'No one has any business trading in ivory,' said Kenyatta,


So says Kenya's president, who's mother may have been the biggest ivory poacher Africa has ever seen.


Irony African style.

Always knew Mama Ngina as being Jomo Kenyatta's wife.

Dunno why, but every time I hear mention of Hilary I get reminded of Mama Ngina - both First Ladies I guess.

The son always protects his dear departed mother for the inheritance he received - if he is all for burning ivory, it stands to reason that a good portion of the ill-gotten gains inherited stemmed from ivory - should he not forfeit some of this wealth in recognition of this fact?

My God!

You have too much of a social conscience Fulvio, for those African autocrats

https://cites.org/eng/news/pr/...s_cites_say_28042016



Kenya is set to burn 105 tonnes of ivory – what does CITES, the world’s wildlife trade regulator, say?

The CITES Secretary-General will be amongst the special guests attending the ivory burn
on 30 April in Nairobi hosted by Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta

Geneva, 28 April 2016: Over the past 36 months a number of countries have destroyed stockpiles of elephant ivory (and in some cases rhino horns) that have been seized and confiscated, including Belgium, Cameroon, Chad, China (including Hong Kong SAR), Czech Republic, Ethiopia, Gabon, France, Italy, Kenya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mozambique, Philippines, the Republic of Congo, Sri Lanka, the United Arab Emirates and the United States.



The Secretary-General of CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) has been invited by national CITES authorities to witness a number of these events and has been able to accept the invitation on four occasions, namely for events held in China, in Dongguan and Hong Kong SAR, one at the Dvůr Králové Zoo, Czech Republic and most recently in Colombo, Sri Lanka. His statements made at these events are all publicly available on the CITES website. The Secretary-General has recently accepted an invitation from the national CITES authorities in Kenya to witness the burning of ivory scheduled to be held in Nairobi on 30 April.

These events, and on occasion the Secretary-General’s participation in them, attract a significant amount of commentary both in favour of, and against, destroying confiscated elephant ivory and rhino horn. Some commentary on social media suggests that the Secretary-General and CITES, the international agreement that sets the rules for international trade in wildlife, may be displaying a bias through his participation in such events. The Secretary-General has previously explained his rationale for attending.

The guidance provided by CITES Parties (through relevant Resolutions) is that illegally traded and confiscated elephant ivory and rhino horn (on Appendix I) should be disposed of for four purposes only, namely, ‘bona fide scientific, educational, enforcement or identification purposes’. Where this is not practicable, two options are provided (by the Resolution), namely to save the specimens in storage or to destroy them.

“As Secretary-General, I do not encourage or discourage countries to choose one option or the other. This is a matter for each country to determine for itself. However, when a country takes a decision to publicly destroy its confiscated stockpiles of elephant ivory or rhino horn, I do believe it presents a unique opportunity to draw public attention to the scale, nature and devastating impacts of the serious crimes that lie behind these confiscations and to act as a deterrent to illegal trade – and that is why I have participated in such events where I can” said John E. Scanlon.



Guidance agreed by CITES Parties (through Resolutions) also encourages countries to publicize information on seizures and confiscations, when appropriate, as a deterrent to illegal trade, and to inform the public about their procedures for dealing with seized and confiscated specimens.

“The events I participated at in Dongguan, Hong Kong SAR, the Dvůr Králové Zoo and Colombo all attracted massive media attention – more than I have seen for any other wildlife related event. This has provided an opportunity to reach a huge audience, from global to local, and to raise awareness of the scale and impacts of illegal wildlife trade and of the increasing risks to the criminals who are behind it of being detected and severely punished, including through the use of modern forensics. The ivory burn in Nairobi will provide another opportunity to spread this message to a very wide audience” said Scanlon.

“While the destruction of confiscated elephant ivory or rhino horn will not in itself stop the illegal trade in elephant ivory or rhino horn, when coupled with rigorous and consistent enforcement and demand reduction measures, it can serve as a deterrent to people from engaging in these illicit activities. In Kenya, we have seen the Government and the Parliament take major steps to bring the poaching of elephants and illegal trade in ivory to an end, which will get global coverage this week. This commitment is reflected in Kenya’s CITES National Ivory Action Plan and in January of this year the CITES Standing Committee agreed that Kenya had 'substantially achieved' the implementation of the activities outlined in its NIAP and commended it for the progress made, while also encouraging Kenya to complete the actions outlined in therein[i]” concluded Scanlon.

Some of the ivory to be destroyed in Kenya is not confiscated and seized but is naturally occurring, such as through natural mortality. The Convention does not provide the same guidance to countries on naturally occurring stockpiles of ivory. The guidance provided by CITES Parties (through Resolutions) urges each country to inter alia have a comprehensive and demonstrably effective stock inventory and to maintain an inventory of government-held stockpiles of ivory and, where possible, of significant privately held stockpiles of ivory within their territory and to inform the CITES Secretariat of them annually, including the source of the ivory; and the reasons for any significant changes in the stockpile compared to the preceding year. The guidance provided by CITES on how to manage such naturally occurring stockpiles domestically is different from the very specific guidance provided for seized and confiscated ivory.

The CITES rules on international trade in ivory (and rhino horn) and guidance on legal domestic trade in ivory apply to all Parties. Changes to these rules and guidance can only be made by the Conference of the Parties to CITES.

The 17th meeting of the Parties to CITES – known as the World Wildlife Conference – will be held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 24 September to 5 October, 2016. The meeting will consider demand reduction, enforcement – including combating corruption and livelihoods strategies to tackle illicit trafficking in wildlife as it affects a number of CITES-listed species, including elephants, tigers, rhinos, pangolins and rosewood. The full agenda will be available in early May 2016.

CITES is a legally binding agreement between 182 Parties (181 countries and the EU) that sets the international rules for regulating trade in wildlife, including on tackling illicit wildlife trafficking. It’s Parties meet every three years to review the implementation of the Convention and to set or modify the rules and guidance provided under the Convention. The Convention, among other matters, provides guidance on the disposal of confiscated wildlife and their products.

Further Background on CITES Resolutions

The CITES Secretariat is bound to act in accordance with the text of the Convention and the Decisions and Resolutions taken by the Parties to CITES. So, what then is the position of the 182 CITES Parties (181 countries and the EU) on the issue of whether to destroy or not to destroy confiscated elephant ivory and rhino horn? This requires a review of the Convention text and the Decisions and Resolutions adopted by the Parties to CITES and the answer lies in a Resolution, Resolution Conf. 9.10 (Rev. CoP15), adopted by CITES Parties in 1994, and updated in 2010, which recommends that:

“Parties dispose of confiscated and accumulated dead specimens of Appendix I species, including parts and derivatives, only for bona fide scientific, educational, enforcement or identification purposes, and save in storage or destroy specimens whose disposal for these purposes is not practicable;”

This Resolution, like all others, provides interpretive guidance on the legally binding text of the Convention. However, the language used in this Resolution may not be all that clear to people who are not familiar with CITES terminology. So what does it mean in plain English?

‘Specimens’ is the language used in the Convention to refer to the plant or animal, or part thereof, or any derivative (such as a manufactured product) that is in trade as defined in the Convention text. Hence, in the context of this particular issue, the reference in the Resolution to ‘dead specimens of Appendix-I species, including parts and derivatives’ is referring to the elephant ivory and rhino horn, including carvings and any other products made from them.[ii]

The Resolution treats Appendix I specimens very differently from those of species in Appendices II and III. The reason for doing so is because specimens of Appendix I species generally cannot enter commercial trade, whereas Appendix II and III specimens can be commercially traded if certain preconditions are met. The Resolution does allow for the commercial sale of confiscated Appendix II and III specimens under certain conditions, if the country chooses to do so.

This Resolution is consistent with the Convention text, including on Appendix I specimens not (re)entering commercial trade. The guidance provided by the Resolution is that the disposal of illegally traded and confiscated elephant ivory and rhino horn should be restricted to four purposes only, namely, ‘bona fide scientific, educational, enforcement or identification purposes’. Where this is not practicable, two options are provided by the Resolution, namely to save the specimens in storage or to destroy them.

In this context, it is worth noting that the Resolution goes on to recommend that:

“Parties publicize information on seizures and confiscations when appropriate as a deterrent to illegal trade, and inform the public about their procedures for dealing with seized and confiscated specimens…;”

The Convention does not provide the same guidance to countries on naturally occurring stockpiles of ivory. Relevant CITES Resolutions urge each country to inter alia have a comprehensive and demonstrably effective stock inventory and to maintain an inventory of government-held stockpiles of ivory and, where possible, of significant privately held stockpiles of ivory within their territory and to inform the CITES Secretariat of them annually, including the source of the ivory; and the reasons for any significant changes in the stockpile compared to the preceding year as is provided for in Resolution 10.10 e) (Rev. CoP16). The guidance provided by CITES on how to manage such naturally occurring stockpiles domestically is different from the very specific guidance provided for seized and confiscated ivory in Resolution Conf. 9.10 (Rev. CoP15).

thank you for posting this saeed and kathi

Just an observation here from someone with no experience of hunting in Africa or for Elephant or Rhino.

Why, wouldn't it be better to simply take all that confiscated Ivory/Rhino horn and simply legalize the sale of the confiscated items and flood the market so that poached material would be come worthless or nearly so?

I am sure that will sound dumb or simplistic, but to me making that much material available all at one time would reduce the demand.

The price just went up and now there will be more poaching. Sell the stuff and use the money to stop poaching. These people that support it seem so stupid. But then it's not about the animals.

Burning also destroys evidence of "ivory inventory shrinkage" in Kenya's warehouses.

Bill Quimby

I don't think that anyone should have the right to destroy something as precious as elephant ivory regardless of anything.If it was up to me I would put those behind the decision to burn the ivory in jail.If we no longer have those elephants then at least we have their ivory to pass on to following generations.

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
Burning also destroys evidence of "ivory inventory shrinkage" in Kenya's warehouses.

Bill Quimby

All the anti poaching patrols and payment to them. Like the pristine uniforms and shoes for the media show off. What a croc of crap.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Jan Dumon:

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
Burning also destroys evidence of "ivory inventory shrinkage" in Kenya's warehouses.

Bill Quimby

It will push ivory prices up in the black market and increase poaching!

Hypocrites and liars, one and all. The world is a lost and captainless vessel to give one minute's attention to these thieving scoundrels.

Yup ! TWATS Incorporated, driven by IFAW and fawned over by the Hollywood brainless mob.

I have to wonder how many millions of USDs went into the Kenya government's (read President) pocket courtesy of the WWF for pulling this stunt.

History shows that the more rare something becomes, the higher the demand and price.

Flooding the market with cheap ivory would probably help the elephants that are still alive.

The real story IMO, is how Kenyan's elephant population rapidly declined after the cessation of all sports hunting. Without, outfitters protecting the herds, the only elephants left are a few small tourist herds that exist in protected areas. Big success IMO.

BH63

I saw the pics of the ivory burning on BBC. Said that it might take days for it to completely burn. What a bunch of fools!