Category: News

Uganda is a greatly gifted nation with both nature and wildlife, hence being one of the top countries in Africa best for safari experiences. Uganda receives a large number of tourists annually, who come with different aspects – some go to Uganda to trek the mountain gorillas, well as others go there specifically for viewing the big game as others go there for birding and others are very much interested in the impressive culture that Uganda has got. Many people keep on wondering as to why most people go visit this small and third world country – Uganda!! However the fact is that; Uganda attracts a large number of tourists due to its extraordinary features such as; its good climate, varied wildlife, welcoming and friendly people, fantastic cultures, and the endless adventurous places, all which even made it to get the name of ‘’Pearl of Africa’’ which was given to it by Sir Winston Churchill. Below are some of the unforgettable wildlife safari experiences in Uganda;

1. Gorilla Trekking

Uganda is one of the only three refuges of the endangered mountain gorillas all over the world and these gentle giant apes attract a substantial number of individuals from all over the world to go trek these primates. The other two mountain gorilla refuges in the world are; Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. Uganda is the only country with two national parks protecting the mountain gorillas – Bwindi Impenetrable forest and Mgahinga National Park, all found in southwestern Uganda.  Meeting these gentle apes is a life changing experience and the activity (gorilla trekking) involves hiking since the mountain gorillas live in mountainous forested areas. The activity is recommendable to only individuals above the age of 15 years and those who are mentally stable and physically fit because it is tiresome at most cases.

Though tiresome, gorilla trekking is very joyous and memorable and once you meet the gorillas, surely you will forget all the difficulties that you encountered during your primate safari. For you to trek the mountain gorillas in any of Uganda’s two Parks, you are required to have a gorilla permit which costs US$ 600 in Uganda and the activity of trekking the gorillas is done in groups of 8 individuals per each group trekking. Besides the interesting gorilla trekking activity, Bwindi also offers another fascinating activity about the gorillas – gorilla habituation, where you will come to know more about the mountain gorillas since during the habituation of gorillas you are given much time with them. Gorilla habituation is a process of making the wild gorillas to become used to humans and in this process, you will spend 4 hours with the gorillas instead of the one hour you are given to spend with the gorillas during gorilla trekking. A gorilla habituation permit costs US$ 1500.

2. Bird Watching

Talking of birding safaris in Africa, definitely Uganda should be the first destination to think about simply because this small-beautiful country comprises of various amazing birding sites including the mighty Semuliki National Park – ‘the true birders haven’!! In Africa, Semuliki Park is the best destination for serious birders as the Park comprises of almost every African bird species that a birder could want to experience on his/her birding safari. Uganda, at large, comprises of over 1000 bird species in its best birding paradises which include; Semuliki National Park, Budongo forests (Murchison Falls National Park), Kibale Forests National Park, Mgahinga National Park, Bwindi Impenetrable Forests National Park, Mabamba bay wetland, Queen Elizabeth National Park, and others. The most suitable and appropriate time for bird watching are the morning hours and in the late evenings. Among the bird species to spot in Uganda include; the crested Uganda (Uganda’s national bird), shoebill storks, marabou storks, African green broadbill, green-breasted pitta, great blue turaco, standard-winged nightjar, Shelley’s crimsonwing, short-tailed warbler, and many others.

3. Lion Tracking

Lion tracking is such a very unique experiential tourism activity whereby a traveler gets a chance to view lions often closer than the usual game drives where you don’t get to learn and understand into detail about the lions. Tracking the lions in their natural habitats in Uganda can only take place in western Uganda’s national park – Queen Elizabeth National Park, of which the activity is most suitable in the morning and late afternoon hours and it is done twice in a particular day. The activity is really exceptional and magnificent and many travelers enjoy doing this, therefore if you are also interested to join the researchers in the field as they track the lions in their natural habitats you are highly emphasized to book in advance such that you don’t miss out this awesome activity which others call it breathtaking!! The Lion tracking permit costs US$ 150.

4. Rhino Tracking

Rhinos are among the so called popular ‘African big five’ – Lions, Elephants, Rhinos, Buffaloes, and Leopards, and every wildlife lover in Africa would wish to see these popular animals. Unfortunately today the rhinos are on the verge of going extinct due to heavy poaching and in Uganda the animals can only be tracked from the Ziwa Rhino Sanctuary, a 3 hours’ drive from Uganda’s capital city (Kampala). Tracking the rhinos in the sanctuary is quite affordable as you will only be required to pay US$ 50 which will help in conservation of the rhinos such that they can be re-introduced back in the national parks.

5. Cheetah Safaris

The cheetah is the fastest land animal on earth and it is among the three African big cats which include; African lions, African leopard and the African cheetah. Cheetahs are all over the African continent though rarely spotted in Uganda (the pearl of Africa) and the cheetah safaris in Uganda can only be conducted in the northern parts of the country – in the magnificent Kidepo Valley, True African Wilderness. Cheetahs are addicted to the open grasslands, savannas, even hills, and mountains all which Kidepo Valley National Park is composed of. The cheetah safaris in Kidepo can be accompanied with views of other big games such as; lions, leopards, buffaloes, elephants, and various bird species.

In response to concerns that poaching of African elephants is rapidly driving the species to extinction, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued Director’s Order No. 210, which tightened previous practice involving the import, export, and sale of African elephant ivory. The changes met with considerable resistance from a wide range of persons, including museum professionals, musicians, antiques dealers, and collectors. There has been not only consternation, but also confusion about what these changes mean for many transactions involving objects that may contain ivory components.

To help provide some clarity on what precipitated these changes, what the changes are, and what impact they may have, I spoke with Craig Hoover, Chief of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife Trade and Conservation Branch, for a brief Q&A.

1. What precipitated the action taken by USFWS in February 2014? (decimation of African elephant populations, alleged use of ivory sales to fund African and international terrorist activities, emerging international consensus on need to concerted action)

Hoover: The President’s Executive Order on Combating Wildlife Trafficking [Executive Order, July 1, 2013] called for a whole-of-government approach, including enhancing domestic efforts, to combat wildlife trafficking. This included taking all appropriate actions within our authority, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, to stop illegal trade in wildlife products. In light of the dramatic rise in elephant poaching and illegal trade in ivory, and the increasing level of sophistication and organization in that poaching and illegal trade, as well as a clear U.S. role as a consumer market, we determined that a series of administrative actions under our existing authority to further regulate the import, export and domestic sale of elephant ivory was needed.

2. News reports have alleged that illicit ivory sales have been used to finance terrorist group activities.[1] Has USFWS and/or the international community been monitoring such activities, and was this a motivating factor?
Hoover: As our focus is on conservation, we largely leave this question to the Department of State, the Department of Defense and other agencies that address terrorism as a more direct mandate. That being said, we are certainly aware of the nexus between wildlife trafficking and insurgent groups and the destabilizing effect that poaching and illegal trade can have on other governments. Thus, our administrative actions and the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking are positive efforts not just for conservation but also for people, particularly the local communities impacted by poaching and illegal trade.

3. How was African elephant ivory regulated under U.S. law (including treaty law) prior to issuance of Director’s Order No. 210 (DO210)?
Hoover: African elephant ivory has been regulated under U.S. laws and regulations, including the African Elephant Conservation Act (AECA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), for many years. Under the AECA, we’ve had a moratorium on the import of ivory in place since 1989 though, as a matter of enforcement discretion, we allowed the import of certain items to continue. Imports and exports have also been strictly regulated under the ESA and CITES regulations.

4. How does DO210 modify prior practice with respect to the import, export, sale and transfer of African elephant ivory?
Hoover: As noted above, the United States has had a moratorium on the import of African elephant ivory since 1989. As a matter of enforcement discretion, we were allowing certain African elephant ivory imports to continue despite the moratorium. DO210 narrowed the scope of those exceptions, particularly by prohibiting all commercial imports regardless of the age of the ivory. It also limits non-commercial imports to household moves and inheritances, musical instruments, and museum specimens that meet certain requirements. DO210 does not impact possession, sale or domestic transfer of African elephant ivory. More information about the Director’s Order and its impacts can be found here. [U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Director’s Order No. 210]

5. Is DO210 part of a concerted effort to combat the illicit killing of African elephants and the sale of their ivory?
Hoover: As described in the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking, DO210 is one of several administrative actions that, when all are completed, will impose a near total ban on the trade in elephant ivory in the United States. We identified these actions as necessary to ensure that the United States, as a market for ivory, is not contributing to poaching and illegal trade, and to position the United States to encourage other countries to take similar actions to address their roles in the ongoing wildlife trafficking crisis.

6. Why was DO210 amended? What is the effect of this amendment?
Hoover: We revised DO210 on May 15, 2014 to address concerns, particularly from musicians and museums, about the DO210 criteria we initially laid out in February. This amendment addressed those concerns while still achieving our goal of limiting imports of African elephant ivory to certain non-commercial activities that are not contributing to poaching and illegal trade. The only change that related to African elephant ivory was to the date after which the item has not subsequently been transferred from one person to another person for financial gain or profit. The original date was Feb. 26, 1976 (the date the African elephant was first listed under CITES); the amendment changed this date to Feb. 25, 2014 (the date DO210 was issued).

7. After the effective date of DO210, is any commercial importation or exportation of African elephant ivory permitted?
Hoover: No commercial import is allowed. As a matter of enforcement discretion, we had been allowing the import of African elephant ivory items that were more than 100 years old. As of the issuance of DO210, we no longer allow the import of any African elephant ivory for commercial purposes, regardless of age. Commercial export of African elephant ivory is allowed under current ESA regulations, provided our general and CITES permitting requirements are met.

8. After the effective date of DO210, what non-commercial importation or exportation of African elephant ivory is permitted?
Hoover: We continue to allow the non-commercial import of the following, under certain conditions: sport-hunted trophies; law enforcement and bona fide scientific specimens; and worked elephant ivory that was legally acquired and removed from the wild prior to Feb. 26, 1976 and has not been sold since Feb. 25, 2014, as part of a household move or inheritance (read more), as part of a musical instrument (read more), and as part of a traveling exhibition (read more).

9. What other types of ivory are used, and how will they be affected by these actions?
Hoover: These actions will not affect ivory derived from other species such as walrus, warthog, hippopotamus, mammoth and mastodon. Asian elephant ivory is already regulated under the ESA and CITES. Ivory derived from toothed whales is already regulated by the ESA, CITES and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Strict application of the definition of antique may limit some Asian elephant and whale ivory trade. Refer to our Q&A about antiques for more information.

10. How can I tell the difference between elephant ivory and other types of ivory?
Hoover: Buyer beware. Proceed with caution if you intend to purchase a product made of ivory. Ask for documentation that shows the species and age of the ivory item you are purchasing. This documentation could include CITES permits or certificates, certified appraisals, documents that detail date and place of manufacture, etc. It is possible to identify elephant ivory from other types of ivory. For more information, please visit the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Forensics Laboratory website.

11. After the issuance of DO210, is it permissible for a museum or musician to purchase objects that contain African elephant ivory outside of the U.S. and import them into the U.S.?
Hoover: No. Under the terms of DO210, items containing worked African elephant may not have been transferred from one person to another person for financial gain or profit since Feb. 25, 2014. Items obtained via a commercial transaction after Feb. 25, 2014, would not qualify for the exceptions for musical instruments or museum specimens.

12. After the date of DO210, may a museum or musician either import an object containing African elephant ivory into the U.S. or export such an object from the U.S. for temporary travel or exhibition?
Hoover: Yes. See the criteria laid out in Section 2 of DO210 for traveling exhibitions and musical instruments.

13. For a museum wishing to export an object containing African elephant ivory for a temporary exhibition, what is the procedure to be followed?
Hoover: Export of African elephant ivory is governed by different rules and restrictions. Commercial export of CITES Pre-Convention worked ivory, including antiques, that meet CITES permitting requirements, is allowed. Noncommercial exports must meet CITES permitting requirements. Export of any raw ivory is prohibited under the AECA and ESA. However, if the item is intended for return to the United States, it must meet the import requirements identified above.

14. If USFWS determines that an African elephant ivory item is imported contrary to the provisions of AECA, DO210, CITES or ESA requirements, what process is afforded the importer to dispute that determination?
Hoover: If we determine that the item was imported in violation of relevant wildlife laws and regulations, that item will be refused clearance. Depending on the particular situation, the item may be seized or made available for re-export. Congress has given USFWS the authority to seize property and to use non-judicial civil procedures to forfeit the seized property to the United States. After seizure of the property that the Government intends to pursue in a civil forfeiture action, we issue a letter termed “Notice of Seizure and Proposed Forfeiture” (NOSPF). The NOSPF gives interest holders notice of the seizure and proposed administrative forfeiture of the seized property, notice of the availability of administrative and judicial processes for contesting the proposed forfeiture, and notice of applicable deadlines for utilizing these processes. The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA) and Interior regulations provide for alternative and not sequential remedies for administrative forfeiture: once notified, an interested party may choose to allow the forfeiture to proceed administratively or may compel the Government to initiate a judicial forfeiture action by filing a claim for the property. The relevant statute and regulations can be found at 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(2)(B) and 50 C.F.R. 12.23 and 12.24.

15. What is meant by the ESA antiques exception?
Hoover: The import, export and interstate sale (sale across state lines) of listed species or their parts is prohibited without an ESA permit except for items that qualify as “antique”. To qualify as antique, the importer, exporter or seller must show that the item meets all of these criteria:
A. It is 100 years or older;
B. It is composed in whole or in part of an ESA-listed species;
C. It has not been repaired or modified with any such species after December 27, 1973; and
D. It is being or was imported through an endangered species “antique port.”
Under Director’s Order 210, as a matter of enforcement discretion, items imported prior to September 22, 1982 (the date the “antique ports” were designated), and items created in the United States and never imported must comply with elements A, B, and C above, but not element D.
Because the African elephant is regulated under the ESA via a “special rule”, the ESA exception for antiques does not apply. Rather, the language of the “special rule” dictates what is allowed and prohibited under the ESA.

16. What is an endangered species antique port?
Hoover: In establishing the antique exception under the ESA, Congress directed what was then the U.S. Customs Service to identify specific ports of entry where antiques made from endangered and threatened species can be imported. There are 13 of these locations: Boston, Massachusetts; New York, New York; Baltimore, Maryland; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Miami, Florida; San Juan, Puerto Rico; New Orleans, Louisiana; Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, California; San Francisco, California; Anchorage, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Chicago, Illinois.

17. The Director’s Order refers to worked African elephant ivory that “was legally acquired prior to February 26, 1976.” What does that mean?
Hoover: February 26, 1976, is the date the African elephant was first listed under CITES (the pre-Convention date). An item that contains African elephant ivory that was removed from the wild prior to February 26, 1976, is considered to be a pre-Convention specimen. This does not mean that the current owner must have purchased or acquired it prior to 1976, but that the item was manufactured from ivory that was taken from the wild prior to 1976. For example, a musical instrument that was manufactured in 1965 using African elephant ivory would be considered a pre-Convention specimen. Likewise, an instrument manufactured in 1985 using ivory acquired by the manufacturer in 1975 would also be considered a pre-Convention specimen. Since it is unlawful to possess specimens that have been traded contrary to CITES or taken in violation of the ESA, the ivory must have been legally acquired.

18. Can I currently sell elephant ivory products within the United States?
Hoover: African elephant ivory that a seller can demonstrate was lawfully imported prior to January 18, 1990—the date that the African elephant was listed in CITES Appendix I—and ivory imported under a CITES pre-Convention certificate can be sold within the U.S. (across state lines and within a state) provided that no state laws are violated during the transaction. Some states have also taken steps to limit commerce in ivory. Asian elephant ivory sold in interstate commerce within the U.S. must meet the strict criteria of the ESA antiques exception.
Because the current rules regarding interstate commerce are different for African elephant ivory compared to Asian elephant ivory, a seller must be able to identify the ivory to species. This could be demonstrated using CITES permits or certificates, a qualified appraisal, or documents that detail date and place of manufacture, etc.

19. Why is USFWS allowing limited imports for non-commercial purposes to continue, but restricting the commercial importation of antiques made from African elephant ivory?
Hoover: The U.S. is a market for objects made from African elephant ivory, which drives increasing poaching of wild elephants. We have determined that it must take every administrative and regulatory action to cut off import of raw and worked elephant ivory where that importation is for commercial purposes. Allowing imports for law enforcement and scientific purposes is in line with our mission to help conserve African elephants and stop trafficking in African elephant ivory. The other limited exceptions allow movement into the U.S. of legally possessed African elephant ivory that predates the listing under the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) for personal use as part of a household move or inheritance, musical performances, and traveling exhibitions. Each of these types of import must meet specific criteria. And unlike the commercial antiques trade, none of these types of imports has been used extensively by smugglers to “cover” trafficking in newly poached ivory.

20. For an object to qualify under the antique exception, what documentation or proof is required?
Hoover: DO210 Appendix A lays out in great detail the documentation requirements for items to meet the ESA exemption for antiques.

21. Is ownership and use of personally owned elephant ivory items affected?
Hoover: Personal possession of legally acquired items containing elephant ivory will remain legal. Worked African elephant ivory imported for personal use as part of a household move or as an inheritance and worked African elephant ivory imported as part of a musical instrument or a traveling exhibition will continue to be allowed provided the worked ivory has not been transferred from one person to another person in pursuit of financial gain or profit after February 25, 2014, and the item is accompanied by a valid CITES document. The import of raw African elephant ivory, other than sport-hunted trophies, is prohibited.

22. May lawfully possessed African elephant ivory be transferred to others? By gift? By bequest? Does a charitable gift or bequest to a museum or other charitable institution qualify as a transfer not “for financial gain” for purposes of DO210 if the donor receives a charitable tax deduction for the donation?
Hoover: Lawfully imported and possessed African elephant ivory can be used for noncommercial purposes, including transfer, bequest, or charitable gift, within the U.S. Such items can also be sold if the seller can demonstrate that the ivory was lawfully imported prior to the date the African elephant was listed in CITES Appendix I (January 18, 1990) or was imported under a CITES pre-Convention certificate.
We intend to revise the ESA “special rule” for the African elephant, including further restricting sale across state lines. Before finalizing those regulations, we will publish a proposed rule in theFederal Register for public review and comment.

23. Are any further modifications to DO210 or to the importation, exportation, or interstate sale of ivory anticipated at this time?
Hoover: We do not plan to revise DO210. However, as noted above, we do intend to revise the ESA “special rule” for the African elephant, further restricting interstate sale of ivory and incorporating at least some aspects of DO210 into its regulations. These regulations will be published as a proposed rule subject to public comment before being finalized, likely in 2015.
Additional information about the USFWS rules concerning the import, export, and sale of ivory is available on the USFWS’s ivory FAQ.

In mid-November, Interpol announced a list of nine wanted men involved with poaching and wildlife trade. One of these men was the alleged “ringleader of an ivory smuggling ring in Kenya”, Feisal Mohamed Ali.

Earlier in the year, 46 countries signed an agreement in London aimed at tackling the illegal wildlife trade.

But how much ivory is actually leaving Africa?

The Convention on international trade in endangered species (CITES) keeps records and assigns quotas for any wildlife export, from live animals to skin samples. For elephants, CITES issues quotas to a few countries in Africa allowing the export of tusks, taking in account regional elephant populations and how much hunting would be sustainable.

In many countries, the sale of ivory is illegal, but the collection of tusks as hunting trophies is not. Many African countries claim that trophy hunting and the tourism it brings is valuable to their economy.

Below is a map of these exports since 2000. The red indicates the amount of tusks exported, and the dark circles indicate the countries quotas. The lighter red accounts for exports recorded as “trophies”. The blue areas shows the elephant population range.

Most of the exports occur in the south of the continent, despite the elephants’ range reaching through central Africa to the west.
South Africa appears to have consistently broken their quota which has been growing steadily from 86 in 2000 to 300 in 2013.
The largest exporter is Zimbabwe and the second largest is neighboring Botswana. However, Zimbabwe never breaks its quota of 800 tusks, besides in 2003 when the quota was not renewed, only to return the following year at an increased 1,000.

Botswana breaks quota several times. In 2000, including “trophies”, Botswana exported 368 tusks, which is eight over its quota.
After years of high exports close to quota, in 2006 its quota is expanded to 540 and its exports increased in kind. In 2008 exports explode to 6,505. The following year its quota grew again to 800, but its exports shrink down to similar levels to before 2000.

Such an anomaly may be due to errors in reportage; each year, countries are required to fill out reports of how many exports and imports occurred for each species under CITES observation. When reports between importer and exporter don’t match, totals are counted twice.

This may also explain South Africa’s over exportation of ivory. However, a look into similar data for rhino horn unveils a familiar pattern.
Only two countries have been given quotas for the export of Rhino horn, Namibia and South Africa, both set at five horns. However, before these quotas were put in place in 2005, South Africa had been reportedly exporting horns, all of which belonged to the white rhino.

South Africa also recently reported that the amount of discovered poached rhinos in 2014 had exceeded 2013 numbers, reaching 1,020. This continues the trend since 2007 which has seen poached rhinos dramatically increase from just 13.

Again, though, many other countries have no recorded exports and very few recorded deaths. One CITES report claimed that 80% of 2013’s large scale seizures of ivory occurred in Kenya, Zimbabwe and Uganda, indicating a high threat of poaching. And yet, all these countries report relatively low levels of ivory or horn exports.

Keeping accurate records is vital to knowing what exactly is happening on the ground. These result can either be duplicated due to problems in standardising record keeping, or in the huge task of monitoring the trade.

There are also frequent accusations against governments in Africa and Asia, the end result for a lot of these items, in aiding poachers or smugglers, or fixing records.
Its from these records that population estimates are made and action plans can be created. With skewed data, intentionally or unintentionally, the fight to preserve species is that much harder.

A continuing global failure to crack down on a booming trade in body parts from endangered animals could soon cause some species – including rhinos and tigers — to “wink out” of existence, a conservation advocate warns. But a couple of recent developments, including a recent United Nations decision to make combating wildlife crime a core concern, and a “potentially powerful” new International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) – could spur needed action.

“In spite of significant recent advances in understanding how to conserve species, we are failing to conserve some of the most beloved and charismatic, with severe population losses, shrinking ranges and extinctions of subspecies,” Elizabeth Bennett of the Wildlife Conservation Society in Bronx, New York write in Oryx: The International Journal of Conservation. The Sumatran rhinoceros, for instance, “is almost certainly now extinct in Thailand and probably in Peninsular Malaysia,” she writes, and “even formerly seemingly-secure populations are now at risk: South Africa lost almost 230 rhinoceroses to poaching during January–October 2010, one every 30 hours.”

The main reason for the killing, she notes, “is hunting for illegal trade in highly valuable body parts. Such trade is increasingly controlled by organized criminal syndicates with sophisticated smuggling methods and modes of operation.” The smugglers bribe officials, and hide goods in secret compartments in cargo containers carrying legal products. And they are often working for criminal networks that feed demand in wealthy Asian nations, with webs “radiating out across Asia and Africa ultimately link to the markets of East Asia. “The traders are also light on their feet, frequently changing routes and modes of operation as enforcement commences in any one place,” she notes.

And the contraband can be extensive: Last year, for instance, officials seized 239 African elephant tusks at Bangkok International Airport, and in 2007 Russian authorities seized 332 tiger bones, two tiger skulls, 531 saiga antelope horns and 283 Asiatic black bear paws near the Chinese border.

Unfortunately, Bennett writes, “the legislation and methods of addressing illegal wildlife trade in many countries were not developed to tackle this type of organized crime,” which can include things like web sites touting the sale of illegal wildlife products. And enforcement of conservation laws is too often lax or not taken seriously. “To save these species this trade must be treated as serious crime,” she writes, arguing that “we have taken our eye off the ball… Where enforcement is thorough, and with sufficient resources and personnel, it works… But such programs are lamentably rare and resources applied to combating such crime generally grossly inadequate.”

What’s needed now is “a total change in the way that wildlife crime is treated by governments and wider society,” she concludes. That means hiring more investigators and providing better training and equipment. And it means taking advantage of the international agreement on wildlife crime to strengthen global partnerships. “Unless we start taking wildlife crime seriously and allocating the commitment and resources appropriate to tackling sophisticated, well-funded, globally-linked criminal operations,” Bennett predicts that “populations of some of the most beloved but economically prized charismatic species will continue to wink out across their range and, appallingly soon, altogether.” – David Malakoff | June 24, 2011

Source: Bennett, E. (2011). Another inconvenient truth: the failure of enforcement systems to save charismatic species. Oryx, 1-4 DOI: 10.1017/S003060531000178X

Tropical rainforests are home to more than half the world’s species and play a crucial role in maintaining the health of our planet and the stability of our climate through the ecosystem services they provide. Independent filmmaker Steve Taylor has traveled across Africa, Amazonia and Borneo to explore first-hand the complex issues of deforestation and degradation. The first two in a trilogy of films about tropical forests and the people and wildlife who depend on them are now available. The Year of the Gorilla campaign, alongside others, supported the making of these films and is happy to announce their completion.

Africa’s Green Heart takes us from the slums and diamond pits of Sierra Leone to the depths of the Congo Basin. Dramatic film of bushmeat hunters and life on Congo riverboats contrast with rare gorilla behaviour and moving interviews with forest communities, loggers and conservationists.

Latin America’s Green Heart documents life in the Amazon Basin, from melting glaciers in the Andes to the lush rainforests and boom-towns of Peru and Brazil. A shaman explains the medicinal uses of plants, contrasting with the drivers of deforestation – cattle ranching and soy farming.

The third part, Asia’s Disappearing Green Heart, focuses on the devastating forest losses in South East Asia, which are driven especially by timber felling and the creation of gigantic plantations for the production of palm oil. It will be completed this week and will also become available for purchase soon. YoG Ambassador Ian Redmond opined: ”These beautiful, thought provoking films are both an educational resource and a call to action to ensure the forests survive.”

To find out more about Steve’s exciting journeys and the movies, please go to his website www.greenheartfilm.com

KAMPALA — Outraged conservationists said on Wednesday that Uganda had neither enough game nor adequate control mechanisms to reintroduce sport hunting on animals such as elephant and buffalo.

Animal and environmental protection groups were angered by the Uganda Wildlife Authority’s (UWA) decision to sell shooting licences in a bid to boost tourism revenue.

“I do not believe that Uganda has enough game animals to sustain sport hunting,” Samuel Maina, of Nairobi-based WildlifeDirect, told AFP.

UWA spokeswoman Lillian Nsubuga said population levels had recovered from years of war in some areas and argued that ending the decades-old ban would contain crop-crunching elephants and buffalos while creating jobs.

Maina voiced doubts that the 90 percent loss of the large mammal population during the unstable 70s and 80s had been reversed.

“Sport hunting is thus likely to be unsustainable in the designated hunting areas and there is a likelihood that to sustain this lucrative sector, Uganda will have to extend hunting into protected areas,” he said.

Achilles Byaruhanga of Nature Uganda, a Kampala-based advocacy group, also judged the initiative to be dangerous because it is impossible to know the real strength of big game populations in Uganda national parks.

“I would want to ask UWA: Where is your data and your information coming from? Just because some animals have moved out of a wildlife reserve doesn’t mean their numbers are strong enough for sport hunting,” he told AFP.

UWA chief Moses Mapesa said that big game hunting was happening already and that the plan was simply for Uganda to benefit from it.

“In the absence of controlled hunting we have had a loss of animals and a loss of potential revenue,” he said.

But Byaruhanga argued that the reintroduction of legal hunting was unlikely to stop illegal hunting by needy local communities or create enough guide jobs to provide a viable alternative.

Maina also warned that Uganda had not proven it had the capacity to control the hunting effectively.

“Hunting-law enforcement is going to be difficult when new hunting blocks are opened. I doubt UWA has enough personnel and machinery to prevent abuse of the hunting licenses and concessions,” he said.

Maina also argued that sport hunting was incompatible with the east African country’s current attempts to enhance its international image as a destination for ecotourism, with gorillas the main attraction.

“Ecotourism and sport hunting are more or less mutually exclusive. Ecotourists do not want to go to places where wildlife is being killed,” he told AFP.

“The growth of sport hunting tourism will give Uganda a bad name as an ecotourism destination and is thus likely to reduce earnings from ecotourism including gorilla tracking,” he added.

Here’s another of Ian Redmond’s YoG interviews, this time with John Kahekwa at the Kahuzi Biega National Park. The park has lost most of its gorillas and elephants to poaching related to coltan mining and the war which started in 1994, and the absence of their ‘gardening’ activities has led to profound changes in vegetation cover and other ecosystem features.

Law enforcement officials investigating the source of confiscated ivory (605 elephant tusks) in Hong Kong had no clue where the stash originated before leaving Douala, a port city in Cameroon. DNA technology, however, was able to verify that many of the tusks once belonged to forest elephants that lived in southern Gabon, near the Republic of Congo border.

Extracting elephant DNA from confiscated ivory could be an important tool to take wildlife investigations a step farther and to stop poaching at its source. Such expensive forensic work may become necessary to protect dwindling elephant populations and curb the illegal ivory market before it grows completely out of control.

“In big seizures, there’s a very strong tendency to ship ivory out of a different country than where it’s poached… It’s a bit of a red herring,” said Samuel Wasser, director of the University of Washington’s Center for Conservation Biology and the lead author of the study, published in this month’s issue of Conservation Biology (Full report >>). “The methods we developed are very important in that regard because it focuses where the poaching is ongoing

Barcelona, Spain, 6 October, 2008 (IUCN) – The most comprehensive assessment of the world’s mammals has confirmed an extinction crisis, with almost one in four at risk of disappearing forever, according to The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™, revealed at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Barcelona.

The new study to assess the world’s mammals shows at least 1,141 of the 5,487 mammals on Earth are known to be threatened with extinction. At least 76 mammals have become extinct since 1500. But the results also show conservation can bring species back from the brink of extinction, with five percent of currently threatened mammals showing signs of recovery in the wild.

“Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live,” says Julia Marton-Lefèvre, IUCN Director General. “We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives.”

The real situation could be much worse as 836 mammals are listed as Data Deficient. With better information more species may well prove to be in danger of extinction.

“The reality is that the number of threatened mammals could be as high as 36 percent,” says Jan Schipper, of Conservation International and lead author in a forthcoming article in Science. “This indicates that conservation action backed by research is a clear priority for the future, not only to improve the data so that we can evaluate threats to these poorly known species, but to investigate means to recover threatened species and populations.”

The results show 188 mammals are in the highest threat category of Critically Endangered, including the Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus), which has a population of just 84-143 adults and has continued to decline due to a shortage of its primary prey, the European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus).

China’s Père David’s Deer (Elaphurus davidianus), is listed as Extinct in the Wild. However, the captive and semi-captive populations have increased in recent years and it is possible that truly wild populations could be re-established soon. It may be too late, however, to save the additional 29 species that have been flagged as Critically Endangered Possibly Extinct, including Cuba’s Little Earth Hutia (Mesocapromys sanfelipensis), which has not been seen in nearly 40 years.

Nearly 450 mammals have been listed as Endangered, including the Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii), which moved from Least Concern to Endangered after the global population declined by more than 60 percent in the last 10 years due to a fatal infectious facial cancer.

The Fishing Cat (Prionailurus viverrinus), found in Southeast Asia, moved from Vulnerable to Endangered due to habitat loss in wetlands. Similarly, the Caspian Seal (Pusa caspica) moved from Vulnerable to Endangered. Its population has declined by 90 percent in the last 100 years due to unsustainable hunting and habitat degradation and is still decreasing.

Habitat loss and degradation affect 40 percent of the world’s mammals. It is most extreme in Central and South America, West, East and Central Africa, Madagascar, and in South and Southeast Asia. Over harvesting is wiping out larger mammals, especially in Southeast Asia, but also in parts of Africa and South America.

The Grey-faced Sengi or Elephant-shrew (Rhynchocyon udzungwensis) is only known from two forests in the Udzungwa Mountains of Tanzania, both of which are fully protected but vulnerable to fires. The species was first described this year and has been placed in the Vulnerable category.

But it is not all bad news. The assessment of the world’s mammals shows that species can recover with concerted conservation efforts. The Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) moved from Extinct in the Wild to Endangered after a successful reintroduction by the US Fish and Wildlife Service into eight western states and Mexico from 1991-2008. Similarly, the Wild Horse (Equus ferus) moved from Extinct in the Wild in 1996 to Critically Endangered this year after successful reintroductions started in Mongolia in the early 1990s.

The African Elephant (Loxodonta africana) moved from Vulnerable to Near Threatened, although its status varies considerably across its range. The move reflects the recent and ongoing population increases in major populations in southern and eastern Africa. These increases are big enough to outweigh any decreases that may be taking place elsewhere.

“The longer we wait, the more expensive it will be to prevent future extinctions,” says Dr Jane Smart, Head of IUCN’s Species Programme. “We now know what species are threatened, what the threats are and where – we have no more excuses to watch from the sidelines.”

The project to assess the world’s mammals was conducted with help from more than 1,800 scientists from over 130 countries. It was made possible by the volunteer help of IUCN Species Survival Commission’s specialist groups and the collaborations between top institutions and universities, including Conservation International, Sapienza Università di Roma, Arizona State University, Texas A&M University, University of Virginia, and the Zoological Society of London.

More than mammals

Overall, the IUCN Red List now includes 44,838 species, of which 16,928 are threatened with extinction (38 percent). Of these, 3,246 are in the highest category of threat, Critically Endangered, 4,770 are Endangered and 8,912 are Vulnerable to extinction.

New groups of species have appeared on the IUCN Red List for the first time, increasing the diversity and richness of the data. Indian tarantulas, highly prized by collectors and threatened by the international pet trade, have made their first appearance on the IUCN Red List. They face habitat loss due to new roads and settlements. The Rameshwaram Parachute Spider (Poecilotheria hanumavilasumica) has been listed as Critically Endangered as its natural habitat has been almost completely destroyed.

For the first time, all 161 grouper species have been assessed, of which 20 are threatened with extinction. The Squaretail Coral Grouper (Plectropomus areolatus) from the coral reefs of the Indo-Pacific has been listed as Vulnerable. The fish is seen as a luxury live food and is typically fished unsustainably at its spawning aggregations, a major threat for many grouper species.

Amphibians are facing an extinction crisis, with 366 species added to the IUCN Red List this year. There are now 1,983 species (32 percent) either threatened or extinct. In Costa Rica, Holdridge’s Toad (Incilius holdridgei), an endemic species, moved from Critically Endangered to Extinct, as it has not been seen since 1986 despite intensive surveys.

New reptiles assessed this year include the La Palma Giant Lizard (Gallotia auaritae). Found on the Canary Island of La Palma and thought to have become extinct in the last 500 years, it was rediscovered last year and is now listed as Critically Endangered. The Cuban Crocodile (Crocodylus rhombifer) is another Critically Endangered reptile, moved from Endangered because of population declines caused by illicit hunting for its meat and its skin, which is used in clothing.

The Dow Jones Index of biodiversity

The IUCN Sampled Red List Index (SRLI) is a new initiative of the IUCN Red List, developed in collaboration with the Zoological Society of London. It is set to revolutionize our understanding of the conservation status of the world’s species.

The approach takes a randomized sample of species from a taxonomic group to calculate the trends in extinction risk within that group, in much the same way that an exit poll from a polling station can be used to calculate voting trends. This means that it is possible to track the fate of these species, in the same way as the Dow Jones Index tracks the movement of the financial markets.

Although species coverage on the IUCN Red List has increased in number each year, assessments have in general been restricted to the better known species groups such as birds and mammals. As a consequence, until recently the conservation status of less than four percent of the world’s described biodiversity has been known.

It can no longer be considered appropriate to base conservation decisions on such a restricted subset of species and the SRLI, which is more representative of global biodiversity, can be used to provide a broader picture.

“We are now emerging from the dark ages of conservation knowledge, when we relied on data from a highly restricted subset of species,” says Dr Jonathan Baillie, Director of Conservation Programmes at the Zoological Society of London (ZSL). “In the future we will expand the scope of our species knowledge to include a far broader range of groups, thus informing and assisting policy makers in a hugely more objective and representative manner.”

Designed to broaden the types of species covered in the IUCN Red List, the SRLI uses a sample of at least 1,500 species from selected groups to show trends in extinction risk. All the world’s birds, amphibians and mammals have now been assessed for the IUCN Red List. The first results from the SRLI are revealed this year and include results for reptile species, giving us a clearer indication of the status of terrestrial vertebrates, as well as other less well-known groups such as freshwater crabs.

One of the newly assessed freshwater crab species, the Purple Marsh Crab (Afrithelphusa monodosa) from West Africa, was almost completely unknown to science until recently. The first living specimen was found in 2005 and it has been listed as Endangered because of habitat disturbance and deforestation from agriculture in all parts of the Upper Guinea forest.

In the future the SRLI will sample other lesser-known groups such as beetles, molluscs, mushrooms, lichens and plant species like mosses and liverworts, and flowering plants. Over the coming years this new approach, which could be considered the Dow Jones Index for biodiversity, will enable us to build a clearer picture of the status of all the world’s species, not just the furry and feathered.

“Over the years, the rigour of the IUCN Red List process has built it into the ‘global gold standard’ for monitoring the conservation status and trends of species and the threats they face worldwide,” says Dr Holly Dublin, Chair of IUCN’s Species Survival Commission (SSC). “The SSC is the largest and oldest IUCN Commission, its members are proud to contribute their knowledge and expertise to delivering this amazing conservation tool to the world.”