LUSAKA AGREEMENT TASK FORCE (LATF)

SUMMARY REPORT ON SEIZURE DATA IN WILDLIFE ENFORCEMENT MONITORING SYSTEM (WEMS) MARCH 2015 Website: http://lusakaagreement.org/ Email: Administrator@lusakaagreement.org; Tel. +254 722 204 008/9 P.O Box: 3533-00506 Nairobi, KENYA LUSAKA AGREEMENT TASK FORCE (LATF)

SUMMARY REPORT ON SEIZURE DATA IN WILDLIFE ENFORCEMENT MONITORING SYSTEM (WEMS) March 2015 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Wildlife Enforcement Monitoring System (WEMS) developed by the United Nations University (UNU) Japan in cooperation with the Asian Conservation Alliance (ACA) is webbased software for collecting, analyzing and sharing wildlife crime related information. WEMS provides a platform for monitoring trafficking of wildlife and wildlife crime through a joint effort of United Nations bodies, national governments, private industries, civil society and research institutions, by building a common data collection and reporting mechanism at national level. 2.0 WEMS IMPLEMENTATION IN AFRICA Lusaka Agreement Task Force (LATF) is the nodal agency of WEMS in Africa. The implementation of WEMS involved the establishment of a regional environmental governance framework for research and development co-operation between LATF, UNU-Japan and ITC. To this effect, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed in May 2011. The pilot implementation in Africa started in May 2011 involving four (4) member states to the Lusaka Agreement namely Congo, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. A second phase will involve all the Lusaka Agreement member states and thereafter other interested African States. Through WEMS, the pilot countries national wildlife institutions have been brought together to a common information sharing platform on wildlife trafficking and wildlife crime. Each implementing state has established WEMS national focal persons and mandate users responsible for the project at country levels. In 2011 and 2012, LATF with its partners undertook capacity building workshops targeting pilot countries using WEMS to manage knowledge on wildlife crime trends and threat assessments. Since 2011, data on wildlife trafficking and wildlife crime continue to be populated in the WEMS database from the four pilot countries. 2

Cumulative incidents of ivory seizures This document provides the first attempt to make available analysed information to all the national enforcement agencies and international policy makers including UNODC, WCO, INTERPOL and the CITES Secretariat. 3.0 ANALYSIS OF ELEPHANT IVORY SEIZURE DATA IN WEMS The amount of data in WEMS allows for different types of analysis. Of the 534 records in WEMS, only about 370 (69%) records met the criteria for this analysis. Other species other than elephant specimens recorded in WEMS are too few to provide meaningful trends. The analysis therefore provides five (5) parameters as it relates to ivory seizure incidents per country, weight of ivory seized per country, countries of destination of seized ivory, mode of conveyance of the seized ivory and seizure incidents involving other species (Tables 1 5). Of the 370 records analysed, 270 records is attributed to elephant seizure data whilst about 100 records is attributed to other species (Fig. 1 & Table 3). 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2001 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Unknown Congo Brazzaville Kenya Tanzania Uganda Fig.1 Proportion of seizures of elephant ivory per country(2006 2014) 3

Table 1: Quantities of elephant ivory seized per country (weight in kgs) Year Congo Brazzaville Kenya Tanzania Uganda Grand Total 2008 5.5 110.5 116 2009 74 74 2010 137 1505.4 1642.4 2011 199.3 741.4 0 940.7 2012 7 978.55 75 1060.55 2013 97.51 6130.98 1890.83 99 8218.32 2014 227.15 0 0 227.15 Unknown 581 239.2 820.2 Grand Total 1,101.31 8,427.78 3,396.23 174.00 13,099.32 The seizure data in WEMS is explicitly geo-coded and allows the dataset to be spatially rendered to reveal patterns and trends in seizures. The highest numbers of seizures are recorded in the capital cities of Congo, Uganda and Kenya, Tanzania s seizure hotspot is Mpanda in the west of the country. According to WEMS data, Kenya and Tanzania have a relatively high number of seizure locations of elephants and amount of ivory seized (Fig. 2 & Table 1). Fig. 2 Locations of seizures of elephants in Congo, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda As shown in (Table 2) ivory destination countries have been recorded in WEMS. From the data, China ranks first accounting for 12% of the ivory seized followed by Hong Kong (5%). South 4

Korea and Thailand are also recorded but with very insignificant figures. Although Uganda is recorded as a destination Country, it is mainly a source and transit country for elephant ivory. A large amount of ivory seizures is recorded as unknown destination (81%) underscoring the importance of training to enhance the quality of data recorded in WEMS. Table 2: Country of Destination of Elephant ivory seizures (weight kgs) Year China Hong Kong Unknown South Korea Thailand Uganda Grand Total 2008 116 116 2009 74 74 2010 1505.4 137 1642.4 2011 0 688.4 252.3 940.7 2012 1060.55 1060.55 2013 0.5 8127.22 7.6 83 8218.32 2014 5.4 0.5 221.1 0.15 227.15 Unknown 820.2 820.2 Grand Total 1,511.30 688.90 10,808.37 0.15 7.60 83.00 13,099.32 Most of the ivory is conveyed by vehicles (land) in readiness for shipment out of Africa. As shown in (Fig. 3), 71% of the ivory is conveyed by land followed by sea (11%) and by air (1.4%). About 16% of ivory seized, the mode of conveyance is recorded as unknown. 5

Unknown 16% Sea 12% Air 1% Land 71% Fig 3: Percentage of mode of conveyance of seized elephant ivory (2006 2014) 4.0 SEIZURE INCIDENTS OF OTHER SPECIES Other species other than elephants currently recorded in WEMS are too few to show any meaningful trends. Tables 4 & 5 show the countries involved in seizures and quantities of seized per year. 6

Table 3: Specimens seized by countries (2001 2014) Specimens Congo Kenya Uganda Tanzania Total Chameleon 157 157 Hippo teeth 1 1 92 94 Leopard skin 1 42 43 Python skin 43 43 Parrots 25 25 Rhino horn 17 17 Hippo meat 15 15 Shells 15 15 Serval cat skin 12 12 Cheetah skin 8 8 Sea turtle 7 7 Viper snakes 6 6 Gorilla meat 4 4 Crocodile skin 4 4 Lion teeth 3 3 Panther skin 2 2 Baby chimp 1 1 Lion claws 1 1 Total 16 152 289 0 457 Pangolin scales 136.3kg 136.3kg 7

Table 4: Quantity of other specimens seized per year Specimens 2001-2010 2011 2012 2013-2014 Total Chameleon 157 157 Hippo teeth 1 92 1 94 Leopard skin 1 6 27 9 43 Python skin 34 9 43 Parrots 25 25 Rhino horn 1 9 7 17 Hippo meat 15 15 Shells 15 15 Serval cat skin 1 10 1 12 Cheetah skin 7 1 8 Sea turtle 7 7 Viper snakes 6 6 Gorilla meat 4 4 Crocodile skin 4 4 Lion teeth 3 3 Panther skin 2 2 Baby chimp 1 1 Lion claws 1 1 Total 5 34 340 78 457 Pangolin scales 125kg 11.3kg 136.3kg 8

5.0 CORRELATION WITH OTHER SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA WEMS is incorporated with the Harvard s World Map, which includes other data layers such us armed conflicts. Therefore the system can incorporate other socio-economic data from the Harvard library in relation to wildlife crime, in this case a screen shot from the WEMS database showing the same seizure data in relation to armed conflict in the region (Fig. 4). Figure 4: WEMS database showing the elephant seizure data in relation to armed conflict in the region. 6.0 CONCLUSION LATF is committed towards developing WEMS as a tool for managing an effective wildlife information centre in Africa as it places information sharing as a key component in combating wildlife crime in Africa. LATF considers that the effective implementation of WEMS in Africa will impact positively on information sharing and analysis at a global level as well as facilitate 9

good understanding of challenges by its partners and ultimately enhance efficiencies in wildlife conservation. LATF calls upon all partners and stakeholders to support this worthwhile ICT initiative for improved governance in wildlife conservation. 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND WAY FORWARD 1) There is still a lot to be done to ensure that the volume and quality data captured in WEMS is useful for data analysis. A lot of records were not included in the analysis due to lack of key data variables; 2) There is need to ensure that all data captured, possesses the key variables for effective data analysis. This can be enhanced through training of data entry personnel. 3) The geographical scope of data collection is relatively limited and require to be expanded by enrolling more states and expanding countries user networks; 4) Carrying out regular review of WEMS data input by national focal points and training for Headquartered in Nairobi Kenya, LATF is an intergovernmental law enforcement Agency established in 1999 and the Secretariat as well as the operational arm of the Lusaka Agreement on Cooperative Enforcement Operations Directed more national users are critical to enhancing flow of quality data in WEMS; at Illegal Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora, also known as the Lusaka Final Act 1994. The Agreement which is listed as a United 5) Development Nations Environmental of strong Treaty partnerships no XXVII.11, with Registration relevant no organisations 33409, was adopted and supporters in 1994 in Lusaka, is needed Zambia and is open for accession to all African states. LATF is mandated to combat transnational illegal trade in wildlife and forestry resources mainly through fostering inter-state cooperation and collaboration among agencies. It has achieved significant milestones in bridging source, transit and destination countries of wildlife contraband through executing and coordinating national, regional and multi-regional enforcement operations, undertaking capacity building programmes, gathering and sharing of relevant intelligence, carrying out investigations into violations of biodiversity laws and facilitating compliance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and biodiversity related conventions. In discharging its mandate, LATF works closely with and receives support from national enforcement agencies and international partners of mutual interest such as UNEP, CITES, WCO, INTERPOL, UNODC, RECSA, ICCWC COMIFAC Secretariats and Governments. It also collaborates with research institutions e.g. Faculty of Biology Washington University, UNU-Japan, ICT-UT-Netherlands and conservation NGOs such as IFAW, TRAFFIC International, WWF, AWF, WCS etc in supporting government efforts towards combating wildlife crime. The work of LATF is guided by provisions of the Lusaka Final Act1994 and other biodiversity related conventions/agreements/protocols, Operational Rules, Financial Rules, Rules and Procedures and Decisions of the Governing Council of the Parties to Lusaka Agreement and the strategic plan. LATF operations are regularly reviewed by an Implementing Committee comprising Ministers and Experts from member states evaluated by UNEP and annually audited by independent qualified firms appointed by the Governing Council of the Parties. It operates under a legally binding Headquarters Agreement signed with the Government of Kenya in 2001 and has the legal authority to sue and to be sued. Rule of law and compliance, zero tolerance on corruption and respect of human rights, gender equity and transparency, being innovative and outstanding in fighting wildlife crime are key principals of the Lusaka Agreement Task Force. 10