impact.
Finally, in respect to demand reduction, it is widely thought
officially ending legal domestic ivory trade in China is the key to end
the ivory crisis. At the moment, many in China see legal ivory sales
through government shops as indicating that there is not a problem.
Some perceive all the press on the ivory issue as another Western
conspiracy to make China lose face internationally, with the legal
ivory markets serving as evidence that consuming ivory is okay. Another
key factor driving the Chinese ivory trade appears to be speculative
investment in ivory as a limited commodity with robust appreciation,
leading to hoarding of ivory. It is suspected that strongly curbing the
ability to sell such ivory would have a massive impact on illegal ivory
pricing. Again, this would be most effectively done through a domestic
ivory ban in China.
Reduction of demand in the West in the 1980s was driven by raising
social consciousness of the cost of ivory trade to elephants. Efforts
to do this in China are also important. Similar efforts in Japan have
driven the consistent decline in the use of ivory products over the
last 20-30 years. China is thought to require a similar approach, with
sustained social campaigns slowly reducing the valuation of ivory over
decades. This is to slow in terms of the elephant impacts we are
witnessing now, but is important to sustain any immediate gains we make
for the long term.
Question. Dr. Wittemyer what do you think is the best case scenario
for the remaining elephants? If the poaching were curbed today, what
would it take to restore the elephant populations to healthy levels?
Answer. If the poaching were curbed today, elephant populations
will begin to rebound. We are already seeing this where we are having
successes on the ground. In addition, the 1990-2000s demonstrated that
given time and space, the elephants come back (e.g., doubling in Kenya
over this time). And, given stability, tourism and other use models
will develop to harness benefits from wildlife. However, this will
depend on the will of the governments and communities in those areas.
Lessons from the past suggest that with the shooting out of elephants
and loss of potential wildlife revenue streams in areas, land uses in
those places will shift to other economic activities. This will result
in the permanent loss of current elephant range. The killing of
elephants in the 1970-1980s likely resulted in range losses of 8 50
percent. We will likely see that again, particularly given
technological advances that enable agriculture in arid lands that were
once thought only suitable for wildlife and livestock. Areas targeted
for novel economic uses will likely never recover to their former
wildlife oriented land uses and population densities. It is critical
development projects (including those from USAID) work to protect
wilderness areas, even where it takes time for elephant numbers to
rebound.
[all]