ENFORCEMENT OF THE IVORY TRADE BAN - A ONE YEAR ASSESSMENT (W/ATTACHMENTS)

Created: 1/18/1991

OCR scan of the original document, errors are possible

c51

MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert A. instein

Deputy Assistant Secretary 'or ir.vironr.ent

Health,ational Resources Department cf State

1. The attached report assesses worldwiderceaent of the ivory trade ban, which went into effect on Parties to the ban are divided intoategories: importers, exporters, and entrepot nations. Their enforcement record is nixed so far, and najor challenges lie ahead, especially if the Convention cn International Trade in Endangered Species returns to sose form of regulated ivory trade. efaaTJHbaV

Attachment:

3

4 ocx

CONFIDENTIAL-

DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE0

of tha Ivory Tradene Year Assessment

summary

Sn^orceaent of the vorldvide-Jpan on the ivory trade, established in0 by che Dtl's Convention on International Trade in Endangered Speciesas been mixed:

o Traditional importersood

enforcement record. The majorJapan and Westernbeen largely closed because of strict custoas controls and strong public sentiment to

o Host African countries that traditionally exported ivory are struggling to comply with CITES through improved enforcement of anti-poaching regulations. These countries are soliciting foreign funds for vildlife protection, authorizing anti-

and Teehnoloe

This memorandum was prepared by' Resource: Division^ are welcone

3

BY:

DERV FW: MULTIPLE

poaching sguads to shoot poachers on sight, toughening their line against corruption, and increasing regional cooperation, nevertheless, they face difficult challenges: insufficient long-term funding, poor investigative skills, and problems with multilateral cooperation, especially in the porous five-country southern African Customs Union, we judge that their success sois limited zo small-scale

MHLmHBIL^

more the result of low black market ivory prices that reduce the incentive to poach then of anti-poaching efforts.

is weak on the part of those countries that traditionally imported raw African ivory, carved it, and exported it to consuming countries^ entrepot countriei have been linked tt

although not as much as before the ban. These countries, for the most part, have not committed the customs manpower needed to stop ivory from moving in and out of their ports.

enforcement could face greater, challenges in the next few

1 Tne ivory black market dates back to the establishment of CITESs traders often found it easier to snuggle ivory than to concern themselves with CITES paperwork and cpaota regulations.

con: :

confxd;

Kg"k.s

ecade which saw African elephant populations plummet froaillion, the international community coved toward an ivory trading ban. The United States and several West European countries adopted an ivory-import ban in June. ew months later, the UN's long-standing Convention on Internationalndangered Species (CITES) declared the African elephant ar endangered species and banned all international trade in ivory and other elephant products, effective Most traditional ivory-trading nations areITES, whichembers altogether. Iapcrtant exceptions are South Korea and North Korea, which have net ratified CITES, and Taiwan, which is ineligible to join. Host Middle Eastern countries are not parties to the agreement, but their purchases have traditionally been snail.

Most parties to CITES are required to enforce an outright ban on ivory trade,ew are allowed to continue regulated trade. Botswana, China, Malawi, South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and the United Kingdom (on behalf of Hong Kong)eservation to the ban, an action that permits them to continue trade with non-CITES members as long as they maintain statistical records. If they choose to legally export ivory to other CITES members, countrieseservation must request approvalix-membe Panel of Experts set up by CITES The panel would taJce into-account the status of the country's elephant population, the country's ability to manage and conserve that population, and its ability to control ivory trade.

compliance; ope Year Later

Compliance among parties to the ivory trade ban EnforceDent on the part ofpangenerallyHH^BHIhMae1

African exporting countries are still struggling to eompTy in the face of resource shortages and aajor challenges frorsrs. Various press JO

icate that entrepotthe least

committed to enforcement.

The UKix-month reservation period fortine for Hong Kong to sell its stockpiledreservations are open-ended. 4|

A key factor affectingth the ban is

* press indicaterice illegal Ivory has decreased by as such asercent since the ban vent into effect. plummetingresult of would-be buyers becozing aware of the elephant'spivotal ir. the ability cf African countries to comply with the accord. With poached ivory selling for only Si to S5 per kilogram in Africa,

officials say there is less economic motivation to poach.

Zrperters

In Japan, which bought nearlyercent of the world's legal ivory before the ban, enforcement centersigorous customs effort to intercept shipments. Customs officials sei2ed six large illegal ivory shipments last year, including two shipments from Kong Kong worth more than S2 million each, according to press. Moreover, the government has actively encouraged compliance" by making low-interest loans available to ivory carvers put out of work by the bar.. :aaBJHHfc

In Europe, where anotheroercent of legal ivory trading took place in, customs inspections and ivory inventory requirements are used to enforce the ban, although more vigorously in some countries than others.nce the leading ivory entrepot for Europe, nowandatory inventory of ivory stocks to reinforce

Africansupporters of the CITES ban as well as those that took reservations to for the most part, in compliance with the accord. In the view

officials, African exports are small-scale smuggling, and even countries that took reservations are not exporting ivory becauseack of buyers. Nearly all exporting countries appear to beood faith effcrt to put an end to poaching, which has declined markedly since the ban went into effect. Cameroon, Ethiopia, Cabon, and the Central African Republic have-

CONFlD*TlAJ

registered declines; Benin and Zimbabwe have onlyalmost

its elephant population Wopercent during, lestlephants to poachers during the first two ecnths of the CITES ban, but losses have since decreased to two or three per month* Mozambique and Sudan have been Jess effective, mainly because of civil war.

squads; regional cooperation-

Traditional ivory exporters use several strategies to stem poaching and promote compliance vith CITES. These include: solicitation of foreign funds fcr improved park ranger training and equipment; shoot-to-kill authority for

a tougher iine against corruption; and

Sglicitat^op, Of Foreign Funds, Nearly every country receives funding and other assistance free foreign governments or non-government organizationsnd such assistance has generally increased sinceunding has been greatest for Zaire and Kenya^ where the Department of Wildlife raised overillion forlephant-related projects in fiscal, pBMp

esult, Kenyan park rangers nowna Rovers as well as two helicopterumber of surveillance aircraft, automatic rifles, radio equipment, and uniforms; before the fund-raising drive they

had none of these items-

Shoot-To-Kill Order* For Anti-Poachinc Teams. SeveralNamibia, Senegal, Zambia, 2imbabwe, and Southauthorized park rangers and anti-poaching squads to shoot poachers on sight. South Africa attributes its success in protecting elephants to this policy, accordingN publication. Kenyan rangers have shot and killedoachersore than in any other country.

? elephant-ion (ACC) Unit to leadsrganise arely done steps have

A Toucher Line Against Corruption. Kenya fired hundreds of its Wildlifeinvolvement in ivory poaching, and Southnearlyercent ofof corruption

a extendedpowers to the Anti-Corruption Commiss and in0 created the Species Protection investigate commercial poaching. The unit uses poachers and villagers to pursue thevory somethinghave r

past,

parkedlv improved law enforcement effectiveness:

r^i. W* have see-fhar:

Easbiar- anti-peaching persennalv ir. const contact with their counterparts in Zimbabwe afte

> IC

Zamiisr.s. Lusaka is alsovcrwithr

Since lateasark rangers to South Africa fcr anti-pcachinc training, ths first sub-5aharan African country to do sc.

= S Fish and wildlife Service-sponsored Elephant Protection Workshop attracted representatives frzmountries last August. The delegates agreed tcnumber cf proposals, including the use oftask forces along herders and the establishmentegional data collection center.

Despite these efforts,

challenges, and, without the decline inrices, ve believe they would net be having as much against poachers and smugglers- In many countries, rangers still travel by foot,cniy with col -crldifles. ?ccr investigative sXii; corruption efforts, investigators often set' arresting only tne poachers without following the organizers who fund end arm the ocachers and the smugglers

on

net basis

with little sharing cf"intelligence ondentification cf known poachers. Host cocoeratic continues to he deneilateral cr ai

rna^ very

succ

perk

-

4tes

Tbare ara tvc basic types of poachers: rcups--cf tsr. guerrillas orindigent

"-'idescr^ad civil in Africa has left a

inlane everleaded vitn ivory crashed after takeoff from UNITA's headquarters at Janba, according to press.udan have also experienced poaching by-guerrillas, although not tc the same extent.

They hunt alone, usua.

ar.ti-poaching squads. According to sooei

officials, the number of elephants they kill hasroportion of poached elephants overall since the bar.nto effect. The apparent reason for this is that individual poachers still hunt despite lover ivory prices, while organised poachers are increasingly coving into ether, aora profitable, illegal activities.

c/nass ts challenge lens-established Ivory carvingarests. aTflLafB

Vcrlsvice ccrniiar.ee -ith tha ban has crar.lv diminished the entresct

oi CITES ivory rules willxz few years.

ITIS Oe-sralarer.c- in KirchbencuBT-riai. including Scuth Africsinbebwe. tr*

r=vai tc export ivsry tc-nter str.trilled cirsunsta-css. rass-re sr. these Afsu-trles

ouldreasing bilateral and multilateral

ering, tighter tcrder centrals, graeme.it s, and careful ivoryhe second Elephant Precaetion etfuled fcrn

south African seisr.tists cay haveothsd vory through its chamical makeup, y

that iy examining ihe levels cstror.tiua,s -cssiela teha gsr.ersl region,eszed- To he prscrical. tho method

Tiiiolications For--viror.Benta 1 Agreements

The CITES ivory ban has lessons for other agreements involving trade in endangered species or hazardous or tanned substances. ar the mcst important factor fcr success has been the staunch enforcement on the part of traditional importing countries. The resulting slide in ivory prices has weakened incentives to export and has helped compensate for lax enforcement in exporting and entrepot countries. Effective enforcement in importing countries depends upcn three major criteria that say also be used to assess prospects for compliance vith other trade-related environmental accords:

o Allocation of sufficient customs personnel and other resources to the problem;

o Broad public support for the ban;

o Physical properties of the banned substance that make it difficult to hide for smuggling. aT^TlM

Estimated Africcn Elephant19

COUNTRY BY REGION WEST AFRICA

Ifl

Burkina "coo

Gncno

Guinea

K>ory Cocit Liberie Mcii

Mauritania

rOgerM

Senegal

SVrc

Toco

CENTRAL AFRICA

Cameroon

Centre! African Ro3.

Chad

Congo

Equatorial Gutnec

Gabon

Zaire

EASTERN AFRICA

Ethiopia "

Kenye

Rwanda

Somalia

Sudan

Tanzania

Ugandc

0

N/A

_

iVoiooo"

AFRICA

Ango'C

Malcwi

Mozambique Namibia SOllttl AfriCC

Jimbebwe

0

0

e.occ

0

"

O_

6_ip,ogg_

ato fromKov. one9romnlo CTTtS

Estimated African Elephant19

COUNTRY SYT AFRICA

Mclj

Niger

CENTRALSo

-

^*STERN

Ethiopia

ERK^

a* Totci

ata from9 dataaoort to CTTJS Conforonca.

Original document.

---

---