REPORT2012

WILDLIFE CRIMESCORECARD
Assessing compliance with and enforcement of
CITES commitments for tigers, rhinos and elephants

A WWF Report,
produced for the 62nd
meetingof the CITES
A report
Standing
Committee,
producedfor23-27WWF
July 2012byKristin Nowell©WWF-Canon / James Morgan

Contents
Introduction

4

Selection of countries for assessment

6

Compliance and Enforcement	

7

Yardsticks for evaluating compliance and enforcement
Methods for monitoring compliance and enforcement
Compliance and enforcement scoring

Parcs Gabon ecoguards patrol the Oua river in northwest Gabon. Rivers are often used as quick
ways to export poached elephant Ivory and out of the forest.

78
8

Assignment of scores	

9

Discussion of advances and gaps in compliance and enforcemeNT

10Progress along the trade chain
		 Primarily destination countries
		 Countries of origin and transit
		 Countries of origin
Discussion of scores for tigers
Discussion of scores for rhinos and elephants		 Rhinos – Africa and Asia
		 Elephants – Asia
		 Elephants – Central Africa
		 Elephants – Nigeria
		 Elephants – Egypt
		 Elephants and rhinos – East Africa
		 Elephants and rhinos – Southern Africa

12
12
12
13
14
16
16
18
19
21
21
21
22

key recommendations	24

TigersRhinosElephants
		 China
		 Thailand
		 Transit countries
		 Central Africa

24
21
25
25
25
25
26

Annex 1: Country selection procesS

27

Annex 2: Review of recent compliance and enforcement actions in China	

30

References

32

Acknowledgements

32

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 3

Introduction

23©WWF-Canon / James Morgan

International commercial trade of elephants,rhinos and tigers – and their parts and products— is almost universally prohibited by CITES, theinternational endangered species trade convention, however theenforcement of this restriction remains weak. Illegal trade in ivory,
rhino horn and tiger parts is of major conservation concern.

While CITES mainly prohibits or regulates international trade, it has continued to
expand its role to prevent illegal trade at the national level through the adoption of various“Decisions” and “Resolutions”. This is critical to ensure illegal trade at national levels does
not lead to international trade dynamics that undermine the conservation of elephants,rhinos and tigers, in addition to the effectiveness of the Convention itself. The approachto each species group differs, but all include national measures to control not onlyinternational, but also internal trade in the species’ parts, derivatives and products:• For tigers, it is recommended that internal trade be “prohibited”(Res Conf. 12.5 Rev. CoP15 );• For rhinos, it is recommended that such trade be “restricted”

range, •transit anddestination
countries
implicated inillegal tradeof elephant,rhino andtiger
products
assessed(Res Conf. 9.14 Rev. CoP15);

For elephants, “unregulated domestic sale of ivory [is to] to be prohibited”
under the Action Plan for the Control of Trade in Elephant Ivory Decision 13.26
Rev. CoP15 Annex 2).

Other common themes include strengthening law enforcement; coordination withother countries; improved data collection; enacting deterrent legal penalties forillegal trade; and raising public awareness, especially among user groups. Tigers,
rhinos and elephants were the subject of renewed and substantial concern at the 15th
meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP15) in 2010 and the 61st meetingof the CITES Standing Committee (SC61) in 2011, specifically in regard to the scaleof illegal trade.
This report, produced to coincide with the 62nd meeting of the CITES Standing
Committee (in July 2012), selects 23 range, transit and consumer countries from Asia
and Africa facing the highest levels of illegal trade in elephant ivory, rhino horn andtiger parts (Annex 1), and evaluates their progress since CoP15 towards compliancewith and enforcement of CITES commitments for these three species groups. Countries
are scored green, yellow and red to signal recent implementation effort, and indicate
whether governments are moving in the right direction to curb illegal trade in these
species groups, or to indicate whether they have made little progress. Recent actions
underpinning the country scores are discussed, and recommendations are made forall countries to improve compliance and enforcement, but with focus on key countries
identified in this assessment as urgently needing to show progress.

It is important to note that illegal internal trade in these three species groups persistsin virtually all of the selected countries, however this report seeks to differentiate
countries where it is actively being countered from those where current efforts are
entirely inadequate. It should also be noted that a green score of all three species
groups does not mean that the country in question is free of wildlife crime. In manycases there are widespread problems concerning illegal trade in other species, such as
reptiles and primates. Moreover, some of these countries are performing poorly interms of other conservation governance indicators and threats to the three species
groups, such as the integrity of protected areas (WWF, 2012a).
Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 4

Ivory tusks seized from illegal trade are labelled and stacked after TRAFFIC & WWF audit inpreparation for the burning of Gabon’s ivory stockpile.

selection ofcountries forassessment

In the scope of this analysis, it was notpossible to carry out an assessment for all three
species groups of every country involved in
the international illegal trade chain (origin,transit and destination).

In the interests of fairness and transparency, a measured
pproach was required to select a subset of key countries, rather
than simply relying on anecdotal information. The approach
was essentially a quantitative one, based on reports and databases of the TRAFFIC
network, details of which are set out in Annex 1. The list of countries selected forfurther analysis is shown below.

Countries are classified according to their primary role in the trade chain when all
three species groups are considered together, but these groupings are not clear-cut.
For example, concerning ivory, Viet Nam and Thailand are also countries of transit(particularly for African elephant ivory) as well as origin (Asian elephant ivory).
Central African countries are another example, grouped as primarily origin due tosubstantial losses in national elephant populations, although all have seen
substantial cross-border flows of illegal ivory.
Table 1. Countries selected for scorecard assessment
Primarily destination

Transit and origin

Primarily origin

China
Egypt
Thailand
Viet Nam

Kenya
Laos
Malaysia
Mozambique
MyanmarNigeria
Nepal
Tanzania
ZambiaCameroon
Central African Republic
Congo
Democratic Republicof Congo
Gabon
India
Indonesia
RussiaSouth Africa
Zimbabwecompliance andenforcement

The above countries are assessed forcompliance and enforcement in the period since
CoP15 (June 2010-June 2012), using methods
which have precedent in CITES procedures(Guide to CITES Compliance Procedures,
annexed to Resolution Conf. 14.3).

Colour scores modelled on traffic signals (red, yellow, green) are given as a simplified
indicator of government progress toward implementation of CITES Decisions andResolutions for the target species. Countries are evaluated only for the species groups
flagged in the country selection process (so that Indonesia and Malaysia, for example,
while being important rhino range countries, are not given rhino scores, as they were notflagged in the country selection process for illegal trade) (Annex 1).
Compliance refers to the alignment of national policy with CITES requirements, as
described below, and enforcement refers to recent actions taken against wildlife crime.
Compliance and enforcement are determined to be generally good or failing in regard to
implementation of the CITES requirements. This is not to say that there has been aresultant drop in wildlife crime pertaining to the target species. All the countries
selected are facing serious levels of crime associated with these species (and also withmany other species groups). This scorecard simply evaluates how well they are
employing the resources available to them to combat it.

Yardsticks for evaluating compliance and enforcement
Compliance and enforcement are evaluated on the basis of the following CITES
Decisions and Resolutions, with particular attention to the key elements common to
all three species groups:

Table 2. Countries selected for compliance and enforcement assessment
Tiger

Rhino

Elephant

Conservationof and trade intigers and other
Appendix I Asianbig cat species
Res Conf. 12.5
(Rev. COP15)
and Decisions
14.66-69

Conservationof and trade in
Africanand Asian
Rhinoceroses
Res Conf. 9.14
(Rev. COP15)

Action Plan for the Control ofTrade in Elephant Ivory (Decision
13.26 (Rev. COP15) Annex 2) andassociated elements of the Res.
Conf. 10.10 (Rev. COP15):
Regarding control of internal
ivory trade;
Selected elements of the African
Elephant Action Plan (Decision 14.75
and COP15 Inf 68):
* Enact adequate penalties (AECP 		
Activity 1.3.1.)* Develop regional law enforcement
networks (AECP Activity 1.1.4)* Enforce CITES provisions onivory trade (AECP Activity 1.4.2)
Continued

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 6

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 7

Compliance and enforcement

Common elements include:
•
•
•
•
•
•

National policies permitting no uncontrolled internal trade
Strengthened law enforcement
International coordination
Improved data collection for wildlife crime analysis
Enactment of penalties that would constitute credible deterrents
Raising public awareness to reduce demand and increase compliance,
especially among user groups

assignmentof scores

Countries are listed in alphabetical order. The scores should not be interpreted asindicative of countries having solved their wildlife crime problems – since the three
species groups are threatened with unprecedented levels of poaching and illegal tradepressure – but rather of the degree of effort governments have directed since CoP15
towards this goal. Green denotes substantial levels of compliance and enforcement
which should be continued and strengthened. Yellow is a warning that key aspects ofeither compliance or enforcement fall short, and Red signals that little progress has
been made. Constraints facing many governments are acknowledged; corruption is apersistent problem and wildlife authorities are often under-resourced. Compliance andenforcement pose steep challenges, but these challenges must be met and it would
appear that, at least in some cases, lack of political will, rather than lack of resources,
is the primary impediment.

While evaluation emphasis was placed on the common elements, key elements
pertaining only to certain species were also included, such as provisions related topreventing trade in captive tiger parts and provisions relating to controls forinternal ivory trade.

Methods for monitoring compliance and enforcement
Compliance and enforcement were monitored on the basis of government
announcements covered in the media, other news reports, documents for CITESStanding Committee meetings 61 and 62, documents for the May 2012 Tiger
Stocktaking meeting in India, published market surveys by TRAFFIC and other NGOs,
and unpublished information collected by TRAFFIC offices. Although employing
different information sources, this method was modelled on that outlined in the Guide
to CITES Compliance Procedures: “Annual and biennial reports, legislative texts aswell as other special reports and responses to information requests, for example within
the Review of Significant Trade or the National Policy Project, provide the primary,
but not exclusive, means of monitoring compliance with obligations under theConvention” (Res. Conf. 14.3 para. 15).

Compliance and enforcement scoring
Countries are scored green, yellow or red in an assessment of their recent efforts tocomply with and enforce CITES trade controls for the three species groups.
Table
3. Country species score for period June 2010-June 2012
		

••
•

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 8

Table 4.

Compliance and enforcement scores 		
for destination countries*

Table 6.

Compliance and enforcementscores for countries of origin

CountryTiger• • •••• •• ••Country

Tiger

China

Rhino

Elephant

Egypt			Thailand
Viet Nam

Table 5.

General progress in key aspects of compliance and enforcement
Failing on key aspects of compliance or enforcement

Country

Failing on key aspects of compliance and enforcement

Kenya

The Guide to CITES Compliance Procedures (Res. Conf. 14.3) highlights “appropriate
domestic measures” as an area of particular attention for compliance matters, e.g.,“para. 2c taking appropriate domestic measures to enforce the provisions of theConvention and prohibit trade in violation thereof.” Domestic measures evaluated forthis report include compliance with and enforcement of Decisions and Resolutions(the yardsticks) relating to international as well as internal trade controls. Progressin enforcement was assessed based on governments’ capacity and use of resources
available to them. Countries differ from one another in these regards but, after this istaken into account, the scores represent a comparative indication of their willingness
or otherwise to tackle the problems they face.

Country compliance and enforcement scores arepresented in three tables according to the country’s
position along the international illegal trade chain:primarily destination (Table 1), transit and origin(Table 2), and primarily origin (Table 3).

Laos
Malaysia

Compliance and enforcement scoresfor origin and transit countries
Tiger

••
••

Mozambique		Myanmar
Nepal

••
••
•
••

Rhino

Nigeria			
Tanzania		
Zambia		

••
••
••
••
•

Elephant

Cameroon

		

•
••
•
•
•• • ••
• • •
• •
Rhino

Elephant

Central African
Republic			
Congo			Democratic			Republic of Congo			Gabon			IndiaIndonesia
RussiaSouth Africa		
Zimbabwe		* Note: A blank space indicates that the species is
not applicable for the country in question

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 9

1500
enforcement

officers
trained by
Traffic in
SE Asia since2009©WWF-Canon / James Morgan

Discussion ofadvances and gaps
in complianceand enforcement

There were important advancesin compliance in 2010-2012, withintroduction of stricter legislation, wildlife
trade controls and penalties in a numberof countries, including China, India, Laos,
Malaysia, Nigeria, Russia, South Africa
and Zimbabwe.

Other countries have policy improvements in process,including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya,
Myanmar, Russia (amendments to legislation increasing
criminal penalties), Tanzania, Thailand and Viet Nam(Anon., 2011a; Govt. of India, 2011; GTI, 2012; Guvamombe, 2010; Khan, 2011; Milliken
and Shaw, in prep.; Nowell et al., 2011; Saving Rhinos, 2012b; SC62 Doc. 46.2; SC62
SumRec; Thome, 2011; TRAFFIC, in prep.). However, major prosecutions for wildlife
crime are still rare, and overall the scoring shows that enforcement has lagged behindcompliance, indicating that many countries are not fully making full use of the policy
tools they have set in place.

One common gap in enforcement is the lack of clear jurisdictional authority and effective
coordination mechanisms for relevant government agencies involved in law enforcement,
including wildlife authorities, police, customs authorities, commerce, the judiciaryand others (SC Doc. 43 Annex, Ringuet and Ngandjui, 2012). China (NICECG, 2012),
South Africa (Milliken and Shaw, in prep.), India, and Nepal (TRAFFIC, pers. comm.
2012) are examples of countries that have recently established such mechanisms, whichshould prove a model for adoption elsewhere. Capacity-building and raising awarenessof wildlife crime across this spectrum of government agencies is also important. In its
capacity-building activities in Southeast Asia since 2009, TRAFFIC has provided CITES
implementation training to more than 1,500 officials, ranging from protected area
rangers to frontline enforcement officers (customs and police), investigators, members of
the judiciary (senior judges and prosecutors) and border control officers. Increased effort
is being put into building the capacity of agencies to conduct their own training (Beastall
and Yee, 2011).
Another is the collection and analysis of trade data as a tool for intelligence-based law
enforcement. While country provision of data to the Elephant Trade Information System(ETIS) is improving (SC Doc. 46.1), the CITES Secretariat is still urging more scrupulous
participation in the system (CITES Notification 2012/034). The Secretariat has struggled
to collect adequate data on rhino and tiger trade for wildlife crime analysis (SC61 Doc.
41 Annex 1, SC Doc. 47.2), and it is recommended that Parties participate in creating
centralized databases, building on models developed by TRAFFIC (CoP15 Doc. 45.1
Annex 1; Verheij et al., 2010; Stoner, 2012).
However, there have been many recent advances in enforcement which should
be continued and strengthened. These include international cooperation on law
enforcement, with new regional networks set up in South Asia (TRAFFIC, 2012a) andunder establishment in Central Africa (SC62 Doc. 30); international enforcement actions
coordinated by the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC)
and Interpol (Interpol website), a Heads of Police and Customs Seminar on Tiger Crime
held in Thailand in 2012 (SC62 Doc. 43 Annex), convening of the CITES Ivory and Rhino
Enforcement Task Force in 2011 (SC61 Doc. 44.1), and the first Technical Exchange
Meeting between producing, consuming, and transiting nations to reduce the illegal
trade in African elephant ivory in China in 2010 (SC61 Doc. 44.7). In Southeast Asia, theWildlife Crime Scorecard page 10

Two convicted poachers are handcuffed at the jail in Oyem, Gabon. Elephant poaching carries
a three year sentence in the country.

Discussion of advances and gaps in compliance and enforcement

Discussion of advances and gaps in compliance and enforcement

CITES Secretariat and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) are preparing
to train border guards in countries of the Greater Mekong region, including China,
Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and Viet Nam among others (SC62 Doc. 29). There werealso advances in cooperation between countries playing different roles along thetrade chain, for example meetings between South African and Vietnamese officials
concerning rhino horn trade (although these have yet to bear real fruit) (Milliken
and Shaw, in prep.), and creation of a Russo-Chinese working group for Amur tiger
conservation (GTI, 2012). China has also increased its outreach to African countries
as well as South and Southeast Asia (Annex 2). Advances were also made with moregovernments using DNA analysis and other laboratory tests to determine origin ofseized tiger, rhino and elephant products (Ogden, 2012; SC Doc’s 46.1 and 47.2).

Progress along the trade chain
Primarily destination countries
There are few green species’ scores for countries that are primarily destinations fortiger and rhino products, and none for elephant ivory, indicating a serious lack ofprogress. Major gaps in enforcement at the retail market level are primarily responsible
for the failing scores in destination countries, while Egypt, Thailand and Viet Nam
fail for key areas of compliance as well. It is critical that demand countries, including
China, Thailand and Viet Nam, urgently and dramatically improve enforcement effort
to crack down on illegal wildlife trade in their countries.
Overall, the components of demand reduction and public awareness represent
a significant gap in implementation of CITES commitments in these countries.
International wildlife crime is demand-driven, and it is recommended that China
and Viet Nam, in particular, prioritize the development and implementation of wellresearched demand reduction campaigns. Targeted strategies should be developed
to influence consumer behaviour around tiger parts, rhino horn, and ivory of illegal
origin. Such strategies should include working closely with user groups, including
the traditional medicine community, along the lines of the programme advanced by arecent creative experts’ workshop (TRAFFIC, 2012d) and included in the Global Tiger
Recovery Programme’s 2012 work plan (GTI, 2012). Egypt, Thailand and China need toincrease their efforts to educate consumers about the rules regarding ivory purchases.
While recognizing the efforts already undertaken (e.g., SC62 Doc. 46.2; Milliken andShaw, in prep.; Annex 2), China, Thailand and Viet Nam should increase efforts to
educate their citizens travelling abroad about the illegality of returning with tiger,
rhino and elephant products. The CoP15 ETIS analysis found that (since 1989) Chinese
nationals have been arrested within or coming from Africa in at least 134 ivory seizure
cases, totalling more than 16 tonnes of ivory, and another 487 cases representing
almost 25 tonnes of ivory originating from Africa was seized en route to China (CoP15
Doc. 44.1 Annex).
Countries of origin and transit
There are also few green species’ scores for countries of origin and transit. Nepal
was recognized by the CITES Secretariat for its development of community-based
intelligence networks, and 2011 was the first zero poaching year for rhinos in Nepal, inmarked contrast to the trend in Africa (SC Doc. 47.2). Transit countries, and indeed all
countries, need to prioritize enhancement of the capacity of their customs and bordercontrol authorities to intercept smuggling of wildlife products (SC62 Doc’s 29, 43.2 and46.1). This includes training, awareness-raising and vigilance against corruption, as
well as use of technology and tools such as sniffer dogs, which have been successfully
deployed in Kenyan airports to detect ivory (KWS, 2012) and are being extended to use
in the port of Mombasa (WWF, unpublished information). Sniffer dogs are also being

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 12

introduced in China (WWF, 2011a), and used in DRC, India and Russia to track poachers(GTI, 2012; Merode, 2012; WWF, 2012d).
Countries of origin
There are several green species’ scores for the countries of origin which have served
as the major sources of supply for international illegal trade, showing that a number ofrange states have made progress in compliance and enforcement. Since many of themstill experience high levels of poaching, the ultimate effectiveness of their efforts remains
to be proven, although there are indications that enhanced enforcement is providing
a mitigating effect in countries such as India (TigerNet Mortality database), Indonesia(which has protected critical populations of two Critically Endangered rhinoceros
species with its anti-poaching patrols [Fidelis, 2012; Konstant, 2012], to the extent thatthe country was one of the few in Asia not flagged for significant illegal trade in rhinohorn), Nepal (where zero tigers as well as rhinos were lost to poaching in 2011: GTI,
2012), Russia (GTI, 2012) and South Africa (Milliken and Shaw, in prep.). Complianceand enforcement for countries of origin have been best implemented protecting wild
populations on the ground. These countries have all made progress implementing
intelligence-based and analytical anti-poaching systems (Law Enforcement Monitoring:LEM) (GTI, 2012), an approach which is now being adopted by Kenya (Koros, 2011) andother countries in southern Africa. Several countries, notably India and Nepal, have alsoestablished specialized wildlife crime agencies and units to improve enforcement up thetrade chain (GTI, 2012).
While Russia is generally in compliance regarding CITES and tigers, important gaps
remain in legislative protections. A working group of the parliament (State Duma) has
held three hearings to improve national legislation on conservation and protection of
threatened species, including tigers (Kovalchuk, 2011). Many recommendations identified
by a recent assessment of Russian legislation carried out by WWF and TRAFFIC(Vaisman, 2012) were officially accepted for inclusion in the portfolio of proposals before
the State Duma, and swift action upon these recommendations is desirable. Russia
received a CITES Certificate
Compared to Asia, scores are lower for compliance and enforcement in Africa,
particularly in Central Africa. This could in part reflect a lack of resources, although
Nepal’s efforts in this regard could provide a model approach, particularly thedevelopment of its community-based intelligence networks (SC62 Doc. 47.2). However,corruption and lack of political will to combat illegal wildlife trade are also a major
problem, with poor governance in Central Africa consistently linked to high levels ofillegal ivory trade (CoP14 Doc. 53.2; CoP15 Doc. 44.1 Annex). Central Africa also
attracts more Chinese nationals than any other sub-region of Africa, which has
exacerbated the illegal ivory trade. Given the escalation of elephant poaching in Central
Africa and the increased levels of organized crime involved in the trade (SC62 Doc.
46.1), it is clear that the situation is now critical. In addition, recent studies of elephantmeat trade in Central Africa found that it has a high earning potential as a prestigious
bushmeat, providing additional economic incentive for the illegal killing of elephantsin the region (IUCN, 2012a).
While most Central African countries face national crises of elephant poaching, theyalso need to strengthen their regional cooperation to counter illegal ivory flows acrossnational borders. Enforcement agencies from both Cameroon and Central African
Republic indicate that significant amounts of ivory are trafficked across their respective
boundaries from northern Congo and Gabon. DNA testing has implicated Gabon as amajor source behind some of the largest ivory movements in ETIS. Ivory also crosses
borders with DRC (CoP15 Doc. 44.1 Annex; WWF, unpublished information). In addition,
Sudan and Chad are linked into the picture. Recently, well-armed bands of poachers –Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 13

Discussion of advances and gaps in compliance and enforcement

allegedly from Sudan and coming through Chad and/or CAR – have penetrated deep
into Central African Republic and Cameroon territory in search of ivory.
At present it is not clear how the ivory that is allegedly taken by Sudanese poachers finds
its way onto the international market (since it is unlikely that the domestic clientele
in that country is sufficient to make poaching profitable). This is an issue that merits
investigation.

13
countries

endorsed the
Global Tiger
Recovery
Programin 2010An associated issue of concern is the flow of arms in Central Africa and the highinvolvement of some national military forces in poaching. In recent years, significant
numbers of AK-47s have been confiscated in Central African Republic and Cameroon,and can be easily obtained in Congo for prices as low as US$40 (WWF, unpublishedinformation). This flow of arms, driven by a desire to poach elephants, exacerbates theease at which ivory is harvested from the forest, increases risks to people, and increases
risks of arms being used in local conflicts.

discussion scores for tigers
Compared to African elephants, Asian elephants and African rhinos (though not, ofcourse, Asian rhinos), tigers have a much lower extant wild population and so are much
more vulnerable to illegal trade. Consequently, even relatively low absolute volumes oftrade pose a problem. Moreover, CITES has not agreed an external assessment process
for tigers equivalent to MIKE/ ETIS for elephants or the IUCN-TRAFFIC report that is
produced at each Conference of the Parties for rhinos.
Nevertheless, tigers are the species for which green country scores are most numerous,
indicating that significant progress has been made by governments. Much of that successcan be credited to the Global Tiger Recovery Programme, developed and endorsed by
13 tiger range countries at a Heads of State Tiger Summit in Russia at the end of 2010.
Still, TRAFFIC’s tiger seizure database found that seizures increased from an averageof more than 175 tigers (minimum) per year from 2006-2008 to more than 200 tigers
per year (minimum) in 2009-2011 (Stoner, 2012). Progress in enforcement is evident,
and increasing seizures may be a reflection of this, but wild tigers remain under serious
poaching threat and enforcement of trade controls must be further strengthened.
Intelligence-led enforcement would benefit from a more robust data collection system(SC61 Doc. 41 Annex 1), with governments directly providing information on seizures toa centralized database (Stoner, 2012).
Elimination of demand for tiger products (GTI, 2012) and preventing parts andderivatives from entering illegal trade from or through captive breeding facilities (Res.
Conf. 12.5 and Decision 14.69) are viewed as key requirements for tiger conservation ininternational agreements. Two countries failed on both compliance and enforcement
related to CITES requirements regarding captive tigers – Laos and Viet Nam. While
Viet Nam (and Laos, to a lesser degree), has clearly dedicated effort to enforcing its
policy prohibiting internal trade in tiger products (TRAFFIC Tiger Seizures database),these efforts are undermined by the government’s consideration of allowing trade incaptive tigers, and it appears that captive tigers are supplying a substantial proportionof the illegal trade, given the relatively high number of carcasses seized (SC61 Doc.
41 Annex 1) and the small tiger population in Viet Nam. In 2007, Viet Nam permitted
the establishment of “pilot breeding farms” for tigers, and in a 2012 report to thePrime Minister, the Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development (the CITESManagement Authority) described three facilities and proposed that “dead tigers [fromcaptive facilities] can be used to make specimens and traditional medicine on a pilot
basis” (MARD, 2012). A letter from conservation NGOs based in Viet Nam has urged
the Prime Minister to reject the proposal, as it will undermine enforcement, Viet
Nam’s commitment to reduce demand for tiger products in the Global Tiger Recovery

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 14

Discussion of advances and gaps in compliance and enforcement

Programme, and its responsibilities under CITES (Viet Nam NGOs, 2012). Viet Nam
also needs to develop a policy and enforcement mechanism to address the issue of
online advertisements for tiger products (as with rhinos: Milliken and Shaw, in prep.).
Although Laos has shown strong political will for tiger conservation, with a speechby the country’s President at the Heads of State Tiger Summit in Russia in 2010, andmade progress towards improving administration of legal protections for tigers, withestablishment of a new Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and upgrading
the conservation agency to the Department of Forest Resource Management, it lacks
controls to prevent parts from captive tigers entering into illegal trade, especially toViet Nam, and has not made this an implementation priority (GTI, 2012).
In 2010, Vietnamese journalists gained access to a large tiger (and other exotic animal)
breeding farm near Thakhek, Laos, not far from the Vietnamese border. The wellguarded facility is owned in part by Vietnamese nationals, and one owner told thejournalists that their main business was delivering tiger carcasses to Viet Nam formaking tiger bone medicine (Anon., 2012c). Companies in Laos and Viet Nam alsobegan importing lion bone and lions of captive origin from South Africa in 2009, withagents from one of the Laotian companies also being prosecuted for illegal trade inrhino horn in South Africa (Macleod, 2012). While the end-use of the lion bones is
not known, it is likely that they are feeding into illegal internal markets for tiger bone
medicine. Laos and Viet Nam should clearly enforce prohibitions against the use of
captive big cats to supply internal and international trade.
China has been identified as one of the main destination markets for the international
illegal tiger trade (Verheij et al., 2010), and is home to some of the world’s largest
collections of captive tigers, whose owners have advocated strongly for permission to
use these animals to make tiger bone medicines (Nowell and Xu, 2007). China received
a green score, however, for compliance and enforcement, indicative of significant
progress implementing CITES requirements since 2010 (see Annex 2 for details).
In 2006-2007 China reassessed its 1993 policy prohibiting internal trade in tiger
products and the use of tiger bone as medicine (Nowell and Xu, 2007). In 2009-2010
the government made a series of announcements that the policy of prohibition would
continue (CoP15 Inf. 16, SC61 Doc. 41 Annex 2, Nowell et al., 2011). China has tightened
regulation of animals in captivity, with particular attention to its large captive tiger
population, although it is unclear if these measures are being enforced to a degreesufficient to prevent illegal trade from these facilities (Nowell et al., 2011). While a 2007
regulation (SFA, 2007) permits trade in tiger skins which have been registered withthe authorities and determined to be legally acquired, market monitoring by TRAFFIC(unpublished information) has not found evidence that this potential loophole is being
exploited nor that such trade is being condoned by authorities. While substantial
numbers of tiger products, especially tiger bone wine claiming to be pre-Convention(EIA, 2012) or legally derived from captive animals (Nowell et al., 2011) have been
advertised on Internet sites, China substantially increased its policing of online tradein June 2012, introducing new regulations and cooperating with 15 major Internet
auction sites, which signed a declaration stating they have a zero-tolerance policy
towards their services being used to conduct illegal wildlife trading (TRAFFIC, 2012b).
It is too soon to assess the full impact of these measures, but preliminary monitoring
indicates a substantial reduction (more than 65 per cent) of illegal advertisements
for tiger products (TRAFFIC, unpublished information). China carried out several
sweeping enforcement actions in 2010-2012 specifically targeting illegal trade in tiger
products (Annex 2), and demonstrated strong political will and commitment with anunprecedented speech by Premier Wen Jiabao at the 2010 Heads of State Tiger Summit
in Russia (Govt. of China, 2010).

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 15

Discussion of advances and gaps in compliance and enforcement

China’s green score for tigers is contingent upon their continued policy of prohibition, andthere should be more active monitoring of captive facilities to prevent illegal trade. The
same is true for Thailand, which, like Viet Nam, has a high proportion of tiger carcasses
in its recent seizures (SC61 Doc. 41 Annex 1). Thailand has reported on the status of its
numerous captive tiger facilities in detail to CITES, and is carrying out DNA testing on
seized tiger carcasses to try to determine their origin (SC61 Doc. 43 Annex 3). A CITES
Certificate of Commendation was awarded for their interception of a smuggled live tiger
cub at the Bangkok airport, and subsequent public awareness efforts in the Asian Year of
the Tiger (CITES Notif. 2012/030).

2011-12saw thehighest levelsof poaching
and illegal
trade in rhino
horn andivory in many
years

Myanmar’s national wildlife trade controls have been categorized as not generally incompliance with CITES (CITES Notif. 2012/036), which has been noted as a deficiency forcontrolling illegal tiger trade (Shepherd and Nijman, 2008a), but it is strengthening its
legal protections for tigers with a new draft environmental law completed and submitted
for enactment (GTI, 2012). It failed on enforcement, however, reporting few seizures
despite a well-documented trade in tiger and other big cat parts and products – especiallyin border towns (Oswell, 2010). Although Indonesia has increased its efforts to protect
wild tiger populations and detect illegal trade (GTI, 2012), there remains a significant
enforcement gap for tigers at the retail level, with Sumatra having a significant illegal
domestic market for tiger parts, as outlined in TRAFFIC surveys (Ng and Nemora, 2007

discussion scores for rhinos and elephants
In Africa, there are no green scores for rhinos and few for elephants. Indeed, 2011-2012
registered the highest levels of poaching and illegal trade in rhino horn and ivory in many
years (SC62, Doc’s 46.1 and 47.2). Widespread failures of compliance and enforcementin Africa are in part due to the relative lack of resources available to these countries, butlack of political will is also a factor. Whatever the cause, given the escalation of this illegal
trade, its level of organized criminal involvement, and the threat it now poses not just to
wildlife but to national security, stability and human lives; it is imperative that implicatedcountries undertake a significant up-scaling of enforcement and compliance. The more
prosperous countries of Asia, which are the destinations of illegally exported rhino hornand elephant ivory, are urged to increase their support for wildlife crime control in Africa.
Rhinos – Africa and Asia
South Africa, the epicentre of the African rhino poaching crisis, received a yellow score
for failing on key areas of enforcement, as outlined by recommendations for improvement
in a recent TRAFFIC report (Milliken and Shaw, in prep.). The report acknowledges that
South Africa has made great strides in compliance and enforcement since 2009-2010,
and it is possible that the increasing number of arrests and breaking up of organizedcrime syndicates linked to Southeast Asia has started to pay off (Milliken and Shaw,in prep.). However, the absolute numbers of rhinos poached is still increasing (Saving
Rhinos, 2012a), and South Africa is urged to address the recommendations in the
TRAFFIC report, while working with Viet Nam, and other implicated Asian countries oninternational enforcement coordination.
Viet Nam, the major destination for South African rhino horn, has not shown nearly thesame level of effort (Milliken and Shaw, in prep.), and received a red score for rhinos,
failing on compliance and enforcement. While Viet Nam made a number of seizures ofillegal rhino horns from 2004-2008 (numbering several tens), since 2008 there haveapparently been none (SC62 Doc. 47.2; Milliken and Shaw, in prep.). A review of Viet
Nam’s national policy and legislation with a specific focus on rhino horn trade is needed
to identify and close gaps and legal loopholes which currently give rise to rhino horn tradeand consumption. Special attention should be paid to the following issues, as outlined byMilliken and Shaw (in prep.): legal penalties adequate to serve as a deterrent for illegal
trade and possession; and legal measures sufficient to curtail illegal trade on the Internet;

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 16

Discussion of advances and gaps in compliance and enforcement

and to ensure that imports of hundreds of rhino horn trophies from South Africa inrecent years have been for non-commercial purposes as required under the white rhino’s
Appendix II annotation (“for the exclusive purpose of allowing international tradein live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations and in hunting trophies:”
Ceratotherium simum simum, CITES Appendix II ). Many Vietnamese nationals havebeen arrested or implicated in South Africa for acquiring rhino horns illegally (including
diplomats), but there has been little evident enforcement follow-up on information
provided by the South African authorities (Milliken and Shaw, in prep.). Viet Nam isurged to strengthen enforcement effort and provide effective deterrents to any of its
nationals who may be engaged in illegal rhino horn trade.
While Thailand is not a major destination for rhino horn, Thai citizens with Laotian
connections have been deeply involved with rhino crime in South Africa (Milliken andShaw, in prep.), and both Thai and Lao authorities need to improve their investigationof their citizens’ links to organized rhino crime. Myanmar has been implicated in the
movements of poached Indian rhino horn to China (CoP15 Doc. 45.1 Annex 1, Ching,2011) and needs to strengthen international coordination on enforcement. According to
CITES trade data, Myanmar imported six live white rhinos from South Africa in recent
years, for unclear purposes (Saving Rhinos, 2012c). None of the ASEAN countries are
fully compliant with Res Conf 9.14 pertaining to rhino horn stock pile recording andsecurity. However, some ASEAN nations reported no rhino horn seizures in the past 10
years, indicating no need (or perceived need) for stockpile procedures. Viet Nam andThailand, the main seizing countries, are not fully compliant with the recommendations
for stockpile management, according to a recent assessment (TRAFFIC, in prep.).
China was the only country to receive a green score for rhinos. On the face of it, thismay seem extraordinary given China’s strong historical tradition of using rhino horn
medicine (SC62 Doc. 47.2 Annex) and an escalating number of rhinos poached in Africa.
However, China has made progress on both compliance and enforcement for rhinos
in recent years (see Annex 2 for details). Its 1993 policy banning the use of rhino horn
medicine continues, and an entrepreneurial project to breed white rhinos imported fromSouth Africa for their horns (SC Doc. 47.2 Annex) has not been given permission by thegovernment to engage in any rhino horn trade (TRAFFIC, unpublished information).
According to monitoring of major Chinese e-commerce websites, the availability ofillegal rhino horn items dropped by more than 70 per cent (TRAFFIC, unpublishedinformation) after major enforcement actions in April and June 2012, as described in
more detail in Annex 2. While comprehensive surveys of traditional pharmacies in
China have not been carried out in recent years, in 2006 TRAFFIC found that only about
2 per cent of hundreds of retail outlets investigated across the country were apparently
engaged in illegal trade (SC62 Doc. 47.2 Annex), and there is little indication this
proportion has changed much (TRAFFIC, unpublished information).
The role and dimensions of China (and Thailand) in the illegal international rhino horn
trade remain somewhat out-of-focus and imprecise, but based on available information
it is Viet Nam that appears to be the major destination market (Milliken and Shaw, inprep.). However, the growing influx of illegal African ivory provides an opportunity forcriminals to also attempt to smuggle rhino horn, as shown in a recent case. Authorities
in Hong Kong seized 33 rhino horns as well as worked ivory in November 2011, an action
for which a CITES Certificate of Commendation was awarded to them (CITES Notif.
2012/020). After SC61, the CITES Secretariat issued a confidential enforcement Alert toParties regarding import of rhinoceros horn to China (SC62 Doc. 29). The substance of
CITES Alerts are not public information, but the CITES Secretariat has recommended
enhanced enforcement between China and South Africa on rhino crime (SC62 Doc.
47.2). China must continue to strengthen its intelligence-led enforcement and, as withtigers, direct more effort toward demand reduction and continued monitoring of captive
populations to prevent illegal trade.
Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 17

Discussion of advances and gaps in compliance and enforcement

Mozambique received a red score for rhinos due to the involvement of their nationals
in poaching in South Africa (Milliken and Shaw, in prep.), with the government having
failed to show progress in complying with the recommendation of Res. Conf. 9.14 tocoordinate internationally, and enforce their border areas. Zimbabwe has struggled toprotect its rhinos on the ground, handing down stiff sentences to poachers (including
would-be poachers) and engaging in deadly shoot-outs. However, it is failing on key areasof enforcement: its military and police have been heavily implicated in rhino crimes andsubsequent prosecutions are yielding variable results (CoP15 Doc. 45.1 Annex 1; WWF,
2011b; McLachlin, 2011).
Elephants – Asia

Africanivory slips
throughlegalloopholes
onto Thai
markets

Many countries received red scores for elephants, indicating major deficiencies incompliance and enforcement, mostly for regulatory deficiencies and lack of enforcement
regarding domestic ivory markets. In Asia these include Laos (Nijman and Shepherd,2012), Myanmar (Shepherd and Nijman, 2008b), and Thailand (Stiles, 2009; SC62 Doc.
46.2). These reports make detailed recommendations for improvement. The ivory trade
prohibitions in Myanmar, where ivory is largely obtained from wild Asian elephants andhas decimated populations, need to be enforced and loopholes closed that allow ivory to
be sold from elephants dying of “natural causes” (Shepherd and Nijman, 2008b). Laosalso needs to enforce its ivory trade ban, as nearly 2,500 items were seen in 24 outlets,
mainly in the capital city of Vientiane, in a recent survey. While much of Laos’s illegal
ivory was said by traders to derive from Laos’s Asian elephants, there have been seizuresof African ivory en route to Laos in Thailand and Kenya. Laos itself has never reported
an ivory seizure (Nijman and Shepherd, 2012). Thailand is unique in permitting legal
trade in ivory from domesticated Asian elephants. In practice this has served as a major
loophole giving rise to a large internal processing and retail market industry using
smuggled ivory largely of African origin (Stiles, 2009), as indicated by the relatively large
volume and number of seizures Thailand has made recently at ports of entry (SC62 Doc.
46.1). While enforcement is improving at ports of entry, it has failed at the retail level,
and the CITES Secretariat has described Thailand’s trade controls as non-compliant with
Res. Conf. 10.10 (SC62 Doc. 46.1) Viet Nam received a yellow score for poor regulationof its small illegal internal ivory trade (Stiles, 2008), but it serves mainly as a transit
point for illegal shipments of African ivory en route to China (SC62 Doc. 46.1). Viet Nam
has made progress on enforcement, with the world’s highest weight of large-scale ivory
seizures from 2009-2011 (over 10,000 kg: SC62 Doc. 46.1). China also intensified its
enforcement activities in Guangxi province bordering Viet Nam in 2011, seizing morethan 1,300 ivory products (and one rhino horn) (TRAFFIC, 2012c).
Yellow scores for elephants otherwise are all indicative of gaps in enforcement.
Although Indonesia does not appear to have high levels of illegal internal ivory trade,it was implicated in 51 international ivory seizures from 1989-2009. Indonesia only
recently began reporting seizures to ETIS (SC62 Doc. 46.1), giving it a zero score for law
enforcement effort under the ETIS system (CoP15 Doc. 44.1 Annex). A recent series of
12 elephant deaths in Aceh province is being investigated by the Ministry of Forestry
for links to ivory trading (Fidelis, 2012). At the time of CoP15, Malaysia had yet to makea single large ivory seizure, although its growing role as a transit country had emerged
from ETIS analysis (CoP15 Doc. 44.1 Annex). Shortly after passage of its new Wildlife
Conservation Act and increased wildlife crime awareness training for customs officers,
Malaysia made four large seizures in 2011 amounting to nearly 8 tonnes of ivory (Milliken
and Sangalakula, 2011). However, other countries have continued to intercept large
consignments of illicit ivory apparently bound for Malaysia (Milliken and Sangalakula,2011; Parker, 2012b) indicating the need for greater collaboration on enforcement
between Malaysian authorities and those in the countries of origin and destination, as
recommended by SC62 Doc. 46.1.

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 18

Discussion of advances and gaps in compliance and enforcement

China is the only country evaluated which allows internal ivory trade under a control
system that was previously vetted through a CITES process1. Internal trade in ivory
is permitted only for companies obtaining a government Certificate of Registration as
an ivory carving factory or a retail outlet, which obtain their ivory directly from thegovernment, and affix identification cards with a variety of security provisions to eachworked item weighing more than 50 grams. However, four separate NGO surveys in 2011
documented widespread availability of unregistered ivory and abuse of the identification
card system in licensed shops and factories (EIA, 2011; Gabriel et al., 2011; Martin
and Vigne, 2011; TRAFFIC, unpublished information). For example, licensed vendors
offered TRAFFIC investigators discounts of 10-30 per cent if the seller could retain
the identification card, in violation of controls which stipulate the card is to remain
with the registered item, suggesting the re-use of identity cards to launder illegal ivory(TRAFFIC, unpublished information, 2012). In addition, the growing availability of
unregulated mammoth ivory provides a potential laundering mechanism for illegal
elephant ivory, and it is recommended that ivory trade controls be tightened (Martin andVigne, 2011.
China was the intended destination of a minimum of 54 per cent, and likely more,of intercepted large consignments (more than 1,000 kg) of illegal African ivory. The
ongoing flow of large volumes of illegal ivory to China suggests that such ivory may bemoving into legal ivory trade channels (SC62 Doc. 46.1). While China’s internal ivory
trade control regulations were judged to be generally compliant with Res. Conf. 10.10 by
a 2005 CITES Technical Mission (SC53 Doc. 20.1 Annex) and are still viewed as welldesigned (WWF 2011b; WWF, 2012c), China has failed to effectively police the systemand track the sale of legally-imported ivory, although authorities are intercepting a
growing number of illegal trade cases (Annex 2). CITES commitments require regulated
internal ivory trade to have “a comprehensive and demonstrably effective reporting andenforcement system for worked ivory” (Res. Conf. 10.10[Rev. CoP15]), and one of therecommendations before SC62 is for China to “formally reassess its internal ivory tradesystem” (SC62 Doc. 46.1). ). In fact, it is now essential that China dramatically improve
enforcement of its internal ivory control system.
Elephants – Central Africa
Two of the five evaluated countries have legal internal ivory trade and received failingscores for compliance: Cameroon and Central African Republic (CAR). Althoughelephants are protected from hunting in CAR, almost all poachers interviewed in a
recent survey said that poaching for ivory was their primary motive (Neale and Stiles,
2011). CAR thus has a substantial unregulated internal ivory market (as well as forelephant meat: Neale and Stiles, 2011) in contravention of CITES Decision 13.26,
although it has declined sharply in volume in recent years, probably due to a decline in
the country’s elephant population (Ringuet, in prep.). CAR is drafting new legislation
which might prohibit internal ivory trade (Ringuet, in prep.). Current policy inCameroon permits ivory carving and storing of worked ivory with a license; only tusks
weighing more than 5 kilograms are considered legal for ivory processing and possession(Randolph and Stiles, 2011). In practice, Cameroon’s policy has not proved sufficient todeter significant levels of poaching and illegal internal ivory trade (Randolph and Stiles,
2011; LAGA, 2012). Cameroon is also subject to a CITES recommendation that countries
verify with the Secretariat any permit issued by Cameroon (CITES Notif. No. 2012/021).
Although this has not yet proved to be a significant issue for elephant ivory (SC62 Doc.
29), fraudulent permits represent a serious breach of compliance.
Three of the five evaluated countries have legislation prohibiting internal ivory trade,
Congo, Gabon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) (Ringuet, in prep.),
1 Japan’s controls were also vetted, but that country has not emerged subsequently as a significant
destination for illegal ivory in ETIS

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 19

Discussion of advances and gaps in compliance and enforcement

Discussion of advances and gaps in compliance and enforcement

although there are significant loopholes in DRC’s policies, resulting in this country’s
failing score for compliance. While DRC’s wildlife legislation forbids the sale of any
elephant product, the Ministry of Art and Culture has continued to deliver licenses forivory carvers because their production is considered a “work of art.” DRC is drafting
new wildlife legislation, which will seek to improve jurisdictional authority, which iscurrently split between two agencies (not including the Ministry of Art and Culture)(Ringuet, in prep.). The law needs to address clearly whether worked ivory can besold (Stiles, 2011) and prohibit such sale. DRC was the only one of the four countries
surveyed by TRAFFIC (not including Cameroon) where illegal internal ivory trade has
not declined in recent years (Ringuet, in prep.).
A general lack of progress on enforcement is evident in all five countries, and the region
has suffered the highest rates of elephant poaching in Africa in recent years (SC62Doc. 46.1). For example, more than 5,000 elephants are estimated to have been killed
in DRC in the past six years of internal conflict (WCS, 2012). The Secretary-General of
CITES expressed grave concern over recent reports of the poaching of several hundred
elephants in Bouba N’Djida National Park in northern Cameroon, and the International
Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) was called upon to assist withinvestigations (SC62 Doc. 14.7). Although more than 100 soldiers from the militarywere sent to the park (Ngalame, 2012), the intervention came “too little, too late” andelephant poaching continued (AP, 2012). The wave of poaching took place despite
increased cooperation between Cameroon and Chad (the poachers entered Cameroon
from Chad and/or CAR); the two countries signed a commitment to joint enforcement
efforts in August 2011 (VOA, 2011). CAR will also join soon (WWF, unpublishedinformation).
While many of the region’s poachers are poor and crudely armed (Russo, 2012), there
is also evidence of criminal gangs with sophisticated weapons, as well as cross-borderincursions using military helicopters (Steyn, 2012). Governments acknowledge theseriousness of the problem. In June 2012, the ten member states of Central African
Forest Commission, known as COMIFAC, adopted a five-year action plan to strengthen
enforcement of national wildlife laws in the region entitled Plan régional des pays del’espace COMIFAC pour le renforcement de l’application des législations nationales
sur la faune sauvage (PAPECALF). Specifically, this action plan comprises four
components looking at cooperation and collaboration among relevant wildlife law
enforcement and prosecution authorities at the national level and between countries:
1) investigations at key border and transit points, domestic markets and transboundary
areas; 2) effective deterrents to wildlife poaching and trade, and prosecutions;
3) regular follow-up, publication and dissemination of results of controls andprosecutions; and 4) awareness of illegal wildlife trade issues (Ringuet and Ngandjui,
2012; SC62 Doc. 30).
Some enforcement actions have increased in recent years. For example, severaltransboundary patrol units have been established to tackle cross-border poaching
and illegal trade – one between Cameroon, Congo and CAR; and another between
Cameroon, Congo and Gabon (WWF, unpublished information). Examples of national
actions include a court in Cameroon recently handing down its stiffest penalties ever,with fines and damages amounting to FCFA 77,169,060 (US$160,000) and prison
terms as high as 30 months for 17 men convicted of poaching and illegal ivory trade(Wilson, 2012). The Last Great Ape Organization of Cameroon (LAGA) has supported
the government in investigating wildlife crime and helped lead to numerous arrests forivory poaching and trafficking in 2011 (LAGA, 2012). In Congo, the NGO Projet d’aide àl’Application des Lois sur la Faune (PALF: Project to assist Application of Wildlife Laws)
has supported the government to bring cases against elephant poachers and illegal
ivory traders, an example of which is a 2011 case in which a prison sentence of four

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 20

years was handed down to a Chinese national (Latour and Stiles, 2011). The Central
African Republic was able to protect successfully a critical population of elephants inDzangha Sangha Protected Area, with no known cases of elephant poaching in 2011
(Drew, 2012). In DRC, Virunga National Park has started using bloodhounds to trackdown ivory poachers (Merode, 2012), and a joint military intervention to improve
law enforcement in Salona National Park, a critical elephant habitat in the country,
is easing the pressure on the elephant population (WWF, unpublished information).
In Gabon, WWF and TRAFFIC worked with the government to audit independently
its ivory stockpile totalling nearly five tonnes (Ringuet, 2012) before it was destroyed
in a ceremony to raise public awareness and ensure no leakage of these official stocks
into illegal trade (a growing problem in Africa: SC62 Doc. 46.2). At this event, Gabon’s
President announced that Gabon has a policy of zero tolerance for wildlife crime andthat the institutions and laws to ensure this policy is enforced will be put into place.
The president also recognized the need to raise penalties and increase the effectivenessof prosecutions for wildlife crime (WWF, 2012b).
Elephants – Nigeria
Nigeria made progress on its compliance score for elephants – because in 2011 the
CITES Standing Committee withdrew its longstanding recommendation to suspend
trade with Nigeria due to enactment of compliant national legislation and evidence
of increased enforcement and public awareness concerning illegal ivory trade (SC62Doc. 30, SC62 SumRec). However, recent large-scale seizures (600 kilograms of
Nigeria-bound ivory seized in Kenya in June 2012: Langlois, 2012) highlight the needfor continued and strengthened enforcement effort. Nigeria for more than a decade
has been singled out in ETIS analyses as one of the most problematic countries in theillegal ivory trade (SC62 Doc. 46.1), so recent progress in compliance and enforcement
is welcome and should be stepped-up to address the challenge.
Elephants – Egypt
Although internal trade in ivory is prohibited by Egyptian law, there has been little
enforcement effort or compliance with the CITES Action Plan to Control Trade in
Elephant Ivory, and Egypt received a red score. Despite CITES efforts to assist with
implementation and enforcement (SC57 Doc. 20 Annex), Egypt remains Africa’s largest
market for illegal ivory items, catering primarily to foreign nationals (Martin andVigne, 2011). Although in May 2010 the Egyptian Management Authority for CITES
held a number of training courses for wildlife officers, customs, police officers andtourist workers, an April 2011 survey documented more than 9,000 ivory items for salein two cities. Two small ivory seizures at Cairo airport were reported by authorities in2010-2011, but they confirmed that there had been no confiscations of ivory items fromretail outlets since 2003 (Martin and Vigne, 2011).
Elephants and rhinos – East Africa
According to the CITES elephant document for SC62 (Document 46.1), poaching isincreasing in eastern Africa, which has emerged in recent years as the main exit point
to Asia for illegal African ivory from the region and elsewhere, particularly central
Africa. Kenya and Tanzania account for most of the large-scale ivory seizure cases
and most of the volume of ivory seized from 2009-2011. One of the recommendations
before SC62 is for Kenya and Tanzania to increase intelligence-led enforcement actions(SC 62 Doc. 46.1).
Kenya is moving in the right direction on compliance, although stiffer penalties forillegal trade have yet to be enacted by the government, despite calls by the Directorof the Kenya Wildlife Service (Koros, 2011), prompting a petition campaign led byconservationists in May 2012 (Gari, 2012). KWS has its own internal prosecutors

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 21

Discussion of advances and gaps in compliance and enforcement

East Africa
is the main
exit point for
illegal ivory
to Asia(Anon., 2011a) and has seized more than 8,000 kilograms of illegal ivory in the last three
years, according to the Minister for Forestry and Wildlife (Aisi, 2012). The Kenya Wildlife
Service has stationed teams with sniffer dogs at two major airports, and they have madea number of recent interceptions, including more than 600 kilograms of Nigeria-boundivory at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport in June 2012 (KWS, 2012). Kenya’s newnational elephant strategy includes plans for a wildlife forensics laboratory, and KWS
has recently implemented improved anti-poaching management (MIST, or Management
Information System) (Aisi, 2012).
Kenya, however, received a yellow score for rhinos on enforcement. Rhino poaching has
increased in Kenya in recent years (ACF, 2012) and, unlike for ivory, there have been few
interceptions of illegal movements of rhino horn. Kenya will soon launch a new national
conservation and management strategy for rhinos (ACF, 2012). KWS and the African
Wildlife Foundation recently hosted a “Rhino Summit” attended by several African
rhino range states as well as conservation organizations. A strategy was developed which
included recommendations to assist surveillance and anti poaching units; strengthen law
enforcement; use campaigns to curb the demand in rhino horn; and reach out to policy
makers to build political will (AWF, 2012).

Discussion of advances and gaps in compliance and enforcement

countries (SC62 Doc. 46.1) and, while some is related to conflicts with local people(Chomba et al., 2012), some is increasingly sophisticated such as the use of helicopters(Gupta, 2011). Mozambique received a red score for rhinos as its nationals have been
repeatedly implicated in rhino poaching in South Africa (Milliken and Shaw, in prep.).
This is also true, to a somewhat lesser extent, concerning the incursion of Zambianpoachers into Zimbabwe (Netsianda, 2012). Particularly for rhinos, there is need forbetter bi-lateral coordination as called for in Res. Conf. 9.14. Zambia has still handed
down deterrent penalties for crimes involving ivory and rhino horn trade, however,with a business executive from DRC sentenced to five years with hard labour for
illegal possession of 169 elephant tusks (Anon., 2011b). In April 2012 police arrested
three men in possession of rhino horns who were travelling on a bus and who had
apparently passed undetected through several wildlife authority checkpoints in theKafue National Park (Mwale, 2012). Mozambique has stepped-up enforcement of port
controls in recent years, seizing 166 tusks from Chinese nationals at the port of Maputo(AFP, 2011) and seven rhino horns from a Vietnamese national at Maputo International
Airport (Anon., 2012b).

Tanzania, however, received yellow scores for both rhinos and elephants, indicating abroad need for improvement of enforcement, which has been recognized by top officials.
Although Tanzania is generally in compliance with its stated policies, improvements
there are also needed, and the country’s Vice President recently announced that amajor review of domestic legislation was underway. He said that government shared
the concerns of conservationists regarding low fines and short jail terms and would
introduce amendments to those provisions in parliament soon (Thome, 2011). One of thefirst actions in May 2012 for the newly appointed Minister for Natural Resources andTourism was to hold a meeting with tourism stakeholders, who expressed significant
concern about elephant poaching in game reserves and the illegal ivory trade (Anon.,2012a). He also suspended four top officials and 28 game rangers following the killingof a female rhino and her calf in Serengeti National Park. Five other suspects were being
held, and potential collusion between poachers and rangers was under investigation(Ng’wanakilala, 2012). Tanzania made one large-scale ivory seizure in the period 20092011, but was implicated in six others, indicating a low detection rate and the needfor enhanced controls at shipping ports (SC62 Doc. 46.1). The country’s new national
elephant strategy contains a number of provisions aimed at improving law enforcement(TAWIRI, 2012).
Elephants and rhinos – Southern Africa
South Africa’s and Zimbabwe’s rhino scores have been discussed in detail above. Bothhave limited legal internal ivory trade and received green scores for elephants, although
TRAFFIC has called on the South African Port Authorities to invest in scanningequipment and to “up their game” in monitoring export cargo to improve detection ofillegal ivory exports (Parker, 2012b). Zimbabwe tightened controls on export permits forivory carvings in August 2010 after it was revealed that the system was being used toexport raw ivory (Guvamombe, 2010).
Mozambique and Zambia, however, received red scores for elephants. Large amounts ofivory were recently stolen from government stockpiles in Mozambique (more than 1,000
kilograms in February, 2012) (SC62 Doc. 46.1) and Zambia (more than 3,000 kilogramsin June, 2012, in an incident which is a growing political scandal) (Adamu, 2012). Bothcountries have significant illegal internal ivory markets (Milliken et al., 2006; EIA 2010),
and Zambia has been linked as a source for illegal ivory markets in the Democratic
Republic of Congo (Ringuet, in prep.). While elephant poaching may be less of a problem
than in the past, MIKE analyses indicate elephant poaching is on the rise in parts of both

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 22

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 23

Key recommendations

Key
recommendations

TigersElephants

The key strategy to protect tigers from entering into illegal
trade is to ensure effective protection against poaching
and focus direct anti-trafficking work around wild tiger
populations. Tiger range countries should work as fast as
possible towards zero poaching and trafficking of tigers.

China

Measures to eliminate demand for tiger products represent
a major gap for effective implementation of CITES commitments and the Global
Tiger Recovery Program (GTI, 2012). It is recommended that all consumer countries,
particularly China, Thailand and Viet Nam, develop and undertake well researcheddemand reduction campaigns, using targeted strategies to influence consumer
behaviour, with a view to reducing demand for tiger products.
Because tiger crime is relatively low volume (SC61 Doc. 43 Annex 1), given theendangered population of only approximately 3,200 wild tigers (IUCN, 2012b),
intelligence-led enforcement is of critical importance for effective protection fromillegal trade (SC62 Doc. 43 Annex). It is recommended that a range-wide enforcement
overview for 2013 proceeds as planned by tiger range country governments working
with Interpol and CITES under the Global Tiger Recovery Program (GTI, 2012).
The creation of a centralized tiger crime database built around official submissions
from governments (SC58 Inf. 9), modelled on the existing TRAFFIC tiger seizures
database (Verheij et al., 2010; Stoner, 2012) is also recommended.
Leakage of tiger products from captive sources into illegal internal markets is a sourceof continuing concern. While there have been improvements in China and Thailand.
Viet Nam and Laos have not complied with CITES commitments to report on theirimplementation of Decision 14.69 (CITES Notification 2008/059, SC58 Doc. 33, SC58
Inf. 9), which prohibits captive breeding of tigers for the purpose of trade in their partsand derivatives. Viet Nam and Laos should address this issue as a matter of urgency.

RhinosViet Nam needs urgently and dramatically to improve enforcement efforts to crack
down on the illegal rhino horn trade, and to reduce demand for rhino horn througha well researched and scientifically informed campaign.
Both Viet Nam and South Africa are urged to take up comprehensive recommendations
made by an upcoming TRAFFIC report (Milliken and Shaw, in prep.), including
strengthening of their international enforcement coordination.
A Ministerial level meeting between China, South Africa, Thailand and Viet Nam
should be convened to put in place mechanisms against the illegal trade in rhinoceros
horn and to discuss measures to further improve communication, collaboration andcoordination at the international level (as proposed in SC62 Doc. 47.2).
The CITES Standing Committee Working Group on Rhinoceroses has called for
SC62 to endorse a study of recent illegal trade in rhino horn, considering the drivers of
trade and measures that could be taken to prevent rhinoceros horn entering the illegal
market (SC62 Doc. 47.1). The new study of rhino crime in South Africa and Viet Namby TRAFFIC (Milliken and Shaw, in prep.) effectively fills that gap. The Working Groupshould request both Viet Nam and South Africa to review and address the study’s
recommendations. Viet Nam has also been asked to report on its implementation of Res
Conf. 9.14 by September 2012 (SC62 Doc. 47.2). The CITES Standing Committee should
be given a specific mandate to react by postal procedure in the event that Viet Nam
fails to submit a report or submits one that the working group considers unsatisfactory(WWF, 2012c).

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 24

Widespreaddemandreduction
campaigns
are needed

The ongoing flow of large volumes of illegal ivory to China suggests that such ivory may
be moving into legal ivory trade channels (SC62 Doc. 46.1). China, and particularly
the responsible department (the Wildlife Conservation Department, State Forestry
Administration) is urged to dramatically improve its enforcement controls for ivory.
China should produce a written report on the implementation of its internal ivory tradecontrol system, including a review of its internal ivory trade data and measures taken
to comply with the provisions in Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP15) and Decision
13.26 (Rev. CoP15). China should submit this report to the Secretariat by 15 November
2012, so as to give enough time to the Secretariat to evaluate the report and convey
its findings and recommendations to the 63rd meeting of the Standing Committee, as
called for in SC62 Doc. 46.1.
In addition, given the substantial demand for ivory products in China, it is imperativethat China implement a well-researched campaign, using targeted strategies toinfluence consumer behaviour, with a view to reducing demand for ivory of illegal
origin. Finally, given the extensive involvement of Chinese nationals in Africa in illegal
ivory trade, it is recommended that China scale-up its efforts to communicate toChinese nationals in Africa (as described in Annex 2) that the Chinese government hasa “zero tolerance” policy for illegal wildlife trade, and that anyone caught importing or
attempting to import illegal wildlife products into China would be prosecuted, and if
convicted, severely penalized.
ThailandThailand is unique in permitting legal trade in ivory from domesticated Asianelephants, which has served as a major loophole giving rise to a large internal market
for illegal ivory largely of African origin (Stiles, 2009). As there does not appear
to be any legal or administrative basis in which Thailand can provide for credible
mechanisms that would separate ivory originating legally from domestic elephantsfrom that of illegal African origin, and given the large quantity of ivory already incirculation, the most effective course open to Thailand at this stage would be to simply
ban all sale of ivory in the country.
Thailand has reported to SC62 on measures it has taken and plans to take for its
internal ivory trade regulation to comply with Res. Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP15) (SC62 Doc.
46.2). The report acknowledges that legislative amendment is required and that thiswill take at least a year but does not offer any explanation as to why the process has notalready been initiated, since it is already a year since the Standing Committee brought
the matter to Thailand’s attention. The Standing Committee should require Thailand
to present a timetable to the Committee for the enactment of the legislation and forthe implementation of any other interim measures that would curtail the open trade in
African elephant ivory in that country (WWF, 2012c).
Transit countries
This report and SC62 Doc. 46.1 point to substantial enforcement gaps in countries
which are increasingly serving as illegal ivory transit points: Kenya, Tanzania andUganda in Africa; and Hong Kong SAR, Malaysia, the Philippines and Viet Nam in
Asia. All these countries should take action to significantly improve port and airport
controls, and scale-up efforts toward Asia-African cooperation in investigating
wildlife crime.

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 25

Key recommendations

Central Africa
The region of central Africa all scored poorly for compliance and enforcement
regarding elephant conservation and ivory trade control. Central African governments
are to be commended for the signing of a Central African Regional Wildlife Law
Enforcement Action Plan under the auspices of COMIFAC entitled Plan régionaldes pays de l’espace COMIFAC pour le renforcement de l’application des législations
nationales sur la faune sauvage (PAPECALF). They should now make implementationof PAPECALF their highest priority, and demonstrate this by allocating budget
resources to this end and, particularly, by improving the efficacy of prosecutions for
those convicted of poaching or illegal trade, including of elephants and great apes.
Donor countries and institutions should support COMIFAC and its member states, andto offer financial and technical assistance with its implementation.

ANNEX 1: COUNTRY
SELECTION PROCESS

Information derived from three trade monitoring tools associatedwith TRAFFIC was employed to identify countries most affectedby illegal trade in tiger, rhino and elephant products: the CITES/
TRAFFIC Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) database(CoP15 Inf. 53), TRAFFIC’s Tiger Seizure database (Stoner, 2012)
and IUCN/TRAFFIC’s reports to CITES on rhinoceros conservationand trade (CoP15 Doc. 45.1 [Rev. 1] Annex). A numerical scoring
system was devised based on their data, and the top 20 scoring
countries were evaluated for compliance and enforcement by this report. With amaximum score of 8 (highest degree of wildlife crime) per species group per country, thehighest potential score, for a country affected by illegal trade in all three species groups,
is 24. The elephant, tiger and rhino wildlife crime scores are explained below, followed
by a table listing the data for all 43 countries screened.

Furthermore, since the end destination of ivory taken by poaching gangs allegedly
from Sudan entering Cameroon from Chad and/or CAR in a major incident early in2012 is unclear at present, this is an issue which CITES should pursue. In addition,although Sudan has reportedly taken action against ivory trading, it has been flagged
by ETIS as having a large and poorly controlled domestic ivory market in the capital
Khartoum (CoP15 Inf. 53), apparently catering largely to Chinese nationals (WWF,unpublished information) and its role in regional illegal ivory trade should be
investigated.
Finally, the Standing Committee, in implementation of Decision 15.74 concerning
the revision of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (CoP15), should develop a modern system forregular reporting on and monitoring of elephant ivory stockpiles, and provisions forthe collection of ivory samples from large-scale seizures for DNA, isotopic and otherforensic analyses (SC Doc. 46.1).
1.	Scores range from –4,
indicating no or very small,
highly-regulated domestic
ivory markets and carving
industries, to 20, indicating
extremely large, completely
unregulated domestic ivory
markets and carving industries.
As described in CoP13 Doc.29,2Annex, this component isbased upon a cumulative
scoring system which tracks therelative scale of the retail-level
trade, the degree of control
over such trade, andthe status of ivory carving.
2. Number of in-country seizures
divided by total number of
seizures linked to thatcountry 1999-2010.
3. Total weight of ivory
seizures linked to thatcountry 1999-2010.
4. 	Percentage of seizure cases
linked to that country
1999-2010 of more than
1,000 kg in weight, indicativeof involvement of organizedcrime in the movementof ivory.
Source: CoP15 Inf53 Tables 3-7

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 26

In addition to the top-scoring 19 countries selected by this approach, four additionalcountries were included for evaluation in this report. Russia was included, as it has been
flagged for its border region with northeastern China as a persistent “hotspot” of illegal
trade from the TRAFFIC tiger seizures database (Stoner, 2012). Egypt was previously
flagged by ETIS as having Africa’s largest uncontrolled internal ivory market which caters
to foreign nationals (CoP15 Doc. 44.1 Annex), but data for this country on other ETIS
components such as seizures were not available (CoP15 Inf. 53). Because ETIS is built
primarily around ivory seizure reports, there is a risk that countries with high levels ofelephant poaching but low rates of ivory interception (both internally and externally)
would not emerge in the selection process. Indeed, Central African Republic and Republicof Congo are two that fall into this bracket. These two countries were added to thescorecard due to the fact that Central Africa is consistently highlighted by ETIS (SC62Doc. 46.1) and MIKE (CITES Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants programme) as
the most problematic region for elephant poaching and ivory trade. Within Central Africa,these two countries routinely have high poaching rate indicators (PIKE scores: CoP15
Doc. 44.2 [Rev. 1), and it is of concern that ivory seizures are not being made/reported
to ETIS.

Elephant score
Since the ETIS dataset for illegal trade in African elephant ivory is more robust thanavailable datasets for tigers and rhinos, it was initially screened to score countries basedon their ETIS values for seizures, law enforcement effort, organized crime indicatorand domestic ivory market regulation, as below. These ETIS components were last
published for individual countries in 2010 (CoP15 Inf. 53).
Table 7.
PointsDomestic ivory
market score1

Law
enforcement
effort ratio2

Total weightof recent ivory
seizures3

Organized
crime indicator4

21
0

10.1-20
5.1-10
neg 4 - 5<40%
40-60%>60%>10,000 kg
1,000-10,000 kg<1,000 kg>50%
25-50%<25%

Countries are scored a maximum of two points for each of the four ETIS variables,with highest scores indicating where illegal trade is most problematic, for a maximum
potential elephant score of eight (8).

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 27

Annex 1

Annex 1

Tiger score								Table10.

Countries are scored for tigers according to the quantity of tigers in illegal trade, as
measured by seizures. The TRAFFIC tiger seizures dataset (Stoner, 2012) was used togroup range states by total seizure quantity from 2000 to 2011. Eight points was given
for countries where seizures were equivalent to a minimum of more than 100 tigers forthe period, and four for those with fewer than 100. Source: Stoner (2012)
Table 8.

PointsCriteria

8

More than 100 Tigers seized (minimum), 2000-2011

4

Fewer than 100 tigers seized (minimum),2000-2011

Rhino score
As with tigers, countries were scored for rhinos according to the quantity of animals
involved in illegal trade, but as measured by poaching reports. Non-range countries
were scored according to their identification as important destination or transit countries
in illegal rhino trade (CoP15 Doc 45.1 [Rev. 1] Annex).Source: CoP15 Doc. 45.1
(Rev. 1) Annex.
It should be noted that although quantities of rhinos poached are indicative of highlevels of illegal trade, they are not necessarily the best indicator of the population’s stateof threat. For example, although South Africa lost 448 rhinos to poachers in 2011 alone(Saving Rhinos, 2012a), and Kenya comparatively fewer at 24 (ACF, 2012b), both losses
amounted to approximately 2 per cent of national rhino populations. Source: CoP15 Doc.
45.1 (Rev. 1) Annex.
Table 9.

PointsCriteria

8

Identified as major end-use destination for rhino horn or>200 rhinos poached 2006-2009

4

Identified as a transit point for rhino horn or < 200 rhinospoached 2006-2009

It should be noted that although quantities of rhinos poached are indicative of highlevels of illegal trade, they are not necessarily the best indicator of the population’s
state of threat. For example, although South Africa lost 448 rhinos to poachers in 2011
alone (Saving Rhinos, 2012a), and Kenya comparatively fewer at 24 (ACF, 2012b), bothlosses amounted to approximately 2 per cent of national rhino populations.

Rhinospoachedor typeof trade

Rhino
score
see
table

Total
Wildife
Crime
Score

Country

ETIS
Dom
Mkt

ETIS
Law
Enf Eff

ETIS
Wt
Recent

ETIS
Org
Crime

Elephant		
score
Tiger
see table
seizers

Tiger
score
see table

Viet Nam
China
Laos
Malaysia
Thailand

10.5
11.5
10
5
16

19%
58%
0%
35%
12%

10037
46499
2306
11488
15053

90%
59%
90%
91%
47%

8
7
7
7
7

8
End use8
8
End use8
4
Transit
48			
4Transit
4

24
23
15
15
15

India
2.5
66%
4201
0%
2
532
8
55
4
Nepal
7
63%
33
0%
2
158
8
149 (19994								2007)Zimbabwe
11.5
48%
10391
29%
6			
235
8
South Africa
6
47%
10353
39%
5			
210
8
Mozambique
12.5
16%
12384
71%
8			
5
4
Myanmar
14
0%
20
0%
4
1
4
Transit4
DR Congo
14.5
1%
10271
75%
8			
1*		
Nigeria
16
2%
12577
49%
8					
Tanzania
-0.5
86%
46539
68%
4			
1
4
Zambia
3
71%
16414
66%
4			
1
4
Gabon
10
10%
8492
80%
7					
Indonesia
6
18%
988
0%
3
91
4			
Kenya
-2.5
75%
23367
32%
3			
17
4
Cameroon
8
21%
13438
45%
6					
Ghana
8
2%
1829
77%
6					
Angola
15
0%
1556
0%
5					
Cote d’Ivoire
10.5
5%
1526
0%
5					
Sudan
11
58%
6167
25%
5					
Uganda
-0.5
50%
11581
66%
5			
0		
Cambodia
10
0%
21
0%
4					
Congo-Brazza
7
6%
1797
0%
4					
Ethiopia
10.5
40%
5828
0%
4					
Malawi
6
81%
8107
88%
4			
0		
Russia						70
4			Senegal
11
0%
320
0%
4					
Benin
6
0%
728
0%
3					
Central African
Republic
7.5
13%
772
0%
3					
Chad
7
29%
98
0%
3					
Equatorial
Guinea7
0%305
0%3					
Eritrea622%
50%3					
Mali
5
2%
427
0%
3					
Somalia70%150%3					
Sri Lanka
5.5
31%
61		
3					
Bangladesh
2
0%
0
0%
2					
Guinea52%
254
0%2					
Rwanda
5
11%
1600
0%
2					
Botswana
-1
82%
3721
0%
1			
0		
Namibia
1.5
90%
0
0%
1			
0		

14
14

104
141
4
106
89

14
13
12
12
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1

*DRC not scored, as the northern white rhino Ceratotherium simum cottoni is now probably extinct (IUCN, 2012b).

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 28

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 29

Annex 2

ANNEX 2:
Review of recent
compliance andenforcement
actions in China

China’s recent progress on key elements of CITES commitments
are discussed below.

Enforcement: China has raised enforcement of CITES
commitments to top political levels (Govt. of China, 2010b; SC62
Doc. 29), and recently more financial resources have been directed
to wildlife conservation and enforcement authorities at all levels(SC61 Doc. 41 Annex 2). Increasing and strengthening enforcement capacity was listedby the government as a 2012-2013 priority action for tigers (GTI, 2012). In early 2012,
large-scale enforcement actions involving more than 100,000 officers were undertakenby the Forest Police (under the State Forest Administration [SFA]) and the Customs
Authorities (under the General Administration of Customs). Customs seized 1,336.3
kg of ivory, and the Forest Police took action against more than 1,000 wildlife dealersand 600 online traders. The operation was coordinated by NICECG, the National InterAgency CITES Enforcement Coordination Group of China, and targeted tiger, rhino andelephant products in particular (NICECG, 2012). Ms Yin Hong, Vice Administrator of
the State Forestry Administration, was presented with a Certificate of Commendationby the Secretary General of CITES in May 2012 (CITES, 2012). Under NICECG, morethan 10 provincial inter-agency CITES Enforcement Coordination Group were officiallyestablished in 2012.

While enforcement of China’s system for legal internal ivory trade has been assessed as
falling short (a recent article in the Shanghai Daily describes government efforts to police
the ivory market as “highly visible but woefully ineffective”: Anon. 2012d), there havebeen some targeted operations. In February 2012, SFA announced that it had arrested
eight suspects and seized 28.82 kg of ivory and ivory products in an enforcement action“focusing on the location of the processing and sale of ivory and its products.” Theoperation was carried out in the cities of Beijing and Tianjin, and the provinces of Fujian,Guangdong, and Yunnan as well as other places (Yao, 2012). In May 2012, Shanghai
police seized 780 ivory items in a local antique market and four illegal ivory traders werearrested (CWCA, 2012). On 5 July 2012, based on TRAFFIC’s information, a total of 6,109
illegal ivory items, weighing 115 kg, were confiscated in a Tianjin second-hand market
and eight suspects were arrested. Nearly 100 local forest police and public security police
joined this raid. This is likely to represent China’s largest seizure yet of illegal ivory on theretail market (TRAFFIC, unpublished information).
China has also made recent large seizures of smuggled ivory, including nearly one
tonne of tusks seized by Tianjin Customs originating from Tanzania (Zhang, 2012).
China intensified its enforcement activities in Guangxi province bordering Viet Nam in
2011, seizing more than 1,300 pieces of ivory and ivory products (and one rhino horn)(TRAFFIC, 2012c).
China has started targeting certain flights and types of cargo that are coming into ports incontainers, for scanning and enhanced law-enforcement evaluation (Russo, 2012). China
is starting the use of wildlife detection sniffer dogs (WWF, 2011), has held several major
training exercises for enforcement officials, and has developed and distributed a ChineseWildlife Crime Scorecard page 30

language manual Endangered Species Enforcement Techniques (SC61 Doc. 41 Annex 2;
SC62 Doc. 55 Annex 2). In April 2012 a collaborative enforcement workshop on theillegal transport of endangered species was held in cooperation with the National
Postal Bureau (SC62 Doc. 55 Annex 2). Illegal online trade in tiger, rhino and elephantproducts was the primary focus of a workshop in June 2012 hosted by the Forest Police,
resulting in the largest e-commerce companies in China signing a zero-tolerance
pledge for illegal trade in endangered species. The representative from the Network
Security Bureau of the Ministry of Public Security noted how illegal online wildlife tradeundermined internet security, and said, “New regulations coming into force mean thatwebsites facilitating illegal online wildlife trade must take full responsibility for theiractions” (TRAFFIC, 2012b).

China is one of the largest destination markets for illegal trade intiger, rhino and elephant products, It was one of several countries
flagged for attention in documents prepared for SC62 and isfrequently mentioned in media coverage of the issue. As such, it
was considered useful to include this annex setting-out a detailed
discussion of recent actions which underpinned its species scoresin this report. Other countries flagged for attention include South
Africa and Viet Nam; these countries’ actions concerning rhino
crime are covered in detail in an upcoming TRAFFIC report(Milliken and Shaw, in prep.).

it is Illegal
to sellelephant
ivory online
in china

While it is not yet possible to assess the impact of 2012 enforcement operations uponillegal trade in general, there has been an observed decrease in online illegal trade
in recent months. TRAFFIC carried out monthly monitoring of 18 Chinese-language
e-commerce websites between January and May 2012, with six more sites added tothe monitoring in June. In July 2012, following major enforcement actions describedabove, illegal online advertisements decreased markedly for all three species groups:
tiger (65 per cent), rhino (73 per cent) and ivory (51 per cent) (TRAFFIC, unpublishedinformation).
China tightened regulations on captive exotic animals in 2010 (Nowell et al., 2011), withparticular attention to tigers: the two largest tiger breeding operations are required
to micro-chip and data log their live tigers, and to seal and label tiger bones and tiger
skins, while destroying other parts (SC61 Doc. 41 Annex 2). Previous documentationof illegal trade from such sources (Nowell et al., 2011), however, indicates that thesefacilities should be subject to regular monitoring as well as those companies, such asLonghui Pharmaceutical Company (SC62 Doc. 47.2 Annex), with captive rhinos. One ofChina’s priority actions for 2012-2013 is to conduct “four professional training courses on
managing captive wildlife breeding and utilization and illegal trade control” (GTI, 2012).
International coordination: In July 2011, China joined the Southeast Asian regional
wildlife enforcement network, ASEAN WEN (Corben, 2011), and also attended meetingsin 2011-2012 as an observer of its South Asian counterpart SAWEN (TRAFFIC, 2012a).
A joint meeting with governments from Africa is planned in the Chinese city of Hangzhou
in September to improve control over illegal trade in rhino horn and elephant ivory(NICECG, 2012), building on the first Technical Exchange Meeting that China hosted
in November 2010 to address illegal ivory trade, with participants including DR Congo,
Thailand, Viet Nam and the US (SC62 Doc. 46.1). China also hosted the 2nd Workshop
on CITES Implementation and Enforcement among China, India and Nepal in October
2011 (TRAFFIC, 2011a). In December 2011 a workshop on Establishing a Network ofControlled Delivery Units for Forest and Wildlife Law Enforcement was organized by
the World Customs Organization under the auspices of the International Consortium on
Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) in Shanghai (SC62 Doc. 29).
Data collection: China has greatly increased its provision of ivory seizure data to ETIS,
now providing non-criminal seizure cases (SC61 Doc. 44.2 [Rev. 1] Annex 1). However, “itis not clear whether China is regularly analysing the information in their ivory databasesystem to assess levels of production and trade of the manufacturing and retail sectors toprevent the possibility of laundering of ivory from illegal sources into the legal system”(SC62 Doc. 46.1). China was one of only a few tiger range countries to submit information
on illegal tiger trade for a joint CITES/INTERPOL analysis called for in Decision 15.46,
using the preferred Ecomessage format (SC61 Doc.41 Annex 1), and also to report on its
implementation of Res Conf. 12.5 (Rev. CoP15) to the 61st meeting of the CITES Standing
Committee (SC61 Doc.41). China was also one of the few Parties to recently report to
the Secretariat on its implementation of the Rhino Resolution (Res. Conf. 9.14) (SC62Doc. 47.2).
Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 31

Acknowledgements and references

Annex 2

Deterrent penalties: A maximum sentence of life imprisonment is applicable undercurrent law (SC61 Doc. 41 Annex 2). Although prosecutions are relatively few, according
to information collected by TRAFFIC for the years 2010-2011 (unpublished information),
stiff penalties were applied in cases involving all three species groups. For example,
in October 2011 prison sentences up to 15 years and high fines (up to US$15,000) werehanded down to three people by a court in Yunnan in a case of smuggling rhino hornfrom Myanmar (Ching, 2011).
Public awareness: In 2010, the Chinese Year of the Tiger, top-level officials in China
made public statements in support of tiger conservation and against illegal trade(CoP15 Inf. 16, SC61 Doc. 41 Annex 2), including Premier Wen Jiabao (Govt. of China.,
2010). Also that year, provincial governments in western China, where illegal trade intiger skins had recently been a problem (Nowell, 2007), were instructed by the central
government to carry out public awareness and enhance market inspection (SC61 Doc.
41 Annex 2). China self-reported significant progress on public education about tiger
conservation and the establishment of telephone hotlines for tips about illegal wildlife
trade, and also plans to continue public education to urge people to reject illegal wildlife
trade activities, particularly for tigers, in 2012-2013 (GTI, 2012). The State Forest
Administration has produced leaflets for customers at approved ivory retail outlets
regarding trade controls (Martin and Vigne, 2011) and the government has cooperated
with conservation organizations to produce a variety of public awareness materials
about elephant and tiger conservation (SC62 Doc. 41 Annex 2; Gabriel et al, 2011). A
Rhinos in Crisis conference was organized in Beijing in June 2012 to mark the Year of
the Rhino and raise awareness of illegal trade (Humane Society, 2012), and a workshop
for creative experts to reduce demand for tiger and rhino products was held in Hong
Kong in November 2011 (TRAFFIC, 2011c). Another workshop for China’s Traditional
Chinese Medicine practitioners to reject the use of tiger, rhino and other endangered
species products was jointly facilitated by World Federation of Chinese Medicine
Societies and TRAFFIC in June 2012 (TRAFFIC, unpublished information). In 2011,
the SFA, Commerce Administration and National Tourism Administration jointly
issued a notification  requesting travel agencies, import and export companies, Chinesecompanies outside China and Chinese embassies to enhance public awareness of CITES
restrictions on wildlife trade (SFA, 2011). China’s CITES Management Authority together
with customs has displayed CITES posters in all airports and other major transit areas
to alert passengers not to illegally carry endangered species across borders (TRAFFIC,
unpublished information).
Acknowledgements

References

This project was initiated andoverseen by Colman O’Criodain
for the WWF/TRAFFIC 2012
Global Wildlife Trade Campaign,and benefited from the adviceof TRAFFIC’s Advocacy andCampaign’s Director Sabri
Zain. The author gratefully
acknowledges the contributions
and support received frommany members of the WWF and
TRAFFIC networks.
ACF. 2012a. Kenya: Finding
a home for rhinos away frompoachers. African Conservation
Foundation conservation news,
18 May.
ACF. 2012b. Kenya: Strategy
to save rhino unveiled. African
Conservation Foundationconservation news, 5 April.

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 32

Adamu, P. 2012. Zambia police
detain journalists, torture ivory
theft suspect. Zambia Reports,
21 June.
AFP. 2011. Chinese flee
Mozambique over ivory
smuggling. Agence France Presse
news service, 7 June.
Aisi, A. 2012. Kenya launched 10year national elephant strategy.
Africa Science News, 8 May.
Anon. 2011a. Kenya: KWS seeks
stiffer penalties to curb poaching.
African Environmental Police
blog, 13 May.
Anon. 2011b. Zambia: 169 tusks
land man in prison. Times ofZambia, 29 December.
Anon. 2012a. Government urged
to curb wildlife poaching. The

Guardian IPP, 22 May.
Anon. 2012b. Viet Namese manarrested in Mozambique with 7
rhino horns. Thanh Nien news
service, 3 June.
Anon. 2012c. Tigers Farmed
and Sold for Their Bones in Viet
Nam: Breaking into Southeast
Asia’s largest “tiger den.” Viet
NamNet, 4 December.
Anon. 2012d. Illegal ivory tradeflourishes once again. Shanghai
Daily, 17 February.
AFP. 2012. Malaysian charged
over tiger skins, African ivory.
Agence France Presse, 15February.
AP. 2012. Wildlife fund says
elephant slaughter continues
in Cameroon despite militaryintervention. Associate Press
report, 15 March.

15th meeting of the Conference of
the Parties to CITES, The Hague.

Beastall, C. and Yee, R. 2011.
Training and capacity building inSouth-east Asia. TRAFFIC Bulletin23(3): 87-88.
Ching, R. 2011. A small piece ofrhino horn in exchange for 15
years in prison. Kunming Daily,
October 25 (in Chinese).

CoP15 Doc. 44.1 Annex. 2009.
The Elephant Trade Information
System (ETIS) and the illicit
trade in ivory. Milliken, T.,
Burn, R.W., Underwood, F.M.
and Sangalakula, L. Official
document of the 15th meeting of
the Conference of the Parties to
CITES, Doha.

Chomba, C., Simukonda, C.,
Nyirenda, V. and Chisangano,F. 2011. Population status of
the African elephant in Zambia.
Journal of Ecology and the
Natural Environment 4(7):186-193.

CoP15 Doc. 44.2 (Rev. 1). 2010.
Monitoring of Illegal Hunting in
Elephant Range States. Reportby the CITES Secretariat. Official
document of the 15th meeting of
the Conference of the Parties to
CITES, Doha.

CITES. 2012. CITES Secretariat
praises China for major
nationwide wildlife law
enforcement operations.
CITES press release, May 9,
Guangzhou, China.

CoP15 Doc. 45.1 (Rev. 1)
Annex. 2009. African andAsian Rhinoceroses – Status,
Conservation and Trade. Milliken,
T., Emslie, R.H. and Talukdar,
B. Official document of the 15th
meeting of the Conference of theParties to CITES, Doha.

CITES Notification 2008/059.
Concerning Tiger-Breeding
Operations. Official Notification
to the Parties by the CITES
Secretariat, 8 October.
CITES Notification 2010/030.
Secretary-General’s Certificate ofCommendation: Thailand. Official
Notification to the Parties by the
CITES Secretariat, 28 October.
CITES Notification 2012/020.
Secretary-General’s Certificate
of Commendation: Hong Kong.
Official Notification to theParties by the CITES Secretariat,
6 March.
CITES Notification 2012/021.
Cameroon: Verification of Export
Permits. Official Notification to theParties by the CITES Secretariat,
12 March.
CITES Notification 2012/034.
Monitoring of Illegal Trade in
Ivory. Official Notification to theParties by the CITES Secretariat,
2 April.
CITES Notification 2012/036.
National Laws for Implementationof the Convention. Official
Notification to the Parties by the
CITES Secretariat, 2 April.
CoP13 Doc. 29.2 Annex. 2004.
The Elephant Trade Information
System (ETIS) and the Illicit
Trade in Ivory. Milliken, T., Burn,
R.W. and Sangalakula, L. Official
document of the 13th meeting of
the Conference of the Parties to
CITES, Bangkok.
CoP14 Doc. 53.2. 2007. Monitoringof Illegal Trade in Ivory and Other
Elephant Specimens. Report by
TRAFFIC. Official document of the

CoP15 Inf. 16. 2010. Position
Statement on Conservation of
and Trade in Tigers – China.
Information document by thegovernment of China for the 15th
meeting of the Conference of theParties to CITES, Doha.
CoP15 Inf. 53. 2010. Monitoring ofIllegal Trade in Ivory and Other
Elephant Specimens. Information
document by TRAFFIC 15th
meeting of the Conference of theParties to CITES, Doha.
CoP15 Inf. 68. 2010. African
Elephant Action Plan. Information
document of the 15th meeting of
the Conference of the Parties to
CITES, Doha.
Corben, R. 2011. China Joins
Regional Network to Fight Animal
Trafficking. Voice of America
news, 22 July.
CWCA. 2012. Shanghai police
seized 780 pieces of illegal ivory.
China Wildlife Conservation
Community News, 21 June (inChinese).
Decision 13.26 (Rev. CoP15)
Annex 2. Action plan for thecontrol of trade in elephant ivory.
Decisions of the Conference of theParties to CITES in effect after its
15th meeting.
Decisions 14.66-69. Conservationof and trade in tigers and other
Appendix-I Asian big cats species.
Decisions of the Conference of theParties to CITES in effect after its
15th meeting.
Decision 15.74. Trade in ElephantSpecimens. Decisions of theConference of the Parties to CITES
in effect after its 15th meeting.

ZimEye. 23 September.

EIA. 2012. Tiger bone wine
auctions in China. Environmental
Investigation Agency report,
February.

Koros, K. 2011. Kenya – interview
with KWS Boss Julius Kipng’etich.
The Nairobi Star, 21 March.

Khan, S. 2011. Wildlife trade
regulations strengthened in
Drew, C. 2012. A safe haven for
Malaysia. TRAFFIC Bulletinelephants and gorillas in Central
Africa. WWF Dispatch, 28 January. 23(3): 82.

EIA. 2011. Elephants. Briefing
document for the 61st meeting of
the CITES Standing Committee,
Environmental Investigation
Agency.
EIA. 2010. Open Season: theBurgeoning Illegal Ivory Tradein Tanzania and Zambia.
Environmental Investigation
Agency, London.
Fidelis, E.S. 2012. Forestry
Ministry probes series of elephantdeaths in Sumatra. Jakarta Globe,
20 June 2012.
Gabriel, G.G., Hua, N. and Wang,
J. 2011. Making a killing – a 2011
survey of ivory markets in China.
International Fund for Animal
Welfare.
Gari, A. 2012. Kenya: Global
campaign to amend Wildlife Bill.
The Nairobi Star, 21 May.

Kovalchuk, A. 2011. Problems
and Solutions - The law should
improve! The Russian National
Hunting Magazine. Nr. 6(39) pp. 57 (in Russian).
KWS. 2012. 601 kg of illegal ivory
seized in Nairobi, investigations
underway. Kenya Wildlife Servicepress release, 22 June.
LAGA. 2012. Monthly reports
2010-2012. Last Great Ape
Association Cameroon website.
Latour, S. and Stiles, D. 2011.
Elephant Meat Trade in Central
Africa: Republic of Congo Case
Study. Suppl. to the Occasional
Paper of the IUCN Species Survival
Commission No. 45, Gland,
Switzerland.
Macleod, F. 2012. Quenching athirst for lion bones. Mail andGuardian, 20 April.

MARD. 2012. Report No. 705/
BNN-TCLN to the Prime Minister
Govt. of China. 2010. Wen Jiabao
on Tiger Breeding and Wild Tiger
Attends the Heads of Government
Meeting of the International Forum Population. Ministry of Agriculture
on Tiger Conservation and Delivers and Rural Development of Viet
Nam, 19 March.
a Speech. Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of the Peoples Republic of
Martin, E.B.M and Vigne, L. 2011a.
China, 24 November.
The ivory dynasty: a report on thesoaring demand for elephant and
GTI. 2012. Draft Global Tiger
Recovery Program Implementation mammoth ivory in southern China.
Report 2012. Global Tiger Initiative Elephant Family report, London.
Secretariat, the World Bank,
Martin, E. and Vigne, L. 2011b.
Washington, DC, USA.
Illegal ivory sales in Egypt.
TRAFFIC Bulletin 23(3): 117-122.
Gupta, M.S. 2011. Poachers using
choppers to kill elephants in Africa.
McLachlin, S. 2011. Zimbabwe
Parda Phash, 24 November.
has mixed success stopping rhino
poaching. Gadling news service, 6Guvamombe, I. 2010. Zimbabwe:
December.
Zim tightens ivory trade controls.
The Herald, 26 August.
Merode, E. de. 2012. An elephantkilling and the hounds first
Humane Society. 2012. World’s
operation. GorillaCD, official
Rhino Conservationists Gather in
website of the Virunga National
China to Call for an End to Illegal
Rhino Horn Trade. Humane Society Park, DRC, blog post 1 March.
International, 7 June.
Milliken, T. and Shaw, J. 2012.
IUCN. 2012a. Sale of elephant meat The South Africa – Viet Nam
Rhino Horn Trade Nexus: A deadly
increases threat to elephants inCentral Africa. IUCN press release, combination of institutional
lapses, corrupt wildlife industry
8 March.
professionals and Asian crime
IUCN. 2012b. IUCN Red List of
syndicates. TRAFFIC, Cambridge.
Threatened Species. <www.redlist.
Milliken, T. and Sangalakula, L.
org>
2011. ETIS update number six:Jiri, J. 2011. Rhino poaching
progress in the development of theunstoppable – Minister Nhema.
Elephant Trade Information System

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 33

References(ETIS). Pachyderm 50: 99-104.
Milliken, T., Pole, A. andHuongo, A. 2006. No Peacefor Elephants: UnregulatedDomestic Ivory Markets in Angola
and Mozambique. TRAFFIC,
Cambridge.
MYCAT. 2012. MYCAT Tracks
Vol. 4: Malaysia’s progress
towards 1,000 tigers. MalaysianConservation Alliance for Tigers,
Kuala Lumpur.
Mwale, C. 2012. 2 brothers killsuspected wizard. Zambia Daily
Mail, 27 March.
Neale, E. and Stiles, D. 2011.
Elephant Meat Trade in Central
Africa: Central African Republic
Case Study. Suppl. to the
Occasional Paper of the IUCN
Species Survival Commission No.
45, Gland, Switzerland.
Netsianda, M. 2012. SuspectedZambian rhino poacher killed
in Zim. Zoutnet news service, 6February.
Ngalame, E.N. 2012. Cameroon:
Govt plans climate projects toprotect elephants from poaching.
All Africa News Service, 17 April.
Ng’wanakilala, F. 2012. Tanzania
suspends park chiefs after rhino
killings. Reuters news service,
30 May.
NICECG. 2012. NICECG, theNational Inter-Agency CITES
Enforcement Collaboration Groupof China. Presentation by Wan Z.M.
to the First Regional Meeting of theSouth Asia Wildlife Enforcement
Network (SAWEN), 3-6 June,
Sri Lanka.
Nijman, V. and Shepherd,
C. 2012. The role of Lao PDR in
the ivory trade. TRAFFIC Bulletin24(1): 35-40.
Nowell, K., Compton, J. andVerheij, P. 2011. Eliminating
illicit demand for tiger partsand products in China:
recommendations for theGovernment of China on how it
can deliver on its trade related
National Tiger Recovery
Priorities. TRAFFIC,
unpublished report.
Nowell, K. and Xu, L. 2010.
Taming the Tiger Trade: China’sMarkets for Wild and Captive
Tiger Products since the 1993
Domestic Trade Ban. TRAFFIC,
Hong Kong.
Nowell, K. 2007. Asian big cat
conservation and trade control in
selected range states: evaluating
implementation and effectiveness

Referencesof CITES recommendations.
TRAFFIC, CITES CoP15
briefing report.
Ogden, R. 2012. Update fromthe ASEAN Wildlife Forensics
Network: Focus on Tigers.
TRAFFIC Bulletin 24(1): 11-12.

Minko, Sylvain Mbadou, Pépin
M. Maganamucketu, Broll
Ochika, Stéphane Louembet,
Gustave Mabaza and Jean-Noël
Okogo. Government of Gabon
and TRAFFIC Central Africa,
Libreville, Gabon and Yaoundé,
Cameroon.

Oswell, A. 2010. The Big
Cat Trade in Thailand andMyanmar. TRAFFIC, Petaling
Jaya, Malaysia.

Ringuet, S. and Ngandjui, G. 2012.
Plan agreed to strengthen wildlife
law enforcement in Central Africa.
TRAFFIC Bulletin 24(1): 12-13.

Ng, J. and Nemora. 2007.
Tiger trade revisited in
Sumatra, Indonesia. TRAFFIC,
Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.

Russo, C. 2012. Monitoring agrim rise in the illegal ivory
trade: interview with TRAFFIC’s
Tom Milliken. Yale Environment
360, 23 January.

Parker, F. 2012a. South Africa
ramps up rhino response. Mailand Guardian, 17 May.
Parker, F. 2012b. Poachers
skill up to slip ivory, rhino horns
out of SA. Mail and Guardian,
12 January.
Rademeyer, J. 2012. Rhino horn
and organized crime. Behind
the Schemes podcast interview,
6 June.
Randolph, S. and Stiles, D. 2011.
Elephant Meat Trade in Central
Africa: Cameroon Case Study.
Suppl. to the Occasional Paperof the IUCN Species Survival
Commission No. 45, Gland,
Switzerland.
Res. Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP15).
Conservation of and trade in
African and Asian rhinoceroses.
CITES Resolution.
Res. Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP15).
Trade in elephant specimens.
CITES Resolution.
Res. Conf. 12.5 (Rev. CoP15).
Conservation of and trade intigers and other Appendix-I
Asian big cats species. CITES
Resolution.
Res. Conf. 14.3 (Corr. CoP15)
Annex 1. Guide to CITES
compliance procedures. CITES
Resolution.
Ringuet, S. In prep. Ivory
market survey in Central
Africa: Case studies in Gabon,
Cameroon, Central African
Republic, Republic of Congo and
Democratic Republic of Congo.
TRAFFIC, Cambridge.
Ringuet, S. (comp., TRAFFIC).
2012. Audit des Stocks
Gouvernementaux d’Ivoire au
Gabon. Rapport d’étape : 26
Mars – 6 Avril 2012. [Audit ofGovernment-held Ivory Stocks
in Gabon. Progress Report.]
With contributions of Esther
Ntsame Alloghe, Jean-Marie

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 34

Saving Rhinos. 2012a. South
Africa: 251 rhinos killed in 172
days. Saving Rhinos website, 21
June.
Saving Rhinos. 2012b. Indianstate of Assam approves toughnew penalties for killing rhinos,
elephants, tigers. Blog post, 22
October.
Saving Rhinos. 2012c. South
Africa: three dozen rhinos
exported to China from
Northwest province over two
years. Blog post, 11 June.
SC53 Doc. 20.1 Annex. 2005.
CITES Secretariat Technical
Mission Report: Verification
Mission related to the Control ofInternal Ivory Trade in China,
7-11 March. Official documentof the 53d meeting of the CITESStanding Committee, 27 June - 1
July, Geneva.
SC57 Doc. 20 Annex. 2007. Egypt:
Enforcement Needs Assessment
Mission, 17-23 November. Reportby the CITES Secretariat. Official
document of the 57th meeting of
the CITES Standing Committee,
14-18 July 2008, Geneva.
SC58 Doc. 33. 2009. Asian
Big Cats. Report by the CITES
Secretariat. Official documentof the 53d meeting of the CITESStanding Committee, 27 June - 1
July, Geneva.
SC58 Inf. 9. 2009. Deciding the
Tiger’s Future: Implementationof CITES Decisions 14.65-14.72.
Report by Kristin Nowell, a
TRAFFIC and WWF Briefing.
Information document of the 53d
meeting of the CITES Standing
Committee, 27 June - 1 July,
Geneva.
SC61 Doc. 30. 2011. Enforcement
Matters. Report by the CITES
Secretariat. Official documentof the 61st meeting of the CITESStanding Committee, 15-19

August, Geneva.
SC61 Doc. 41. 2011. Asian Big Cats.
Report by the CITES Secretariat.
Official document of the 61st
meeting of the CITES Standing
Committee, 15-19 August, Geneva.
SC61 Doc. 41 Annex 1. 2011.
Poaching of and Illegal Tradein Tigers. Report by the CITES
Secretariat and INTERPOL General
Secretariat. Official document of the
61st meeting of the CITES Standing
Committee, 15-19 August, Geneva.
SC61 Doc. 41 Annex 2. 2011. Re:
Conservation of and Trade in Tigers
in China. Report by the governmentof China (Endangered Species
Import and Export Management
Office). Official document of the
61st meeting of the CITES Standing
Committee, 15-19 August, Geneva.
SC61 Doc. 41 Annex 3. 2011.
Conservation of and Trade in Tigers
and other Appendix-1 Asian Big Cat
Species. Report by the governmentof Thailand (CITES Management
Authority). Official document of the
61st meeting of the CITES Standing
Committee, 15-19 August, Geneva.
SC61 Doc. 41 Annex 6. 2011. Reporton Implementation of Resolution
Conf. 12.5: Conservation of
and Trade in Tigers and other
Appendix-1 Asian Big Cat Species.
Report by the government of India.
Official document of the 61st
meeting of the CITES Standing
Committee, 15-19 August, Geneva.
SC61 Doc. 44.1. 2011. Control ofTrade in Elephant Specimens.
Report by the CITES Secretariat.
Official document of the 61st
meeting of the CITES Standing
Committee, 15-19 August, Geneva.
SC61 Doc. 44.7. 2011. FirstTechnical Exchange Meeting
between Producing, Consuming
and Transiting Nations to Reduce
the Illegal Trade in African ElephantIvory. Report by the United Statesof America in collaboration with
the IUCN SSC African ElephantSpecialist Group. Official documentof the 61st meeting of the CITESStanding Committee, 15-19
August, Geneva.
SC61 SumRec. 2011. Summary
record of the 61st meeting of the
CITES Standing Committee, 15-19
August, Geneva.
SC62 Doc. 14.7. 2012. International
Consortium on Combating Wildlife
Crime. Report by the CITES
Secretariat. Official document of the
62d meeting of the CITES Standing
Committee, 23-27 July, Geneva.
SC62 Doc. 29. 2012. Enforcement

Matters. Report by the CITES
Secretariat. Official documentof the 62d meeting of the CITESStanding Committee, 23-27 July,
Geneva.

the Regional Representative ofAsia. Official document of the 62d
meeting of the CITES Standing
Committee, 23-27 July, Geneva.

SC62 Doc. 30. 2012. Central
African Wildlife Trade Law
Enforcement Initiative. Reportby the Central African Republicand Democratic Republic of Congoon behalf of the Central African
Forests Commission (COMIFAC).
Official document of the 62d
meeting of the CITES Standing
Committee, 23-27 July, Geneva.

SFA. 2007. Notification on the
Implementation of LabelingManagement for Tiger andLeopard Skins and their Products,
and Further Regulate their
Utilization. Notification No. 206of the State Forest Administrationand State Ethnic Affairs
Commission, Peoples Republic ofChina, 29 September. In Chinese,
English translation by TRAFFIC.

SC62 Doc. 43 Annex. 2012. Heads
of Police and Customs Seminar on
Tiger Crime, Bangkok, Thailand– 13-14 February 2012. Official
document of the 62d meeting of
the CITES Standing Committee,
23-27 July, Geneva.

SFA. 2011. Notification Requiring
Overseas Personnel to Popularize
Knowledge of the CITESConvention. Government of China
website, 11 May www.gov.cn/
gzdt/2011-05/11/content_1861756.
htm (in Chinese).

SC62 Doc. 46.1 (Rev. 1). 2012.
Elephant conservation, illegal
killing and ivory trade. Reportby the CITES Secretariat, CITESMIKE Programme, government ofSouth Africa, IUCN SSC African
Elephant Specialist Group, IUCNSSC Asian Elephant Specialist
Group, TRAFFIC, and UNEPWorld Conservation Monitoring
Centre. Official document of
the 62d meeting of the CITESStanding Committee, 23-27 July,
Geneva.

Shepherd, C. and Nijman, V.
2008a. The Wild Cat Trade in
Myanmar. TRAFFIC, Petaling
Jaya, Malaysia.

SC62 Doc. 46.2. 2012. Ivory tradecontrol in Thailand. Report by thegovernment of Thailand. Official
document of the 62d meeting of
the CITES Standing Committee,
23-27 July, Geneva.
SC62 Doc. 47.1. 2012.
Rhinoceroses: Report of theWorking Group. Report by theUnited Kingdom on behalf of the
Rhinoceroses Working Group.
Official document of the 62d
meeting of the CITES Standing
Committee, 23-27 July, Geneva.
SC62 Doc. 47.2. 2012.
Rhinoceroses. Report by the
CITES Secretariat. Official
document of the 62d meeting of
the CITES Standing Committee,
23-27 July, Geneva.
SC62 Doc. 47.2 Annex. 2012.
An Assessment of Rhino Hornas Medicine. Report by Kristin
Nowell on behalf of the TRAFFIC
Network to the CITES Secretariat.
Official document of the 62d
meeting of the CITES Standing
Committee, 23-27 July, Geneva.
SC62 Doc. 55 Annex 2.
2012. Reports of regional
representatives – Asia. Reportby the government of Kuwait asShepherd, C. and Nijman, V.
2008b. Elephant and Ivory Trade
in Myanmar. TRAFFIC, Petaling
Jaya, Malaysia.
Steyn, P. 2012. Death in theCongo: the background to
Garamba’s elephant tragedy.
Africa Geographic blog, 9 May.
Stiles, D. 2008. An Assessmentof the Illegal Ivory Trade in Viet
Nam. TRAFFIC, Petaling Jaya,
Malaysia.
Stiles, D. 2009. The Elephantand Ivory Trade in Thailand.
TRAFFIC, Petaling Jaya,
Malaysia.
Stiles, D. 2011. Elephant Meat
Trade in Central Africa:
Democratic Republic of Congo
Case Study. Suppl. to the
Occasional Paper of the IUCN
Species Survival Commission No.
45, Gland, Switzerland.
Stoner, S. 2012. Current Global
Trends of the Illegal Trade in
Tigers. TRAFFIC presentation
to the 1st Stocktaking Meetingof Senior Officials and Experts
to Review Implementation of the
Global Tiger Recovery Program,
15-17 May, New Delhi, India.
TAWIRI (2012). Tanzania
Elephant Management Plan 20102015. Tanzania Wildlife ResearchInstitute, Arusha.
Thome, W.T. 2011. Harsher
penalties in the making forpoaching in Tanzania. ETN Global
Travel Industry News, 17 April.

TigerNet. 2012. Directoryof Tigers and Other Wildlife
Mortality. Online databaseof the Indian National Tiger
Conservation Authority and
TRAFFIC, www.tigernet.nic.in

Verheij, P. Foley, K.E. andEngel, K. 2010. Reduced toSkin and Bones: an Analysis
of Tiger Seizures from 11 Tiger
Range Countries (2000-2010).
TRAFFIC, Cambridge.

TRAFFIC. In preparation.
ASEAN nations’ compliancewith CITES Resolution Conf
9.14 on rhino horn stockpile
reporting, recording andsecurity. TRAFFIC, Petaling Jaya,
Malaysia.

Viet Nam NGOs. 2012. Letterto the Prime Minister of Viet
Nam regarding the proposalby the Ministry of Agriculture
and Rural Development topermit the use of dead captive
tigers as traditional medicine
on a pilot basis. Coalition ofViet Nam-based conservation
nongovernmental organizations,
31 May.

TRAFFIC Seizures Archive. June
2010-April 2012. Online collectionof news reports concerning
seizures and prosecutions. http://
www.traffic.org/seizures-archive
and R. Thomas, in litt., June 2012.
TRAFFIC. 2011a. China reaches
across South Asia frontier intrilateral meeting with Nepal andIndia. TRAFFIC press release, 12
October, Chengdu, China.
TRAFFIC. 2011b. Hong Kongrhino horn seizure a uniqueenforcement opportunity—
TRAFFIC. TRAFFIC press
release, 16 November,
Cambridge, UK.

VOA. 2011. Cameroon, Chadteam up to protect wildlife.
Voice of America Africa news
service, 10 August.
WCS. 2012. Elephants safe inCongo park amidst slaughterin surrounding forests. Wildlife
Conservation Society press
release, 7 June.
Wilson, WANT 2012. Cameroon:
17 wildlife traffickers sentenced.
AfricaNews service, 11 April.

TRAFFIC. 2011c. Creative experts
devise multi-layered strategies
to curtail demand for Tigers andother endangered wildlife species.
TRAFFIC press release, 25
November, Hong Kong, China.
TRAFFIC. 2012a SAWEN officials
prioritize efforts to combat illegal
wildlife trade in South Asia.
TRAFFIC press release, 7 June,
Colombo,
Sri Lanka.

WWF. 2011a. China to use
dogs to detect illegal wildlife
shipments. WWF press release, 6
December, Beijing, China.
WWF. 2011b. Letter tomembers of the CITES Standing
Committee for the 61st meeting,
29 July.
WWF. 2012a. How Vulnerable
are Wild Tigers to Poaching in
Sites Critical to Their Survival?
WWF report.

TRAFFIC. 2012b. e-Commercecompanies declare zero-tolerance
towards illegal online wildlife
trading. 8 June, Beijing, China.

WWF. 2012b. Gabon’s President
destroys ivory and commits tozero tolerance for wildlife crime.
WWF Dispatch, 27 June.

TRAFFIC. 2012c. TRAFFIC
supports training of hundreds ofborder police in Guangxi, China.
TRAFFIC press release, 4 May,
Beijing.

WWF. 2012c. Letter tomembers of the CITES Standing
Committee for the 61st meeting,
9 July.

TRAFFIC. 2012d. Creative
experts’ meeting on messaging
to reduce consumer demand fortigers and other endangered
wildlife species in Viet Nam andChina. TRAFFIC, Cambridge.
Vaisman, A. 2012. Not my
Tiger! Legislation Problemsof Wildlife Conservation Analytical Overview of Current
Legislation with Proposals for
its Improvement. TRAFFIC
Europe-Russia and WWF Russia,
Moscow.

WWF. 2012d. Alsatian dog
Tracey helps recover 32 kg ofivory in Jharkand. WWF press
release, 8 February.
Yao, X. 2012. State Forestry
Administration concentrateon combating the illegal tradein ivory. China Green Times, 8February.
Zhang, J. 2012. Tianjin Customs
seized 938.25 kg of smuggled
ivory. 022News Net (in Chinese).

Wildlife Crime Scorecard page 35•

WILDLIFE CRIME SCORECARDRECYCLED23
Top range, transit anddestination countries
implicated in illegal tradeof elephant, rhino andtiger products assessed

262
South African
rhinos poachedin the first halfof 20123,200

Why we are here
To stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment andto build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.
panda.org© 1986 Panda symbol WWF – World Wide Fund For Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund)® “WWF” is a WWF Registered Trademark. WWF, Avenue du Mont-Blanc, 1196 Gland,

Wildlife
Scorecard
Switzerland Crime– Tel. +41 22
364 9111 Fax page+41 22 364
360332. For contact details and further information,please visit our international website at www.panda.org

2,500
Ivory from 2,500
elephants wascaught in large
seizures in 2011

panda.org/wildlifecrime

Wild tigers remaining,with 200 carcasses
seized in illegal trade
Why we are here
each
year
To stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment andto build a future in which humans live in harmony and nature.

INT

gular

100%

Cover image: © naturepl.com / Vivek Menon/WWF-Canon This page: © Martin Harvey / WWF-Canon

RL

Wildlife Crime Scorecard