Ivory Trade

[Lisbeth]

Taking Stock: An assessment of progress under the National Ivory Action Plan process

By ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY - 10 SEPTEMBER 2018 - EIA REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The National Ivory Action Plan (NIAP) process is an important framework. It was developed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in response to the continuing elephant poaching crisis in Africa, the worst the continent has experienced since the 1970s and 1980s. If implemented effectively, the NIAP process can contribute significantly to a reduction in elephant poaching and
the illegal trade in ivory.

NIAP process

The NIAP process identifies the key CITES Parties with high levels of elephant poaching and ivory trafficking. It calls for these countries to develop and implement robust time-bound action plans to address country-specific concerns, with the ultimate goal of achieving positive impact on the ground. For example, impact can be measured
through progress made in reducing elephant poaching (resulting in stabilised or increased elephant populations) or improving legislation and enforcement actions (resulting in increased ivory seizures and successful prosecutions).

The NIAP process has prompted notable progress in some participating countries. For example, Kenya has strengthened national legislation and improved conviction rates. In 2015, Thailand took steps to regulate its domestic ivory market which, although falling well short of a ban, have measurably reduced illegal trade. In 2017,
China closed its domestic ivory market almost entirely. Meanwhile, Uganda has reported that participating in the NIAP process has been positive by encouraging key Government officials to recognise the importance of tackling illegal ivory trafficking as well as by giving the issue more public prominence across the country.

There have already been some welcome developments in the process, such as the production of templates for NIAPs and progress reports. The NIAP Guidelines adopted at the 17th CITES Conference of the Parties in 2016 (CoP17), 1 recognise the need for performance indicators and targets to demonstrate progress. They include data on elephant poaching levels, number of ivory seizures, successful prosecutions and any relevant indicators from the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC). The CITES Standing Committee (SC) has the ultimate decision making authority over who participates in, stays in or exits the NIAP process. Since the SC meets every year, this offers an opportunity for tracking progress, supporting implementation and securing strong country-specific decisions on a timely basis, rather than waiting for three years to secure action at a CITES CoP.

However, the NIAP process is in its infancy. As such, weaknesses are still being identified and there are opportunities for learning and making improvements. The NIAP Guidelines are an important step forward but they have not been fully implemented to date. One of the most significant concerns is that even though the NIAP Guidelines specifically encourage assessment of progress by independent experts, the process continues to rely on self-assessment progress reports submitted by Parties, without independent review. These progress reports may not fully reflect the key challenges being faced by the NIAP Party in question. There is a clear and pressing need for the mandatory use of independent experts in the assessment of progress against NIAP objectives.

Similarly, serious concerns have also been raised about the adequacy of certain NIAPs to address the problems they need to solve. Therefore, as well as being involved in the assessment of progress, it is important that independent experts participate in the development of the NIAP. Finally, independent experts should be involved in the ultimate assessment as to whether a country should exit the NIAP process. While the existing NIAP Guidelines do call for consultation with independent experts, necessary amendments to the NIAP Guidelines should be made at CoP18 to ensure that involvement of expert analysis becomes a standard part of the NIAP process and not an optional extra.

The underlying issues within a country may change during the period covered by a NIAP. If that happens, the SC should be able to work with the Party to revise its NIAP to address those changed circumstances, rather than wait for the end of the NIAP period to request the development of a new NIAP.

A significant concern about the NIAP process is that the focus is on tracking actions of NIAP Parties rather than on impact. Parties tend to focus on achieving a certain percentage of the NIAP objectives rather than assessing their actual impact in addressing the problems (for example, by demonstrating an increase in elephant populations or disruption of organised criminal networks involved in ivory trafficking). Once a certain percentage of the NIAP objectives has been achieved, the Party may argue that it should exit the process. That would be premature. Before the SC decides that any Party should exit the NIAP process, there should be an assessment period involving detailed input from independent experts to establish whether the actions taken have actually made any difference to the underlying problems. If not, the NIAP should be revised. For example, if a country has made legislative changes, it would be premature for that country to exit the NIAP process, without demonstrating the impact of the changes such as increased prosecutions and disruption of the organised criminal networks implicated in ivory trafficking.

Objective and methodology

This report is intended to support CITES decision-making in relation to the NIAP process in advance of the 70th meeting of the SC (SC70). The report recognises that progress is being made by highlighting examples of best practice. It also identifies challenges and sets out recommendations for the NIAP process and for individual NIAP Parties. The report uses publicly available information to assess progress by 19 key NIAP Parties. Some of the indicators used for the assessment overlap with the Indicator Framework for Wildlife and Forest Crime
developed by ICCWC. Our assessment does not include all of the ICCWC indicators because the information for
many of these is held and maintained solely by governments. We urge all Parties, whether in the NIAP process or
not, to employ the ICCWC indicators to evaluate the impact of their responses to wildlife crime.

Key findings

While significant progress has been made by some NIAP Parties, there remain key gaps that continue to pose a challenge for effectively reducing elephant poaching and ivory trafficking. Common challenges for the majority of the 19 NIAP Parties assessed in this report include:

• lack of the full range of legislation for tackling ivory trafficking as an organised crime
• lack of a strong and coordinated criminal justice response to organised poaching and ivory trafficking (resulting in low levels of arrests, prosecutions and convictions, as well as inadequate sentences)
• poor ivory stockpile management (at least 10 of the NIAP Parties assessed had stockpiled ivory leaking into the
illegal trade)
• lack of reporting to facilitate CITES decision-making (e.g. reports to ETIS)
• failure to address corruption which enables wildlife trafficking
• inadequate international cooperation, including among NIAP Parties themselves
• lack of capacity
• lack of use of financial investigation techniques
• lack of use of forensic evidence to secure convictions
• lack of centralised wildlife crime database.

Other than the NIAPs of Congo, Uganda and Gabon, the NIAPs of the Parties assessed in this report do not make
commitments to tackle corruption. While several NIAPs refer to key indicators to demonstrate progress, very few NIAP progress reports are actually using these indicators – for example, they do not include information on arrests and prosecutions to demonstrate progress in tackling ivory trafficking.

The NIAP process offers a critical opportunity for world governments to take stock of the problems that have led to the ongoing elephant poaching crisis and to tackle these concerns in an effective way. To achieve that objective, this report demonstrates that there are a number of concrete actions that should be implemented urgently.

Read full report: https://eia-international.org/wp-conten ... P-2018.pdf

[Richprins]

Cambodia seizes record 3,000kg haul of African ivory

Sunday 16 December 2018 - 11:08am
Cambodian Customs and Excise Officials looking at ivory seized from a shipping container at the Phnom Penh port.



PHNOM PENH - Cambodia seized more than 3,200kg of elephant tusks hidden in a storage container sent from Mozambique, a customs official said on Sunday, marking the country's largest ivory bust.

The discovery Thursday of 1,026 tusks at the Phnom Penh Autonomous Port followed a tip from the US embassy, the official said, and highlights Cambodia's emergence as a key regional transit point for the multibillion-dollar trade in illicit wildlife.

"The elephant tusks were hidden among marble in a container that was abandoned," Sun Chhay, director of the Customs and Excise Office at the port, told AFP.

He said the ivory was sent from the southern African nation of Mozambique and arrived at the port last year.

The unidentified owner of the shipment did not arrive to pick up the cargo.

Pictures of the massive haul showed long rows of confiscated tusks spread out on the ground at the port.

Sun Chhay said he did not know whether the shipment was destined for markets in other countries.

Demand from China and Vietnam has fuelled the growth of illegal wildlife trafficking via Cambodia.

Weak law enforcement and corruption attract wildlife smugglers, especially at a time when neighbouring Thailand is cracking down on the banned trade.

Ivory is prized for its beauty while the market in traditional medicine has led to the smuggling of rhino horn and pangolin scales.

Cambodia has a miniscule elephant population but its emergence as a new trafficking hub has resulted in several headline-grabbing busts over the past five years.

The largest before this week occurred in 2014, when Cambodian customs seized about three tonnes of ivory hidden in a container of beans at the southwestern port of Sihanoukville.

Last year, Cambodia also seized nearly a tonne of ivory hidden in hollowed-out logs discovered inside an abandoned container, owned by a company based in Mozambique.

https://www.enca.com/news/cambodia-seiz ... ican-ivory

[Flutterby]

How many elephants were killed for all this ivory??

[Lisbeth]

I was just trying to put them in a row

At least they have grabbed the ivory and no one is going to get rich on the death of so many wonderful animals.

[Richprins]

The number of tiny tusks is very disturbing...

[Lisbeth]

For in bulk poachers anything goes

[Lisbeth]

Dutch to ban raw ivory sales from 2019

2018-12-18 13:12 - AFP

The Netherlands said on Monday it will ban all raw ivory sales from next year, as it unveiled the results of a major operation to combat trafficking in endangered animals and plants.

Currently Dutch law permits the sale of raw ivory such as elephant tusks with an EU certificate, provided it entered the country between 1947 and 1990.

"From March 1, 2019... the sale of raw ivory from and in The Netherlands will no longer be possible," Dutch Agriculture and Nature Affairs Minister Carola Schouten said.

"This measure comes because with raw ivory it's very hard to tell the old from the new," Schouten said in a letter to parliament.

Illegal ivory trade seen booming in the EU

In spite of a ban, illegal ivory trading is still flourishing in the European Union, as traders use a loophole allowing for the exchange of antique pieces.

The old rule came into force shortly after international trade in ivory was banned in 1989 by CITES, the global conference that governs wildlife trade.

Ivory imported into the country before 1947 needed no such certificate, the NOS public broadcaster said.

'Undercutting illegal practices'

"But recently acquired ivory is often 'aged', for instance by using tea leaves and sold on (Dutch online classified advertising site) Marktplaats," it added.

By banning all sales of raw ivory, "we are undercutting illegal practices", Schouten said.

The minister also unveiled the results of a two-month operation by police, customs and food watchdog officials aimed at intercepting endangered species brought into the country illegally.

"Operation Toucan" from September to November saw officials seize thousands of cacti from Panama and Peru without proper import papers as well as a range of exotic animals.

This included six boa constrictors, sent by mail from the United States, a pencilled marmoset and a capuchin monkey which were kept as pets and two dead toucans sent from Uruguay, the minister said.

Dutch police and inspectors also confiscated 7kg of ivory at a collectors' fair in the central city of Utrecht.

CITES said last year elephant poaching was declining in Africa but that seizures of illegal ivory were hitting record highs.

In 2016 some 40 tonnes of illegal ivory were seized, the most since 1989, as well as the highest number of "large-scale ivory seizures", the group said.

[Lisbeth]

Africa is divided over ivory trade ahead of wildlife meeting

2019-01-07 06:37 - AP

Several African countries with some of the largest elephant populations are calling for looser controls on legal ivory trade, while another group of countries on the continent say tighter controls are the best way to curb the illegal killing of elephants for their tusks.

The dueling proposals were released by the office of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES. They will be discussed when member countries of CITES meet May 23-June 3 in Sri Lanka.

Colman O'Criodain of the WWF conservation group says there "isn't really any appetite" in the international community for relaxing ivory trade restrictions.

O'Criodain said Saturday that CITES members should focus on how to disrupt ivory traffickers and not engage in "sterile debates" at the Colombo meeting.

[Dindingwe]

Interesting.

Elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe are already listed in annex II of CITES (that means that trade is authorised under certain conditions). Elephant populations elsewhere in Africa are listed in annex I (that means that trade is forbidden).

So why do these countries want to loosen even more the controls over trade in ivory ?

Fortunately, some other countries (especially Kenya) oppose and even want all populations of African Elephant be listed in annex I, whatever the country they live in, " in order to offer maximum protection under CITES in the face of the ongoing threat posed by the unsustainable demand from the ivory trade, the uncertainty of the impact of that trade on the species across its range, and the enforcement problems that current split-listing may create".

Here are the full documents :
Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe proposal :https://cites.org/sites/default/files/e ... ation2.pdf
Kenya and other's proposal : https://cites.org/sites/default/files/e ... isting.pdf

[Flutterby]

In my opinion it all comes down to money!! Looser controls - more trade - more money!!