[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
POACHING AMERICAN
SECURITY: IMPACTS OF
ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-62
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-050 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Chris Cannon, Utah
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Jeff Flake, Arizona
Islands Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Grace F. Napolitano, California Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Jim Costa, California Louie Gohmert, Texas
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Tom Cole, Oklahoma
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Rob Bishop, Utah
George Miller, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Bill Sali, Idaho
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Christopher N. Fluhr, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, March 5, 2008......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Kildee, Hon. Dale, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 3
Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from
the State of West Virginia................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska, Prepared statement of........................... 21
Statement of Witnesses:
Clark, William, Illegal Wildlife Trade Expert................ 77
Prepared statement of.................................... 78
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 87
Galster, Steven R., Director of Field Operations, Wildlife
Alliance, Southeast Asia................................... 63
Prepared statement of.................................... 65
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 68
Hart, John A., Scientific Director, The Tshuapa-Lomami-
Lualaba Project, Democratic Republic of Congo.............. 70
Prepared statement of.................................... 71
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 74
McMurray, Hon. Claudia A., Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Oceans, Environment and Science, U.S. Department of State.. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Moritz, Dr. William E., Director of Conservation, Safari Club
International Foundation, and Acting Director of
Governmental Affairs, Safari Club International............ 95
Prepared statement of.................................... 97
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 99
Perez, Benito A., Chief, Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior...... 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 42
Pueschel, Peter, Illegal Wildlife Trade Program Director,
International Fund for Animal Welfare, Germany............. 101
Prepared statement of.................................... 102
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 113
Sellar, John M., Senior Officer, Anti-Smuggling, Fraud and
Organized Crime, Secretariat of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES), Geneva, Switzerland......................... 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 33
Additional materials supplied:
Jenkins, Peter T., Director of International Conservation,
Defenders of Wildlife, Statement submitted for the record.. 123
OVERSIGHT HEARING ENTITLED ``POACHING AMERICAN SECURITY: IMPACTS OF
ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE''
----------
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m. in Room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Nick J. Rahall II
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rahall, Kildee, Wittman, Saxton,
Gilchrest, Bordallo, Brown and Inslee.
STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE NICK J. RAHALL, II, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. The Committee on Natural Resources will come
to order.
The Committee is meeting today to receive testimony on a
disturbingly real and growing challenge: The illegal trade of
wildlife and the role it may play in financing and fostering
dangerous, violent elements around the globe, including those
engaged in terrorism.
For many years, illegal weapons and illegal drugs have been
the commodities of choice to some of the globe's most brazen
underworld figures, even spawning the term ``narco-terrorism.''
Yet the illegal wildlife trade, which has received considerably
less public attention, is an increasing concern and may be on
the rise.
As a result, illegal wildlife trafficking poses a risk not
just to the survival of God's creatures, but also to the safety
and stability of our world and the American people. This then
is the wildlife version of blood diamonds.
I felt this was an important topic for investigation by
this committee. In preparation for the hearing, the
Congressional Research Service, at my request, has examined the
threats that the international illegal trade in wildlife poses
today. That report is eye-opening, both in what it has
uncovered and in what it was not able to thoroughly discern.
For example, CRS found that wildlife trade now ranks in the
upper tier of the world's most lucrative illicit economies,
behind only illegal drugs and possibly human trafficking and
arms trafficking. CRS also found that many of the same criminal
entities that deal in arms and drugs, including organized
criminals, are hawking wildlife as well.
It discovered that poachers are becoming increasingly
sophisticated, often using the same tactics and the same
complex, secretive distribution networks frequented by sinister
criminal organizations. And CRS notes that pricey endangered
wildlife often serves as a type of untraceable currency in the
underworld money laundering system.
Particularly disconcerting is the anecdotal evidence
linking terrorist activity to illegal wildlife trade. Given
that the industry thrives in many countries also vulnerable to
fostering terrorism--those with a weak capacity to govern, poor
law enforcement, high government corruption and porous
borders--these situations deserve sober consideration.
Unfortunately, due to the clandestine nature of illegal
trafficking in wildlife, it is exceedingly difficult to know
the breadth of this sinister trade or the extent to which it
may be supporting terrorist organizations.
But that fact in and of itself and the dense
interconnections among numerous dark world activities are
enough to convince me that this committee, the Congress as a
whole, and the rest of the U.S. Government ought to be taking a
close look at the lucrative illegal wildlife trade and the role
that rare and endangered species may be playing in underwriting
those groups that wish to do our nation harm.
Today's hearing is a jumping off point. Here we seek to
gain enlightenment about the menace of illegal wildlife trade
in today's reality, and we hope to receive advice about how we
might better address it.
With that, I want to thank our witnesses for being with us,
particularly those who have traveled great distances to join
us, and I look forward to their testimony.
Let me recognize the gentleman from Michigan before
recognizing the panel.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Rahall follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources
The Committee is meeting today to receive testimony on a
disturbingly real and growing challenge the illegal trade of wildlife
and the role it may be playing in financing and fostering dangerous,
violent elements around the globe including those engaged in terrorism.
For many years, illegal weapons and illegal drugs have been the
commodities of choice to some of the globe's most brazen underworld
figures, even spawning the term ``narco-terrorism.''
Yet the illegal wildlife trade, which has received considerably
less public attention, is an increasing concern and may be on the rise.
As a result, illegal wildlife trafficking poses a risk, not just to the
survival of God's creatures but also to the safety and stability of our
world and the American people.
This, then, is the wildlife version of blood diamonds.
I felt this was an important topic for investigation by this
Committee. In preparation for this hearing, the Congressional Research
Service at my request has examined the threats that the international
illegal trade in wildlife pose today. That report is eye-opening, both
in what it has uncovered and in what it was not able to thoroughly
discern.
For example, CRS found that wildlife trade now ranks in the upper
tier of the world's most lucrative illicit economies, behind only
illegal drugs and possibly human trafficking and arms trafficking.
CRS also found that many of the same criminal entities that deal in
arms and drugs--including organized criminals--are hawking wildlife as
well. It discovered that poachers are becoming increasingly
sophisticated, often using the same tactics and the same complex,
secretive distribution networks frequented by sinister criminal
organizations.
And CRS notes that pricey endangered wildlife often serves as a
type of untraceable currency in the underworld money-laundering system.
Particularly disconcerting is the anecdotal evidence linking
terrorist activity to illegal wildlife trade. Given that the industry
thrives in many countries also vulnerable to fostering terrorism--those
with a weak capacity to govern, poor law enforcement, high government
corruption, and porous borders--this anecdotal evidence deserves sober
consideration.
Unfortunately, due to the clandestine nature of illegal trafficking
in wildlife, it is exceedingly difficult to know the breadth of this
sinister trade or the extent to which it may be supporting terrorist
organizations.
But that fact--in and of itself--and the dense interconnections
among numerous dark-world activities are enough to convince me that
this Committee, the Congress as a whole, and the rest of the U.S.
government ought to be taking a close look at the lucrative illegal
wildlife trade and the role that rare and endangered species may be
playing in underwriting those groups that wish to do our Nation harm.
The brutal maiming and killing of animals is certainly a grave
issue, but when the beneficiaries of that trade are using these funds
to corrupt, injure and exploit human beings, it is our duty to act.
Today's hearing is a jumping off point. Here we seek to gain
enlightenment about the menace of illegal wildlife trade in today's
reality.
And we hope to receive advice about how we might better address it.
With that, I thank our witnesses, particularly those who have
traveled great distances to join us today, and look forward to your
testimony.
______
STATEMENT OF DALE E. KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very
happy to be here this morning.
I would like to welcome especially someone who is
accompanying someone from the State Department, a friend of
mine, Jason Kalbfleisch, whom I have known since he was about
11 years old.
He used to write to me on a variety of issues, a
constituent of mine then. He served with my son in the
military. My son and he were both in Nairobi at the same time,
one at the State Department and one with the United States
Army. Welcome, Jason. Good to have you here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Kildee.
Our first witness we are going to allow to proceed and then
ask her questions, as she has to leave for another commitment,
is The Honorable Claudia A. McMurray, Assistant Secretary for
Oceans, Environment and Science with the U.S. Department of
State.
Accompanying her on Panel I is John Sellar, the Senior
Officer, Office of the Secretary General, CITES Secretariat,
Switzerland, and Mr. Benito A. Perez, Chief, Office of Law
Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
We welcome you. Madam Secretary, you may proceed as you
wish. We do have all the prepared testimony I might add, and it
will be made part of the record as if actually read. You may
proceed as you wish.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CLAUDIA A. McMURRAY, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR OCEANS, ENVIRONMENT AND SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF STATE
Ms. McMurray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, Members of the Committee, I really want to thank you
for inviting me to testify on this important issue. I do have a
longer statement that I would like to submit for the record.
Whenever I talk to people who are unfamiliar with this
issue of illegal wildlife trade, they ask me, can this really
be that serious a problem? Most people know that scores of
animal species are endangered. What they assume is that species
become endangered because of human population growth, which in
turn leads to lost habitat and conflict between humans and
animals.
All of this is true. These are the primary threats to
wildlife, but in recent years illegal trafficking has grown and
now contributes much more significantly to the loss or
threatened loss of our most precious wildlife. In fact, the
illegal trade has brought us to a tipping point. In other
words, it is pushing many species over the brink, over the edge
to extinction.
In addition to the serious threats the trade presents to
biodiversity, it is also important for other reasons. Wildlife
trafficking poses health threats because some diseases, such as
avian influenza, SARS, the Ebola virus and tuberculosis, can
jump from animals to humans, especially when those animals are
removed from the wild and move in commerce.
Once I convince people that this issue is important they
ask me why has the trade grown so dramatically? My response is
this: Among other factors, organized crime has discovered that
this trade is very profitable. In some cases, it rivals the
economic gains made from trafficking in drugs and in weapons.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, Newsweek, in their most recent
issue, has now called endangered animals the new blood
diamonds.
Mr. Chairman, the annual estimates of the dollar value of
this trade are indeed staggering. Some put it at about $10
billion a year globally, and that is a conservative estimate.
Other estimates put it closer to $20 billion. The dollar
figures are at this level because certain products command
extremely high prices on the black market.
For example, a tiger skin is worth $16,000 in China and up
to $50,000 internationally. One bottle of wine made from tiger
bone--yes, wine--sells from $40 to over $100, depending on the
vintage. The rising demand for ivory has driven the price from
$200 per kilo in 2005 to more than $700 per kilo in this year.
The dollar figures are also high because of the sheer
volume of animals that are flooding the market. Some examples:
An estimated 25,000 to 40,000 primates alone are traded per
year, some for pets, some for so-called bushmeat. Two to three
million birds, live birds, are for sale per year.
So once I convince people that the problem is there and
have hopefully convinced them why it is there, then they ask,
what is the United States doing to stop it? Two years ago we
formed a partnership called the Coalition Against Wildlife
Trafficking, or CAWT, to fight illegal wildlife trade. We
started in 2005 with five partners from the private sector.
Our approach at that time was and remains to this day that
no one government or private group can combat this
sophisticated criminal activity alone and hope to succeed.
Today we have 19 partners, including Australia, Canada, Chile,
India and the United Kingdom, and 13 international
nongovernmental organizations dedicated to stamping out the
illegal trade.
Through the Coalition we seek at the highest political
levels to end the trade by curbing both the supply and demand
for illegal wildlife and wildlife products. We are educating
consumers. We are also creating new international networks for
effective law enforcement.
Mr. Chairman, I want to touch briefly on each part of our
work: Curbing supply through enforcement, curbing demand
through awareness, and garnering high level political attention
for the issue.
First, supply. As one way to improve law enforcement, the
Coalition worked with 10 Association of Southeast Asian
Nations, ASEAN, to establish a new regional wildlife
enforcement network, what is now called ASEAN-WEN. In its very
brief existence, ASEAN-WEN has already produced a string of
impressive successes.
In one of the enforcement network's first cooperative
efforts, in October of 2006 the governments of Thailand,
Indonesia and Malaysia worked in concert to successfully return
to Indonesia 48 live orangutans that had been illegally
smuggled into Thailand from their native habitat.
In January of this year, Thai enforcement officials seized
the bodies of six tigers, three leopards and two extremely rare
clouded leopards, as well as 275 live penguins, from a Thai
village near the border with Laos. Most of the big cats had
been cut in half, and their organs had been removed.
These are only two of very many examples of the work of
ASEAN-WEN, and we have provided the Committee with a list of
those accomplishments for the record. The countries of South
Asia are now working with the U.S. and our CAWT partner,
Traffic International, to replicate the ASEAN-WEN network and
its success first in South Asia and we hope thereafter in the
Middle East and in Africa.
Curbing demand. Making a dent in organized crime through
strengthened enforcement is only part of the solution. We also
have to work out ways to stamp out the demand for these
products. The two biggest markets for illegal wildlife and
wildlife products are China, number one, and right here in our
own backyard, the United States, which is number two.
American consumers are buying these products when they
travel, on the internet and sometimes even in shops right here
in the United States. In most cases, they think that what they
are buying is perfectly legal. We consider it the job of the
U.S. Government to let them know that this is not the case.
So how do we do this? In 2006, Secretary Rice named actress
Bo Derek as her special envoy for wildlife trafficking issues.
In that position, Ms. Derek has traveled extensively in the
United States to make Americans aware of wildlife trafficking
and the threat it poses. She has also traveled overseas to draw
attention to the plight of endangered animals.
We also enlisted the help of actor Harrison Ford, who has
for many years had a strong commitment to wildlife
conservation. Last fall, Mr. Ford generously donated his time
to film three public service announcements urging consumers
both in America and in other countries to stop buying illegal
wildlife and wildlife products.
We plan to distribute these ads in the United States and
internationally and hope that cruise ships and airlines will
also show them to their passengers. At the conclusion of my
statement I would like to give Committee Members a sneak
preview of one of these ads.
Last, generating political attention. Mr. Chairman, I want
to say a word about what I think is the most important role
that the Coalition Against Wildlife Trafficking can play, and
that is getting governments and multilateral organizations to
work to stop this trade at the very highest levels. Only when
we do this will we truly take on the criminals.
In its two years of work, CAWT has made great strides to
generate this much needed public attention. Last year, we
worked closely with German ministers to include wildlife
trafficking issues as part of the work of the G-8. It has also
been on the agenda in summits between President Bush and the
European Union, India and Brazil, to name a few.
Last year, we also gained approval for a resolution of the
U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice that
we hope will lead to asserted global action, and with CAWT's
strong encouragement, Interpol has now devoted more resources
to wildlife crime issues.
We have also worked to generate interest here on Capitol
Hill, especially among the International Conservation Caucus.
This hearing is but one example of the mounting interest in
this issue.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, wildlife crime, like all
organized crime, is a problem we must band together to stamp
out. It involves all of us in and out of government in one form
or another. Wildlife trafficking is not just about saving
animals from extinction, as vitally important as that is. It is
also about promoting economic development and the rule of law,
and protecting public health.
The effect wildlife trafficking has on the broader social
fabric is often lost. It lowers the economic value of legally
traded goods, it contributes to poverty, and it encourages
lawlessness.
The U.S. has laid a foundation to combat it, but we have a
lot of work left to do and we need as many partners as are
willing to join the battle. We especially welcome congressional
interest and active engagement in this issue.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I would be
pleased to answer questions, but before I close completely, I
would like to show you and the Committee Members one example of
our work, a public service announcement featuring Harrison
Ford.
The State Department provided the funding for the
development, production and placement for this ad, as well as
finding our acting talent. Our CAWT partner, Wild Aid, supplied
the creative idea and the scripts. The ad is one of three very
powerful ones, and I hope it will speak for itself here today.
Thank you.
[Video played.]
[The prepared statement of Ms. McMurray follows:]
Statement of Claudia A. McMurray, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Oceans, Environment and Science, U.S. Department of State
Mr. Chairman, thank you for asking me to speak to this committee
today about this important issue.
The Problem
It is common knowledge that animal species are endangered across
the world, and most of the time what people attribute the problem to is
loss of habitat, human population growth, and human-animal conflict.
But what people really do not know as much about is that animal
species are also threatened by the bounty on their head. Wildlife
trafficking--the illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products--is a
huge black market industry. And organized crime may be right at the
center of it.
In some cases, wildlife trafficking is posing an even greater
threat to wildlife than the loss of their natural habitat.
And the numbers are staggering. Interpol estimates that the
conservative estimate is that the illicit wildlife trade amounts to
about $10 billion a year globally and may reach as high as $20 billion.
The estimates on the trade in live animals are disturbing. For
example, an estimated 25,000-40,000 primates alone are traded per year,
some for pets, some for so called ``bushmeat''. Two to three million
birds--live birds--are for sale per year.
And the statistics on wildlife products are even grimmer. Hundreds
of thousands of wildlife parts are sold each year solely for medicinal
use, mostly for traditional Chinese medicines. And the reason the trade
has reached these massive quantities is that it has become very
profitable.
Wildlife trafficking is often linked to other forms of organized
crime, including the smuggling of drugs, weapons, and people.
Research shows that smugglers of contraband tend to use the same
routes and methods, regardless of the items smuggled. International
organized crime is increasingly attracted to wildlife trafficking.
There are huge profits to be made with little risk. Drug and wildlife
traffickers often use the same routes and have even used illegally
taken animals to carry concealed narcotics.
In May of 2006, customs officials in Hong Kong found five tons of
ivory hidden behind a false wall in the bottom of a metal shipping
crate. When the Cameroon-based crate was first opened, it appeared to
contain a shipment of plywood. The false wall was discovered when the
crate was loaded onto the back of a truck and driven through a giant X-
ray machine. Traces of drugs were found inside the hidden compartment,
suggesting that the crate had also been used to ship at least two kinds
of contraband.
Threats to Human Health
Wildlife trafficking also poses health threats, as some diseases,
such as avian influenza, SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome),
Ebola virus and tuberculosis, can cross species lines and be
transferred from animals to humans, endangering public health.
They spread among humans quite quickly, and they're also quite
deadly. But we see from the illegal trade that there's already some
potential for moving the avian influenza virus.
In October 2004, a Thai man was caught attempting to smuggle a
couple of mountain hawk eagles that were infected with the H5N1 virus.
He had them in his carry-on bags in Brussels. They were seized and
euthanized.
In 2005 in London, two parrots were seized at Heathrow airport that
were infected with the avian influenza virus. So this is a real threat
that we need to pay attention to.
Smuggling of avian influenza infected chicks from China has been
implicated in the spread of avian influenza to Nigeria.
According to Timothy E. Moore, director of federal projects at the
National Agricultural Biosecurity Center at Kansas State University and
a nationally recognized expert in homeland security:
``No one knows the real numbers, but they are large. Behind illegal
drug traffic, illegal animals are No. 2, and there is no doubt in my
mind that this will play a prominent role in the spread of this
disease. It looks to be the main way it [avian influenza] is spreading
in some parts of the world, along with the migration of wild birds.''
It's going to take a major effort to crack down on illegal wildlife
trafficking. And we recognize that it's going to require not only the
efforts of governments, but also of nongovernmental organizations, the
private sector, and the average American citizen.
And, given the challenges we face and the fact that those
challenges are not limited by national borders, we're going to be
increasingly reliant on these partnerships in the future.
The high profits for illegal wildlife products combined with the
low risk of prosecution are driving larger members of organized crime
syndicates to engage in this black market. And as more enter the
illegal trade, more species are brought to the brink of extinction.
I'll cite a few examples.
Tigers
The tiger population at the turn of the 20th century worldwide was
estimated at 100,000 animals. Today the wild tiger population is around
5,000 animals. That is a 95% population decline, with most of that
occurring in the last 25 years. India has seen its population of 3,508
tigers in 1997 drop to 1,411 in 2007. That represents a 60% reduction
in just ten years. Tigers will not survive in the wild at this rate.
There is a relentless demand for tigers' skins and body parts.
Tiger populations are plummeting and at the same time the price for the
products and the tigers themselves are increasing.
A tiger skin is worth $16,000 in China and up to $50,000 on the
international black market.
A pound of tiger glue made from tiger bones sells for $2,000 in
Vietnam. Tiger bone wine--yes wine--sells from $40 to over $100
depending on the vintage.
As a top predator, this species plays a keystone role in the
ecosystems it inhabits. For example, without tigers, deer populations
increase; more deer means more grazing on vegetation and in many cases,
overgrazing occurs, altering the overall vegetation in an ecosystem.
Given that the tiger is listed as an endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act, which means it is in danger of extinction,
poaching should not be tolerated.
Sharks
Many species of sharks are particularly susceptible to
overexploitation because they are typically long-lived, slow-growing,
and produce few offspring. Over 25 percent of all chondrichthyan
species evaluated for the IUCN Red List of Threaten Species have been
assessed as Threatened with some populations declining by 90 percent.
NOAA
While sharks are harvested for a variety of products fins are the
most economically valuable shark product. Extrapolating from data in
Hong Kong (the world's largest trading center for fins), studies
estimate that approximately 40 million sharks are represented in the
global shark fin trade each year (22d meeting of the CITES Animals
Committee). The value of the global trade in shark fins is estimated at
400-550 million dollars, and is expected to grow, unless constrained by
limits on supply.
While some of this fin trade may be legal--if the fins are
harvested in accordance with national regulations, such as in the
United States, or with the various finning bans adopted by regional
fisheries management organizations ``it is difficult to discern how
much of it may be illegal.
Coral Reefs
Coral reefs are the rainforests of the sea. They provide food,
recreation, livelihood and employment to over a billion people
worldwide. They are home to more species of sea life than any other
marine ecosystem.
But coral reefs are in serious decline globally. An estimated 20
percent have already been destroyed with little hope of recovery, and
50 percent is threatened with collapse.
Reefs face varied and complex threats, from land-based sources of
pollution to unsustainable fishing practices, such as the use of
dynamite and cyanide. But one of the main threats is over-exploitation,
exacerbated by the often illegal trade in coral reef resources,
including tropical fish for the live reef food fish trade and home
aquaria and the corals themselves for jewelry and curios.
Sea turtles, a favorite inhabitant of coral reefs, are often
illegally traded, the shells used for jewelry and combs. The price of
coral jewelry can range from a few dollars for simply strung bracelets
at a beachfront stand to thousands of dollars for red coral necklaces
set with precious stones and gold. The same is true for turtle shell
items: a bangle may cost $5 on the beach while a carving from the whole
shell can run $10,000.
Even though many coral species are protected under the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the demand for
these items is fueling the illicit coral trade in both corals and those
species who depend on coral reefs for their food and shelter.
Elephants
Although elephant populations overall in Africa are increasing, in
large part due to increased wildlife law enforcement, elephants remain
the target of poachers.
Economic growth in Asia has helped revitalize the illegal trade.
The rising demand for ivory has driven the price from $200 per kilo in
2005 to more than $700 per kilo this year.
In just two weeks in January 2008, Namibian officials seized 13
elephant tusks, totaling nearly 200 kg of ivory, and representing seven
dead elephants. In the same period, Kenyan officials seized some 80 kg
of raw and worked ivory at the international airport in Nairobi.
Further south in Zimbabwe, police arrested 11 suspected poachers, who
are believed to have killed 15 elephants within two weeks in Hwange
National Park.
United States Government Response
To help respond to this discouraging situation, the United States
launched a global initiative to fight illegal wildlife trafficking--the
Coalition Against Wildlife Trafficking. We formed CAWT with five
partners from the private sector in 2005.
We launched the Coalition internationally in February, 2007 in
Nairobi, Kenya. Today, we have 19 partners, including Australia,
Canada, Chile, India and the United Kingdom and 13 international non-
governmental organizations dedicated to combating the illegal trade in
wildlife.
Through CAWT, we seek, at the highest political levels, to end the
trade by curbing both the supply and demand for illegal wildlife and
wildlife products. We are educating consumers. We are creating new
international networks for effective law enforcement.
Improving Wildlife Law Enforcement
CAWT complements and reinforces the goals and efforts of the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and
Fauna, or CITES, which are focused on monitoring and regulating the
trade in CITES-listed species.
While CAWT can help countries meet their obligations under CITES,
it is also focused on improving the enforcement of wildlife laws in
other countries, building regional enforcement networks to stop cross
border trade, and strengthening prosecution capacity.
The Coalition is helping to strengthen countries' capacity to
monitor and regulate the trade in species that are protected under
CITES, as well as trade in animals and plants that are protected by
national laws in the country of origin. A significant portion of the
illegal wildlife trade involves species exported in contravention to a
country's laws.
As one way to improve enforcement, the Coalition has assisted the
10 ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asia Nations) countries in
establishing a new regional wildlife enforcement network, ASEAN WEN.
The United States, along with WildAid (now Wildlife Alliance) and
TRAFFIC International, supported the ASEAN countries in their efforts
to establish the enforcement network in December of 2005.
ASEAN-WEN, which formalizes information and expertise-sharing among
the ASEAN countries, for the first time provides the mechanism for law
enforcement and customs agencies to cooperate with each other across
national boundaries to combat wildlife crime. ASEAN-WEN, in its brief
existence, has already produced a string of impressive successes in the
fight against trafficking.
In one of the enforcement network's first cooperative efforts, the
governments of Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia successfully returned
to Indonesia 48 orangutans that had been smuggled into Thailand from
their native habitat.
Two years ago, Thai officials, acting on information through ASEAN-
WEN, intercepted 1,455 endangered animals believed to be destined for
the pet trade. Officials said all were imported animals and estimated
the value of the seizure to be $22,850.
In June 2006, six hundred and thirty Asian Softshell Turtles from
Indonesia were confiscated by the authorities at the Jurong Fishing
Port in Singapore. The turtles, worth approximately SGD 50,000, had
arrived by boat from the Port of Tembilahan, Riau, in Sumatra,
Indonesia. Twenty five were dead on arrival, and the remaining
individuals were repatriated.
After receiving a tip from the Malaysian government, Thai
authorities intercepted sixty crates originating in Penang, Malaysia en
route to Laos filled with hundreds of illegally traded animals,
including 245 Malaysian pangolins.
Representatives from five different agencies in Thailand acted in
concert to ensure the case was properly handled with their counterparts
in both Malaysia and Laos. Most of the officials involved in the
seizures were alumni of the USG-sponsored ASEAN-Wildlife Enforcement
Network (ASEAN-WEN) training events.
In July of 2006, Thai authorities conducted simultaneous raids on
three downtown Bangkok locations suspected of trafficking in products
made from the highly endangered Tibetan Antelope. Police detained four
dealers for questioning, arrested two, and confiscated over 250
purported ``shatoosh'' shawls, which can cost between $1,200-$12,000
apiece. After receiving a tip from the ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement
Network (ASEAN-WEN), Thai officials uncovered the syndicate dealing in
shatoosh, spanning at least three countries and involving multiple
parties. This international ring was subsequently broken up.
In January of this year, Thai enforcement officials seized the
bodies of six tigers, three leopards and two clouded leopards, as well
as 275 live pangolins from Thai village near the border with Laos. Most
of the big cats had been cut in half and their organs removed. The
seizure was made possible due to cross border information sharing under
the ASEAN-WEN umbrella, with the assistance of the ASEAN-WEN Support
Program.
The countries of South Asia are working with the U.S. and Coalition
partner, TRAFFIC International, to replicate the ASEAN- WEN success.
In addition to supporting ASEAN-WEN, the United States has
contributed in many other ways to the protection of species all over
the globe endangered by trafficking, including those I mentioned
earlier.
For example, from 2005-2007, the Department of State made grants to
WildAid (Wildlife Alliance) and TRAFFIC in cooperation with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Justice to support
training of customs agents, judges, wildlife enforcement officers, and
CITES authorities in the ASEAN countries.
The Department of Justice provided Prosecutor and Judge training in
the Philippines, demonstrated to authorities the need for specialized
capacity to deal with environmental crime, and led to the recent
creation of 117 ``Green Courts'' in the Philippines. Department of
Justice provided similar training in Indonesia last summer and has
additional judiciary training workshops scheduled in Thailand and
Vietnam for 2008.
Thanks to U.S. financial and technical support, the Department of
Justice conducts wildlife law enforcement classes at the International
Law Enforcement Academies in Botswana and Thailand. DOJ officials are
also now including wildlife crimes in their classes at the
International Law Enforcement Academy alongside instruction in police
investigation tactics, techniques and procedures, adding wildlife crime
to drugs and arms smuggling.
With State Department funding, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
Office of Law Enforcement provided criminal investigator training in
Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand.
In the marine area, the State Department is the initial and primary
supporter of the Coral Reef Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) project,
which has developed a toolkit and training manual translated into
several languages to help law wildlife and coastal law enforcement
officials document and prosecute crimes involving coral reefs and reef
resources. Coral reef CSI has already scheduled a series of three
training workshops to begin in April, in Central America, South East
Asia and the Pacific Islands.
The funding for these three workshops has leveraged interest and
partners for them to be duplicated in other regions with six additional
workshops planned for 2008-2009 in the Red Sea, Caribbean, East Africa,
South America, and South Asia, with more being discussed for 2010.
For over a decade, the United States has worked to advance strong
domestic, regional, and international shark conservation and management
measures in a variety of fora.
This year, at the United Nations General Assembly, the United
States took the lead in calling on countries and regional fisheries
management organizations to do more to protect sharks. The Resolution
calls on countries to take immediate and concerted action to improve
the implementation of and compliance with existing shark conservation
measures, including those banning shark finning.
The United States also provides technical assistance to help other
countries develop National Plans of Action for the protection and
conservation of sharks, as well as shark-finning prohibitions.
We strongly support the work of the CITES Animal Committee to
identify key shark species threatened by international trade and
consider possibilities for additional species listings, to examine the
linkages between trade in shark meat and fins, and to make species-
specific recommendations to improve shark conservation and the
management of international trade in shark species.
Finally, through the CAFTA-DR Environmental Cooperation Agreement
with funding provided by Congress, the Department of State partnered
with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Humane Society International, and
TRAFFIC North America to train customs agents, CITES Authorities and
rescue centers in the interdiction, rehabilitation, and care of
illegally traded wildlife in Central America and the Dominican
Republic.
Raising Consumer Awareness to Reduce Demand
My testimony indicates that the U.S. and CAWT are working hard
worldwide to bring wildlife crime to an end and criminals to justice. I
have said what we are doing to protect wildlife and end wildlife
trafficking on the supply side. Curbing demand for these products is
just as important. We are actively engaged on that front as well.
I wish it were as simple as it sounds. Unfortunately, we have a
problem here in America. As we are among the world's most significant
consumer of legally traded wildlife products, along with China, it
stands to reason that we are a large market for these illegal products.
Although we know that organized crime is a significant factor,
average Americans are contributing to this market too. Tourists and
Internet consumers are buying huge numbers of products without knowing
that what they are doing is illegal. So we're working to create public
awareness here in the United States.
To focus attention on this issue, in 2006 Secretary Condoleezza
Rice named actress Bo Derek Special Envoy for Wildlife Trafficking
issues. Ms. Derek has traveled to San Francisco and Miami to make
Americans aware of wildlife trafficking. She has also traveled overseas
to draw attention to the plight of endangered animals.
We'll continue to shine a light on this tragic practice and to try
to convince people that these products don't need to be brought home--
that coral necklaces, shark fin soup, ivory carvings and shatoosh
shawls are really things that we can live without.
As part of this effort, we filmed three public service
announcements that feature renowned actor Harrison Ford. The message of
the PSAs is to convince people not to buy illegally traded wildlife or
wildlife products. We plan to distribute them in the United States and
internationally and hope to have them placed on cruise ships and in
airplane messages. We'd like to give you a preview of the PSAs today.
Catalyzing Political Will
We will also continue to bring the illegal wildlife trafficking
issue to the attention of those outside the environmental arena.
For example, last year we worked closely with German officials to
include wildlife trafficking issues as part of the work of the G-8. It
has also been on the agenda in U.S. summits with the EU, India, and
Brazil.
We succeeded in having wildlife trafficking included in a
resolution of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice. We have also actively engaged international crime fighting
organizations, including Interpol.
Conclusion
Wildlife crime, like all organized crime, is a shared global
problem. It affects and involves all of us, in and out of government,
in one form or another. Wildlife trafficking isn't just about
charismatic animals. It's about economic development and the rule of
law, public health and safety, biodiversity and sustainability.
It is important not to lose sight of the effect wildlife
trafficking has on human society. It lowers the economic value of
legally traded goods, contributes to poverty, and encourages
lawlessness.
The United States has laid a foundation to combat this insidious
practice, but we have much work yet to do. We welcome the Congressional
interest and active engagement in this issue.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I first want to
commend you for the attention that you have been bringing to
this issue. I commend the State Department for that excellent
public service announcement.
I am going to ask a quick question before I let others ask
questions. In 2003, Deborah McCarthy, the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
Affairs at the State Department, told the Senate Judiciary
Committee that the United States recognizes a close
relationship between money laundering and terrorist financing.
She also said that training investigators to follow the money
helps determine whether the funds lead to criminal
organizations, terrorist groups or both.
My question is what is the State Department doing to follow
the money in illegal wildlife trafficking? Are the tactics used
in investigating the relationship between drugs and terrorism
also used in investigating illegal wildlife trafficking? Are
they the same methods?
Ms. McMurray. Mr. Chairman, that is an excellent question,
and it is an issue that we are trying very hard to get our arms
around.
You yourself pointed out in your opening statement how
difficult it is to not only follow the money, but just to get a
handle on who is involved here because it is underground for
the most part. However, we are starting to see some patterns in
our investigation using networks that are similar to those used
for other illegal activity.
I think there are others here in the room who might be
better able to answer the specifics. For instance, on the
enforcement side, either with our Fish and Wildlife Service or
with our Justice Department, when they try to prosecute cases
they do tend to pick up trends that then will help them put the
pieces together as to where the connections are.
I would say also a number of our partners in the Coalition,
one of whom will testify today, in the NGO community, those
people are right there on the ground, and a lot of times they
have informants who give them information that help us or lead
us to the connections that you are asking about.
I would also say that if the Committee is really interested
in this issue, we have asked our intelligence gatherers to
follow it more closely, and we do have some information that we
would be happy to provide in a classified setting if you are
interested.
The Chairman. We may very well follow up on that. Thank you
for your answer, and I probably will ask it later of the other
two panelists as well.
Let me turn to Mr. Saxton.
Mr. Wittman. Actually, I would like to ask her something.
The Chairman. OK. Let me recognize you then.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. McMurray, just as you stated, there is high profits and
small risks now in the trafficking of animals unfortunately
worldwide, and, as the song goes, the lure of easy money has a
very strong appeal.
Can you tell me what the State Department may be doing to
work with these source countries to increase penalties for
animal trafficking so that we can hopefully reduce these
instances?
Ms. McMurray. Congressman, this is an important question. I
think what a lot of people don't know is that most of the
source countries really have pretty good laws in place already.
They are members of the Convention on Trade in Endangered
Species, and you will hear from a representative in just a bit
about that. They have gone home, and they have put the laws in
place that are supposed to enforce that treaty, but the problem
really is taking it from the international arena back home.
While they have these great laws and protected areas, they
don't have either the personnel or the training that they need
to really follow through and take these cases from apprehension
to prosecution, so that is what we are trying to do.
I want to make clear it is not that the State Department
has that expertise. We have some experts, again some of whom
you will hear from the Fish and Wildlife Service, from the
Justice Department, that we send over on a regular basis and
conduct training.
All the feedback that we get is that this is very important
work and that we have really at a very low cost provided a
valuable resource to their enforcement officials.
The Chairman. The Chair wishes to apologize to the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman, for not recognizing him
as a new Member of the Committee and also for being here first
in order of questioning. I apologize.
The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, in your testimony you discussed the
importance of the Coalition Against Wildlife Trafficking, CAWT.
It is my understanding that the President is recommending $6
million for all State Department conservation programs,
including CAWT and CITES.
Why do programs to address international trafficking and
illegal wildlife not receive more money? Does that leverage
other money, and how does that compare to what other nations
are doing?
Ms. McMurray. I think the numbers, when you look at them
very broadly in our own budget, either what the President
submits or what the Congress approves, there are a number of
pots of money that deal with conservation broadly and within it
this particular issue of illegal wildlife trade, so sometimes
it is hard to tease out the specifics that get spent on this
particular issue.
You probably are aware there are funds for tiger
conservation, for rhinoceros conservation, elephants, all of
those, that have significant poaching problems that we try to
address through the use of those funds, and they are fairly
significant. I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, but
they are significant funds, and we can certainly provide them
for the record.
But you are accenting a challenge for us, and I am always
happy to be able to respond when somebody says, why isn't there
more money spent on this? I think the attention is just now
being focused on this as a separate issue from some of the
other conservation challenges, and I think all of us have to
look at how we can devote more resources to this issue. I would
certainly welcome congressional interest in this as well.
We do leverage through the Coalition Against Wildlife
Trafficking the funding that we do have either through the
State Department, through the Fish and Wildlife Service,
through the Agency for International Development. We do
leverage all of that with what other countries spend.
Again, we can provide the precise figures for the record,
but the United Kingdom has a substantial tiger conservation
program that is part of the work that we do in CAWT. There are
other countries. India has just pledged hundreds of millions of
dollars to beef up their enforcement to tiger reserves in their
country.
So part of the beauty of the Coalition Against Wildlife
Trafficking is to have us all come together, pool not only our
knowledge, but our resources, and try to coordinate the work
that we do, but it is our hope that there will be more
resources devoted to this in the future.
Mr. Kildee. You indicated that we are starting to really
get involved in this, but for some species time literally is
running out. That DNA is going to be lost forever. It seems to
me that a certain sense of urgency is needed.
You know, I have been here 32 years, and I know you
advocate yourself for this very strongly, but in the whole
budget process there is an advocacy within the Department, your
Department, for example, to OMB, and OMB goes back to you and
says this and that and you have dialogue with OMB.
Do you know how close your requests were to what OMB
finally put in the President's budget, the $6 million?
Ms. McMurray. Fist of all, the $6 million, I am not sure
exactly where that total is coming from. Some of that is State
Department funding I do know. Some of it may also be from other
agencies.
I can just speak for our Department though and say our
funding is not broken out to that level of detail so that you
could actually look at a line that said ``illegal wildlife
trade efforts'' or something of that nature. It would be more
related to natural resource conservation as a whole.
So we go back and forth at that level, and for 2008 and
2009, I think OMB has fully funded our requests, so I think
what we really need to do is look to the future and see if that
amount is sufficient, also taking into account the other
agencies that do provide funding for this effort as well.
Mr. Kildee. Well, our Congressional Research Service
provides us, and they do an excellent job and have done in my
32 years here breaking that down, so I think the $6 million is
a correct figure for our participation in these two programs.
I would just encourage you in your role with OMB to try to
push harder. I know the process, and there is your request and
they come back and you go back. It is a process and finally
winds up in the President's budget, but we do need strong
advocates.
I know your own personal belief is strong in this. Just
tell OMB not enough and we need more.
Ms. McMurray. If I could just provide a couple of very
inexpensive ideas that might be implemented by Congress to get
the ball rolling a little bit more?
I have heard from a number of people in the field not just
in the United States, but in other countries, that there are
two very simple things that we might be able to do at our own
borders that are low cost. One is sniffer dogs. We use them, as
you know, extensively for agricultural imports, illegal and
legal, to detect them when they come in the border. We also use
it for terrorism activity, weapons and the like.
We all know now these dogs can be trained to detect
anything--you know, elements of disease, if someone has cancer,
for instance--so it seemingly would be simple to have just a
couple of dogs at some of our major airports to try and focus
on this particular trade. I know that the Fish and Wildlife
Service in particular has used them sometimes for caviar
detection as one example.
The other one is a hotline, an 800 number. Vietnam and some
other countries in Asia have used this quite successfully to
take tips from people who are afraid otherwise to come forward.
So those are pilot programs that if Congress has an
interest might help us get started on the ground.
Mr. Kildee. Well, I thank you very much for your helpful
testimony, and I thank you for what you are doing. Thank you
very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton?
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Let me just follow up on Mr. Kildee's question and ask a
kind of a general question. Over the years, our committee has
tried a number of approaches to accomplish the goals or to help
you accomplish the goals that you talked about in your
testimony.
Back in the late 1990s, we passed a law known as the Rhino
Tiger Product Labeling Act, and that was an effort to eliminate
the market for illegally killed animals for animal parts.
On another occasion, we passed some legislation to try to
help create value for species where hunters could pay a lot of
money, frankly, to go and hunt a species, thereby creating
value in the local community in Zimbabwe, for example, a number
of other educational programs and conservation programs.
What works and what doesn't? What do you like?
Ms. McMurray. Well, clearly we have had some successes,
but, as I was just discussing with Congressman Kildee, the need
is still there. There is still an urgency about the things that
we are talking about here today.
I would say, without picking any of the particular ones
that you just mentioned, that our focus on the local community
and how they might become invested in conservation is probably
our best focus, and the reason for that in this context is that
while the local community is not a member of an organized crime
syndicate generally, they are the facilitators. They are the
ones that can easily be paid off to help the bigger organized
crime unit move these wildlife products.
I think what our focus has been not only at the State
Department, but the Fish and Wildlife Service and AID, is to
figure out how we can get those communities involved, whether
it is taking their knowledge of the forest and putting them to
work as a park ranger or creating some kind of a tourism
opportunity that actually brings profit back to them so then
they see an economic value to the animals themselves.
This is I think the trend of a lot of the work that we are
doing.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest?
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You touched upon a little bit of the collaboration with our
own agencies--Fish and Wildlife Service, the State Department
and so on.
Is there any indication that drug traffickers, terrorists,
those that traffick in these wildlife activities, is there any
link, let us say, between the drug traffickers, the terrorists,
those who traffic in wildlife live or parts? Is there any link
with those particular organized crime elements?
Ms. McMurray. I think we are developing more solid
information. At the moment, we have anecdotal information of a
connection. What I mentioned earlier----
Mr. Gilchrest. But, for example, is it possible, and I
didn't meant to interrupt you.
Ms. McMurray. That is all right.
Mr. Gilchrest. You have a Russian organized criminal
element. You have an American organized criminal element. You
have a Chinese organized criminal element. You have Al-Qaeda.
You have a whole range.
The State Department, Fish and Wildlife, the Justice
Department, NSA. Do you think that these various agencies that
try to provide security for our borders, keep out these
elements that are illegal, is there sufficient collaboration
amongst them either periodically or ongoing, looking at all
these issues?
Ms. McMurray. Well, I will answer your last question first,
which is we are trying to have more cooperation now than there
has been before.
I have to be quite honest with you. When I go to the
intelligence officials and the law enforcement officials with
all of the challenges that they do have these days with
terrorism and everything else, this one is not the highest on
their list.
However, when you are able to make the case that there are
connections and that perhaps some of the same people are
engaging in all of these different criminal activities, then
you can get their attention.
Mr. Gilchrest. When you get their attention, or maybe this
is something that the Congress can provide as a priority or
create a new dimension of understanding of all these various
problems and how they fit together.
Do you think among our intelligence agencies, within the
Fish and Wildlife, State Department and so on, is there a
capacity to deal with this issue effectively in the ways that
you have just described?
Ms. McMurray. Well, I think there is, but we are just at
the beginning of learning this.
As I mentioned earlier, we have asked our intelligence
gatherers to focus on this issue in the larger context of what
they look at every day in the way of international criminal
activity, and I did offer, and I will offer it again, that
there are things we can brief you on in a classified setting on
those activities.
I should add though, because your question is very broad,
when you look at the roots that some of these products are
traveling, if you look at some of the people who are being
arrested, there are starting to be connections. The dots are
starting to be connected.
You asked about different elements of organized crime in
our country and others. I think the only one that I have heard
very strongly mentioned is in the recent seizures of caviar,
and this I believe is in some testimony submitted to you for
the record--that there were clear signs of Russian mafia
activity, so we are starting to dig it up.
Mr. Gilchrest. You said that the question was very broad. I
think it was meant to be broad to sort of pull out from your
experience what the overall strategy is.
While the different tactics within the State Department or
whoever dealing with these various organized criminal elements
can be very effective, in my judgment unless it is coordinated
or effectively understood within the broader concept of a
strategy, then we have stovepiped all these different things.
So the overall strategy and in the overall big picture the
collaborative effort on the part of various people trying to
prevent criminal activity and terrorism and illicit drugs and
securing our borders, I think this could fit into that.
This particular tactic of wildlife activity, illegal
activity as a tactic, can fit into the overall strategy if we
can see that overall strategy.
Ms. McMurray. Well, part of the strategy is something I
described in my testimony, which is to create these enforcement
networks in other countries.
Now, the rationale for those that I gave in my testimony
was because we need to improve law enforcement in those
countries, and that is certainly true, but the other thing that
we are getting from this is everybody talks to each other, and
they also talk to us.
They tell us what kind of information they are getting
either from informants or others and what kind of cases they
are able to bring for prosecution. So all of that information--
some of it never got shared before--is now finally coming not
only to other countries in the region, but to the U.S.
I think I also mentioned Interpol and some other
multilateral organizations--CITES certainly can speak to this--
where we get information that comes into the multilateral arena
that then gets shared more commonly with other countries.
So this is something we are doing more of. It is certainly
not perfected by any means. We have a lot of work to do, but I
think the mere connection of all of these police and customs
officials is going to yield a lot of information that we didn't
have before.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Ms. Bordallo, do you have any questions?
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have.
I have a question here. John Sellar says that the United
States is well placed to have the topic of illegal wildlife
crime placed on the agenda of international meetings. What has
the State Department been able to do to make this happen?
Ms. McMurray. Well, we have taken about two years to think
of every place that is a logical place to talk about this
issue, whether it be the G-8. President Bush has used it in a
number of his bilateral meetings, particularly with President
Lula in Brazil, Prime Minister Singh in India and in his
discussions in other countries as well, such as the European
Union.
But to come back to the G-8, we have been pushing this
quite a bit, but our partner in the United Kingdom has been a
cooperative advocate of this issue. It may not sound like a lot
to get words into a G-8 leader's statement, but it takes a
whole lot to get something there, and then that is something
that becomes public.
It is something that is a commitment at a very high
political level and requires follow-up so all of those things,
I think, are important ways to get the awareness out there, but
also to get other countries to devote resources to the issue.
Ms. Bordallo. So you are agreeing then that more could be
done in that area?
Ms. McMurray. Yes, but I can tell you that a big part of my
job has been to do this for the last two years, so we have
definitely geared up on this.
Ms. Bordallo. I have another question for you. Has the
State Department ever discussed with the Department of Defense
or other Federal agencies the need to use satellites and aerial
surveys to watch for poachers and border violations and other
security threats, as Ms. Galster on the second panel recommends
in his written testimony?
Ms. McMurray. We have. This is not something that we have
made into a systematic effort yet, but really NASA has a lot of
data. Some of it, even though it is not the most highly
sophisticated or high resolution, is still quite useful to look
at trends like deforestation, like migratory patterns of
animals or lack of populations if that is what you are looking
for. So, yes, we have been asking NASA to help us more in that
area.
I should also mention, because you asked about the
Department of Defense, and, as you know, they have just created
a new command in Africa. Part of what they are looking at is a
law enforcement role assisting other governments in preventing
crime in that part of the world.
We have asked them to look at this issue as part of what
they are doing, and they are very enthusiastic about it.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good. I feel that we should step up our
activity in this area.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms.
McMurray, for being here and being part of this discussion.
I am sorry I missed your testimony. I had another meeting.
Just listening to other questioning, is there some sense that
the United States has the responsibility to police some of
these developing countries in their law enforcement in regards
to illegal hunting? Do you sense that is a responsibility that
the State Department has the responsibility to take on?
Ms. McMurray. Well, I think we have a responsibility in two
areas. One very specific to what I do relates to wildlife
conservation, and since now it is pretty clear illegal activity
is part of the equation there, part of the threat, that is why
we are involved.
I would say the other though is much broader, and it is
certainly something that Secretary Rice has talked an awful lot
about, which is promoting democracy and the rule of law
wherever it can take hold.
This is a big part of that. The corruption in government,
all of those other factors, a breakdown in the legal system--
these are things that we try to help with. We certainly can't
police those countries themselves, but we can provide whatever
expertise and training we have to try and make their law
enforcement stronger.
So, yes, I think it is an important role not just for the
wildlife but for the broader governance issues that we are
talking about.
Mr. Brown. On the other side, and I thank you for that
answer, but is there some incentives that maybe we could offer
to hope? I know most of the time, I assume it is the economics
that is driving the legal planning for some gain. Is there some
incentives I guess that the State Department might be willing
to offer to give some alternatives to the legal need?
Ms. McMurray. This is something that we at the State
Department don't do as much of, but the arm of the State
Department that engages in development activities, AID, does do
quite a bit of work on the ground to create that economic
incentive for wildlife conservation.
I mentioned it a bit earlier. You may not have been here.
We look at things that will create livelihoods for the people
who live around these protected areas, and so it may be that
because there is such a need for enforcement that some of these
people can be trained to be enforcement officers or park
rangers in the areas where they live.
Also, around the world there is just a tremendous amount of
interest in ecotourism, in coming to look at wildlife, and I
can't tell you. Every country I go to wants to be like Kenya or
be like South Africa. They want to have a tremendous tourism
program, and that is another way you can get people to keep the
poaching activity out.
Mr. Brown. I know that we have passed legislation here in
order to protect big cats and I guess the dogs too, but I just
wonder.
Is the State Department the umbrella to try to coordinate
all of these conservation funds to focus in one direction
rather than having the diversion of lots of people trying to
address it rather than having some central focus?
Ms. McMurray. Well, I would like to be able to say that we
are the coordinator of all those funds, but because Congress
sends money to a number of different places, it doesn't always
come back to us to be strategic about that funding.
If it is AID or if it is State funding, we are very closely
coordinated. I think we try very hard to talk to the Fish and
Wildlife Service on a regular basis--that is a lot of where the
funding you are talking about is going--so that we can be
strategic about where we are focused.
It doesn't always work that way, but we do our best to make
sure our priorities are meshed with theirs.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for going
over my limit.
The Chairman. The Ranking Member, Mr. Young of Alaska?
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. McMurray, I missed your testimony, but I have one
thing. You mentioned Kenya for equal tourism. It is my
information because they have disallowed hunting, they have
lost 60 percent of their wildlife now to poaching. They are
probably the worst country of all countries when it comes to
poaching. Are you aware of that?
Ms. McMurray. Well, I know that there are still significant
challenges in Kenya. The example I was citing there was the
profit that they get from the tourism.
Mr. Young. The profit is declining because they outlawed
hunting and management of the game, and now the poachers look
upon that as their prime target. I think State Department ought
to look at that.
The AID is under your umbrella, I believe, and they have a
policy of not giving guns or equipment to wildlife rangers on
the ground. How does this restriction help on-the-ground
professionals who must fight against, very frankly, a well
armed poaching group?
I know a little bit about which I speak as I have been to
Africa numerous times, and I am not happy with any of the
governments over there. You talk about fighting this issue.
Until the governments agree to fight poaching, we have a real
long haul to go.
Why don't they change that policy and we can distribute
equipment to the rangers to fight against these poachers?
Ms. McMurray. Well, I think the policy is something that
probably ought to be reviewed. We are dealing with hard
criminals in a number of cases who have weapons from wherever
the source.
I am not responsible for the policy in the first instance,
but I can tell you that I have seen programs--you may have seen
this one as well--in Namibia that has looked at trophy hunting
and the economic value that that can provide on a very
controlled basis to conservation of particular species, whether
it be leopards or other cats.
So I think there are two competing things you are asking
about there. One is to give the resources to the law
enforcement officials on the ground, which is something we
would be pleased to look at and see if there are ways we can
work with them.
Mr. Young. Well, how would we go about encouraging that? I
mean, this is outside our realm, in reality, as far as Congress
goes, but the State Department umbrella over AID, it seems like
you could change that quite rapidly because it is unfair to
expect the rangers, and I have been involved with some of these
rangers that don't have the equipment, and they are going
against well organized, very frankly, foreign mafia.
It is cordoned by the governments themselves, which really
frustrates me, and we are giving money to those governments to
supposedly help them propose well-being and democracy, et
cetera, and yet they are the ones who are backing this program
up.
But if our rangers don't have it within the parks
especially, there is no way you are going to address this
issue. It is like sending a policeman into a bad neighborhood
with a 38 pistol and they have Uzis. It is not going to happen.
Or no pistol at all. I am encouraging the Department to get
more involved in this.
Last question. Do you think the programs you mentioned a
little bit about the sport hunters provide funding to local
communities has a positive effect on wildlife conservation?
Ms. McMurray. I am certainly not the conservation expert in
the room, but I will tell you that from the data that I have
looked at, it depends on where you are.
The example I mentioned in Namibia I think has been a
tremendous success. It is not something at this point that has
been translated into other countries because of funding
restrictions, but I think it is something that we ought to look
at in other countries as well.
Mr. Young. OK. Last question. This is my last question. Are
our sanctions against Zimbabwe and Mugambe still in effect, or
do we still give that country any type of assistance through
the State Department?
Ms. McMurray. I believe everything is still in place,
Congressman, but I would be happy to confirm that for the
record.
Mr. Young. Because he is the classic example what not to do
in conservation, unfortunately, and we have let him get away
with it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to submit my written statement for the record.
The Chairman. Sure.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Don Young, Ranking Republican Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am fascinated by the title of this
hearing. However, as an alternative I would suggest: ``Endangering
American Security: Impacts of the House Democrats Failed Leadership to
Stop Our Dependence on Foreign Oil.''
While we will hear testimony speculating about whether there is a
relationship between illegal wildlife and terrorism, there is no debate
that our growing dependence on foreign oil is financing the activities
of terrorist organizations throughout the world. By buying oil from
nations, like Iran, we are literally paying for the guns and ammunition
they provide to Al-Qaida to kill our brave troops in Afghanistan and
Iraq.
Furthermore, I notice that there are several invited witnesses who
are well known international animal rights advocates. If this hearing
is about the impact of legal hunting of wildlife, then the record on
this issue is crystal clear. As someone who has been to Africa, there
is no question that American hunters are providing the economic
resources that are critical to conserve these animals.
For many years, the CAMPFIRE program in Zimbabwe provided the local
communities with the money they desperately needed to build their
schools, hospitals and the infrastructure they desperately needed to
survive. This type of community support is happening throughout the
continent and many times it is American hunters and American outfitters
who provide the local game rangers with the equipment they need to stop
the poachers who are funding the illegal wildlife trade. They also
provide the on-the-ground eyes and ears to stop illegal poaching
activity.
In addition, it is the American hunting and conservation community
which has consistently supported the enactment of the African Elephant
Conservation Act, the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act, the Rhino
and Tiger Product Labeling Act and yearly requests to full fund those
programs.
To most Americans, an elephant or a rhinoceros is a majestic
animal. To many African villagers, however, these animals are a
nuisance that drinks their water, destroys their crops and threatens
the safety of their children. It is essential that these animals retain
their economic value and that is accomplished through the hard currency
provided by legal sport hunters. As President Theodore Roosevelt, our
nation's greatest conservationist, once said: ``The people who protest
against all hunting, and consider sportsmen as enemies of wild life,
are ignorant of the fact that in reality the genuine sportsman is by
all odds the most important factor in keeping the larger and more
valuable wild creatures from total extermination.''
It is not a coincidence that the best conservation programs in
Africa occur in the South, where you have legal hunting, and the worst
in places, like Kenya, which has long outlawed hunting.
In terms of the illegal wildlife trade, I am sure there is a
consensus that every effort should be made to stop the poaching and
slaughter of these animals. There are many factors responsible for what
appears to be a growing problem. In Africa, the need for protein has
fueled the growth of the bushmeat trade and the value of rhino horn,
elephant ivory and tiger bones has skyrocketed to the point that their
future, particularly tigers, is in serious peril. I look forward to
hearing what this Administration and CITES are doing to stop this
illegal trade. If the Fish and Wildlife Service needs to hire
additional law enforcement agents to stop this trade, then I would
certainly support that request.
Finally, I remain disappointed that while this may be an
interesting hearing topic, it is now the 397 day since the Democrats
took control of the People's House and you have done nothing to
alleviate the suffering of all Americans who are likely to be paying
nearly $4 dollars a gallon for gasoline this summer. My own
constituents in Kaktovik, Alaska--living in the shadow of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge--are already paying more than the national
average per gallon and they are angry that they are being denied the
chance to develop their own resources and those on federal lands that
may contain the largest untapped onshore oil reserve in North America.
______
The Chairman. The gentlelady from Guam I believe has one
more question.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have
just one question, and it has to do with my area that I
represent. It is a question for Assistant Secretary McMurray
and Mr. Perez.
Perhaps you can enlighten us to the extent of the illegal
trade in wildlife across and through the sea lanes transiting
the Pacific Ocean. What resources and focus are being brought
to bear to monitor and stop this illegal trafficking and trade
through or around the Pacific Islands and from points of origin
in Asia and the Pacific Rim?
What would you say are the most serious elements of concern
relative to illegal trade in wildlife in the Asia-Pacific Rim,
and what is the Federal government doing to address these
issues?
Ms. McMurray. This is an important area obviously from a
fisheries standpoint, as well as from the illegal trade in
marine mammals and others.
What we have tried to do through our Coast Guard is train
enforcement officials in the areas protecting those waters to
not only enforce against fisheries violations, but to look at
other illegal trade.
I would say specifically the most prominent one is sharks.
There is a huge amount of activity. Shark finning is the
practice in particular where you remove the fins. You leave the
rest of the shark, usually put it back in the water and let it
drown. The fins go for shark fin soup, which is a delicacy in
many parts of Asia.
I think the enforcement could be more aggressive than it is
already. This is an area that is in some cases very remote, and
it is difficult to get to all the different areas where illegal
activity is going on.
But beyond that I would say, and I talked about this
earlier, we have to look at the demand side of this. What is
fueling the activity? What is fueling the illegal trade that is
going on there?
You will hear from a number of other witnesses, I think,
about the campaigns on the ground in China and other countries
to try and get younger people to reject their cultural heritage
in one sense and to say shark fin soup is not something we need
to have, even though it is considered to be such a wonderful
thing in our culture, so that also helps to take the pressure
off of some of these shark populations.
Ms. Bordallo. So what you are stating then is the Coast
Guard is the one group. Do they have equipment, and are they
trained?
Ms. McMurray. Well, they are there for some other reasons,
you know, because we have U.S. fishing vessels that operate in
that region. We are operating legally. We would like all others
to do that as well. As a complement to that, they are looking
for other illegal activity as well.
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Perez?
Mr. Perez. As it relates to the Pacific area, the reality
of our presence there, the representation of our personnel is
in fact one wildlife inspector and one special agent on Guam
and about three agents and six inspectors in Hawaii, and that
is our total presence.
We have no capability to work on the open seas. Our
inspectors are predominantly tied up with the facilitation of
legitimate trade and then focusing some of their time also on
interdicting the illegal trade.
The agents are handling a full spectrum of the different
types of investigations that come their way, so with regards to
the priorities that we have out there, and they are basically
the same priorities across the nation, we are just focusing on
the most significant conservation risk on the species that we
are encountering, and that is predominantly endangered
threatened species in CITES I appendix listed species.
So our capability is wholehearted just limited by the
resources that we have out there present to be able to address
whatever comes our way.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Perez.
The Chairman. Yes, Mr. Wittman?
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. McMurray, you had spoken at length about the actions
both by U.S. and source countries, both ongoing and
recommended. Of these actions that you have spoken of and your
recommendations, which of these are most critical and timely to
stopping the illegal wildlife trade worldwide?
Ms. McMurray. Let me make sure I understand your question.
Do you mean the enforcement activities we have engaged in, some
of the things I detailed in my testimony? Is that correct?
Mr. Wittman. Yes. I would say both U.S. actions and actions
by the source countries.
If you looked at it overall about all the worldwide effort
to stopping this illegal trade, which actions are the most
important? If there are those actions that need to happen,
which of those are most critical and timely to stopping this
illegal wildlife trade?
Ms. McMurray. It is hard to pick because there are so many
different pressure points, but I think if I had to I would say
the enforcement networks that are being created seem to be
bearing a lot of fruit.
Frankly, one of the reasons that I started working on this
issue with greater energy is because everybody told me if we
could crack down on it in the short term, it would have more of
an impact than some of the longer-term programs we have to
create protected areas and other conservation measures.
So as I mentioned, this ASEAN-WEN network has already
produced a number of seizures of products. I didn't detail all
of them in my testimony. We have even been told that there are
a number of rings, organized rings, that have been broken as a
result of really only a year and a half's worth of effort.
It really came from having 10 countries get their police
and their customs officials and their intelligence officials
and others to sit in the same room, meet each other, learn who
their counterparts were and then get their phone number so that
afterwards they can say, you know, we have lost the trail of
something. It has gone through our country, but you are next.
How about you trying to stop it?
So we want to try and take that model and develop it in
other countries. I think that would be the quickest way to turn
some of this around.
The Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank you. We know you have
another commitment. We appreciate your time with us this
morning.
Ms. McMurray. Thank you very much, and thank you for your
interest in this issue.
The Chairman. Thank you.
We will now proceed with the other two panelists, whom I
have already introduced. Mr. Sellar and Mr. Perez, thank you
for being with us this morning. As I said, we do have your
prepared testimony.
Mr. Sellar, if you want to go first you may.
STATEMENT OF JOHN M. SELLAR, SENIOR OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY GENERAL, CITES SECRETARIAT
Mr. Sellar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members
of the Committee. The CITES Secretariat is delighted to
participate in this inquiry that you have instigated.
My name is John Sellar. I am the Senior Officer for Anti-
Smuggling, Fraud and Organized Crime in the CITES Secretariat
based in Geneva, Switzerland. It probably feeds into the last
of the recommendations that we make in our testimony if I
explain that that is something of a misnomer, my title.
Although I am described as a senior officer, I am in fact the
only officer, and that is one of the major problems facing us.
In fact, unfortunately my Interpol colleague, the Wildlife
Crime Officer from Interpol, cannot be with us today, but he
and I are the only two individuals that are working at the
international level to try and facilitate combating what you
have heard as a serious problem.
The Chairman. Excuse me. That means there is two in the
whole world?
Mr. Sellar. At the international level there are two
people. There is myself in the CITES Secretariat. There is one
individual in Interpol.
The Chairman. Wow.
Mr. Sellar. So that is why in the recommendations that we
have made in our written testimony we have asked you if you
have the opportunity to influence the U.S. Government to try
and support the work of the Secretariat because our budget is
extremely restricted, but that is a selfish issue, and I won't
belabor that point at all.
The other two recommendations for your Federal agencies,
the first being the Fish and Wildlife Service. You will hear
from my colleague, Mr. Perez, in a minute, but we wanted to say
how much we value the work of the Fish and Wildlife Service,
not only work that it has done within your nation's borders,
but the way it reaches out in practical ways to support the
enforcement community internationally in a variety of ways.
That is from training to the supply of intelligence.
It is extremely well supported by the Department of
Justice, and the prosecutions that have taken place in the
United States are very impressive. In fact, if you look at the
number of foreign nations that have appeared before your
courts, that demonstrates how effective your enforcement and
prosecution agencies are in reaching out beyond your borders to
deal with the criminals whose trade affects your citizens and
affects your country.
Chairman, we have submitted quite lengthy written
testimony, so I have been struggling with thinking what I
should highlight to you, what perhaps I could say that you
won't hear from others.
Maybe something that you won't hear from your other
witnesses is we believe it is important that you should
recognize that wildlife trade per se is not evil. There is a
lot of wildlife trade that takes place around the world. Some
examples have been given already this morning, but hunting can
provide very important sources of revenue to the local
communities and encourage them to value their wildlife.
So simply the message from the CITES Secretariat to you
would be, please don't think that the answer to this is a ban.
The vast majority of wildlife trade that takes place within the
provisions of the Convention, within the CITES treaty, take
place each year in a sustainable and a regulated and in a legal
manner.
But I suppose to really wrap up, what we feel are the two
major problems facing law enforcement is, first of all, for
some reason wildlife crime does not seem to be regarded as
mainstream crime so that we don't find it discussed at the
higher levels of Interpol. We don't find it discussed at
international meetings of customs officers or law enforcement
agencies. Until it does move in to being seen as mainstream
crime, we feel that it is going to be extremely difficult to
move forward.
And then the second element that undoubtedly is needed is
greater political will. Some speakers have already touched upon
this. There are areas in the world where, quite frankly, some
local officials are making so much money from their illegal
trade in wildlife there is no motivation for them to do
anything about it, so political will is undoubtedly badly
needed.
The U.S., we believe, has shown an excellent example in
this field, and we hope you can encourage others too.
I think I would confine myself to that, Mr. Chairman. If
you have questions, I would be very happy to answer them.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sellar follows:]
Statement of John M. Sellar, Senior Officer, Anti-Smuggling, Fraud and
Organized Crime, Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Geneva,
Switzerland
Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
the CITES Secretariat to submit testimony on what we believe to be an
important subject.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora is a multi-lateral environmental agreement that entered
into force in 1975. There are currently 172 Parties to the Convention.
It is widely known throughout the world by its acronym of CITES.
However, it is also often referred to (very appropriately with regard
to your Committee Hearing) as the Washington Convention, since that it
where it was concluded and first signed in 1973. The United States of
America ratified CITES on 14 January 1974.
CITES is a treaty that regulates international commercial and non-
commercial trade in animals and plants, including their parts and
derivatives. The Convention provides differing degrees of protection
and regulation to animal and plant species, depending on their
conservation status. CITES works by subjecting international trade in
specimens of selected species to certain controls. All import, export,
re-export and introduction from the sea of species covered by the
Convention has to be authorized through a licensing system. About
30,000 species are listed in the three Appendices of the Convention.
The aim of CITES is to ensure that international trade in specimens of
wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival.
We can provide more detailed information regarding the Convention
and its operation if required but, with regard to this submission, we
will hereafter confine ourselves to illicit trade issues, particularly
serious illegal activities. We presume that the Committee will have a
general understanding of what constitutes ``illegal wildlife trade''
and, therefore, we do not intend to provide examples of what wildlife
is traded illegally or the nature of the markets.
Illegal trade in wildlife has many aspects that may be relatively
obvious, such as the criminality involved, but we are conscious that
there are others that may not be so apparent. For example, when
considering this subject and especially its ``impacts'', it is
important to take account of the potential risks that illegal trade
includes, such as the spread of diseases (some of which are extremely
hazardous to humans) and the impact of ``invasive alien species''.
The scale of illegal wildlife trade
The CITES Secretariat's greatest difficulty in assessing the scale
of illegal trade in wildlife is that the reporting of seizures of
smuggled specimens of CITES-listed species or of the related illegal
harvesting or dealing in such specimens tends to be very haphazard.
Whilst we created a computerized database in the late 1990s to store
such information, relatively few of the Parties to the Convention
submitted data on a regular basis. The lack of resources in the
Secretariat prevented us from taking action to increase the collection,
input or analysis of information, and input of data was suspended in
2007.
ICPO-Interpol and the World Customs Organization each have similar
databases but seem to experience similarly inconsistent levels of
reporting. The European Union also has its own database regarding
illegal trade in wildlife.
It is, therefore, extremely difficult to gauge the levels of
wildlife crime around the world and the nature of such criminal
activities. Even in many developed countries, there is no central
collection of information on the subject; primarily because wildlife
crime is regarded as a low priority for law enforcement agencies. We
have noted that the increase in efforts to detect and combat terrorist
activity around the world in recent years has pushed the subject even
further onto the sidelines.
At its 14th meeting (The Hague, 2007), the Conference of the
Parties to CITES noted that this lack of detailed information was a
problem and instructed that a body of relevant individuals (known as
the CITES Enforcement Expert Group) be convened to study this and other
enforcement-related issues. The Group is likely to meet in 2009.
It should also be noted that, in many parts of the world, the
enforcement of wildlife legislation is the task of officials whose
focus is on in-field protection (such as anti-poaching work) and these
will be game scouts and wardens, forest guards, rangers, fishery
protection officers and others who often do not have the training,
authority or resources of their Customs and Police counterparts. This
affects their ability to gather, store and communicate information.
This situation has other law enforcement-related implications that we
will return to later.
The role of organized crime in illegal wildlife trade
As noted above, the Secretariat does not have as much accurate
information as it would wish regarding the scale of illegal trade, the
nature of such trade or the persons involved. However, through the
reports that we do receive, the regular contacts we have with law
enforcement officials and agencies, and the assessment and verification
missions we have undertaken, the Secretariat has no doubt whatsoever
that organized crime, certainly within the definition used in the
United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, is
engaged in or linked to illegal trafficking in protected wildlife
species.
We have, for example, noted the following features in wildlife
crime and illicit wildlife trade cases, many of which bear the classic
hallmarks of organized crime or organized criminal groups. These are
not listed in any particular order of importance or occurrence.
1. The organized nature to the illegal harvesting of some
endangered species is revealed by the recruitment and payment of
poachers and the provision to such persons of firearms, ammunition,
vehicles and other supplies necessary for them to remain in the
species' habitat for prolonged periods and for the specialized
processing and extraction of species (or their parts) once they have
been killed.
One practical example of this is on the Tibetan Plateau of
China where groups sometimes numbering up to 15-20 poachers
have been arrested, who were equipped with firearms,
several 4x4 vehicles, food stocks sufficient for one month,
and where members of the poaching gangs had specific roles,
i.e. marksmen, cooks, drivers and skinners. The arrested
persons have admitted to being recruited for this work by
individuals who would then arrange the further processing
of the Tibetan antelope skins obtained and their subsequent
smuggling out of China. The fact that shawls made from the
wool of Tibetan antelope (called shahtoosh) can each retail
for the equivalent of up to USD 30,000 illustrates what
motivates such activities.
2. Similar approaches to the poaching (including the capture of
live animals) of elephants, great apes, musk deer, the saiga antelope,
sturgeon, the tiger and many other species of conservation concern,
although each with its own specialized characteristics, have been noted
for decades.
3. As part of the activities described in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, members of local communities (often living in conditions of near
abject poverty) are regularly exploited by organized crime groups and
are, thus, exposed to personal risk of injury or death from the
hazardous terrain in which a lot of poaching takes place, similar risks
from some of the target species (which can be extremely dangerous
creatures) and finally are put at personal risk from arrest,
imprisonment, injury or death during encounters with law enforcement
personnel.
4. The quick attendance to persons, who have no visible means of
financial support, arrested for poaching and the subsequent
representation of such persons in courts by high-quality criminal trial
lawyers, whose fees would normally be far beyond the reach of such low-
level criminals, demonstrates an input from wealthy persons behind-the-
scenes in a classic manner of organized crime groups ``looking after
their own''. This is regularly seen with regard to persons arrested in
India and prosecuted in relation to the killing of tigers and leopards
and the smuggling of their skins and bones. A tiger skin currently
retails for at least USD 10,000 in parts of China.
5. There have been several instances where the court process
involving poachers or traders appears to have been corruptly subverted,
leading to bail being granted where it would not normally be expected,
long-term delays whereby cases never reach conclusion, and even
complete dismissal of charges by apparently corrupt prosecutors or
judges. In a similar vein, the involvement of persons of high political
or social status to corruptly influence law enforcement has been noted,
often discouraging any enforcement action whatsoever or subsequently
interfering in the judicial process. Diplomats have also been known to
engage in the smuggling of wildlife, claiming immunity from normal
border controls and baggage searches.
6. The threatening of, harassment of, acts of violence towards
and murder of officials tasked with the protection of species and anti-
poaching work has been observed. One example of this was in the late
1990s in the Russian Federation, where the office and accommodation
complex of a Federal Border Guard unit was bombed and it is understood
that almost 50 officers, their wives and children were killed or
injured. This attack is believed to have been the work of the ``Russian
Mafia'' in retaliation for an increase in enforcement operations
against sturgeon poachers. Every year, many anti-poaching officers are
killed in the execution of their duties. Anti-poaching patrols around
the world are regularly faced with gangs equipped with semi- and
automatic firearms and some patrols in Africa have encountered criminal
groups armed with rocket-propelled grenade weapons.
7. Poaching is seen to increase in countries experiencing civil
unrest or wars and the profits from poaching or subsequent trade (such
as in ivory) is apparently used to fund rebel activities. Whether such
persons and groups are truly acting in a politically-motivated manner
or whether they are more representative of organized criminal groups
is, however, often unclear.
Disturbingly, it is not uncommon for such poaching and
illicit trade to be conducted or facilitated by
``peacekeeping'' and other military or para-military forces
that are supposedly in the country or geographical area to
restore or maintain law and order. In such instances,
military command units and structures may actually become
extremely large and highly organized criminal groups. Local
police commanders have also been known to control poaching
and smuggling activities. It is in this type of scenario
that over 200 rangers have lost their lives in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo in recent years.
8. It has been noted, particularly in parts of Asia and Africa,
that rebel groups sometimes impose a ``tax'' on illicit cross-border
wildlife trade. Whether such taxes flow to political causes, fund
terrorism, or whether this is simply criminal profiteering is unclear.
9. The processing and subsequent marketing of illegally-harvested
wildlife specimens will often be complex and require a financial base
or entail ``start-up'' costs beyond the means of ``ordinary'' local
citizens. This can be seen, for example, in the case of sturgeons
where: the caviar must be extracted and processed carefully if it is to
later pass as a genuine high-quality product; tins and jars identical
to those used by genuine traders must be counterfeited; the attachment
of labels matching those used by genuine traders must be accomplished;
the caviar must be refrigerated during storage periods; and the caviar
must be smuggled across several international borders before its final
sale and distribution in consumer countries.
However, the profits justify such expenditure. An
investigation in 2001 showed that caviar with a wholesale
value of USD 20 million had been laundered through one
Middle East country in a ten-month period.
10. The inviolability displayed by some sections of the caviar
trade, with regard to law enforcement and attention from other
criminals, demonstrates either their ownership by organized crime
groups or their payment to organized crime for ``protection''. The
brazen and threatening nature of some activities will also discourage
``clients'' from reporting suspicions or observations to law
enforcement agencies. For example, in one incident in the Middle East a
prospective customer was taken to a warehouse to inspect the ``goods''
and was astonished to see seven tons of caviar, which was being guarded
by a large group of Russian males, all armed with automatic weapons.
11. The international smuggling of wildlife specimens, often
involving the crossing of several borders and journeys of many
thousands of miles, necessitates the concealment of specimens against
what may be repeated inspections by border control officials and which
involves sophisticated techniques to hide the true nature of the
specimens or prevent their detection during inspections.
This has included hiding illicit goods deep inside or
underneath genuine cargo, the wrapping of goods in aluminum
foil in the expectation that it will hinder viewing by X-
ray machines, the painting of goods to hide their natural
appearance, the construction of ``false bottoms'' and other
hidden compartments in baggage, cargo containers, trains,
boats and motor vehicles, and the covering of, for example,
ivory carvings in an outer casing of clay or wood. The
variety and sophistication of smuggling techniques
demonstrate a requirement to engage the assistance of
specialists and a need for finance to enable this to occur.
Narcotics and firearms have also been smuggled alongside
wildlife.
12. The duration of some smuggling operations illustrates the need
for ``management'' of specimens and the route, from country origin to
destination (and sometimes in transit) that requires the involvement of
many persons. This may involve human couriers or ``mules'', recruited
and paid to smuggle wildlife specimens, often by air transport,
concealed on their body or in luggage. This has included the use of
airline personnel, who may be less likely to be inspected by border
control staff. Some couriers may be from the poorest levels of society
and are exploited in a manner similar to that of poachers. One courier
gang involved in smuggling caviar from an eastern European country was
``managed'' by a corrupt Deputy Chief of Police.
13. The complex routing of initially bona fide shipments that
will, at some point during international movements, be replaced by
illegally-acquired specimens, and then continue to the destination,
accompanied by genuine CITES permits or certificates and are, thus,
laundered into domestic markets.
14. The sophisticated forgery and alteration of genuine permits
and certificates authorizing trade in wildlife and of the security
stamps used on CITES documents by some countries. Additionally, the use
of forged and altered documents and other fraud related to applications
for CITES permits and certificates. The threatening, bribery and
harassment of officials responsible for the issuance of CITES permits
and certificates, including the use of prostitutes to provide sexual
favours in return for the issuance of trade authorization documents, is
not unknown.
15. The payment to organized crime groups for the use of their
already-established smuggling routes or methods. For example, persons
engaged in illicit trade in tiger and bear products between the Russian
Federation and China are known to have paid the ``Russian Mafia'' to
have items smuggled across the border.
16. The establishment and use of fake or ``front'' companies to
distribute and market wildlife products. Also, the fraudulent
advertising of wildlife for sale, involving widespread use of the
Internet and ``spam'' email advertising, where no wildlife is possessed
and it is simply intended to encourage customers to pay in advance but
where there is no intention to deliver. Various forms of wildlife crime
lend themselves to money-laundering activities and, thus, will attract
the involvement of organized criminal groups.
17. The involvement of persons clearly associated with organized
crime. A surveillance operation at an Italian Mafia party noted that
inordinate amounts of caviar were being served. Leaders of South
American drug cartels have been known to collect exotic species. For
instance, the now deceased Colombian drug baron, Pablo Escobar, is
known to have had a collection of zoo-like proportions, including
several animal species from Africa and Asia that must have been
smuggled into Colombia.
18. Instances of ``revenge'' violence. For example, the murder of
a trader in North America is thought to have been motivated by the fact
that he allegedly supplied pig gall bladders to a group in Asia,
claiming them to be bear gall bladders. Several senior law enforcement
officers, responsible for directing operations against wildlife
criminals, have been murdered in execution-style killings.
19. Law enforcement organizations have noted that persons involved
in serious wildlife crime and illicit trade often have previous
convictions for other forms of crime, many times involving violence.
20. The relatively low risk of detection and low level of
penalties imposed upon those convicted of wildlife crime or illicit
trade make these activities attractive to the ``professional'' and
``organized'' criminal. The massive profits that can be gained from
some forms of wildlife, often worth more than the same quantity of
gold, diamonds or narcotics, are, in themselves, appealing to organized
crime groups and networks since this, after all, is what motivates
their activities.
Several of the examples above are of a nature where those involved
require criminal experience to conduct their activities and could not
be carried out simply by specialized wildlife traders or collectors.
It should be recognized that some of the activities above would be
regarded by the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime as
``serious crime'' because the Parties to CITES in which they occurred
have legislation that provides for ``a maximum deprivation of liberty
of at least four years or a more serious penalty''. Courts in China,
for example, have the power to sentence some wildlife criminals to
death and have done so on several occasions. However, many Parties do
not have such a length of incarceration available as a sentencing
option. Indeed, in some countries violations of CITES are not criminal
offences and will simply be dealt with by way of administrative penalty
and confiscation of specimens.
Some Parties to CITES, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America for example, have
established sentencing guidelines for wildlife crime and we believe
this is a good example to follow. We understand the European Community
is also examining the concept of harmonizing penalties throughout its
Member States.
With regard to trends in wildlife crime, once again, the lack of
sufficient data makes it almost impossible to measure these. What is
often very apparent, however, is the fact that certain types of
wildlife trade move in and out of fashion. It is also noted that
increased enforcement effort against illicit trade in one species can
lead to traders exploiting another. It may be that because law
enforcement agencies are gradually more conscious of wildlife crime,
they are simply detecting what has always been there. However, there
does appear to be an increasing level of sophistication in criminal
activities in this field. This appears, in part, to be due to the
increasing efforts by some law enforcement agencies to combat such
crimes, using modern policing techniques (including regular use of
forensic science). This, in turn, appears to have sometimes prompted
very serious levels of violence to be directed towards wildlife law
enforcement officials.
The rule of law
The majority of the wildlife that is affected by illegal trade is
found in developing countries or countries with economies in
transition. Many of such countries face major problems relating to
governance and criminals exploit this, as illustrated in some of the
examples above. However, whether they exploit an already-existing
situation or whether they create it is difficult to assess.
It is certainly true that, on occasions, wildlife criminals will
undermine what was previously a law-abiding and corruption-free
situation. This was the case when a particular country in the Middle
East became, for a period, the primary location for the laundering of
illegal-origin caviar. There, civil servants were allegedly corrupted
using bribes involving cash, gifts and prostitutes in order to persuade
them to issue genuine CITES permits, so that the caviar could enter
into international markets. Some of these government officials were
also threatened with violence or were told that their families would be
subjected to violence if they did not cooperate.
Probably more common is when poorly-paid officials are bribed with
money or goods to ``turn a blind eye'' or otherwise facilitate an
illegal activity. Any criminal activity, including wildlife crime,
will, of course, be easier to conduct where there is a climate of
corruption. It is the Secretariat's experience that wherever we see
large-scale illegal trade in wildlife we also see widespread, almost
institutional-level, corruption.
That said, it is also the experience of the CITES Secretariat that,
especially in relation to anti-poaching duties, very considerable
dedication and bravery are displayed by those whose task it is to guard
endangered species and their habitats. Indeed, many of the officers
engaged in such duties have to patrol hazardous terrain, in which
water- or insect-borne diseases are often present, and have to face
poachers that are considerably better armed than them. These same men
and women are also often poorly-paid, inadequately trained and
equipped, and have seen many of their colleagues seriously wounded or
killed in the line of duty. Their commitment is, therefore, highly
commendable. We are, frankly, surprised that people continue to apply
for such work.
Activities to counter illegal trade in wildlife
As has been noted above, it may be very difficult to differentiate
between what is a violation of the Convention conducted by: the
wildlife trader who simply does not want to conform to its provisions
and will, on occasions, seek extra profit or a quicker sale by evading
CITES controls; the determined collector of wild exotic plants; the
person who wishes a particular species of reptile as a pet; the
vacationer who will innocently buy a wildlife souvenir and then import
it illicitly to his or her home country; and the ``true criminal'' who
is motivated purely by profit or the organized criminal group whose
activities are driven by greed and who have little interest in the
commodity involved.
Very few countries in the world have specialized units devoted to
combating wildlife crime. In most countries, this task is delegated to
officials who have relatively little training in, or experience of, the
``policing'' skills that are so vital to target effectively and bring
to justice the organized criminals who exploit natural resources. It is
not uncommon, when those officers seek assistance from Federal, State
or local Police agencies, or from Customs authorities, for it to be
declined because senior officers simply do not understand the nature of
the problem or the seriousness of wildlife crime.
Where specialized and multi-agency wildlife law enforcement units
do exist, their success rate is high. We also note the considerable
benefits that are gained through sub-regional and regional enforcement
networks and groups. For example, the Association of South East Asian
Nations Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN), the European Union
Wildlife Trade Enforcement Group, the Lusaka Agreement Task Force and
the North American Wildlife Enforcement Group (NAWEG) have each, in
their own way, contributed substantially to combating illegal trade in
wildlife. The United States of America, through its US-AID programme,
has provided significant support to ASEAN-WEN. Of particular success,
in relation to the specific projects it has engaged in but especially
with regard to facilitating communication, coordination and
collaboration between agencies and individual officers, has been the
Interpol Wildlife Crime Working Group. We understand the Committee will
learn more about this group from other sources.
The CITES Secretariat is obliged, through lack of resources, to
focus its enforcement-related work primarily on illegal trade involving
those species most at risk and violations of the Convention of a
commercial nature. Both these areas may involve organized crime.
Much of the Secretariat's work related to enforcement of the
Convention involves increasing the awareness of the Parties and their
relevant law enforcement agencies to the serious nature of some illegal
trade and, during such activities, the involvement of organized
criminal groups is emphasized. Training materials for enforcement
officers have been developed and these are delivered both by
Secretariat staff, partner organizations and relevant non-governmental
organizations. These materials are available in the three working
languages of CITES--English, French and Spanish.
The Secretariat also acts as a conduit through which information
and intelligence relating to wildlife crime and illegal trade can be
received and communicated. Technical advice and support are also
provided on a regular basis, involving not only specialized knowledge
of the Convention but also expertise in law enforcement itself. The
Secretary-General of CITES has a policy of recruiting to the
Secretariat staff persons with professional backgrounds in enforcement-
related activities. Currently, there are two lawyers (one of whom was
previously a prosecutor) and a former police officer in the
Secretariat. The Secretariat also issues confidential Alerts,
describing current illicit trade and providing targeting intelligence,
to the Parties and to law enforcement agencies.
The Secretariat has a long and very close working relationship with
ICPO-Interpol and the World Customs Organization, and it has signed
memoranda of understanding with both agencies. The three organizations
work together strategically and on operational issues. The Secretariat
has also established memoranda of understanding with a specialized
forensic science laboratory (the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory) and with regional and
national enforcement agencies.
The Secretariat sees such links with international, regional and
national law enforcement organizations as essential in obtaining what
we regard to be the priority in combating wildlife crime and illicit
trade; namely, increased cross-border communication, collaboration and
cooperation. Law enforcement resources are commonly so limited and so
already heavily-burdened that it is vital that modern profiling, risk-
assessment and targeting techniques be used to the utmost. We believe
that intelligence-led enforcement is the key to countering wildlife
crime.
The Secretariat has conducted missions to assess enforcement needs
in many Parties, examining both general wildlife trade issues but also
those related to specific species. These have included illicit trade in
caviar, great apes, ivory, the Tibetan antelope and the tiger. Where
appropriate, restricted-circulation reports are subsequently provided
to the Parties (and usually copied to ICPO-Interpol and the World
Customs Organization) that contain recommendations regarding the
improvement of wildlife law enforcement. Such reports have often
referred to organized crime. The Secretariat subsequently monitors the
implementation of the recommendations and tries to provide ancillary
support through additional technical advice, training and general
capacity-building.
Since 1992, the Secretariat has conducted a National Legislation
Project that analyses the national laws of Parties to CITES, according
to a set of agreed criteria, and determines whether they are adequate
for implementation of the Convention. Where they are not, follow-up
work that includes the provision of technical advice is undertaken. The
Conference of the Parties and its Standing Committee monitor the
progress of Parties in enacting adequate legislation. Where necessary,
recommendations for a suspension of trade in CITES-listed species will
be made and this process has been very successful. Similar
recommendations for a suspension of wildlife trade in specific Parties
may also be made where the Secretariat identifies significant levels of
illicit trade in a Party and where that Party is not responding
adequately.
As mentioned previously, the Secretariat, whilst having a high
regard for the work done by wildlife law enforcement officials
(particularly in developing countries and countries with economies in
transition--where the majority of wildlife is harvested) is concerned
by the sometimes serious lack of resources and professionalism
available to combat wildlife crime and illicit trade, particularly if
those involve organized criminal groups. An example of one response we
attempted follows.
In 2002, the Secretariat prepared the programme for a two-week
training event for wildlife law enforcement personnel. We then collated
a range of training materials for delivery at the course but also for
use by students in subsequent in-country training. The Sardar
Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy, Hyderabad, India, agreed to
host the course and all tiger range States were invited to nominate
students. External funds, amounting to almost USD 100,000, were raised
from a number of governments and other donors to enable the training to
take place.
The training was delivered at the Academy from 13 to 24 May 2002.
Twenty-eight students attended from the following countries;
Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, the Lao People's
Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, the Russian Federation,
Thailand and Viet Nam. Responsibility for the training was divided
between staff of the Academy faculty and specialized instructors from
the CITES Secretariat, Africa, Europe and North America. The subjects
covered included: arrest techniques, border controls, CITES, covert
operations, evidence gathering, fraud, forensic science, informants,
interview techniques, intelligence, organized crime, personal safety,
search and train-the-trainer. The training received high evaluation
ratings from the students and the Academy. Together with written
training materials, each student also received an electronic version of
the presentations to enable him or her to conduct further training.
The course was one of the most intensive ever organized by the
Secretariat and, whilst it is regarded as having been highly
successful, it placed a heavy burden upon its resources and it would be
difficult for us to conduct such training on a regular basis.
Instead, the Secretariat now tends to focus its activities on e-
learning materials. We have a variety of capacity-building modules
available and the majority is now supplied in a CD-ROM format. These
include an inter-active training course for Customs officers and an
informative course for enforcers, prosecutors and the judiciary. One of
the CD-ROMs incorporates a session relating to ethics in wildlife law
enforcement, especially prepared with a view to assisting in anti-
corruption work.
Recommendations
The CITES Secretariat is aware that enforcement alone will never
address the problems associated with illegal trade. To do so requires
consideration of a wide range of socio-economic issues, especially
those relating to enabling local communities to value the natural
resources around them and benefit from them, e.g. through eco-tourism
or sustainable trade in wildlife.
We presume, however, that these are not matters that the Committee
will consider on this occasion and we will, thus, restrict our comments
accordingly. The Secretariat is also conscious that many of the
recommendations that we might be inclined to make are more properly
matters for the international community as a whole to address and,
consequently, we will restrict our comments here too.
1. The CITES Secretariat is very conscious that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (on occasions in conjunction with other federal, State
and local agencies) has undertaken, and continues to undertake,
enforcement activities that impact upon the criminals who engage in
illegal international trade in wildlife. We value the manner in which
the Service looks beyond the borders of the United States. In such
work, it has been very ably assisted by its National Fish and Wildlife
Forensics Laboratory. The Service as a whole has been willing to share
its intelligence and expertise with other enforcement bodies around the
world, both at an operational level but also through the provision of
technical support and training. We trust that the Service will continue
such activities and, as much as possible, extend them with regard to
the international community.
2. The Secretariat makes the very same remarks as in paragraph 1
above in relation to the U.S. Department of Justice. The importance of
effective prosecution can sometimes be overlooked. Here too, the United
States provides a first-class example to other nations. In 2004, the
CITES Secretary-General's Certificate of Commendation was awarded to
the Service and the Department for their work in relation to combating
and prosecuting illegal trade in caviar. The Secretariat hopes that the
Department will continue to provide support to the international
community and, where possible, extend its activities in this field.
3. The Secretariat believes that attracting greater political
will and achieving a higher law enforcement priority in relation to
combating illegal trade in wildlife will not be possible until wildlife
crime is viewed as ``mainstream'' crime. For this to happen, we believe
that wildlife crime must appear more regularly on the agendas of
relevant meetings of senior law enforcement officials, such as the
Interpol General Assembly, and political level meetings, such as the
Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention against Transnational
Organized Crime. We believe that the United States of America is well
placed to influence such agendas, both at home and abroad, and we hope
that the Committee may seek to suggest to the Government of the United
States that it do so.
The Secretariat is of the opinion that our work, and that of the
Parties to CITES, in the field of combating serious illegal trade in
wildlife has been relatively successful. However, the Secretariat's
resources are very limited and, in recent years, our attempts to seek
additional funding for such work have not been successful. We seek the
support of the United States, as the major contributor to the Trust
Fund of CITES, to provide additional finance to the budget of the
Convention and to encourage other Parties to do likewise.
Concluding remarks
The CITES Secretariat welcomes the initiative by the U.S. House of
Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, to examine illegal
trade in wildlife. We believe it is a subject that deserves to be
considered more widely in similar fora.
Many of the violations of the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora are of a minor or technical
nature. It is also important to acknowledge that the majority of
wildlife trade conducted around the world each year complies with the
provisions of the Convention, i.e. it is both legal and sustainable in
nature. The United States is probably the most significant ``consumer
country'' with regard to trade in specimens of CITES-listed species and
we are aware that research by the Fish and Wildlife Service has
confirmed most imports to be of a lawful nature. Citizens of the United
States also play a significant role within many wildlife range States,
especially through trophy hunting, and this provides important revenue
to many local communities. It is important, therefore, that trade in
wildlife should not attract a negative image.
However, we trust that our submission has made plain that there are
certainly serious levels of crime associated with the trade in wildlife
and that these are deserving of special and targeted attention. Such
attention is, in the main, still missing, despite CITES having been in
existence for over 30 years and the serious nature of wildlife crime
having been widely known for a similar period. For some reason, crimes
involving natural resources continue to fall outside ``mainstream
crime'' and it continues to be extremely difficult to obtain the
interest or consideration of the wider law enforcement community in
this subject.
There are many issues that impact upon species of conservation
concern, particularly loss of habitat. But poaching and illegal trade
are undoubtedly issues that have had, and continue to have, major
impacts upon many of the world's most endangered species. Some of these
species are literally on the brink of extinction and, for them, time is
running out.
The CITES Secretariat repeats its sincere appreciation for the
invitation to contribute to the work of the Committee. If we can
provide additional information to assist the Committee as it determines
how to proceed with this subject, we shall be only too happy to help.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by John M. Sellar,
Senior Officer, Anti-smuggling, Fraud and Organized Crime
I refer to the additional questions received from the Chairman and
The Honorable Don Young in a letter dated 6 March 2008. Many of the
issues raised by the Chairman and Ranking Member are of a complex and
detailed nature, for which very lengthy explanations could potentially
be provided.
I hope you will understand, however, that my current workload and
lack of resources (as discussed with the Committee) means that I have
had to restrict my answers to relatively brief responses. Nonetheless,
I trust the following responses will be of assistance.
Questions for the record by Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II, Chairman
Jewelry sale
The international trade in ekipas, which was approved at the 13th
meeting of the Conference of the Parties (Bangkok, 2004), has not
started. It was Namibia's intention to licence persons who wished to
manufacture or trade in ekipas and that the ivory would be supplied
from government stocks. However, the registration system has yet to be
completed. Consequently, there has been no legal commercial export of
ekipas from Namibia to date.
We do not believe it was intended that profits from the sale of
ekipas would be reinvested in community development. However, we
understand the Namibian Government's intention was, in authorizing such
trade, to support the rural communities that have traditionally
manufactured ekipas. Profits from sales of raw ivory by the Government
of Namibia are usually reinvested in conservation work, particularly in
relation to elephants.
We have no information regarding the scale of domestic trade in
ekipas in Namibia. We understand that the price of ekipas varies
greatly, since the ivory is incorporated into pieces of jewellery
which, in themselves, may be intricate or use precious metals. We are
aware of one survey that noted prices ranging from the equivalent of
USD 110 to USD 860.
Ivory trade
This is a highly emotional and complex issue that attracts many
differing opinions and is the subject of considerable debate at each
and every meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES. We note
considerable misunderstanding and some misinformation in the debates.
The difference in numbers between tigers and elephants is
particularly important and must not be discounted. It appears that
there are less than 5,000 tigers left in the wild. Consequently,
allowing commercial trade in specimens of this species has very
considerable risks, should trade impact negatively upon wild tigers. By
comparison, elephant numbers in southern Africa amount to several
hundred thousand.
In addition, CITES has established monitoring systems to overview
elephant populations and illicit trade. Nothing similar exists for any
other species. Full details on these systems can be found at:
http://www.cites.org/eng/prog/mike_etis.shtml
An experimental trade in raw ivory from government stocks in
Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to Japan was conducted in 1999. There is
no evidence to show that this trade, or other CITES decisions, have
increased poaching or illegal trade. Considerable efforts have been
made by the Secretariat, and the relevant trading Parties, to ensure
that the exported raw ivory is of a legal origin and that the
manufacturing and retail controls in the country of import are
stringent. It is worth noting that, to date, the majority of ivory that
has entered into trade from such government stocks has been collected
through natural mortality. The auction, export and import of the ivory
took place under the supervision of the CITES Secretariat and we
believe it was impossible for poached ivory to enter this closed trade
``chain''.
It is also worth noting that considerable quantities of illegal-
origin ivory are sold through unregulated or illegal markets in west
and central Africa. CITES has adopted an action plan to address such
matters, which can be found at:
http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid14/annex2.shtml
Location of CITES
Locating the CITES Secretariat elsewhere than in Geneva has been
considered several times by the CITES Standing Committee, with the
conclusion that such a move would not result in meaningful savings. It
may be of interest for the Committee to note the following budgetary
information. For 2009, the assessed contribution to the CITES Trust
Fund by the United States of America has been set at USD 1,135,359. The
United States of America is the single largest contributor to the Trust
Fund. Using a sliding UN scale to assess contributions, many Parties in
the developing world will pay USD 52 in 2009.
Deterrence
The Secretariat has no budget to engage in ``deterrence''
activities, such as public awareness or education campaigns, and this
remains a matter for national authorities (although we have identified
in our programme that we would like to obtain funding to do so).
CITES has, in a species-specific manner, introduced a caviar trade
database where the trade is ``tracked'' in as near a ``real-time''
manner as possible and we hope this will aid in deterring some of the
fraud and laundering that previously occurred. This approach may, in
due course, be used for other forms of trade.
We seek to encourage and facilitate enforcement of the Convention
and we hope this helps deter wildlife criminals. Enforcement of
wildlife trade regulations is solely a matter for national authorities
and the CITES Secretariat has no enforcement powers. Our role in the
field of enforcement is one of providing technical advice and
assistance and facilitating communication, collaboration and
coordination between law enforcement agencies. Some of our activities
are described in our written testimony. However, the current
Secretariat budget of USD 4.8 million means that one staff member only
deals directly with enforcement, which certainly hampers our efforts in
this field. Requests for the creation of additional posts have not been
supported by the Parties so far.
Non-detriment findings
CITES already has a robust process in relation to non-detriment
findings, which is overseen by the Animals and Plants Committees
(formed of scientists and relevant experts). The process is described
in a Resolution, which can be found at:
http://www.cites.org/eng/res/12/12-08R13.shtml
Findings by these Committees that trade is not sustainable can lead
to recommendations to suspend trade. A major international workshop on
the making of non-detriment findings will be organized prior to the
15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, which will be held in
early 2010. Details can be found at:
http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid14/14_49-51.shtml
Questions for the record by Honorable Don Young
(1). The CITES Secretariat believes it is impractical and
unrealistic to expect that illegal trade in wildlife can be stopped
altogether. Alongside enforcement, we believe it is important to engage
in public awareness and education, to ensure that legal trade is
processed efficiently, but also to involve local communities in
safeguarding and benefiting from natural resources.
(2). The Conference of the Parties to CITES has, for many years,
encouraged nations to consider public awareness initiatives to
discourage the use of endangered species, that is species listed in
Appendix I, for example tigers and rhinoceros. Additionally,
particularly in the case of traditional medicine products,
encouragement has been given to seeking out alternatives or
substitutes. For example, substitutes for tiger bone have been
identified by traditional medicine practitioners. In the case of bear
bile, as another example, the active ingredient can be chemically
replicated without using actual bear specimens.
We are conscious that the United States courts are currently
considering cases where defendants are claiming that their violation of
the Convention was driven by religious needs. These aside, we are not
aware of religious factors being of significance in relation to CITES
and we suspect that religion may sometimes be used as an excuse for
what is truly deliberate circumvention of the Convention's provisions.
(3). A wide range of initiatives have been used to encourage
sustainable consumptive or non-consumptive use of wildlife. In situ
captive-breeding or artificial propagation can also play a significant
role in enabling local communities to benefit lawfully and sustainably
from natural resources. The Secretariat's budget does not allow it to
engage, to any significant extent, in practical assistance to Parties
but it attempts to provide guidance or advice. The following document
on incentives for implementation of the Convention, prepared by the
Secretariat, may be of interest:
http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/14/doc/E14-32.pdf
A pilot project relating to national wildlife trade policies is
currently nearing completion and it is hoped this study will provide
useful lessons. CITES also takes account of work in other fora that can
provide helpful guidance. For example, CITES has adopted a Resolution
referring to sustainable use of biodiversity:
http://www.cites.org/eng/res/13/13-02R14.shtml
(4). Several Parties maintain that they have governmental data-
protection policies or legislation that prevents them from supplying
enforcement-related information or which restricts what they can
supply. In such cases, if information cannot be supplied direct to the
Secretariat, we encourage the use of alternative channels, such as
ICPO-Interpol and the World Customs Organization. In recent years, we
have noted some excellent examples of inter-agency and cross-border
exchanges of information and many of these have been facilitated by the
Secretariat. These have led to interceptions of illegal shipments and
also follow-up investigations. Consequently, whilst it is currently not
possible to have a central collation of data, we are optimistic
regarding the ``operational'' sharing of information.
(5). The CITES Enforcement Expert Group has the following tasks:
to identify measures to improve the gathering of data on
illicit trade from and by relevant international, regional and
national law enforcement organizations, CITES Management
Authorities and the CITES Secretariat, and to discuss ways in
which such data could be analyzed to provide a clearer
understanding of illicit trade in specimens of CITES-listed
species;
assess progress in implementing the recommendations made by the
Group at its meeting in Shepherdstown in 2004; and
assess available information relating to any national action
plans recommended in Resolution Conf. 11.3 (Rev. CoP14).
Because the Group consists of experienced law enforcement
officials, from a range of agencies and from national, regional
and international bodies, it can help provide important
guidance for implementation of the Convention. Additionally,
because it consists of officers from a range of countries
across the world, it can draw upon those who have knowledge of
the most recent developments in law enforcement, trends in
illegal trade, modus operandi, whilst also benefiting from the
insight provided by officers from under-resourced developing
countries who can help identify their needs and relevant areas
for support to be provided.
The Resolution relating to compliance and enforcement can be found
at:
http://www.cites.org/eng/res/11/11-03R14.shtml
(6). We have not attempted to define the phrase ``serious crime''.
We would probably use the definition offered by the UN Convention
against Transnational Organized Crime, as referred to in our written
testimony, i.e. ``conduct constituting an offence punishable by a
maximum deprivation of liberty of at least four years or a more serious
penalty.'' In simple, practical terms, we would probably regard illicit
commercial trade in Appendix-I species as a serious CITES-related
crime, although serious crimes could also involve large-scale illicit
trade in Appendix-II or -III specimens.
(7). The Certificates of Commendation are intended to recognize
exemplary enforcement actions. In the case of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the U.S. Department of Justice, the Secretary-
General was particularly impressed by the self-initiated work
undertaken by Inspectors and Special Agents, often involving lengthy
and complex investigations (including covert operations). The Service
and Department clearly worked together very effectively and the number
of prosecutions, resulting in significant penalties, was remarkable.
The commitment and coordination demonstrated was undoubtedly
``exemplary'' and offered many lessons for other countries to draw
upon.
No other country in the world has such a large, experienced or
well-resourced wildlife law enforcement agency as the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Consequently, its Inspectors and Special Agencies
have considerable advantages compared with their counterparts around
the world. However, it is our experience that the personal commitment
and enthusiasm of those Inspectors and Agents matches anything we have
seen elsewhere. Particularly commendable is the willingness of the
Service to, wherever possible, assist other agencies around the world,
whether through capacity-building support, technical assistance or the
supply of important intelligence. The Service's forensic laboratory is
also the world-leading facility in its field and has undertaken many
ground-breaking research initiatives. The laboratory's support to the
international community is also commendable.
We particularly commend the recent initiative whereby the Service
has ``embedded'' a Special Agent to work with the enforcement
authorities in Thailand for a period of six months. The Secretariat has
recommended this type of in-depth capacity-building several times in
the past but the United States is the first country to provide it.
(8). Lack of funds was not the only reason for our decision to
cease enforcement-related data collection and storage. Given the
existence of other databases, such at ICPO-Interpol and the World
Customs Organization, we believed (even had additional funds become
available) that our human resources could be more effectively deployed
on other matters. We were also conscious that we were able to cease
data input without removing our ability to engage in the preparation of
Alerts and handling of intelligence.
Allow me to close by once again expressing the appreciation of the
CITES Secretariat for the work that the Committee on Natural Resources
is undertaking.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Perez?
STATEMENT OF BENITO A. PEREZ, CHIEF, OFFICE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT,
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Perez. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am
Benito Perez, Chief of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
Office of Law Enforcement. I am pleased to be here today to
discuss the Service's work in combating illegal wildlife trade.
Illegal wildlife trade is well documented as a significant
threat to wildlife, and it continues to thrive. More than
30,000 different species are now protected under CITES, and
listings under that treaty have increased by more than 75
percent since the early 1990s.
Since the traffickers' perspective, illegal wildlife trade
represents an excellent return on investment. Poachers,
middlemen and retailers all enjoy significant monetary gain.
The globalization of the world economy and the resulting ease
of travel, transport and transaction have only bolstered this
trade. The United States is a major consumer nation in this
black market. Each year, we seize about $10 million worth of
illegal wildlife.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the lead agency for
combating illegal wildlife trade. Our officers inspect wildlife
imports and exports for compliance, investigate and disrupt
smuggling networks and support capacity building efforts around
the globe. Our strategic goals include preventing illegal trade
in foreign species, protecting U.S. wildlife from unlawful
exploitation and increasing cooperation with our law
enforcement partners.
Cooperation with other enforcement agencies is particularly
important given the size and scope of our program. At present,
we have 114 wildlife inspectors in 38 ports of entry who work
exclusively on import/export control. Our special agents, who
currently number 191, conduct investigations involving both
U.S. and global species, and our four person intelligence unit
supports our domestic and international enforcement work.
In 2007, our wildlife inspectors examined more than 179,000
declared shipments and conducted proactive inspections of air
and ocean cargo, passenger flights and mail facilities. Our
agents completed a covert investigation that uncovered large
scale smuggling of sea turtle parts and products from China and
Mexico.
In other key cases, we sent the Japanese butterfly expert
to prison for trafficking in endangered species and exposed a
leopard poaching and trophy smuggling operation based in South
Africa and Zimbabwe.
Our officers worked with NOAA-Fisheries and the United
Kingdom to document trafficking in sperm whale teeth, teamed
with Environment Canada to break up a smuggling network dealing
in queen conch meat from the Caribbean and completed
investigations of cross-border bird smuggling that allowed 149
parrots to be returned to Mexico.
Last year, we conducted wildlife enforcement training
programs for officers in Brazil, Mongolia, Indonesia and Sub-
Saharan Africa, and completed validation studies of previous
training efforts in Thailand and the Philippines.
Our commitment to capacity building, which dates back to
the 1980s, has been enforced in recent years. In fact, since
2000, our agents and inspectors have taught over 30 training
courses, reaching officers in 58 different countries. We have
ongoing training partnerships with the International Law
Enforcement Academy in Botswana and with ASEAN-WEN, the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations Wildlife Enforcement
Network.
Continued efforts to combat illegal wildlife trade are
clearly warranted from a conservation perspective. They may
also be advisable in the interest of global security and
stability.
The United States must sustain and solidify its trade
enforcement efforts. The nation must also provide continued
support through enforcement capacity building overseas and to
on-the-ground conservation programs and economic development
efforts. Improved intelligence gathering and sharing is needed
not only among agencies focused on wildlife crime, but across
the broader enforcement spectrum.
The United States can also play an important role in
fostering regional enforcement alliances as we have with ASEAN-
WEN and the North American Wildlife Enforcement Group, NAWEG.
The Service is committed to combating illegal wildlife
trafficking, and we will continue to work with other nations,
international groups and our law enforcement counterparts to
meet this goal. We welcome the Committee's interest in
strengthening U.S. efforts in this area.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to
respond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perez follows:]
Statement of Benito A. Perez, Chief, Law Enforcement,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Benito Perez, Chief
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Office of Law
Enforcement. I am pleased to be here today to discuss illegal wildlife
trade and our work to combat it.
The Service is the lead Federal agency for wildlife law
enforcement, including the enforcement of U.S. laws and treaties that
regulate international wildlife trade. Our mandate includes inspecting
wildlife imports and exports for compliance with U.S. wildlife laws and
regulations; intercepting illegal shipments; and investigating and
dismantling wildlife smuggling networks.
Overview of Illegal Wildlife Trade
Illegal wildlife trade has long been recognized as a threat to
species worldwide. Although U.S. and global efforts to stem it date
back over four decades, it continues to thrive.
More than 30,000 species now receive protection under the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES). Listings under CITES have increased by more than 75
percent since the early 1990s. Trade and trafficking have played a
major role in pushing such species as elephants, tigers, rhinos, and
sea turtles to the brink of extinction. Other wildlife ``commodities''
subject to significant trade pressures range from sturgeon and corals
to parrots and tortoises.
From the traffickers' perspective, illegal wildlife trade
represents an excellent return on investment. Poachers, middlemen, and
retailers all enjoy the opportunity to reap significant monetary gain.
Commodities that first sell for the equivalent of nickels, dimes, or
dollars in the source country can yield hundreds, or even thousands
more dollars at the point of final sale.
Poaching wildlife is viable because the monetary gain often exceeds
the income that would be available from legitimate sources. Last
spring, the Associated Press reported that a poacher can earn $180 for
the tusks of a forest elephant and $6,000 for its meat in an area where
the average legally earned income is $1 a day.
The retailer of illegal wildlife enjoys the benefit of exponential
markups. In a recent Service investigation, sea turtle skins purchased
for $70 wholesale in Mexico were used to make a pair of sea turtle
boots that could be sold for up to $480 in the U.S. retail market.
Wildlife traffickers in India have been quoted in the British press
claiming even higher profit margins--examples include selling a snow
leopard pelt for 10 times the price paid to the poacher and selling
ivory for 100 times the purchase price.
Many commodities in the illegal wildlife trade represent ``high
end'' goods in and of themselves. Admittedly, the market value of
illegal goods is hard to precisely determine (as is the overall value
of illegal wildlife trade), but we can provide some examples by looking
at a range of values from import/export declarations, market research,
actual investigations, and studies by conservation groups. A shahtoosh
shawl (which requires the slaughter of three to five Tibetan antelope)
can fetch as much as $19,000. The retail value of the parts (bone,
skin, teeth, claws and skull) of an adult male tiger can total over
$70,000. While the starting price for a snow leopard skin in China may
be as little as $250, our investigations show that that skin may
ultimately sell in the west for as much as $15,000.
Despite years of public outreach to discourage the consumption of
protected species, demand persists and black markets flourish. The
impact of such demand has been exacerbated by the globalization of the
world economy. The ease of travel, transport, and transaction that
characterizes the global marketplace has bolstered illegal wildlife
trade, facilitating its conduct and foiling its detection.
The opportunity for massive profits is clearly present, and we have
often dealt with groups whose operations demonstrate detailed planning,
significant financial support, sophisticated forgery and alteration of
permits and certifications, and international management of shipments.
These are among the indicators for organized crime developed by the
CITES Secretariat and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. We
have encountered clearly identified ``organized crime'' elements in
some Service cases. Two recent examples involved caviar smuggling rings
with professed ties to the ``Russian mafia''.
None of the Service's investigations show a definitive link between
the illegal wildlife trade and terrorism or other groups that pose a
direct threat to U.S. national security. However, other witnesses at
today's hearing that have a broader global perspective may well provide
greater insight into the nexus between illegal wildlife trade and
instability within other nations.
Additional examination of these issues may be warranted by those
with expertise in national security, terrorism, and organized crime.
U.S. Role in Illegal Wildlife Trade
The U.S. is a major consumer nation in the wildlife trade black
market. Annually, about $10 million worth of illegal wildlife is
seized--an amount that probably only scratches the surface of the
wildlife contraband coming into this country. Over the past four years
(2004-2008), our inspectors most often seized or refused wildlife
shipments from Mexico, China, and Canada--countries that are also among
our leading trading partners for legal wildlife and wildlife products.
Nations that rank among the top suppliers of shipments stopped for
wildlife violations include the Philippines, Hong Kong, Thailand,
Italy, Indonesia, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam.
Service investigations show that the U.S. is a key end market for
rare reptiles, birds, corals, cycads and orchids--everything from
parrots in Mexico to Komodo dragons from Indonesia to radiated
tortoises from Madagascar. The U.S. is also a prime market for elephant
ivory and ivory carvings and other art or handicraft items made from
the feathers, fur, claws and other parts of protected species. For
example, sea turtle eggs and meat are frequently intercepted at some
ports of entry as are queen conch meat and shells and Asian medicinals
made from rhino, tiger, seal, and other endangered wildlife. Other
examples of items that have been intercepted by Service law enforcement
include snow leopard and other spotted cat furs; rare mounted butterfly
specimens; improperly imported reptilian leather goods made from CITES-
listed crocodile, caiman, and lizard; leopard, bontebok and other
trophies lacking permits; and an array of other wildlife products and
parts ranging from beluga caviar, whale meat, and iguana eggs to coral
jewelry, giant clam shells and meat, and primate skulls.
It would, however, be short-sighted to depict the U.S. solely as a
consumer nation when it comes to wildlife trafficking. We are a
supplier nation for certain commodities and must recognize that if such
trade is left unchecked, it may ultimately prove as much a threat to
some of our own species as it has been for many endangered exotics.
A review of Service investigations over the past 10 years shows
that a number of U.S. resources are subject to unlawful take and trade.
Examples include a case worked in conjunction with the NOAA Office of
Law Enforcement involving juvenile leopard sharks unlawfully harvested
from California waters for both the domestic and European ``pet''
markets; the illegal collection and sale of freshwater mussel shell
from rivers in the Midwest and Southeast for cultured pearl production
in Asia; the trafficking of live eels from the eastern seaboard for
Asian food markets; and the harvest and unlawful export of coral reef
organisms from the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
Strong demand exists in overseas markets for U.S. reptiles,
including those valued as pets or high priced collectibles as well as
those eventually destined for consumption as food. In fact, export
markets have put so much pressure on some domestic turtle populations
that in 2006 the United States listed the alligator snapping turtle and
all 12 species of map turtles native to this country under CITES
Appendix III to better regulate this trade.
Developments in the global illegal trade also affect our native
wildlife populations. Black market caviar trafficking and habitat
degradation have sent Caspian Sea sturgeon populations plummeting. Such
population declines have drastically reduced the availability of caviar
from this source and have led to increased exploitation of U.S.
sturgeon and paddlefish for caviar production, some of which has been
sold in this country falsely labeled as Russian roe. Domestic sturgeon
caviar is selling for up to $880 a pound, while paddlefish caviar can
fetch as much as $373 per pound.
Service Role in Policing Wildlife Trade
As the lead Federal agency in this arena, the Service works to curb
illegal wildlife trade through inspection activities, investigations,
and international liaison and capacity building. The strategic goals
and objectives of our Law Enforcement program include ``preventing the
unlawful import/export and interstate commerce of foreign fish,
wildlife and plants'' and ``protecting the Nation's fish, wildlife and
plants from unlawful exploitation.''
The Office of Law Enforcement's strategic plan recognizes that our
ability to achieve these goals will depend in part on how effectively
we work with other law enforcement agencies, both in this country and
around the world. Our objectives therefore also include increased
cooperation with law enforcement partners on information sharing and
investigations. The Service works with a number of partners including
resource management agencies in developing nations and customs and
wildlife authorities worldwide; entities such as Interpol and the CITES
Secretariat; and other Federal agencies that also police trade, such as
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), NOAA Office of Law Enforcement,
Agriculture, the U.S. Department of State and the Food and Drug
Administration. Cooperative efforts range from joint investigative work
with counterparts in this country to training programs for officers in
countries that are working to improve their enforcement capabilities
and infrastructure.
Cooperation with other enforcement agencies is particularly
important given the size and scope of our law enforcement program. At
present, the Service has a force of 114 uniformed wildlife inspectors
at 38 ports of entry who work exclusively on import/export control. In
FY 2007, our inspectors examined more than 179,000 declared shipments
of wildlife and wildlife products.
In addition to seizures of unlawfully imported wildlife and
wildlife products, Service wildlife inspectors also conducted focused
proactive inspection operations at air and ocean cargo, passenger
terminals, and international mail facilities to intercept wildlife
trafficking. For example, an inspection ``blitz'' of passenger flights
arriving in Atlanta from the Caribbean and Central America during peak
sea turtle nesting season resulted in the seizure of 69 sea turtle
eggs; a similar enforcement operation conducted in Miami recovered over
200 sea turtle eggs along with a commercial shipment of queen conch
shells and caiman products that lacked CITES permits. Other examples
include ``strike force'' enforcement operations with Customs
counterparts in Los Angeles to look for smuggled wildlife in cargo
arriving at Los Angeles International Airport and at ocean cargo and
mail facilities in the area. Inspectors in New York now staff a
``Special Operations Team'' that similarly conducts proactive cargo
inspections as well as sweeps of passenger flights at John F. Kennedy
International Airport.
Our special agents, who currently number 191, conduct
investigations involving both native species and global trafficking,
and our four-person intelligence unit supports both our domestic and
international enforcement work. Investigative priorities focus on
unlawful commercialization of protected wildlife, including species
listed under CITES as well as those species listed under our Endangered
Species Act.
In FY 2007, our agents completed a three-year covert investigation
that uncovered large-scale smuggling of sea turtle shell, skin, and
products from China and Mexico to the United States and resulted in
joint enforcement action in this country and Mexico. Agents were able
to document an organized network of individuals involved in the sea
turtle skin trade from ``start to finish,'' tracing the links between
fishermen, wholesalers, tanners and processors, boot makers, ``mules''
(individuals paid to smuggle product across the border), importers, and
retailers. More than 4,000 sea turtle skins were offered to agents
during the course of this investigation, and traffickers dealing in
shells boasted of being able to supply enough to fill a semi-trailer.
In another key case, Service investigators sent a Japanese
butterfly expert to prison for trafficking in endangered species. The
defendant, who described himself to undercover agents as the world's
premier butterfly smuggler, pleaded guilty to 17 felony charges. During
the course of the investigation, he sold almost $30,000 worth of
protected butterflies and offered to sell another $300,000 worth to
undercover agents; species included such rarities as the endangered
giant swallowtail butterfly and endangered Queen Alexandra birdwing--
the world's largest butterfly.
Our agents worked with NOAA-Fisheries and the United Kingdom to
document trafficking in more than $450,000 worth of sperm whale teeth.
Defendants in this country included the owner of two scrimshaw
businesses in Hawaii who was sentenced to pay a $120,000 criminal fine
and another purchaser who was fined $150,000. A third defendant who
orchestrated the smuggling will be sentenced after testifying against a
British whale tooth/ivory supplier in the United Kingdom. The case
documented the smuggling and illegal interstate sale of hundreds of
teeth extracted from whales illegally hunted and killed by fishing
fleets.
Service and NOAA Fisheries agents teamed with Environment Canada to
break up a multi-nation smuggling network dealing in queen conch meat
from Caribbean and South American countries. The individuals and
companies involved (which include defendants from Canada, the United
States and Haiti) are believed to have illegally traded 263,953 pounds
of queen conch meat valued at more than $2.6 million--the equivalent of
nearly seven fully loaded semi-trailers. The investigation, code-named
Operation Shell Game, traced unlawful conch meat exports from the
Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Honduras, and Columbia. Wildlife
experts estimate that the meat involved in this case represents between
798,000 and 1.05 million CITES-protected queen conch.
Other investigative successes last year saw our agents expose a
leopard poaching and trophy smuggling operation involving South African
guides and U.S. hunters and the laundering of trophies through
Zimbabwe. The work of Service officers led to guilty pleas from a
California man who smuggled live eagle owl eggs from Austria and to the
conviction of a Philadelphia storeowner who sold more than $30,000
worth of endangered animal parts and accepted a $11,400 order for a
tiger and jaguar skin from undercover operatives.
Another important tool used to address illegal wildlife trade is
capacity building and training. For example, over the past two years,
the Service conducted wildlife enforcement training programs for
officers in Brazil and Mongolia. We worked in close partnership with
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to assist that organization
in setting up a regional Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN) and
conducted criminal investigators training under its auspices in the
Philippines and Thailand in 2006 and in Indonesia in 2007. This past
summer, our agents returned to the first two countries to conduct
training validation studies and provide additional technical assistance
to ongoing enforcement efforts.
In 2007, in cooperation with and funded by the Department of State,
for the sixth consecutive year, the Service conducted a two-week
wildlife investigative training course as part of the core curriculum
at the International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) in Botswana.
Thirty-two officers from nine sub-Saharan African nations completed the
program, bringing the total number of officers trained since its
inception to 182. This partnership has fostered information sharing
among African nations and the United States, improving collective
efforts to prevent global trafficking in African wildlife resources.
These efforts represent a continuation of the Service's
longstanding commitment to building global wildlife law enforcement
capacity--a commitment that dates back to the 1980s and that has been
reinforced in recent years. In fact, since 2000, our agents and
inspectors have taught over 30 different overseas training courses
reaching officers in 58 different countries.
For the past twenty years, the Service has also operated the only
forensics laboratory in the world dedicated to crimes against wildlife.
Our forensic specialists examine, identify, and compare evidence using
a wide range of scientific procedures and instruments, in the attempt
to link suspect, victim and crime scene with physical evidence. In
order to meet the forensic needs of wildlife law enforcement officers
at the federal, state and international levels, the lab's forensic
specialists will conduct crime scene investigations, examine submitted
items of evidence, and provide expert witness testimony in court. In
performing this mission, the lab supports federal law enforcement
efforts of our special agents and wildlife inspectors throughout the
United States, all fifty State Fish & Game Commissions, and
approximately 150 foreign countries who have signed CITES.
The Road Ahead
The United States must sustain and solidify its efforts to enforce
U.S. laws and treaties that regulate wildlife trade and protect global
and U.S. species. We must also provide continued support to enforcement
capacity building overseas as well as to on-the-ground conservation
programs and economic development efforts in range countries--efforts
that can help address the complex socio-economic problems that promote
poaching and fuel illegal wildlife trade.
Near-term developments that will strengthen U.S. enforcement
efforts include the Service's participation in the International Trade
Data System/Automated Customs Environment--an interagency effort to
improve the policing and processing of all trade entering and leaving
the United States. Benefits for our trade interdiction efforts will
include better access to shipment data for screening purposes and
increased intelligence sharing with other Federal agencies.
Improved intelligence gathering and sharing has become increasingly
important to efforts to address global wildlife trafficking. Further
attention is needed both in this country and in the global community to
facilitating information exchange, not only among agencies focused on
wildlife crime, but across the broader enforcement spectrum.
We also look to continue our training support to other nations
through ILEA in Botswana, opportunities arranged by the Department of
the Interior's International Technical Assistance Program and the U.S.
Agency for International Development, and other mechanisms, including
our engagement with ASEAN-WEN. A Service special agent is now on detail
in Thailand working as a technical expert and advisor on training
programs for this regional enforcement network.
Such networks, which include the North American Wildlife
Enforcement Group, the Lusaka Task Force in Africa, ASEAN-WEN, and the
International Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Network for
Fisheries Related Activities play a particularly important role in
addressing global wildlife trade. As our experience with ASEAN-WEN
shows, the United States can play a pivotal role in promoting the
creation of such networks and can further buttress such alliances
through ongoing technical or training assistance.
Conclusion
The Service is committed to conserving wildlife not only in this
country, but throughout the world. The Service will continue working
with other nations, international groups, and federal enforcement
counterparts in this country and abroad to combat illegal wildlife
trade. We welcome the Committee's interest in strengthening U.S.
efforts in this arena and appreciate the opportunity to participate in
this hearing. This concludes my prepared remarks, and I would be happy
to respond to any questions that you may have.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Benito A. Perez,
Chief, Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department
of the Interior
Questions from Chairman Nick Rahall
1. Wildlife Trade Prosecution
The international illegal wildlife trade appears to be motivated by
high profits and low risk of getting caught. Is arresting traffickers
and confiscating their goods a strong deterrent against future criminal
acts? What percentage of wildlife crime cases handled by FWS are
prosecuted? What limits the ability of FWS to handle more cases?
Response: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) believes
that enforcing wildlife treaties, laws and regulations can be an
effective tool in deterring both national and international illegal
wildlife trade. Investigating wildlife crimes is not, however, a
priority in many other countries, nor are penalties for poaching and
wildlife trafficking as stringent as they are in the United States.
Service investigations often involve years of work and similarly
staggered prosecutions. Most investigations (particularly those related
to wildlife smuggling) eventually result in some type of legal action
with consequences that may include: forfeitures of illegal wildlife and
instrumentalities used to commit the crime; civil penalties; criminal
penalties (including imprisonment and fines); forfeiture or
disgorgement of gains realized from the illegal trade; printing of
public apologies; suspension or revocation of licenses or other
privileges; and court-ordered monitoring of environmental compliance.
Each of these is part of our effort to deter further illegal wildlife
trafficking. A few investigations are closed without legal action being
initiated, most often these cases involve the illegal take of protected
species where there is a lack of evidence connecting the crime with any
specific person. In enforcement activities for 2007 (including but not
limited to international trade-related matters), the Service pursued
over 12,750 investigations, helped obtain more than $14 million in
criminal fines, and approximately $5.2 million in civil penalties, all
with fewer than 200 agents. Service law enforcement activities also led
to prison sentences totaling 32 years and probation terms totaling 557
years, and our law enforcement inspectors processed more than 179,000
shipments.
There are a number of factors that contribute to the limits on the
Service's ability to handle more cases, including international
jurisdictional issues, availability of information regarding wildlife
crimes, and competing priorities within the Service.
2. Multinational Species Conservation Funds
The President is requesting approximately $4.2 million for the
Multinational Species Conservation Fund in FY 2009. What can we
do to ensure that some of this money, if appropriated, goes to
funding law enforcement in range countries?
Response: Funding for the Multinational Species Conservation Funds
(MSCF) will go to the highest priority projects available for funding.
The authorizing legislation for the individual acts emphasizes law
enforcement as a key activity to be funded under each. In FY 2007, the
Service provided about $1.5 million, or approximately 17%, of the MSCF
appropriation (as complemented by USAID transfer funds) for law
enforcement related activities. A list of these projects is attached at
the end of this document.
3. Use of Database
Your testimony on page 6 discusses the International Trade Data System
to improve the policing and processing of trade entering and
leaving the United States. This program only affects U.S.
agencies. Is the U.S. a participant in ECOMESSAGE, an
international illegal wildlife trafficking database operated by
Interpol? Why or why not?
Response: Interpol's ECOMESSAGE system was intended to facilitate
efforts by countries worldwide to report on illegal transboundary
trafficking in wild fauna and flora. ECOMESSAGE relies on technology
that is, in the Service's opinion, not user friendly, and Interpol
protocols often result in information being transmitted to a country's
national police instead of to the appropriate wildlife or customs
agency for action. In practice, we have found it more effective and
efficient to relay information about wildlife trafficking directly to
the appropriate wildlife enforcement agency in the foreign country or
countries concerned. We also routinely receive information from our
foreign counterparts through direct communication.
We understand Interpol has made a number of improvements to
ECOMESSAGE, and we will reexamine our use of the system and the
process.
4. FWS Inspectors Working Abroad
Your testimony mentions that a Fish and Wildlife Service special
service agent has been detailed to work in Thailand providing
technical assistance and training on law enforcement? Does the
Fish and Wildlife Service have plans to detail special agents
to other foreign locations as well?
Response: The special agent stationed in Thailand to provide
technical assistance and training on law enforcement is funded through
the U.S. Agency for International Development. Although currently we
have no plans to detail additional special agents to other foreign
locations, we recognize the value of doing so and would consider it in
the future if the nature of the assignment helps to address the
program's goals and other alternatives are not available.
We are continuing our other efforts to build wildlife law
enforcement capacity overseas. Since 2000, Service special agents and
wildlife inspectors have taught more than 30 different overseas
training courses reaching enforcement officers in 58 different
countries. In 2006-2007, OLE training efforts included:
Criminal investigator training for officers from sub-
Saharan African nations, International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA)/
Botswana, June 2007 (part of core curriculum, offered yearly since
2002)
Criminal investigator training, Indonesia (sponsored by
the Association of South East Asian Nations Wildlife Enforcement
Network and USAID), February 2007
Criminal investigator training, Philippines (sponsored by
ASEAN-WEN, USAID, and WildAid), December 2006 with follow-up validation
study in August 2007
Wildlife trade enforcement training, Mongolia (sponsored
by TRAFFIC East Asia and State Department's CAWT), December 2006
Wildlife crime investigators course, Brazil, October 2006
Crime scene investigation for coral reefs, International
Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management Symposium, Cozumel, Mexico,
October 2006
Criminal investigator training, Thailand (sponsored by
ASEAN-WEN and WildAid), August 2006 with follow-up validation study in
July 2007
Criminal investigator training for officers from sub-
Saharan Africa, ILEA/Botswana, June 2006 (core curriculum)
Internet wildlife trafficking training, U.S./Canada/
Mexico video-conference (sponsored by the North American Wildlife
Enforcement Group), February 2006
5. International Collaboration
Since international trade in wildlife inherently crosses national
borders and jurisdictions, efforts to combat illegal wildlife
trade often involve cooperation between and among countries.
How frequently do FWS special agents collaborate on cases with
foreign governments? What sort of formal agreements exist for
collaboration with foreign governments to work on wildlife
crime cases?
Response: The strategic goals and objectives of the Service's
Office of Law Enforcement include ``preventing the unlawful import/
export and interstate commerce of foreign fish, wildlife and plants''
and ``protecting the Nation's fish, wildlife and plants from unlawful
exploitation.'' The Office of Law Enforcement's strategic plan
recognizes that our ability to achieve these goals will depend in part
on how effectively we work with other law enforcement agencies, both in
this country and around the world. Our objectives therefore also
include increased cooperation with law enforcement partners on
information sharing and investigations.
The United States government has a number of Mutual Legal
Assistance Treaties with foreign governments that may be used to obtain
foreign evidence for use in criminal investigations conducted by
Service agents and for prosecutions of wildlife crimes. These treaties
define the obligation of governments to provide assistance, specify the
scope of assistance, and set forth the requirements for assistance
requests. They may also contain provisions intended to ensure the
admissibility of foreign evidence in domestic criminal trials.
Although the Service has no formal agreements to facilitate
collaboration with other governments on wildlife crime investigations,
we have formal arrangements with several groups for cooperation in
building enforcement capacity and infrastructure. For example, we have
ongoing training partnerships with the International Law Enforcement
Academy in Botswana, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations'
Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN), and the North American
Wildlife Enforcement Group (NAWEG).
The Service works with a number of global partners including
resource management agencies in developing nations and customs and
wildlife authorities worldwide as well as international entities such
as Interpol, the CITES Secretariat, and the CITES Enforcement Working
Group. Cooperative efforts range from joint investigative work with
counterparts in other countries to training programs for officers in
nations that are working to improve their enforcement capabilities and
infrastructure.
Examples of recent cases involving international cooperation
include work with Environment Canada to break up a multi-national
smuggling ring dealing in queen conch meat; coordination with
authorities in South Africa to expose a leopard poaching and smuggling
operation; sustained liaison with enforcement officials in the United
Kingdom that produced charges related to the smuggling of sperm whale
teeth in both countries; and cooperation with Brazil on investigations
involving trafficking in rosewood and Amazonian tribal artifacts made
from protected species.
6. Memorandum of Understanding Between the FWS Forensic Laboratory
and CITES
The 1998 MOU between FWS and CITES notes the need for customs and
police authorities to intensify their surveillance and
enforcement measures. Has this happened?
Response: While it is difficult for us to gauge the amount of
increased surveillance and enforcement on a global scale, we believe
that the increased joint efforts of the Service and CITES have played a
positive role in international wildlife enforcement. The Service and
CITES routinely work together to train customs and police authorities
worldwide in wildlife law enforcement. This training strengthens and
intensifies their surveillance and enforcement ability.
7. Collaboration between Agencies
Does the FWS have any working collaborative agreements with other
federal agencies to specify responsibilities for inspecting
wildlife shipments at the border? Does an interagency task
force or group exist to address illegal wildlife trade?
Response: There are no official agreements for collaboration
between the Service and border inspection agencies on a national level
or within interagency task forces. However, Service special agents and
wildlife inspectors work closely with other Federal inspection service
agencies (including Customs and Border Protection, Department of
Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement) at ports of entry and border crossings on an ongoing, ad
hoc basis. Such efforts include Service participation in ``standing''
committees at ports that address such issues as smuggling detection and
pest interdiction as well as proactive efforts to organize and conduct
targeted inspection blitzes.
There is a Memorandum of Understanding between the Service and the
El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), which is composed of over 13
federal law enforcement agencies and the Department of Defense. The
Service's collaboration with EPIC has greatly enhanced our ability to
target both domestic and transborder illegal wildlife smuggling.
Finally, the International Trade Data System (ITDS) is a multi-
agency effort to create a one-stop internet interface with all agencies
involved in international trade. ITDS will provide the core
technological infrastructure for future wildlife inspection and
smuggling interdiction operations and is thus a prerequisite for
continuing and improving Service efforts to enforce U.S. laws and
treaties that govern international wildlife trade.
Questions from Ranking Member Don Young:
1. How large is the illegal wildlife trade? What are the major factors
that have created this growing international problem?
Response: Many commodities in the illegal wildlife trade represent
``high end'' goods in and of themselves. Admittedly, the market value
of illegal goods is hard to precisely determine as is the overall value
of illegal wildlife trade. While we do not know the full extent of the
illegal trade, we can provide some examples of the value of illegal
goods by looking at a range of values from import/export declarations,
market research, actual investigations, and studies by conservation
groups.
Despite years of public outreach to discourage the consumption of
protected species, demand persists and black markets flourish. The
impact of such demand has been exacerbated by the globalization of the
world economy. The ease of travel, transport, and transaction that
characterizes the global marketplace has bolstered illegal wildlife
trade, facilitating its conduct and obstructing its detection.
Illegal wildlife trade has long been recognized as a threat to
species worldwide. Although U.S. and global efforts to stem it date
back over four decades, it continues to thrive. More than 30,000
species now receive protection under the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Listings
under CITES have increased by more than 75 percent since the early
1990s. Trade and trafficking have played a major role in pushing such
species as elephants, tigers, rhinos, and sea turtles to the brink of
extinction. Other wildlife ``commodities'' subject to significant trade
pressures range from sturgeon and corals to parrots and tortoises.
From the traffickers' perspective, illegal wildlife trade
represents an excellent return on investment. Poachers, middlemen, and
retailers all enjoy the opportunity to reap significant monetary gain.
Commodities that first sell for the equivalent of nickels, dimes, or
dollars in the source country can yield hundreds, or even thousands
more dollars at the point of final sale.
Poaching wildlife is viable because the monetary gain often exceeds
the income that would be available from legitimate occupations. Last
spring, the Associated Press reported that a poacher can earn $180 for
the tusks of a forest elephant and $6,000 for its meat in an area where
they are found and where the average legally earned income is $1 a day.
The retailer of illegal wildlife enjoys the benefit of exponential
markups. In a recent Service investigation, sea turtle skins purchased
for $70 wholesale in Mexico were used to make a pair of sea turtle
boots that could be sold for up to $480 in the U.S. retail market.
Wildlife traffickers in India have been quoted in the British press
claiming even higher profit margins--examples include selling a snow
leopard pelt for 10 times the price paid to the poacher and selling
ivory for 100 times the purchase price.
2. How many wildlife inspectors are currently employed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service? How has this figure changed over the
past five years?
Response: The Service's Law Enforcement program has 114 wildlife
inspectors at 38 ports of entry. This figure has grown over the past
five years. At the end of FY 2004, we had only 94 wildlife inspectors
on the job.
3. Is trophy hunting one of the major sources of the illegal wildlife
trade?
Response: While it has been shown that trophy animals killed
illegally both in the United States and overseas enter the illegal
wildlife trade, based on our investigations and other information,
trophy hunting does not appear to be a major source of the illegal
wildlife trade. When undertaken in the context of a scientifically
justified, legally sanctioned, and fully controlled program trophy
hunting can create needed resources for wildlife agencies in their
efforts to control illegal wildlife trafficking.
4. Is there any evidence that terrorist organizations are planning
attacks involving the transmission of diseases through the
illegal wildlife trade?
Response: None of the Service's investigations show a definitive
link between the illegal wildlife trade and terrorism or other groups
that pose a direct threat to U.S. national security, including through
the transmission of diseases.
5. Is there any evidence that terrorists groups are engaged in the
wildlife smuggling trade?
Response: Again, none of the Service's investigations show a
definitive link between the illegal wildlife trade and terrorism or
other groups that pose a direct threat to U.S. national security.
6. Mr. Pueschel, with the International Fund for Animal Welfare,
stated in his written testimony that tiger bone wine being sold
in a shop in San Francisco. Is the Service aware of this?
Doesn't the 1998 Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act prohibit
this? What actions is the Service taking to prevent the sale of
these illegal wildlife products?
Response: Products labeled to contain rhino or tiger parts would be
illegal, whether or not they actually contain these species. Our
efforts to prevent the sale of such products include enforcement
activities (such as compliance inspection sweeps of retail outlets in
some major metropolitan areas) as well as efforts to educate the public
about Federal laws and prohibitions. Examples include production of a
bilingual (English-Chinese) brochure spotlighting laws that protect
tigers and rhinos; development of a formal conservation curriculum for
U.S. schools that teach practitioners of traditional medicine; and
participation in outreach forums such as the annual convention of the
Association of Chinese Herbalists.
We routinely receive information that items purported to be illegal
are being sold in a variety of venues throughout the United States; our
officers follow up on such reports as resources allow.
7. In the CRS Report ``International Illegal Trade in Wildlife Threats
and U.S. Policy'' there is an assertion that: ``There is
limited publicly available evidence of terrorist groups
involved in wildlife trafficking.'' Since there were no
footnotes, named sources, documentation or evidence to support
this assertion, could the Fish and Wildlife Service share with
the Committee any evidence of terrorist activity?
Response: Again, none of the Service's investigations show a
definitive link between the illegal wildlife trade and terrorism or
other groups that pose a direct threat to U.S. national security. We
acknowledged as much in our meetings with CRS staff, and we do not know
the source of the information that prompted this assertion.
8. How much money does Fish and Wildlife spend on activities to combat
the illegal wildlife trade? What specifically are the funds
spent on?
Response: The FY 2009 budget request for the law enforcement
program is $57.4 million. In general, these funds will be used to
investigate wildlife crimes and monitor wildlife trade, both
domestically and internationally. We do not track the amount of our
budget specifically spent on combating the illegal wildlife trade.
While the work of our wildlife inspectors focuses exclusively on both
legal and illegal trade enforcement, the caseload of our special agents
typically includes investigations involving not only global wildlife
trade, but also domestic enforcement issues. Our forensic laboratory
and intelligence unit also support both international and domestic
enforcement work.
ATTACHMENT
LAW ENFORCEMENT-RELATED PROJECTS SUPPORTED BY THE MULTINATIONAL SPECIES
CONSERVATION FUNDS IN AFRICA AND ASIA
FY 2007
THE GREAT APE CONSERVATION FUND--Africa
Controlling Transportation of Bushmeat by the Cameroon Railway
Company (CAMRAIL). In partnership with the Wildlife Conservation
Society. USAID/USFWS: $74,800; Leveraged: $73,997. Support for
increasing public awareness, education and law enforcement to reduce
the transport of illegal bushmeat on Cameroon's rail system.
LAGA-MINFOF Collaboration-Wildlife Law Enforcement. In partnership
with Last Great Ape Organization. USAID/USFWS: $79,812; Leveraged:
$112,606. Support for law enforcement, public awareness, and
prosecution of wildlife crimes to prevent trafficking of bushmeat, live
apes, and other wildlife products in Cameroon.
Great Ape Conservation and Monitoring in the Multiple-Use Forests
of the Sangha-Likouala Provinces, Republic of Congo. In partnership
with the Wildlife Conservation Society. USAID/USFWS: $92,239;
Leveraged: $36,750. Support for the protection of apes and other
endangered wildlife through collaboration with local communities, anti-
poaching patrols, and the development of a wildlife management strategy
in the Mokabi timber concession.
Protection Reinforcement to Save Gorillas at Conkouati-Douli
National Park, Republic of Congo. In partnership with the Wildlife
Conservation Society. USAID/USFWS: $99,942; Leveraged: $24,127. Support
for anti-poaching activities, illegal bushmeat control, training and
equipping of ecoguards to protect apes and other wildlife.
Conservation and Monitoring of Great Ape Populations in Southern
Odzala-Kokoua National Park, Republic of Congo. In partnership with the
Wildlife Conservation Society. USAID/USFWS: $65,531. Leveraged:
$23,895. Assess the status of gorillas and chimpanzees and support law
enforcement and protection measures in the southern sector of Odzala-
Kokoua National Park.
GREAT APE CONSERVATION FUND--Asia
Orangutan Protection and Habitat Monitoring Unit in Gunung Palung
National Park, Indonesia. In partnership with Fauna and Flora
International. USFWS: $54,084. Leveraged: $37,503. To patrol orangutan
habitat, collect and collate information on forest crime, facilitate
processing of criminal cases, provide relevant refresher training, and
liaise with government agencies, local communities, and the media.
RHINO-TIGER CONSERVATION FUND--Asia
Conservation of Rhino and Tiger in Orang National Park, Assam,
India, through Infrastructure Development. In partnership with the
Wildlife Areas Development and Welfare Trust. USFWS: $35,346;
Leveraged: $120,721. To strengthen law enforcement in vulnerable
portions of the park by providing anti-poaching camp/watch towers to
allow forest officers to remain in these areas on an extended basis.
Conservation of Tiger and Elephant in Pakke Wildlife Sanctuary,
through Construction of Three Anti-poaching Camps along the Common
Boundary of Pakke Wildlife Sanctuary and Nameri National Park, India.
In partnership with the Wildlife Areas Development and Welfare Trust.
USFWS: $51,987; Leveraged: $75,733. To provide greater protection to
these species through strengthened law enforcement.
Mobile Village Tiger Patrols II: An Integrated Approach to Tiger
Protection through Education, Conflict Mitigation and Law Enforcement,
Indonesia. In partnership with the Wildlife Conservation Society.
USFWS: $54,033; Leveraged: $63,551. To conduct human-wildlife conflict
patrols, conduct wildlife crimes investigations, provide legal aid in
wildlife crimes cases, and conduct educational events to raise
awareness about tiger conservation.
Continuation of Rhino Monitoring and Protection Units in Ujung
Kulon National Park, Indonesia. In partnership with the International
Rhino Foundation. USFWS: $37,094; Leveraged: $58,181. Patrols will
focus on key rhino areas such as saltlicks, wallows and important
access routes.
Protection of Sumatran Rhinos by Anti-poaching Units in Way Kambas
National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. In partnership with the
International Rhino Foundation. USFWS: $49,949; Leveraged: $125,337. To
continue to operate five anti-poaching units in the park, remove and
destroy all traps encountered on patrols, and apprehend suspected
poachers so they may be prosecuted.
Vientiane Capital City Illegal Wildlife Trade Project, Phase IV,
Lao PDR. In partnership with the Wildlife Conservation Society. USFWS:
$51,113; Leveraged: $32,127. To reduce the loss of tigers, their prey,
and other wildlife by halting wildlife trade in Vientiane through
enhanced law enforcement and public awareness.
Conservation of Tiger and Prey Populations by Improved Law
Enforcement, Reducing Human-Tiger Conflict, and Awareness Raising in
the Nam Et-Phou Louey National Protected Area, Lao PDR. In partnership
with the Wildlife Conservation Society. USFWS: $50,450; Leveraged:
$81,342. To protect tigers through increased patrolling, continued
monitoring of livestock depredation, increased public awareness, and
incentives for tiger conservation.
Database on Wildlife Crime. In partnership with Wildlife
Conservation Nepal. USFWS: $56,375; Leveraged: $27,335. To establish a
database to monitor the activities of wildlife poachers, traders, and
their associates so as to enhance the capacity of authorities to combat
wildlife crime.
Expanding the Monitoring System for Tiger Conservation to Thung Yai
Wildlife Sanctuary, Western Forest Complex, Thailand. In partnership
with the Wildlife Conservation Society. USFWS: $51,273; Leveraged:
$56,468. To expand the science based protection system in use at Huai
Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary to the Thung Yai East and West Sanctuary
so as to protect tigers and their prey.
Strengthening Tiger Management in Birsky Wildlife Reserve, Russia.
In partnership with the Khabarovsky Krai Special Protected Areas and
Wildlife Conservation Service. USFWS: $48,512; Leveraged: $22,440. To
equip anti-poaching patrols with essential non-lethal equipment.
RHINO-TIGER FUND--Africa
Black Rhino Surveillance and Security. In partnership with Ol
Pejeta Conservancy. FWS: $30,344; Leveraged: $30,344. This project will
provide training and core expenses for security personnel to patrol and
protect one of Kenya's key rhino populations, on Ol Pejeta Conservancy
in central Kenya.
Black Rhino Anti-Poaching & Monitoring Program in the Chyulu Hills,
Kenya. In partnership with International Rhino Foundation. FWS:
$44,162; Leveraged: $86,529. This project supports antipoaching and
water provisioning for a little known population of black rhinos
outside the Tsavo National Park system in southwest Kenya.
Security and Monitoring of Rhinos in Lewa Wildlife Conservancy,
Kenya. In partnership with Lewa Wildlife Conservancy. FWS: $45,502;
Leveraged: $156,316. To support and enhance the on-going conservation
of Black and White rhinos on and near Lewa Wildlife Conservancy in
Kenya through the construction of security housing to enable security
personnel to be permanently stationed in the Ngare Ndare Forest. This
project will also enhance Lewa's radio communication network through
the purchase of new hand-held radios to be used by rhino monitoring
teams, and supporting radio-licensing costs for Lewa's extensive radio-
network, which links LWC, Kenya Wildlife Service, Kenya Police,
Laikipia Wildlife Forum and community conservation areas of the
Northern Rangelands Trust to facilitate efficient and effective
response to incidents of insecurity across a vast area of northern
Kenya.
Support for Training and Equipment for the Greater Mara Community
Scout Programme. FWS: $38,179; Leveraged: $87,819. In partnership with
Friends of Conservation. Continued funding will support wildlife scouts
from settlements surrounding the Maasai-Mara Reserve in Kenya.
Activities funded by this project include training, workshops, outreach
on mediating human/wildlife conflict, providing security radios and
transport costs for patrols, and providing veterinary care for animals
released found in illegal hunting snares.
Selous Black Rhino Conservation Project. In partnership with
International Rhino Foundation on behalf of the Selous Trust. FWS:
$38,000; Leveraged: $259,800. This project supports security and
infrastructure to conserve black rhinos in the relatively undeveloped
areas of the Selous Game Reserve in southern Tanzania. Activities will
include maintaining basic patrols, locating and regularly monitoring
surviving rhinos, and providing capacity building necessary to improve
security and knowledge of the rhino population.
Support for Rhino Monitoring Bases, Zimbabwe. In partnership with
International Rhino Foundation. FWS: $9,931; Leveraged: $44,000.
Important black rhino populations in Zimbabwe occur on private land
that has been adversely affected by recent land invasions. In response
to the new human settlements, rhinos have been translocated further
south, to safer areas. As a result, the rangers monitoring and
protecting these rhinos need to move to the same area. This grant
contributes to refurbishing existing buildings in the new region into
suitable accommodation for the relocated rhino security personnel.
ASIAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION FUND
Floating Anti-poaching Camp in Kaziranga National Park, Assam,
India. In partnership with The Rhino Foundation for Nature in Northeast
India. USFWS: $46,376; Leveraged: $15,917. Support to build a floating
anti-poaching camp that will operate on the Bhramaputra River which
forms the northern boundary of Kaziranga National Park, to enhance
protection of elephants and other endangered species that live in the
park.
Protection of Threatened Megavertebrates by Anti-poaching Units in
Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. In partnership
with International Rhino Foundation. USFWS: $49,996. Leveraged:
$328,923. Continued support for eight anti-poaching units to be
operational throughout the year protecting wildlife including
elephants, rhinos, tigers and tapirs, and other species of importance
to biodiversity and their habitats in BBS National Park.
AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION FUND
EIA Ivory Enforcement Training Film ``Combating Ivory Smuggling: A
Guide for Enforcement Officers'' In partnership with Environmental
Investigation Agency. Country of work: Range States. USFWS: $11,720;
Leveraged: $21,030. The purpose of this project is to support the
filming, production and distribution of a comprehensive, inclusive and
practical training tool for enforcement officers to help curtail
elephant poaching and the illegal trade in ivory.
Securing Elephants and Habitat through the Hifadhi Network in West
Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. In partnership with African Wildlife Foundation.
Country of work: Tanzania USFWS: $67,973; Leveraged: $61,788. This
grant assists local community scouts to conduct anti-poaching patrols
and basic wildlife monitoring on land outside of protected areas in
northern Tanzania.
Namunyak Wildlife Conservation Trust Communications Project. In
partnership with Northern Rangelands Trust Country of work: Kenya
USFWS: $27,132; Leveraged: $110,021. The Recipient will purchase and
install a new radio communications system, including: base radios,
handheld radios, and solar panels for recharging batteries to upgrade
and improve the communications systems for security personnel in
community conservancies in northern Kenya. The communications system
will be maintained in order to provide reliable communication between
the Northern Rangelands conservancies (including Kalama, Meibae,
Melako, Sera and Westgate) and the Kenya Wildlife Service, Lewa
Wildlife Conservancy and the Kenya Police.
Operations support for the Wildlife Action Group-Malawi for the
Protection of the Thuma Forest Reserve Elephant Population, September
2007-August 2008. In partnership with Wildlife Action Group Country of
work: Malawi. USFWS: $17,031; Leveraged: $44,411 This project provides
support to a local organization to patrol Thuma Forest Reserve (with
rangers from Malawi's Department of National Parks and Wildlife staff)
in order to prevent inflow of guns, snares, pit traps, and poison into
the forest reserve, and to prevent illegal offtake of forest products,
while also conducting conservation awareness outreach programs,
assisting local people in avoiding conflict with elephants and
initiating projects to provide alternative, sustainable income.
Aerial support for security, management and conservation of
elephants in Northern Kenya--II. In partnership with Lewa Wildlife
Conservancy. Country of work: Kenya USFWS: $15,000; Leveraged:
$537,197. This project supports aerial patrolling and response to
improve elephant security in community, private, and government-owned
rangelands in northern Kenya, in collaboration with the national
wildlife department and local wildlife scouts.
Protection and monitoring of elephants in West Gate Community
Conservancy, Northern Kenya. In partnership with Northern Rangelands
Trust. Country of work: Kenya. USFWS: $49,911; Leveraged: $35,940. To
improve security for elephants and other wildlife in community areas in
northern Kenya, this recipient will construct housing facilities for
community rangers in West Gate Conservancy.
Responding to elephant poaching crisis in Chad: surveillance plane
for Zakouma National Park. In partnership with The WILD Foundation.
Country of work: Chad. USFWS: $30,000; Leveraged: $120,100. This grant
provides funding to support a patrol plane for anti-poaching and
surveying elephants. The pilot will liaise with park officials to
direct them to the exact sites of any elephant poaching incidents or
poachers' camps.
Improving the management and infrastructure of Mamili National
Park. In partnership with Namibia Ministry of Environment and Tourism.
Country of work: Namibia. USFWS: $75,274; Leveraged: $487,500. To
improve national park staff's ability to conduct anti-poaching and
wildlife monitoring patrols in Mamili NP and, through improved
transport, develop improved communication with park neighbors, this
project will develop an overnight patrol camp and provide essential
equipment for park operations.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony.
I am going to ask both of you a question, but, Mr. Perez, I
have been told that Fish and Wildlife Service inspectors
receive seven weeks of basic wildlife inspection training. Our
U.S. Customs and Border control inspectors who are responsible
for inspecting shipments for all nondeclared wildlife only
receive two hours of wildlife training.
If that is correct, is that really enough for the agency on
the front line to keep our country safe?
Mr. Perez. Well, the reality of our presence at the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center in Glencoe, Georgia--we have a
staff of two agents and one wildlife inspector--is actually
somewhat of a success from our perspective to be able to get
two hours of training to all these Customs officers on their
agenda, which is in fact what we are able to do because we are
physically there, so from our perspective of viewing this issue
is we are pleased to have at least two hours before all these
future Customs inspectors.
Is it sufficient? We actually take very proactive steps at
all our ports of entry, in some cases monthly, where our local
wildlife inspectors understand that the eyes and ears of all
the other present Federal agencies are who is going to help us
do our job. In fact, in some cases, they have monthly
orientation and training sessions to get the inspectors that
are already there and those that are coming out in the field to
continue to augment that two hours of training.
So from my perspective, Mr. Chairman, we are very pleased
to have two hours on all of these training courses, all of
these training classes that are going through FLETC. Obviously,
if we could get a whole day, we would orient people and
synthesize them to the role that they could play in certainly
supporting the U.S. mission in trying to interdict this illegal
trade.
The Chairman. I am sorry. I missed the location of that
training base.
Mr. Perez. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in
Glencoe, Georgia.
The Chairman. Glenville, Georgia?
Mr. Perez. Glencoe.
The Chairman. Glencoe?
Mr. Perez. Brunswick. Brunswick.
The Chairman. OK.
Mr. Perez. The southern southeast corner of Georgia.
The Chairman. Mr. Sellar, in your testimony you state that
the illegal wildlife trade presents risks such as the spread of
disease and invasive species that could be economically and
biologically devastating.
Can you elaborate on what you have seen and what we should
be concerned with on this committee?
Mr. Sellar. Well, I think one has to be proportionate here,
Mr. Chairman.
The potential is certainly there. There is a wide range of
species and the various range of diseases they can carry. You
know, it goes, for example, from Asian bird flu right down to
Ebola, which is a terminal disease that you can do nothing
about if it started to enter your country.
Now, Asian bird flu has certainly spread around.
Fortunately, we to date don't seem to have any direct evidence
of diseases such as Ebola being spread, but the potential is
certainly there.
The Chairman. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Young?
Mr. Young. Thank you.
Mr. Sellar, you mention in your testimony the majority of
the wildlife affected by illegal trade is found in developing
countries or countries where economics are in transition.
What incentives have been used or could be used in these
countries to reduce their dependence on wildlife trade?
Mr. Sellar. Well, I don't know that there have necessarily
been incentives to reduce their dependence on wildlife trade
because, you know, if that wildlife trade is conducted under
the Convention, then it should be well regulated. It should be
sustainable.
Mr. Young. Let me clarify. I agree with you, by the way,
about the legal trade of wildlife. I happen to be one who
believes that is part of the economy, but we are talking about
the illegal trade.
Mr. Sellar. Right.
Mr. Young. What can we do to make it more attractive not,
for instance, to participate in harvesting rhino horns and
elephant tusks and all those other good things?
Mr. Sellar. Well, as the Assistant Secretary of State said,
there are initiatives such as ecotourism. In India, there have
been very good examples of the type of thing she referred to,
where you have in fact taken poachers and you have converted
them into guides for tourists or indeed converted them into
antipoaching patrol officers.
In the Caspian Sea, we have seen some poachers of sturgeon
who have been brought into the fold, if you like, and who have
now become legal fishermen, but I think the reality I have to
say is that in many of these countries, the condition in rural
areas can be really dire, and finding alternatives for some of
these people is not easy at all.
And so I think in the immediate term, unfortunately, I
think enforcement needs to be our first response, but that
can't be the only response. That is never going to be a long-
term solution for this.
As somebody made a point this morning, there are several
species that are listed in CITES that don't have the time to
wait for a long-term solution.
Mr. Young. Our biggest problem I think is, like you say,
you are in a country that you may be making 50 cents a day, and
if you kill an ivory-bearing animal, you can get maybe $100 or
$200. Of course, it is worth $6,000 someplace else, but $200 is
better than 50 cents.
Then if you sell the meat, because they are protein
starved. They sell the meat--let us say it is an elephant--for
maybe $1,000. You have 10 years of wages in one animal. That is
what we are up against.
Now, again, it is the demand. I am also concerned. Maybe we
ought to be going after not the poacher, as much as I despise
them, but the buyer. What is the penalty for buying or having
possession of a CITES animal illegally?
Mr. Sellar. That depends very much which country you are
talking about.
Mr. Young. Well, let us say I am in the United States.
Yes, one or the other. Butt in there if you want to. What
is the penalty for that?
Mr. Perez. Assuming we have a felony, which is on the
import of an unlawful item, the maximum exposure for an
individual is a five-year prison term and up to $250,000 fine.
Mr. Young. Now, that is knowingly doing the action, but let
us say I am John Q. Citizen. I am 75 years old. I am in an
antique store or I am someplace else, and I purchase a species,
unbeknownst to me, that is on the CITES list. What is the
penalty for that?
Mr. Perez. As we evolve an investigation and we make that
determination--that it is indeed someone that is not that
attuned to the illegal origins of this particular item--then
there are lesser included penalties under the Lacey Act or the
CITES provisions, so it could be as little as a maximum
exposure to a $5,000 fine and six months in prison.
Typically in those instances if there is a lack of intent
on an individual, what is weighed very significantly is the
aspect of pursuing the action against the item rather than the
individual, so the worst scenario in that case is the
individual that would have invested in that item will lose that
item, assuming that the forfeiture process is decided on the
side of the United States.
Mr. Young. Mr. Sellar, you noted that the Secretariat does
not have much accurate information regarding the sale of
illegal wildlife and the nature of such trade, yet you list a
number of examples where organized crime is involved.
How much of this information provided is examples of
factual versus innuendo?
Mr. Sellar. The 20--I think it is 20--examples that we have
given you, we have information behind each of those. Those are
not things that we have just imagined. We can back those up
with examples from specific instances.
To come back to your previous question, I think it is true.
We won't succeed if we simply target the poacher, but I don't
know that one necessarily has to target the consumer with
enforcement action. I think the consumer you hopefully target
with education and awareness raising.
It is the people in between, and those are the people who,
as you indicated with regard to prices. Those are the people
who are making the big bucks here, and they are the people we
need to put in jail. There are some countries such as China
that actually have the death penalty for wildlife crime.
Mr. Young. But that is not for consumers. That is for
actually killing something in China.
Mr. Sellar. Killing something in China or, for example, if
you were engaged in the ivory trade in China or if you were,
for instance, involved in smuggling falcons commercially out of
China then you can be sentenced to death.
Mr. Young. My information is that the three primary
countries that are consumers of protected species China, India
and Taiwan, and to some extent Japan. They are the ones that
are the major contributors to purchasing illegal species,
primarily for aphrodisiacs or ivory.
These countries are not developing countries. They are
countries with great wealth now. Again, if you have a country
that doesn't have great wealth and people that are starving and
a government that usually is probably involved some way
directly or indirectly through some of their ministers
cooperating with the other countries, and that is where the
real battle comes as far as I am concerned.
How do we make the consumer and of course the provider, but
primarily the government sort of condones this. I just don't
know how we can solve those problems. That is all.
Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned on this issue. I don't
want it to be cast as an antihunting issue because I think they
contribute the most for our conservation, and I do know some of
the problems that are faced in these developing countries about
just availability of dollars.
If I was over there and was living on 50 cents a day, I
think I would be pretty much tempted to be involved in some way
to feed my family.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Anybody wish to comment?
Mr. Sellar. Well, yes. Perhaps I should. In my role as a
United Nations official, maybe I should try and correct what
might be a misconception there.
I have never had any reason to think that India is a major
consumer state for wildlife. In fact, India has a very strict
regime with regards to wildlife trade.
Mr. Young. If I may interrupt? Maybe it is because some of
the people involved in the illegal trade are from India. That I
know.
Maybe I misinterpreted. They weren't the consumer. They
were the provider in these impoverished countries to China and
other countries in the Asian market. They are not angels when
it comes to this issue.
Mr. Sellar. That is quite correct. I mean, India
particularly for its tigers, for leopards and to a certain
extent its elephants. It has been the subject of illegal trade,
but most of it is of an export nature, so undoubtedly there are
criminals based in India that are engaging in significant
levels of illegal trade. But I just wanted to make the point
that we don't see India as being a consumer.
Mr. Young. Maybe not, but again it is my information that
the parks that hold the last big bastion of tigers have gone
from about 5,000 to 2,000 under the protection of the parks and
the Indian Government, so again somebody is not doing the job.
That is within this country itself. Don't get me started on
this issue.
The Chairman. Your time has expired. The gentleman from
Michigan, Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What is the status around the world in various countries or
internationally of declaring as contraband any of these parts
where they could be seized at any stage of possession?
Is there any uniformity of laws around the world? Is there
any international enforcement of declaring them contraband and
seizing them from the possessor? I will start with Fish and
Wildlife Service or Mr. Sellar, either one.
Mr. Sellar. Well, that essentially is why we have CITES.
CITES establishes levels of protection for the species that are
listed in its appendices. Those in Appendix I are the most
endangered, such as your tigers, the rare alcids, rhinoceros,
and essentially you cannot engage in international commercial
trade in those species.
So if you are a party to the Convention, if you are a
signatory to this treaty, then if those species pass across
your borders, you are expected to take action and to seize
those items and to confiscate them and to penalize the
offender.
One of the things that the CITES has is a national
legislation project where all the member countries, we look at
their domestic legislation and analyze to see whether it is
adequate to enable them to adequately implement the Convention
and the provisions of the Convention.
The Assistant Secretary of State indicated to you, and I am
sorry to sort of contradict her, that there was a good level of
legislation around the world. I am afraid the opposite is true.
The vast majority of parties to the CITES Convention do not
have adequate legislation to implement it. Consequently, when
they come across violations, then that is where we face
problems.
Mr. Kildee. So they actually agree to the Convention, but
don't have the internal laws to actually enforce them within
their country? That is somewhat duplicitous, isn't it, if they
are signing the Convention?
Mr. Sellar. Yes. Well, I think if you look at some of the
more recent multilateral agreements, be that environmental
agreements or other agreements, then often parties before they
accede to a convention or a treaty have to come up to a certain
standard.
That is not how it was when CITES was developed back in
1973. You essentially could say yes, we accede to the
Convention, and then you could play catch-up with regards to
whether you could implement the Convention or not. I am afraid
over 30 years later, we are still playing catch-up in many
parts of the world.
Mr. Kildee. I served on the Budget Committee for many
years, so I generally ask some budget questions. What is the
budget of CITES? What is your budget?
Mr. Sellar. I am afraid that is not my area of expertise,
but it is something under $5 million a year.
Mr. Kildee. Under $5 million?
Mr. Sellar. If I can best explain it by indicating that we
have--I think it is 25 staff. Of those, about 15 or less are at
the professional grade in the United Nations system. The rest
are G staff, secretarial staff.
You know, 30,000 species listed by the Convention, 172
countries, so you can see that we have a very small secretariat
to deal with a major issue.
Mr. Kildee. What percentage of that $5 million is from the
United States?
Mr. Sellar. Again, I am afraid this is not my area of
expertise, but what I can tell you is the United States of
America is the biggest contributor to CITES.
Mr. Kildee. OK. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman?
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A question for Mr. Perez. Can you tell us, of the cargo
that comes into the United States that is inspected by U.S.
Fish and Wildlife agents, what percentage of those shipments
actually get looked at directly?
And then if we were to double or triple that effort, how
many inspectors would it take to get us to that level?
Mr. Perez. I would split the response. In fact, the
inspectors in our program strive to look at at least 25 percent
of shipments that we are aware of. In many cases, we are able
to accomplish that.
However, there are other eyes out there in Customs and
Border Protection that may contribute to a little bit different
type of revision for certain cargo, so our goal
programmatically is to try to review 25 percent, and clearly if
we are able to double that vigilance, we would potentially be
more effective in what we are detecting and what we are
finding.
The challenge for us is customer service dominates a lot of
the time of our wildlife inspectors. We have to provide and
facilitate the legitimate trade, and in fact a daily routine
for an inspector is to perhaps have some opportunity to do some
proactive inspection because we have a significant amount of
cargo that comes in that may not require a declaration to us,
but in fact we may and certainly have the authority to go view
and peruse and look through Customs' manifests and whatnot.
That is the part where we try to certainly focus some
priority, but in most cases, probably 60 to 80 percent of our
inspectors' time, depending on where they are assigned, is
providing that customer service to facilitate the legal trade.
Mr. Wittman. So if you were to double the effort, about how
many inspectors would it take to get to that level?
Mr. Perez. Well, doubling the effort would be--we calculate
that on a per inspector basis, so if we could get double the
amount of inspectors, they still may be focusing on 25 percent
of the shipments, you know, from a ratio perspective.
But it would give us a little bit of breathing room if we
could double the staff at a given port like New York where we
have 10 or 12 inspectors that are facilitating the legal trade
and then measuring that ratio of some dedicated emphasis on the
proactive perusal of cargo and facility and even passengers in
some cases, so that would lend itself to obviously being more
successful at interdicting the unlawful products as they come
in.
Mr. Wittman. You had mentioned that the shipments that your
inspectors go through that were seized or refused, those
shipments most often come from Mexico, China and Canada.
Of those, are those products that come from those countries
as a source, or are they products that are maybe run through
those countries from other source countries?
Mr. Perez. It is not exclusive to a source. What happens,
for example, I will give you one example. We have a lot of raw
skins that are brought in through, for example, DFW in Houston
that are en route to El Paso.
In El Paso, there is an easier opportunity for the boot
manufacturers, and the particular city in Mexico is Leon
Guanajuato, which is the Mecca of making footwear, where they
then take that product into Mexico, so we have a re-export of
items that go into Mexico to get made into the products.
Oftentimes, that product coming back has irregularities with
the permitting and so on and so forth that has to be in place.
The other aspect of that trade is certainly the individual
purchasing items that are unlawful, so we factor the seizure
rate into the whole spectrum of the individual that brought
back a pair of sea turtle boots that they found somewhere and
the commercial vendor that is in fact doing the manufacturing
and bringing things up.
That is probably where there is the most volume, and
obviously the proximity to the southern border is why they are
constantly in the advent of NAFTA and the proliferation of that
kind of trade.
On the Canadian side, we kind of have a mix of the same
thing. There is some imports that go into Canada that transport
then into the United States. Not a lot of product goes to
Canada for manufacturing purposes, but it is just the access of
the border entries and that kinds of things.
It runs the gamut. We have the commercial shipments that
are coming in that are improperly documented and the
individuals that are bringing back certain types of trophies or
whatever areas are associated with them.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from Guam, Ms. Bordallo?
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a
couple of questions for Mr. Perez.
And I know, Mr. Chairman, you interrupted him and asked
about the two hours of training. I have been told that Fish and
Wildlife inspectors receive seven weeks of basic wildlife
inspection training. U.S. Customs and Border control inspectors
who are responsible for inspecting shipments for all
nondeclared wildlife only receive two hours. The Chairman made
note of that.
Is two hours' training really enough for the agency on the
front lines to keep our country safe? Second, what is the
reason for this? Is it financial constraints?
Mr. Perez. Well, the short answer is no, it is not enough.
The specialization that our wildlife inspectors have when it
pertains to conducting their job is the two hours that is being
referred to here is a Customs and Border Protection agenda that
they have absolute control over.
We have the opportunity while these new employees for
Customs and Border Protection are being trained to provide at
least two hours of training at FLETC, which is what I was
alluding to. The comprehension of what it means to understand
what CITES controls are and the kinds of documents that they
may encounter is clearly not sufficient for their agenda to
have that exposure to that.
The view of my practical experience at Customs and Border
Protection would be that they are the front line for many of
our agencies to be there handling the manifests or sometimes
things we never see. Their body of understanding to everything
that has to do with imports/exports is significant.
So our involvement not only while they are in actual formal
training and in the continuation of trying to get the localized
interest and attention in educating Customs inspectors in Los
Angeles and New York and Sweet Grass, Montana, is a constant
thing that we try to do.
But I do want to add one thing, and I think it has been
mentioned by both of you. Very recently, we actually augmented
our training for wildlife inspectors. Some years ago, their
basic training was five weeks. Now it is seven weeks because of
the need to expand their knowledge base, very specialized in
the wildlife arena.
We very recently actually in the last year included a
follow-up field training evaluation program for wildlife
inspectors similar to our agents, so in fact it is seven weeks
of training that is basic. They get a lot of their training
where they are assigned, but we also have a formal follow-up
training that they have to continue to successfully complete,
and that is an additional six months back at their duty
stations.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Perez. I have another
question. Is the current staffing of the Fish and Wildlife
Service Wildlife Inspection Program enough to deter wildlife
trafficking into and out of the United States?
There are 122 authorized wildlife inspectors and 261
special agents, but FWS only employs 114 inspectors and 191
special agents.
Mr. Perez. I will touch on the inspectors initially. The
inspection program is something that has some capability of
recovering reimbursable expenses for the legitimate trade in
the kinds of items that are being brought in.
When it comes down to the allocation of funding from the
program to that, the 122 authorized positions are in essence
just a measure of where we have to take the financial resources
that are provided to us and comfortably be able to have 114
inspectors.
We try not to let inspector vacancies sit for very long
because of the customer service demand, so the practical answer
to trying to have more folks out there interdicting the trade
is clearly certainly we would be much more effective in what we
do.
I do want to make a comment regarding our inspectors and
agents, and that is simply that we have a significant dedicated
group of people out there that are in many cases giving more
beyond what we would expect from them, and I want to make sure
to recognize that. I think our inspectors and agents do an
exemplary job in carrying out their duties.
To touch on the number, the 261 number for authorized FTEs
for agents, we have never been at that level. The highest and
the closest we ever got to that is 238 about five years ago.
What happens to us in the agent arena is we have a
mandatory retirement of 57 so our attrition can be very easily
calculated, and this is government rules regarding the position
of a criminal investigator.
So the 191 is a number that we are approaching very quickly
where we were in the mid-1980s with the fact that we have--from
the standpoint of our vacancies--we would have 70 vacancies
right now. We are in the midst of hiring 24 agents as we speak.
They would be going through training in Glencoe.
So the effectiveness of our force is certainly much more
readily felt and I believe recognized when we have more people
on the ground doing the work.
Ms. Bordallo. So what you are saying then, Mr. Perez, is
that these authorized numbers are really not--you can get along
very well with the current numbers. Is that what you are
telling us?
Mr. Perez. We deliver the mission. What becomes critical
for us as managers within our program is if we had 261 agents
right now with the current budget, our budget, we could very
likely have 261 agents, but they wouldn't be able to do
anything or go anywhere.
So what we have to factor in within our program is the
operational margin. The operational margin where we are at
now--we certainly are addressing our attrition rate--is
probably 12 to 14 percent separate from salaries and benefits,
so while we need and perhaps would like more officers on the
ground, including inspectors, we have to balance with our
financial resources.
Our officers have to be safe, they have to have the
appropriate equipment out there, and they have to have the
ability to do their job, which in the case of investigators,
they have to be out and about. They have to be moving. So we
have to factor in realistically what that ratio of operational
margin would be to keep them safe and keep them effective to be
out there.
One hundred and ninety-one is not a number that we choose.
It is a number we have been taken to based on attrition and
voluntary retirement. So it is always a balance of trying to
keep that number. We would love to be able to have 261 agents,
but if we did it with where we are currently funded, then we
would have to be sacrificing the ability to have an effective
force.
We would like to call it a lean and mean force if need be,
but at the same time trying to be as effective as we possibly
can. That lends certainly significant attention to how we
prioritize what our investigators are focusing on.
Ms. Bordallo. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I don't quite
understand this.
Then your agency is requesting these larger numbers of
FTEs--is this what I am hearing--and then you don't fill them?
Mr. Perez. I don't believe there has been a request to
increase those FTE numbers for quite some time. That is an
accumulation of authorizations that we have received in the
past based on various funding additions that we have had to our
program.
Ms. Bordallo. I see. Perhaps this should be looked at then,
these numbers here.
One other question I have. The President's budget request
for Fiscal Year 2009 would reduce law enforcement funding by
$3.2 million below the Fiscal Year 2008 level. Meanwhile, the
number of wildlife shipments is increasing. How are we going to
address the international illegal wildlife trade if we do not
fund law enforcement adequately?
Do you anticipate that the new inspection fees proposed
will help meet all law enforcement needs? Will there be enough
funds for Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcement to work
abroad training and assisting developing countries?
Mr. Perez. I will start with your last part of your
question.
The Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement has
never been able to have our trainers abroad without the support
of our partners. In the practical world that we live in, what
we basically provide is the resource, and we don't ask for any
support for their salaries and benefits.
Without the support of various funds of money out there--
USAID, ITAP, some partners that you are going to be hearing
from later--but for that support to get our folks to these
foreign locations, we basically don't have funding allocated
for that purpose. So we are able to deliver the mission because
of the partnerships that we have with various organizations
throughout the world.
Getting back to the user fee rule, which in fact we are
currently trying to increase, we have a proposal to increase
our fees that haven't been increased since 1996 that actually
published in the Federal Register on February 25.
The intent of that increase, assuming that we don't have to
revise the numbers based on comments that we get from the
Federal Register, are to in fact take into account the 122
authorized FTEs and try to in five years have the inspection
program, which right now, based on what we collect, pays for
about 45 percent of the program in the reimbursable
perspective.
In five years, once the rule is final and we get the
estimated fees that we are going to collect, our hope is that
the inspection program would be self-sustained for the purposes
of the current number and also for the purposes of conducting
and facilitating the legal trade aspect, our customer service
aspect. That is not factoring in the potential for any follow-
up or any illegal aspect that then would be handled by a
criminal investigator.
So the indirect benefit would be that we would not have to
utilize the appropriated dollars directly to fund the
inspection program, but in fact would have a self-sustaining
inspection program based on current numbers.
Ms. Bordallo. The cut in the budget.
Mr. Perez. Right. The cut in the budget. In essence, the
addition of funding that was given to us in 2008 was from
Congress. There was not a request for that addition, so the
funding that we got in 2008 was not the original request.
Congress gave us I believe a total of $3 million for two
things, increasing----
Ms. Bordallo. So we were generous?
Mr. Perez. Yes, ma'am, and we appreciate that
significantly.
For the purposes of bringing on new agents, because of the
recognition of our attrition rate, and also for the purpose of
maintaining our special operations function, and we have indeed
benefitted significantly because we were able to totally commit
to the new hiring initiative that we are taking on.
So in fact in 2009, it was not part of the request, but it
wasn't that type of a cut per se. Basically the support to
continue the same number, that is the specifics of that. The
original request in 2008 didn't include that increase, and in
fact because we got that increase from Congress, now it is in
essence a reduction.
Ms. Bordallo. So you can live with the reduction?
Mr. Perez. We can live with whatever we are provided, and
our employees are dedicated to deliver the mission.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Inslee?
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Science tells us that we are in the midst of an extreme
extinction event--some people have called it I think the sixth
great extinction in the history of the planet--due to human
activity. Do you gentlemen think that is correct?
Mr. Sellar. I can only speak for myself. I am essentially a
cop, so I am afraid I can't really respond to that. Sorry.
Mr. Perez. I would take that same--I am not a trained
scientist. I am not a biologist. I am a law enforcement
officer. I can only reflect to you what I hear, so I couldn't
necessarily--I can give you an opinion, but it would be
personal.
Mr. Inslee. Well, the reason I ask is the President's
budget would reduce law enforcement funding by $3.2 million
below Fiscal Year 2008, and for purposes of this discussion,
you can assume that we are in an extreme extinction event where
all kinds of animals and plants are going extinct, some because
of climate change, some because of pollution, some because of
habitat destruction, some because of acidification of the
ocean, and all of those stressors are made more manifold by the
fact that there is this illegal trade going on of outright
killing of these animals.
If that is true, wouldn't you think it would be pretty
unwise to reduce the budget for the cops on the beat whose job
it is to reduce this additional stress to these already
stressed animals?
Mr. Perez. I would react or respond in the context of the
fact that the Office of Law Enforcement is one program of
several programs in an agency of about 9,000 employees. We in
fact are about 475 employees.
To the extent that there is some recognition by the experts
of these kind of catastrophic issues, including the illegal
trade and the impact on species, there are certainly
conflicting priorities as far as what financial resources are
available and to what entities they will in essence be going
toward supporting.
The Office of Law Enforcement, as I explained earlier,
benefitted greatly from the generosity of Congress in the money
that was given to us in 2008. To the extent that our numbers
for 2009 are lower than they were in 2008, we have a
functioning group. We go to great lengths to continue the
support at the international arena.
We are looked at I believe, and you will hear this with the
next panel, very favorably as the experts to try to support the
developing countries in the training capacity, so we bring that
additional value to that effort that you are focusing on, that
animal that is being taken illegally in a foreign country.
Mr. Inslee. Are illegal shipments increasing?
Mr. Perez. Yes, they are.
Mr. Inslee. So when you have an extinction event going on
in the world, maybe unprecedented in world history, at least
one of the six or five that have already occurred, and when you
have illegal shipments increasing, do you think it is a good
idea to reduce the cops on the beat?
Mr. Perez. No, I do not think it is a good idea. The offset
to that, however, is the fact that the effort that we are able
to put if we had three times the amount of resources that we
had to operate on, that particular problem is so extensive that
it will take, and it already is occurring, a collective effort
from many people that you have heard from today, including the
organizations that are out there to support, to
singlehandedly----
I don't believe there is any amount of increases for the
Fish and Wildlife Service to do this, short of the full
recognition of the very event that you are referring to from
the broad spectrum of law enforcement officials--Customs
officials in particular--because they are in essence who are
doing this for all the countries.
Mr. Inslee. I understand that we are not going to solve all
the world's problems with this particular budget line item in
the budget, but do you agree with me that in the face of these
threats, the Administration has acted unwisely in attempting to
reduce the appropriation, which in some way or another will
reduce our effectiveness in preventing this increase in illegal
shipments?
Mr. Perez. The reduction of 2008 to 2009 is not what has
given us our challenges as it pertains to our ability to
deliver our mission. It is basically attrition. The attrition
that is occurring with retirements is where our significant
challenge is.
Mr. Inslee. Well, then you are not going to be able to
replace these people if you have less budget. You are blaming
the attrition. If you have a budget, you can go out and replace
these people--they are not the only people in the world who can
do this job--couldn't you?
Mr. Perez. That is a possibility. We are not the only ones,
and we certainly need a collective to continue to be able to do
this.
Mr. Inslee. Well, I am dissatisfied. Anyway, you get my
point. Thank you.
Mr. Perez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kildee. You know, I know you are part of the Executive
Branch of government and therefore you have to be careful in
criticizing the Chief Executive and his budget, but it is the
Congress that determines how much money shall be spent.
We have rolled the President. I have rolled six Presidents
in my 32 years. You know, it is the Congress that spends the
money. The President can't spend a dime. He can propose. We
dispose.
I am not chastising you. I know your situation. You are in
the Executive Branch. It says no money shall be drawn from the
Treasury in consequence of appropriations made by law. The
President has no power to make a law at all. He can sign it or
veto it. We make the law.
I appreciate the gentlelady from Guam's comment there. The
President proposed a certain amount of money a few years ago,
and we gave you more because all wisdom does not reside at that
end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
I have seen six Presidents, some better than others. I have
seen 16 Congresses, some better than others, but the
appropriations is a Congressional prerogative, not a
Presidential prerogative. He can either sign the bill or veto
the bill. He doesn't have line item power either. We resisted
giving him that.
So I understand your position, but if you had extra money,
you would have some flexibility within your Department. You
certainly have my gratitude, by the way. I really like the way
you run your Department, but if you had some extra money from
the Congress, you might have some flexibility to address
several of the problems, including your staffing problem. Isn't
that true?
Mr. Perez. That is correct, Congressman. In fact, the
primary way for us to affect our problems and our challenges is
with more people.
Mr. Kildee. Right. You know, that really is true. You have
to have good people, enough people, and when you have a
shortage of people--even on my level, my staff level, I need a
certain number of people to accomplish my job each day. I need
that. When you have fewer people, you just can't carry out the
responsibilities in the same fashion.
First of all, I am a great custodian. I carry this. I never
leave home without this, the Constitution of the United States.
I know exactly how much power they have at that end of the
avenue and how much power we have at this end of the avenue. I
love to look at the President's budget and say, ``where did you
get this?'' We are the appropriators, and, by golly, under my
watch we are going to stay as the appropriators.
Thank you very much, and thanks for what you do. Thank you.
The Chairman. Do you have a comment?
Mr. Sellar. If I may, Mr. Chairman, from the international
perspective?
Clearly, I don't want to comment on your budgetary issues
in the United States, but, to try and emphasize or illustrate a
point I made in my opening remarks, money is not always the
answer. There are sort of two sides to the coin, if you like.
If you will allow me, I will court examples from a country
in Central Africa where they have the resources, and to give
you a practical example, I was talking to the head of a
wildlife enforcement unit there, and I was staying in a hotel,
and ivory was openly on sale in this good-quality hotel.
I said to the head of the unit, how can you allow this to
happen? Why aren't you doing something about this? They said,
well, we have tried, he said, but when we do, the general
manager of this hotel phones the mayor and says, why do I have
wildlife enforcement officers wandering around my hotel
disturbing my tourists? This is ruining our tourist trade.
The mayor then phones the head of the wildlife division,
and the wildlife division phones the head of the unit and says,
back off. Stop interfering with these people.
Then the other side of the coin, the same officer was
telling me that he had been invited to talk to 30 Customs
officers drawn from our own nation, and he was to raise their
awareness of illegal trade in wildlife. He described to me how
half of this class of 30 had sat there, and he could see that
they were, if you like, converts. He could see that they
understood that this was an important subject, and it was one
that deserved attention. He saw the possible role for them.
But he told me, you know, Mr. Sellar, the other half, I
could see them sitting there thinking aha, there is money to be
made here, and that is the problem with some of the training
and awareness that we try and do, and that is why I said
earlier if we don't have the political will, then it doesn't
matter how much money you have. It doesn't matter how many
people you have.
This is why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and your
Department of Justice is really the envy of the world. You
don't know how lucky you are. When you go to some of these
other countries, the problems they are facing are immense.
Mr. Kildee. Pardon me. I appreciate your remarks, Mr.
Sellar.
We certainly need the political will, and the political
will is based upon a certain morality, but, you know, when I go
to church on Sunday, I pray, but I also throw money in the
collection plate. The church needs both.
The Chairman. OK. On that note, we will excuse this panel.
Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you for your testimony and for the
work you do.
Our second panel is composed of Mr. Steven Galster, the
Director of Field Operations, Wildlife Alliance, Thailand; Mr.
John A. Hart, Scientific Director, the Tshuapa-Lomami-Lualaba
Project, Congo; Mr. William Clark, Illegal Wildlife Trade
Expert; Dr. William E. Moritz, the Director of Conservation and
Acting Director of Governmental Affairs, Safari Club
International, USA; and Mr. Peter Pueschel, the Illegal
Wildlife Trade Program Director, International Fund for Animal
Welfare, Germany.
Gentlemen, we welcome you to our Committee on Natural
Resources. We recognize many of you have traveled a great
distance, and we certainly appreciate that.
As with previous witnesses, we have your prepared
testimony, and it will be made a part of the record. You are
encouraged to summarize.
We will start with Mr. Galster.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN R. GALSTER, DIRECTOR OF FIELD OPERATIONS,
WILDLIFE ALLIANCE
Mr. Galster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Steven
Galster, and I am Director of Field Operations for Wildlife
Alliance in Southeast Asia.
I currently run a U.S. Government sponsored program to
train a 10 nation wildlife enforcement network in Southeast
Asia. It was referred to several times in the hearing as ASEAN-
WEN. Our trainers include U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
special agents and U.S. Department of Justice officials, along
with Wildlife Alliance and TRAFFIC officers. The regional
effort is led by the Government of Thailand.
From my vantage point, and I am sure that of others,
wildlife criminals are running roughshod over authorities in
developing countries and are unraveling globally important
ecosystems. Just a few snapshots illustrating how big and
damaging this crime has become:
In the past two years, Asian authorities have seized over
20 metric tons of elephant tusks from organized crime. That is
over 2,000 dead elephants, and that is only what was detected.
Every month, we are witnessing literally tons of turtles,
tortoises and reptiles being shipped across Southeast Asia's
borders.
Key ecosystem predators like tigers, leopards and sharks
are being killed and smuggled in unsustainable volumes. This
shipment, seized by Thai authorities just 36 days ago, was one
of many organized by a cross-border syndicate operating across
six countries.
This is not just an Asian story. American criminals and,
unwittingly, American consumers, are behind many illicit
wildlife shipments operating overseas. Foreign criminals are
also breaking American laws by smuggling rare and endangered
species into U.S. markets. Often these wild animals are falsely
labeled as captive bred, indicating some level of corruption on
the export end.
Most field officers overseas, however, are not corrupt and
are working very hard under dangerous conditions to fend off
poachers and traffickers. They are crying out for assistance,
actually.
Americans should be concerned about all this for a number
of reasons. First, when one species is removed from an
ecosystem, it obviously has a knock-on effect to other species,
including eventually onto us, people. As a nation, we woke up
slowly to the reality of global warming. Let us not stand by as
wildlife crime threatens to wipe out many species from this
planet.
We should also be concerned that wildlife crime strengthens
transnational organized crime. Professional criminals like this
corrupt Russian police officer have trafficked both in wildlife
and women. Some brothels in Vietnam and Myanmar now offer young
girls, while serving up wild animal parts as aphrodisiacs to
their customers.
Some drug traffickers are using wild animals to conceal
narcotics. Some wildlife sanctuaries are being used to
manufacture and smuggle drugs. Two years ago, we came across
these facilities involved in methamphetamine production inside
a Cambodian protected forest.
The U.S. has both a moral obligation I believe and the
technical and financial wherewithal to lead a global effort to
curb wildlife crime. First, we should definitely strengthen the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement to
protect our own wildlife and prevent a massive influx of
illegal trade from overseas.
Fish and Wildlife agents are very effective, but there are
just too few of them. I think their small force of about 200
special agents could easily be doubled to catch up with the
wildlife crime problems in and related to the United States.
Second, the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies
like NOAA and the Department of Justice should be mandated and
supported to engage their overseas counterparts to jointly
fight wildlife crime, just as the DEA works jointly with our
allies to curb international drug trafficking.
Specifically, the U.S. should post wildlife law enforcement
officers to our overseas regional missions to train and work
closely with their counterparts to investigate wildlife
criminals. We should direct our national security related
agencies to lend their support too.
The U.S. military and its allies, for example, use
satellites, aerial surveys and joint patrols to look for
insurgent groups and other security threats. Let us ask them to
look for wildlife poachers and traffickers too.
The U.S. should also engage China, the other major global
wildlife consumer, as an ally in helping to conserve the
world's remaining wild animal and plant species through
consumer reduction campaigns and other measures. I think most
of America's allies, and perhaps even some of our enemies,
would welcome such support and collaboration. Wildlife
conservation is something that all countries, cultures and
religions can agree on.
Just to end up, the U.S. is spending significant funds to
secure finite, nonliving resources, fossil fuels, on which we
depend for our economy. We should consider spending a fraction
of that amount to protect the earth's living and potentially
sustainable resources that we will always depend on. We will
always need healthy ecosystems, and wild animals and plants are
the blood of those healthy ecosystems.
I think the U.S. can play the role of global environmental
leader, helping to roll back wildlife crime around the world
and, by doing so, we can help protect our own natural resources
from being targeted by increasingly strong and sophisticated
transnational wildlife criminals.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Galster follows:]
Statement of Steven R. Galster, Director of Field Operations in
Southeast Asia, Wildlife Alliance, Chief of Party, ASEAN-WEN Support
Program
Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Steven Galster, I'm Director of
Field Operations for Wildlife Alliance in Southeast Asia. I have been
involved in investigating, and designing programs to reduce wildlife
crime in Russia, Africa, and Asia for the last 17 years. As a security
analyst I spent years investigating human trafficking, arms
trafficking, and drug trafficking in various parts of the globe. I've
witnessed firsthand the connections between wildlife trafficking and
all of these other forms of organized crime.
I currently run a USAID- and State Department-sponsored program to
train and support the new Association of Southeast Asian Nations
Wildlife Enforcement Network (or ASEAN-WEN), which consists of Police,
Customs and CITES authorities from 10 countries, with technical support
from Wildlife Alliance and TRAFFIC. Our trainers include U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Special Agents and U.S. Department of Justice
officials.
Wildlife crime is a threat to international environmental
stability, the rule of law, and civil society. From my vantage point
and that of my colleagues working in Asia, Russia and Africa, wildlife
criminals are running roughshod over authorities in many countries.
Wildlife crime has become a multi-billion dollar, organized,
transnational crime that is unraveling globally important ecosystems.
It is driven by global demand for exotic pets and food, medicines, and
ornaments. It can no longer be contained at a local or national level.
This growing crisis calls for an interagency, international response.
The United States is part of this problem, and can be a big part of the
solution.
Here are some examples of how big and organized wildlife crime has
become. In the past two years we have seen over 20 metric tons of
poached elephant tusks (more than 2000 dead elephants) seized from
hidden compartments of cargo containers, on their way from Africa to
Hong Kong. That's only what was detected. The confiscated shipments--
which may represent only 10% of the real volumes being smuggled--were
orchestrated by a mafia group operating between Cameroon, the
Philippines, Taiwan and Hong Kong.
Every month, we're witnessing tons of turtles, tortoises and
reptiles being shipped across Southeast Asia's borders, organized by
dealers in Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, China and the United States
We're finding that key ecosystem predators, like tigers, leopards
and sharks, are being illegally slaughtered in unsustainable volumes to
feed a large market in China. The shipment of tigers and leopards in
this photo, confiscated at the border between Thailand and Laos, was
organized by a cross-border syndicate operating in six countries, with
payment arranged by Vietnamese organized crime. These photos were taken
36 days ago. Shipments like this are often mixed with the highly prized
pangolin, or scaly anteater, and are happening every week.
If this story sounds like it mainly relates to Asia, please think
again. American criminals and--unwittingly--American consumers are
behind some very significant illegal wildlife shipments into the United
States from Indonesia, Thailand and other countries. Furthermore,
foreign criminals are breaking American laws every day by smuggling
rare and endangered species into U.S. markets under the very thin U.S.
wildlife law enforcement radar.
We're seeing exotic reptiles, primates, and other types of rare and
endangered species being shipped illegally out of Southeast Asia into
Europe, Japan and the United States every week, sometimes smuggled in
personal luggage, sometimes shipped in large air cargo containers, or
in personalized boxes delivered by express mail services to dealers on
the East and West coasts of the United States and in Middle America.
Sometimes, these wild animals are falsely labeled as captive-bred
animals to be ``laundered'' as legitimate imports.
Most of these animals were in fact taken illegally from the forest,
and some overseas government officers are working hand-in-hand with
wildlife dealers to legitimize the shipments, which are rapidly
contributing to the demise of many species. Neither the U.S. Government
nor American consumers should be accomplices to this level of
corruption and environmental destruction.
Of course most field officers are not corrupt, and are crying out
for our help. One Filipino law enforcement officer was shot dead last
year when he attempted to investigate a major wildlife crime case.
Rangers we support in Cambodia were attacked with grenades during an
anti-poaching patrol, and thankfully survived. Other rangers have been
caught in jerry-rigged traps intended to snare tigers and elephants,
with potentially deadly results. An Indian investigator I used to work
with was knifed to death by rhino poachers. The injury or killing of
conservationists and wildlife law enforcement officers is common across
the world, especially in developing countries.
Why should Americans be concerned about wildlife crime, including
its international dimensions? The obvious reason is the knock-on
effect--that when one species is removed from an ecosystem, it has a
knock-on effect to other species, including eventually onto us, people.
There are over 30,000 species of wild plants and animals listed by the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. As a nation,
we woke up slowly to the reality of global warming and its serious
implications for society. Do not underestimate the dangers of letting
wildlife crime wipe out thousands of species from this planet.
Americans should also be deeply concerned about wildlife crime
because it strengthens transboundary criminal elements, corrupt
government officials, and other enemies of the rule of law and civil
society.
Wildlife crime, due to its high profit margins and low risks of
arrest and punishment, is attractive to professional criminals. In
Russia I came across two separate gangs that were trafficking women to
China and Japan, while smuggling bear and Siberian tiger parts to these
same countries.
We've recently come across brothels in Vietnam that offer young
girls while serving up wild animal parts as aphrodisiacs to their
customers.
We are also seeing some links between wildlife trafficking and drug
trafficking. Some black market traffickers are involved in both
wildlife and drugs, even using wild animals to conceal narcotics. Some
wildlife sanctuaries and national parks are being used as bases to
manufacture and smuggle drugs. Two years ago, during aerial anti-
poaching patrols in western Cambodia, we came across these large make-
shift facilities used to extract chemicals to make methamphetamines,
located inside protected forests. The illicit materials are then moved
into neighboring countries for production before being shipped to
international markets.
All of these linkages between wildlife crime and other
transnational crime point to a lack of effective patrolling and
investigations, due to scarce resources and political will, and a fear
of revenge. Simply put, government agencies tasked with protecting
wildlife and forests in most developing countries are seriously out-
gunned. The result: important ecosystems on which everyone on the
planet depends are being seriously damaged. Like most professional
crooks, wildlife criminals do not stop until they're caught. When they
deplete one species, they move on to the next. We have seen organized
poaching and trafficking rings move from tigers and other highly
valuable species to smaller cats, pangolins, snakes and reptiles--as
the most valuable species are extirpated from the forests. The final
frontier--thankfully still rich in biodiversity--may be the United
States.
Recommended Response
The U.S. is one of the biggest consumers of wildlife in the world.
It also has arguably the best-equipped and best-trained wildlife law
enforcement agencies in the world. Our country has both a moral
obligation and the technical and financial wherewithal to lead a global
effort to curb wildlife crime before the situation becomes
irreversible.
First, we should make sure that our national leader in the fight
against wildlife crime, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of
Law Enforcement, is strong enough to protect our own wildlife and
prevent a massive influx of illegal wildlife trade from overseas. Their
wildlife confiscation repository outside of Denver has over a million
items in it and keeps growing--a living testimony to how big the
illegal trade coming into the U.S. still is. FWS agents are very
effective, but there are just too few of them. Their small force of
about 200 Special Agents could easily be doubled to catch up with
wildlife crime problems in and related to the USA.
Second, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other USG agencies
like NOAA and the Department of Justice should be mandated to seriously
engage their overseas counterparts to jointly fight wildlife crime,
just as the DEA and their overseas counterparts have joined up to curb
international drug trafficking. An international effort to curb
wildlife crime can work in tandem with, and be more effective than, our
anti-drug trafficking efforts. We have already been approached by the
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to develop a joint
program to combat trafficking of people, drugs and wildlife along
porous border points in six Asian countries.
There are many similarities between wildlife trafficking and drug
trafficking, especially the relationship between supply and demand.
Enforcement cannot operate in isolation; there must be parallel efforts
to curb demand. But those efforts can take time.
The fight against drug traffickers is very difficult because they
can replace a confiscated shipment of cocaine, heroine or
methamphetamines relatively easily. They can reproduce their stock. The
stock of rare and endangered species, however, is limited. Even if you
don't catch the big wildlife dealers in the act of smuggling, they lose
a great deal of time and money in their illegal trade when their stock
is confiscated.
But currently, wildlife criminals feel very confident they won't
lose a shipment or get caught. And if they are--outside of a few
countries in the world--they won't see any jail time or receive any
substantial penalty. They're in this business because of its high
profits and very, very low risks.
Imagine, though if these same wildlife criminals were suddenly to
have their stocks confiscated, investigations were mounted against
them, and they were actually put into jail. Suddenly, the business of
wildlife crime would become more difficult and perceived as far less
attractive by organized criminal elements. As the profit margins dip,
and the risk factor is raised, the flow of trade will be reduced
accordingly.
The U.S. is spending an awful lot of money--and American lives--to
protect non-living, limited resources--fossil fuels--because we
currently depend on those resources for our daily livelihoods. We
should consider spending at least a fraction of that money--and no
American lives--to protect the earth's living and potentially
sustainable resources that we depend on for our daily livelihood. We
will always need healthy ecosystems. Wild animals and plants are the
blood of healthy forests and waters. Without that blood, the ecosystems
will eventually cease to function and serve our many needs.
The U.S. is the one country that can help stem the huge tide of
illegal wildlife trafficking here and abroad, and in doing so can help
secure natural living resources around the globe.
Specifically the U.S. can:
Post wildlife law enforcement officers to our overseas
regional missions to train their counterparts and work with them to
investigate criminal groups breaking U.S. and other laws. For example,
two FWS Special Agents should be posted next fiscal year to the U.S.
regional mission in Bangkok to cover enormous wildlife crime needs in
Southeast Asia, where we know local criminals are teaming up with
Americans to ship large quantities of illegal wildlife into the United
States. They are even starting to smuggle U.S. species back into
Southeast Asia.
Engage our own traditional national security related
agencies in lending their machinery, expertise, and technology to help
stop wildlife criminals everywhere in the world. For example, the U.S.
military and its overseas counterparts conduct joint surveillance and
anti-terrorism exercises in forest, high seas and border areas. They
use satellites and aerial surveys to watch for border violations,
insurgent groups, and other security threats. Let's ask them to look
for poachers and traffickers too, and report these violations to the
appropriate agencies.
Continue to provide resources and technical capacity to
combat crimes against nature in cooperation with willing partners in
developing countries, which has proven to be a cost-effective and
welcome form of international assistance with substantial benefits for
wildlife and forests.
Engage China, the only other country in the world
consuming more wildlife than the United States, as an ally in helping
to conserve the world's remaining wild animal and plant species. A
superpower relationship, if you will, in which our two countries could
reduce our respective country's consumption of rare and endangered
species, while providing overseas technical support to developing
countries in need of more protection.
Most of America's allies--and perhaps even some enemies--would
welcome such support and collaboration. In my experience, wildlife
conservation is something that all countries, cultures and religions
can agree on. And it brings people together to protect our common home.
If this sounds too idealistic, it's already happening on a very
small scale and with a very positive response. This week the US-
sponsored ASEAN-WEN Support Program, with the assistance from U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, is finishing a wildlife crime investigation
course for Indonesian Police, Forestry and Customs officers at a police
training center outside of Jakarta. The trainees have shown deep
appreciation for the course and want more. Other such trainings are
being planned for the region, including one this month at the US-
sponsored International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA). China has
expressed interest in joining these courses and already participated in
two.
The U.S. can play the role of global environmental leader, helping
to scale back wildlife crime around the world and by doing so, can help
protect our own natural resources from being targeted by increasingly
strong and sophisticated transnational wildlife criminals.
[NOTE: The PowerPoint attachments have been retained in the
Committee's official files.]
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Steven R. Galster
Questions from Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II:
ASEAN-WEN:
Yes, international law enforcement training exercises have indeed
improved detection of wildlife trafficking. I can list numerous
examples:
Following an ASEAN-WEN investigations training of Thai Customs,
Police and CITES officials in August 2006, Customs began seizing highly
endangered tortoises coming into Thailand from Africa, part of a very
sophisticated and lucrative ring that has been operating in this region
for years, and which by the way, is penetrating the U.S. market too.
The tortoises are ``Madagascar radiated''. Confiscations began within
10 days of the investigation course. USFWS was part of our training
team.
Thai police launched a successful 6 month investigation
into a major Tibetan antelope wool (shahtoosh) smuggling ring operating
between Kashmir and Bangkok. The arrest of four members was made in
July 2006, following initial training of Thai police on general
wildlife crime issues under ASEAN-WEN. The shahtoosh ring leader was
prosecuted in 2007. A USFWS forensics expert also joined the
investigation to authenticate the shahtoosh as being from real Tibetan
antelope, and she also trained the Thai police and government
scientists to conduct similar tests on their own in the future.
Three major enforcement actions resulted from last
month's ASEAN-WEN investigations training course in Indonesia,
including seizures of orangutans, bears, as well as turtle eggs and
23,000 sea horses. The interdictions were made between March 3 and 16
in Jakarta and South Sulawesi by Customs, Police and Forest Police.
The above are just a short list of many examples of increased
interdictions across Southeast Asia since ASEAN-WEN was formed.
Violence Against Law Enforcement Officials:
I'm afraid that another speaker talked about Somali war lords, that
was not me.
Engagement with China:
I recommend that the U.S. Government engage China as an ally in
combating illegal wildlife trade through direct diplomatic channels,
rather than through NGO's or other channels. A mix of USG
representatives, including White House, State Department and USTR
officials and U.S. Congressmen could approach Chinese officials with a
common message, which would essentially be: ``Our two countries are the
biggest wildlife consumers in the world. We are in the same corner.
Together we can help protect the world's biodiversity by (a) conducting
nation wide consumer reduction and law enforcement campaigns; and (b)
providing technical assistance to developing countries that are losing
their wildlife populations. In sum, China and the United States can
play the role of global environmental superpowers, working together to
protect the earth's biodiversity.'' I believe China would respond well
to this approach. To date, they have felt cornered and isolated as the
main culprit, which causes them to react negatively to the subject
matter in question.
In terms of mechanisms for bringing up the topic with China, one is
the Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED). Also, the State Department helps
lead a global effort to protect wildlife called the Coalition Against
Wildlife Trafficking (CAWT).
Questions for me from Hon. Don Young (R-AK):
1. To post 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Agents to
Southeast Asia for one year would cost less than $200,000. One officer
could train counterparts, while the other focuses on joint
investigations. The U.S. could post 2 more officers each to central
Africa, South America, and Eastern Europe (in that order of priority)
for about $100,000 per officer. This assumes that salaries are already
paid by USFWS.
Cost of capacity building support for developing countries could
range from the ``regional'' costs listed above (which amounts
essentially to on-the-job training and support by U.S. FWS agents for
an entire region), to $100,000 per country, which could cover full
costs of a major wildlife crime investigation training course for local
officers; to much higher costs, covering equipment for anti-poaching
and anti-trafficking units. One unit could be outfitted for less than
$100,000, some as little as $50,000.
2. U.S. law enforcement efforts would benefit greatly from posting
USFWS Special Agents overseas. These agents would be save the USFWS
time and money in tracking criminals and illegal shipments through
proactive investigations at the source of the crime, rather than
waiting for the point of penetration into the United States. Less than
5% of wildlife shipments coming into the United States are actually
inspected. Interdictions of illegal shipments are made possible usually
through tip offs or luck. The better real time intelligence the U.S.
has on shipments and criminals coming into the US, the better the
interdiction rate will be.
3. Other options for curbing wildlife trade should actually be
considered not as alternatives, but as supplemental actions. Wildlife
law enforcement must be accompanied by public awareness and consumer
reduction. U.S. citizens can help reduce wildlife poaching and
trafficking by reducing their own consumption of rare and endangered
species. Also, alternative livelihood support for poor poachers helps
to reduce poaching. We have a ``poachers to protectors'' program in
Southeast Asia that works well. Poachers are engaged by law enforcement
officers and local NGO's to become trained in micro-enterprises in
their villages, including organic farming on small plots of land.
4. Yes, efforts have been made to address the cultural and
religious factors behind the dependence on products derived from
illegal wildlife trade. Chinese NGO's, international organizations, the
Chinese State Forestry Administration, and the Chinese community of
traditional Chinese medicine practitioners have held meetings and
conducted local campaigns to address the need to stop using endangered
species in medicines, foods and as ornaments. Most of these efforts
have been surprisingly successful, but too far and few between in
frequency. Also, the Dalai Lama came out about 2 years ago, asking the
people of the Tibetan Autonomous Region to stop buying and using
products made from tigers and leopards. This led to many Tibetans
throwing their tiger and leopard skin dresses away, even into bonfires
in Llasa, which was recorded on video and broadcast on the internet.
This ironically led Chinese authorities to get upset about his
intervention on this issue.
5. What incentives have been used or could be used in these
countries to reduce their dependence on illegal wildlife trade? By
``these countries'' I will assume you mean China and the Southeast
Asian nations I spoke about in my testimony. As I mentioned in point 3
above, some poachers are offered alternative livelihoods. This works
well and could be expanded. Also, on a national level, countries could
be offered a sort of biodiversity credit scheme (similar to carbon
credits). A forest without animals is a dead forest. So why not reward
countries for protecting rich populations of wild animals, just as we
do for protecting their forests? Your idea of legal and regulated
hunting could fit in with this, but should obviously be restricted to
areas where wild animal populations are rich and where good enforcement
structures are in place. Safari hunters recently have tried to open up
legal hunting in western Cambodia. This would not work because the prey
base there is extremely low and anti-poaching units are almost non
existent.
I hope these answers are useful. Please feel free to call on me for
additional assistance.
______
STATEMENT OF JOHN A. HART, SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR, TSHUAPA-LOMAMI-
LUALABA PROJECT
Mr. Hart. Thank you very much. I am going to speak very
briefly here and summarize several points I made in my written
testimony.
Just to introduce myself, I have been involved through the
international NGO community in the Democratic Republic of Congo
with my wife over the last 20 years, including setting up
through CITES the monitoring program for illegal killing of
elephants. I have also been involved with USAID's Central
African Regional Program for the Environment since its
inception.
What I am going to talk about though is our experience over
the last decade where I have been leading field programs and
field surveys with Congolese Nationals into some of the most
remote remaining wildlife range. This has given me a
perspective on the role that the illegal killing and illegal
trade plays in destabilizing Central African states.
There are a number of problems with illegal wildlife trade.
The one that I think I have a special perspective on is just
the role that this has played in making Central Africa an
unstable part of the world.
The poaching and illegal trade weakens states that are
already fragile, and it allows the development of smuggling
rings and particularly the movement of arms and ammunition in
areas to insurgents, to rebel groups, some of whom are based in
the national parks. This has allowed persistent instability in
the region.
These groups are using wildlife themselves to support
themselves, and this is the beginning of a chain that others
have described leading out, including the movement of ivory,
and even within Africa destabilizing as you have cross-border
movement of wildlife products from Congo into Uganda, between
Congo and Sudan and into the Central African Republic.
What can be done about this? This is moving beyond my own
area of expertise. I am a biologist by training. However, I
think that there are a couple points I would like to mention
here and reflect the President's recent trip to Africa. One has
to do with the role of our State Department.
I believe that the international NGO's based in Central
Africa are able to develop particular insights and even ability
to put political pressure, but we often need support, and
having our Ambassadors engage actively, especially where we
have been able to uncover egregious cases of abuse within
national and police and military, can be very helpful in
tilting the balance.
The second reflects the direct support that America will I
believe increasingly provide in Africa in developing security
and in training the security services. All of us would be
appalled if we discovered that funding that we are giving is
going to police forces that have been involved in human rights
abuses, but we should also be appalled and we should fight
against use of funds to support services where funding is going
into continuing poaching of endangered species and illegal
wildlife trade.
So I think we should be working with allies and with
collaborators in the region to foster an investigation of
wildlife crimes, to develop a perspective that will allow
wildlife issues and illegal trade to be brought in front of
national authorities in the region and work in this way I
believe to stabilize a part of the world in which we have and
will have increasing interest.
I will conclude my remarks there and take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hart follows:]
Statement of John A. Hart, Scientific Director,
The Tshuapa-Lomami-Lualaba Project, Democratic Republic of Congo
Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Young, and members of the
Committee, I am John Hart, a wildlife scientist and conservationist
based in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). I have been involved
with a range of wildlife conservation and natural resource management
projects in Congo and Central Africa over the past 20 years. I am
grateful for the opportunity to present information to help the
committee develop a perspective on what, in my opinion, is a problem of
growing international significance.
My experience in Central Africa includes developing a regional
monitoring program for illegal elephant killing for CITES (Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species) across five nations,
training park guards and national wildlife research staff, and
establishment and management of protected areas. I have been involved
since its inception with the U.S. initiated Central African Regional
Program for the Environment (CARPE), funded through USAID to develop
the institutional basis for conservation and forest management in some
of the most important remaining tropical rain forest landscapes in
Central Africa. Pertinent to the subject of this oversight hearing,
over the past decade I have led teams of national wildlife biologists
in DRC into some of the most remote and important remaining wildlife
areas of the country. This has given me first hand knowledge of the
extent and threats posed by illegal wildlife trade.
An entrenched problem
There is a long tradition of the use of wildlife products in
Central Africa. Bushmeat remains an important subsistence food for many
communities which have little access to domestic sources of meat. Over
the last two decades, however, the use of wildlife has left the realm
of local subsistence needs in many areas and become an increasingly
lucrative trade commodity.
In Central Africa, wildlife trade ranges from the poorly regulated
provisioning and sale of bushmeat through local trading networks to
illegal poaching of elephants and smuggling of ivory across
international borders. The traditional actors in the wildlife trade
include local subsistence hunters and small scale market traders. Their
ranks have been joined by growing numbers of professional hunters and
large scale traders. Many of the professional hunters are associated
with national security forces that provide them with arms and
ammunition. Direct economic benefits of wildlife trade, including
payoffs in the illegal trade in ivory, implicate highly placed public
figures in the administration and national security forces in many
African countries. Recent and ongoing rebel and insurgent activities
are linked to occupation of national parks, poaching and illegal
wildlife trade in DR Congo, Central African Republic, Chad, Sudan and
Uganda.
The diversity of wildlife species entering the illegal trade, the
often unclear boundary between subsistence hunting and commercial scale
poaching and the failure to recognize the national and regional
significance of illegal wildlife trade, represent some of the greatest
challenges in managing and controlling hunting in Central Africa. These
challenges increase with growing demand from distant markets.
Commercial trade of a wide range of wildlife and other wild harvested
products including plants is growing and diversifying as African
economies are opened to growing global trade.
I would like to state that at no time in my experience in Central
Africa have I ever documented a direct link between illegal wildlife
trade and an immediate threat to American security. Nevertheless there
is increasing evidence that the internal and international trade in
wildlife and wildlife parts, including a number of endangered species,
poses threats to entire ecosystems and also increases the potential of
disease outbreaks. The illegal wildlife trade is one of the most
strongly corrupting influences of national administrations and
particularly national police and security forces, many of whose members
are directly involved in fostering and permitting poaching and illegal
trade in a number of the countries where I have worked over the past
two decades.
I would like to touch on several of these themes briefly, providing
evidence, based on my experience. I will conclude with observations on
what I see is an important role for U.S. leadership in combating
illegal wildlife trade in Africa.
Undermining the potential for wildlife to contribute to sustainable
development
Central Africans, including both rural and urban communities remain
strongly dependent upon local natural resources for their subsistence
and economy. Poaching and illegal wildlife trade undermines this
economic base. Two recent cases in DRC, both with regional
implications, illustrate the potential significance: Illegal killing of
hippopotamus over the past ten years around Lake Edward, on the
Ugandan-Congolese border, reduced populations from over 10,000 to just
a few hundred. The hippos are a key component in the food chain linking
adjacent terrestrial savannas with the lake, through their
fertilization of the lake waters after nocturnal grazing. The
elimination of the hippos, combined with unregulated and illegal over
fishing, has led to a collapse of one of Congo's most productive
fisheries, undermining a regional economic base. There is now a growing
demand to protect the remaining hippos, including ending the trade in
poached hippo meat, and control the illegal fishing practices to permit
the recovery of the fisheries.
The second case involves the internationally celebrated mountain
gorillas who occupy a range of volcanoes straddling three national
borders in what is arguably one of the most dangerously unstable
regions in Africa. These gorillas constitute the basis for a unique and
economically important tourism in the region. Earlier this year the
Congolese side of the volcanoes was occupied by a renegade military
general turned rebel and a number of gorillas were killed, with
additional suggestions of trade in gorilla babies. The response has
been international mobilization for protection of the gorillas and
their mountain homeland, including an unprecedented agreement among the
three countries to cooperate in increasing security and patrolling of
the massif. This is a positive first step.
While not all places or wildlife can have such high prominence,
commercial scale hunting and illegal wildlife trade often benefit only
a few while depleting local subsistence resources used by and
supporting many. In Central Africa, the commercial bushmeat trade
almost always breaks important links between wildlife and livelihoods
and undermines conservation efforts and investments to establish
sustainable use of fragile natural environments.
Illegal wildlife trade and emergent diseases
Illegal trade in wildlife has been implicated in recent outbreaks
of hemorrhagic fevers in Central Africa, most notably Ebola in Gabon
and N Congo. Infected gorillas and chimpanzees were killed, handled and
consumed by local villagers in the affected area, leading to a
widespread disease outbreak with high mortality. The potential for
recurring epidemic is present. Indeed a focus on potential disease
links featured in a recent publication by one of the two primary
Ugandan daily newspapers on an outbreak of hemorrhagic fever in western
Uganda. The article went on to strongly support a ban on the trade of
wild meat.
While the likelihood of the spread of Ebola to America is remote,
other global pandemics have emerged through human-wildlife contact,
including HIV-AIDS, which the evidence suggests moved from chimpanzees
to humans quite possibly, as with the case of the Ebola outbreak,
through handling and consumption of bush meat. Recent global outbreaks
and threats of bird flu were associated with illegal trade in poultry
and other possibly other birds and wildlife. Increasing international
traffic of bushmeat including illegal importations into the USA,
represent an unknown but potentially significant source of new
infections.
Wildlife trade and persistent insecurity in Africa
Poaching and illegal wildlife trade in Central Africa weakens
already fragile states by spreading military weapons into the hands of
local insurgents, allowing the development of smuggling rings and
favoring the corruption of officials, including the military and
national police. Hunting and trade of bushmeat and ivory directly
support rogue military gangs and provide economic support for several
persistent pockets of rebel activity in DRC. These include Rwandan Hutu
rebels implicated in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, a major group of whom
remain based in the Kahuzi-Biega National Park. Factions of the Ugandan
Lord's Resistance Army retained bases in DRC's Garamba National Park
during their standoff--hopefully coming to an end--with the Ugandan
government.
During Congo's recent civil war (1998--2003) illegal bushmeat and
ivory were among commodities exchanged for arms and ammunition. In a
three year investigation of elephant poaching and illegal ivory trade
in DRC's volatile Ituri Region, from 2002--2005, we documented an
estimated 14 tons of ivory leaving the area of the Okapi Wildlife
Reserve, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. At least two major shipments
left by international helicopters chartered by the Congolese rebels. At
the time of this investigation, Viktor Bout, an international arms
trafficker wanted by Interpol, was operating in the region, and
according to investigations done by a Belgian journalist, ivory was
among the commodities Bout traded and transported. All sides in the DRC
conflict were involved in the ivory trade which also implicated
business men in Congo and Uganda.
While Congo's conflict has currently receded, illegal military arms
continue to circulate in some areas and are used to kill elephants.
Many of the poachers have contact with military hierarchy and national
police who move the arms and ammunition. Large areas of DRC remain
outside of effective national administrative control; some areas are in
the hands of criminals. Generalized low level insecurity persists. Over
the past decade our surveys, and those of colleagues, have documented
direct support of DRC's military and police in major poaching and
illegal trade of wildlife in all of the major wildlife ranges we have
surveyed, including all five of DRC's World heritage Sites. This
illegal activity continues in many areas despite the end of the Congo's
decade long conflict in 2003. It persists, even as the country attempts
to reorganize its military and police. Part of the problem, but
certainly not all of it, has been the perceived need for the national
army to incorporate former rebel combatants into the ranks. These have
included well known poachers and wildlife traffickers who use their
military position as cover for continued poaching and who have in some
cases implicated their authorities in the process as well.
What can be done?
We have a direct role to strengthen efforts to control arrival of
illegal wildlife products, including bushmeat, into USA. Coordination
with neighboring countries, in particular Canada, to ensure that third
party imports are not happening may be part of the process. The need to
control illegal trade in wild products, including plants is likely to
grow. As the globe's biota is diminished we are increasingly seeing
today's legally traded commodity become tomorrow's illegally trafficked
endangered species. Illegal wildlife trade will need to be regularly
monitored.
A unique opportunity to deal with security concerns raised by
illegal wildlife trade presents itself with the development of the
proposed United States African military command (USAFRICOM or AFRICOM).
The expressed vision of AFRICOM is responsibility for U.S. military
operations in and military relations with 53 African nations. While
focus has been on security concerns in the Horn of Africa, and in west
central oil producing region, nevertheless the fragile states across
the continent are also recognized as a major concern.
AFRICOM's mandate will include training of national military and
security forces. This is one point where American intervention to stem
the illegal hunting and trade makes sense. American training and
support should be used to foster an evaluation, corrective measures, if
required, and continued monitoring of military and police involvement
in illegal hunting and wildlife trade.
In DRC there is a precedence to suggest that such an approach can
work. In the past, national park's staff was also implicated in illegal
hunting and wildlife trade in the parks. International NGOs supporting
the parks worked hard on the ground to document the abuses and put
pressure on park hierarchy to bring these to an end. While it is
difficult to ensure and measure compliance in all the remote areas
where park staff operates, monitoring on the ground did lead to
reductions in some of the worst poaching and illegal trade. Recently
publicized crackdowns on notorious poachers with military links in the
Salonga National Park suggest that the political will for further
controls may be present. But this needs to be followed by further
action.
I can not over estimate the importance of having these efforts
reach the ground, where all of the illegal hunting and illegal trade
have their start. U.S. supported programs such as CARPE can be vehicles
for developing a basis for this, and improving overall prospects for
good governance in use of wildlife.
The American diplomatic community should be briefed on the issue,
and while I recognize that there is a limit to what can be expected of
our diplomatic staff, nevertheless, they should be encouraged to
monitor, and where possible provide diplomatic support to control
egregious cases of poaching and illegal wildlife trade, especially
where there is evidence of involvement of security forces and
international trafficking rings.
The U.S. can and should lead, but we can not and should not go
alone in this endeavor. Broad based support is needed nationally in
Africa, and internationally if better controls are to be brought to
bear. Clarifying and bringing focus on the disease and security related
links of some of the trade in illegal wildlife will be important assets
in publicizing and bringing illegal wildlife trade under control.
It is important for national governments to understand the health
and security dangers of illegal trade. America has every interest in a
stable and well governed Africa. Rule of law is intimately linked to
controlling illegal wildlife trade in many areas. Security is
strengthened by bringing an end to the associated trafficking in
military weapons used for hunting, and controlling cross border
wildlife smuggling.
I would like to close by thanking the Committee for its interest
and concern with this issue, and to commend it in taking leadership to
develop a constructive and effective response to a growing global
concern. I would be happy to answer any questions members of the
committee may have.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by John A. Hart,
Scientific Director, The Tshuapa-Lomami-Lualaba Project, Democratic
Republic of Congo
Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Young, and members of the
Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to respond to your further
questions.. I write to your from Kisangani, in the Democratic Republic
of Congo (DRC) as I prepare to return to our elephant and bonobo
conservation project in the Lomami Basin. The questions you raise are
directly related to my immediate concerns.
I would like to thank the committee for taking on this subject and
for bringing together an informed panel. I am pleased and honored to
have been part of this process, and would be happy to provide any
further contributions you would wish to ask of me.
Your questions and my responses follow:
1. How did bushmeat move from a subsistence food to a lucrative trade
commodity? Is it due to rural populations moving to cities or
due to other factors?
Bushmeat has had long history of use in Central Africa. As an
economic commodity, taste, and developing purchasing power continue to
influence demand. Bushmeat is increasingly a luxury commodity for urban
or town people with disposable income. The current bushmeat crisis in
DR Congo is exacerbated by a decade of war that has weakened national
wildlife protection institutions and permitted the wide dispersal of
military weapons and ammunition.
2. You make a number of references in your testimony to illegal
hunting. By your definition, isn't illegal hunting really
poaching? Is it your contention that illegal sport hunting is
supporting rogue military groups in Central Africa?
My comments pertain to DR Congo (DRC). At present sport hunting is
all but nonexistent in DRC and so we can not yet provide an evaluation
of its impact. But in any case any sport hunting that occurs is not
associated with the poaching. The most serious problem in DRC, and more
widely in Central Africa, is poaching associated with military and
police. This is facilitated by lack of control by the national security
hierarchy. Low salaries, often paid late, render military at a low
level (those likely to be directly involved in hunting) open to
poaching as an alternative source of income. Yet some higher level
authorities are also involved, and usually with impunity.
The problem is present in many countries, but most acute in CAR,
Chad, DRC, all fragile states. In DRC and CAR, The same impunity and
lack of control has been associated with other abuses by police and
military, in particular abuse of human rights and involvement in armed
robberies and contract killings.
My own perspective, is that sport hunting, and possibly even some
exploitation of bushmeat, are potentially important tool for wildlife
management and conservation in Central Africa. The potential management
of bushmeat exploitation has some similarities to controlled fur
trapping in North America, which allows for economic use of an animal
resource. Key elements include licensing and linkage with management
that ensures sustainable populations of important species. Some species
will not be exploited for ethical or cultural reasons, and there may be
debate on this. But the basic fact remains that most wildlife must have
an economic standing as well as a cultural, ethical and ecological
value.
3. Page 2 of your testimony, you state that ``At no time in my
experience in Central Africa have I ever documented a direct
link between illegal wildlife trade and an immediate threat to
American security.'' Since Central Africa is ground zero for
wildlife poaching, if there were terrorist links, is it likely
you have heard about them?
Elephant poaching, illegal trade in ivory and to a lesser extent
bushmeat (including elephant meat) have been and remain directly
implicated in regional militia activities and mafia-type trade networks
in Democratic Republic of Congo, neighboring CAR and Sudan. Ivory trade
moves out of Central Africa into a wider illegal trade network on a
global scale, but I have no direct information at this level. Elephant
poaching and ivory trade contribute to chronic regional instability and
international criminality.
We have found the following links:
Ivory was one of the commodities used by militias in DRC's recent
civil war to fund operations, including purchase of weapons and
ammunition. Some militia activity continues to the present, and
wildlife remains a source of revenue for these armed insurgents and
rural bandits where wildlife resources still exist.
We have evidence that ivory was among the commodities transported
and exported by known international arms dealers (notably Viktor Bout,
recently arrested in Thailand).
Ivory and bushmeat are hunted and transported by Janjaweed hunters
during seasonal forays into DRC's northern borders from Sudan. Both
meat and ivory are transported back to Sudan.
Other armed nomadic groups also exploit bush meat and ivory in
Congo's northern frontier including Mbororo pastoralists from CAR and
Chad, who this year have even penetrated the rain forest zone to hunt
ivory. The associated trade networks which these peoples provision are
poorly known and documented. Congolese park guards and national police
fear the nomads and may become accomplices to the transport of meat and
ivory.
As a commodity, ivory is often readily depleted, since current
elephant populations are small and localized. Bushmeat is mainly
exported from Congo for local consumption in neighboring countries.
Despite its rarity, ivory can command high prices, and is still
regarded as a prestige item. Ivory trading networks into Sudan from DRC
are old and well established, even though the volumes may be declining
as elephant populations are depleted. The value of the commodity is not
declining.
Bushmeat continues to be used by Rwandan Hutu rebels based in
eastern DRC, and especially in two parks, Maiko and Kahuzi Biega.
Other DRC commodities notably minerals (gold, diamonds, tin ore and
coltan) are involved in poorly regulated, if not strictly illegal
trade. This uncontrolled trade weakens police and security operations
at the expense of gangs and militias that operate across borders. In
central Africa the ivory and bushmeat trade are part of the larger
illegal trade that continues to destabilize the region.
4. How would you describe the state of elephant populations in
Southern African countries like Botswana, Namibia and South
Africa? How do these healthy populations compare with those in
Kenya? Do you think the sport hunts in these Southern African
countries, which support local conservation efforts, have
helped o protect these elephant populations?
Elephants occur over a wide range of conditions in southern Africa,
including some very small and constrained populations on fenced
reserves. Overall populations in a number of southern African countries
are stable or rising. Elephant numbers must be reduced in some areas to
maintain range conditions. Culling and sport hunting play a key role in
this scenario. The important point is to link hunting and culls to
direct support for local conservation efforts. Hunting has a number of
economic and social advantages over culls, but must be regulated. The
linkages have to include benefits to rural communities who are impacted
by elephants. Without this support, these communities become bases for
poaching which can very quickly lead to elephant depletion and
criminality.
5. With so much instability in many parts of Africa, is it possible to
get the illegal wildlife trade under control prior to achieving
stability with the governments?
Ultimately development will provide alternatives to poaching and
illegal wildlife trade in Central Africa. Economic development alone
will not eliminate these activities, but it will provide a basis for
their control which is not possible where a large part of the
population has few economic options. Economic development is likely to
also foster political development, including rule of law, This will
create a basis to control widespread involvement in illegal trade,
though it can not entirely eliminate it.
While one can be hopeful for this scenario, it is not going to
happen quickly. Yet wildlife losses can happen quickly, and future
options can be destroyed, depleted or lost. Thus a strategy to hold key
resources is needed. This will require a combination of economic,
legal, political and social initiatives at local and national levels,
and supported internationally. These must be deployed in key areas and
for key species otherwise irreplaceable.
The vision for the future is that these protected areas and their
fauna will provide the basis for restoration of depleted areas. Yet all
these efforts are vulnerable to unexpected events including disastrous
loss. Multiple sites are needed. These must be large enough to
encompass the key resources, but small enough and buffered enough from
demographic expansion and human wildlife conflict to be able to be
managed and protected.
6. You mention the international and local response to gorilla
massacre on the Congolese side of the volcanoes. While this was
a horrific event that should receive this type of response, how
can this model of response be used for other species?
Gorillas are what we term a flagship species. These are species
which can be evoke concern and interest across a wide of society. These
species play a key role in the development of a conservation ethic that
covers many other species and their environments. This appreciation can
cross cultural boundaries, as seen in the case of the gorillas which
are a global conservation symbol. Not many species can achieve this
status. And conservation flagships must be actively protected.
Recent developments in the conservation of Congo's mountain
gorillas suggest how significant flagship status can be. Just this
week, the Congolese National Parks s Service arrested one of its high
level staff on allegations that he was directly involved in the
massacres of the gorillas earlier this year to cover up an illegal
trade in charcoal made by cutting the park's forests, a trade in which
he was allegedly involved. This arrest is unprecedented, and could not
have occurred for anything less than a flagship species. It sends an
important message to other people in authority who would use their
position as a base for poaching and illegal trade to further their
private commercial interests.
7. Were the three countries that came together--Uganda, Rwanda, and
the Congo? Is it possible for other African countries to come
together in this way to protect other species in Africa?
In the case of the Virunga gorillas, the three collaborating
countries were Rwanda, Uganda and Congo. Cross border protected areas
that encompass shared resources and key environments, as well as
migratory species crossing borders are also cases where international
collaboration might be possible. For conservation to happen, it is
important to develop institutional platforms and invest in these.
Models such as the treaties regulating migrant birds are useful. To
work, there must be benefits for all partners. These arrangements for
the Mountain Gorillas need constant reinforcement since the three
countries are otherwise highly suspicious of each other. This is a role
for the international community as well.
Piggybacking broader wildlife management on key regional resources
such as fisheries which are shared across borders also represents a
potential model.
8. CITES has been around for over 30 years, with many nations not
complying with the Convention's enforcement or reporting
mechanisms. How can the world be mobilized to fully implement
the recommendations of CITES?
Like drug trade, controlling the illegal trade in wildlife will
require multiple approaches to succeed. Control of the trade will
remain one of the tools. Illegal wildlife trade is even more
complicated than the drug trade since wildlife is so varied. A key
component will be reducing demand. This requires education and controls
in consuming societies as much as controls in the producing areas.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Clark?
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM CLARK,
ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE EXPERT
Mr. Clark. Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, thank you
for this wonderful opportunity to address the subject of
illegal trade in wildlife. My name is William Clark. I am
employed by the Israel Nature and Parks Authority. The
directors of the Kenya Wildlife Service and Lusaka Agreement
Task Force have asked to be associated with this testimony.
I have been actively involved with CITES since 1979. I have
been assigned to Interpol's Working Group on Wildlife Crimes
since 1994, and I am currently its chairman. Other credentials
are included in my written testimony.
I am convinced by abundant evidence that there are
substantial links between organized crime and illegal trade in
wildlife. I am further convinced that these links are resulting
in serious corruption, violence and instability.
Illegal trade in wildlife today is a very sophisticated and
high profit global criminal enterprise. It carries in many
jurisdictions a disappointingly low risk. This illegal trade
involves a diversity of offenders, from common criminals with
records in drug trafficking and murder to cosmopolitan
merchants who control multinational crime syndicates.
It also involves violent militant groups such as Somali
warlord factions and the Sudanese Janjaweed, lately associated
with genocide in Darfur. Specific cases are cited in my written
testimony.
But it is important to bear in mind that all of these cases
which reflect a multi-billion dollar criminal industry are
anecdotal. A critical first step in meeting the challenges of
wildlife crime is to define precisely what it is. We really
need to know the magnitude, the structure and the dynamics of
this criminality. Lots of resources have been focused on drugs,
weapons and that, but wildlife crime we really don't know that
well.
Today, Interpol has Ecomessage, which provides the only
nominal database on international wildlife crime. Although
Ecomessage has great potential, it needs more development.
Violence, corruption and other criminalities are associated
with wildlife crime today because they facilitate illegal
trade, making it less risky and more convenient. Illegal
trafficking in wildlife is also linked to fraud, smuggling,
conspiracy, robbery, health violations, drug trafficking,
weapons trafficking. There are also significant money
launderings involved, and of course tax evasion and other
financial crimes involving billions of dollars.
It is important to put the known facts into context,
particularly with reference to causations and remedies. The
proximate cause of most wildlife crime and its consequences is
greed. The ultimate cause of most wildlife crime is simple
vanity. Remedies can be applied to the approximate causes, the
greedy merchants behind the illegal trade.
Improving capacities among wildlife agencies in developing
countries is very important. More training programs and
equipment are essential. The United States is already engaged
in some of this, but the intensity and scope of poaching and
trafficking today warrants significantly expanded efforts.
Applying remedies to these proximate causes will be frustrated
if the ultimate causes are not also addressed.
The ultimate cause for most wildlife crime is found in the
lucrative consumer markets in the industrialized countries,
including the United States. That is where the money is. So
long as wealthy consumers are prepared to pay good dollars,
euros and yen to purchase protected wildlife, the fundamental
financial incentives for wildlife crime will remain a powerful
influence, and all the consequent problems of violence,
corruption and instability will continue unabated.
Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that most developing
countries could provide effective protection for their native
wildlife if they had to control poaching for their domestic
markets only, but it is unreasonable and unfair to expect
wildlife agencies in developing countries to withstand the
sustained assaults of criminals motivated by the profit
incentives of industrialized societies.
The solution is partnership. The United States should
expand its efforts, (A) to assist wildlife law enforcement
agencies in developing countries, improve their capacities, and
(B) to encourage other industrialized countries to pursue
greater cooperation, more effective policies and efforts to
suppress international criminal syndicates.
Specific recommendations are included in my written text. I
thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clark follows:]
Statement of William Clark, Illegal Wildlife Trade Expert
Mister Chairman and Committee members, thank you for the
opportunity to address the subject of illegal trade in wildlife. I also
thank 18 colleagues who helped me to prepare for this hearing.
Nevertheless full responsibility for the accuracy of facts and the
merit of opinions expressed in this testimony is mine.
My name is William Clark. I am employed by the Israel Nature and
Parks Authority. The directors of Kenya Wildlife Service and of Lusaka
Agreement Task Force have asked to be associated with this testimony. I
have been actively involved with CITES since 1979. I have been assigned
to Interpol Working Group on Wildlife Crime since 1994, and am
currently its chairman. Other credentials are included in my written
testimony.
I am convinced by abundant evidence that there are substantial
links between organized crime and illegal trade in wildlife. I am
further convinced that these links have resulted in serious corruption,
violence, and instability worldwide. Illegal trade in wildlife today is
a very sophisticated, high-profit global criminal enterprise that
carries, in many jurisdictions, a disappointingly low risk. This
illegal trade involves a diversity of offenders, from common criminals
with records of drug trafficking and murder, to cosmopolitan merchants
who control multi-national crime syndicates. It also involves violent
militant groups, such as the Somali warlord factions and the Sudanese
Janjaweed, lately associated with genocide in Darfur.
Specific cases are cited in the written text of my testimony. But
it is important to bear in mind that all of these cases, which reflect
a multi-billion dollar criminal industry, are anecdotal. A critical
first step in meeting the challenges of wildlife crime is to define
precisely what it is. We need to know the magnitude, structure and
dynamics of this criminality. Today, Interpol's Ecomessage provides the
only nominal database on international wildlife crime. Although
Ecomessage has great potential, it needs more development. It also
needs U.S. participation.
Violence, corruption and other criminalities are commonly
associated with wildlife crime today because they facilitate illegal
trade, making it less risky and more convenient. Illegal trafficking in
wildlife is also linked to fraud, smuggling, conspiracy, robbery,
health violations, drug trafficking and weapons trafficking. There is
also significant money laundering involved and, of course, tax evasion
and other financial crimes involving billions of dollars.
It is important to put the known facts into context, particularly
with reference to causation and remedies. The proximate cause of most
wildlife crime, and its consequences, is greed. The ultimate cause of
most wildlife crime is simple vanity.
Remedies can be applied to the proximate causes--the greedy
merchants behind the illegal trade. Improving capacity among wildlife
agencies in developing countries is very important. More training
programs and equipment are essential. The United States is already
engaged in some of this. But the intensity and scope of poaching and
trafficking today warrants significantly expanded efforts.
Applying remedies to proximate causes will be frustrated if the
ultimate causes are not also addressed. The ultimate cause for most of
wildlife crime is found in the lucrative consumer markets in
industrialized countries, including the United States. That's where the
money is. So long as wealthy consumers are prepared to pay good
dollars, euros and yen to purchase protected wildlife, the fundamental
financial incentives for wildlife crime will remain a powerful
influence, and all the consequent problems of violence, corruption and
instability will continue unabated.
Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that most developing countries could
provide effective protection for their native wildlife if they had to
control poaching for their domestic markets only. But it is
unreasonable, and unfair, to expect wildlife agencies in developing
countries to withstand the sustained assaults of criminals motivated by
the profit incentives of industrialized societies.
The solution is partnership. The United States should expand its
efforts;
A. To assist wildlife law enforcement agencies in developing
countries improve their capacities, and
B. To encourage other industrialized countries to pursue greater
cooperation and more effective policies in efforts to suppress
international criminal syndicates.
Specific recommendations are included in my written text.
Thank you.
* * *
Introduction: Mister Chairman and Committee members, thank you for
the opportunity to address the important subject of illegal trade in
wildlife. I also want to thank 18 colleagues who helped me to prepare
for this hearing. I nevertheless accept personal responsibility for the
accuracy of facts and the merit of opinions expressed in this
testimony.
My name is William Clark, and I am employed by the Israel Nature
and Parks Authority, Division of Law Enforcement. Mr. Julius
Kipng'etich, director of Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and Mr. E.S.
Kisamo, director of Lusaka Agreement Task Force (LATF) have requested
that their respective agencies be associated with this testimony. Both
Mr. Kipng'etich and Mr. Kisamo extend their respects and greetings to
this Committee. The text of a KWS report is attached to this testimony
and headed ``Nature of Illegal Wildlife Trade in Kenya.''
I have been involved with nature conservation and wildlife law
enforcement for more than 30 years including active involvement with
CITES since 1979. I have been assigned to the Interpol Working Group on
Wildlife Crime since 1994, and I currently serve as chairman of that
Interpol Working Group. I hold a Ph.D. in wildlife conservation. I am a
U.S. citizen and honorably discharged after six years service with the
U.S. Marine Corps.
I have received a number of relevant voluntary appointments among
governmental, inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations. A
few of these include honorary pilot/warden for Kenya Wildlife Service,
liaison officer for Lusaka Agreement Task Force, technical counselor
for Senegal National Parks, and executive committee member for INECE
(International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement).
I hold several professional honors, membership in professional
associations, and have published in prominent peer-reviewed journals.
Details are available upon request.
Fundamental Challenges: Illegal trade in wildlife today is a very
high profit enterprise that, in many jurisdictions, carries a
disappointingly low risk. This illegal trade involves a broad diversity
of offenders, from common criminals with histories of drug trafficking
and murder, to very sophisticated merchants who control multi-national
organized crime syndicates from the relative security of safe havens.
It is also important to note that several militant groups, such as
Somali warlord factions that have been accused of trafficking drugs and
weapons, and Sudanese Janjaweed militias that have been implicated in
the Darfur genocide, have also been linked to commercial poaching and
illegal trade in wildlife.
Corruption, violence and other lawlessness are commonly associated
with wildlife crime today because they facilitate illegal trade, making
it less risky and more convenient. It is much easier to move several
tons of ivory through customs control if there is a customs officer
prepared to accept a bribe. It is much easier to defend a crooked
dealer in court if potential witnesses for the prosecution are
intimidated and too afraid to testify.
Illegal trafficking in wildlife is linked to many more crimes than
just corruption and violence. There are also strong links to fraud,
smuggling, theft, robbery, conspiracy, health and veterinary
violations, drug trafficking and weapons trafficking. There is also
significant money laundering involved and, of course, tax evasion and
other financial crimes.
There are three main reasons why illegal trade in wildlife has
achieved globally-important proportions:
One reason is that wildlife law enforcement agencies in
habitat countries, which for the most part are also developing
countries, often do not have adequate enforcement capacity--in terms of
training, structure and equipment--to meet the challenges by
themselves. Habitat countries tend to have relatively weak enforcement
capacity.
The second reason is that the major markets for
commercially valuable wildlife are in industrialized countries,
including the United States. Industrialized economies provide very
powerful financial motivations which sometimes eclipse a developing
economy's power to resist. Market countries have relatively strong
market incentives.
The third reason is that illegal trade in wildlife is a
very high-profit enterprise with exceptionally low risks. Despite the
extremely serious nature of this criminality, most successful wildlife
crime prosecutions result only in small fines. Prudent prosecutors
sometimes ignore the wildlife offenses, knowing courts are
unsympathetic, and seek convictions on related charges, such as
smuggling or conspiracy.
The Honorable Bakari Mwapachu, Tanzania's Minister of Public Safety
and Public Security, addressed the Interpol Working Group on Wildlife
Crime at our meeting in September, 2007. In his opening remarks,
Minister Mwapachu told the meeting that ``organized criminal networks
are engaged in a wildlife trade whose sophistication and scope
surpasses the capacity and resources of enforcement agencies in the
region.''
This is a key to understanding an essential dynamic of illegal
trade in wildlife today. Criminal syndicates are motivated by very
substantial profits that can be made by acquiring commercially valuable
protected wildlife in developing countries, and then selling this
contraband in industrialized countries. The profit margin is so great
that these syndicates can afford to invest in important measures
designed to defeat and surpass the efforts of enforcement agencies in
habitat countries.
To date, the response by the international community has been very
disappointing. In all the world, there are only two officers employed
full time to address the challenges of international wildlife crime.
One of them is totally dependant upon voluntary NGO support.
Interpol provides an ageis for national wildlife agencies seeking
to cooperate, but so far, the only available budget has been modest NGO
contributions. National agencies normally support the participation of
their own officers, and this works well for officers from
industrialized countries. However, developing countries, which provide
the most important habitat for commercially valuable species, have been
under-represented simply because there is not adequate funding to
support their participation.
Interpol has created Ecomessage, which today is the world's only
nominal database on international wildlife crime. Although Ecomessage
has great potential for being able to define the magnitude, structure
and dynamics of international wildlife crime, it needs more development
to reach the point where it is comprehensive and statistically
reliable. It also needs U.S. participation.
Motivation: The underlying motivation for most of this criminal
``sophistication and scope'' is the market demand in industrialized
economies. There are wealthy buyers with dollars, euros and yen who are
prepared to pay premium prices for contraband wildlife products. This
is mostly a vanity market where nearly all products are devoid of any
substantive benefit for human health, welfare or security.
Markets in industrialized countries are the ultimate cause of most
international wildlife crime. That's where the money is. Most habitat
countries could very easily contend with poaching and trafficking for
the domestic market. But it is unreasonable, and unfair, to expect
wildlife agencies in developing countries to withstand the sustained
assaults of criminals motivated by the profit incentives of
industrialized nations.
The United States is aware of this situation, and has made good-
faith efforts to address it, via various grant programs to protect
endangered species, the international law enforcement involvements of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and initiatives such as the
Coalition Against Wildlife Trafficking. Despite the very admirable work
done so far, it is nevertheless inadequate. There are clear indications
that illegal trade in wildlife is on the increase, and outpacing
efforts to suppress it. There are clear indications that the
attractions of the U.S. economy are, in large part, responsible for
this.
Criminals make enormous profit by cooperating shrewdly and
extensively on an international scale. Illegal networks and syndicates
work very closely with each other, often approaching the finesse of
multinational corporations. Law enforcement is far behind, shackled by
bureaucratic procedures, handicapped by inadequate budgets and
resources, and stymied by shifting political priorities.
If law enforcement is to have any realistic chance of counteracting
illegal trade in wildlife, there is no option other than to improve
systems of international cooperation dramatically. There is need for
industrialized countries, including the United States, to extend much
greater cooperation and support to wildlife agencies in developing
countries. There is need for industrialized countries, including the
United States, to participate more vigorously within the international
community, in a global effort to solve a global problem.
Organized Crime: Illegal trade in wildlife must be well-organized
to be successful at the global level. Certainly there are many
freelancers and minor operators, as with most other types of crime for
profit. But lately there has been a conspicuous increase in the
frequency of seizures of large consignments. Many of these seizures
have been characterized by enforcement authorities as ``the largest of
this type in history.'' During recent years, this phrase has been
applied to seizures of coral, snake skins, conch shells, ivory,
shahtoosh, abalone and other wildlife contraband.
The shift toward larger consignments being seized is a reflection
of a trend toward larger consignments being entered into illegal trade.
This, in turn, reflects the greater wealth and risk-taking proclivities
of the criminal interests behind those consignments. Ultimately, it
reflects a greater involvement of organized crime, which has the
financial and organizational capacity to assemble large consignments of
contraband and absorb the losses of an occasional large seizure.
Forensic evidence provides a very useful indication of the
involvement of organized crime. Important work is being accomplished by
Professor Samuel Wasser at the University of Washington, who has
created a DNA ``map'' of African elephants. With this map, it is
possible to assign a specific location of origin to any sample of
ivory. This technology is now being applied by analyzing ivory from
various seizures. The analysis identifies which populations of
elephants were poached to provide that ivory.
These analyses are yielding important results. For example, one
analysis of ivory sealed in a container in Malawi, exported via South
Africa and seized in Singapore revealed that the ivory came from a
specific location in eastern Zambia. DNA evidence indicates the
elephants were closely related. Another analysis of ivory exported from
Cameroon and seized in Hong Kong revealed the ivory came from a
specific location in eastern Gabon and a neighboring part of Congo.
Again, it produced evidence that all the ivory came from closely
related elephants in a particular location. More analyses of other
seizures are presently being conducted.
Conversely, there is no indication of any illegal dealers
purchasing ivory opportunistically from scattered sources as a method
of organizing a large commercial consignment. Rather, there is evidence
of specific elephant populations being intentionally targeted to supply
ivory for planned shipments. This indicates that poaching contractors
are hired and they receive a ``purchase order'' for a specific quantity
of ivory. The contractors then organize teams of poachers that work
cooperatively to kill a particular number of elephants in a specific
area. The contractors then arrange the logistics of transporting the
ivory over long inland distances before export. This inland transport
includes significant organized smuggling across national frontiers in
Africa, so it can be exported from a country other than where the
elephants were poached. This type of disciplined and careful planning
is an indication of organized crime.
In the Cameroon-Hong Kong seizure, a total of three containers with
false compartments were discovered by law enforcement agencies. As
these false compartments have specific volumes, and as the seizure in
Hong Kong had its false compartment packed to capacity, it is probable
that the poaching gangs are given specific instructions regarding the
precise amount of ivory they were to provide. The smuggler does not
want to waste space, nor does the smuggler want to receive more ivory
than can be packed into a particular consignment. This type of
inventory management indicates the discipline of organized crime.
Professor Wasser's DNA analysis also provides evidence that the
country of poaching is different from the country of export. This is
very likely a protective strategy used by the smuggler, who thereby
distances himself from the country where the violence of intense ivory
poaching is being conducted. This can be considered yet another
mechanism indicative of organized crime.
Inspection of the containers themselves revealed a sophisticated
hidden compartment system that required good planning and metallurgical
know-how. False walls were deftly created and camouflaged, and
inspectors standing inside empty containers were at first not aware
they were within arm's length of the hidden compartments. This level
are care and preparation is indicative of organized crime.
Investigations of persons accused of being responsible for the
Cameroon--Hong Kong seizure provide evidence of at least 15 containers
having been shipped along the same route with the same declared
contents during recent years. Further investigations link these persons
to the export of at least 16 similar containerized consignments from
Nigeria in the 1990s. There is also evidence that one of the Nigerian
consignments contained 1,453 kg. of contraband elephant ivory, seized
in Taiwan in 1998.
It is reasonable to assume that all 31 containers carried
contraband ivory. If the average weight of the two seized
consignments--2,678 kilograms--is representative and is multiplied by
31 known containers, there is indication that this syndicate trafficked
in more than 83 tons of contraband ivory (costing the lives of about
8,300 elephants). Using a modest wholesale rate of $600 per kilogram,
it is possible to estimate this syndicate alone trafficked in nearly
U.S. $50 million of contraband ivory during the past decade. A U.S. $50
million criminal enterprise is another indication of organized crime.
Two seizures out of 31 consignments is consistent with estimates of
many customs officers that current capabilities produce a seizure rate
of less than 10% of ``general goods'' contraband in trade. Wildlife
products are counted as ``general goods.''
Recently, most ivory has been seized in transit. Authorities have
seized ivory transiting Singapore, The Philippines, Taiwan, and Hong
Kong. In Taiwan, a computer program sounded an automatic alarm when two
containers passed through the port of Kaohsiung two times during the
same voyage. That indicated something suspicious. Customs officers
inspected the containers and discovered five tons of contraband ivory
which was in the process of being re-exported to The Philippines.
Containers are being shuffled back and forth across the ports of Asia
in a kind of ``shell game,'' likely in an effort to obscure their
trail, and this also suggests the involvement of organized crime.
This ``shell game'' is analogous to the ``layering'' stage of
classical money laundering, a means of distancing the contraband from
the source before entering the ``integration'' stage where the
contraband is entered into a legitimate economy--another indicator of
organized crime. Cases involving other species of commercially valuable
wildlife share similar indications of organized crime. There are strong
evidence of organized crime involvement in caviar, shahtoosh, exotic
birds, traditional Asian medicines and other wildlife.
On 27th January 2008, a gang of five bird smugglers was arrested in
Trinidad. Of those, four had prior convictions, mostly on drug and
weapons offenses. Two of those arrested had outstanding arrest warrants
for murder. This is yet another indication that persons implicated in
wildlife crime are often career criminals who work cooperatively.
Much trade in traditional Asian medicines that contain prohibited
wildlife ingredients reflects skillful organization. Investigations
have revealed that this trade is often controlled by major Asian import
companies that pack the contraband as part of larger, containerized
consignments. The wildlife contraband is frequently concealed,
misdeclared, or not declared at all. Enforcement authorities in New
Zealand discovered important documents upon serving a search warrant at
one such import company. These documents, when translated, were found
to provide specific instructions to the exporter in China concerning
how to conceal the contraband and what to write on the shipping
documents. This provides further evidence of high-level of
organization.
Organized structure is certainly important for the acquisition,
transport and smuggling of large-consignment contraband. But it is also
vital once such contraband reaches the market country. The August,
2006, seizure of 2.8 tons of elephant ivory in Osaka, Japan, is an
example. This consignment involved the seizure of 2,409 kilograms of
raw elephant ivory, plus 17,928 ivory hanko signature seals, weighing
385 kilograms. How can a smuggler retail this volume of contraband if
not via well-organized criminal interests?
It is unlikely that the 17,928 hanko signature seal part of this
consignment could have been entered directly into illegal retail trade
only by the individual charged with smuggling. Rather, the marketing
and retailing process certainly required a network--some organizational
structure to get the contraband items from the smuggler's premises to
places where they could be sold to retail consumers. It is also
unlikely that the smuggler attempted to import this volume of ivory on
mere speculation that he would subsequently find a market. Rather, it
is much more likely that the smuggler was already linked to an existing
market capable of absorbing and processing this very substantial volume
of contraband.
The 2,409 kilograms of raw ivory in this seized consignment
presents a greater problem. A typical hanko signature seal, the most
common ivory product in Japan, weighs about 20 grams. Even calculating
a generous 25% wastage rate in the carving process, the 2,409 kilograms
could have produced about 96,360 hankos, with a retail value of about
U.S. $9.6 million. This estimate is corroborated by Japanese Customs,
which claims the consignment was worth one billion yen--about U.S. $9.4
million.
But some very considerable manufacturing lies between 2,409
kilograms of raw ivory and 96,360 finished hanko cylinders. This
requires the existence of an illegal factory, or several factories,
with many employees using power saws, lathes and polishing machines.
The operation would have required a management team for the factory--
control of inventory, a production department, a marketing department,
delivery vehicles, and a sophisticated finance department capable of
providing payment for illegal workers and laundering millions of
dollars in criminal profit. These are all very strong indicators of
crime with industrial organization.
The one person charged in this case received a small fine and a
suspended sentence.
There are levels of sophistication, from disciplined poaching
operations providing prescribed amounts of illegal products from
specifically targeted wildlife populations, through the logistics of
intra-regional smuggling in Africa so the contraband can be exported
from a country other than the one where it was poached, and then
through the ``shell game'' shuffle of multiple transit ports, all
suggest a level of intricate planning and complex execution that is
characteristic of organized crime. The smuggling of tons of contraband
requiring the existence of illegal factories, marketing and money
laundering systems also provide evidence of organized crime
Violence: About 100 rangers are killed in the line of duty every
year in Africa alone.
In late December 2007, two Tanzanian rangers were killed in the
line of duty in the Dodoma Region. At least 120 rangers have been
killed in Virunga National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo
during recent years. More than 20 more have fallen in Zambia. Kenya has
buried 37 of its own.
During 2007, Chad lost seven rangers in and around Zakouma National
Park, the last significant elephant habitat remaining in that country.
Abakar Zougoulou, Chad's wildlife director, told me that all of the
killings were conducted by Janjaweed militias infiltrating from nearby
Sudan. These are the same militias implicated in the Darfur genocide.
Three of those rangers died in a 15 May 2007 during a Janjaweed attack
that sought to capture Chad's national stockpile of seized and
recovered ivory, which was being kept in a strongroom at Zakouma
headquarters. The attempt failed and the attack was repelled, at the
price of the lives of the three Chadian rangers. Chad's President Deby
subsequently intervened by incinerating that one-and-a-half ton ivory
stockpile, so that it could never again attract criminal attacks.
The same Janjaweed militias are accused by Chadian authorities of
having been responsible for the slaughter of many hundreds of elephants
around Zakouma during the past couple of years. Elephants are
relatively secure inside Zakouma's 3,000 square kilometer boundaries.
But they become extremely vulnerable when the seasonal rains arrive and
the elephants scatter across the 50,000 square kilometer Salamat region
outside the park. This scattering is important, as it provides the park
opportunity to recover from heavy elephant browsing during the dry
season. But Chadian rangers do not have the capacity to provide
adequate protection once the elephants scatter. A patrol airplane would
be useful.
Three nights after the Chadian rangers were killed, a unit of seven
Kenya Wildlife Service rangers engaged a gang of Somali poachers at a
Tana River crossing point. The poachers were very heavily armed and
fired more than 300 rounds of ammunition in an intense, close-range
battle at 1:00 a.m. Three of the KWS rangers were killed and another
was seriously wounded. But the surviving rangers stood their ground,
killing four of the poachers and forcing the remainder to retreat.
The surviving rangers reported that the poachers were very
professional, using military deployment and small unit tactics as they
approached the river crossing. The entire gang marched ``in step'' so
as to make sound of only a single footfall as they walked. The KWS
rangers did not have night vision equipment, nor did they have
protective body armor, or any similar items that might have prevented
or reduced their tragic losses. ``Former generation'' equipment,
obsolete to the U.S. military, could have been a life-saver to the
Kenyan rangers.
Given the assault weapons carried, the abundance of ammunition and
the disciplined military field tactics, it is most likely that these
poachers were working at the behest of one of Somalia's warlords, just
as there is evidence that many previous poaching gangs had links to
these warlords.
One important incident occurred in Kenya's Tsavo East National Park
during 10 and 11 May 2003 when a gang of poachers from Somalia ambushed
a KWS unit on patrol in the park. The gunfight ran for two days during
which two KWS staff were killed; Corporal Maina Ngara (KWS serial
number 5776) and Ranger Mohammed Sombwana (KWS serial number 7630).
During that incident, KWS recovered two firearms from the poaching
gang. One weapon was a German-made G3 NATO standard 7.62 mm assault
rifle, serial number G844485. The second rifle was a U.S.-made M-16A1
rifle, serial number 5412260, along with 186 rounds of 5.56 mm.
ammunition.
This particular M-16 had been supplied by the United States to the
Somali Defense Ministry during the administration of President General
Sa'id Barre in the 1980s. General Barre appointed his son-in-law,
General Mohammed Sa'id Hirsi (aka General Morgan), as his Minister of
Defense. After General Barre's deposal in 1991, General Hirsi became a
warlord using the remains of the Somali National Army to form the
Somali National Front militia. It is very probable that this M-16,
along with many others, was part of the arsenal that accompanied the
transition. General Hirsi today remains a Somali warlord. A 2004 report
of the Monitoring Group established by the U.N. Security Council
pursuant to Resolution 751 (1992) and Resolution 1519 (2003) links
General Hirsi to drug smuggling and weapons trafficking.
In yet another incident in Tsavo East National Park, a gunfight
resulted in the death of the leader of a poaching gang from Somalia. A
search of the gang leader's belongings resulted in the discovery of a
hand-written notebook which kept record of much of the gang's
activities, including which gang member was assigned which weapon and
how much ammunition, how they had entered Kenya, their route of march
and resting points, and various other details, including contact
telephone numbers in both Kenya and Somalis. Notations in the journal
clearly linked the poaching gang directly to General Hirsi and his
militia. There is a hypothesis that warlords are using the profits of
poaching to support their militias and their political ambitions.
Armed conflicts have had very serious impact on wildlife. The most
serious impact came when the Soviet Union provided large numbers of
Kalashnikov AK-47 rifles to various regimes. The Soviet Union has since
collapsed and its satellite regimes have disintegrated--but most of
those Kalashnikov rifles are still available, and many are being used
to poach wildlife. Because of their availability and efficiency, the
Kalashnikov is the ``weapon of choice'' for many rebel groups, militias
and similar armed organizations. Some of these groups have taken refuge
in national parks and other wildlife habitats. Ugandan rebels now
operate within Garamba National Park in the northeast of the Democratic
Republic of Congo. Other rebel groups have repeatedly over-run Virunga
National Park in eastern D. R. Congo.
Civil strife also creates refugees, and some of these unfortunate
people also have a detrimental impact on wildlife. Angolan, Burundi and
D.R. Congo refugees living in the Maheba Refugee Camp in Zambia are
persistently implicated in poaching in West Lunga National Park. There
are more than 280,000 refugees in 11 Tanzanian camps right now, and a
TRAFFIC report in late January 2008 says many of them are engaged in
severe bushmeat poaching.
Violence is clearly intrinsic to much wildlife crime. But sometimes
the mere threat of violence is also a serious factor and obstructs
justice. For example, in one wildlife case involving a persistent
offender, at least three important Thai witnesses refused to travel to
provide testimony to a New Zealand court because they feared for their
personal safety after returning home to Thailand. Threats, blackmail,
and intimidation are common techniques used by criminals involved in
the illegal trade of wildlife.
Corruption: Corruption is frequently cited in cases involving
illegal trade in wildlife. Corruption facilitates the illegal trade and
protects the criminal trafficker. Corruption is very rarely prosecuted,
and cases that do enter prosecution are frequently hush-up or simply
left unresolved.
Wildlife law enforcement sometimes distinguishes between two types
of corruption. One involves lower-level corruption--such as a ranger
pocketing receipts at the gate of a park. There is a significant
measure of this corruption around the world--people who handle money,
or who are responsible for issuing various wildlife permits, or
management of an agency's supply inventories or highway check points.
Each act of corruption hurts the agency, as well as the wildlife it is
charged to protect. Effective campaigns can be conducted against this
type of corruption, and there are useful resources available for
agencies with problems.
A more serious level of corruption involves senior officers and
politicians. This level of corruption is much more difficult to stop.
There are persistent reports of ministers and directors being involved
in irregular issuance of wildlife permits, timber concessions and
various other schemes. Some have been removed from office amid serious
allegations, although those allegations are hardly ever prosecuted.
The former director general of Thailand's Royal Forestry Department
was accused by Thailand's National Counter Corruption Commission of
improper involvement in the transfer of 100 tigers to China.
Allegations of corruption accompanied the suspension of a senior ports
officer in Mozambique when 400,000 cubic meters of illegal timber had
been improperly exported to China. In November 2006, the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources of The Philippines filed a complaint
against 21 persons linked to the ``pilfering'' of six tons of ivory
seized in Manila Harbor. Thirteen of those accused are customs
officers. In late January 2008, the director general of Peru's National
Institute for Natural Resources (Inrena) was dismissed amid allegations
of corruption. Shortly before, the Director of Forest Technology
Administration and Wildlife was also dismissed under similar
allegations. Allegations regarding corruption in the caviar industry
sometimes seem inexhaustible. There are credible reports of corruption
among senior officials in certain island nations of the Pacific,
particularly the Solomon Islands, with compelling evidence of them
facilitating illegal trade. There are numerous other examples.
High level officials often complain publicly about perceived
corruption. For example, Malawi's environment minister complained
vigorously about customs officers who authorized a 2002 export of 6.5
tons of illegal ivory, but were never prosecuted. And just this past
November, Filipino Senator Juan Miguel Zubri protested that corruption
was behind the illegal export of five tons of coral seized in
Argentina.
The persistent reports of corruption associated with illegal trade
in wildlife are impossible to ignore. However, the most typical
response is to acknowledge the problem and do very little about it.
Serious allegations only rarely become formal prosecutions. There is
need for a global campaign against corruption. Suppressing corruption
will very significantly enhance any efforts to suppress illegal trade
in wildlife.
Conclusions:
1. Much wildlife crime, and particularly illegal trade in large
volume consignments of commercially valuable wildlife, conforms to
conventional definitions of organized crime. Involvement of organized
crime is obvious. Other crime often associated with organized crime,
e.g. violence, corruption, fraud and financial crime, are commonly
associated with wildlife crime. (Also see Attachments 1, 4 and 7).
2. Wildlife crime exploits the many benefits of globalized trade
and modern communications. It has made extensive use of the Internet
and tourism as a means of diminishing risks associated with smuggling.
(Also see Attachments 1, 2 and 3).
3. There is evidence that violent militant groups, including those
accused of genocide, drug trafficking and weapons trafficking, have
been involved in wildlife crime.
4. Wildlife crime tends to be exceptionally violent. Many park
rangers are killed every year by very well organized and heavily armed
poaching gangs. Violence is exacerbated by access to and use of
military weapons. Violence, and the threat of violence, permeates many
facets of wildlife, including even intimidation of potential witnesses
for the prosecution.
5. ``Organized criminal networks are engaged in a wildlife trade
whose sophistication and scope surpasses the capacity and resources of
enforcement agencies in the region.'' Many habitat countries do not
have the capacity to counteract wildlife crime motivated by powerful
financial interests of industrialized countries. (Also see Attachment
5)
6. Many industrialized countries consider wildlife crime to be
relatively insignificant. The United States is unique as it has a
record of passing substantive sentences to criminals convicted of
wildlife crime. There is compelling need for the U.S. to persuade other
consumer countries that they need devote greater resources to fight
wildlife crime, and to impose penalties that are commensurate with the
gravity of the crime. (Also see Attachment 4).
7. Legal wildlife trade is frequently used as a cover for illegal
trade, and is sometimes difficult to distinguish from it. (Also see
Attachment 9).
8. Both legal and illegal wildlife trade, for the most part,
exploits Nature in developing countries to supply fashion and vanity
demands of consumers in industrialized countries. This trade has
negligible health, welfare or security benefit for society. Major
profits of both legal and illegal wildlife trade are banked in
industrialized countries. (Also see Attachment 8)
Recommendations:
1. The United States should be a more assertive and conspicuous
leader in the global fight against wildlife crime. The United States
has the diplomatic, professional and financial resources needed for
such leadership. The United States should be actively engaged in
helping to target major international criminals and criminal syndicates
implicated in commercial-scale poaching and illegal trade in wildlife.
2. The United States should become substantially more engaged in
assisting habitat countries in the developing world to improve their
wildlife law enforcement capacities. Although some U.S. initiatives
have been well-conceived and productive, they are not yet being
conducted on a scale required to produce decisive impact.
U.S. assistance should include:
a. Professional training, with particular emphasis on the basics of
wildlife law enforcement, including investigations and intelligence.
Such training should seek to establish a basic world standard for
competency, professionalism and ethics.
b. Advice, including the need for inter-agency cooperation, and
``best practices'' for organization, procedures and deployment of
wildlife law enforcement agencies.
c. Equipment for both uniformed field units as well as plain
clothes investigation and intelligence units. Field patrol equipment is
of particular importance as such patrols often are important for their
deterrent value. Light aviation support is highly recommended. Much of
this equipment can come as excess U.S. Government property.
Improving the capacities of habitat countries to protect their own
commercially valuable wildlife from poaching and illegal trade should
result in diminished pressures on U.S. enforcement. As a major
consumer, the United States has a moral obligation to invest major
resources in efforts to assist financially disadvantaged habitat
countries to protect their wildlife from illegal exploitation.
3. The Congress should provide improved support for U.S.
involvement in efforts to suppress illegal trade in wildlife at the
international level by assuring a proper budget for its own wildlife
law enforcement agencies.
4. The United States should devote some of its intelligence
capacity toward determining more clearly the relationships between
wildlife crime and militant organizations. Anecdotal evidence indicates
such links exist, including to groups accused of inciting genocide,
civil war and other violence. At present there is inadequate
information concerning how profound the relationship is and how the
illegal sale of contraband wildlife may be part of the financial
support for such groups.
5. The United States should become more engaged in wildlife law
enforcement operational cooperation at the international level, working
in partnership bilaterally with individual countries, or multilaterally
with regional agencies such as LATF or international organizations such
as Interpol. Although there have been a number of encouraging recent
successful international cases, such as with sea turtles and conch
shells, there is conspicuous need to expand this cooperation.
The United States should cooperate with Interpol in developing
Ecomessage, the worldwide database on wildlife crime. The U.S. should
also participate in supporting the wildlife officer position at the
Interpol General Secretariat.
The United States has a long and respected history of extending its
efforts at suppressing criminality to locations far beyond its borders,
indeed, ``to the shores of Tripoli.'' Cooperative initiatives, with
friendly foreign law enforcement agencies, provide synergistic benefits
that are good for society around the world. Thus, it is much better to
cooperate with friends and reach even to the most distant lands in
order to target drug production facilities in Asia or Latin America
rather than wait for the contraband to be smuggled into schoolyards in
the United States. The same concept applies also to the illegal
wildlife trade.
6. The United States should do more in helping to create and
support regional wildlife law enforcement agencies. Good work with
ASEAN-WEN is a promising first step. But there is opportunity, and
need, to do much more.
There is need to establish regional enforcement agencies in regions
where they do not presently exist, such as the Caribbean. And there is
also need to provide training, equipment and financial support to
existing regional enforcement agencies, such as the Lusaka Agreement
Task Force, with an emphasis on regions that have important wildlife
populations but presently lack financial and technical resources. LATF
in particular works without adequate equipment and resources in some of
the poorest countries in the world.
7. It should be the public policy of the United States to
discourage trade in animals and plants taken from the wild for
frivolous purposes, such as fashion accessories or exotic pets.
Progress is being made in this direction, such as with the provisions
of the Wild Bird Conservation Act, Marine Mammals Act and others. But
there is much more that can, and should, be done. Such policy would
also address the ultimate motivation for wildlife crime, and seek to
diminish the vanity markets that provide the financial incentives for
trafficking.
8. The United States should create a special fund into which would
be contributed all fines and other assets recovered from criminals
involved with illegal international trade in wildlife. This fund could
be used to assist wildlife law enforcement agencies in developing
countries.
9. The United States should establish a system whereby repeat
offenders who violate wildlife laws are not eligible to receive any
export or import licenses, or to engage in wildlife trade domestically.
The United States should propose a similar policy to the next meeting
of the Conference of the Parties to CITES.
10. The United States should engage with other industrialized
countries in an effort to share the burden of the capacity-building
exercises recommended above. Particular effort should be made to enlist
former colonial powers such as Britain, France, Netherlands, Belgium
and Spain as many developing countries still have legal systems based
on that of the former colonial power. Furthermore, many former colonies
still have the language of the colonial power as their legal national
language--an important consideration when planning enforcement
cooperation and training programs.
11. The United States should engage with its own non-governmental
organizations which have demonstrated interest in improving wildlife
law enforcement capacities around the world. Many of these NGOs, such
as IFAW, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, already have
important and useful contacts in priority countries. They have existing
programs that are able to support specific capacity building
initiatives. They also have useful research capacities that could be
directed toward particular initiatives such as seeking overviews of
illegal trade on the Internet, or specific challenges of illegal
wildlife sales to tourists traveling abroad. In fact, the NGO community
presently supports most of the wildlife law enforcement capacity
building in developing countries today. NGOs, much more than government
agencies, are providing important training, contributing supplies and
otherwise supporting hard-pressed wildlife law enforcement agencies in
countries which have the most serious problems.
12. Money laundering and related financial crimes are certainly
integral to illegal trade in wildlife. The United States should provide
financial crime and anti-corruption training and expertise to
appropriate law enforcement offices in developing countries where
wildlife crime is a serious challenge. Interest can be further
stimulated by proposing cooperative initiatives that include sharing of
recovered assets.
In recent years, most countries have enacted new laws against money
laundering. But training has mostly focused on countries where drugs
have been the primary problem. Efforts should be expanded to embrace
wildlife crime.
13. The United States should engage diplomatically with friendly
foreign countries to encourage them to accept that illegal trafficking
in wildlife is an international problem, in need of international
solutions. U.S. diplomatic resources should encourage other countries
to identify wildlife crime as a more serious priority. The U.S. should
encourage other countries to prosecute wildlife crime more vigorously,
including via creation of specialized prosecution units, as is done in
the U.S. Efforts should be made to urge countries to apply penalties
for conviction on wildlife violations that are commensurate with the
gravity of the violations, similar to those defined in the U.S. Federal
Sentencing Guidelines. Efforts should be made to urge countries that
provide safe haven for persons accused of wildlife violations to be
cooperative in finding solutions that are responsible and just. Efforts
should be made to encourage all countries to require that their
citizens report global income. Efforts should be made to overcome the
negative consequences of diplomatic isolation.
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by William Clark
Questions posed by Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II, Chairman
I. Top recommendations on what can be done to reduce illegal wildlife
trade:
1. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement,
should be provided with the resources required to engage
vigorously in international efforts aimed at suppressing
international illegal trade in wildlife. Some specific
engagements would include:
a) Secondment of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Agent
for a three year term at the Interpol General Secretariat in Lyon,
France. The wildlife post at Interpol is presently filled by a New
Zealand officer entirely supported by donations from U.S. conservation
charities. His three-year term expires in March, 2009, and there is no
prospect for further funding. The Interpol post is vital to the
coordination of international efforts to suppress syndicates involved
with illegal trade in wildlife.
b) Training for wildlife law enforcement officers in developing
countries. Some of this is already being done via special legislation
such as the African Elephant Conservation Act, and via special
institutions such as the law enforcement training facility in Botswana.
But overall, the system is inadequate. Only a small minority of the
special legislation funds goes to law enforcement, and only a minority
of seats at special institutions go to wildlife officers. There is need
for a more systematic approach that focuses exclusively on wildlife law
enforcement. There is need to create a comprehensive international
basic standard for wildlife law enforcement competencies and
professionalism. Illegal trade in wildlife has globalized, and
dramatically so. Any efforts to confront this challenge must also be
global--but presently, the ``weakest link'' syndrome is frustrating
international efforts to achieve fruitful cooperation. Foreign wildlife
law enforcement agencies with inadequate competency should be brought
to a basic international standard. This will provide the U.S., and
others, competent partners, especially in important habitat countries.
I am prepared to provide specific information concerning training
priorities if there is an inclination to pursue this option. There will
be numerous case-by-case needs. For example, half of Africa speaks
French, so perhaps it would be useful for U.S. F&WS to cooperate
(perhaps under NAWEG) with French-speaking Canadian colleagues to bring
a good level of training to agencies in French-speaking Africa.
c) Equipment. There desperate need for law enforcement equipment
in many developing countries. They simply do not have the budget to
acquire their own. Three examples:
(1) Senegal National Parks has an annual operational budget
equal to about U.S. $104,000 total--to operate six national
parks and eleven wildlife reserves, plus a national
headquarters. This is for everything other than salaries (which
are paid by the civil service budget). If they want to pay the
light bill, phone bill, buy gasoline, buy a vehicle, or buy
rain gear for all the rangers--it all must come from this
budget, or be donated. Africa's most endangered elephant
population lives in Senegal's Niokolo Koba National Park (which
at 2,256,000 acres is larger than Yellowstone or any other U.S.
national park outside of Alaska). Senegal also has populations
of chimpanzees, giant elands, African wild dogs, scimitar-
horned oryx antelopes and other commercially valuable
endangered species. They have too few resources to protect too
many living treasures.
(2) A few years ago, I had the pleasure of speaking
personally with the President of Ghana. Bluntly, I asked him to
increase the budget of Ghana's Wildlife Division. Bluntly, he
replied that he would be very pleased to do just that--very
shortly after he could assure a basic primary education for
every Ghanaian child, and just a small health clinic with a
practical nurse for every Ghanaian community. Point made. The
Ghana Wildlife Division annual budget today is about $400,000--
including all salaries.
(3) A ranger working for Chad's wildlife and protected areas
agency earns the equivalent of U.S. $54 per month, and no
insurance or benefits. I have seen Chadian rangers go on patrol
wearing flip-flops and carrying water in rinsed-out motor oil
bottles.
Globalization has brought some new wealth to many of these
countries, and you can see modern cars on the streets. But virtually
none of that wealth has found its way into governmental wildlife
conservation agencies. They function on inadequate budgets. Check the
CITES website for ``national contacts'' and you will see, particularly
among the Africans, government wildlife agencies will have a ``yahoo''
or ``hotmail'' email address. These agencies do not have computers or
email access--so the officials make occasional visits to the nearby
internet cafe, pay a few francs, and check their commercial emails.
The U.S. can provide much of the needed equipment at a minimal
cost. Excess U.S. Government property can be contributed to agencies in
need--items such as ``former generation'' night vision equipment, no
longer useful to the U.S. military, would be a treasure for agencies
that persistently suffer fatalities in night-time shoot-outs (Kenya
Wildlife Service lost three rangers killed in a 1:00 a.m. shootout on
an overcast night of 19 May 2007. NVGs likely would have prevented
these tragic fatalities). Other excess property such as ponchos,
mosquito nets, etc. would be very valuable and appreciated by the
rangers in the field. Outdated computers disposed of in the U.S. are
very likely superior to the ones people pay for in internet cafes in
Bamako or N'Djamena. Old field boots that the U.S. Army discards would
be treasured by African rangers in the field. Trinidad's wildlife
department is in need of boats to patrol the mangrove swamps around the
island. There is widespread need for motor vehicles, especially 4x4
pickups. (In 1991, I delivered two U.S. M880 pickups from Germersheim,
Germany to N'Djamena, Chad. These excess U.S. Government vehicles were
the first motor vehicles ever registered to Chad's wildlife and
protected areas agency.) And there are many other options for economic
and practical acquisitions of equipment to benefit agencies in
developing countries that are charged with protecting commercially
valuable wildlife.
In this regard, I want to make special emphasis on the utility of
light patrol aircraft. Virtually any law enforcement agency that can
afford it acquires patrol aircraft. Even city police departments use
aircraft today. Aircraft are particularly useful in wildlife law
enforcement, especially in countries that have national parks measured
in the multiple thousands of square miles. Most importantly, patrol
aircraft are valuable deterrents. Just like a conspicuous police
cruiser patrolling the interstate, a conspicuous patrol aircraft deters
most violations. Experience suggests that just one conspicuous patrol
flight in a period of 5 to 7 days is enough to suppress about 80% of
poaching in a particular habitat. Let the patrols go beyond 7 days and
the poachers start to slip back in. Flight schedules must be irregular
and routes properly planned.
For the minority of offenders who are not deterred, the patrol
aircraft provides an extremely valuable law enforcement resource. A
good patrol pilot can scout and track effectively from the air. Often,
aerial observation is more successful than ground tracking, not only
because of its speed, but also because it is frequently easier to see
``down'' into high grasses and scrub brush habitats than to look
horizontally from ground level. Once gangs are located, an air crew and
radio details such as numbers of poachers, weapons carried, direction
of march, etc. to ranger units on the ground for interception and
arrest. Air crews can also guide those ground units to positions from
which arrests can be executed with the greatest safety. Light aircraft
also resupply ranger units on extended patrol--letting them walk into
remote and waterless areas. They are also used to evacuate sick and
injured persons (in Africa, malaria claims more ranger lives than
poacher bullets do--and the poacher bullets claim more than 100 every
year). Light aircraft fly many other useful law enforcement missions--
such as monitoring the location of herds of commercially valuable
animals (so park managers can deploy ground units more effectively),
monitoring park borders for illegal access, locate illegal agriculture
(including growing marijuana) in large national parks, search for
missing persons (staff, tourists, etc.)
The United States Government acquires several light aircraft every
year. Some are seized from drug runners. Some are seized from wildlife
offenders who use them for ``land and shoot'' or ``same day'' hunting
violations. And some are seized for various other reasons. Also, the
U.S. military sometimes has light ``liaison'' aircraft rendered
``excess.'' And there are other sources. Appropriate legislation
authorizing the donation of such aircraft to wildlife agencies in
developing countries would be a very practical and inexpensive
contribution.
Actually, contributing some new U.S. manufactured light aircraft
would be an exceptionally useful donation to wildlife agencies that
otherwise could not afford them.
2. The United States should create a special fund into which would
be contributed all fines and other assets recovered from criminals
involved with illegal international trade in wildlife. This fund should
be used to assist wildlife law enforcement agencies in developing
countries. Instruments such as the Lacey Act Reward Fund do exist, but
they are underused, and often resources are diverted to forestry or
fisheries agencies which tend to be better funded anyway (because they
generate much more income for a government.) There needs to be a
comprehensive review of what exists, and what is needed to create the
equivalent of the EPA's ``Superfund''--which can be focused at
assisting the most seriously disadvantaged wildlife agencies.
3. The United States should engage with its own non-government
organizations that have expertise and experience in appropriate areas
of law enforcement training. Certainly, it would be inappropriate for
an NGO to begin teaching law enforcement questioning techniques.
However, it would be entirely appropriate to partner with an NGO to
teach protected species identification. In December, 2007, I joined
with IFAW in a training program that involved officers from four
Caribbean countries. A brief test at the beginning of the program
revealed that most officers participating could not identify most of
the local species commonly in trade. Imagine a room with 25 National
Parks Service rangers and finding 15 of them could not identify an
American bald eagle! One vital element of wildlife law enforcement is
being able to identify the wild species that are being trafficked. And
there are other areas where NGO resources can be applied in a
cooperative effort to improve the capacities of enforcement agencies in
developing countries.
4. Persons who have repeated violations of wildlife legislation,
such as the Endangered Species Act, CITES implementing legislation,
etc. should be prohibited from receiving any wildlife licenses or
permits for a long period of time. Repeat offenders should be
disqualified from engaging in legal wildlife trade because of their
abuses.
5. The United States should provide authorization and line-item
budget support to appropriate intelligence agencies to provide them
with the capacity to gather information on illegal trafficking in
wildlife, particularly elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn. There are
numerous individual reports of militant groups such as Sudanese
Janjaweed, Somali warlord factions and Bangladeshi Islamic militant
groups engaging in commercial scale poaching and trafficking of
wildlife--particularly wildlife with durable, high-value parts such as
ivory and rhinoceros horn. There is compelling evidence of opportunity
and motivation. It would be useful to seek verification of this
presumed link. It is reasonable to assume that if such militant groups
are engaged in illegal trafficking, the proceeds are being used to
support violence.
6. One of the ``great unknowns'' of the illegal ivory trade is
verification of the market. During recent years, more than 20 tons of
ivory have been seized on an annual basis--mostly ``in transit'' in the
Far East. Customs often estimates that a 10% seizure rate for ``general
goods'' (e.g. elephant ivory) is quite good. It is reasonable to
estimate that 200 tons (i.e. the ivory of 20,000 elephants) has been in
trade annually during recent years. This provides an explanation of why
most African elephant populations have not been able to recover despite
the existence of CITES Appendix I controls.
Major legal ivory markets, such as Japan and China, claim to have
effective enforcement. Other countries say their domestic markets are
much too small to account for such a large volume of ivory. So where is
all the ivory going???
The United States has the best intelligence capacity on earth.
Perhaps some of that could be focused on identifying the markets for
illegal ivory. This might also provide important information to help
identify the persons and organizations at the supplier end, noted in
item 5, above.
7. The United States should provide financial and technical
support to the Lusaka Agreement Task Force, a multi-national wildlife
law enforcement agency in Africa. At present, there are six countries
that have full membership in LATF: Congo, Kenya, Lesotho, Tanzania,
Uganda and Zambia. Many other countries would be eager to join--but
they cannot afford the modest cost. (Recall, Senegal National Parks
with its $104,000 budget. Where would they find funds to pay annual
membership in LATF?)
U.S. partnership might be able to find an economical approach. For
example, ECOWAS membership could bring in 17 countries perhaps at a
negotiated reduced rate.
LATF has been particularly effective, given its relatively small
size and resources. Expansion would go a long way in providing law
enforcement resources in the habitat countries that urgently need such
assistance.
8. The United States should use its diplomatic resources to fight
wildlife crime. Persons identified as commercial wildlife traffickers
presently sit in ``safe haven'' countries where there is no risk of
extradition to countries that have issued arrest warrants for them. The
United States can assume a leadership role in working cooperatively
with other countries in finding alternative methods of seeking
justice--such as implementing any of the numerous financial laws and
agreements enacted since 9/11. Criminals in safe havens may be
susceptible to prosecution under any of the recent money laundering,
financial transfers, assets reporting and other laws. These people may
no longer reside in the countries where they violated wildlife laws,
but it is very likely they are presently benefiting from the ill-gotten
profits of those violations.
9. The United States should use its diplomatic resources to
encourage other countries to apply meaningful penalties to persons
convicted of serious wildlife crime. Persons convicted of serious
violations--such as smuggling multiple tons of ivory valued at several
millions of dollars--should be penalized with more than a suspended
sentence and a small fine. Large volumes of unprocessed wildlife
products (such as raw tusks, unprocessed skins, etc.) indicates the
existence of major criminal enterprises in the importing counties--
enterprises required for manufacturing and process of the contraband,
its marketing and distribution to large numbers of retail outlets. This
is an indication that the convicted smuggler is linked to and supplies
a major criminal syndicate. Therefore, small fines and suspended
sentences are inappropriate. Trafficking of this nature also reflects
an enormous loss to the habitat countries--not merely the endangered
animals lost, but also the lives of wildlife rangers, and all the
consequent criminalities: fraud, smuggling, corruption, weapons
violations, etc., etc.--and because of the persistence of this problem,
the cost of law enforcement. A small fine and a suspended sentence for
a major violation with major international implications merits a very
sharp international response.
II. What is the Interpol Working Group doing to reduce illegal wildlife
trade?
Interpol's Working Group on Wildlife Crime has:
1. Championed and achieved the creation of a wildlife post at the
Interpol General Secretariat in Lyon, France. Interpol Wildlife then
raised funds required to support that post for three years (2006--
2009). This post is extremely important in coordinating many
international responses to wildlife crime.
2. Created a forum for bringing wildlife law enforcement officers
from around the world together on a regular basis to exchange
information, create mechanisms for mutual assistance, and pursue
cooperative projects. In 2007, the meeting also provided one day for
stakeholders to participate (NGOs, scholars, et al.) to improve
transparency and accountability. 2007 also marked the start of
simultaneous interpretation, which means officers from non-English-
speaking countries could fully participate.
3. Initiated training programs. In early 2006, one training
program in East Africa brought about senior 34 officers for specialized
law enforcement training. This program included volunteer instructors
from around the world, including the United States (U.S. F&WS S.A.
Salvator Amato and U.S. EPA attorney Andrew Lauterback). Another
exercise was conducted in early 2007. More training is presently being
planned for wildlife law enforcement officers in West Africa and
Southeast Asia.
4. Aviation support. The Interpol General Secretariat has provided
grant support to an Interpol Wildlife project that is supplying a
fully-restored patrol airplane (PA-18 Piper Super Cub) to an East
African wildlife agency. The benefits of aerial patrol are noted above.
5. Project teams. Interpol Wildlife has several protect teams that
focus on specific challenges of wildlife crime. Some are species
oriented, such as the reptiles, shahtoosh and ivory teams. Others are
more function oriented, such as the prosecution technical assistance
team. Generally, these teams seek to pool resources and expertise in
their efforts to target specific problems in illegal international
trade in wildlife.
6. Projects. Interpol Wildlife conducts specific projects.
Currently, one project is the preparation of an anti-smuggling guide
that identifies approximately 30 common techniques used by wildlife
smugglers, along with information on best practices on how to identify
these techniques in the field, and what to do when a violation is
identified. (N.B., this can be quite specific. For example, a suspected
egg smuggler should be approached in a manner that prevents him from
throwing himself on the floor or against a solid object--as
professional smugglers would want to crush and intermingle all the
eggs, thus preventing DNA analysis from verifying an endangered species
and the consequent sentencing). The guide will be distributed to
wildlife law enforcement and customs officers world-wide, and
particularly in countries where training in these subjects is not
particularly good.
7. Operations. Interpol Wildlife members cooperate in coordinated
law enforcement operations against international syndicates involved in
illegal wildlife trade.
III. Elephant Poaching--links to the Janjaweed militias in Sudan.
I have worked with wildlife officials in Chad for more than a
decade, including field work in Zakouma National Park, located in the
southeastern part of the country about 200 miles from the Sudan border.
Sudan's Darfur region lies just east of the border. Many Darfur
refugees inhabit the land between Zakouma and the Sudan border.
I have worked at providing equipment (motor vehicles, computer,
field supplies, even a small patrol airplane) to Zakouma. I have also
provided training programs and collected about four thousand dollars
from friends and colleagues to be distributed among the widows and
children of Zakouma park rangers killed in the line of duty. The
rangers have no insurance.
I have cultivated cordial relations with Chadian wildlife
authorities over the years, and we discuss matters in a frank and
friendly manner. My information concerning the Janjaweed comes from Mr.
Abakar Mahamat Zougoulou, presently director of wildlife and protected
areas in Chad (Direction de conservation de la faune et des aires
protegees, Ministere de l'environnement et de l'eau, B.P. 905,
N'Djamena, Tchad)
Mr. Zougoulou's telephone number is 011 . 235 . 628-6448
His email address is [email protected] (Note: Chad's
wildlife director is one of those many Africans who must rely on a
local internet cafe for email communications).
Mr. Zougoulou informed me that Janjaweed militias from Sudan and
allies among Chadian rebel groups had penetrated into the Zakouma
National Park area, using motor vehicles and automatic weapons. They
had killed ``many hundreds'' of elephants in 2006 and 2007 and taken
the ivory back to Sudan. During 2007, they had also killed seven
rangers posted to Zakouma.
I am uncertain where the ivory goes after it enters Sudan. Sudan
has its own port on the Red Sea. It also has a border with Egypt where
formerly there had been serious problems with ivory trafficking. Given
the porous borders in the Horn of Africa, there is possibility of
smuggling into Eritrea or onward to Somalia, where there is no
functioning central government and consequently no effective customs
controls on exports. And there are other possibilities.
The core problem for Chad is the dynamics of the rainy season.
During the dry season, nearly all the elephants in the region
concentrate inside Zakouma's approximately 1,200 square mile habitat
and they are reasonably well protected there. But when the rains come
(in mid-year) the elephants naturally disperse across the 10,000+
square miles of the Salamat Region. The Zakouma rangers do not have the
resources to provide effective coverage over such a large terrain,
especially during the rainy season when there is wide-spread flooding.
The patrol airplane that I delivered to Zakouma in 1998 has
recently become unairworthy, the victim of decade of regular hard
service in a very harsh environment. The Zakouma elephants are now more
vulnerable.
One of the attacks occurred on 15 May 2007 when a gang of militants
attacked Zakouma park headquarters. Chadian authorities believe the
militants were trying to gain access to the 1.5 tons of ivory
stockpiled at headquarters (this was ivory recovered from both natural
mortalities and law enforcement seizures). The attackers were repelled
by the defending Zakouma rangers, three of whom were killed in the
battle. Chad's President Idriss Deby subsequently incinerated the ivory
to prevent it from attracting another attack.
The area between Zakouma and the Sudan border has many Darfur
refugees living there. Some estimate one million people. It is not
difficult for Janjaweed and/or their Chadian rebel allies to circulate
in this region and hide among those refugees.
Responses to Questions for the Record posed by Honorable Don Young
(R-AK)
1. How stringent are the laws in Israel?
Israeli wildlife law is very stringent and enforcement is
energetic. Below, I am copying a copy of the CITES Notification to the
Parties which reports significant Israeli laws and policies that go
beyond the requirements of CITES--often referred to as ``Stricter
Domestic Measures.''
Israel is a very small country (about the size of New Jersey), but
nevertheless it supports important populations of wildlife. Among the
large carnivores, there are populations of grey wolves (300+), striped
hyena (200+) and leopards (several dozen). There are also large
populations of small carnivores--jackals, foxes, mustelidae, mongooses,
et al. Among the ungulates, there are about 8,000 mountain gazelles,
and nearly 1,500 dorcas gazelles. There are several hundred free-
ranging reintroduced white oryx antelopes, Asian wild asses,
Mesopotamian fallow deer, roe deer and ostriches. There are about 3,000
Nubian ibexes. There are good resident populations of raptors,
including golden eagles, fish eagles and griffon vultures (nearly the
size of California condors) and many smaller raptors. More than one
million raptors migrate through Israel twice a year, and they are all
fully protected and very well documented.
Israel has 327 nature reserves and national parks. Most are very
small. But together, they comprise more than 21% of the total land area
of the country. The Israel Nature and Parks Authority is responsible
for all reserves and parks in the country, and all wildlife, regardless
of where it might be found.
All wildlife shipments, including non-CITES species, imported to or
exported from Israel are subject permit authorization. Israel
approaches a 100% inspection rate for live wildlife imports and exports
(regardless of CITES classification), and a very high rate for
inspection of ``parts and derivatives'' of wildlife.
Israel Nature and Parks Authority rangers are law enforcement
officers with police powers. There is extensive basic and in-service
training.
Israel cooperates on a bi-lateral basis with wildlife agencies in
many developing countries and has sent rangers abroad to teach courses
as diverse as tactical radio communications, field hygiene, flight
safety and proficiency, and use and care of night vision instruments.
Following are Israel's ``stricter domestic measures'' for CITES:
CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA
AND FLORA
NOTIFICATION TO THE PARTIES
International Environment House--Chemin des Anemones--CH-1219
Chatelaine, Geneva--Switzerland
Tel: +41 (22) 917 81 39/40--Fax: +41 (22) 797 34 17--Email:
[email protected]: http://www.cites.org
No. 2004/025 Geneva, 30 April 2004
CONCERNING ISRAEL
Stricter domestic measures concerning import and export of wild
fauna and flora
1. The Secretariat has been requested by the CITES Management
Authority of Israel to inform the Parties of its new regulations that
impose stricter domestic measures concerning the import and export of
wild fauna and flora, in accordance with Article XIV, paragraph 1, of
the Convention. These measures include the following points.
2. Israel prohibits the import of any animal that, in the opinion
of the Scientific Authority of Israel, may become an invasive species
and represent an ecological risk to its native fauna and flora.
3. Israel prohibits the import for commercial purposes of wild-
caught specimens of species included in Appendix II or III. Exceptions
may be made inter alia when appropriate documentation shows that such
an import is not detrimental to the survival of the wild population in
the exporting country.
4. Israel treats all Appendix-I species in accordance with the
provisions of Article III of the Convention and does not apply the
special provisions of Article VII, paragraph 4.
5. Israel prohibits the export of specimens of its native
wildlife. Exceptions might be made inter alia for scientific or
educational purposes.
6. Israel does not allow falconry.
7. Israel prohibits the import of specimens of wildlife for
circus activities.
8. Israel prohibits the import and export of primates as pets.
9. Israel prohibits the import of poisonous animals or plants
except under rare circumstances.
10. All applications for import and export are considered on a
case-by-case basis.
11. The Parties are requested to take note of the above
information and to assist in ensuring that all wildlife trade to and
from Israel is in accordance with these measures.
12. This Notification replaces Notification No. 2000/003 of 31
January 2000.
2. Concerning the caviar case mentioned by Mr. Sellar.
I am unaware of the details of this particular case. Perhaps this
question is better posed to Mr. Sellar.
3. How would I describe Kenya's wildlife conservation program?
Kenya has a very good wildlife conservation, particularly under the
circumstances that have existed in recent decades.
Yes, Kenya did prohibit sport hunting and most other wildlife trade
in 1976. Trying to protect the supply does not necessarily mean they
can stop the demand. It is the responsibility of countries in the
industrialized world, which provide the financial incentives, to stop
the demand created by their own citizens. I think the U.S. does a very
good job with law enforcement, and makes credible efforts to suppress
illegal imports. However, I also think the U.S. does not do enough to
educate its population not to purchase protected wildlife that evades
enforcement controls.
I do not agree that Kenya has one of the worst wildlife
conservation programs on the continent, and I do not think that the ban
on hunting has much to do with the commercial poaching that goes on in
Kenya. Rather, I think the factor of greatest influence is its
proximity to countries such as Somalia and Sudan, and the intrusion of
heavily armed commercial poaching gangs.
Despite persistent challenges from foreign poaching gangs, and the
loss of many KWS rangers in gunfights with these gangs, Kenya provides
reasonably good protection for its wildlife. Elephants, a preferred
target of the Somali poaching gangs, have increased their numbers in
Kenya in recent years--doubling their population since the crisis times
of 1990. I think a very commendable job has been done in the face of
serious challenges and inadequate support.
4. Concerning Interpol's Ecomessage.
Ecomessage is a format-oriented report that supplies environmental
(including wildlife) law enforcement data to Interpol's computerized
database. It is the only international ``nominal'' database on
environmental crime--meaning it includes the names of both persons and
business/organizations. There are multiple benefits to Ecomessage:
A. When a country files an Ecomessage with details of a particular
case, the data is automatically cross-referenced in Interpol's
computers. ``Hits'' are reported back immediately. Thus, if the U.S.
sent an Ecomessage reporting Mr. A being arrested for smuggling
wildlife, that information would be cross-referenced and, if Mr. A was
in the database--for example if he had been convicted three years ago
for smuggling other contraband into another country--that information
would be reported back to the U.S. This facility is attractive to
prosecutors, who have particular interest in repeat offenders.
B. The Ecomessage database can also be analyzed to help target
particular international syndicates involved in criminal activities.
Through recent years, the Ecomessage database has been analyzed to
target syndicates dealing in reptiles, live primates and elephant
ivory. These analyses have produced arrests and convictions, as well as
the break-up of syndicates.
C. Ecomessage is also a good way to compile wildlife crime data
that can provide a global perspective. Generally, wildlife law
enforcement around the world tends to be under-staffed and under-
funded. This means it should rely more heavily on intelligence-led
policing (economy of resources). Ecomessage is the only existing
mechanism for doing this on an international scale. As wildlife crime
has ``globalized'' dramatically in recent years, there is compelling
need to create an annual international wildlife crime estimate that
maintains a credible monitor on the magnitude, structure and dynamics
of wildlife crime. This would be the best way to establish global
priorities and to seek the cooperation of specific international
partners.
5. How would Ecomessage work better than CITES reporting?
CITES has discontinued its TIGERS database on wildlife crime,
leaving Ecomessage as the world's only nominal database on wildlife
crime.
Ecomessage has better prospect of success for several reasons:
A. The Interpol Wildlife Group rewards countries that submit good
Ecomessages. In conjunction with each CITES Conference of the Parties,
Interpol presents an Ecomessage Award--a nice plaque and a non-cash
$30,000 award which can be used for equipment and/or training. The most
recent Ecomessage Award was presented to Cameroon and Hong Kong for
their good cooperation on an ivory seizure. The financial part of the
award went entirely to Cameroon and a training program is presently
being planned.
B. I hesitate to use the term ``peer pressure''--perhaps the
concept of ``peer encouragement'' is better. When significant wildlife
seizures are made, friendly encouragements are made to countries
involved to submit an Ecomessage reporting the details. This is done in
a friendly, if sometimes pro-active and persistent, manner. And many of
the persons responsible for Ecomessage gather annually at the Interpol
Wildlife annual meeting when notes are compared and further
encouragements made.
C. Ecomessage is produced by law enforcement offices, via their
respective Interpol National Central Bureaus. These often are not the
same persons who participate at CITES, where a CITES management
authority is represented by an administrative official. Some CITES
administrators see Ecomessage reports as just another bureaucratic form
to complete. But law enforcement officers sometimes view Ecomessage
reports as the exchange of vital information that will help them with
their jobs. Law enforcement officers tend to be better motivated in
such exercises than their administrative colleagues.
6. Only two officers employed full time--
This is in Mr. Sellar's testimony, and not mine. And I have a
somewhat different perspective.
It is true that John Sellar is CITES' only wildlife law enforcement
officer, and that Peter Younger is the only wildlife law enforcement
officer at the Interpol General Secretariat.
However, there many other persons around the world who are involved
with wildlife law enforcement at the international level. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service certainly invests significant time and effort on
international cases and international training, and has had numerous
successful prosecutions involving nationals of various countries.
Several other national wildlife agencies also contribute significantly
to the international effort.
More than three-quarters of my own time at the Israel Nature and
Parks Authority is focused on international wildlife law enforcement--
mostly on projects of the Interpol Working Group on Wildlife Crime.
There are also regional wildlife law enforcement agencies, such as
the Lusaka Agreement Task Force in Africa, and the ASEAN-Wildlife
Enforcement Network in Southeast Asia that have full-time secretariats.
And there are others engaged in efforts to suppress international
wildlife crime--including many NGOs that conduct international training
programs. In fact, to date, only NGOs have provided financial resources
to support the Interpol staff position, and only NGOs have provided
financial resources required to bring officers from developing
countries to Interpol Wildlife meetings.
That said, NGOs are charities with very limited budgets, especially
when compared to the resources of governments. There is very great need
for governments to assume greater share of the burdens of international
law enforcement.
7. Concerning the CITES Enforcement Expert Group reviewing the use of
international officers to address global wildlife crime and
recommend measures to fund this type of enforcement.
I enthusiastically agree!
8. Other options.
There is need for initiatives in several areas:
A. Substantive assistance to wildlife law enforcement agencies in
developing countries. This needs to be both with training and
equipment. Wildlife rangers and wardens are the first and most
important line of defense for wildlife. Once the poachers get past
them, the animals concerned are already ``ecologically dead''--whether
captured dead or alive, these animals are no longer functioning parts
of their ecosystems and no longer an asset to Nature.
B. Greater cooperation with Interpol and other international law
enforcement agencies that address issues of wildlife crime--including
regional agencies such as LATF and ASEAN-WEN. Wildlife crime has
globalized. The supply usually comes from developing countries, and the
market is usually in industrialized countries. There are multi-national
criminal syndicates (some involved with politically-inspired violence)
that instigate important parts of this trafficking. The U.S. should
cooperate more vigorously internationally, just as it cooperates
vigorously to confront other international criminal challenges, such as
drugs or organized crime.
C. The United States should use ``peer encouragements'' with other
countries, applying diplomatic persuasion to encourage those that do
not apply meaningful enforcement--including penalties for persons
convicted of serious wildlife crime--to make appropriate reforms.
D. The United States should use its skills and leadership in
fighting financial crime and apply them against individuals and
syndicates involved in major wildlife crime. Estimates invariably set
the ``value'' of wildlife crime in the billions of dollars annually.
Yet hardly any international financial instruments are applied against
these criminals at either the prosecution level or the asset recovery
level.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Moritz?
STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM E. MORITZ, DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION
AND ACTING DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, SAFARI CLUB
INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Moritz. Good morning. My name is Dr. William Moritz,
Director of Conservation for Safari Club International
Foundation, SCIF, and Acting Director of Government Affairs for
Safari Club International, SCI. Thank you for the invitation to
appear this morning.
SCI is the leader in protecting the freedom to hunt and
promoting wildlife conservation worldwide. SCIF funds worldwide
programs dedicated to wildlife conservation, outdoor education
and humanitarian services.
Mr. Chairman, the most important point we would like to
make today is that poaching is not hunting. All too often,
media accounts use the terms interchangeably. The illegal
wildlife trade by its very definition involves only poachers,
not hunters.
We would also like to make clear that SCI and SCIF do not
tolerate or condone violations of the law, whether in the U.S.
or abroad. Hunting is a sporting activity that is bound by law,
regulations and ethics. Hunters are conservationists. Because
we abide by the rules established by wildlife management
agencies and because the fees and taxes that we pay for hunting
licenses and equipment are the single largest source of funding
for conservation worldwide, we condemn poaching in the
strongest possible terms.
We go beyond rhetoric to action. SCIF and SCI engage in
many efforts to oppose poaching because poaching is contrary to
conservation. In many countries, sport hunters are accompanied
by government wildlife officials. The cost of this is borne by
the hunter gladly and willingly.
The United States has a very potent weapon to deal with the
illegal taking of wildlife, the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act has
been extended to cover the importation of or commerce in
wildlife taken, transported or sold in violation of the laws of
other countries.
The penalties under the Lacey Act are very significant:
$10,000 for civil penalties and up to $100,000 for misdemeanors
and even $250,000 for felonies committed by individuals. Fines
for organizations are even higher, and jail time is possible as
well.
SCI and SCIF have long supported the vigorous enforcement
of wildlife laws. In relation to CITES, SCI provided $50,000
for the development of an identification manual for customs
officers and provided technical assistance in the preparation
of the manual, and we have just completed a three year donation
to support a wildlife enforcement officer position in Interpol.
We recognize and appreciate the hard work of the Fish and
Wildlife Service in the work that they do in this arena.
Where regulated sport hunting is legal, it is a consistent
form of revenue for local communities, and wildlife populations
flourish. Many communities have begun community-based natural
resources programs which are successful because they create a
financial incentive to the rural communities to actively
conserve wildlife.
Here are some facts and figures on the positive impact of
hunting in Africa: Hunting generates $200 million annually in
remote rural areas of Africa in 23 countries. Private hunting
operations conserve wildlife on 540,000 square miles, which is
22 percent more land area than is found in the national parks
of Africa.
According to the National Geographic, hunting is of key
importance to conservation in Africa by creating financial
incentives to promote and retain wildlife as a land use over
vast areas.
Particularly in Africa, the financial incentive to co-exist
with wildlife is the central reason why so many species are now
recovering, especially elephants, rhinos and lions. In 23
southern African nations that permit regulated hunting, we see
a trend of positive species population growth. In countries
like Kenya where sport hunting does not exist, population
levels are unsurprisingly very low.
Let me end by reiterating our main point. Poaching is not
hunting, and sport hunters do not poach. Sport hunting remains
one of the few ways to generate money for wildlife management
in other countries, and it is an important incentive for the
conservation of wildlife.
Through the presence of hunters, hunt operators and
government officials in the field, and particularly through the
economic stability that it can bring to remote rural areas,
sport hunting plays a key role in combating the negative
effects of poaching.
Where poaching does exist, the Congress has already created
substantial penalties for those who engage in the illegal
wildlife trade. SCI strongly supports vigorous enforcement of
these laws, and if law enforcement agencies need more resources
to enforce these laws, let us make sure they have them.
Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions at
the end of the panel.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moritz follows:]
Statement of Dr. William Moritz, Director of Conservation, Safari Club
International Foundation, and Acting Director of Governmental Affairs,
Safari Club International
Good morning. My name is Dr. William Moritz, Director of
Conservation for Safari Club International Foundation (SCIF) and acting
Director of Governmental Affairs for Safari Club International (SCI).
SCI protects the freedom to hunt and promotes wildlife conservation
worldwide. SCIF funds and manages worldwide programs dedicated to
wildlife conservation, outdoor education and humanitarian services.
Mr. Chairman, the most important point that we would like to make
to the Committee is that poaching is not hunting. All too often, media
accounts of poaching magnificent animals such as the mountain gorilla
refer to the activity as ``hunting.'' Hunting is a sporting activity
that is bound by law, regulations, and ethics. Poaching is not a
sporting activity; it is unlawful and therefore unethical. SCI and SCIF
would like to commend the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their
commitments towards reducing poaching.
Poachers are not hunters. Poachers kill or capture wildlife
indiscriminately, without limits or controls, in violation of law and
with complete disregard for the welfare of the wildlife species.
Hunters are conservationists. SCIF and SCI engage in many efforts to
oppose poaching because poaching is contrary to conservation. If these
efforts enhance the security interests of the United States or of any
other peace-loving country which is home to sport hunters, then the
hunting community is serving many purposes.
The U.S. has a very potent weapon to deal with the illegal take of
wildlife--the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act has been extended to cover the
importation of or commerce in wildlife taken, transported or sold in
violation of the laws of other countries. The penalties under the Lacey
Act are very significant--$10,000 for civil penalties, and up to
$100,000 for misdemeanors and $250,000 for felonies committed by
individuals. Fines for organizations are even higher and jail time is
possible as well.
In the world of sport hunting, we are dealing with the sustainable
take of a few animals, from a few species, under strict legal,
administrative and ethical limitations. Sport hunting makes a positive
contribution that helps to limit or eliminate illegal wildlife trade by
being the eyes and the ears of the enforcement community and by
economic contributions to wildlife management and local communities. As
I just pointed out, in many countries sport hunters are required to be
accompanied by government officials such as rangers. The cost of the
ranger is borne by the hunter. Additionally, the continual presence of
the hunt outfitter in the hunting area assures that roads are kept open
and that people will see and report illegal activity observed during
wildlife management activities. Many hunt outfitters have programs and
fund activities to combat poaching and to eliminate the presence of
poachers in their hunting areas.
Sport hunters have a long and proud tradition of supporting
wildlife conservation, including the enforcement of hunting seasons and
quotas for harvest. Through the Pittman-Robertson Act in the United
States, federal excise taxes on hunting licenses and equipment paid by
hunters have been distributed to all fifty states for more than seventy
years. Funds used by the states for matching grants under Pittman-
Robertson are largely funded by license fees.
The story overseas is similar. Although there is no analogue to the
Pittman-Robertson program in any other country, the money spent by
sport hunters goes to provide operating funds for wildlife agencies in
many countries. Perhaps more importantly, the benefits of sport hunting
that flow to local people provide incentives for them to resist the
presence of poachers. Through jobs, direct payments to villages, the
provision of funds from hunting for civic projects in rural villages,
and the provision of meat from game animals, sport hunting provides
many benefits and gives value to the wildlife. The rural people who
live in association with this wildlife are more likely to refuse to
tolerate poaching if they understand that the poachers are robbing them
of something of value.
SCI and SCIF have long supported the enforcement of wildlife laws.
In relation to CITES, SCI provided $50,000 for the development of an
identification manual for customs officers and provided technical
assistance in the preparation of the manual. We have just completed a
three-year donation to support a wildlife enforcement officer position
for Interpol. We have also signed on as a supporter of Countdown 2010,
an effort by the international conservation community to meet many
biodiversity goals by the year 2010.
Let me go back to the role of sport hunting today in many
developing countries. It is these countries where wildlife tends to
persist due to the very lack of development that makes those same
countries subject to the negative effects of poaching. Using southern
Africa as an example, sport hunting has been one of the main economic
engines in rural communities that co-exist with wildlife on a daily
basis. In many countries of southern Africa, agrarian or pastoral
economies cannot flourish due to limited cultivatable or grazing land.
In these areas, regulated sport hunting has been a consistent form of
revenue for local communities. To take better advantage of sustainable
wildlife use, many governments have begun Community Based Natural
Resources Programs. These programs, in essence, devolve power from the
central government so that locally created community councils can
regulate and manage wildlife in their areas. These councils have the
mission to utilize wildlife so that it remains a sustainable resource
for their community.
Successful programs have been developed across Africa including,
but not limited to, Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous
Resources, otherwise known as CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe, Living In a Finite
Environment, known as LIFE in Namibia, and other programs headed by the
Zambia, Botswana and Tanzania.
These communal programs have been successful because they
effectively create a financial incentive for the rural communities to
actively conserve wildlife. Revenue retention schemes ensure money
generated from sport hunting ends up in the hands of indigenous people.
In the case of sport hunting in southern Africa, communities in the
most rural portions of countries reap the benefit of living communally
and sustainably utilizing wildlife through Community Based Natural
Resource Programs.
Here are some facts and figures on the positive economic impact
that sport hunting has in Africa.
1. Trophy hunting by 18,500 hunters generates U.S. $200 million
annually in remote rural areas of Africa in 23 countries. Private
hunting operations conserve wildlife on 540,000 square miles, which is
22% more land than is found in the national parks of Africa. (Lindsey,
Conservation Biology, 2007)
2. ``Trophy hunting is of key importance to conservation in Africa
by creating [financial] incentives to promote and retain wildlife as a
land use over vast areas...''. (National Geographic News, March, 2007)
3. In Namibia, 29 conservancies involve almost 150,000 rural
individuals through trophy hunting, conservancy management or secondary
industries.
4. The Zambian Wildlife Authority works with safari operators to
ensure that as part of their contract they must develop and manage
roads, employ Zambian Professional Hunters or Apprentice Hunters,
ensure that a minimum of 80% of labor comes from neighboring
communities, develop local infrastructure, notably schools, clinic and
wells, and employ Zambian game scouts to manage both wildlife and
poaching
5. CAMPFIRE has taken strides to restore natural resource use
rights to 600,000 of the poorest people in Zimbabwe.
6. Sport hunting employs approximately 3,700 people annually
(www.tanzania.go.tz/) and supports over 88,000 families (Hurt & Ravn
2000) in Tanzania.
Particularly in Africa, creating an incentive to coexist with
wildlife has been a central reason why so many populations of species
are now thriving, especially elephants, rhinos and lions. Of the 23
southern African nations that have regulated hunting, a trend of
positive species population growth has been reported. The growing
population of white rhino has been one of the most notable success
stories. Unsurprisingly, in countries like Kenya, where wildlife
utilization by indigenous people is extremely limited and where sport
hunting does not exist, wildlife population levels continuously decline
and are low. Trophy hunting in Kenya was banned in 1977 and this ban
has resulted in an accelerated loss of wildlife due to the removal of
incentives for conservation (Baker 1997; Lewis & Jackson 2005). Some
reports have alluded to a loss of nearly 60% of Kenya's wildlife since
the start of the ban.
In recognition of the important role of sport hunting in wildlife
conservation, our organization was recently granted non-government
observer status by the United Nations and the United Nations Economic
and Social Council (ECOSOC). SCIF also participates in the
deliberations of the CITES treaty on wildlife trade and the Convention
on Biological Diversity
Let me end by reiterating our main points: poaching is not hunting,
and sport hunters do not poach. Sport hunting remains as one of the few
ways to generate money for wildlife management in other countries, and
is an important incentive for conservation of elephants and other
species. Through the presence of hunters, hunt operators and government
officials in the field, and particularly through the economic stability
that it can bring to remote rural areas, sport hunting plays a key role
in combating the negative effects of poaching.
SCI and SCIF in partnership with the hunting community will
continue to work toward outright elimination of illegal poaching. Thank
you for the opportunity to contribute to this important conversation.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by William E. Moritz,
Director of Conservation, Safari Club International Foundation & Acting
Director of Governmental Affairs, Safari Club International
Questions for the record from The Honorable Don Young (R-AK)
(1) Dr. Moritz, you've testified that SCI is very involved with
wildlife management in Africa. Are there any instances where
SCI has worked with the actual governments of Africa and
especially with their ministries of natural resources?
Safari Club International has many years of experience working with
various African governments, especially those in sub-saharan Africa.
Our efforts take two basic forms: improving the information about
wildlife species through financial support of field surveys, and
through increasing the management capacity of governments through
training, educational brochures, and multigovernmental collaboration.
Most recently, we have financially assisted governments in the
development of regional lion and elephant management strategies as well
as provided technical assistance to the governments of individual
countries including Zimbabwe, Namibia, Botswana and Tanzania in
developing national strategies for lion. We are assisting the
government of Mozambique with the development and execution of a
national lion population survey.
For the past 6 years, we have sponsored a forum where governmental
officials from up to 14 African countries come together to discuss
various issues of wildlife management. This forum also includes
representatives from CITES, TRAFFIC, IUCN, Campfire, and the hunting
community so that stakeholders are involved in the discussions and
recommendations that arise. In 2007, nine countries, six professional
hunting organizations, CITES, TRAFFIC, and SASUSG assembled to discuss
the updated elephant status report, CITES issues, and approaches to
human/lion conflicts outside of wildlife preserves.
(2) Dr. Moritz, you made references to community based conservation in
your talk, can you explain more about the program?
The object of community-based conservation is to incorporate
improvement to the lives of local people through the conservation of
wildlife and their habitats. If local communities see local animals as
a way to improve their lives, then the community will make efforts to
protect those animals from poaching, land fragmentation, and land
clearing. If animals have no value to the community, then individuals
are more likely to put their own personal interests ahead of the
community and make personal decisions that negatively affect wildlife,
such as poaching. With protection at the local level in several linked
areas, species will persist and grow.
Community based conservation includes local people in both the
development of conservation approaches (participatory management) and
in the economic benefits derived. Wildlife managers have reported that
individuals are more likely to adhere to preset quotas if they are
involved in the establishment of quotas and see the tangible benefits
to the community. Wildlife benefits because local people often have a
better knowledge of local population status and will make more informed
decisions about sustainable uses of those resources. In countries where
government stability is uncertain, investments in local communities add
stability to wildlife management decision-making.
(3) Why is it important that wildlife have an economic value and what
are the benefits of legal sport hunting?
In many countries around the world, people and communities cope
with survival on a daily basis. In developing countries in particular,
where there are often higher numbers of wildlife than in more developed
areas, governments do not have sufficient funding to deal with social
welfare issues or with wildlife conservation. Infusions of hard
currency through forms of sustainable ecotourism, such as regulated
hunting and wildlife photography, improve the quality of life through
employment, infrastructure development, and education.
Regulations that limit development and wildlife utilization
effectively eliminate incentives for local people to manage in a
sustainable manner. When legal markets are restricted, people resort to
illegal uses of animals or alternative land-use decisions which may
have irreversible impacts to the wildlife occurring on the landscape.
Legal sport hunting begins with the requirement that quotas are
established to ensure offtakes are sustainable and consistent with
population goals. Seasons are set and licensing is required, so that
the amount of effort to take wildlife is limited. License and trophy
fees provide revenue to governments, to fund wildlife conservation, and
in many countries a share of the revenue also goes to local people to
improve livelihoods or living conditions. The opportunity to harvest a
limited number of a highly desired species creates a market demand
that, when correctly used, generates necessary revenue for management
of the species and for community enrichment. Safari Club International
has supported these approaches to conservation for many years.
(4) Dr. Moritz, in your testimony you assert that hunting actually
increases wildlife populations in other countries, which may
seem counterintuitive to many people. Is that also the case
here in the United States? Can you explain that further?
Hunting has served as a management tool to keep wildlife
populations in balance with habitat, and ecosystem health has been
protected. In areas where hunting has been eliminated as a management
tool, managers struggle to keep species such as white-tailed deer in
balance with the habitat and the subsequent degredation of habitat.
Once the habitat is degraded, the carrying capacity of the habitat for
many species may be negatively affected. Wildlife benefit from careful
management of the size of animal populations.
In the late 1800's and early 1900's, hunters demanded and received
restrictions on wildlife harvest that included the end of commercial
use, fees to support conservation efforts, and even a luxury tax on the
equipment used for hunting. That system is enshrined in the Pittman-
Robertson Act and similar federal laws which make matching grants to
state wildlife agencies for wildlife conservation. The matching money
for those grants comes primarily from hunters, in the form of hunting
license and tag fees. Thus that original spirit of conservation
continues today, with hunting fees providing the single largest source
of funding for conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitats. In
addition, sportsmen's groups such as SCI carefully monitor Pittman-
Robertson and the other similar laws and their implementation, to
assure that they are not modified in a harmful way and that they are
implemented as intended.
Hunters are also active at the state level, where they interact
directly with the state wildlife agencies to support scientifically-
based limitations on hunting, reintroductions, wildlife disease
management, and habitat improvement activities. This combination has
led to many of our nation's wildlife conservation success stories,
including some of today's most populous species such as white-tailed
deer, Canada geese, and black bear. The white-tailed deer, for example,
was nearly extinct in the U.S. in the early 1900s, along with the
beaver, elk, moose and wild turkey. The support of hunters for
scientific wildlife management by the states through funding mechanisms
such as Pittman-Robertson, the payment of license fees, and political
support for the necessary conservation actions have been largely
responsible for the resurgence of wildlife populations in the U.S.
Quoting from the Economist (March 8, 2008 page 87), ``In essence,
there are two sorts of possible response to the question of how to
conserve endangered species-apart, that is, from doing nothing. One is
the command-and-control mechanism: trade bans are examples of these.
They can work, but they tend to be inefficient because they fail to
take into account the response of human beings to economic incentives.
The alternative is to try and harness the incentives that command-and-
control ignores. Economic incentives may include removing subsidies for
conversion to agricultural land, differential land-use taxes,
conservation subsidies, individual transferable quotas, and communal
property rights. They are all part of a growing economic toolkit for
encouraging conservation while minimizing the cost of doing so.''
______
The Chairman. Mr. Pueschel?
STATEMENT OF PETER PUESCHEL, ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE PROGRAM
DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE
Mr. Pueschel. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, thank you for conducting this investigation into the
global illegal wildlife trade. My name is Peter Pueschel, and I
am the Director of the Illegal Wildlife Trade Program from the
International Fund for Animal Welfare.
We have been working to stop detrimental exploitation of
animals and wildlife for almost 40 years. The illegal wildlife
trade has become a massive global industry with profoundly
negative impacts for protecting endangered species, for
maintaining ecosystem integrity, for conserving biodiversity
and for securing human livelihoods.
It is believed to be a major worldwide criminal enterprise
on par with drug trafficking and arms trade, if not in terms of
total revenue produced then in gravity. Often the same criminal
circles are involved in illicit trade in drugs, weapons and
even humans, as well as in wildlife, as we have heard from
others as well.
That these links exist may be less surprising when
recognizing how profitable and with how little risks this dirty
business can be conducted. Various governmental and
nongovernmental agencies have estimated that the illegal
wildlife trade may be worth in excess of $20 billion U.S.
annually, and some even estimate it perhaps a little bit
higher.
The profitability on a global scale, the sheer volume of
the trade and the need for international networks is drawing in
highly organized criminal and militant organizations of all
kinds, possibly even terrorist troops.
Examples of the varying complexity of the criminal networks
involved include elephant poaching in China tied to Sudan's
Janjaweed militias or poaching of rhino and other wildlife in
Kenya linked to Somali warlords, worldwide bear poaching
connected to multinational organized crime syndicates and tiger
and other big game poaching in South and Southeast Asia linked
to local and regional militant groups, just to name a few.
Organized syndicates trade in high numbers and massive
shipments. Just one example is ivory. In 2006 and 2007, over 47
tons of ivory were seized in large scale shipments alone. This
reflects an unprecedented high volume since the international
trade in ivory was banned in 1989 and a market value of about
$40 million.
But this also reflects the death of 20,000 or more adult
elephants a year, and it reflects the loss of biodiversity and
the loss of natural habitats in many countries in Africa. With
it goes the loss of livelihoods and future security.
It is no secret that all along armies, rebels, militant
groups, like in Africa, have funded actions using revenue
generated from culling mass numbers of elephants and selling
the ivory. Officials are concerned that Central and West
Africa, a well-known problem area for poaching and large-scale
illegal wildlife trade trafficking, may become a, as they say,
hotbed of crime and potential terrorism.
Similarly, Janjaweed militants and Somali warlords in East
Africa, two groups that have been associated with terrorist
activity, have been involved in poaching in China and Kenya to
benefit from the tremendous profits from trading in ivory,
rhino horn and other wildlife products.
The links between the wildlife trade and organized crime
and military conflicts are clear. The links to terrorism have
yet to be clearly determined, possibly because no one is really
looking at the issue. The tremendous consequences may have been
much underestimated. With this I mean the ecological and social
consequences from losing wildlife on the one hand and those
from bringing unregistered billions of dollars in profits to
dubious and dangerous organizations on the other. This is what
I believe is the real issue.
One obvious question for those involved in tracking and
analyzing the illegal wildlife trade and other international
criminal activity is where does that money go? The United
States and other governments and responsible international
bodies should allocate the resources necessary to combat
illegal wildlife trade from poaching to trade in consumer
countries like the United States from improved enforcement to
public education and the development of economic alternatives.
It is important for us to study how strong the connections
between wildlife and crime are to determine what threats those
connections may pose and to develop strategies for confronting
these threats.
I apologize if I had a few repetitions with other speakers
already, but I think that lies in the nature of the issue, and
I would refer for more details also to my written testimony.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for calling attention to
this very important issue. I look forward to answering any
question you or other Committee Members may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pueschel follows:]
Statement of Peter Pueschel, Illegal Wildlife Trade Program Director,
International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Young, and Members of the Committee,
thank you for conducting this investigation into the global illegal
wildlife trade. My name is Peter Pueschel and I am the director of the
illegal wildlife trade program at the International Fund for Animal
Welfare.
IFAW has been working to stop the commercial exploitation of
animals and wildlife for over 40 years. From our 16 offices around the
globe, we do our utmost to eradicate the cruel and ecologically
unsustainable illegal trade in wildlife and protect animals from all
threats imposed by commercial exploitation. To achieve this IFAW
focuses on three overarching and interdependent spheres of activity.
First, IFAW concentrates on strengthening international agreements
such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and on improving national legislation to
provide a sufficient legal framework for action by national
governments.
Second, IFAW focuses on achieving better compliance with and
enforcement of existing legislation, as legal protection represent
little more than words on paper unless they are backed up by action.
IFAW promotes partnerships with and among governments to create an
effective wildlife enforcement response in-country. In collaboration
with national governments, IFAW organizes and conducts wildlife trade
enforcement seminars to train relevant officials in the technical
aspects of wildlife enforcement.
Finally, IFAW drives change through concerted, ongoing and
committed public awareness campaigns, with the aim of educating
consumers so that market demand decreases. Underscoring each activity
is the notion that wildlife has an indispensable role to play for
humanity. Decreasing the conservation and welfare problems created by
the illegal wildlife trade is part of IFAW's institutional effort in
creating a better world for animals and people.
By all accounts, the illegal wildlife trade is very big business.
Second only to the international trade in illegal drugs and arms, the
illegal trade in wildlife is believed to be worth billions of dollars
each year. Driving the trade is human consumption and greed, which
together are devouring the Earth's living resources at an alarming
rate. Globalization and worldwide economic growth is creating a level
of consumer demand that is simply--and in short order--unsustainable.
The African elephant is under threat of extinction because
poachers, driven by a thriving black market in souvenir items such as
carved ivory chess board pieces, slaughter thousands of elephants
annually for their tusks. Wild tigers, numbering fewer than 5,000, wind
up in traditional medicine, as trophies mounted in weekend hunting
cabins, and in trendy ``tiger bone wine'' fermented with whole
carcasses.
In all too many cases, this human consumption has driven entire
species to the verge of extinction. The loss of a species is more than
just an emotional issue. It is also one of human survival. Balanced
ecosystems influence our air, water, food and medicine, and any
disruption to the balance threatens to deprive us of the elements
critical to our very existence. Loss of biodiversity also impacts on us
by jeopardizing the supply of raw materials necessary in the creation
of life-saving drugs, thus limiting our ability to respond to new
diseases.
In reality, each souvenir made of ivory represents a dead elephant,
and a luxury shahtoosh shawl for sale might represent the last Tibetan
antelope. But unlike the more bloody events surrounding the whale or
seal hunt, or the more heart wrenching issues associated with household
pets in crisis, poaching of wildlife for commercial profit derived from
luxury, non-essential items such as ivory figurines or rhinoceros bone
for the most part occurs behind the scenes. Confronting the issue of
illegal trade in wildlife is all the more challenging because the
unsustainable slaughter and sale of vulnerable wildlife populations
gets little attention compared to other high profile agendas.
The impact of wildlife trade on animals is just easy to ignore. The
impact of the illegal wildlife trade on humans, however, may not be so
easy to ignore. The fact is, the illicit trade in wildlife is not only
a serious global environmental crime with profoundly negative impacts
for endangered species protection, ecosystem stability, and
biodiversity conservation, but it is also a real and increasing threat
to national and global security.
An alarming proliferation in recent years of wild animals and
animal parts taken illegally and exchanged through the black market
across international borders has left law enforcement officials
worldwide searching for ways to both stem an increasingly prolific area
of international crime and stop the trade before it is too late for
many endangered animals.
No longer a problem localized to parts of the world where many lack
access to basic resources, the illegal trade in wildlife has grown to
become a massive global industry. It is believed to be on par with drug
trafficking and the arms trade, if not in terms of total revenue
produced for criminal enterprises, then in gravity.
In fact, various governmental and non-governmental agencies such as
INTERPOL have estimated that it may be worth in excess of $20 billion
U.S. annually, or more. Much of this is in clandestine undertakings
interwoven into a criminal industry that generates enormous levels of
undocumented, untraceable revenue, the full scale of which may never
really be known.
Also anonymous are the perpetrators, as they conduct their
nefarious activities in the shadows, behind locked doors, and often in
conjunction with other dangerous criminal elements. The obvious
question for those involved in tracking and analyzing the illegal
wildlife trade and other international crimes is ``Where does the money
go?'' The answer to that question may be more serious, and more
insidious, than people think.
The global illicit trade in wildlife is a dauntingly complex
problem. Often folded into other illegal activities, its general low
priority on the enforcement agenda provides additional incentive and
less risk for criminals. But its impacts are well above the scale of
mere petty crime. The trade feeds the black-market by taking advantage
of the earth's rich biodiversity, pillaging wildlife resources beyond
their sustainable capacity and turning them into commercial products.
Big cat pelts, rhinoceros horns, elephant tusks, meat from primates
and other bush species, pangolin scales, tortoise shells, bear gall
bladders, shark fins--traffickers have a large variety of commodities
to exploit depending on their resources, motives, and location in the
world.
The supply chain from animal source population to consumer is
complicated, and uses for wildlife parts are broad, covering food
(often expensive delicacies), traditional medicines, pets, decorations
(including trophies), clothing, and fashion items. Species from across
the animal kingdom are victims in this trade: fish, reptiles, birds,
mammals, and amphibians.
At times concealed under the rubric of legal trade or sheltered by
intricate wildlife trade laws that may vary from country to country and
differ according to national environmental policies, the illicit
wildlife trade provides unique opportunities for criminals and imposes
extra challenges for law enforcement. The global reach, the multitude
of species and products involved and the expansion of the global
marketplace as a result of the Internet make these criminal activities
difficult to understand, trace or enforce.
In recent years, a steady stream of worldwide media and
governmental reports have begun to relay disquieting new details of the
illegal trade in wildlife--its ties with violent crimes, large trade
rings all over the world, and brazen attempts at smuggling animals and
their parts over large distances. Wildlife traffickers have at their
disposal an incredibly efficient and adaptable pipeline through which
they can move wildlife and their derivatives from poacher to consumer.
For example, in the summer of 2006, customs officials stopped a
container of 2,849 pangolins, a medium-sized, scaly mammal that
resembles an armadillo, and 2,600 large geckos, originating in
Malaysia, from illegally entering China. For the seven month period
from October 2005 to April 2006, the illegal trade in pangolins from
one trafficking ring was valued at $3.2 million US. Early in 2008, two
shipments with over 1,200 African grey parrots were seized from
traffickers leaving Cameroon on their way to Bahrain and Mexico.
There are numerous other incidents on record of massive shipments
of illegal wildlife transported internationally, in some regions daily.
This includes massive shipments of illegal elephant ivory, which I'll
discuss in more detail later.
Beyond the individual crimes being reported randomly in the news,
often by small-scale collectors or drugs and arms smugglers trading in
wildlife on the side, large-scale illicit trade in wildlife is where
the big profits are being made. This high-value, high-volume illegal
trade is occurring globally and requires the networks and skills of
major organized crime to succeed.
Some high-value illegal wildlife commodities are no longer
available in massive quantities, and their value has increased with
their scarcity. The illegal trade in ivory, rhino horn, and tiger
parts, for example, continues to be highly profitable--perhaps more so
because of the increasing rarity of the species that are poached for
their parts.
Elephants, rhinos and tigers are more challenging to capture and
transport and their protected status is generally known, making every
stage of this trade relatively more dangerous. For instance, any
international trade in tigers or tiger parts is illegal. The trade is
exclusively black-market--from killing the tiger to production and sale
of its parts and derivatives, to the sale of tiger bone wine in a shop
in China or San Francisco.
In spite of the proven links with criminal syndicates, the enormity
of scale and the potential for harm to both global biodiversity and
public health, national and international legal frameworks and
penalties are often slight or non-existent compared to those that
address the illegal trade in drugs and weapons. The skills and networks
required to illegally trade in wildlife, coupled with the lucrative
profits, makes this type of trafficking highly attractive to serious
criminals as a relatively easy method for generating funds, whether
they be in parallel to or in support of other illicit trade dealings.
The global scale of this trade in terms of profits, volume and an
extensive network is drawing in criminal syndicates of all kinds. And
now, in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, concerns have
been raised that a new profiteer from the illegal wildlife trade could
be emerging, according to the worldwide news media, international
intelligence agencies, and global police forces: local, regional, and
global terrorist organizations.
These reports, though at times vague or anecdotal, indicate that an
increasing number of poaching incidents could be tied to organized
crime or militias that, in turn, have ties to terrorist groups.
Examples include elephant poaching in Chad tied to Sudan's Janjaweed
militias, poaching of rhino and other wildlife in Kenya tied to Somali
warlords, illegal shark finning operations off the coast of Costa Rica
and worldwide bear poaching connected to multinational organized crime
syndicates, and tiger and other big game poaching in South and
Southeast Asia linked to local and regional militant groups, to name a
few
Many wildlife trade policy and enforcement experts from around the
world agree on two things: 1) More resources are desperately needed to
fully understand and ultimately combat the illegal trade in wildlife,
and 2) If criminal elements, including terrorist groups, are not
already using the wildlife trade as a source for revenue, they likely
will be soon.
Compared to other criminal activities and penalties, the low risk
of detection and minimal consequences for perpetrating wildlife crime
are attractive incentives to professional criminals. The degree of
organized criminal involvement and methodology varies widely, depending
on the species, its population size, market demand and geography.
The legal trade in wildlife is itself used as a vehicle for the
illicit trade--transporting illegal species instead of the legal ones
or together within the shipments, using falsified documents, bogus
species identification permits or false numbers. An Indonesian wildlife
smuggler explained in a 2006 interview that they routinely pack a layer
of legal turtles on top of the shipping crates and put thousands of
illegal turtles underneath. Conversely, shipments of cocaine have been
found concealed beneath legal shipments of live lizards into the
Caribbean.
In addition to incidents of drugs being smuggled within wildlife
shipments, sometimes even sewn into animals' bodies, there are rising
reports of illegal wildlife products being traded directly for other
illegal commodities--namely drugs or weapons. A 2007 Wall Street
Journal article reported mass quantities of illegally harvested abalone
from South Africa being exchanged directly for methamphetamine from
buyers in Hong Kong where abalone sells for over $200 U.S. a pound.
As outlined by experts like John Sellar, CITES Senior Enforcement
Officer, there are clear factors connecting groups and individuals in
organized crime to operations in the illicit wildlife trade. These
include: detailed planning, significant financial support, use or
threat of violence, International management of shipments,
sophisticated forgery and alteration of permits and certifications,
well-armed participants with the latest weapons, opportunity for
massive profits, and capacity to launder enormous amounts of cash.
A United Nations report from 2003 on trafficking in protected
species of wild flora and fauna explains, ``Even when organized crime,
as such, is not fully involved, much of the trafficking is highly
organized.''
The trade in sturgeon caviar, for instance, has become so
entrenched in illegal harvesting and trade that in 2007, officials
representing CITES and the United Nations Environmental Programme
(UNEP) World Conservation and Monitoring Centre decided that a database
designed just to monitor the permits and certifications of caviar was
needed. The UNEP report noted, ``Perhaps no sector of the illegal fauna
and flora trade has been criminalized to the extent of that of sturgeon
and caviar.''
The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines organized
crime as:
``Any group having some manner of a formalized structure and whose
primary objective is to obtain money through illegal activities. Such
groups maintain their position through the use of actual or threatened
violence, corrupt public officials, graft, or extortion, and generally
have a significant impact on the people in their locales, region, or
country as a whole.''
By all accounts the global illegal trade in wildlife is organized
crime. The stage this global black-market has reached in terms of
networks, profits and operators, as well as its links to other
trafficking syndicates, poses a substantial threat to international law
and stability.
Able to reach remote areas and wildlife habitats difficult to
access, militias and military personnel have discovered that trading in
valuable wildlife parts and derivatives generates extra income to fund
military endeavors, including rebel militias. Leading up to the
international ban on trade in ivory in 1989, when global attention
focused on plummeting elephant populations, some African governments
were known to have funded invasions and military quests using revenue
generated from culling mass numbers of elephants and selling the ivory.
Although international treaties such as CITES and domestic laws in
elephant range-states make elephant poaching and dealing in ivory
illegal, the model of using this trade to fund militias persists. In
some cases, elephants are even being poached by rebels and militias
using sophisticated weapons manufactured for human wars. In 2005, an
African tour guide told the British Broadcasting Company that he had
witnessed elephants being slaughtered with anti-tank weapons.
Militias and military figures are able to illegally harvest and
profit from wildlife with ease because governments and enforcement
officials cannot contain them, or turn a blind eye to the problem,
thereby empowering corruption in general. Global trade, technology and
transportation are constantly becoming more sophisticated, providing
and even facilitating the formation of the networks required to move
illegal wildlife products like ivory from forest or savannah to market.
With the ever-increasing purchasing power of the Chinese middle
class and the seemingly insatiable appetite in Japan for ivory
products, the burgeoning demand for elephant ivory shows no sign of
abating. Studies of ivory seizures reveal that since the ivory ban was
instated in 1989, large seizures of a ton or more increased in
frequency and size, with more than 40 tons seized in 2005 and 2006
alone. And, this may just be the tip of the iceberg.
East, Central, West and even Southern African countries are heavily
implicated as the source of most of this illicit market, with well-
established supply chains and routes particularly to China and Japan
among other Asian markets. In 2007, National Geographic reported that
recent heavily-organized elephant poaching in Chad's renowned Zakouma
National Park was reminiscent of the situation in the Central African
Republic during the 1980's, when hundreds of armed men from Sudan, now
associated with Janjaweed militias, went on a killing rampage of
elephants and rhinos for the profit they would earn from the ivory and
rhino horn.
According to a January 2008 report out of Assam, India, devastating
increases in rhino poaching in Kaziranga National Park over the past
year have offered every indication that militants are involved. Rhino
horn is believed by some to be bartered for arms by militant groups in
northeastern India working with poaching syndicates. The black market
value for rhino horn is staggering, worth tens of thousands of dollars
per kilogram. Prohibited in international trade by CITES, rhino horn
has long been highly prized in Asia, for its purported medicinal
qualities, and in the Middle East, where it is used to make ornamental
and ceremonial daggers.
A former rhino poacher now working with the Forest Service recently
identified the Karbi tribal militant groups and other entities
identified with radicalism, violence and terrorism, as key perpetrators
of rhino poaching in Kaziranga.
But perhaps the most foreboding criminal element playing a role in
the global wildlife trade may be the most important to U.S. and
international policymakers, as well as the most threatening. Over the
past several years, the global news media and police agency reports
have mentioned--initially almost in passing but recently with
increasing regularity--that poachers have been connected to localized
militant and terrorist groups responsible for attacks within
communities.
Even more recently, well-funded and well-armed poachers have taken
an almost guerilla warfare-style approach to their activities in places
like East, Central and North Africa--an approach reminiscent of the
recent human conflicts between governments and rebel groups, warlords,
and regional militias, some of which have been linked to terrorist
attacks in the region.
In some cases, according to news reports, those same rebel groups,
warlords, and militias have entered protected areas and engaged in
large scale poaching--areas like the famed wildlife parks of Kenya and
the Zakouma National Park in Chad. Somalia-based warlords and Sudan's
Janjaweed militias are two groups thought to engage in poaching in
these areas. Though much remains unknown about this new twist to the
ongoing assault on wildlife in Africa and other places around the
world, experts are beginning to question whether the illegal wildlife
trade will (or has already) become a source of revenue for terrorist
groups.
There are known cases, for example, where poachers have direct
links to military weapons and markets also accessible to terrorist
groups. Whether the poachers are connected directly to terrorist groups
or their activities is not known. Warlords or militant groups that have
been connected to specific instances of terrorist activity have also,
separately, been connected to instances of poaching.
My colleague Michael Wamithi, Director of IFAW's elephant program,
reports that elephant poachers in many parts of Africa use weapons that
can be acquired only from military sources, and African wildlife
agencies are starting to recover western military weapons as well--
including American-made M-16s and German-made G3s. Whatever the source
of these weapons is, the fact that poachers, whoever they are, can
obtain these weapons is cause for concern.
``The appearance of these weapons is very alarming because it means
an improvement in the range, accuracy and firepower available to the
poaching gangs, and this has a direct impact both on the animals and
the rangers that are targeted by such weapons. Kenya Wildlife Service
has recovered RPGs (Rocket Propelled Grenades), which Somali poachers
sometimes carry to use against the rangers or to discourage KWS patrols
from pursuit in the first place,'' Wamithi says.
And, although tenuous, a geographic nexus exists between the
illegal wildlife trade and terrorism activity as well. United States
and United Nations officials are concerned that Central and West
Africa, a well-known problem area for poaching and large-scale illegal
wildlife trafficking, is also fast becoming a ``hotbed'' of crime and
potential terrorism, to use their words.
Janjaweed militants and Somali warlords in East Africa are thought
to receive support from al-Qaeda. In September, 2007, al-Qaeda's
second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri urged Sudanese militants to rise up
against the African Union and U.N. peacekeepers in Sudan's region of
Darfur in a video posted on the Internet.
During the past year, there have also been reports of militants
affiliated to al-Qaeda tapping into the illegal wildlife trade in
India, Nepal, Burma and Thailand. Individuals based in Bangladesh who
are believed to have ties to local terrorist groups are reportedly
hiring local trappers and infiltrating organized crime syndicates
around India's Kaziranga National Park to poach in the park and nearby
protected areas. Kaziranga and other wildlife preserves in the area are
vulnerable and therefore attractive to criminals. Kaziranga park
wardens report that sophisticated weapons and tranquilizer guns are
being used to poach within the Park.
Indian officials and local traders and poachers say that
Bangladeshi militants have turned to the wildlife trade for financial
support because the profits from poaching and wildlife trafficking are
untraceable, undetectable and readily exchanged--characteristics that
are necessary in a post-9/11 world where the money laundering and
banking schemes previously used by terrorist groups have been
disrupted.
Illegal wildlife commodities like rhino horn, ivory, and tiger
pelts and parts are the most coveted, with assured high-value on the
black-market. And, rare wildlife commodities with established high
black-market values can be used as collateral, just like gold, by those
seeking fast cash resources...0
In piecing together what little information exists about the
suspected poacher-terrorist nexus, disturbing questions arise about
what little we know, as do even more disturbing questions about what we
do not know.
The U.S. and other governments and international bodies, though
publicly acknowledging the possibility of a connection between the
global illegal wildlife trade and terrorism, in my opinion have yet to
allocate the resources necessary to understand how strong the links
are, to determine what threats those links may pose, or to develop
strategies for confronting these threats.
The resources dedicated by the U.S. and other nations to
understanding and disrupting the global illegal wildlife trade are
insufficient in comparison to those allocated for combating the two
other large illegal industries, arms and drugs, both of which are also
known to provide support for organized crime, militancy and regional
instability, and globalized terror.
Until recently, the major arguments for working to combat the
wildlife trade have focused on the resource itself--protecting against
extinction, preventing the spread of animal borne diseases, stopping
animal cruelty, supporting local wildlife tourism, protecting
biodiversity, and sustaining rural economies and livelihoods. In the
post 9/11 world, however, the illegal wildlife trade is no longer only
a conservation or animal welfare issue. It is a national and global
security issue, as well, and should be treated as such.
The impacts of the illegal wildlife trade are perhaps most apparent
on the ground in places where highly imperiled--and highly valued--
wildlife species cling to life, guarded by a brave and dedicated few.
In recent years, hundreds of park rangers in Africa and around the
world charged with protecting wildlife from poachers have lost their
lives. In 2004, over 100 rangers were killed in the line of duty in the
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) alone. India lost five rangers in
2006, and seven Chadian rangers were killed in 2007 protecting
elephants in Zakouma National Park. The Kenya Wildlife Service has
erected a permanent monument to the 19 rangers killed in the line of
duty in recent years. These tragic deaths serve as a stark reminder
that the illegal wildlife trade does not just affect the security of
animals.
A report from the World Bank issued in 2005 on the illegal wildlife
trade in South and East Asia summarizes a key theme in this global
crime, stating, ``Wildlife is not traded in isolation. It is part of a
larger network of organized crime that involves drugs, guns, and
people-smuggling.''
Significant attention and greatly increased resources are needed to
fully understand the pathways of the illegal wildlife trade and
connections to other illicit activities--drug running, military
weapons, human smuggling, illegal logging, militancy, and terrorism--
all of which profoundly affect both the communities where wildlife
resources are depleted and the communities where wildlife resources are
ultimately consumed.
All of the links in the supply chain, from local source villages in
wildlife-rich places to large cities where consumers purchase wildlife
products, legally and illegally, are impacted by these crimes and the
violence and upheaval that can often come with them.
There is a relationship between exploiting natural resources,
including the illicit wildlife trade, and exploiting people, whether
it's based on religious or political ideology or just simple greed.
Removing an opportunity for criminal profiteering by addressing this
illegal wildlife trade crisis will result in a safer world for animals
and for people.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for calling attention to this very
important issue. I now look forward to answering any questions that you
or other Members of the Committee may have.
______
Appendix: Examples and Case Studies
SHARKS
An example of an entire industry utilizing a chain of corruption
wherein loopholes and differences in laws are knowingly exploited by
criminals is shark finning. With China's expanding middle class, demand
for shark fin soup as a delicacy and status symbol has been rising for
years. Dried shark fins sell for hundreds of dollars per pound. One
bowl of shark fin soup can fetch as much as $100US.
The Taiwanese mafia has set up large finning operations in Ecuador
and Costa Rica. 1 Although the meat could be consumed by
source countries, only the fins are worth enough in Asia to warrant
investment in processing and shipping them back. Fishermen, who are
paid to obtain as many fins as possible, use the practice of quickly
cutting off a shark's fins on the boat and throwing the carcass back in
the water, resulting in massive numbers of sharks being killed in a
short amount of time and considerable waste of the animal.
Figures on the number of sharks being finned annually are
staggering. 2 Almost difficult to imagine, the World
Conservation Union's (IUCN) Shark Specialist Group estimates tens of
millions of sharks are killed globally every year for this trade.
3
There has been some recognition of the brutality and unsustainable
nature of this practice. After reviewing the implications for the
fishing industry and conservation, the United States National Marine
Fisheries Association officially banned this practice, making shark
finning illegal in U.S. waters. Fifteen additional countries have also
banned shark finning. 4
But, with profits continuing and disjointed enforcement, the bans
alone have proven inadequate to compete with the demand in China and
Southeast Asia and with the established system of organized crime
groups facilitating the shark finning trade.
BEARS
Criminals looking to profit off of the trade in bear gall bladders
and bear bile often exploit the complex system of national and
international laws governing hunting and trade in a range of bear
species. Bear bile (stored in the gallbladder) is used in traditional
medicines in Asia, where demand for gall bladders and bile is high.
Bear farming in China, Korea and Vietnam was permitted by the
governments of these countries intending that this would supply the
black market demand and spare wild bears. In fact, it has served to
stimulate the market and put wild bears everywhere at risk.
Cases of bear poaching to supply the trade going to Asia are
occurring in Russia, Canada and the United States. In Canada, the trade
in bear gall bladders is reportedly run by a small cartel of just five
individuals, and bear smuggling rings are being identified in other
parts of North America. 5 One report from Canada highlighted
the tenacity of the criminals involved:
``Bear gall traffickers appear to stop at nothing. One wildlife
supplier, believed to be selling fake galls, was found murdered in his
New York apartment. In Russia, the family of an officer was murdered
when he came too close to uncovering the mafia's role in the wildlife
trade.'' 6
Allen Hundley of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been
involved in addressing this trade, noting that ``any time an
unregulated market puts a price on the head of wildlife, as it has on
bears for their gallbladders, the future of that wildlife is in serious
jeopardy.'' 7 So far in the United States, 34 states have
passed laws to ban the trade in bear organs in response to this crisis.
BUSHMEAT
The commercial bushmeat trade targets monkeys, apes, hoofed mammals
and rodents, among others. These species are being taken out of the
forests in unprecedented volumes, often facilitated by roads created by
the logging industry. While bushmeat is defined simply as the meat
derived from wildlife, characterizing the bushmeat trade is more
difficult. 8 It can include several components, among them:
Illegal hunting methods,
Protected species,
Hunting from restricted areas,
Unsustainable harvest, and
Commercial exploitation by professional hunters for
distant urban markets. 9
``Historically, local communities have consumed modest amounts of
bushmeat,'' says Dr. Heather Eves, Director of the Bushmeat Crisis Task
Force. ``The growing commercial trade in bushmeat, however, is fed by
demand from markets in big cities in Africa and around the globe and
Africans living abroad.''
No longer simply a means of subsistence, bushmeat as a commodity,
fueled by urban demand, brings with it the opportunity for large-scale
illegal profit-making. In some parts of the world, including Central
Africa, this commodity is being exploited not just for profit, but for
the profit necessary to support sometimes violent upheaval and warfare:
``The [Democratic Republic of Congo] saw an explosion of poaching
in the early part of this decade, much of it due to the rising demand
for bushmeat in urban areas. Rebel militias and other militant groups
saw an opportunity and took control of large parts of the country's
parks, using bushmeat, ivory and other wildlife resources for both
sustenance and to pay for weapons and other supplies. It's still going
on. In the past few years, hundreds of hippos in Eastern DRC were
slaughtered for their meat near the headquarters of the Mai Mai rebels.
The hippo population has declined from more than 20,000 in the late
1980s to less than a few hundred today.
``Less than a year ago, rebels killed several rare mountain
gorillas, which was widely reported in the global press. The gorilla
killings illustrate just how difficult and complex the problem really
is--the gorillas were executed not for bushmeat, but as a dire warning
to rangers and international conservationists to stay away.''
10
CAVIAR
The market for caviar has always supported high-prices, but with
decreasing availability after decades of over-harvesting and
unregulated fishing, caviar prices have skyrocketed. Criminal
syndicates, including the ``caviar mafia,'' are lording over the caviar
trade.
The groups involved are known to use violence to protect their
practices. Recently, one of the more extreme acts of terrorism served
as a shocking example of the danger involved. As reported in The London
Observer Service:
The caviar mafia is thought to have been behind a terrorist bomb
attack in the town of Kaspiysk that killed 67 people, including 21
children, and destroyed a nine-story apartment building. Most of the
victims were Russian border guards and their families. The guards, who
patrol Russia's new boundaries, had begun to produce results in
regulating illegal traffic and, in doing so, made dangerous enemies.
More than 100 people lived in the bombed building, including the
commander of the locally based border guards unit, Lt. Col. Valery
Morozov. Morozov reportedly had told a Russian newspaper, Rossiysky
Vesti, that he had been threatened by the ``sturgeon pirates.''
11
ELEPHANTS
Elephant ivory has been a treasured commodity for much of human
history, but tragically, the run on ``white gold'' has escalated over
the last few centuries and has put all elephant populations in a
precarious position.
By 1989, the African elephant population was shattered, from around
1.3 million to just over 600,000; today, there are fewer than 450,000
wild elephants in Africa and a mere 50,000 in Asia. At least 20,000
elephants are killed annually in Africa for their ivory. Unfortunately
pursuit of an ivory trinket necessarily coincides with the death of an
elephant.
Elephant ivory, derived from the tusks of adult elephants, can only
be obtained from a dead animal, as the tusks are deeply embedded into
the elephant's skull. While its true that ivory is also a product of an
elephant that has died a natural death, the quantities of seized ivory
worldwide in the past decades far exceed any reasonable mortality
rates.
Demand for ivory--in the form of decorative carvings, signature
seals and a host of other superfluous indulgences--peaked in the1970's
and 1980's, when poaching elephants for their tusks decimated the
remaining elephant population. By 1989, the African elephant population
was shattered, from around 1.3 million to just over 600,000; today,
there are fewer than 450,000 wild elephants in Africa and a mere 50,000
in Asia.
In response to growing concern over the impact of unregulated
international trade on the endangerment of wildlife, including
elephants, the international community established the United Nations-
backed Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES), which came into force in 1975.
Since then, CITES has recognized most elephant populations as
endangered, and has strict prohibitions against international trade in
ivory. In fact, in 1989, CITES banned all international trade in ivory
and as a consequence, poaching stopped almost completely.
In 1997, CITES approved a one-time, ill-fated sale of ivory
stockpiles from a number of African countries. This creation of a
market in ivory from the ivory stockpiles sent out the message to
poachers, criminal syndicates, poor villagers and corrupt governments
that there was money to be made in killing, and African range countries
experienced a renewed surge in poaching and smuggling of ivory.
This illustrates how any legalization of wildlife products ``and
ivory in particular--creates a loophole for the laundering of illegal
products into legal stocks. It is impossible to distinguish between
legal and illegal ivory once it's on the shelf.
While elephant populations in some Southern African countries may
appear to be somewhat healthy, much of this is caused by governmental
policies that cause fragmentation and manipulation of elephants'
natural habitat. For example, while South Africa's elephant population
stands around 17,000 (confined to just 2 per cent of the country's
total range), Senegal has fewer than ten elephants left in the wild.
And many less developed nations in Central, East and West Africa
are struggling to protect their elephants from poaching. Few elephant
range states possess the capacity to patrol the ranges, police their
borders or, just as critically, stem the growing tide of smuggled
illegal ivory. The global reach of the Internet and the ready
availability of international courier services simply add urgency to an
already intractable crisis.
Today, at least 20,000 elephants are killed annually in Africa for
their ivory, fuelled principally by demand in Japan, China, Thailand,
Korea, the U.S. and Europe. This cycle of crime and brutality
represents one of the more immediate and critical threats to the
survival of the elephant.
TIGERS
Over the past century, the plight of the tiger has captured the
world's attention, so much so that the tiger has come to be the very
symbol of the threat of extinction. In the last 50 years alone, three
sub-species of tigers have gone extinct in Asia. And whereas as many as
100,000 tigers may have roamed the vast Asian continent just a century
ago, fewer than 5,000 tigers are left today, mainly in India and the
Far East of Russia.
Yet despite this critical level of vulnerability to the species,
the human behavior driving the tiger to extinction continues unabated.
Tiger populations are at risk when human settlements encroach upon
their natural habitats. The most comprehensive scientific study of
tiger habitats ever done (July 2006) concluded that tigers now occupy
40 per cent less habitat than they were thought to inhabit a decade
ago. Starvation due to prey loss is another major threat to tigers, as
humans often hunt for the same species of herbivores that are tigers'
prey.
But one of the most insidious threats to tigers is the systematic
slaughter of tigers to supply the illegal trade in tiger bones and
skins. Tiger skins and body parts poached from animals in the wild wind
up as ingredients in traditional medicine, as fashion items and as
household decor.
And all of this is illegal. The Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) affords the
highest level of protection for tigers, banning all international trade
in tigers, their parts and derivatives. International law is buttressed
by domestic trade bans in almost every tiger range or consuming
country. Nevertheless, weak enforcement of these international and
domestic laws allows tigers and tiger products to surface on the black
as well as the open market.
Chinese media have also uncovered a disturbing loophole to the
Chinese ban on tiger products--the ``farming'' of captive bred tigers
to supply the illegal market. So-called ``tiger farmers'' proactively
promote the use of tiger bone in traditional medicine, and, to expand
their markets, are developing a ``luxury tiger wine'' industry--a
trendy and growing black market commodity--produced from fermenting
tiger skeletons.
Already, many facilities stockpile tiger carcasses in the hope that
tiger trade will soon be legalized. At the same time, investors of
these facilities feed into public sympathy for tigers by misleading the
public into thinking that these genetically compromised farmed tigers
can be released into the wild, and thus are good for tiger
conservation.
THE INTERNET TRADE
The Internet has revolutionized our lives by opening up enormous
opportunities for business and communications. It offers us a
marketplace for the exchange of goods and services, a venue for social
networking, and a means of personal enrichment, all on a global scale.
But there is a dark cloud behind every silver lining: the Internet
provides criminals with increased opportunities for illegal or
unscrupulous conduct. Wildlife crime is taking full advantage of these
new ``opportunities'' afforded by the World Wide Web.
The Internet is widely recognized as the preferred method for
trading in protected and endangered species. Techniques for subverting
the law or avoiding detection are becoming increasingly sophisticated,
creating overwhelming challenges to law enforcement efforts. This trade
has devastating implications for both wildlife conservation and animal
welfare, as well as the loss of human livelihoods, as whole species
become vulnerable to extinction by exploitation on a global scale.
And as demand for wildlife products increases, traders are
encouraged to fuel the market by any means necessary. Not all buyers
and sellers are knowingly breaking the law. Consumers may be unaware of
the registration requirements attached to certain controlled items,
while compliance among sellers with these requirements in many
countries is sorely lacking.
Professional traders ignorant of the law may also be unwittingly
purchasing illegal goods from organized criminals seeking to launder
their products to the open market. Meanwhile, traders and criminal
syndicates aware of the legal restrictions can easily find ways to
maneuver around them with little risk of detection.
But deliberate or not, the detrimental impact on wildlife is the
same. In August 2005, IFAW launched the report, Caught in the Web:
Wildlife trade on the Internet, detailing the results of an intensive
investigation into the online trade. In the course of just one week,
IFAW was astonished to find more than 9,000 wild animals and animal
products for sale in the UK alone. This figure was all the more
alarming because the survey was conducted on English language sites and
restricted to trade in only five categories of endangered animals: live
primates, elephant products, turtle and tortoiseshell products, other
reptile products and wild cat products. The more recent follow up
investigation, Bidding for Extinction, confirmed that wildlife trade
via the Internet is continuing and even thriving as a result of
inaction by Internet Service Providers, particularly eBay.\TM\
The implications of Internet trade in wildlife reverberate beyond
national and regional borders. Yet contemporary international law has
fallen behind in its consideration of commercial Internet activity.
Despite recognition by international enforcement agencies, governments,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the general public of the
problems associated with wildlife trade on the Internet, current
enforcement schemes have proven insufficient in dealing with the scale
of the problem.
Recognizing that Internet Service Providers (ISPs), site owners and
the major marketplaces such as eBay\TM\ have a vital role to play in
combating a problem that is not going away, IFAW has been working with
a number of web-based global marketplaces to develop and enforce a
clear code of practice for users. IFAW is also playing a leading role
in working to improve coordination and response among governments and
law enforcement agencies. Finally, IFAW focuses on elevating consumer
awareness to break the chain of consumption that fuels the illegal
markets.
ENFORCEMENT
Many of the countries and regions where IFAW works are facing
tremendous challenges in human population expansion, economic poverty,
in sufficient legal systems and political instability. But even if such
adequate legislation exists, its implementation and enforcement is an
overwhelming challenge.
To comply with CITES, an enforcement framework aimed at combating
illegal international trade in wildlife to, from and through the
borders of all member states is required. By signing CITES, State
Parties have agreed to comply and implement decisions of the convention
through national legislation and to take adequate enforcement action.
Among the obligations accepted by all Parties to CITES is to
establish national management and scientific authorities to oversee,
monitor, control and document trade with species protected by the
convention and to have sufficient enforcement mechanisms and capacity
in place. While many countries do their best and even have stricter
domestic measures for greater conservation benefits, unfortunately,
compliance is uneven at best. Currently, the national legislation in 53
per cent of CITES Parties fails to meet the legal requirements set
forth by CITES.
And legislation is just the first step in a long voyage that
requires education of all relevant enforcement authorities, a wide
range of training and sufficient resources for operation and the
provision of rangers with the necessary tools for effective action. Of
course, effective enforcement relies on the commitment of dedicated
people, and IFAW works to support those rangers who readily risk life
and limb as part of their daily routine.
Nevertheless, faced with the need to patrol thousands of square
miles of conservation lands, few African range countries possess
adequate funding for personnel and equipment. This affords
sophisticated crime syndicates and poachers the upper hand in operating
freely and across national borders.
Indeed, many African countries are ill equipped to meet even the
most basic of CITES reporting requirements, let alone the basic needs
(like vehicles or water supplies) of their rangers. Some reports even
circulate regarding rangers hunting the very animals they are charged
to protect to meet theirs and their families' food requirements.
Further complicating the issue is the explosion of trade via the
Internet--literally hundreds of anonymous postings vie for the
attention of consumers--both those unaware of national or international
restrictions on wildlife trade and those who knowingly flout the law.
Increased demand for wildlife products puts enormous pressure on
enforcement authorities, particularly range states. Because of the
global nature of wildlife trade, enforcement shortfalls in one country
affect the situation in others. And as the global demand for tiger skin
and bones, antelope pelts and elephant tusks skyrockets, criminals and
poachers hunt down any and every wild animal that might bring in money
on the international black market.
ENDNOTES
{1 Rob Stewart, writer and director. Sharkwater, Sharkwater
Productions, 2006. (www.sharkwater.com)
{2 ``The End of the Line? Global threats to sharks.'' Oceana
and WildAid Report, Oceana, 2007. (http://www.oceana.org/
fileadmin/oceana/uploads/Sharks/EndoftheLine_Spread_sm.pdf)
{3 IUCN Shark Specialist Group Finning Statement Website,
IUCN Shark Specialist Group, 2003.
{4 Oceana and WildAid Report, 2007.
{5 ``Bear Alliance Project, From Forest to Pharmacy.''
Animal Alliance of Canada Report, Animal Alliance of Canada,
January 29, 2008. (http://www.animalalliance.ca/projects/
index.html)
{6 Ibid.
{7 Jane Raloff, ``A Galling Business: The inhumane
exploitation of bears for traditional Asian medicine.'' Science
New, Vol.168, No. 16, October 15, 2005. (http://
www.sciencenews.org/articles/20051015/bob10.asp)
{8 Dr. Heather E. Eves, ``The Bushmeat Trade in Africa:
Conflict, Consensus, and Collaboration.'' Gaining Ground: In
pursuit of ecological sustainability, 2006.
{9 Ibid.
10 Personal interview with Dr. Heather E. Eves, Director,
Bushmeat Crisis Task Force, February 6, 2008. See generally
www.bushmeat.org.
11 Simon Cooper, ``The Caviar Kings: Inside the cartels that
built empires and destroyed species.'' Seed Magazine, November
2003. (http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/01/
the_caviar_kings.php)
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Peter Pueschel,
International Fund for Animal Welfare
Questions from The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, Chairman, Committee on
Natural Resources
Confiscated Wildlife
What happens to confiscated wildlife illegally taken when found alive?
Who takes them? Are they returned to the wild? Is the difficult
process of finding homes for confiscated animals a deterrent to
enforcement of wildlife laws?
Most source countries do not have the resources or facilities to
care for confiscated wildlife that have been illegally sourced from the
wild. Most countries also lack the capacity to rehabilitate them and
release or reintroduce them back into the wild. Animals often have a
better chance of rehabilitation and release back to the wild when they
are confiscated before they leave the borders of the source country
because it greatly reduces the time and cost it takes to transport the
animals home, the stress on the animals from longer periods of
confinement and travel, and the overall distance back to their home
ranges. Unfortunately even better resourced countries usually are not
willing to invest in necessary facilities. To increase the chance that
animals are detected before leaving their home country IFAW assists
particularly poorer countries to improve their enforcement capacity and
capacibility.
However, when animals are confiscated after they have left their
native country either during transit or when they arrive at their
destination to be traded, reintroduction entails a series of efforts of
a scale and magnitude both with regard to expenses and endeavor that
can challenge all parties involved. For example, IFAW has been involved
in the rehabilitation and repatriation of four western lowland gorillas
back to their native Cameroon from where they were illegally captured
and traded through Nigeria to a zoo in Malaysia. Now the gorillas have
a safe sanctuary in Cameroon and are being integrated with other
rescued gorillas, but it is unlikely, after over 6 years of captivity,
that they can ever return to the wild. Similarly, IFAW was involved in
the rehabilitation and repatriation of star-tortoises back to their
habitat in India from Singapore and Malaysia, where they were
confiscated in transit. Such efforts, however, are few of a kind in the
history of confiscation of illegally traded wildlife, and they have
only been possible because NGO's have raised money and rallied
governments on both sides (source & destination) to implement such
missions.
Particularly problematic are animals found in large numbers, such
as confiscations of thousands of reptiles or birds; dangerous animals
like poisonous snakes or big cats, or animals that are not usually able
to be rehabilitated and released, like infant gorillas, pangolins, or
tiger cubs. The truth is that in most cases these animals are just as
likely to die after they have been confiscated as they are if they had
stayed in the illegal trade. Plus, many countries do not have adequate
legislation preventing species from being legally traded once they are
in the market, even if they were illegally taken from the wild and
confiscated. Large confiscations still end up fueling the market and
creating incentive for more poaching, while making it less likely that
officials will rigorously enforce wildlife trafficking laws.
Oftentimes, the fines and penalties for wildlife trafficking are
minor compared to other trafficking offenses such as drugs or weapons.
One remedy for this situation would be to levy significant fines and
prison terms for wildlife traders, who are often part of criminal
networks with large bank rolls. Such fines could help pay for the high
costs of care, shelter, rehabilitation, and release back into the wild
for confiscated animals. Another remedy might be for countries that
permit trade in live wildlife to build appropriate facilities and
provide trained rehabilitation personnel at points of entry. Further,
some countries need legislation prohibiting the sale of animals that
have been taken illegally from the wild and were confiscated. In an
effort to strengthen measures to deal with confiscated wildlife, IFAW
has assisted governments (e.g. Kuwait, Russia, China) in designing such
facilities and supporting some of their efforts in the past.
Governments of wealthier nations could aid the often poorer source
countries for illegal wildlife in not only providing resources for
enforcement, but also rehabilitation and release back to the wild. If
these animals are confiscated and rehabilitated at their source, they
stand a better chance of making it in the wild than if they are
confiscated thousands of miles away at U.S. or other international
ports.
Questions from The Honorable Don Young (R-AK)
(1) On Page 4 of your testimony, you talk about tiger bone wine being
sold in a shop in San Francisco. Are you aware that in 1998,
Congress enacted and the President signed into law the Rhino
and Tiger Product Labeling Act? It is now ten years later and
you are testifying that individuals can still buy these
products in the United States? How do we stop these sales and
prosecute those benefiting from the destruction of these highly
endangered species?
Unfortunately, tiger bone wine and other substances made from
endangered animal parts are still available in the United States. The
United States, in fact, is the world's second largest consumer of
illegal wildlife products. These products are not generally sold out in
the open, but instead in back rooms or hidden among other legal
wildlife products. Oftentimes illegal wildlife specimens, endangered
turtles for example, are imported in large numbers mixed in with legal
shipments of non-protected species. To make matters worse, the Internet
is fast becoming the tool of choice for criminals looking to move
illegal wildlife products quickly and anonymously. Fish and Wildlife
enforcement officials were having a hard enough time policing the
myriad physical shops and other physical locations places illegal
wildlife products were being traded across the country. The Internet
makes enforcement exponentially harder.
One problem is that with wildlife products, the burden of proof
lies with the enforcement officer instead of the wildlife trader. For
most wildlife species, a criminal offense only occurs when a product
claiming to contain a substance from a protected species, such as bear
bile wine, is found to actually contain that substance. Wildlife
traders can take advantage if this by selling massive quantities of
``fake'' endangered wildlife products and mixing in smaller quantities
of ``real'' endangered wildlife products. The Rhino and Tiger Product
Labeling Act was a step in the right direction because it made it a
crime not only to sell products containing rhino and tiger parts, but
to sell products claiming to contain rhino and tiger parts, even if
they did not. This model should be expanded to cover all illegal
wildlife products.
(2) You mention bear gall bladders in your testimony. How large of a
problem is the trade in bear viscera from American black bears?
How many cases have been documented?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and state wildlife
enforcement agencies are much better situated to answer specific
questions about the exact scale of this problem and specific instances
of black bear poaching in the U.S. where gallbladders have been
removed.
(3) Do you disagree with the assessment of the Law Enforcement
Division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that ``the
poaching of American black bears for their gallbladders or
other parts to supply the demand of the Asian medicinal market
for these products is not a significant problem and does not
occur on any large scale? What is the source of your data?
I do disagree with the statement that black bear poaching in the
U.S. is not a significant problem. Even if black bear poaching is not
widespread in the U.S., the fact that it does occur and that it occurs
in part to feed an ever growing market for bear bile products both in
China and other Asian countries as well as in the United States
represents, in our view, a significant problem. In my testimony, I
refer to large criminal rings thought to control the illegal bear trade
in North America, some of which are known to be violent. These rings
exist because of a thriving market for bear gallbladders, which is
fueled by parts from both legally and illegally killed bears. Previous
estimates from the USFWS and other law enforcement agencies have said
that for every bear that is legally killed in the U.S. another, and
possibly two, are killed illegally. If you include Canada, this could
amount to 40,000 to 80,000 black bears being killed illegally every
year. Black bears are becoming increasingly rare in Asia, and are
highly endangered in parts of the South and Southeastern United States.
As supplies fall in Asia, and demand increases at home and abroad, it
stands to reason that black bears in North America will become more and
more threatened by the global illegal trade in bear viscera. It is
vitally important that the U.S. and other range nations have clear laws
prohibiting the trade in bear viscera for the protection of domestic
black and other bear species populations, as well as for more
endangered bear populations around the world.
Again, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and state
wildlife enforcement agencies as well as Canadian authorities are much
better situated to provide data about the exact scale of this problem
and specific instances of black bear poaching where gallbladders have
been removed.
(4) While there is considerable evidence that organized crime elements
are involved in the international illegal wildlife trade,
please share with the Committee real, not anecdotal, examples
where law enforcement agencies or governments have conclusively
proven that terrorist organizations are profiting from this
trade?
Information about cases in which law enforcement agencies or
governments have conclusively proven that terrorist organizations are
profiting from the trade in wildlife should come from those law
enforcement agencies or governments. It is clear, however, that
significant attention and greatly increased resources should be devoted
by such law enforcement agencies and governments to fully understand
the pathways of the illegal wildlife trade and connections to other
illicit activities--drug running, military weapons, human smuggling,
illegal logging, militancy, and possibly terrorism--all of which
profoundly affect security worldwide, particularly in the communities
where wildlife resources are depleted and the communities where
wildlife resources are ultimately consumed. The links between the
wildlife trade and organized crime and military conflict are relatively
clear, but the links to terrorism have yet to be clearly determined,
possibly because no one is looking at the issue.
The U.S. and other governments and responsible international bodies
should allocate the resources necessary to combat illegal wildlife
trade from poaching to trade in consumer countries, from improved
enforcement to public education and the development of economic
alternatives. It is important for us to study how strong the
connections between wildlife and crime are, to determine what threats
those connections may pose, and to develop strategies for confronting
these threats.
(5) How would you describe the state of elephant populations in
Southern African countries like Botswana, Namibia and South
Africa? How do these healthy populations compare with those in
Kenya? Is it just a coincidence that Southern African countries
allow legal sport hunting and Kenya has outlawed trophy hunting
since 1977?
Elephant populations in Botswana, Namibia and South Africa are
generally on the increase, but the rates of increase vary considerably
across both space and time, as do the numbers of elephants across
Southern Africa range states, which is home to approximately 70 percent
of Africa's elephants. According to the IUCN's 2007 African Elephant
Status Report, South Africa is home to approximately 17,000 elephants,
Namibia has 12,000 and Botswana has over 133,000.
Similarly, elephant populations in Kenya are generally on the
increase. The population stands at about 33,000 today, and the
population growth has been on average 5 percent nationally. Tsavo
National Park, which has the largest elephant population in the
country, has seen its elephant numbers increase from slightly over 5000
in 1989 to 11,696 in 2007. The joint mass of Tsavo East and Tsavo West
National Parks forms one of the largest national parks in the world and
covers a massive 4 per cent of Kenya's total land area. The smaller
Meru National Park has seen an increase in elephant population from
only about 250 in 1990 to 703 in 2005, according to the Kenya Wildlife
Service.
Kenya outlawed hunting in 1977 because of corruption and abuse by
both government officials and individuals from the hunting industry,
resulting in virtually unregulated hunting that nearly decimated
Kenya's wildlife. Since the ban, elephant populations and those of
other species have rebounded dramatically. The prohibition on trophy
hunting has been and continues to be an important component in the
overall effort to conserve Kenya's amazing wildlife heritage. The major
poaching threat to Kenya's wildlife these days comes from outside
Kenya's borders, with heavily-armed, criminal gangs from Somalia and
other neighboring countries infiltrating Kenya's famed parks and
poaching elephant, rhino, and other species.
(6) Does your organization support the CAMPFIRE and other similar
programs in Africa? Do you agree or disagree that unless
wildlife has an economic value, there is no incentive for local
indigenous populations to effectively conserve their wildlife
populations?
IFAW believes that in order for indigenous populations to
effectively conserve their wildlife populations over the long term,
they must recognize the intrinsic value of each species and each
individual animal. These intrinsic values go well beyond the short-term
economic gains that may be derived from purely exploitative programs
such as commercial or trophy hunting, which often serve only to
reinforce the faulty notion that wildlife can be valued only in
economic terms and perpetuate the destructive cycle of mass killing
followed by either continued, slow decline or short term recovery and a
new period of mass killing. Exploitative programs typically provide
only nominal, short term economic benefits to local populations, and
instead often exist for the benefit of foreign special interests with
no real stake in the long-term health and vibrancy of the indigenous
communities. Hunting-based conservation programs like CAMPFIRE rarely
accomplish long-term conservation goals, especially when they are
reliant on foreign subsidies or highly-specialized foreign special
interests like trophy hunting, and they can often exacerbate the
overall declines in species populations and health. Lion hunting
programs, for example, are thought to have contributed to the current
crash in lion populations across Africa by creating a large market for
trophy hunting programs in other in areas and countries besides those
designed strictly for conservation purposes. Programs designed help
local communities both recognize the intrinsic value of wildlife and
maximize the long-term economic value of protecting individual animals
and whole populations are better suited to support the overall
cultural, economic, and spiritual values held by local communities.
IFAW supports programs in Africa and around the world that share these
values.
(7) You discuss the urban demand for bushmeat in Africa and in cities
outside Africa. Have there been any attempts to bring
alternative domesticated meats to these African cities to
reduce the demand on bushmeat?
According to the Bushmeat Crisis Task Force (www.bushmeat.org),
there have been attempts to bring alternative sources of protein to
African cities. However, these sources can often be higher in price
than bushmeat, which can be taken out of the local ecosystems for
little or no cost to skilled hunters, or purchased by poor individuals
at prices that are much lower than many farm-raised sources of protein.
Thus, solutions to the bushmeat crisis must include ensuring that
consumers have access to alternative protein sources that are both
palatable and priced competitively with bushmeat. Unless people have
economically viable alternatives they will continue, not surprisingly,
to demand wildlife as an affordable and tasty source of meat.
Evidence suggests that many poor families initially consume more
bushmeat as their incomes rise. Consumption only begins to drop when
families become wealthy enough to switch to eating more expensive
cultivated sources of protein. Bushmeat consumption, therefore, appears
to follow an inverted U pattern with income. Thus, changes in
livelihoods of rural and urban families will not necessarily decrease
their consumption of bushmeat, depending on where they are on the
income axis. Though people have eaten bushmeat on a subsistence basis
for millennia, only recently has it become such an important source of
income for so many people.
Also, much of the global bushmeat trade is fueled by an increasing
demand for expensive ``delicacies'' instead of basic protein. More
affluent urban communities in Africa and around the world are beginning
to consider eating various types of rare or exotic bushmeat to be
symbolic of their status within the community, much in the same way
ordering fine wines or rare, expensive beluga caviar might be a
symbolic of status. Far from the source and removed from the on-the-
ground impacts of poaching and wildlife trafficking, affluent members
of urban communities have little reason to change their behavior
without both education and strict enforcement of wildlife trade laws.
(8) For years the focus has been on law enforcement efforts to reduce
the illegal trade of wildlife products. What actions can be
taken to reduce the demand for these products?
Education is best way to reduce the demand for wildlife products.
Many consumers of wildlife products either don't know that their
products come from endangered wildlife or don't know that some of the
methods used to obtain those products are cruel or damaging to wildlife
populations. For example, a survey conducted by IFAW in 1998 in China
on the use of bear bile shows that 84 percent of the public would
refuse products such as tonic or medicine containing bear bile if they
knew the cruelty involved in obtaining it. IFAW is working to raise
consumer awareness about impacts that the illegal wildlife trade has on
conservation and animal welfare. Consumers of wildlife are at the core
of wildlife trade, and expanding economies and increased purchasing
power worldwide have resulted in increased demand for wildlife
products. IFAW believes that once educated, consumers will reject
wildlife products, resulting in a reduction in wildlife consumption as
a hole and an increase in the number of voices advocating for wildlife
protection.
For example, IFAW's recent Think Twice campaign targeted tourists
flying in and out of the UK, the Netherlands and Germany on their way
to South Africa and other African destinations and urged them not to
buy ivory and other wildlife souvenirs during their trip. IFAW
continues to promote the campaign to local media outlets, airlines,
conservation organizations, and the travel industry, and to develop
partnerships with key members of the worldwide travel industry such as
PADI, the world's largest Sport Divers Association. Think Twice also
offers solutions that redirect money from tourists to a local souvenir
economy (e.g. hand woven textiles, beaded work, ceramic and tile art)
better representative of local cultures and customs. IFAW started a
similar campaign just this year in Dubai.
In addition, the Internet is a rapidly expanding global marketplace
for wildlife products. Its anonymity and unregulated nature provides an
opportunity for criminal activities to thrive undetected. In support of
its Internet campaign activities, IFAW offices, collectively and around
the globe, routinely conduct ``snapshot'' surveys to assess the levels
of illegal wildlife trade on the Internet. The results of these
investigations continue to indicate that the illegal sales of wildlife
via the web rising at an alarming rate.
Recognizing that eBay represents the largest online market for
Internet sales of wildlife globally, IFAW is working with eBay
representatives to advise them on how to best to be compliant with
international wildlife trade law. In May, 2006, eBay Germany adopted
stricter policies on ivory sales and adopted more stringent enforcement
measures. In the first two weeks following the policy change, ivory
offers dropped by over 98% on the eBay Germany site. An IFAW
investigation in China brought the issue to the attention of the
Chinese government, which subsequently banned all sales of ivory over
the Internet. IFAW is now in negotiations with eBay in many other
countries to develop and/or clarify their policies on wildlife trade
and as a first step towards the global elimination of ivory on all eBay
sites. This includes working with both Internet providers and Internet
users to educate them about the impacts that their transactions in
wildlife products could have on wildlife populations on the ground.
(9) Is it even possible to make inroads on the cultural or religious
foundations which drive the demand for some of these wildlife
products? Do you have any examples of alternative products
being used for cultural or religious purposes instead of the
wildlife product?
It is possible to reduce the demand for wildlife-based TCM, and it
can be accomplished in a way that fully respects the religions
foundations and cultural traditions of practitioners and users of
traditional medicines. IFAW and many Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM)
practitioners, for example are in complete agreement in their
preventative approach to pursuing health for both people and the
planet. Traditional Chinese Medicine emphasizes the prevention of
illness as much as its treatment, founded in the principle of achieving
harmony, both within the body and with the external world. In fact, TCM
practitioners around the world, represented by the World Society for
Traditional Chinese Medicine, are voicing their concern about seeing
the TCM reputation soiled by its contribution to biodiversity loss,
animal suffering, and one of the largest international criminal
activities--the illegal wildlife trade.
Western science and medicine have progressed to a point where they
are capable of fulfilling most therapeutic needs of humans worldwide.
Seeking to regain the balance offered by TCM, practitioners in China
are now looking to combine science from Western medicine and experience
from TCM. They have identified and are now using many equally effective
alternative ingredients in place of the more expensive and difficult to
obtain wildlife-based ingredients. The book ``Mending the Web of
Life''Chinese Medicine and Species Conservation'' is the result of a
collaboration between IFAW and TCM practitioners in the U.S. It
provides a framework for TCM practitioners to incorporate conservation
values into their profession, which includes using suitable replacement
substances where the use of wildlife derivatives contributes to the
destruction of the natural balance upon which TCM is based.
Although the demand for wildlife species from legitimate TCM
practice has reduced, many unscrupulous businessmen and women from
China are unfortunately still working to stoke demand, promoting non-
essential, unlicensed and even counterfeit products and advertising
false claims of the curative powers of wildlife species. The rarer and
more exotic, the higher the price. For instance, products made with
bear bile on the market in China include tea, power drinks, shampoo and
toothpaste. To promote tiger-based products, the Chinese tiger farming
industry is claiming falsely that these products cure insomnia, SARS
and even leprosy. The result is a blatant deception that targets
people's belief of curative powers of animals while exploiting a system
without any regulatory checks on drug safety, truth in advertising or
prevention of extinction or cruelty to animals.
(10) Can you provide any substantive proof of a correlation between
illegal wildlife trade and terrorism?
Please see answer to question 4.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony.
I am going to start out with a question for Mr. Hart, and
if I leave during the response, please understand we have votes
on the Floor of the House, but Ms. Bordallo will take over the
Committee chair while you are responding to my questions. She
probably will have questions of her own as well.
Mr. Hart, in your testimony you state that hunting and
trade of bushmeat and ivory directly supports rogue military
gangs and funds rebel activity in the Congo. Could you please
elaborate on how these militant groups are profiting at the
wildlife's expense and how they impact the quality of life for
citizens in the Congo?
Mr. Hart. Well, many of the militant groups are setting
themselves up in wild areas, including national parks, where
they are able to maintain their bases. Some of these are along
Congo's border with Sudan, but even in the interior of the
country, and they have in almost all cases access to arms and
munitions through networks that link them to the national
police and military hierarchy, sometimes directly benefitting
them.
We have documented several cases, most recently in the
Salonga National Park in Central DRC where after killing the
elephants, some of these gangs actually turn on villages in the
area and are becoming local terrorists within their own area.
In addition, what we have seen is that the key link to
break here is the wildlife products, many of them are consumed
nationally--some move out of Congo--is the beginning of a
chain. These people are not themselves involved with further
links up the chain and out of Congo, but many of them
nevertheless have links with businessmen in Congo and in
neighboring countries to move some of these products.
The result is then there is palpable recognition on the
part of many local communities that this is undermining for
them their traditional use of wildlife and their natural
landscapes.
Ms. Bordallo [presiding]. Thank you very much.
Mr. Clark, if you are wondering why I am not voting, I
represent a territory. We only vote in committee, not on the
Floor, and for amendments also.
I have another question for you, Mr. Clark. We have heard
from other agencies that there have been multiple attempts to
implement computerized systems tracking the illegal trade of
wildlife.
Why do you think the Ecomessage will be successful, and do
you know why the United States does not participate in the
database, Ecomessage?
Mr. Clark. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the primary
reason why Ecomessage has promise is the enthusiasm of the
people behind it who are working on it.
We have improved it over the past three years so that the
number of submissions to the Ecosystem process have quadrupled.
That is substantial. We are working on a mechanism to make it
more user friendly.
It is presently a little bit of exercise, administrative
exercise, but the electronics age is catching up to us, or we
are catching up to it, and there will be a lot of drop-down
menus and it will be a lot easier and quicker to file an
Ecomessage.
I have had discussions quite recently, and the United
States is perhaps reconsidering its situation and likely will
be participating more actively in the Ecomessage initiative.
Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Clark, and thank you for the
comments. It is good that we are working together and it may
happen in the very near future.
I also have a couple of questions. In your testimony, you
discuss a brutal battle between law enforcement officers and
Somali warlords. Can you speak to the violence that wildlife
law enforcement officers face on a regular basis?
And I understand that you have some personal stories that
lend credence to the link between safety and stability and
wildlife crime, so could you also share one of those with us,
please?
Mr. Clark. Yes, Madam Chair. With all due respect to my
distinguished colleague from Safari Club International, I think
it is not Kenya's hunting policy which is reflecting in the
loss of wildlife in that country, but rather its proximity to
borders of countries like Somalia and Sudan and other
northeastern Horn of Africa countries where there are very
heavily armed groups.
In the written testimony, you will find specifics on
several. You asked for an example. One might be the recovery in
Tsavo East National Park of a U.S. manufactured M-16 rifle that
was supplied to Somalia during the regime of President Barre,
legally supplied to the military there.
At that time, the president had a defense minister by the
name of General Hirsi. He also happened to be his son-in-law.
When Somalia collapsed, General Hirsi formed one of the warlord
faction groups called Somali Front. He took part of the Somali
army that was within his own plan and many of the weapons with
him.
Those weapons are sometimes being recovered in Kenya
national parks during engagements which result in the
fatalities of Kenya Wildlife Service rangers. Large volumes of
ammunition are also recovered. Thirty-seven KWS rangers have
been killed in recent years, mostly in these confrontations
with armed gangs coming from Somalia.
They are coming in for a reason--ivory and rhino horn. That
is brought back to Somalia, which has no centralized
government, consequently no customs agency to speak of or
anything else to restrict its export from their ports. From
there it goes out to--it is anybody's assumption. No records.
Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Galster, you also spoke of violence with
Somali warlords. Do you have anything to add to that?
Mr. Galster. Actually, I was focused on Southeast Asia, but
I would just add that it is a similar situation there. I think
globally, wildlife law enforcement officers are probably in
more danger than their urban counterparts, maybe by virtue of
the fact they are out in forested areas.
In Cambodia, for example, some rangers we have supported
there in a place called Bokor National Park, which was featured
on a CNN story also. Those rangers were attacked with grenades.
They lived, but one of the pictures I showed up during my
presentation was of another incident which the guy didn't live,
so----
Ms. Bordallo. Would you say, gentlemen, that this might be
tied to terrorists, terrorist activities, or is it just
something out there on its own?
Mr. Galster. I am not seeing terrorists poach or traffick
in wildlife, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are now or in
the future going to get attracted to it unless they have a
policy of conservation, which some insurgent groups, you know,
funny enough have had.
What we are seeing is opportunists, people who want to make
quick money fast and recognizing that the agencies they are up
against are badly armed and resourced, and it is pretty easy.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Moritz from the Safari Club, it is my understanding
that the Safari Club International Foundation has provided
significant financial support to Interpol's program addressing
illegal wildlife trade. Do you have plans to continue this
effort?
Mr. Moritz. We have been involved with Interpol for the
last three years, I believe, and we are currently evaluating
continued commitments to that. We are in our third year of
support.
Ms. Bordallo. So what you are saying is that you will
continue?
Mr. Moritz. We are currently evaluating how best to work on
this critical issue of poaching and looking at several
alternatives. I don't believe a final decision has been made
for the next funding year.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
Mr. Pueschel, in your testimony you state that in the post
9-11 world, the illegal wildlife trade is no longer only a
conservation issue. It is a national and global security issue.
Have terrorists increasingly been involved in wildlife
trade? It is much like the other question that I asked the
other gentleman.
Mr. Pueschel. Madam Chair, we refer to anecdotal
information. We are an animal and wildlife organization and
have to indeed accept the alerts that are coming from some
official and some media sources, and our concern is that nobody
currently is really looking at that issue in terms of the
involvement or possible involvement of terrorist organizations.
Obviously, there are reports about it, and we are not the right
organization to do those kind of investigations, but
governments like from the United States of America is.
We are here currently and really would like to encourage to
put more attention to the whole arena of criminal
organizations, organized crime and possibly terrorism to look
into as the whole range of organizations and groups majorly
interested in having unregistered, massive amounts of money to
be used for further criminal activities on the cause of
wildlife and on the cause of biodiversity.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
I do feel when money, large amounts of money, are involved
with whatever reason, whether it is wildlife or whatever, there
is a strong possibility that terrorists could be involved
obtaining money for other purposes, so that is why I guess the
Committee is interested in that question.
Mr. Galster, what has Wildlife Alliance been doing in
Southeast Asia to urge consumers not to buy illegal wildlife?
What more could the United States do in this area of consumer
education?
Mr. Galster. We are working behind governments there,
particularly the Government of Thailand, which has taken the
lead to develop a wildlife law enforcement network, but
parallel to those enforcement efforts, they have also come out
as high as the prime minister level and made pronouncements to
the public asking people to stop buying endangered species and,
if they see somebody selling, to call the authorities. It is a
very simple formula.
I think what the U.S. could do is recognize that it is one
of the biggest consumers of wildlife in the world and approach
China, which is clearly the biggest, and say look, we are both
in the same corner here and having an effect on all the plant-
animal species. Let us come out as superpower allies and do a
campaign to reduce consumption and perhaps jointly go out and
build capacity. I see that as the most efficient way for it.
If you want the State Department to focus on something, and
I think they have done a great job, but they could scale up
their efforts in a big way with your support, is to engage
China in that kind of a superpower relationship.
If I may add, I know the T word is dominating a lot of
policy and direction in Washington these days, but I really
feel that the bigger and longer term threat here is that
massive illegal wildlife trade, no matter who is driving it, is
unraveling ecosystems, and that is the threat to this country
and every other one in the world. Thanks.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
Do all the witnesses agree that this illegal wildlife trade
is increasing? All right. Mr. Hart?
Mr. Hart. Yes. Thank you. I agree that it is increasing. I
just want to give one perspective from Central Africa that I
think is pertinent.
We have been talking quite a bit about the movement of
illegal trade out of producing countries and into a consuming
public which is sometimes far away. We are finding in the
Democratic Republic of Congo that there is a lot of illegal
trade in bushmeat that is regional and within Africa and that
that will take a different focus and a different attention.
In my written testimony, I mention the fact that we, and
this was reiterated on President Bush's last visit, will be
supporting the development and training of security forces in
Africa, and I would like to reiterate again that it is very
important that the bushmeat issue and illegal trade in wildlife
be on the agenda for the trainers, just as human rights abuses
are.
I think this is very important to start sensitizing
political leaders in these countries to this problem. We found
that there is the ability to develop political will, so we have
to, in addition to taking the really broad international
perspective, we have to recognize there are regional
perspectives that are important to develop as well.
Ms. Bordallo. That is an excellent point. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Clark, did you have a comment to make? Please.
Mr. Clark. Very briefly. Two points that the United States
might consider that hadn't come to my mind, diplomatic
initiatives the U.S. might take.
One is to focus on the problem of safe havens. Many of
these wildlife criminals, the big ones, sit in safe havens--for
example, Taiwan--where there is no extradition because there is
no diplomatic relations.
The U.S. could use its diplomatic clout to speak in a
friendly manner to suggest that perhaps Taiwan can go after
these people on financial crimes bases--money laundering,
importing more than $10,000 at a go and various other financial
crimes.
These are the people who are moving large volumes of ivory.
One fellow sitting there moved more than 50 tons. Pardon me. He
moved more than 83 tons of ivory. This might be a useful U.S.
initiative.
The second is penalties. Many of America's partners have
disappointingly low penalties for major violations of wildlife
law. One example that comes to mind immediately is in Japan,
where three tons of ivory was recently illegally imported. The
fellow was caught. He was convicted. He was given a suspended
sentence and a small fine.
Had that same violation occurred here in the United States,
Federal sentencing guidelines would have said 46 to 78 months
in Federal prison. There is a big disparity there.
When someone has a consignment of three tons, mostly raw
ivory, that suggests something very important--large organized
crime participation--because you cannot take three tons of
ivory and go out on the street and sell it. That means there
are factories there. That means there are distributors,
marketing, retail, an entire organization. That is organized
crime.
If the penalties for supplying that organization are so
meaningless, there is no deterrence and the price of that will
be not only more poaching, but a lot of fatalities in Africa.
More than 100 rangers are killed every year.
Ms. Bordallo. Really.
Mr. Clark. There are widows, orphaned children, and the
consequent criminality of corruption and fraud and all of the
rest of it comes part and parcel. It is not just a bit of
contraband wildlife products on someone's table. It is part of
a much broader perspective.
Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Clark.
These closing remarks from our witnesses are all good
points that will be shared with our Chairman, Chairman Rahall,
and he will be made aware of this.
I want to thank all of you. We have heard from Mr. Steven
Galster, the Director of Field Operations, Wildlife Alliance,
Thailand; Mr. John A. Hart, Scientific Director of the Tshuapa-
Lomami-Lualaba Project in Congo; Mr. William Clark, the Illegal
Wildlife Trade Expert; Dr. William E. Moritz, the Director of
Conservation and Acting Director of Governmental Affairs, the
Safari Club International Foundation of the United States; and
Mr. Peter Pueschel, Illegal Wildlife Trade Program Director,
International Fund for Animal Welfare, Germany.
We certainly appreciate your being here with us today to
share all your expertise in your various fields.
Members may have additional questions which will be sent to
you in writing. The hearing record will remain open for an
additional 10 business days to enter any additional materials.
If there is no further business, the hearing of the
Committee on Natural Resources is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[A statement submitted for the record by Peter T. Jenkins,
Director of International Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife,
follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by Peter T. Jenkins, Director of
International Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, on behalf of Defenders
of Wildlife, I am pleased to have the opportunity to submit this
statement for the record of today's oversight hearing on ``Poaching
American Security: Impacts of Illegal Wildlife Trade.'' Founded in
1947, Defenders of Wildlife has over 1 million members and supporters
across the nation and is dedicated to the protection and restoration of
native animals and plants in their natural communities.
Defenders of Wildlife commends Chairman Rahall and the Committee on
Natural Resources for drawing attention to the critical issue of the
illegal trade in wildlife and the impacts this trade may have on
international and national security and stability. The illegal wildlife
trade is estimated to be worth more than $10 billion annually.
According to Interpol, illegal wildlife trade ranks third in criminal
revenue behind the illegal trade in drugs and arms. Many of the species
exploited in this illegal trade are already suffering from habitat
loss, pollution, global warming, and other factors. Add to these
threats the further pressure of unsustainable exploitation, in
particular to supply the illegal markets in wildlife and wildlife
products, and the result is many species being driven to the brink of
extinction. Some of the wildlife most affected by illegal trade
includes elephants and rhinoceroses, the Tibetan antelope, bears,
tigers, primates, parrots, sea turtles, corals, sturgeon, and rare
hardwood trees and ornamental plants. The decimation of wildlife
through illegal trade has severe implications not just for biodiversity
and ecosystem health, but also for the economic stability of countries
that depend on wildlife as a source of revenue and protein.
In addition to the concerns outlined above, new evidence suggests
illegal trade in wildlife has become even harder to combat. According
to Traffic International and other sources quoted in the recent
Newsweek article, ``Extinction Trade,'' (in issue dated March 10,
2008), illegal wildlife trade has changed from the type of crime
committed by small, unorganized groups of individuals to one involving
large, sophisticated syndicates that also engage in various other
illegal endeavors, including supporting militia activities. As such,
illegal wildlife trade may play a critical role in financing activities
that threaten national and international security and stability. The
illegal trade in drugs and arms has already received considerable
attention as a funding mechanism for other illegal activities, such as
terrorism. In contrast, illegal trade in wildlife, which can follow the
same trade routes and involve some of the same criminals, has received
relatively little attention for its potential to proliferate other
crimes and security threats.
Illegal wildlife trade may also pose threats to national and
international security by introducing harmful invasive species or
emerging infectious diseases. As demonstrated in a 2007 report by
Defenders of Wildlife, Broken Screens: the Regulation of Live Animal
Imports in the United States, even the legal and intentional trade in
wildlife poses severe risks to our nation's ecosystems and to human,
wildlife and domestic animal health. Further, illegal shipments of some
wildlife products, such as bushmeat, pose new health risks requiring
urgent attention.
Within the United States, we rely upon the Fish and Wildlife
Service's Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) to investigate unlawful
exploitation of wildlife resources, to inspect wildlife imports, and to
collaborate with other agencies on both the international and domestic
levels to promote effective law enforcement. Although the OLE has
achieved important successes, including reducing illegal harvest and
trade in caviar, it is severely understaffed to meet the rapidly
growing enforcement and inspection tasks it faces. Inadequate budgets
and low special agent numbers have damaged OLE's ability to conduct the
relatively cost-intensive, but nevertheless vital, undercover sting
operations needed to break up wildlife smuggling rings. In recent
years, the number of special agents has been reduced from a high of 238
in 2002 to less than 200, and an additional 20 to 25 are expected to
leave for retirement in the coming year. The number of wildlife
inspection officers is even lower, with only 112 staff members at the
end of FY 2006. With this few inspectors, the OLE is unable to visually
inspect all shipments of wildlife and wildlife products that cross U.S.
borders. On average, the proportion of shipments inspected ranges from
approximately one-quarter of fish shipments to approximately two-thirds
of bird shipments. The number of wildlife inspectors is inadequate to
face the challenge of enforcing compliance with federal wildlife laws
and international treaties to which the United States is a party, such
as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Flora and Fauna (CITES).
Congress appropriated $59.6 million for the OLE in FY 2008. While a
modest increase, this level still is insufficient to meet the growing
threats of the illegal wildlife trade; moreover, the Administration
proposed a $2.3 million decrease in its FY 2009 budget, which would
reverse the FY 2008 increase. Defenders of Wildlife recommends an
increase for FY 2009 of at least $9.9 million to hire and train
additional special agents, port inspectors, and scientists for the
forensics laboratory, and to ensure full funding of fixed costs. In
addition, Defenders of Wildlife recommends increased funding for the
Fish and Wildlife Service to engage in international law enforcement
capacity building. Better international coordination is crucial in the
effort to reduce the illegal trade and prevent the decimation of
wildlife species. Ecosystem and economic health are at stake,
particularly in developing countries.
Defenders of Wildlife recommends further investigation of the links
between illegal wildlife trade and national and global security,
including its role in the financing of terrorism. A multi-agency task
force should be established to share information to effectively address
the impacts of this illegal trade on our national and global security
in a coordinated, proactive and preventative manner.
Illegal trade in wildlife is a threat to the planet's biological
diversity and ecological integrity. It is also a potential threat to
our nation's security and to global security. Thank you, Mister
Chairman, for holding today's hearing on this critical issue and for
the opportunity to submit this statement for the hearing record.
Defenders of Wildlife stands ready to assist you in crafting solutions
to address this growing threat. If you or other members of the
Committee have any questions, please contact me at 202-772-0293 or
[email protected].