Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:18 pm
Time: 12:18 pm
Results for wildlife crimes (africa)
4 results foundAuthor: Latour, Stephanie Title: Elephant Meat Trade in Central Africa: Democratic Republic of Congo Case Study Summary: Wild game meat, or ‘bushmeat’, has been the most important source of protein in the Congo Basin forests of Central Africa for millennia (Wilkie & Carpenter, 1999; Bakarr, et al., 2001). Human population density was very low over most of this long period, but over the last century population growth has been rapidly increasing with the introduction of modern health care and better nutrition (Bennett, 2008). Roads are penetrating previously inaccessible forests to prospect for oil and minerals or to log for timber (Wilkie, et al., 2000; Laurance, et al., 2006). These new roads and economic activities attract farmers and hunters. Agricultural interventions such as cocoa, coffee and oil palm plantations in the name of economic development degrade the forest and attract even more people (World Bank, 2011). Hunting methods have changed radically over the past few decades with the introduction and spread of military weapons, dramatically increasing bushmeat offtake (Barnes, 2002; Fa & Brown, 2009). All of these factors impact negatively on biodiversity in general and on mammals in particular (Nasi, et al., 2008). Central Africa presents a radically and rapidly changing dynamic for elephants. Range fragmentation is pushed by human population growth and by the expansion of extractive activities into remaining wilderness areas. Associated corruption and disregard of established laws by government officials and the populace contribute to the uncontrolled exploitation of natural resources. In addition, persistent conflict in the region and subsequent spread of arms, facilitate the killing of elephants and the marketing of their products. A growing body of evidence indicates that Africa is facing a dangerous resurgence in illegal elephant killing following a relative lull of over a decade since 1990 with the commencement of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) international trade in ivory moratorium. News reports, announcements by Interpol and TRAFFIC, amongst others, report increasing numbers of ivory seizures, including some of the largest ever recorded. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) was implicated in more ivory seizures between 1989 and 2009 than any other country in Africa. There is also evidence to suggest that the DRC is the source of some of the ivory found in large consignments destined for Asian markets through Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania (Milliken, et al., 2009). News reports to date have focused almost exclusively on the illegal trade in ivory, implying that this is the primary economic driver. An unacknowledged issue is the trade in elephant bushmeat. Elephant bushmeat is potentially a major economic bonus, and available to actors who may have little access to the proceeds from ivory. In addition, the consumption and trade of elephant meat may reflect underlying human-elephant conflict, with retaliatory killings or ‘authorized’ culls being a source of meat. In many Central African countries, exaggerated claims of elephant crop raiding are used as a pretext for state sanctioned killing and distribution of meat. Permissions for the killings, and the meat windfall, are used by local politicians to gain popular support (John Hart, in litt., 2010). Wildlife laws in Central Africa permit the harvesting of administratively culled elephants. While elephant meat may be a by-product of the ivory trade, it could also be a primary driver of elephant deaths in certain localities and of particular concern for conservation, given that elephants with small or no tusks can be targeted. While ivory networks target large tusk accumulations intended for export, and thus focus on the last remaining subpopulation concentrations – usually in protected areas – elephant bushmeat can be attractive and even profitable when the number of elephants to be killed are far fewer, and the value of the acquired ivory is almost negligible. An initial assessment of the existing Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species - Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (CITES-MIKE) programme’s carcass database, pertaining to information collected between 2001 and 2009, indicates that the demand for elephant meat, especially in the Central African subregion, may be an important factor underlying the illegal killing of elephants (CITES, 2010). The dynamics, scale and impact of the trade in elephant meat are not well understood and more information is required, both to improve the information in MIKE and the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) and to assist with the development of appropriate policy and management strategies. The IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group (AfESG) has been charged by MIKE with implementing a Introduction 13 project to investigate the linkages between the elephant meat trade and larger social and economic dynamics at play, including, but not limited to, ivory trade, logging (legal and illegal), mining, infrastructure development, global economic trends, law enforcement at the national and international level, and community forest governance. The project was carried out in four Central African countries. This report presents an account of the results of the DRC case study, which focuses on the Okapi Faunal Reserve as an example of an elephant poaching and product trafficking site. Objectives of the study The objective of the study is to enhance knowledge of contemporary elephant bushmeat market dynamics, patterns and trends in north-eastern DRC and determine the impact of elephant meat trade on the Okapi Faunal Reserve (OFR) population. Within this overall objective the study aims to collect information on: 1. who is involved in killing elephants for meat and ivory respectively; 2. the methods and work effort of those involved; 3. the transport methods and routes used for trafficking meat and ivory; 4. the final destination of meat and ivory and identification of the consumers; 5. the commodity chain of meat and ivory respectively and the social networks involved; 6. the economics of the trade: prices, quantities, frequency, etc.; 7. the quantities of meat and ivory that are obtained annually from OFR; 8. attitudes and motivation related to killing elephants of those involved in the trade: the hunters, transporters/ middlemen, vendors and consumers; 9. the relationship and functioning of elephant meat trade within the broader context of bushmeat trade in general; 10. the influence of external factors on the killing of elephants and trade in their products, for example, logging (legal and illegal); mining; infrastructure development; law enforcement at the national and international level; community forest governance; and economic trends that affect demand. Details: Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2011. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 3, 2012 at: http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/SSC-OP-045-003.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Africa URL: http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/SSC-OP-045-003.pdf Shelf Number: 125461 Keywords: BushmeatElephantsIvoryPoachingWildlife Crimes (Africa) |
Author: Blake, Stephen: Wildlife Conservation Society Title: Central african Forests: Final Report on Population Surveys (2003-2004) Summary: In 1997, at the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Conv ention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Parties resolved to establish a monitoring system across the entire range of the African and Asian elephants [Resolution Conf. 10.10]. It was intended that this system would facilitate decision -making by the Parties regarding the protected status of elephants. This was also the first attempt to provide a systematic and detailed assessment of the impact of the Parties’ decisions to allow, restrict, or suspend trade in a particular species (and/or its parts and derivatives). The monitoring system, now known by its acronym MIKE (Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants), was endorsed at the 41 st meeting of the CITES Standing Committee in February 1999, and between 1999 and 2001 a Pilot Program, funded by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Wildlife Conservation Society was implemented in central Africa to assess the feasibility of full scale implementation of the program in forest ecosystems (Beyers et al. 2001). During implementation of the pilot program and in the light of some lessons already being learned, the goals and structure of the MIKE program was discussed again at the 11th meeting of the Conference of the Parties in 2000, which led to a revision of Resolution Conf. 10.10, and the objectives previously agreed were broadened to include ‘establishing an information base to support the making of decisions on appropriate management, protection and enforcement needs’ and ‘building capacity in range States’. The MIKE program currently has the following aim: ‘To provide information needed for elephant range States to make appropriate management and enforcement decisions, and to build institutional capacity within the range States for the lo ng-term management of their elephant populations.’ More specific objectives within this aim are: (1) ‘To measure levels and trends in the illegal hunting of elephants’, (2) ‘To determine changes in these trends over time’, and (3) ‘To determine the factors causing such changes and to assess to what extent observed trends are related to CITES changes in listings or ivory trade resumptions’ (www.cites.org/eng/prog/MIKE). The MIKE program plans to achieve these objective through a site-based system of collecting data on elephant population trends, the incidence and patterns of illegal killing, and the effort and resources employed in detecting and preventing illegal hunting and trade. The MIKE program is also charged with developing and using a standardized methodology for data collection and analysis. The pilot project, which focussed on three sites, the Lope Ituri, and Odzala protected areas in Gabon, Congo Brazzaville, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) demonstrated that implementation of MIKE in forests was indeed feasible, and a fullscale program involving 55 sites across Africa was initiated thereafter. The plan is to repeat surveys in each site every 2–3 years. Within the range of forest elephants in central Africa 11 sites were chosen, each based around a protected area. This document reports on progress made toward achieving forest elephant population surveys during 2003-2004 at six MIKE sites in five nations within the range of forest elephants in central Africa (Figure 2). Sites included were Salonga, Bangassou, Dzanga - Sangha, Nouabalé -Ndoki, Boumba Bek, and Minkebe. An elephant inventory was also planned for Mont Alen in Equatorial Guinea, though for funding reasons this site was eventually excluded. Details: Washington, DC: Wildlife Conservation Society, 2005. 122p. Source: Internet Resource: Long Term System for Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE): Accessed March 25, 2013 at: http://www.cites.org/common/prog/mike/survey/central_africa_survey03-04.pdf Year: 2005 Country: Africa URL: http://www.cites.org/common/prog/mike/survey/central_africa_survey03-04.pdf Shelf Number: 128125 Keywords: Animal PoachingElephantsIvoryWildlife ConservationWildlife Crimes (Africa)Wildlife Management |
Author: Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center Title: Wildlife Trafficking and Poaching Summary: This report describes the regulatory framework relating to wildlife trafficking and poaching in seven African jurisdictions: Botswana, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa, and Tanzania. Included in the report are discussions of laws that criminalize poaching and trafficking in wildlife, the penalties imposed for such crimes, and the state institutions tasked with enforcing the laws. The executive summaries for the individual countries contained in the report are provided below. Botswana Botswana has a robust regulatory regime governing the conservation and management of its wildlife. This regime bans poaching as well as trade in animals, trophies, meat, and articles made out of trophies without the proper permits or in violation of the terms of a license or permit. Violation of any of the applicable laws entails various forms of penalties including fines, prison terms, forfeiture of tools used in the commission of a crime as well as the fruits of the crime, and revocation of licenses. Offenses involving certain vulnerable animals and recidivism result in greater penalties. Central African Republic The Central African Republic (CAR) possesses an extensive and well-developed legislative framework for the protection of wildlife, particularly pertaining to elephants and ivory products. Hunting activities are permitted under certain circumstances in certain areas of the country with prior authorization from the central government. Penalties range from fines to imprisonment, and enforcement is entrusted to a number of different government agencies. Democratic Republic of the Congo The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has in place a comprehensive legislative framework that criminalizes poaching; dealing in illegal trophies; and importing, exporting, and transferring trophies in violation of substantive and procedural legal requirements. The framework includes penalties for the violation of these provisions, consisting of fines, prison terms, and forfeiture of the instruments and effects used in the course of committing the crimes. Several government agencies share enforcement powers and, in some cases, citizens’ organizations are permitted to collaborate with government agencies in the performance of their enforcement duties. Kenya Kenya has in place a comprehensive legislative framework that criminalizes not only wildlife poaching but also importing, exporting, dealing in, and transferring illegal animal trophies. Penalties for violations of the substantive laws and required legal procedures consist of fines, prison terms, and forfeiture of tools used in committing a crime, as well as the fruits of the crime themselves. While certain aspects of enforcing the substantive laws are shared across several government institutions, it is the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), an institution with full prosecutorial powers, that bears the primary responsibility for wildlife law enforcement. Mozambique Specific laws regulate hunting in Mozambique. Those laws permit hunting in determined areas, require hunters to obtain a license, and protect some animals. Violations of the regulations are punishable with a fine and compensatory measures aimed at repairing the damage caused. The Penal Code punishes with three days in prison and a fine a person who hunts in areas where hunting is not permitted, uses prohibited means, or enters into areas for the purpose of hunting without the consent of the owner. Wildlife trafficking, however, is not criminalized. Storage or transportation of, or trade in, forest and wildlife resources requires an authorization and must follow the conditions established by law. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development is responsible for the administration, management, and monitoring of activities involving the use of forest and wildlife resources and their ecosystems in the national territory. South Africa Pursuant to the South African Constitution, legislative jurisdiction regarding the conservation and management of wildlife in South Africa is a concurrent function of the national and provincial governments. The applicable national legislation, the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) prohibits certain activities defined as “restricted activities,” including hunting, selling, transferring, importing, or exporting any threatened or protected animals without a permit. In addition, it imposes further restrictions with regard to particularly vulnerable animals, including absolute bans on hunting and certain hunting methods. Enforcement of the NEMBA and its subsidiary legislation is primarily the function of the Environmental Management Inspectorate, an organization made up of a network of national, provincial, and municipal government officials. The inspectorate enjoys wide-ranging authority, including inspection, search and seizure, and arrest powers. The South African Police Service (SAPS) also performs some key enforcement functions. Tanzania Tanzania has a highly fragmented national wildlife management and conservation regulatory regime in which three different laws control poaching: the Wildlife Conservation Act (WCA), the National Parks Act (NPA), and the Forest Resources Management and Conservation Act (FRMCA). All three criminalize poaching and prescribe an assortment of penalties for poaching-related offenses, which are by and large tied to the types of animals involved in the offending. With regard to the issue of trafficking, the WCA appears to be the sole controlling legislation. The enforcement mechanisms for these laws are divided across several organizations that cover specific areas of the country. These include the Wildlife Authority, the Forest Authority (Zanzibar), and the Board of Trustees of the Tanzania National Parks. While all three have sweeping search, seizure, and arrest authority, only the latter two enjoy prosecutorial powers. Details: Washington, DC: Law Library of Congress, 2013. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2013 at: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/wildlife-poaching.php/wildlife_trafficking_and_poaching-2013-008667.PDF Year: 2013 Country: Africa URL: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/wildlife-poaching.php/wildlife_trafficking_and_poaching-2013-008667.PDF Shelf Number: 128681 Keywords: Animal PoachingWildlife Crimes (Africa)Wildlife Trafficking |
Author: iworry Title: Dead or Alive? Valuing an Elephant Summary: New ground-breaking report reveals how the loss of Africa's elephants threatens Africa's economies - and travel companies offering a chance to see the species - and highlights the need for global action. The analysis, conducted through our iworry campaign, compared the value of elephants to local economies to profits netted through the illegal ivory trade. Between January and August 2014, researchers tallied approximately 17.8 metric tons of ivory seized worldwide, harvested from 1,940 poached elephants. Most of these seizures occurred in Kenya, Gabon, China, and Vietnam, countries identified by CITES as doing relatively little to stem the tide of black-market ivory. We estimate the raw-ivory value of a poached elephant to be $21,000. In contrast, a living elephant is worth more than $1.6 million over its lifetime, largely because of its eco-tourism draw. The report lists travel companies, airlines, and local economies as benefiting from this largess of the world's largest land mammal, whereas the ivory trade may fund criminal and terrorist groups. Details: Nairobi, Kenya: David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, 2014. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 30, 2014 at: http://iworry.org/elephants-worth-much-alive-dead/ Year: 2014 Country: Africa URL: http://iworry.org/elephants-worth-much-alive-dead/ Shelf Number: 133839 Keywords: Animal PoachingElephantsIllegal Ivory TradeIvoryWildlife Crimes (Africa) |