ELEPHANT, RHINO, AND TIGER CONSERVATION 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOlVIl\~ITTEE ON FISHERIES, 

WILDLIFE Ai\TD OCEANS 

OF THE 

COMlVIITTEE ON RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT 

CONSERVATION ACT OF 1988 AND THE RHINOCEROS 

AND TIGER CONSERVATION ACT OF 1994 

26-16lcc"' 

JUNE 20, 1996-WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-77 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1996 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-052997-2 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

JAMES V. HA..li<SEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR.-, Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

EDWARD J . MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, Ameri can 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

DANIEL VAL KISH, Chief of Staff 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk I Administrator 

J OHN LAWRENCE , Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITIEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

WAYNE T. GILCHEST, Maryland 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

WALTER B. JONES, JR. , North Carolina 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR. , Maine 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

SOLOMON P ORTIZ, Texas 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SAM FARR, California 

PATRICK J . KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

HARRY B URROUGHS, Staff Director 

JOHN RAYFIELD, Professional Staff 

LIZ BIRNBAUM , Democratic Counsel 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held June 20, 1996 ...... .. ..................................................................... ... . 

Statement of Members: 

Beilenson, Hon. Anthony C., a U.S. Representative from California .......... . Saxton, Hon. Jim, a U.S. Representative from New Jersey; and Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans .......................... .. Studds, Hon. Gerry, a U.S. Representative from Massachusetts ................ . Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska; and Chairman, 

Committee on Resources ............................................................................ . 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bolze, Dorene, Senior Policy Analyst Director, Wildlife Conservation Society ................................................................................................................ . Prepared statement .. ...... ................................................................. .. ..... . Environmental Investigation Agency (prepared statement) ......... ............... . Fitzjohn, Tony, Field Director, Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania ........... . Prepared statement ............ ........................................... . ............. . Hemley, Ginette, Director of International Wildlife Policy, World Wildlife 

Fund .............................. .............. ............................................... .... ............. .. Prepared statement ...... ... ........................................... . ............................ . Hutchins, Dr. Michael, Director of Conservation and Science, American 

Zoo and Aquarium Association, on behalf of Dr. Terry C. Maple ........... .. Jackson, John, President, Safari Club International ................................... . Jones, Marshall, Assistant Director for International Affairs, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service ............................................................. ...................... .. Prepared statement ................................................................................ .. Marlenee, Ron, Director of Legislative Affairs, Safari Club International .. Prepared statement ............. .................... .......................... ...... ................ . Matemba, Matthew, Director, SADC Wildlife Sector Coordinator, Department of National Parks and Wildlife for Malawi .................... ....... .......... .. Prepared statement ......... .. .. .. ....... . ............ ............................. .. .. Murchison, David C., President, Southern Africa Wildlife Trust .... ........... .. 

Prepared statement ......................................... .. ............... ....... .......... .. .... . . Stansell, Kenneth , CITES Management Authority ...................................... . 

Additional material supplied: 

A Framework for Identifying High Priority Areas and Actions for the 

Conservation of Tigers in the Wild, executive summary of report .......... . AECA Grant Projects in Range Countrties ................................................. .. Helping a Species Go Extinct: The Sumatran Rhino in Borneo, by Alan 

Rabinowitz .................................................................................................... . Masire, Sir Ketumile, President, Republic of Botswana, summary of address given on June 13, 1996, to Carnegie Endownment for International Peace ........................................................................... .................. . Saving The Tiger: A Conservation Strategy, submitted by Wildlife Conservation Society, was placed in the Subcommittee files. 

Communications submitted: 

Jones, Marshall P. (Interior Dept.): Letter of July 18, 1996, to Hon. 

Gerry Studds with answers to questions submitted ...... ................ .. .. .. .... . 

(IJ]) 

Page 

1 

3 

1 

2 

1 

28 

90 

138 

30 

108 

23 

75 

9 

7 

17 

64 

7 

45 

11 

54 

26 

83 

17 

98 

127 

120 

39 

135 

AFRICAN ELEPHANT, RHINOCEROS, AND 

TIGER CONSERVATION 

THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1996 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

Mr. SAXTON. Good morning. The Subcommittee will come to 

order. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to evaluate the effectiveness of the African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 and 

the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994. The Subcommittee has asked the witnesses to share their 

thoughts on what changes, if any, should be made in these historic 

conservation measures to better ensure these species are protected, 

whether sufficient Federal resources are being allocated, and if the 

grant program is funded in the most meritorious way for these 

projects. 

[Statement of Mr. Young follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. D ON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALASKA; AND 

C HAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

Mr. Chairman, I compliment you for holding this oversight hearing on the African 

Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act 

of 1994. 

The two historic wildlife conservation laws, authored by the bipartisan leadership 

of Congressmen Gerry Studds, Tony Beilenson, and Jack Fields, were designed to 

prevent the extinction of these three irreplaceable species. By the mid-1980s, the population of African elephants fell by nearly 50 percent 

and poaching of elephants for their ivory tusks reached epidemic levels. While the 

world watched in horror as this flagship specie was systematical slaughtered, Congress passed and President George Bush signed into law the African Elephant Con- servation Act. In fact, President Bush used the authority under that Act to ban the 

importation of all carved elephant ivory into the United States on June 6, 1989. It is my hope that today we will learn whether the African Elephant Conservation 

Act has been effective in stabilizing or increasing the population of elephants, if the 

international price of ivory has remained depressed, and what type of conservation 

projects have been funded by the Department of the Interior. Furthermore, the Subcommittee will examine the impact of the Rhinoceros and 

Tiger Conservation Act of 1994. While this law is relatively new, the task of con- serving these species is much more difficult than elephants because rhinos and ti-

(1) 
2 

gers are highly endangered and products of these animals have been integral components of oriental medicines for generations. 

Finally, the Clinton Administration has requested $600,000 for the African Elephant Conservation Fund and $200,000 for the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation 

Fund in FY '97. While this is the amount Congress appropriated for the current fiscal year, there are many who believe that this level of Federal assistance is inadequate. 

Yesterday, the House of Representatives considered the Interior Appropriations 

bill. Incorporated within this measure was $1 million for the African elephant and 

$400,000 for the rhinos and tigers. This money is the direct result of actions by 

Chairman Ralph Regula and the Speaker of the House, who are committed to ensur- ing that our children and grandchildren have an opportunity to see these magnificent creatures in the wild. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of our distinguished witnesses on these 

landmark conservation measures. 

Mr. SAXTON. Some of our witnesses have traveled across our 

country and the world to share their knowledge and experience 

with us. The Subcommittee welcomes you and looks forward to 

hearing your testimony on these two bipartisan landmark conservation laws that are designed to prevent the extinction of these 

irreplaceable species. At this time, I would like to recognize the 

former Chairman and ranking member, Mr. Studds, for any 

thoughts he may have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GERRY STUDDS, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. STUDDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would not normally 

make an opening statement, but in honor of our retiring colleague, 

Mr. Beilenson, for whom this has been a passion, I would like to 

say a word if I may. 

In 1733, Jonathan Swift wrote that, "Geographers mapping Africa over unhabitable downs placed elephants for want of towns." For 

better or worse, Europeans saw fit soon to rectify what they viewed 

as a shortage of towns with the colonization of the African continent. And along with that colonization came big game hunters 

and a booming global trade in elephant ivory. 

Two hundred and fifty years after Swift penned that little poem, 

American consumers were indirectly responsible for the deaths of 

thousands of elephants each year, and the millions of elephants 

that had once stood on maps in the place of African towns were reduced to fewer than 700,000 animals. 

This magnificent species was facing the possibility of extinction 

in the wild if the slaughter were not stopped. Fortunately, we were 

able to respond to the pending crisis and diminish, if not completely halt, the uncontrolled killing of African elephants for their 

dubious honor of emerging from the evolutionary process bearing a 

resource more precious than gold. 

Although habitat protection and the pressures of industrialization continue to pose a threat to African elephant populations, this 

species appears to be on the rebound, thanks in part to the statute 

we are here to discuss today and to the extraordinary efforts of our 

colleague from California. 

I understand that elephants, like the whales found off the coast 

of Massachusetts, are able to communicate over long distances by 

making deep rumbling sounds that humans cannot hear. If we 
3 

could hear them, I am sure the elephants would be thanking Mr. 

Beilenson for his work on their behalf. 

I wish we could be as optimistic about the future of the other 

species these laws are designed to protect. Due to the continuing 

demand for rhino horns and tiger bones in traditional Asian medicines, and the deplorable illegal trade in tiger skins, these extraordinary creatures may be gone from the face of the earth by the 

time the Democrats regain control of this Congress. There is some 

hope, however, for both the rhinos and tigers and the Democrats. 

Again, thanks to our colleague from California, to Representative 

Fields, who cannot be with us today, and to some of the folks who 

will testify this morning, we will be able to provide some funding 

for rhino and tiger conservation programs. 

The battle to save these species from extinction is far from over, 

but at least the battle is joined. We must continue to do all we can 

through international cooperation and environmental education to 

ensure that rhinos, tigers, and elephants still exist for future generations. 

We all know that extinction, like politics, is forever, and it is a 

very special privilege to recognize our colleague-my colleague 

whose loss will be immense to this institution and to the country, 

to say nothing of the heffalumps, the gentleman from California, 

Mr. Beilenson. 

Mr. SAXTON. I would like to thank the ranking member for his 

statement, and I would just like to say that I for one hope that the 

tigers and rhinos and elephants recover much faster than the 

Democrats. I would like to bring forward at this point my friend, 

our colleague, Tony Beilenson, who was a member of the State Legislature in California; became very active and involved in this matter and matters like it. And so, Tony, we are anxious to hear from 

you this morning, and so you may proceed in the manner that you 

see fit. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BEILENSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a 

relatively brief statement here so if I may, perhaps I will read the 

whole thing to you. Let me start off by saying that I really do appreciate this opportunity to appear before you to urge your continued support for efforts by the United States to help conserve African elephants, rhinos, and tigers-animals that have all suffered 

precipitous declines in their populations in recent decades and may 

well become extinct without our country's continued efforts to help 

save them. 

And I wanted to commend you, Mr. Chairman, very much for focusing this Subcommittee's attention on the plight of these three 

magnificent animals by holding this hearing today. I want to thank 

my good friend, Mr. Studds, not only for his lovely words of introduction, but even more importantly, really, for his longstanding 

leadership in saving these magnificent animals. 

It was because of him, with a lot of help from our friend, Mr. 

Jack Fields of Texas, that we were able to get the elephant bill finally passed several years ago. And his not being in the Congress 
4 

will be missed by a great many people even beyond the elephant 

populations who owe him more than they will ever know. 

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Studds, as you know, the Mrican Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 was enacted in response to the dramatic decline in elephant populations during the late 1970's and 

the 1980's, which had reduced the number of elephants from about 

1.5 million a decade earlier to somewhere around 400,000 or thereabouts. Nobody I think knows or knew exactly, but it was a precipitous decline. 

The Act provided for controls on imports of ivory, which prompted our then President, Mr. Bush, to ban the import of ivory products into the United States in 1989. And that provided an impetus 

for CITES to ban all commercial trade in elephant products that 

same year. 

In addition, the Act established the Mrican Elephant Conservation Fund which, for its size, has been one of the most successful 

efforts ever undertaken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service outside our country to ensure the preservation of a species in its native habitat. Because of U.S. leadership and contributions to the 

International Mrican Elephant Conservation Coordinating Group, 

every range country now has a specific short-term and long-term 

conservation plan. 

Since its inception, the program has funded 48 elephant conservation projects in 17 countries, affecting over 200,000 of these 

elephants. These projects have contributed greatly to the success 

these countries have had in slowing the decline of their Mrican elephant populations, as described just a few minutes ago by Mr. 

Studds. 

The elephant fund helps protect other species as well. Because 

elephants play a very important role in the ecosystems they inhabit-because they use so much space, in short-funds spent on 

elephant conservation provide a tremendous boost to broad environmental protection activities in the affected communities by promoting sound ecological management practices, resource conservation, preservation of threatened ecosystems, and the conservation 

of many other threatened and endangered species. 

Most importantly, our efforts have served as a catalyst in generating major contributions and technical assistance from nongovernmental organizations and from other donor nations, such as Japan 

and several European nations. 

While we know the Mrican Elephant Conservation Act has been 

a success, it is too soon to assess the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994, which established a conservation fund modeled on our elephant program. That program received its first infusion of funding just two months ago, and the amount it received 

was only $200,000. The low level of funding for fiscal 1996-Qnly 

half the amount requested by the Administration-will. severely 

limit the number and size of grants that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service is able to make this year. 

It is regrettable that the United States is not doing more, at 

least not yet, to save rhinos and tigers. There are, sadly, fewer 

than 11,000 rhinos and 6,000 tigers left in the wild today, and their 

survival is becoming increasingly imperiled each year. Their num-
5 

hers have declined rapidly in recent decades because of the demand 

for their parts and the poachers who supply that demand. The number of rhinos has dropped by about 90 percent since 

1970. Four of the five species of rhinos have lost more than half 

of their population in the last five years. The population of tigers 

has decreased by 95 percent during this century. Two subspecies 

of tiger have become extinct in the last 60 years, and the other 

three are in grave danger of becoming extinct. 

Although all tiger subspecies and all rhinoceros species have 

been listed on Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade 

in Endangered Species, CITES, for many years, the prohibition on 

trade of those animals has not been well enforced in some Asian 

countries, where their parts are believed by many to have medicinal value. 

Because of the strong cultural belief in the rhino's and tiger's curative powers, it has been an extremely difficult and complex task 

to eliminate trade in those species, much more so in some ways 

than curbing trade in elephant ivory, which is usually seen as 

merely a luxury item. 

However, if the Fish and Wildlife Service has as much success 

with the rhino and tiger program as it has had with the elephant 

program-and we have good reason to believe that it will-we have 

a fighting chance of saving these two animals from extinction. · Projects which are proposed to be supported by the Rhinoceros 

and Tiger Conservation Fund include the black and white rhino 

sanctuary programs in Kenya and Botswana; India's Project Tiger, 

which has protected more than 80 percent of the world's remaining 

tigers, as well as new tiger conservation programs being developed 

in Thailand, Malaysia, and other Asian countries; and a project designed to bring together all Asian countries with tiger populations 

in common conservation effort with the United States and other developed countries. 

What is most important for Congress to do now, Mr. Chairman, 

is to give the rhino and tiger program a chance to work, as we have 

the elephant program. It was very encouraging that the House Appropriations Committee raised the level of funding in the fiscal 

1997 Interior appropriations bill to $1 million for the elephant 

fund, and to $400,000 for the rhino and tiger fund, from the fiscal 

1996 levels of $600,000 and $200,000, respectively. 

And I would urge the members of this Subcommittee please to 

do whatever you can to see that an adequate level of funding continues to be in this year's appropriations bill and in those in the 

years ahead. And, of course, it is essential that this Subcommittee 

continue to ensure that these programs are reauthorized on a timely basis. 

Mr. Chairman, to end here, it would be unspeakably tragic, in 

my opinion, and I am sure in yours too, sir, if elephants, rhinos, 

and tigers-three magnificent and beloved creatures we have always thought of as part of our world-were no longer in existence. 

With the rhino and the tiger, we are, in fact, perilously close to 

that point. But through these two modest programs, the United 

States is doing what it can to ensure that that not happen. I urge 

your continued interest in and your support for these programs. 
6 

And, again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Studds, both of 

you very, very much, for holding this hearing, and for inviting me 

to testify here today. We are going to have to leave it to you, Mr. 

Chairman-since Mr. Studds and I are leaving this great placeto you and some of your colleagues and friends the responsibility 

of saving these animals for our children and our --grandchildren. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SAXTON. Tony, thank you very much for your continued effort to articulate the virtues of these programs, and certainly the 

members of this Subcommittee by and large agree with the thrust 

of your statement. And I would only point out that there seems to 

be an effort in the Congress as a whole to enhance these programs. 

As you know, the Administration made a request of funding this 

year, and the Congress virtually almost doubled one program and 

did double the funding in the other program for the--

Mr. BEILENSON. We were surprised and delighted, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SAXTON. So we are hopefully moving forward in the right direction, and certainly I pledge to you and the ranking member our 

continued support for the programs. 

Mr. BEILENSON. Thank you. It just occurred to me, perhaps if our 

two major parties adopted rhinos and tigers as our symbols, we 

would get some of our colleagues to be even more interested in saving them. 

Mr. STUDDS. It worked with elephants. Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Studds remarked about it worked with elephants. 

Mr. BEILENSON. It worked too well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. We are going to move on to 

our next panel. We are joined by our former colleague, an individual very much respected around the world with regard to his efforts for conservation, the Honorable Ron Marlenee, who is cur- rently serving as the Director of Legislative Affairs for Safari Club 

International. Would you like to come forward, Mr. Marlenee? And 

Ron is accompanied by John Jackson, who is President of the Safari Club. We will also hear from Dr. Michael Hutchins, who is Director of 

the Conservation and Science, American Zoo and Aquarium Association; and Mr. Matthew Ma~amba, Director of the SADC Wildlife 

Sector Coordinator, Department of the National Parks and Wildlife 

for Malawi. 

Welcome and we are anxious to hear your testimony on behalf 

of our continued effort to support these programs. I understand 

that our former colleague has got to leave to take care of a personal 

matter, and so, Mr. Marlenee, if you would like to begin. And I might remind each of you that while we will have a question and answer period, we would appreciate your being cooperative and able to summarize your testimony. And, of course, your 

testimony will be included in the record in its entirety. 

Those three little lights in front of you, for those of you who have 

not been with us previously, are a reminder. When the red light 

comes on, it will remind you that your five minutes has terminated, 

and we would appreciate your concluding your remarks as swiftly 

as possible thereafter. Ron, proceed. 
7 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RON MARLENEE, DIRECTOR 

OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL; 

ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN JACKSON, PRESIDENT, SAFARI 

CLUB INTERNATIONAL 

Mr. MARLENEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And having attained 

some age, why, I can neither see too well nor hear too well so I 

may go over just a bit. I appreciate the opportunity to testify here 

and your having an oversight hearing. 

I brought with me a summary, a report of the speech by the 

President of the Republic of Botswana that I think would add considerably to the understanding of the South African attitude toward conservation, and I would present this to you and hope that 

you would enter the remarks of the President of Botswana into the 

record. 

Mr. SAXTON. Without any objection. [Statement of the President of Botswana may be found at end of 

hearing.] 

Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Chairman, all is not wine and roses in regard to the administration of this Act. This Act originally was supported by conservation groups, also by bipartisan authors, Fields, 

Beilenson, Studds, who were both ranking members and chairman 

of the various committees that was a forerunner of this committee. 

The Speaker of the House went to the well in favor of its funding. It originally passed a Democrat-controlled Congress by a wide 

margin. The African nations and wildlife professionals, who have 

been the target of selected trade sanctions, support this Act as a 

small modicum of replacing additional costs and huge revenue 

losses imposed on them. 

With all of this wide support that the Act has, the signal should 

be clear, funded, and integrated provisions into government policy. 

However, there is one black mark among all the positive signals. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service apparently didn't get the signal. 

The Service places a low priority on funding the Act and, secondly, 

largely ignores, if not abuses, its provisions. I have dealt with this 

in my written testimony. 

Respectfully, I submit to you that the Service should not be ignoring the express findings and policies set by the Congress, much 

less trampling on range nation programs. This is particularly true, 

and the policy statement is so recent and on point. 

To quote, the Act says that, "It is the policy of the United States 

to assist in the conservation and protection of the African elephant 

by supporting the conservation programs of the African countries 

and the CITES Secretariat." 

And, number 2, it provides financial resource. The Act should be 

administered to provide financial resources for these programs. The 

guidelines that were used by the Service and their present refusal 

to issue import permits for elephants for a number of countries 

that qualify under the AECA violate the first provision. 

The denial of revenues from sport hunting that results when permits are not issued violates the second provision because sport. hunting is one of the more significant financial resources referred 

to that is available to African countries for conservation, and for all 

wildlife species, and, very importantly, for the incentive to preserve 

habitat. 
8 

Mr. Chairman, when 82 percent of the mammals listed under the 

ESA are foreign species and the Service will not even recognize 

CITES quotas for U.S. imports, they have essentially gutted the 

ability of foreign wildlife professionals to pursue programs that 

give the indigenous people an incentive to live with and protect 

wildlife. 

For indigenous people, survival becomes a key word. Agriculture 

for food replaces habitat for wildlife, and poachers have the opportunity to be heros who save crops and domestic animals instead of 

villains who are destroying a sustainable harvested resource that 

is professionally cared for and a source of income. This oversight 

hearing was desperately needed if we care about African wildlife 

and habitat. Let me cite the tragic story of Ethiopia. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife refused to issue permits for elephant trophy imports from that 

country despite information that the revenue from elephant hunting supplied the revenue that was equal to one-half of the Wildlife 

Department's annual budget. The elephant hunting was the only 

means to get government game scouts into the field, and the presence of outfitters was the only effective way to reduce poaching. 

The result of the refusal to issue permits was the termination of 

all safari hunting in Ethiopia for three years. Guess what? Poachers moved in and abandoned safari areas became killing fields. The 

stench of dead elephants hung in the air. 

Some blame the U.S. Fish and Wildlife for killing those elephants just as surely as if they had pulled the triggers of the 

poacher's gun. They did this without so much as a consultation, 

and they did it over the pleas from the authorities. We can go down 

the list of countries and name one after another. 

There are a lot of problems. However, there are two serious problems that we see with the administration of the AECA. One is the 

failure of the Administration to seek more money that is authorized for projects and grants under the law. The Administration's 

support has been weak, almost to the point of nonexistence. Since 

the Act's inception, the Administration has never requested even 

one-quarter of the amount authorized. 

The other problem is even more serious. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife has disregarded the express language in the Act that the Secretary shall not establish any moratorium which prohibits the importation into the U.S. of sports hunted trophies of elephants. Instead, they are using the ESA as an excuse. The Service has imposed restrictions that have deprived these range nations of tens 

of millions of dollars in foreign exchange, and have simultaneously 

raised their cost unnecessarily. Mr. Chairman, I see that my time 

has elapsed. I do have about a minute of significant testimony left. 

Mr. SAXTON. Why don't you go ahead and finish your testimony? 

That will be fine. 

Mr. MARLENEE. The provision of the AECA that deals with its relationship to ESA says that, "The authority of the Secretary under 

this Act is in addition to the authority under ESA." If this is not 

clear, that this "additional authority" under the Act should be the 

controlling African elephant guideline, then maybe the committee 

should send a message-a very clear message or develop language 

for the Department to follow. 
9 

No question but the AECA was intended to express a congressional policy about a particular species within the framework of the 

U.S. effort to conserve endangered and threatened species. But 

somehow it became a stand-alone law. Those who administer the 

ESA seem to have forgotten that Congress has spoken specifically 

to the conservation and the protection and the import of trophy elephants. 

Again, the AECA, in addition to language, and in spite of the fact 

that congressional policy has been expressed, the Service within 

two years of the passage began imposing restrictions so strict that 

they could not be met. In other words, their guidelines were a moratorium. There was protest after protest from range nations, wildlife professionals, elephant authorities. 

However, the imperialistic attitude of the bureaucracy prevailed. 

It prevailed that is until a Federal judge threatened personal sanctions against the Secretary of Interior. Then the Service did a circle-about and circumvented again the intent and set up a different 

set of roadblocks. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will submit the 

rest for the record. Thank you very much. 

[Statement of Mr. Marlenee may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Ron, for bringing your 

thoughts to us today, and we understand that you have some matters to take care of of a personal nature. And we appreciate very 

much your being here so when you feel the need to go, please do. 

And I understand Mr. Jackson is going to stay to answer questions. 

Mr. MARLENEE. I am going to leave him to put out the fires. 

Mr. SAXTON. OK. Thank you very much. Dr. Hutchins, I understand that you are here today to testify on behalf of Dr. Maple. And 

you are the Director of Conservation and Science of the American 

Zoo and Aquarium Association. We welcome you here today, sir, 

and you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL HUTCHINS, DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION AND SCIENCE, AMERICAN ZOO AND AQUARIUM 

ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF DR. TERRY L. MAPLE 

Mr. HUTCHINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Maple has the following to say about the Elephant and Rhino and Tiger Conservation Acts, and, as you noted, I am here representing him. He extends his apologies for not being able to attend the proceedings 

today. These are Dr. Maple's words. 

"I am giving testimony today as the Director of Zoo Atlanta, a 

fully accredited member of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, also known as the AZA, and Professor of Psychology at the 

Georgia Institute of Technology. 

"In my administrative role as director of the zoo, I lead a management team of dedicated conservationists who help to generate $1 million of private revenue annually to operate our conservation, 

education, and scientific programs. In the zoo, we house nearly 

1,000 animals, including a breeding pair of African rhinos, three female African elephants, and a breeding pair of Sumatran tigers, 

one of the world's most critically endangered mammals. 

"My remarks today also reflect what I have learned in conservation circles around the world. I have seen faceless elephants firsthand, the handiwork of Kenya's most brutal poachers. I have 
10 

searched in vain for black rhinos in areas where they were previously quite common. Mr. Chairman, I have searched in East Mrican reserves where elephants were plentiful just a decade ago, and 

I have floated down riverine habitat alongside Sumatra's Alas 

River in search of just a glimpse of one of the last remaining big 

cats in all of Asia. 

"In just my professional lifetime, some 30 years now, elephant, 

rhino, and tiger populations have plummeted. Like my colleagues 

who will testify before you today, I appreciate the efforts of our 

Federal Government to monitor these events and to intervene with 

effective conservation action when it is appropriate. We must act 

now before it is too late. "Many experts will offer testimony on the Elephant Conservation 

Act today, and these individuals are better prepared to evaluate 

the effectiveness of grants that have been issued since 1988. I will 

mention one zoo-based program that I believe is particularly promising. 

"At the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle, Dr. Sam Wasser has been 

working for many years on techniques which permit animals to be 

identified by fecal DNA analysis. In 1995, Dr. Wasser received a 

grant from Interior's Elephant Conservation Fund for $35,000 to 

utilize this technology in Mrican antipoaching programs. 

"Soon Dr. Wasser and his collaborators will be able to accurately 

determine the geographic origins of migrating elephants and track 

poaching as it occurs. These and other new biological techniques 

have been pioneered in zoo settings, enabling field biologists to 

apply tested techniques as they solve real world problems. 

"The lion's share of applied research in zoos is provided by 

earned revenue and private donations. The entrepreneurial nature 

of the modern zoo makes Interior's Elephant Conservation Fund a 

real bargain. 

"The newer Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act has no track 

record as of yet, but it will surely augment the good work being 

done by zoos who have funded rhino and tiger programs for many 

years. The Minnesota Zoo has been particularly active in the protection of tigers worldwide. Their conservation programs are balanced with education, research, and field biology receiving equal 

attention. "In 1995, the Minnesota Zoo initiated its Sumatran Tiger Project 

in Way Kambas National Park, Sumatra. This project gathers basic 

information about the distribution and habits of Sumatran tigers, while establishing a community-based conservation education program. "Zoo staff from Minnesota are training Indonesian professionals 

to become future conservation scientists and leaders. AZA training 

programs, in demand throughout the world, are one of the zoo profession's best investments in the future . "The Minnesota Zoo has also been funded by Exxon Corporation 

working with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation through 

the innovative Save the Tiger Fund. From these sources, the Minnesota Zoo established their International Tiger Information Center. It provides an international forum for the exchange of information about tigers worldwide. 
11 

"This information data base went on line in September of 1995 

and now includes a site on the World Wide Web and an information hotline: 1-800-5Tigers. The web site can be an exhaustive 

source of information and provide e-mail linkage for discussion 

groups among AZA's Species Survival Plan participants. The successful propagation of tigers in captivity is greatly facilitated by 

such accessible forms of communication and decisionmaking. 

"The conservation crisis in Asia extends to both tigers and 

rhinos. Zoos are responding to this crisis with increased funding 

and dedicated personnel. The need is immediate in the case of both 

taxa, but Asian rhinos number only about 2,400 for all three species. The Javan rhino is down to a mere 75 individuals, and 

Sumatrans number only about 300 in the wild. 

"The international zoo community has contributed mightily to 

rhino conservation. Currently, the private International Rhino 

Foundation, which has close links to the AZA Rhino Advisory 

Group, is providing $500,000 and directing another $750,000 for 

field conservation for rhinos worldwide. 

"Current funding in the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act represents a meaningful addition, but more will be needed if we are 

to stop the rapid decline of these creatures. Dr. Tom Foose of the 

IRF suggested 2 to 2.5 times the current appropriation" will be necessary. We greatly appreciate the fact that the House Appropriations Committee has recognized the importance of these Acts and 

nearly doubled the funding for fiscal year 1997. 

Dr. Maple wanted me to mention that he has not "forgotten that 

Speaker Gingrich saved Interior's two 'Conservation Acts' from extinction on the Floor of Congress last fall. He noted then that it 

would be a huge mistake if we failed to exert leadership on this important matter. 

"If other nations observe that America is soft on conservation, 

they too will be tempted to defer effective conservation action for 

short-term gain. We can and we should protect elephants, tigers, 

and rhinos. Future generations will surely judge us by the 

strength, timing, and duration of our commitment. 

"America's Elephant and Rhino/Tiger Conservation Acts are a 

strong signal to others that we are serious about protecting the 

world's wildlife." Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. Dr. Hutchins, thank you very much. I was privileged to hear Mr. Matemba yesterday in a little forum that we had 

over in the Capitol, and I must say that you are all in for a treat 

this morning to hear his testimony. I would just remind everyone 

that he is the Director of the SADC wildlife sector. I guess your 

title is Coordinator. Is that correct? 

Mr. MATEMBA. Yes. 

Mr. SAXTON. And we look forward to hearing your testimony at 

this time. You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW MATEMBA, DIRECTOR, SADC WILDLIFE SECTOR COORDINATOR, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL 

PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOR MALA WI 

Mr. MATEMBA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Government of Malawi and its Department 

of National Parks and Wildlife, I thank you for the opportunity to 
12 

testify regarding · the effectiveness of the Mrican Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 and the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act of 

1994. 

My name is Matthew Matemba, and I am Director of National 

Parks and Wildlife in Malawi. I am also SADC Coordinator for 

Wildlife, which has the responsibility for coordinating issues relating to wildlife management within the 12 SADC member states in 

Southern Mrica, starting from South Mrica to Tanzania. 

Mr. Chairman, it is our position that the Elephant Act and the 

Rhinoceros Act have presented important opportunities for achieving and maintaining sustainable wildlife conservation in Mrica. An 

example of how successful these funds have been in meeting these 

objectives can be found in my own country of Malawi. 

Last year, my Department received a grant of 30,000 U.S. dollars, which enabled us to provide emergency water supplies in 

drought-stricken areas. These water supplies undoubtedly ensured 

that significant numbers of elephants and other species did not die 

due to lack of water. 

It is our sincere hope that funds granted under these two Acts 

will support wildlife conservation programs, that it empower local 

communities to work directly with wildlife conservation managers 

and experts in the range states. 

Finally, the two Acts reflect an important first step on the road 

to conservation. Much more is left to be done. New models must 

be explored to replace old fence-and-fines approaches with more effective programs. 

Given the conflict between preservation and human needs, Malawi and other African nations have increasingly turned to such 

new models of preservation that emphasize community-based conservation and development or CBCD. The strategies include linking 

local participation with conservation and development goals to create programs promising long-term sustainability. 

In the past, enforcement regimes often failed to recognize that 

local communities competed for access to natural resources with 

wildlife. By establishing economic incentives for conservation, new 

CBCD programs address this critical shortcoming. 

Mr. Chairman, success of CBCD programs in the range states relies upon the availability of markets for wildlife products. These 

markets depend on policy and regulations both on international 

level and within consumer nations such as the United States. 

Without legal markets for wildlife products, the landowner or occupier is unlikely to tolerate or to encourage wildlife on his or her 

land as it is simply a dangerous liability. 

With the grants under the Elephant and Rhino Acts that have 

been vital fronts under Elephant and Rhino Acts, they have been 

helpful in supporting protecting efforts. More must be done to stimulate market incentives. First, transferring the elephant population 

of certain countries where there is proven capacity for effective 

wildlife management to Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES, or to stimulate elephant conservation, assist local communities and support enhanced 

biodiversity. Second, the United States should clarify the foreign species provisions of its Endangered Species Act by removing encumbrances 
13 

to sustainable trade in certain wildlife products. Despite our experience to the contrary, the underlying implication of ESA seems to 

be that trade in endangered and threatened species has a negative 

conservation impact. 

By working with the range states more closely, the United States 

would be providing incentives and supporting conservation initiatives of local experts and not unintentionally undermining them as 

is often the case today. Specifically, more effective conservation 

under ESA would advance a more cooperative and productive atmosphere for wildlife protection. 

Some have argued that existence of trade restrictions, such as 

the ivory ban, have been responsible for a decline in poaching and 

the stabilization of the African elephant. From our experience, stabilization of the elephant herd and poaching declines have occurred 

in nations with sustainable conservation programs. By contrast, 

population declines and poaching, after a brief decline, have continued or worsened in nations without such programs. 

If continued, Appendix I listing of elephants or misapplication of 

ESA undermines the market underpinnings of sustainable conservation, the very stability that some observers point to will evaporate. It is our opinion that the funding provision under the Elephant and Rhinoceros Act will represent a tremendous opportunity 

for the U.S. Government to maximize the returns from its aid by 

making a significant impact upon both sustainable biodiversity conservation and the relief of human poverty. 

I would urge the flexible funding provided by these Acts to be focused upon supporting and encouraging conservation approaches in 

which local communities are fully involved in the management of 

wildlife. 

Finally, there is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that in addition to adequate funding, the sustainability of African conservation programs 

will depend upon the tolerance of national and international trade 

regimes for carefully controlled and sustainable trade in wildlife resources. We encourage further U.S. conservation efforts to proceed 

in accordance with the framework of CITES. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you and your Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on the African Elephant Conservation Act and Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. And thank you to the U.S. 

Government for its continued support of Africa's conservation programs. We have come far in protecting African wildlife, but much 

remains to be accomplished. With your assistance and cooperation, 

I am certain we will achieve our mutual objectives. Thank you. 

[Statement of Mr. Matemba may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. We thank you very much, Mr. Matemba, for traveling as far as you have to share your thoughts with us here today. 

Let me just pursue with you for a moment, from your experience, 

have you seen good, concrete examples of where our United States 

programs have been helpful? And, if so, how have they been helpful? And do you also see where we might make changes of any kind 

that would make our programs even more helpful? 

Mr. MATEMBA. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. The pro- grams that have been initiated by the United States Government 

have been extremely very helpful. They have assisted us in building the capacity and in being able to give the responsibility to the 
14 

local communities, to give them incentives, to be able to assume responsibility for the management of these resources. 

This support that we have got is not really assisting us but 

transfers the responsibility to the local communities, who are the 

ones who get benefits from the conservation of all these resources. 

In approving these incentives, they cannot allow anybody to handle 

these animals illegally. 

Mr. SAXTON. Now, yesterday, as well as today, you mentioned the 

role that is played by local communities, and you indicated that 

that role has been a very important and key part of the success of 

these programs. Can you elaborate on that and say why you think 

that is so very important? 

Mr. MATEMBA. Mr. Chairman, thank you again. These programs 

have been quite successful because in the planning for this programs, right from the planning stage, right from the implementation of the programs, local communities, people who live side by 

side with these animals, have been effectively involved with it. 

At every stage, they have taken part of it. They have been given 

the responsibility; but in assuming these responsibilities, particularly in empowering them, and being able to democratically participate in making decisions, they have assumed the whole responsibility of managing these resources. I think this is very key, that everybody saying. In the past, they were denied these opportunities. All decisions 

were made from the top, and all that was coming down was an imposition. There was no carrot at all for them. We believe by empowering them, giving them the responsibility is extremely very important because they assume this is their property, and nobody wants 

to destroy his own property or her own property. 

Mr. SAXTON. Well, I thank you for that explanation. We are 

struggling in our country with an effort to rewrite or reauthorize 

our Endangered Species Act, which works to preserve species here 

domestically in our country. And one of the efforts that we have 

made is to carry out changes in the program or suggest and implement changes in the program that would give our local communities additional responsibility. 

And it is interesting to me that you have pointed out that this 

is one of the major reasons that in your country your programs 

have been successful, and I thank you for pointing that out for us. 

Let me just pursue one other issue with you. I understand that 

the price of ivory subsequent to certain changes in international 

laws as well as in the United States laws-and the price of ivory 

dipped which was certainly a positive occurrence. 

More recently, however, I understand that the price of ivory has 

gone up or escalated to some extent. Is that your understanding, 

and what kind of an effect do you suppose that might have on elephant recovery? 

Mr. MATEMBA. Mr. Chairman, again, thank you v~ry much. I 

have not been able to do much research on that. I would like to 

come back to you in written response after I have done my homework. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I think the only response that I would like 

to advance immediately is that when an item does not have an immediate market, when the market is, you know, hidden, normally 
15 

what happens is the prices tend to go up because that item is not 

available in public. So that may have an effect, but the prices may 

not necessarily go down but probably are going up. 

Mr. SAXTON. OK. Thank you very much. Would either Mr. Jackson or Mr. Hutchins, would you like to respond in any way to the 

latter question? 

Mr. JACKSON. I could add that I think it is much like drugs. You 

know, they say that the price would go down if it was legalized. I 

think there is substantial evidence that bans only work on a shortterm, not in the long-term. I think Atole Leopold said it in 1933 

that there are two methods of managing wildlife-first, through 

regulation but the more important one, the second one, is through 

incentives. And we have only been dealing with one, and that is 

regulations. Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Jackson, let me turn to you for a minute. Explain to me how sport hunting, in your opinion, tends to inhibit 

poaching? 

Mr. JACKSON. We have done a number of studies, and I think it 

is a widely recognized wildlife management principle that hunting 

displaces poachers. It provides revenue to the authorities and as 

well as incentive for them to protect their wildlife. It produces revenue to the local people. Our studies show three to five times the national revenue in 

hunting areas. It occupies the area. The way the Africans see it, 

Mr. Chairman, is that if you leave your house empty, the thieves 

will move in, and sport hunting occupies the house. Mr. SAXTON. I see. Do you believe we would be effective in protecting more elephants if we or if the countries involved created additional protection through parks and reservations? 

Mr. JACKSON. I think that is a fallacy, Mr. Chairman, that parks 

will save elephants. They have what they call the five percent rule, 

that no more than five percent of your habitat can be justified in 

a form of parks or protected areas. The real future of the elephant 

lies in its value outside of protected areas, where even the park elephants spend part of their time during certain seasons. 

We have to give it value, or the great herds of elephants in Africa today will disappear by the turn of the century. Even if we save 

it in parks, that would just be glorified zoos. And the real key to 

elephant survival is something more than stopping the ivory trade. 

It is giving them value outside of protected areas where their fate 

is really going to be determined. Mr. SAXTON. Now, your position then is that sport hunting is 

really one of the major factors which contributes to the protection 

of wildlife because it gives the right type of incentive to the game 

mangers, as well as the population. 

I understand that the white rhino in South Africa has done well, and I believe your position may be that one of the reasons it has 

done well is because of the sport hunting that is associated with 

that species. Would you like to elaborate on that? 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are very proud 

of the role that the American sportsman has played in the recovery 

of the white rhino in South Africa. The parks, of course, were successful in protecting the rhino, and they sold surplus rhino to ranch 
16 

owners for as much as $250,000 apiece, and that provided revenue 

for the parks in tens of millions of dollars. 

Likewise, the private landowners, therefore, had the incentive 

because of the sport hunting program to make those purchases and 

to invest in the rhino survival and to protect them and to breed 

them. And today we have 7 or 8,000 rhinos in South Mrica. They 

have been downlisted, and they are safe and protected by people 

with an incentive to save them. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Dr. Hutchins, let me just ask 

you a question that is certainly related, and I was hopeful that you 

might be able to relate this even more specifically for us. 

Dr. Maple and I have become partners of sorts in promoting the 

better use of science in protecting endangered species certainly in 

this country and around the world as well. With regard to these 

programs and these species that we are talking about, do you believe there is need for more science, better science, more research, 

better numbers? Please elaborate. Mr. HUTCHINS. Well, yes, I would agree with that statement 100 

percent. I think one of the biggest problems facing wildlife, especially the large, very mobile animals like elephants, rhinos, and tigers, is that they move outside of protected areas. And they are 

also becoming more isolated in small pockets of natural habitat 

surrounded by a sea of humans. 

And I think that the technologies that we are going to need to 

manage this type of situation in the future have not really been developed yet so there will be a great need for more science to attack 

issues like genetic management within national parks, monitoring 

of populations, and that type of thing. 

I think there is a need for lot of new technologies. Some of them 

are coming out of zoos because we do manage small populations, 

while the same kinds of situations are beginning to happen in our 

national park systems all over the world. So the transfer of this 

kind of technology will be critical for the future of wildlife, and especially for these large animals; also important will be the application of science to mediating conflicts between wildlife and people. 

I think that, in many cases, these larger animals are great 

threats to humans due to destruction of crops, for instance, when 

elephants move outside the national park system. Tigers kill people 

as well. And these are issues that can't be ignored. 

I think if you are going to have incentives to keep these animals 

around, you have to address them. And there are very innovative 

techniques that are being developed through science to try to mediate these kinds of conflicts. 

Mr. SAXTON. Is that information readily available to scientists? 

Is there a need for kind of a clearinghouse of information of any 

kind, or do the scientists basically know what each other are doing, 

and is that information available readily to policymakers in the appropriate places? 

Mr. HUTCHINS. I am not sure that it is yet, and I think there 

needs to be better forums for these kinds of discussions. Scientists 

tend to like to work alone. They are often not very good at communicating with one another. 

I think there is a need for this type of forum. I think the World 

Wide Web site does have information on what is going on with 
17 

tiger research around the world. But there needs to be a better system in place for the different people to communicate with one another and for us to assess what the priorities are. 

And that is always a critical problem in conservation, to determine what the highest priorities are for a particular project so that 

the money-the limited funds can be directed in the right way. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. I would like to thank you all very much 

for being here with us today. I wish we had more time to pursue 

these matters with you. However, we have two additional panels, 

and we must move on so thank you again for being with us. 

And we are going to move now to our next panel which is made 

up of a single individual who is the Assistant Director of International Mfairs at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mr. Marshall 

Jones. 

Mr. Jones, would you come forward. I understand you have two 

of your colleagues with you, and if you would like to have them join 

you at the table, as they are already doing, that is fine. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MARSHALL JONES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY KENNETH STANSELL, CHIEF, 

CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate 

that invitation. I have with me Mr. Kenneth Stansell who is the 

Chief of our CITES Management Authority, and a number of members of his staff are also here with us, Mr. Chairman, and they also 

were the ones who set up this display which we very much appreciate your allowing us to do that. 

It is a new program that we have been working on to educate 

consumers in the United States in the Asian-American communities about the need not to buy products that are labeled as containing endangered species, and we appreciate to have the opportunity to show it to you today. Mr. Chairman, I also very much appreciate the chance to talk 

about these two very important laws, the African Elephant Act and 

the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act. It is particularly timely that 

renewed emphasis is being given to these landmark legislative initiatives since these laws recognize that the United States is a party 

to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species or 

CITES, and as a major consumer of the world's natural resources 

shares responsibility for supporting and implementing measures to 

provide for the conservation of species, both at home and abroad. 

The key element in both of these laws is the provision of financial resources to assist the people of developing Mrican and Asian 

nations in implementing their priorities for wildlife conservation. 

In fact, conservation of the Mrican elephant, rhinos, and tigers also 

remains an issue of enormous importance to the American people. 

Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has received 

more mail from individual Americans about these species over the 

past eight years than any other species of wildlife, foreign or domestic. Most of my remarks today, Mr. Chairman, will focus on the 

Mrican Elephant Conservation Act, and I will attempt to summarize the key points which are contained in the written testimony 

which has been provided to you. 
18 

We believe that the African Elephant Act has been very successful. There is still much more work to be done. And we also appreciate the initiative which was taken by the Congress to adopt in 

1994 the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act, which is modeled after 

the Elephant Act and which we think can also make a difference 

in international wildlife conservation. 

Mr. Chairman, at the time the African Elephant Act was enacted 

in 1989, elephants had declined by as much as 50 percent over the 

past two decades due primarily to poaching of elephants for the illegal trade in ivory. In response to this decline, President Bush imposed a moratorium on all commercial imports of ivory into the 

United States under the authority of the African Elephant Act. This led the world community to transfer the African elephant to 

Appendix I of CITES and to place a world ban on the commercial 

ivory trade. Overall, we believe that this ban was extremely effective. We also recognize, Mr. Chain tan, that there are countries in 

southern Africa which have legiti111ate concerns on the impact of 

the ban. And we are continuing to engage in a dialog with these 

countries to determine what else can be done to recognize the 

needs of all Africans. 

We also note, Mr. Chairman, that in the last year or two there 

are reports of an increase in poaching in some parts of Africa. 

Thankfully, Mr. Chairman, not in the areas where we are providing our own financial support. 

We would note that after the initial increase in the amount of 

donor support from the world community in general for elephant 

conservation which followed the ivory ban, slowly but surely that 

support has been drying up. And the African Elephant Conservation Fund now remains the only solely dedicated source of assistance to African countries for elephant conservation. But in the climate of an overall decrease in the amount of assistance which is 

available, poaching is on the rise. 

Two things that one might deduce from that, Mr. Chairman. 

One, that we may not have found the whole answer, and we are 

still looking for the best ideas about what should be done next. But, 

number 2, Mr. Chairman, the fact that our work is certainly not 

done, and the Elephant Act continues to play a critical role in the 

continuation of support for the elephant and its protection. And we 

hope reinstitution of programs by other countries and international 

bodies can make a real difference to conservation of the African elephant in the next coming decade. 

My testimony, Mr. Chairman, gives a number of examples of the 

kind of projects which we have funded, and I won't repeat them 

now except to say that there are two important principles that I 

think these projects show. Number 1, the elephant fund is small 

and flexible. We are able to respond quickly to changing needs and 

to give support to programs in a very short period of time. And we 

think that is very critical. 

We have never asked for a huge program because we think that 

that is not something that would fit within the budget, but we also 

believe that a small and highly focused program is one that can respond to needs that are of the highest priority. And, secondly, Mr. 

Chairman, in a number of areas where these projects are in oper-
19 

ation, we have seen a measurable difference. Mr. Chairman, I note 

the red light has gone on. I am almost finished here. 

In areas where African elephant grants are in operation, we have 

seen a situation dramatically change from what one might have 

seen a few years ago with carcasses of poached elephants, today 

seeing families of elephants, reproduction, and even more importantly, seeing Africans who are benefiting from those elephant populations through ecotourism, through jobs created as a result of 

those elephant populations being there. So both the elephants and 

people in the local communities are benefiting very much as Mr. 

Matemba so eloquently summarized a minute ago. Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me turn to the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act. We only got access to the appropriations under that 

Act when the fiscal year 1996 budget was enacted a couple of 

months ago. And so we have not yet developed a full program. We 

do have some very interesting proposals, and in the next few 

months, we will be awarding the first grants under that program. 

In addition, Mr. Chairman, we are working very hard to coordinate that program with other ongoing efforts; for example, the Save 

the Tiger Fund established by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. I serve as a member of the board which oversees that fund, 

and we think that that fund which is funded primarily by the 

Exxon Corporation but which more and more other donors now are 

beginning to also contribute to can make a real difference. Mr. Chairman, I would also note that we have been very fortunate to have as partners in our elephant program and we hope in 

our rhino and tiger program many of the organizations which have 

appeared or will be appearing on the panel today. 

And we look forward to close cooperation with those organizations, whether it be the Safari Club International, the World Wildlife Fund, Wildlife Conservation International, American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, and all of the African 

countries that are so important, and Asian countries in the future. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would say that the findings made by 

the Congress in enacting the African Elephant Act still ring true 

today. I would quote, "Many African countries do not have sufficient resources to properly manage, conserve, and protect their elephant populations." And I think the same applies to rhino and tiger 

populations. 

We believe the United States has responsibility, and we think 

that the African Elephant Act and the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act, as they are currently written, are positioned to continue 

to make large contributions to the conservation of these species. 

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions that 

you may have about any of the issues that I have raised or any of 

the other testimony which has been given. [Statement of Mr. Jones may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones. We appreciate 

very much your being here and recognize the strong advocacy role 

that you have played on behalf of this program. Let me ask you a 

question about funding for the two programs. First, in the elephant 

program, it looks like both the Administration and the Congress 

have stutter-stepped, and what I mean by that is that last year the 

Administration for the current fiscal year, which is last year that 
20 

we worked on, for fiscal year '96, the Administration requested 

about $1.1 million for the program. And Congress appropriated 

only $600,000. 

For this year, I guess I know why, because the Administration 

requested about the same amount that was appropriated last year, 

and Congress appropriated a million. I don't understand the thinking process I guess. 

Now, on the rhino and tiger program, in fiscal year '96 the Administration requested once again a level of funding at $600,000. 

The appropriators appropriated only $200,000, and this year the 

Administration requested $200,000, and Congress is apparently 

going to appropriate double that, $400,000. There seems to be a 

disconnect, and I don't understand. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that I can fully explain 

all that either. What I can say is that you have correctly summarized the basic situation. The African Elephant Act had been funded at a level of a little over $1 million for several years. In fiscal 

1996, the Congress reduced that appropriation by half. 

And as was noted by a previous witness, there was even a move 

to eliminate that funding altogether. And the Speaker very eloquently went to the Floor to speak on behalf of that level of funding as an appropriate amount for the American taxpayers to contribute to the conservation of these species overseas. And the rhino 

fund-this was the first appropriation we had requested. We requested $400,000 for fiscal year 1996, and, again, the appropriation 

was half of that. 

In developing the President's budget for fiscal year 1997, it was 

determined that those levels-the amount that was actually appropriated by Congress for 1996 would be what the Administration 

would request for fiscal 1997. That was done in the spirit, Mr. 

Chairman, of the need for meeting the overall targets for a balanced budget. 

My written testimony takes note that we have a large backlog of 

projects. There are no end of good projects much larger than we 

could have funded at any level of appropriation. And if the amount 

which was reported out of the Appropriations Committee and 

which we hope will be in-the action on the Department of Interior 

appropriations will be completed this morning. 

It started yesterday by the full House. If that is the amount that 

is appropriated, although it is more than was requested in the 

President's budget, we certainly do have projects that we can effectively use it. 

We are now in the process of starting to think about the fiscal 

year 1998 budgets, and, Mr. Chairman, we will be taking all these 

things in mind and would be consulting closely with your committee also in thinking through what is the appropriate level of funding to request for fiscal 1998. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. There are three aspects of these programs that I have noticed that have come forward in the testimony 

so far today. First is regulation which apparently generally takes 

the form of bans on certain types of imports. 

The second is a category of incentives, which the Safari Club 

speaks eloquently in favor of in terms of sport hunting. And also 

the involvement of local community groups in planning conserva-
21 

tion efforts because of incentives. And third, donor support from a 

variety of sources which moneys are then used to carry out various 

types of conservation programs. May I ask you to comment on each of the three of these and try 

to tell us why certain programs work, certain types of categories 

of programs work, while others may not work as good, if that, in 

fact, is true? 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, we think that all three of those are 

important; can work; do play an important role. It is how they are 

balanced with each other. The first issue on regulation, that is in 

the context of what we are talking about, the ban on the trade in 

ivory, as well as the ban on the trade in rhino horn and tiger bone 

since all of these species are listed in Appendix I of CITES, International Convention on Endangered Species. And we think that 

that is an important backdrop for everything else that we do. 

We also recognize, as I mentioned during my opening statement, 

that there are concerns on the part of some Southern African countries about whether or not the ivory ban has been fair to them. And 

I think we would concede, Mr. Chairman, that those countries were 

asked to make a short-term sacrifice of some revenue which they 

might have gained from the ivory trade for the benefit of elephants 

as a whole because the international ivory trade system had simply 

shown itself not to be up to the job of keeping the illegal ivory out. 

And once there was some legal ivory, it was impossible to tell 

which was which. 

We are continuing to engage in a dialog with African countries 

from all over Africa, as well as with countries from elsewhere in 

the developing world about what is the best approach to go from 

here on the issue of regulation. 

At the last CITES conference of the parties, Mr. Chairman, 

which was held in Florida in 1994, South Africa put forward a proposal to engage in trade in elephant hide and meats, but not ivory. 

That was a proposal we were very interested in, and felt that we 

had a lot of sympathy for and had some basis. So we are not op- posed to sustainable trade where it can clearly be shown to be sustainable. 

On the other hand, regarding that proposal, we felt that South 

Mrica also needed to consult further with its neighbors in Mrica 

because there was, as it turned out, not a strong showing of support among other Mrican countries for resumption of that kind of 

trade. And so South Mrica eventually very graciously withdrew the 

proposal but accepted I think also the congratulations and support 

from the United States and from others for having contributed to 

the dialog. 

That dialog continues as we look ahead to the next CITES conference, which will be taking place in a country which is in Mr. 

Matemba's part of the world, not in Malawi, but in Zimbabwe, in 

June of next year-about a year from now. And we will be looking 

forward to what kind of proposals are put forward and to engaging 

in a discussion about all these issues. 

On the second point, Mr. Chairman, which had to do with incentives, we also strongly support the principle that people must be 

given an incentive to maintain wildlife. And I know, having been 

in Mrica, and Ken Stansell just returned from Zimbabwe a month 
22 

or two ago, and every time we travel to Mrica, we see the point 

very strongly that we cannot expect people who are living on the 

edge of poverty to graciously accept the presence of elephants 

which may come in and eat the grain which has been stored or indeed even kill people without helping them to gain an economic 

value from sharing their land, their habitat with the elephants for 

which it is also habitat. So we believe very strongly in that principle. 

And Mr. Matemba pointed out how some of our elephant grants 

have helped his country, one of the smaller countries in Mrica, and 

one of the very most densely populated countries in Mrica, work 

with its elephant population. And we think it is a real triumph 

that a country like Malawi with a population density that is so 

high, nevertheless, they have been able to hang on to some elephants, and they are working now to try to build those populations 

up. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Marlenee also brought up some points, which 

are not addressed in my testimony, and indeed he even mentioned 

some legal principles that at least for myself, I will say, that I have 

never heard expressed before. And that was the idea that provisions of the Mrican Elephant Act would supersede any of the other 

legal authorities that we have. 

We regulate elephant trophies under the Endangered Species 

Act. We have a special rule. It is a threatened species, and we have 

a special rule for threatened Mrican elephants just as there is a 

special rule under Section 4[d] of the Act for a number of other 

threatened species including spotted owls, for example. 

Under that rule, we allow the imported trophies provided we are 

convinced that it is being done on a sustainable basis. And we say 

yes to trophies from most countries. And I am going to ask Mr. 

Stansell in a minute to give you some of the statistics, Mr. Chairman, about those trophies. 

In the process of developing that rule under the Endangered Species Act, to my knowledge, no one brought forward the idea that 

the Elephant Act should take precedence, and that those provisions 

of the Elephant Act that say that trophies from well-managed populations should be allowed to enter the United States would somehow mean that we should not have a rule that says we are going 

to look to make sure that the populations are sustainably managed 

before we allow the trophies in. 

So I can't comment on the legal principle that he has asserted, 

but I will say that we will go back and think about that. It is a 

new one on us, and in our whole public comment period in the past 

on elephants, I don't recall that that specific argument has ever 

been made. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask Mr. Stansell to give you 

just an overview of trophies that we allow into the United States? 

Mr. SAXTON. That would be certainly acceptable, but I would ask 

you to do it concisely, if you will, because we must move on to the 

next panel. 

Mr. STANSELL. Yes, certainly. We issue approximately 1,000 

sport hunting trophy imports permits annually. And in the last few 

years, about 800 of those permits have been for sport hunting of 

elephants from seven different countries. And the Service's position 
23 

has been that we fully support sport hunting as part of an overall 

program for wildlife conservation. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, and, Mr. Jones, thank you. 

We appreciate your being here with us today, and I am sorry we 

don't have more time because we could explore in great detail 

many other aspects. However, we must move on to the next panel. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity to be here and to work with you and your staff. Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. We are now going to move 

to our fourth and final panel. We are going to hear first from Ms. 

Ginette Remley of the World Wildlife Fund; then from David Murchison who is President of the South Africa Wildlife Trust; and Ms. Dorene Bolze who is from the Wildlife Conservation Society; and 

Mr. Tony Fitzjohn who is Field Director of a game reserve in Tanzania. Welcome and, Ms. Remley, as soon as you are all set there, 

you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF GINETTE REMLEY, DIRECTOR OF 

INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE POLICY, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND 

Ms. REMLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to appear here today to speak on the effectiveness of the African Elephant and Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Acts. I am Ginette 

Remley, Director of International Wildlife Policy at World Wildlife 

Fund. World Wildlife Fund is the largest private organization 

working internationally to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats. We 

currently support projects in more than 70 countries including 

many key African elephant range nations and almost all range 

states for tigers and rhinos. Few species capture the world's imagination as elephants, rhinos, 

and tigers do, and, in fact, few species present conservation challenges as daunting and complex. The holding of this hearing is testament to the interest and concern that this Congress has in conserving these unique and spectacular species, and we commend 

you, Mr. Chairman, for making this issue a priority. 

World Wildlife Fund would particularly like to thank Representatives Beilenson, Studds, and Fields for their leadership in helping 

to establish the special programs we are discussing here today that 

have proven so important in our global wildlife conservation endeavors. The subject at hand is in one sense a relatively simple one. In 

our view, the African Elephant and Rhino and Tiger Conservation 

Acts, and, more specifically, the special funds that they establish 

are critical elements of conservation strategies that urgently require global support and a commitment from governments and nongovernment organizations alike to building lasting programs. 

By making conservation of these species a priority and by working directly with the countries seeking assistance, the United 

States has established a model initiative for other nations to follow. 

Mr. Chairman, you have already heard about the urgent needs 

and special challenges facing tigers, rhinos, and elephants in the 

wild. Following on the statements of some of the previous speakers, 

I would like to stress three points in my remarks today. 

First, the African Elephant Conservation Fund, as administered 

by the Fish and Wildlife Service, has in World Wildlife Fund's view 
24 

proven one of the best conservation bargains around. As you know, it is very modest in size, averaging less than about $1 million a 

year in grants since 1990. But it has provided support to almost 

50 projects in 17 countries. With minimal overhead and bureaucracy, the Service has moved 

money efficiently to the on the ground field efforts throughout Africa both for emergency assistance, such as for the anthrax outbreak 

in Namibia in 1993, to broad community based conservation initiatives like the Dzanga Sangha Reserve Project in the Central Afri- can Republic where the highest known density of forest elephants 

lives. 

This latter initiative in which World Wildlife Fund is a partner 

aims to protect some of the most biologically rich forests in Africa 

by working with local communities to fully integrate conservation 

and human development needs. Money from the African Elephant 

Fund has supported the operation of game scout and antipoaching 

teams to patrol the reserve, helping to recreate community incen- tives for wildlife conservation. The Elephant Grants Program also supports a wide array of 

projects reflecting, in our view, the varying elephant conservation 

and management priorities across Africa. As elephant conservation 

needs around the continent have grown in complexity, so has the 

fund's project portfolio. 

While in the beginning, most support went to antipoaching initiatives reflecting the priorities the aftermath of the illegal ivory trade 

disaster of the 1980's, the fund now also supports efforts to mitigate elephant-human conflicts, research to improve elephant management, and even translocations of elephants from areas of overpopulation. This, in our view, demonstrates an important responsiveness to the evolving needs of elephant range nations. 

Second, Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight another important characteristic of the African Elephant Fund-the fact that it 

has generated more than matching moneys from other sources in 

support of elephant conservation initiatives. That is, at least 5 million additional dollars have been raised to complement those funds 

provided by the U.S. Government. Moreover, as a co-supporter of several efforts, World Wildlife 

Fund can vouch for the fact that the African Elephant Fund has 

provided seed moneys for projects that might not otherwise have 

been realized. One could argue that this alone makes the program 

worthy of support. It clearly provides an excellent model for publicprivate sector partnerships in conservation. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize the importance of 

both the African Elephant and Rhino and Tiger Conservation 

Funds for the future of local wildlife conservation programs. What 

has made the elephant fund unique in the world is that it has been 

a reliable and continuous source of support since its establishment. In fact, as Mr. Jones mentioned, it has been the only dedicated 

source of international funds for African elephant conservation over 

the last six years, as many of our African colleagues have been 

quick to point out. 

Nowhere has this continuity of support been more essential than 

in the country of Tanzania, who lost an estimated 70 percent of its 

elephant population between 1981 and 1989. More recently, Tanza-
25 

nia's Wildlife and Parks Department underwent a drastic 95 percent budget decline from 1989 to 1993 as a result of general economic deterioration and structural adjustment programs imposed 

by multilateral lending agencies. 

Unfortunately, the situation is not unique in Mrica. Elephant 

funds from the United States have been critical to keeping Tanzania's wildlife programs afloat for the last five years and to helping 

in the recovery of the country's elephant populations. 

It is this kind of reliable support that will be critical to the future of tigers and rhinos because the rhino and tiger fund, of 

course, has just been established. We have not yet been able to see 

it in action. But as the Subcommittee knows, there are clearly no 

species in greater need of attention. 

But, in fact, there is no better time to invigorate our international efforts to protect them, for in spite of the massive declines 

in numbers of most rhino and virtually all tiger populations over 

the last two decades, recent developments give us reason for cautious optimism. 

And I wanted to just mention this, Mr. Chairman, because we 

hear so much about doom and gloom. We are, in fact, cautiously 

optimistic in some parts of the world that we really do stand a 

chance to turn the situation around for tigers and rhinos. But what 

it has taken clearly is infusions of money which have made all the 

difference. 

Earlier this year, the World Conservation Union concluded that 

for the first time in perhaps two decades most rhino populations 

throughout Mrica are either stable or increasing, suggesting that 

recent investments and strategies may have begun to pay off. This 

is encouraging news indeed, but we must be sure that this progress 

is secured over the long-term. 

The example of the remarkably successful rhino conservation 

program in South Mrica, where almost three-quarters of the 

world's rhinos live, also provides many important lessons that can 

enhance our efforts for rhinos in other parts of the world. 

Similarly, projects like the Chitwan National Park Program in 

Nepal, where Indian rhino numbers have grown by 40 percent in 

the last eight years, is also an important model that we can use 

for other projects. The common thread to all of these stories is 

money and committed and continuous support. 

We were extremely pleased to learn last week that the House 

Appropriations Committee has increased the fiscal year '97 support 

for the rhino and tiger fund from $2 to $400,000. While this represents only a fraction of what it will take to help tigers alone 

begin to recover in the wild, we know that a little can, in many 

cases, go a long way, both in aiding emergencies and building permanent conservation structures. 

During the winter of 1993, the Siberian tiger population was devastated by poaching in the chaotic aftermath of the collapse of the 

Soviet Union. Since then, due to the combined external support of 

governments, including the U.S. and NGO's, the population has 

begun to stabilize, and poaching levels are significantly down. Furthermore, as a result of political pressure from the United 

States, including the imposition of trade sanctions under the Pelly 

Amendment on Taiwan, as well as pressure from other countries, 
26 

we have finally begun to see dramatic improvements in the enforcement of wildlife trade controls in the main Asian consuming countries of Taiwan, China, and South Korea, the countries responsible 

for the vast majority of illicit tiger and rhino trade in the last several decades. 

This is all to say, Mr. Chairman, that we may very well be on 

the verge of some important breakthroughs in our battles to save 

these critically endangered species, and support from the U.S. will 

be critical, has been critical, and will be critical in the future in securing these species. 

We look forward to working with the Congress and the Administration in combining our much-needed forces and hopefully to increasing support for both the Rhino and Tiger and Elephant Conservation Acts in the future. Thank you. 

[Statement of Ms. Remley may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Murchison. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID C. MURCHISON, PRESIDENT, 

SOUTHERN AFRICA WILDLIFE TRUST 

Mr. MURCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Southern Africa 

Wildlife Trust is a foundation organized under the terms of Section 

501[c][3] of the Internal Revenue Code for the purpose of promoting 

and supporting wildlife conservation projects in the Southern Africa region. 

The Trust was organized a few years ago by members of the African Safari Club of Washington, members who felt that they should 

become more actively involved in positive conservation activities in 

Africa. Many years earlier, other members had followed a similar 

course. I refer to Kermit Roosevelt, Russell Train, Maurice Stans, 

and several other members of that club who organized the African 

Wildlife Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for the same reasons. So we are quite proud of our record as conservationists, even 

though our background is that of sport hunters originally. 

The Trust has been supportive of these two statutes from the 

very beginning, and we want to commend, as others have here this 

morning, the authors of the legislation, Mr. Beilenson, and my long 

time personal friend and fellow sportsman, Congressman Fields of 

Texas, for their dedication and their perseverance in formulating 

this innovative approach to conservation. 

And I should add that sitting near you, Mr. Chairman, is another 

person who made a major contribution to the development of these 

bills, and that is Mr. Burroughs. I remember well--

Mr. SAXTON. Be careful. He will want a raise, you know. 

Mr. MURCHISON. I believe he deserves one, because I remember 

the many hours he spent in the preparation of this unprecedented 

legislation. 

In the case of the African Elephant Act, there is little question 

in my mind, and this is based on firsthand knowledge, that it has 

been enormously successful in the region of Southern Africa. There 

can be no question about it. 

The twin-pronged strategy of the ivory moratorium on the one 

hand and the finely tuned conservation projects on the other hand 

have worked, in my opinion, to bring about a reduction in the level 
27 

of poaching and in securing a stabilization of the elephant populations. In my prepared statement, I describe the grant projects that I 

have administered under the statute, and there are some four in 

number that have dealt specifically with antipoaching measures in 

Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Tanzania, and another important grant 

that also included Botswana. 

And I should say, Mr. Chairman, that we are pleased to have in 

this room today the Deputy Director of the Department of Wildlife 

from Botswana, who is not a witness, but who is observing the proceedings this morning. 

By any objective standard, these projects have worked, and the 

level of poaching is down significantly. The result can be attributed 

to the way this statute was drawn and how it has been administered. At the present time, it is fair to say that the wildlife departments in these major countries of Southern Africa are equipped 

now to do the job. The threat is not over by any means, but we 

have played a major role in helping them cope with it. 

I want to close by making two quick comments, if I may. Number 

one, during the administration of this Act, a little-known grant 

project took place in the southwest region of Zimbabwe at 

Gonarezhou National Park during the great drought of 1992, which 

is of historic significance. There a method was developed for the 

first time in history to relocate entire family groups of elephants 

that were dying of thirst to new habitats. 

If you can imagine the difficulty of moving a 10,000 pound animal, not to mention an entire family group of such animals, that 

is what was involved there. The relocation technique was strictly 

the result of this statute. If it were not for the grant, it would not 

have occurred. 

And so during that drought period, it was possible to move over 

1,000 elephants to distant, more viable habitats, a singular 

achievement, one that holds great promise for the future conservation of the African elephant. 

My final point concerns the testimony of representatives of Safari 

Club International. I am also a member of Safari Club International. I am proud of that membership. But I do not agree with 

some of the remarks made earlier by Mr. Marlenee. I think the 

people at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have done the greatest 

job implementing a statute that I know about, and I have been in 

this city for 40 years. 

And the record, beginning with President Bush, and followed by 

Connie Harriman, whose husband is a member of this House, Dr. 

Doug Crowe, John Turner, Marshall Jones, and Ken Stansell, has 

been a record for which we all should commend them. They have 

done an extraordinary job of saving the African elephant. 

Now, on the matter of permits, I don't disagree with my gc;>od 

friend John Jackson. If permit procedures can be improved, fine. 

But when you get right to the meat of this thing, an enormously 

effective and successful job has been done, and they deserve our 

thanks, not criticism. Thank you very much. 

[Statement of Mr. Murchison may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Murchison. I had heard 

the account of the movement. I believe there were about 400 ele-
28 

phants that were actually moved, and that was certainly a commendable activity. And I understand the grant process and the 

turn-around time was very crucial in that project, and it worked 

well. 

Mr. MURCHISON. It was crucial, but if you will forgive me, I 

would like to say that it was a great deal more than 400 elephants. 

My last count was around 1,800. Mr. SAXTON. Wow. 

Mr. MURCHISON. And then the same method has been adopted at 

Kruger National Park in South Africa. Incidentally, there for scientific reasons, it has been necessary to cull each year up to 500 

elephants because of the population growth. Using the Coetsee system, they now have been able to translocate-a couple of years ago 

I witnessed 150 of them that otherwise would have been culledwere translocated successfully and without mortality. It is a very 

interesting development. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Dorene Bolze. 

STATEMENT OF DORENE BOLZE, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST 

DffiECTOR, WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY 

Ms. BOLZE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the 

members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today 

and participate in this oversight hearing. I am Dorene Bolze, Senior Policy Analyst, and Director for Conservation Policy at the 

Wildlife Conservation Society. · Today I would like to do three things. I would like to convey our 

strong support for these Acts and the funds that they have created, 

comment briefly on some priority activities that these funds need 

to support, and, thirdly, discuss the need for legislative change to 

address an oversight in existing law regarding products such as 

Asian medicinals that are being sold in this country labeled as containing tiger and rhino and other endangered species as ingredients. 

The Wildlife Conservation Society was founded in 1895 as the 

New York Zoological Society, and we are currently conducting 

about 250 field projects in 52 countries throughout Latin America, 

Africa, and Asia. For the sake of time, I will forego descriptions in 

a lot of our work on elephants, rhinos, and the tiger. That has been 

provided in my written testimony. 

First point then, to convey our strong support on these funds. 

They have been very valuable, and they deserve increased financial 

support. We strongly supported the establishment of these two 

funds. Quite frankly, these funds offer resources that simply would 

not exist otherwise for specific efforts to conserve these species. 

However, the need is greater than even the combined value of 

$15 million a year annually. Therefore, it is crucial that these 

funds leverage other support and moneys, and that is what they 

have been doing. 

WCS has been a recipient of these funds under the African Elephant Conservation Act, and we have been very pleased with the 

minimal bureaucracy and the quick nature for turn-around and 

flow of funds. We are quite confident that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service can continue to manage these funds if they were to ever receive their full appropriations. 
29 

We are also quite pleased to hear of the recent increases in the 

appropriations in next fiscal year's budget for these funds. This is 

especially good to see in light of last year's severe threats to zero 

out these funds. 

But these allocations are still just a portion of what could be appropriated, and of the seven species these two funds support, we 

can make a strong case that the Sumatran and black rhinos are 

the most endangered. Yet the rhino and tiger fund allocation has 

to be shared potentially amongst five species of rhino and the tiger. 

We really would like to urge the committee to try and see if we 

can't increase the appropriation to at least $2 million. This would 

be one-fifth of a possible $10 million, and that would be the same 

proportion of the appropriation the African Elephant Fund is proposed to receive. 

Second point on recommendations of priority projects for these 

funds, WCS has focused a lot of our attention on the African forest 

elephant in the past decade or so, and with regard to the African 

Elephant Fund, we have one or two comments on this. 

Three of our projects have received support from the furid, and, 

again, I don't really have the time to go into the detail that is in 

my written testimony. We conducted the first and only large-scale 

survey of the African forest elephant in the late 80's, and it was 

this work that helped inform the ivory trade debates in Lausanne 

and basically pointed out assumptions that forest elephants were 

secure was just invalid. 

It is really important at this point to follow up on this baseline 

information. If we don't have a new regional survey, without this 

type of follow-up monitoring, there is no way to assess how resources that have been invested by this fund and others into protected areas, new logging management regimes, controlled hunting 

such as trophy hunting, and other conservation efforts are affecting 

elephants. 

Regarding the rhino and tiger fund, in my prior testimony in 

May 1994 in support of the Rhino and Tiger Act, I provided a lot 

of information regarding the urgent needs for the tiger and rhinoceroses. So I won't go into that now. 

I would like to make one point regarding tigers because it is new 

and in reference to the prior testimony. WCS has responded to the 

plight of the tiger by launching our Global Tiger Campaign. We 

have been concerned that there is no coordinated effort to fully address all the conservation needs of the tiger. 

One of our initial efforts was to assess past conservation efforts, 

current threats, and develop a conservation strategy. I have provided to the committee a copy of our policy report that came out 

the beginning of this year and also to the Fish and Wildlife Service 

because there is a lot of very specific information in there that can 

help advise on what type of priority projects to fund from the Rhino 

and Tiger Conservation Fund. 

One of the main elements that we pointed out is the need to 

focus on securing high priority areas. We worked together with our 

partner, World Wildlife Fund-U.S., and we just completed a preliminary assessment on a new approach to identifying the most important tiger areas. I have provided for the record a copy of the executive summary of this document. This was funded by the Save 
30 

the Tiger Fund that Exxon put together, and I think it would be 

very valuable to the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

With the little time I have left, I think I will skip over rhinos 

and move to my third point, which has to do with a legal oversight 

in the Endangered Species Act regarding Asian medicinals. As you 

know, we have to complement our efforts by protecting these species in the wild by trying to control the illegal trade and reduce demand. · 

We have commended the U.S. Government and President Clinton 

for focusing on the role of Asian consumer nations, and now it is 

time for the U.S. to focus on its own role as a consumer nation. Undercover investigations and informal visits to pharmacies have 

found rhino and tiger products widely and openly for sale right 

here in San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and even in Washington, DC's Chinatowns. 

Unfortunately, recent enforcement efforts by the Fish and Wildlife Service have been hampered because a lot of these medicines 

do not appear to contain the animal ingredients as labeled. These 

are some examples of products we just purchased recently in New 

York that are labeled in English and in Chinese as saying they 

contain tiger. 

They can be confiscated on import with the presumption that 

they do contain those ingredients. However, when the Fish and 

Wildlife Service's forensics lab has tried to prove through forensic 

tests they do contain even bone, they have not been able to prove 

that. These products do violate, therefore, product labeling laws, 

but they do not violate the Endangered Species Act. 

This problem of counterfeit products or the inability or the difficulty in being able to prove the veracity of these products claiming to contain endangered species was not really foreseen when we 

passed the ESA many years ago. We strongly recommend this committee support some simple language to change this. 

And believe it or not, Senator Jeffords's office has drafted a short 

bill, which they hope to introduce this week or next week, that will 

add the necessary language to the ESA so that the prohibitions 

apply to products labeled as containing endangered species, as well 

as Appendix I listed- species on CITES. 

I would like to urge the committee to introduce a companion bill 

in the House and see if we can't move it through this Congress. 

This simple legislative effort would be a valuable complement to a 

well-funded Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund. Thank you. 

[Statement with an attachment of Ms. Bolze may be found at end 

of hearing. The report from WCS was placed in Subcommittee 

files.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Fitzjohn. 

STATEMENT OF TONY FITZJOHN, FIELD DIRECTOR, MKOMAZI 

GAME RESERVE, TANZANIA 

Mr. FITZJOHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have spent the past 

29 years in the field in East Africa. Presently, I am the Field Director of the George Adamson Wildlife Preservation Trust, and I am 

also Wildlife Advisor to the Ministry of Tourism, Natural Resources 

and Development on the Environment of the Tanzania Government. I have just flown in from Tanzania on short notice, and I 
31 

have only had time to make a few basic notes so I do refer you to 

my formal submission. 

I am here basically to talk about the successes of the past few 

years in saving the elephant in East Africa and what is happening 

now. We do understand that there is pressure to resume the trade 

in ivory, and we feel that this would be a disaster, not just in Eastern Africa, but over the continent as a whole. And I would like to 

address you today on this issue. 

My main submission is fivefold. The CITES ban initiated by the 

United States is succeeding. Without the ban, the African elephant 

would have become effectively extinct by now. The lifting of the ban 

or downgrading would cause an immediate and irreversible crash 

in population and an inevitable relisting as endangered. 

The present escalation in poaching, which is going on in Eastern 

Africa at the moment, is a market response to a perceived softening 

of the ban and also international opinion. The economic case for retaining the ban is compelling, and we feel that the future survival 

of the elephant and trade in ivory is best secured by an international trusteeship linked to debt conversion. 

Two years from the ban is far too soon to make even tentative 

conclusions on trading in ivory. The calves being born now must 

have a chance to reach breeding maturity before any judgments are 

made. Enforcement of all or any regulations imposed on trading 

and export are rudimentary. The more complex and sophisticated 

the regulations become, the more hopeless and unworkable become 

their implementation. 

Saying that ivory is a sustainable resource presumes that the 

trade is controllable. But any quotas or controls are virtually impossible to maintain, as has been proved in the past. The point is 

that the ivory is worth more money on the elephant. How many 

more tourists will see the same elephant when his tusks will just 

be exported to be carved up? Selling ivory is just a quick fix that 

cannot be repeated. 

Ecotourism in the infrastructure and protection that goes with .it 

is sustainable development, which provides regular and long-term 

employment for local people. There is a near unanimous view that 

the ban has been a success. The contrast from the preban days in 

1989 is enormous, certainly in East Africa. We thought that it was 

all over, and the wildlife was finished. 

The result of the ban was a vast increase in morale, not just 

amongst the field staff protecting the elephants, but within the society as a whole, reflecting the psychology of success. And with 

pressure on international borders, the protection of the elephants 

and their habitats automatically gives added security to human 

populations surrounding the wildlife areas. 

We in East Africa are extremely grateful to America for their 

help to date in protecting these elephants. But also the funding to 

nongovernmental organizations has and will increase with the perception of success, and the pressure is off government to fund moneys banked from the treasury. 

However, if we let this situation deteriorate again, it is a fallacy 

to think that more money will become available the worse it becomes, and the private NGO's will come to the rescue and take over 

a last-stand rescue operation. · 
32 

The ivory trade, legal or illegal, is a market like any other and 

reacts swiftly to economic change, real or perceived. The present increase in poaching and stockpiling anticipates the possible relaxation in the ban and has been coincidental with many anecdotal reports from the field to that effect. 

As we speak here at the moment, poaching is rampant in Zaire 

with Sudanese gangs crossing the border daily and cutting down 

elephants in their hundreds with automatic weapons. Uganda is 

being hit badly, and Southern Tanzania is seeing a slow return to 

the preban poaching days. 

Even Kenya, with better law enforcement and infrastructure, is 

seeing a severe rise in poaching after six years of dedicated service 

by Wildlife personnel, many of whom have given their lives. Relaxation of the ban sends precisely the wrong message to all the markets and will vastly increase the demand for illegal ivory. TR~ economic prosperity of East African states is strongly linked 

to tourism, and wildlife forms the central core as reflected in all 

the statistics. Poaching and associated lawlessness is fatal to tourism. Countries with poor infrastructure do not stand a chance if 

the ban is relaxed. 

Economic success reduces dependency and pressure on Western 

aid budgets. We feel that assistance to Third World range states 

may be achieve by debt relief linked to environmental protection. 

This has been done before in Debt for Nature. 

It is physically impossible to protect the elephants in some of the 

huge tracts of land they survive in, such as Tsavo in Kenya or the 

Selous in Tanzania. And overall population figures-if I could just 

have a second-and overall population figures that we are given for 

elephants could be halved if note was taken of viable areas in 

which they might remain, even in the very near future. And it is 

clear that any resumption of trade or downgrading would be a disaster of epic proportions. 

We feel that the future lies in an international trustee system to 

regulate storage and eventual trade, and as part of this development, there must be an international consensus that the ban on 

the ivory trade will last a considerable period of time, certainly 20 

years at a minimum. In this way, anticipatory stockpiling of ivory 

will be terminated. 

The United States is the world leader in environmental matters, 

and they must also lead the way for others to follow, as they have 

done in the past. If they do not, then the elephant is doomed, Africa is diminished, and the future generations will blame us for their 

grief. 

[Statement of Mr. Fitzjohn may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Well, thank you all very much. Before I ask several 

questions, let me just say that at some point in the next little while 

the buzzers are going to ring, and we have a series of votes on the 

House Floor probably numbering five or six, which probably means 

that we have whatever period of time remains ·between now and 

the bells to do whatever final business we have. 

So if you would keep that in mind as you respond to these questions, and let me just ask generally, it has been some eight years 

since the elephant bill was passed and it has been in effect. 
33 

Would you comment for the record on how you see it as having 

been successful, how perhaps it could be changed to affect the Act 

to make it more suitable, and whether it has assisted Mrican nations in establishing effective conservation plans? Ms. Hemley, 

would you begin, and then we will just move across the table? And, 

again, if you would be as concise as possible. 

Ms. REMLEY. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I think as 

my remarks reflected, we at World Wildlife believe the Act has 

been essential for the recovery of populations of elephants that 

were devastated by the poaching for the illegal ivory trade, particularly in East and Central Mrica. 

If anything, I believe the bottom line is more money and capacity 

in the Fish and Wildlife Service to administer more grants. I think 

one of the advantages of this fund has been that most of the grants 

administered are relatively small, and so money can be moved 

quickly and with minimal bureaucracy. And that is proven, based 

on comments from our own partners in the field, to be very much 

effective and important. 

Perhaps the U.S. could do more to try to get other countries to 

join in. Certainly, some have but it has been sporadic. We have 

been there and stuck with the programs, and through the CITES 

process and perhaps in other fora we could try to get other countries to join in and help augment our support, which has, I think, 

proven itself important. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Murchison. 

Mr. MURCHISON. Yes. I think of two things quickly. First, the 

high incidence of poaching in Southern Mrica has been triggered 

mainly by incursions by commercial poachers across the Zambezi 

River from Zambia into Zimbabwe where the top habitat in the 

world for the black rhino has been virtually destroyed, and that is 

the Zambezi Valley. Having decimated the rhino, the poachers from 

Zambia have turned to the elephant. 

It seems to me that, in grant administration, if the Service 

should determine that a country is not enforcing antipoaching 

measures diligently, such as in the case of Zambia, then they 

should take a hard look at continuing to supply funds to the noncooperating country. 

To be a little bit clearer on that, it has been my observation that 

the Zambian authorities were not cooperative or sufficiently cooperative in the interdiction of AK-47-equipped poaching groups that 

decimated the black rhino and the elephant. Aid to Zambia should 

be conditioned upon being more cooperative. That would be one 

suggestion. 

The second suggestion is that the Coetsee methodology of relocating elephants now should be given priority, it seems to me, in grant 

administration. We should encourage more relocation of elephants 

to habitats that will sustain them as an alternative to culling. 

Those are two things that come to mind immediately. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, sir. Ms. Bolze. 

Ms. BoLZE. Thank you. Well, I would like to support the comments that Ginette Hemley made and basically just add two specific things regarding types of projects. As I think Ginette even 

mentioned in her testimony, there has been a movement away from 

some of the antipoaching means that were very important at the 
34 

beginning that were funded by the African Elephant Fund, and 

moving toward a lot of the other issues of long-term conservation 

management needs and dealing with human conflicts and so forth, 

which means not just establishing parks, but training park managers on how to monitor elephant populations and other wildlife 

and deal with the local human pressures and other resource needs. 

One of our projects specifically funded by the African Elephant 

Fund was on training of the park and wildlife managers in Ghana 

on elephant tracking and biology and monitoring techniques and, 

again, the emphasis on science, which you had brought up before. 

You know, our organization-our mission is based on doing conservation from learning from science and scientific inquiry. And it 

is very important to do that. 

It is sometimes very challenging because sometimes you don't 

want to have to maintain the patience for five or six years for the 

information to come through, and policy sometimes moves a lot 

more quickly than that. But there is no question that the value to 

a fund like this is that it can be targeted to African elephant conservation needs, and it should be on the important things of scientific information that we need, especially, for example, as I mentioned, the African forest zone. 

There is a lot we don't know, and even some of the basic assumptions that elephants are major sculptors of the ecology and so forth, 

it turns out even with some of our new field research that some 

of those basic assumptions may need to be readdressed. And so 

those are the values to the fund. 

The fund has been effective in that sense, that more money has 

gone into the field and helped with developing the expertise in 

country, and we also need to spread it around throughout Africa. 

And I believe that pretty much has been done based on the Fish 

and Wildlife Service's representation of the existing allocation of 

the moneys. 

Mr. SAXTON. Before we go to Mr. Fitzjohn, let me just take this 

opportunity to throw in a plug for this favorite project of mine that 

has to do with what Ms. Bolze was just talking about, and that is 

the establishment of a United States sponsored but worldwide research facility. I would like to call it the National Institute for the 

Environment, where research grants would be part and parcel, 

where on an extramural and competitive basis, they would be dealt 

out for appropriate causes. 

And, second, a communication mechanism would be set up where 

through computers or Internet, what have you, this information 

would be all catalogued and placed in a computer bank, if you will, 

where scientists and policymakers around the world could have access to this information as it is developed. 

And I believe that that would greatly enhance our capable policymakers in accessing the right type of science as we move through 

some of these very important projects, as well as facilitate communication between researchers and scientists. It is one of my favorite 

projects. We have gotten more and more people in this town to talk 

favorably about it, and I believe, therefore, that we are making 

progress in that direction. I hope so anyway. Go ahead. 

Ms. BOLZE. I just wanted to point out that one of the things we 

have learned because we work in a lot of remote areas like Zaire 
35 

where communications aren't that easy and e-mail and easy access 

to web sites just don't exist, so one of the basic challenges is still 

a lot of our own scientists have to come home, or they may be 

Zairian. 

They have to leave and come to the U.S. or Europe in order to 

go through the libraries and go through the web systems to get this 

information. So even in China where we are working, you don't 

have access to a lot of these types of communication channels because of government control needs or so forth. 

So that is just a word of caution because it is very exciting to 

talk about some of this stuff, and yet a lot of the policymakers are 

not going to be Americans and Westerners. They are going to be 

people who are in Congo and Ghana, and it is not that easy for 

some of them to get access to this stuff. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Mr. Fitzjohn. 

Mr. FITZJOHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to OK 

very much what Mr. Murchison and Ms. Remley said and back 

that up. I don't think I can recall such an enormous success has 

taken place since this legislation came in and the fund came in in 

1989. We in East Africa-we are going to lose everything, and 

there has been a massive changing of attitudes, even as we have 

seen in Southern Africa, culling giving way to translocation, and 

where slaughter just changed around into protection with pride by 

the people in the field. 

But whatever changes are being made, and although funding is 

incredibly important to everybody, and also to lead the way for 

NGO's such as ourselves to be able to raise more money, everything depends on this ban being maintained. That is the bottom 

line. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Now, let me just move to the 

Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act, which has been in place for a 

relatively short period of time, only since 1994. At that time, it was 

estimated that there were 6,000 tigers and about 11,000 rhinos living in the world. What do you think are the prospects of this Act 

being equally successful as the Elephant Act, and what kind of projections do we currently have as to estimates for the two species 

affected? Ms. Remley. Ms. REMLEY. Well, as I mentioned in my testimony, there is 

some encouraging news from Africa. It seems that at least in some 

areas rhino numbers are stabilizing or increasing, and I would like 

to just reemphasize what I stated earlier in that we have an opportunity now with funds from the U.S. and augmented by funds from 

private sources to really secure populations that have been hit hard 

by poaching in the past-secure the:in well into the future. So the 

timing could not be more critical for getting the rhino and tiger 

fund up and running. 

Unfortunately, we don't have quite as much encouraging news on 

the tiger front, although it is notoriously difficult to know how 

many tigers really are out there just by the nature of the species. 

I think one of the values of the tiger and rhino fund is that it has 

been broadened slightly from the elephant fund to allow for efforts 

to be undertaken in consuming countries as well, and that the new 

part of a lot of our strategies now-to really address the trade 

question-the illegal trade question on both ends of the trade proc-
36 

ess, both on the exporting and importing end. With some of the recent important political changes in the Asian consuming countries, 

largely because of U.S. pressure, I think we can really start to get 

some good programs in place, working through political channels, 

as well as with technical support to some of those Asian countries 

to make sure that they keep the illegal trade under control. So 

those are some of the areas that we would certainly advocate going. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Murchison. 

Mr. MURCHISON. Mr. Chainnan, thank you. I don't feel qualified 

to comment on the tiger legislation. However, in the case of the 

black rhino, it seems to me that we should stay the course contemplated by the statute, and provide help through the grant program to those particularly in Zimbabwe who are attempting to 

manage what is left of that population. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Ms. Bolze. 

Ms. BOLZE. I would like to make a brief comment. One thing that 

Ginette pointed out that is a very interesting development with the 

Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund is the ability to focus on the 

role of consumer nations. That is important, and it is also an issue 

for Mrican elephants as well. 

One of the challenges too is that we have a tendency to get 

caught up in counting everything, and we don't have very good 

numbers for how many tigers there are out there. And it is a species that needs a lot of space so there aren't going to be millions 

of tigers running around anyway. And yet we have a tendency to 

feel like the number 5,000 is just so small that it doesn't matter 

anymore. 

We need to be more ecologically intelligent about some of our 

ideas about what these numbers really mean. And one of the reasons why we have been trying to push for a focus on-focusing conservation efforts on key areas is so that there will be a more indepth complement of effort so that it is not just the tiger population-actual numbers of tigers but their prey, and their habitat 

space, as well as the development issues that need to be resolved 

and managed in those areas. 

So you have more of a complement of conservation efforts that 

will go in a particular place, and maybe that is a better way of 

measuring our success than there are 4,522 tigers now and there 

are 5,000 in two years. That is also, I think, one of the challenges 

with elephant numbers as well. We need to focus more on viable 

populations, healthy populations, and whether we actually know 

how many individuals are out there may not be as relevant. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Fitzjohn. 

Mr. FITZJOHN. Thank you, sir. It is really scary to think that we 

are down to such low figures, and now we have to do something 

about it. And as Ms. Bolze said, massive work needs to be done in 

the world consumer nations. And I don't think attitudes there are 

going to change very quickly. As far as the rhino are concerned, there are 70 tons on Taiwan 

and 50 tons on mainland China. And the middlemen over there 

that own this rhino horn do want the rest of the rhinos in the 

world to be extenninated so the price of their stock goes up, and 

they will work pretty hard to make sure that happens. 
37 

The only thing that we can do in the field is round them up, stick 

them in heavily guarded and electrified sanctuaries, guard them 

day and night until one day we hope the world regains its sanity 

and allows them to live. But, you know, that is what we are doing 

in Mkomazi. 

We are putting in Tanzania's first rhino sanctuary. We are having to buy black rhinos from South Africa. East African black 

rhinos from South Africa are $60,000 each and fly them up. And 

it is enormous-the work that has to be done and the cost that is 

involved. 

But, you know, that is what my generation has to do. I don't 

want my children to turn around and say, "Well, you knew what 

was going on. Why didn't you do something?" you know, and that 

is the price we have to pay for what has gone on over the pastwhat I have seen over the past 20 years. And we are going to try 

and play catchup now. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Let me just compliment the 

Wildlife Conservation Society for this great publication. Let me, 

just baseq on that, ask one final question relative to the tiger or 

any other species that you might want to refer to. Do you anticipate that any one of these species, specifically the tigers, are in 

danger of becoming extinct, or do you think we are somewhat far 

from having to make that assumption? 

Ms. BOLZE. Well, I am relying on the expertise of a number of 

our field people and other management staff who have been asked 

the same question many times with some of the media, of course, 

who like to put things in doom and gloom scenarios. 

Of the seven species we were discussing here, I think we can 

make the strongest case that the black rhino and the Sumatran 

rhino are the closest to it, the most endangered, the most critical. 

The black rhino we, of course, know pretty' much how many there 

are and where they are, and we know there are very few of them. 

And there is still a lot of pressure for poaching. 

The Sumatran rhino is a bit different. We really don't have any 

idea of where the viable populations are, and there isn't really 

much in the way of on-the-ground protection. And they are disappearing incredibly quickly, and the horn of Sumatran rhino is 

many, many times more valuable. 

Speaking for Dr. Alan Rabinowitz on this, he would say that 

probably the Sumatran rhino would be the species of the seven 

that would be the most critical and possibly may not make it. But 

we need to get out there and figure out where to focus our energies. 

With the tiger, we pretty much now have a better understanding 

of where to focus our energies in some of the key areas, and, of 

course, there are a lot of tigers in India that are in protected areas. 

And the government has shown a serious commitment. It does not 

represent the entire range of the tiger, but we know we would still 

have tigers 20 years from now. 

Where we probably may not have any more tigers might be IndoChina, and so those are the sort of commitments we have to decide 

whether we are going to make. And for the tiger, of course, our organization very much wants to conserve a representative population of tigers throughout their range. So we don't really like 
38 

statements, "In five years, the tiger will go extinct." We don't think 

it is really true. 

Mr. SAXTON. All right. Well, thank you very much. And unless 

any others have something that they would like to add on this last 

point, we thank you very much for being with us today. It has been 

very beneficial, and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned; 

and the following was submitted for the record:] 
39 

Summary of the address delivered·by 

His Excellency, Sir KETUMILE MASIRE 

President, Republic of Botswana 

to Face-to-Face Luncheon Forum 

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 

Washington, D.C. 

June 13, 1996 

-reported by Stuart A. Marks, PhD 

SCI Director of Research & 

Community Development 

The introduction of the President emphasized the 

importance of the kgotla (community assembly) as a 

national multi-party institution, that 2/3 of 

Botswana's population live in rural areas (agricul t ure 

3% GDP, 80% of employment), diamonds and cattle as 

important basis of economy. Sir Ketumile's address 

concerned issues of the environment, the conservation 

and sustainable integration o f a wide range of wild 

products upon which rural households in Botswana 

depended for their livelihoods. 

Botswana's resources were under pressure from 

over-exploitation and unsustainable utilization because 

of land degredation, depleting groundwater reser·;res, 

and decreases in wildlife species and indigenous velt 

(grassland) resources. There was increasing concern 

about the ability of these resources to sustain 

themselves. 

These concerns were also those of the Batswana, 

who passed the National Conservation Strategy in 

Decembe r, 1990 (Gov't White Paper # 1, 1990). This 

national policy paper governs natural resources, their 

conservation and development. Its primary objective 

is conservation and the sustainability of the country's 

natural resource base. Sustainable development has 

been an active policy since independence in 1966 and 

continues as an objective in natural resource planning. 

Protection and conservation are the keystones of 

biodiversity. The following are evidence that this 

mission is being achieved and taken seriously: 
40 

continues as major objective in natural resource 

planning . 

Protection and conservati on are the ke ystones of 

biodiversity. The following are evidence of this 

mission: 

• National Parks, Game Reserves , Forest Reserves, 

Wildlife Management Areas(WMA) constitute 37~ of 

country's l and area, 

• Botswana has signed, ratified the international 

c o nventio n on biodiversity and convention on CITES, 

• Botswana is signa:cry to convention against ( ? ) 

drought and desertification. 

l'. number of issues generate in terna: ional interest 

in Botswana . These include land uses, tte utilization 

of wildlife, elephants, disease control fe nces, and the 

Okavango delta. The major concern of 

environmentalists with regards wildlife and li vestock 

is their focus on the perceived unchecked expansion of 

livestock on wildlife range with the corresponding 

decrease in wildlife. In response to these claims, 

Botswana had a system o f rationalized land use planning 

with the expressed purpose o f facilitating the 

coexistence of l i vestock and wildlife . Botswana has a 

conservation policy that has a good c hanc e of 

succeeding as its people desire to bene fit from 

wildlife on a con trolled basis. The WMAs were created 

f o r this purpose. 

The same declir.es in wildlife numbers within ~.JI.s 

have also occurred in the Game Reserves (where there is 

no human pressure ) . The causes for these declines are 

not readily apparent. The long drought has resulted in 

substantial losses f o r wildlife. Yet Batswana people 

have acted respo nsibly and suspended thei r harvests of 

species to allow wildlife to recover. 

Elephants have become a problem. Botswana 

currently estimates i t s herd at 79 , 000 elephants . 

The i r croppi ng or utilization has been strongl y 

resist ed by westerners, who fear that this species wi ll 

disappear. Elephants do terrible damage t o the 

ecosystem and presently they are doing considerable 

damage . 

The success of Botswana ' s wildlife management wi ll 

depend upon the deve l opment of functional rnarke~s, 

where trade is influenced by bo th national and 

international forces. The US is the largest market f or 

wildlife. Yet it is affected by CITES and by the ESA 
41 

act. These two conventions have a pro f ound effect on 

the conservation programs and policies of the range 

states. The next CITES c onvention will be in Zimbabwe. 

His Excellency hopes for bette r appreciation and 

unde rstanding of the p r ecar ious position of range 

countries in southern Africa. After all, CITES does 

provide for some limited, regulated trade i n ivory. 

This trade would enhance the value of elephants and 

provide i ncen ti v es for this vital wildlife resource. 

Currently, the f uture o f al l el ephants outside 

protected areas is in g rave danger. 

Disease contr o l fences. These were constructed in 

the 1950s before independence. Recently the government 

has received criticism fo r the effect of the se fences 

on wi l dlife . Yet these same fences have an important 

role in preventing peopl e from encroaching on wildlife 

habicat. Many foreigners have suggested t hat thes e 

fences be dismantled to increas e the range of wi l dlife. 

His Execellency's answe r was a definite NO. The re 

could/wou ld be no return t o the t ime when wildlife 

ranged freely everywhere. It was a fact that where 

there wa s mo re human presence, wi ldlife seemed safer i~ 

these fenced areas . 

Fences were a lso effective in disease control. The 

recent outbreak of cattle lung disease compelled the 

government to descroy an entire herd of 240, 000 cattle. 

It was a sad deve lopment in the history of the country. 

But if there had been no fences t o divide the d isease 

herd from those in the rest of the country , Botswana 

would have lose all its cattle. 

The Okavango Delta is the jewel of the Kal a hari 

and Botswana 's repository of biodiversi t y . The delta 

is also the backbone of its ecotourism. The government 

wa s committed t o ensuring the ecological integrity of 

the delta and making sure that it was no t threatened. 

Bots wana ha s in place policies and laws for the 

p rese rvati on and sustainable use of natural resources. 

This includes its l aws , policies on agriculture, 

wildlife conservation, habitat preservation, forest 

a ct, wi ldlife act, fish protection act , t ourism and 

wildl ife conservation policies and the agricul tural 

deve l opment policy. 

Hi s Exce llenc y wished to acknowledge t he external 

assistance rece ived in conservation and natura l 

resource management fr om both government and nongovernmenta l o rgani zatio ns . The US had p layed a 

significant r ole i n the d e v e lopment of Botswana's 

natural resource management strategy. Batswana owe a 
42 

vote of thanks to the US people, particularl y USAID in 

extending its help and provisioning technical and 

financial support. These organizations had played a 

critical role in demonstrating the vi abilit y of linking 

conservation and development objectives through wise 

use of natural resources. And Batswana continue t o 

welcome such help. 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (some difficult to hear) 

1 . Statement b y moderator: The key issue on environment 

for the international community was that Bo tswana would 

protect i ts natural resources at al l costs . The 

international community should be mindfu l not to 

practice environmental imperialism. 

2. Que stion from Deputy Chief of Mission (US State 

Dept?) Unfortunately, nobody here from US Fish & 

Wildlife Service. The issues are complex. What 

exactly would Botswana want the US gov't to do on ivory 

ban? What changes in ESA? 

P~swe~: Remove elephant from Appendix 1 of CITES. Then 

Botswana can manage its resource without interference. 

Botswana had elephants, not because some international 

assembly had willed them on the country, but because 

the Batswana had always looked after their animals. 

Even tribal groupings, when they fee l a species is 

endangered, impose prohibitions on hunting the animal 

until it can recover. Then they assume harvescing on a 

sustainable basis. The abundance of wildlife and this 

perfor~ance is a good indicator to those who have 

imperialistic plans. 

3. What has been the relationship between cattle and 

wildlife? 

F~swer: Difficult to quantify. Gvoernment paid 

compensation for losses resul ting from wildlife 

crashing into property. But gov't found that claims 

for damages always exceeded that voted by parliament . 

There was a danger of the whole budget going to 

compensation f or crop damage. Now gov't is thinking 

of modifying the process f or compensation paid was a 

considerable amount. In 1994 appropriated 445,000 

(pula or $? ) and it was exhausted in 3 months. Last 

year, 1 million (pula?) was gone in 6 months. 

4. Developed countries, who have destroyed their 

wildlife by putting economic development above 

environmental protection in earlier times, now seem to 

be playing a double standard by harping on developing 

countries and requi ring them to play by different rules 
43 

and protect their wildlife. What does the pres t·:; -" '·, : 

think of these standards? 

Answer: Very succinctly put . They treat us like 

innocent children and try and force us, by 

international standards, to comform. They do not 

acknowledge our human capacity to manage and learn from 

and about our own resources. It is better to offer 

gentle and kind advice rather than rigorous 

proh ibitions. 

5 . Hew does Botswana deal with environmental activists? 

Answer: Botswana has legislation as a guide for the 

nation to consider do's and don't's. These who 

infringe upon these policies have to be sanctioned. We 

are a democratic society. I continue as head of my 

party (and as a MP l from the people whose crops, 

animals, children, and family get destroyed by animals. 

We will not continue in these roles if the people 

consider that we think more of elephants than we do of 

them (the voters) . If we are reasonable, we can expect 

reasonable treatment from voters. If we take orders 

from outside rs, then our voters will get rid o f us in 

government. Then tho se who wish t o get rid of the 

elephants will get elected. They will kill off all our 

e l ephants- and only then will they find that t hey can't 

se ll the ivory. 

6. How has Botswana been able to absorb so much USAID 

and put it to good use? 

Answer: I will need to blow my own trumpet. Botswana 

started upon humble beginnings. We had meagre 

resources. When diamonds were found, we were frugal 

and husbanded them . Aid will continue to flow, if we 

put them t o good use. Mone y from elsewhere is given 

f or certain purposes. We use them for those uses. We 

have been frugal and have used these resources for 

economic benefit not prestige. We have a balanced 

budget and reserves. Partly the result of good fortune 

and good fri ends. 

7. Questions about Bushmen being forced out of their 

country and about "wi ldl ife and indigenous people" 

being l inked in ecotourism? 

Answered by Ambassador to Washington: How of 89 

species on ESA, majority were not found in USA. The 

effects of this prohibition pro f oundly affects other 

government's attempts to conserve and manage these 

species. The 79,000 elephants imposes a hardship on 

Botswana in that the y damage crops. Elephants have 

exceeded the carrying capacity of the space given to 
44 

them. Every population must be controlled including 

that of humans. Government has 33 tons of ivorv stored 

in Gabo rones (worth US$12 million ) that should be used 

for the purposes of wildlife managemen t . Yet we cannot 

se ll them under current conditions. The maj ori ty of 

these tusks came from biologists finding dead elephants 

in the bush and turning in. They were not shot. This 

stoc k of ivory has potential for doing something 

positive for wi ldlife . 

END 
45 

Statement of Safari Club International 

to the 

Committee on Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

Oversight Hearings on 

The African Elephant Conservation Act 

and 

The Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act 

Delivered by the Honorable Ron Marlenee 

June 20, 1996 
Mr. Chairman 

46 

Statement of Safari Club International 

Delivered by the Honorable Ron Marlenee 

No other American entity, with the possible exception of the Peace Corps, has had 

more individuals on the ground in the far reaches of Africa than SCI. Our 

interaction with African wildlife professionals, our interaction with the indigenous 

people, our interests in the expansion of wildlife habitat and our own wildlife 

professionals give us a unique opportunity to speak with authority about African 

species and their habitat. 

Because of our profound conservation commitment we have been involved in 

saving the white rhino, we have assisted in the attempts to stabilize the African 

elephant populations and provide for their management, and we have taken steps 

to aid in the conservation of the black rhino. 

Because of our commitment SCI helped develop both the African Elephant 

Conservation Act and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. 

Our group can say without equivocation that these Acts and their full funding are 

desperately needed. The problems we see are not with either of these laws, but 

with the implementation of the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. The Service is ignoring the intent of Congress as expressed in 

both the elephant and the rhino and tiger laws, and is destroying the ability of 

wildlife professionals to fund African conservation programs. Given that 

problem, these two laws become even more important as at least token attempts to 

save wildlife and habitat in their home ranges. 

The African Elephant Conservation Act is a positive force for the conservation of 

elephants, primarily because it fills a gap left by the Endangered Species Act (the 

ESA). It is not well known that although 82% of the mammals listed under the 

ESA are foreign species such as the African elephant, the ESA provides no direct 

benefits for the conservation of those species in the countries where they occur. 

The ESA simply prohibits or limits the importation of those species into the 

United States. There is no recovery planning for foreign species, there is no grant 

money for range nation conservation activities with foreign species, there is very 

little consultation with foreign governments on the conservation of those species, 
47 

much less cooperative programs, and of course there are no critical habitat 

designations. In contrast to the ESA, the African Elephant Conservation Act 

provides funding for projects that can be carried out in the range nations to 

conserve the elephant. 

The African Elephant Conservation Act also recognizes that sport hunting of the 

elephant can provide important incentives and funding for elephant conservation 

in the range nations. For that reason, the Act specifically allows the importation 

of elephant hunting trophies into the United States. It also requires the specific 

consideration of the programs and activities of each range nation. 

There are two serious problems that we see with the administration of the African 

Elephant Conservation Act. One is the failure of the Administration to seek more 

of the money that is authorized for projects and grants under the law. The 

Administration support has been weak, almost to the point of nonexistence. Since 

the Act's inception the Administration has never requested even one-quarter of the 

authorized amount. 

The other problem is even more serious. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

disregarded the express language in the Act that "[t]he Secretary shall not 

establish any moratorium .. which prohibits the importation into the United States 

of sport-hunted trophies from elephants ... ". Instead, using the ESA as an excuse, 

the Service has imposed restrictions that have deprived range nations of tens of 

millions of dollars in foreign exchange and have simultaneously raised their costs 

unnecessarily. Let me explain further. 

The principle remaining risk to elephants lies outside of parks and protected areas. 

Elephants beyond perimeter fences will disappear almost altogether if they are not 

given value by farmers and communities. Licensed activities like sport hunting 

are allowed to give the species value so that the farmers and the communities will 

put an effort into protecting the elephants which live on their land. The Congress 

recognized this all along and intended that sport hunting trophies be exempted 

from the import restrictions. 

But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had different ideas. They began imposing 

import restrictions in 1990, less than two years after the adoption of the AECA 

and shortly after the African elephant was placed on CITES Appendix I. The 

Service developed and used unpublished guidelines that, with the exception of 
48 

Zimbabwe, were a moratorium on all elephant trophy imports. The Service 

stubbornly continued to apply its guidelines and it took several years of litigation 

(including threatened sanctions by the Court against the Secretary), the written 

protests of nearly every elephant authority and major range state, and a broad 

attack on the guidelines during the 1994 CITES meeting before the Service 

formally withdrew them. Unfortunately, the Service simply shifted ground, and is 

now using the special rules on elephants under the ESA (50 CFR l7.40(e)) to 

accomplish the same result. ~ 

The record reflects that the Congress anticipated that the elephant would be placed 

on Appendix I of CITES. Representatives of the Service testified that the 

contemplated uplisting by CITES would not affect the import of sport hunting 

trophies. This was later confirmed by notice in the Federal Register which stated 

that the Appendix I listing would not affect sport hunting, but of course it has. 

It is respectfully submitted that the Service should not be ignoring the express 

findings and policies set by Congress, much less trampling on range nations' 

programs. This is particularly true when the policy statement is so recent and on 

point. To quote, the AECA says that: 

It is the policy of the United States-

(I) to assist in the conservation and protection of the African elephant by 

supporting the conservation programs of African countries and the 

CITES Secretariat; and 

(2) to provide financial resources for these programs. 

The guidelines that were used by the Service, and their present refusal to issue 

import permits for elephant trophies for a number of countries that qualify under 

the AECA, violate the first policy provision. The denial of revenues from sport 

hunting that results when permits are not issued violates the second policy 

provision, because sport hunting is one of the more significant "financial 

resources" that is available to African countries for elephant conservation. 

All the witnesses that testified in the House on the AECA favored the importation 

of sport hunting trophies with the exception of one person from an animal 

extremist organization. For example, Dr. Ian Douglas-Hamilton, one of the 

world's foremost elephant authorities, said that "hunters, too, should be allowed to 

carry their trophies home, as I recommended to your committee in 1979." 
49 

To put this in perspective, the Committee should consider that Tanzania, for 

example, has a CITES export quota of 50 animals a year. This is out of a 

population of 80,000 to 100,000 animals, the largest documented population of 

elephants in the world. An elephant hunting safari in Tanzania averages $60,000. 

Therefore 50 safaris generates $3 million U.S. dollars per season. Since only 

about one of every three hunters actually bags an elephant, the real figure is $9 

million per year. It took more than two years of pressure to get the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to allow the importation of Tanzanian elephant trophies, thus 

costing Tanzania as much as $18 million in lost revenues. The residual effects of 

the Service's "ban" reduced the next season as well, costing Tanzania about half 

the revenue from that year. 

Cameroon is another example. Like Tanzania, Cameroon appeared before the 

Congress when the AECA was under consideration and pleaded for their hunting 

program to be spared. As of today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service still does 

not allow the importation of sport hunting trophies of elephant from Cameroon. 

That country, which has a CITES export quota of 80 elephants per year, has lost 

millions of dollars of potential revenue from elephant hunting. 

Ethiopia is yet another tragic story. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refused to 

issue permits for elephant trophy imports from that country, despite information 

that the revenue from elephant hunting supplied revenue that was equal to half of 

the Wildlife Department's annual budget. The elephant hunting was the only 

means to get government game scouts into the field, and the presence of outfitters 

was the only effective way to reduce poaching. The result of the U.S. refusal to 

issue permits was the termination of all safari hunting in Ethiopia for three years. 

Poachers moved into the abandoned safari areas and they became killing fields --

the stench of dead elephants hung in the air like the heavy forest dew. Some 

blame the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the killing of those elephants just as 

surely as if they had pulled the triggers of the poachers' guns. Ethiopia, which 

was in the greatest need of the revenue from elephant hunting, was shut off 

without so much as a consultation, over the pleas from its authorities. 

It seems clear to us that when the issue is African elephants the specific policies 

clearly expressed by Congress in the AECA should control as compared to the 

more general policies of the ESA. If nothing else, this is a generally accepted 
50 

tenet of statutory interpretation. This is further indicated by the fact that when the 

African Elephant Conservation Act was under consideration, it was as a title of a 

bill that amended the ESA. There was no question that the AECA was intended to 

express a Congressional policy about a particular species within the framework of 

the US. effort to conserve endangered and threatened species But somehow 

when it became a "stand-alone" law those who administer the ESA seem to have 

forgotten that the Congress had spoken specifically to the issue of trophy import 

of elephants 

The provision of the AECA that deals with its relationship to the ESA says that 

"the authority of the Secretary under this Act is in addition to and shall not affect 

the authority of the Secretary under the (ESA] ... ". (16 USC 4241) If it is not clear 

enough that this "additional" authority under the AECA should not be controlling 

as to African elephants, then perhaps the Committee should consider specific 

language to make it clear that it is the intent of Congress to allow the importation 

of elephant hunting trophies under the conditions established in the AECA. 

Now I would like to tum to the issue of rhinoceros for a few minutes. We have a 

success story to tell about from Africa, and another tale of woe and frustration 

about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its administration of the ESA. 

The success story deals with the Southern white rhino. SCI testified on the issue 

of rhinoceros and the story of the southern white rhino several times before the 

predecessor to this Committee, in 1993 and again in 1994 when we supported the 

passage ofH.R. 3987, which became the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. 

At the tum of the century, only 20 animals from this species existed, in Natal, 

South Africa. According to figures compiled at the IUCN African Rhino 

Specialist Group meeting in February of this year (attached), there are 7,095 

estimated to exist in South Africa, with another 450 scattered in another seven 

countries in Africa. The population trend is up. 

The wildlife conservationists who achieved this modem miracle credit the 

"economic and social" value of the rhino. They devised a plan which gave 

incentives to farmers and ranchers to allow the rhinos to breed and roam on 

private land. The land owners were allowed to bring in safari hunters to take up to 

eight animals a year. The nearly $2 million in revenues that this produced, along 

with other uses of the rhino (from game viewing to the sale of breeding animals), 
51 

was a major incentive in the recovery of this species on private land. Many more 

millions were raised for the government by the sale of breeding stock to the 

private farmers and ranchers from the surplus animals in the protected areas. 

The CITES parties recognized the role of huntipg and the recovery of the southern 

white rhino when, at the Fort Lauderdale meeting in 1994, they approved the 

downlisting of the South African population to Appendix II for trade in hunting 

trophies and live specimens. 

But the other side of the coin is represented by the black rhino in Africa. Despite 

many valiant efforts, that species is still in extremely low numbers. We 

understand that there are fewer than 2,000 remaining. 

A few years ago, SCI was asked to help with one imaginative idea in Zimbabwe. 

The government there was dehorning its rhinos in an attempt to make the animals 

less attractive to poachers. In order to offset the cost of the dehorning operation 

and to generate surplus revenue for rhino conservation, they asked SCI whether 

safari hunters would be willing to participate in the dehorning hunts. The hunter 

would track the rhino and pull the trigger on the darting gun. The anesthetized 

rhino would be dehorned by a government team, and would run off alive and 

unharmed from its experience. The hom would be given to the hunter as a 

memento of his experience, for which he would have paid a trophy fee (in addition 

to the other costs of his safari). The trophy fee would cover the costs of the 

dehorning operation and provide a surplus for conservation use. 

SCI discussed this with its members and found quite a few hunters who were 

anxious to help restore the rhino populations. The problem was that the incentive 

of the rhino hom as a memento was negated by the inability to get import permits. 

SCI prepared and filed a test permit application in December, 1992. As expected, 

there were many objections from what we refer to as the "protectionist" 

community. The Department of the Interior delayed and delayed, and in the 

meantime the dehorning program collapsed. The permit was finally issued on 

October 19, 1995 (three years later!). Copies of the application and the permit are 

attached. But that was far too late to do any good for black rhinos. 

As with the African Elephant Conservation Act, we see no problems with the 

Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. But again, the failure of the 

Administration to request funding, and the rigidity ofthe Department of the 
52 

Interior regarding concepts of sustainable use continue to defeat the goals and the 

policies of the Congress. In regard to funding, SCI, along with other 

organizations, interceded in February of 1995 when there was a move to cut off 

the funding for the Act. We were disappointed with the Department of the 

Interior's request for only $400,000, but we supported it against zero funding. In 

a letter to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, we 

said that we supported the Department's request, ''particularly if it is used to assist 

range nation programs, since range nations are on the front line of battle to save 

the black rhino." We pointed out, as with the elephant, that the ESA does not 

provide any direct assistance for species like rhinoceros that occur in other 

countries. I should mention that although the Act allows a $10 million annual 

appropriation, the Administration only requested $600,000 for fiscal year 1997. 
53 

• TOCII<.~ speculative gu<stimow:s. U1C1 so U'IIC populal.ion me 1112y possibly be hiaJ!e:r. SpecuiDcive guescin\8U:S include 

anim•ls listed os ~res ar <be May 1m AIRSO meeting. 4tld for whicl1 th<re is no new infonnarioll. SpecuJ:rive 

gu<:$!im:11es also ineludc animals for whicl1 !here is ,.;.,.. cimlm$anrial evidena tluar !bey <.-tist (or hav<: no< been killed) bur 

lhis C"\'tdcDcc may be old Or UDtCiiabJe. Tbu.s.. dlC CDtlb in tbc t1bJc do QO( indude c:stima1cs for rhino duu .ve bcliel'ed to be 

or 111:1y be praenr. bur where then: is vay tinle or no rcccur informorion on llleir SCIIUS. 

i 
54 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW MA TEMBA 

COORDINATOR, SADC WILDUFE TECHNICAL COORDINATION UNIT 

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, MALAWI 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 20, 1996 

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Government of Malawi and its Department of National Parks and 

Wildlife, I thank you for this op.portunity to testify regarding the effectiveness of the African Elephant 

Conservation Act of 1988 and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994. My name is 

Matthew Matemba and I am Director of the Department of National Parks and Wildlife in Malawi and 

Coordinator of the SADC Wildlife Technical Coordination Unit. My Department is responsible for 

coordinating all issues relating to wildlife management within the 12 SADC countries, stretching from 

South Africa to Tanzania. 

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that organized and well-funded conservation efforts are necessary in Africa. 

However, as we have learned over the past twenty years, some methods have proven to be more effective 

than others. It is our position that the African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 and the Rhinoceros and 

Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 present opportunities for achieving and maintaining sustainable wildlife 

conservation in Africa. The potential of these Acts lies in their commitment to wildlife conservation 

programmes managed in and by African countries. These Acts emphasize the importance of well-managed 

wildlife conservation programmes operating where the wildlife is located. In our experience, programmes 

that assist local communities and governm,nts in managing wildlife resources in their appropriate social, 

cultural and economic context have the greatest chance of success. While the process under which the Acts 

approve grants could be more sensitive to these factors, the Acts are steps in the right direction. An example 

of how successful these funds have been in meeti~g their objectives can be found in my own country. Last 
55 

year, my Department received a grant of $30,000 US which enabled us to provide emergency water supplies 

in drought stricken areas. These water supplies undoubtedly ensured that significant numbers of elephants 

and other species did not die of lack of water. 

It is our sincere hope that funds granted under these two Acts will be effective in promoting wildlife 

conservation in Africa. In order to maximize the effectiveness of aid, these Acts must be sensitive to the 

needs of local communities which remain the front line of animal protection. It is our understanding that 

both Acts require the Secretary of Interior to evaluate the individual conservation programmes instituted by 

African nations. The Secretary is then authorized to provide funding, to the extent that his budget allows, 

to the most carefully structured and scientifically proven of these strategies. It is the intention of the Acts 

that only the most effective conservation programmes are funded. To make these decisions in the wisest 

possible way, we observe that wildlife conservation programmes should enfranchise local communities to 

work directly with the wildlife conservation managers and experts in the range states. The more programmes 

remain mired in old-style command-and-control approaches, such as trade bans and sanctions, the less 

effective the Acts will be in creating incentives for local communities to view wildlife as important assets 

necessitating the highest standards of protection. 

In order to underscore the significance of committing scarce conservation resources to sustainable wildlife 

protection programmes that give local communities a stake in the outcome, let me describe for you a recent 

evolution in the thinking behind our conservation programme in Malawi. A landlocked country in southeast 

Africa, the nation of Malawi faces many challenges as it seeks to protect its environment and resources while 

at the same time expanding its base for economic development and growth. With a population over II 

-2-
56 

million, only 26 percent of Malawi is arable land. As a result, conservation objectives must be balanced 

carefully with the needs of agriculture and industry if Malawi is to continue to provide for its citizens. In 

our experience, only by creating a sufticient economic stake in the preservation of wildlife can conservation 

programmes hope to be both sustainable and effective. 

The approach we have adopted in Malawi is one of community-based conservation and development. By 

contrast to this approach, the traditional method of conserving wildlife has been described as stressing 

"fences and fines." Essentially, under the old model, a portion of the rural landscape was designated as the 

unique domain of wildlife -- to remain relatively untouched by humans. Departments of wildlife were 

expected to construct financial and physical barriers to limit interaction between people and animals. With 

only 0.7 acres of arable land per capita in Malawi, you can see that such an approach is unworkable in our 

nation as it often has been elsewhere in Africa. Wildlife fai ls to recognize artificial boundaries between 

parks and pasture, resulting in severe hardship for those living nearby. Unfortunately, with their income and 

even their lives at risk, local communities found it in their best interest to be hostile towards wildlife under 

this "fence-and-fines" model. Under this approach, the ironic result has been increased hunting of wildlife 

and loss of critical habitat. 

Given the conflict between preservation and human needs, Malawi and other African nations have 

increasingly turned to new models of preservation that emphasize community-based conservation and 

development, or CBCD. These strategies link local participation w.ith conservation and development goals 

to create programmes promising long-term sustainability. The authority to manage natural resources, 

including wildlife, is devolved from the central government to local people. CBCD enables people to 

-3-
57 

reclaim rights over wildlife and to benefit legally from both subsistence and commercial use of wild species. 

The value ofCBCD programmes to a sustainable ecological future has won global recognition and is, in part, 

supported financially by assistance from the U.S. government. American support for these programmes 

should come as no surprise, particularly given the emerging consensus in support of sustainable development 

from across the political spectrum. The former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker observed that: 

"Sustainable development, to put it simply, is a way to fulfill the requirements of the present 

without compromising the future. When policies of sustainable development are followed, 

our economic and our environmental objectives are both achieved. In fact, America's entire 

approach to bilateral and multilateral assistance is based on the concept of sustainable 

development." ' 

The way to make sustainability a reality to give individuals the incentive and the ability to participate within 

the programme. As U.S. Vice President AI Gore remarked in his treatise on environmental policy, .Eru:!b...in 

the Balance, "One of the most effective ways to encourage market forces to work in environmentally benign 

ways is to give concerned citizens a better way to take the environment into account when they purchase 

goods or make other economic decisions."' For Malawi and many other range states, this "better way" is 

CBCD. And it is clearly is in the best interests of wildlife conservation for the two Acts we discuss today 

to support programmes that give local communities sufficient incentive to protect resources. 

Mr. Chairman, I must correct a misimpression that trade restrictions, such as the ban on trade in ivory, are 

instruments that assist in advancing the cause of sustainable development. Trade restrictions without 

sufficient flexibility to encourage sustainable conservation programmes have a perverse ecological effect. 

Success of CBCD programmes like those in Malawi and elsewhere in the range states relies upon the 

-4-
58 

availability of markets for wildlife products. These markets depend on policy and regulation both at the 

international level and within consumer nations such as the United States. When markets are available, 

wildlife has a comparative advantage to cattle on semi-arid rangelands. Indigenous species make wider and 

better use of available vegetation. With market incentives firmly in place, CBCD programmes also create 

the basis for increasing the land available to wildlife. Our experience in southern Africa has demonstrated 

that parks that were once ecologically isolated are becoming cores of natural systems. Many times, the 

newly created buffer zones reopen channels of genetic transfer from one conservation area to another-- in 

ways in which the old fence-and-fines approach prevents. Without legal markets for wildlife products, the 

land owner or occupier is unlikely to tolerate or to encourage wildlife on his or her land as it is simply a 

dangerous liability. Other more profitable-- and less sustainable-- options for land use will be sought. 

The market incentive for protection of elephant populations can be expanded in several ways. First, 

transferring the elephant population of certain countries where there is proven capacity for effective wildlife 

management to Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES, 

to allow controlled trade in products is in the best interest of elephant conservation, as the above analysis 

indicates. It is now feasible to institute sufficient trade controls and monitoring procedures to conduct a 

limited trade in elephant products without threatening elephants in other countries or stimulating illegal 

trade. CITES was first established in the early 1970's with the leadership of the United States. Over the 

years, the CITES process has brought together world-renowned experts in wildlife conservation. While 

CITES (which includes the U.S. government as well as the range states) is in the best position to evaluate 

the effectiveness of sustainable wildlife programmes, a marked improvement in CITES would be the transfer 

of the selected elephant populations to Appendix II. In addition to stimulating elephant conservation, such 

-5-
59 

a transfer would assist rural communities and support enhanced biodiversity conservation. Nine African 

nations originally opposed Appendix I listing of the elephant population and believe that the previous 

decision ironically punished the range states for the very conservation successes of their programmes. When 

the next CITES conference commences in June 1.997, we anticipate the status of the elephant populations 

in certain countries to be at issue. 

Seconc;l, the United States could clarify the foreign species provisions of its Endangered Species Act, 

removing effective bans on wildlife imports. It should be clearly understood that my comments today are 

restricted only to the foreign provisions of ESA. Despite our experience to the contrary, the underlying 

implication ofESA seems to be that trade in endangered and threatened species has a negative conservation 

impact. Malawi, along with Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe, have sought to have U.S. officials 

administering ESA consult in meaningful ways before proceeding under the foreign species provisions of 

the Act. Also, we have asked that ESA should be aligned with international commitments made uder 

CITES. Our governments believe that if these changes were made to ESA, the Act would be able to achieve 

its stated objective •• the conservation of species and habitat. By working with the range states more closely, 

the U.S. would. be supporting conservation initiatives of the local experts, and not unintentionally 

undermining them as is often the case today. 

Some have argued that the existence of trade restrictions such as the ivory ban have been responsible for a 

decline in poaching and the stabilization of the elephant population. From our experience, stabilization of 

elephant herd and poaching declines have occurred in nations with sustainable conservation programmes. 

By contrast, population declines and poaching (after a brief decline) have continued or worsened in nations 

-6-
60 

without such programmes. If continued Appendix I listing of elephants or misapplication of ESA 

undennines the market underpinnings of sustainable conservation, the very stability that some observers 

point to will evaporate. In order to expand on past success, we must make changes in policy that enhance 

sustainable programmes. 

In order to illustrate how successful the sustainable conservation approach to wildlife management can be, 

I would like to provide infonnation from a programme in another country than my own, the CAMPFIRE 

programme in Zimbabwe. CAMPFIRE has in many respects served as a model for other countries in 

southern Africa. CAMPFIRE has played a major role, not only in promoting ecological conservation in 

Zimbabwe, but also in fostering economic development and local governance. When viewed in the context 

of elephant conservation, the results of CAMPFIRE have been impressive. While it is well-known that the 

number of elephants has declined in some African nations following more "traditional" conservation 

measures-- for example, Kenya, where the elephant population plummeted from 35,000 to 26,000 in the 

1980's. Zimbabwe's elephant population during the same time period increased under CAMPFIRE, soaring 

from approximately 40,000 to 70,000. Likewise Botswana, which has a similar approach to wildlife 

management, has an elephant population of 80,000, also a substantial increase in the elephant population. 

Namibia has sustained a significant increase as well. As the elephant herd is sustained, local communities 

prosper. In I994, the programme generated over US$2 million for the country's economic and ecologic 

development -- an enonnous amount for a country where the average annual wages often fall below S 150 

per year. Over the years, these funds have provided food in years of crop failure; supported development 

initiatives and income generating projects such as schools, clinics, small shops, and grinding mills; and 

-7-
61 

promoted additional conservation efforts, such as the employment of local game guards and the installation 

of wildlife water sources. 

Programmes like CAMPFIRE work, Mr. Chairman, because they ensure that the goals of wildlife 

conservation and human development are mutually reinforcing, rather than mutually exclusive. In addition, 

because these programmes allow local people to enjoy the benefits of wildlife management, long-term 

conservation has become a real possibility. Today, more than 360,000 Zimbabweans are directly involved 

in the practice of wildlife management. As a result, over one-third of the land in Zimbabwe is dedicated 

to wildlife conservation. Not surprisingly, 50% of this land is found in commercial and communal areas, 

while national parks account for less than 30%. This is just one example of U.S. grant money working 

efficiently and effectively to enhance wildlife resources. 

Other African nations are beginning to introduce similar programmes. For example, Botswana, Namibia, 

Zambia and my own nation of Malawi have adopted similarly-based programmes. In addition, Tanzania, 

South Africa and Mozambique are exploring options for developing programmes, while Kenya, Cameroon 

and Uganda are instituting pilot projects. Rather than viewing dangerous wild animals as a threat to their 

livelihoods, Africans are beginning to view them as valuable resources. Rather than herding them off their 

land or actually killing wildlife, people are becoming more likely to protect what they consider to be "their" 

resources. 

It is our position that the funding provisions under the African Elephant Conservation and Rhinoceros and 

Tiger Conservation Act represent a tremendous opportunity for the U.S. Government to maximize the returns 

-8-
62 

from its aid by making a significant impact upon both sustainable biodiver.<ity conservation and the relief 

of human poverty. However, at present, the enormous potential of these Acts to promote Africa's ecological 

and economic development remains largely untapped. Unless the federal acts are adequately funded, the 

U.S. effort will be a token one, at best. 

CAMPFIRE, for example, began as an idea with no resources, little political and financial support and many 

sceptics. However, as the programme began to evolve, it increasingly attracted the attention of government 

and international aid agencies. The financial support provided by the U.S. government during the pilot stage 

of the programme played a crucial role in the success of the CAMPFIRE programme. The need for such 

foreign assistance will continue for a number of years as the programme grows and seeks to develop the 

institutional and economic basis for community based management around the country. New programmes 

in other areas of the continent, such as those mentioned above, will require similar support to achieve longterm conservation goals. I know this Subcommittee will not underestimate the complexity of transforming 

key elements of a rural economy's established production system. It requires a substantial investment in 

institutions, capacities and infrastructure, the costs of which cannot be born by the communities alone. 

However, the returns, in the form of significant improvements in the continent's the economic, ecological 

and democratic development, are enormous. 

I would urge that the flexible funding provided by these Acts should be focused upon supporting and 

encouraging conservation approaches that local communities are fully involved in management or wildlife 

Finally, there is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that in addition to adequate funding, the sustainability of African 

conservation programmes will depend upon the tolerance of national and international trade regimes for 

-9-
63 

carefully controlled and sustainable trade in wildlife resources. Sustainable wildlife conservation is premised 

upon tbe economic return from wildlife, which in tum, requires functional markets for products derived from 

wildlife. In particular, the U.S., as the largest market for wildlife and wildlife products, will play a large 

role in this regard. In this light, we encourage further U.S. conservation efforts to proceed in accordance 

with the framework of CITES. We urge U.S. policy-makers to continue their broad support for the CITES 

approach, with its emphasis on international conservation expertise. We further urge that as the U.S. 

evaluates programmes for assistance under the Acts we discuss today and other statutes, the U.S. should 

recognize the value of sustainable programmes that give local communities a meaningful role to play in 

wildlife conservation. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you and this Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on the African Elephant 

Conservation Act of 1988 and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994. And thank you to the 

U.S. government for its continued support of Africa's conservation programmes. We have come far in 

protecting African wildlife, but much remains to be accomplished. With your assistance and cooperation, 

I am certain we will achieve our mutual objectives. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have 

at this time. 

Literature Cjtatjons 

I. Honorable James A. Baker Ill, speech before the National Governors' Association, February 26, 

1990. 

2. Honorable AI Gore, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, 1992 at 341. 

-10-
64 

TESTIMONY OF MARSHALL P. JONES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR 

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS, HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE, 

REGARDING THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION ACT AND THE 

RHINOCEROS AND TIGER CONSERVATION ACT AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION. 

June 20, 1996 

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the opportun,ity to be here today to discuss 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's implementation of the African Elephant 

Conservation Act and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. It is particularly 

timely that renewed emphasis is being given to these landmark legislative 

initiatives. These Acts are designed to support United States efforts in 

encouraging and assisting conservation of the world' s wildlife heritage. 

They recognize that the United States, as a Party to the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and as 

a major consumer of natur-al resources, shares responsibility for supporting and 

implementing measures to provide for the conservation of species, both at home 

and abroad. The key element embodied in both initiatives is the provisions of 

financial resources to help support programs to assist the conservation of 

elephants, rhinos and tigers in the wild in their countries of origin. Both Acts 

reflect our country's commitment to assisting the people of developing African and 

Asian nations in implementing their priorities for wildlife conservation. In fact, 
65 

conservation of the African elephant, rhinos, and tigers remains an issue of 

enormous importance to the American people; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

has received more mail from individual Americans about these species over the 

past eight years than any other species of wildlife, foreign or domestic. 

Most of my remarks today will focus on the successes of the African Elephant 

Conservation Act. Enacted in 1989, the Act was initially funded in fiscal year 

1990 and the Service now has five years experience with African elephant 

conservation programs. Furthermore, the early success of this program provided 

impetus to the passage of the companion Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act 

in 1994. 

African Elephant Conservation Act 

The African Elephant Conservation Act was enacted at a time when the continental 

population of African elephants was declining at an alarming rate, due primarily to 

the poaching of elephants for a large illegal trade in ivory. Population estimates 

vary widely for the African elephant from the 37 countries within the current 

range, but it is estimated that total elephant numbers declined by as much as 50 

percent during the late 1970s and 1980s. In response to this precipitous decline, 

the Act contains a unique two-pronged conservation strategy. First, the Act 

requires a review of elephant conservation programs and establishes a process for 

import controls; second, it establishes a Fund for cooperative conservation projects 

2 
66 

in African countries. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, in June 1989 

the President established a moratorium on all ivory imports into the United States, 

which was then the third largest consumer of ivory in the world. The 

Congressional leadership that facilitated passage of the Act, and the resultant U.S. 

ivory import moratorium, were precursors to strong U.S. leadership. These 

activities led the world community to transfer the African elephant to Appendix 1 

and to put in place the world ban on ivory trade. 

While it was determined that several African countries, particularly in Southern 

Africa, were able to maintain adequate conservation programs internally, there was 

no effective mechanism to control international trade in illegal ivory. The debate 

continues today over the impacts of the Appendix I listing and the legitimate 

concerns of the impact of the trade ban adopted by CITES parties on wildlife 

utilization programs in some countries. 

The information available today indicates significant declines in the rate of elephant 

poaching, ivory prices and ivory trade immediately following the ban, combined 

with a stabilization of elephant populations in many countries that were 

experiencing declines. It is important to note that there was also a concurrent 

·increase in donor funding to help support anti-poaching efforts in range countries 

following the Appendix I listing. A recent report prepared for the Ninth meeting of 

the Conference of the Parties to CITES in 1 994 suggests that poaching may be on 

3 
67 

the rise' again in some countries, which may be due in part to declines in donor 

funding and operational wildlife department and anti-poaching budgets in those 

countries. The issues of elephant conservation and ivory trade are complex and 

are expected to be a significant focus of the next meeting of the CITES Conference 

of the Parties, to be hosted by Zimbabwe in 1997. 

As this important dialogue intensifies, it is even more important to focus on the 

. . 

positive strides made as a direct result of the Act's unique conservation strategy--

a small conservation Fund targeted at cooperative, on-the-ground conservation 

projects in Africa. Implementation of this program has played a significant positive 

direct role in the c~nservation of the African elephant, and an indirect role in the 

conservation of numerous species that benefit from the conservation of this 

keystone species. 

To date, the Service hi!S funded under this program 48 different projects, in 17 

African countries affecting over 200,000 elephants. Each project is a cooperative 

effort with African CITES Management Authorities, other foreign governments, 

nongovernmental organizations or the private sector. No. in-country project is 

approved unless it has the full support of and has been identified by that country 

as a priority for conservation. Through this cooperative approach the actual onthe-ground resources directed at African elephant conservation_ is more than double 

the $5 million allocated to the program since 1990. 

4 
68 

Under the Act all but 3 percent of funds allocated to the grant program are used 

to fund projects. Additiorally, no overhead charges are supported by grant funds. 

All such costs are borne by the cooperators as matching contributions to the 

project. Thus, 97 percent of all funds allocated by Congress to the Fund are 

obligated to specific projects. 

In implementing this program, the Service also has designed a streamlined process 

aliowing for timely approval of projects, and having the capacity to respond quickly 

to emergency situations. Since no implementing regulations were deemed 

necessary, there was no time lag in initial receipt of funds and actual 

implementation of the program. As an example of the quick response capability 

of the program, in 1993 the Service received an emergency request from Namibia 

for assistance in responding to a disease outbreak .in the.ir rare desert elephant 

population. In cooperation with the Namibia Ministry of Environment and Tourism 

and World Wildlife Fund, a project was initiated within days to vaccinate the 

remaining population using helicopters and dart guns. 

Initial Stage: Emergency Anti-POaching Programs 

Given the relatively modest level of funding and its annual limitations, this program 

is designed to provide quick, short term support for holding actions and other 

conservation measures, in com:ert with existing or proposed long range activities, 

or until such long range activities are in place. Therefore, in the first years of the 

5 
69 

program the majority of funding requests and the highest priority projects for 

funding were proposals submitted by or in cooperation with African elephant range 

state government agencies for anti-poaching assistance. Funds have been 

provided to augment anti-poaching support in Cameroon, Congo, Eritrea, Gabon, 

Mali, Senegal,. Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Vitally needed equipment 

including field gear, vehicles and radios and operational support including field 

rations and fuel represent the most critical needs for these programs. 

One of the earliest projects funded was a cooperative effort with the Ministry of 

Forestry and Wildlife, Central African Republic, and the World Wildlife Fund. A 

cooperative effort was Underway to establish a reserve in the southeastern portion 

of that country. While funds for gazetting the reserve were anticipated, no funds 

were available for basic equipment and operations of anti-poaching patrols to be 

hired from local communities. A cooperative project was implemented under the 

Fund. When the first patrols were put into place the only signs of elephants in the 

local clearing were the carcasses of several poached animals. Today over 2,000 

individual elephants, young and old, are using the clearing. From an observation 

platform, local school children can watch in awe as dozens of elephants gather. 

A second anti-poaching project is in Senegal, where the western-most population 

of elephants in Africa is presently secure with help from the Fund. Through a 

cooperative project with the government of Senegal and the Friends of Animals, 

6 
70 

an anti-poaching program implemented under the Fund has provided local 

community employment, and protection for the remaining elephant population. For 

the first time in years, baby elephants are now seen in this small but genetically 

valuable population. 

One of the most innovative anti-poaching projects funded is a cooperative effort 

with the Southern African Wildlife Trust and several cooperating African 

government agencies in recognizing wildlife scouts and rangers for their individual 

achievements in the field for anti-poaching. Four countries-- Botswana, Tanzania, 

Zambia and Zimbabwe -- now present meritorious service awards to their 

outstanding game scouts and rangers. This program has provided a much needed 

morale boost for the front line forces that routinely put their lives on the line to 

protect elephant populations. 

New Focus: Proactive Local Management Programs' 

More recently the focus has changed from anti-poaching projects to other 

conservation activities that address management needs and increasing 

human/elephant conflicts as expanding human populations reduce the amount of 

wild lands available. In Southern Africa a number of projects have been 

implemented to assist range state agencies with elephant management programs. 

A cooperative project with the Zimbabwe Department of National Parks and 

7 
71 

Wildlife focused on the development of translocation techniques for elephant family 

units. 

Over 1,000 individual elephants were successfully translocated to new range in 

Zimbabwe when drought threatened hundreds of individuals with starvation and 

destruction of available habitat. South Africa and other range states now use this 

technique. A second project in Zimbabwe, in cooperation with Safari Club 

lnte,rnational, focuses on the development of a manual on elephant population 

management as part of the CAMPFIRE program to assist local communities in 

sustainable development. 

Other management projects include investigations into the effectiveness of various 

forms of deterrents used to discourage crop-raiding elephants in Cameroon and 

Zimbabwe; training wildlife officers in Ghana about elephant biology and ecology; 

and elephant population surveys in Cameroon, Chad, Central African Republic, 

Malawi, Namibia and Tanzania. The Service also has funded projects to assist in 

the establishment of a continent-wide database on elephant populations and the 

first comprehensive library of elephant resource material. 

These are but a few examples of the significant successes of the African Elephant 

Conservation Act Fund program, demonstrating the wide array of projects and 

cooperators. Hopefully they serve to illustrate its effectiveness and positive 

8 
72 

impacts on African elephant conservation. However, while much has been 

accomplished, much remains to be done. The annual requests for support of high 

priority projects greatly exceeds the funds available. 

Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act 

In enacting the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act, the Congress responded 

to the fact that the world's rhinoceros and tiger populations were declining at an 

aiarming rate, with all five subspecies of tiger currently threatened with extinction 

in the wild, and most rhino populations reduced to critical levels. The Sumatran 

rhino and the South China tiger, for example, are now among the most highly 

endangered large mammals on earth, unlikely to survive into the 21st century 

without substantial additional help. The cause of this precipitous decline continues 

to be poaching for the market in rhinoceros horn and tiger parts. 

Although enacted in 1 994, funds were not allocated to the Rhinoceros and Tiger 

Conservation Fund until thi.s year, and only became available to the Service this 

April, following final resolution of the Department of Interior's Fiscal Year 1996. 

budget. Anticipating that initial funding eventually would become available, the 

Service developed an interim process for identifying highest priority projects and 

anticipates funding several critically needed projects before the end of this fiscal 

year. 

9 
73 

The Service envisions funding on-the-ground conservation activities in Asia and 

Africa. These projects will be closely coordinated with current ongoing Service 

activities. Since the late 1970's the Service has cooperated in a series of 

programs in Russia and India for wildlife conservation. Funding for these programs 

has been principally through the use of U.S.-owned excess foreign currencies, and 

private sector cooperator matching funds. In India, specific assistance toward tiger 

conservation has included training workshops on capture, immobilization and radiotracking, facilitating breeding loans of ne·w founder animals for U.S. and Indian 

zoos, and intensive studies of tiger status and ecology. 

Related activities have assisted with faculty and curriculum development at the 

Wildlife Institute of India, the principal wildlife training facility in India. In Russia, 

the Service has supported tiger conservation by providing assistance to a number 

of reserves which sustain critically endangered tiger populations. 

The Service will also continue to coordinate its efforts closely with other 

conservation programs including those sponsored under the Save the Tiger Fund 

of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which is funded primarily through 

grants from the Exxon Corporation. Currently I serve on the Board of that Fund, 

thus providing an opportunity to closely coordinate our efforts and to encourage 

the support of projects for the conservation of tigers in the wild. 

10 
74 

The initial funding under the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act will support 

only a handful of small projects with projected funding needs far exceeding 

available resources. However, as with the African Elephant Conservation Act, we 

hope that it will serve as the catalyst for significant contributions to the 

conservation of these critically endangered species. 

In closing Mr. Chairman, the findings made by this Congress in ~nacting this Act 

regrettably still ring true today, "Many (African countries) do not have suffiCient 

resources to properly manage, conserve, and protect their elephant populations ... 

The United States must share the responsibility to provide for the conservation of 

the·African elephant, the rhinoceros and the tiger. The principles embodied in this 

Act and its companion Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act are sound. They 

provide a critical incentive for governments of the world, nongovernmental 

organizations, and the private sector to work together for a common conservation 

goa'l. This is not a hand out, but a helping hand. The Service believes the Acts are 

well crafted, and accomplishing significant conservation priorities in Africa and 

Asia, and need no changes. The Service strongly supports these programs as 

enacted. 

Once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions 

you or the Committee may have. 

11 
75 

WWF 

~ 

STATEMENT 

of 

GINETTE HEMLEY 

DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE POLICY 

WORLD WILDLIFE FUND 

before the 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND OCEANS 

of the 

House Committee on Resources 

on 

Progress and Potential: 

The African Elephant and Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Funds 

June 20, 1996. 

World Wildlife Fund 

1250 Twenty-Fourth St., NW Washington , DC :i0037 117~ USA 

Tet (202) 293 -4800 Telex, 64505 PANDA FAJC (202) 293-92 11 

Incorporating The COtll<rvation Foundation. Affiliated with World Wide Fund for Nature. 
76 

Progress and Potential: 

The Mrican Elephant and Rhino and Tiger Conservation Funds 

Testimony of Ginette Hemley 

Director, International Wildlife Policy 

World Wildlife Fund 

Before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans 

June 20, 1996 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear here today. I am Ginette Hemley, Director of International Wildlife Policy at World 

Wildlife Fund. WWF is the largest private conservation organization working internationally to 

protect wildlife and wildlife habitats. We currently support conservation efforts in more than 70 

countries, including many key African elephant range states and almost all range states for tigers 

and rhinos. 

We are here to evaluate the effectiveness of the African Elephant Conservation Act 

(AECA) of 1988 and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994. I would like today to 

review what these laws have accomplished to date, and their importance for future conservation 

initiatives. 

First, I want to express WWF' s appreciation for the concern and interest that this 

Subcommittee has shown for the conservation of these species, three of the world's most 

magnificent and visible symbols for global conservation. We want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

for convening this hearing, and we applaud the Subcommittee for taking a leadership role in 

securing passage of both the African Elephant Conservation Act and Rhino and Tiger 

Conservation Act. We also want to note in particular the important roles of Representatives 

Beilenson, Studds, and Fields, who are appearing today. You have our special thanks for 

helping lead the initial effort in Congress in 1988 on behalf of the African elephant, and more 

recently on behalf of rhinos and tigers. 

I 

The African Elephant Conseivation Act 

WWF first testified before the House regarding elephant conservation on June 22, 1988 

- eight years ago almost to the day. At that time, a dramatic decline in many elephant 

populations over the course of a decade had precipitated enormous concern among African 

nations and the global conservation community. From an estimated 1.2 million animals in 1979, 

elephant numbers dropped to about 600,000 by the late 1980s, a decline of as much as 50 percent 

in just ten years. Shrinking habitat and conflict with rapidly expanding human populations played 

a role in the decline, yet by the mid-1980s it was clear that the overwhelming factor in the steep 

drop in elephant populations was poaching for the illegal ivory trade. 

During its peak just over a decade ago, as much as 800 tonnes of ivory were exported 

from Africa each year, equivalent to the deaths of up to 80,000 elephants annually. The losses 

were disproportionate, with some elephant populations in east and central Africa suffering 

devastating declines, while others fared better. In particular, elephants in several southern 

African countries were well insulated from the poaching assault, due to effective management and 

conservation programs. 
77 

CITES grappled unsuccessfully with the massive outflow of illegal ivory from the African 

continent, through an export quota system that ultimately failed to keep illicit ivory products out 

of global trade. The global response was the 1989 CITES ban on commercial ivory trade, a 

measure adopted by the vast majority of CITES member nations. Although controversial among 

some elephant range countries, the moratorium has proven important to the recovery of many of 

the elephant populations hit hardest by poaching. CITES will no doubt continue to debate the 

futllre of the ivory trade ban, as the African elephant clearly presents some of most challenging 

issues in wildlife conservation and management today, and the needs and priorities associated 

with addressing these issues vary widely among African countries. 

The ivory trade ban was a stop gap measure targeted at a crisis situation. The issue we 

are discussing here, Mr. Chairman, which is in many ways more critical over the long term, is 

international funding for wildlife conservation programs. To this end, the African Elephant 

Conservation Act has played a crucial role. The Act established the African Elephant 

Conservation Fund and authorizes up to $5 million per year for elephant conservation projects. 

Although the fund has never been appropriated to the fully authorized amount, it has proven an 

important instrument for )lelping African nations in their efforts to rebuild elephant populations 

hit hardest by poaching, as well as for addressing the growing array of elephant conservation and 

management needs throughout the continent. 

To best understand the importance of monies provided from the AECA, one would have 

to consult with the governments and wildlife officials and experts of the 17 countries which have 

benefited from its support. A few of them are represented here today. WWF has conservation 

programs or projects in 16 African countries and oversees several projects which have been the 

direct recipients of support from the African elephant fund. Based on our own field reports and 

contact with experts across Africa, the fund has been an important source of support for projects 

that would otherwise not have been possible. 

The African Elephant Fund, administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has 

provided about $5 million over five years to elephant conservation activities in range states 

throughout Africa. Mr. Chairman, this is a very modest program -- $5 million has supported 62 

grams to 48 projects in 17 countries. In our view, the Service has been both efficient and 

effective in managing the elephant grants program. 

Through many years of developing and managing international conservation programs and 

projects, we at WWF have learned many important lessons. One is that successful conservation 

initiatives require conunitment and continuity. The African Elephant Conservation Fund has in 

fact been the only continuous source of new funding for African elephant conservation efforts 

since the 1989 ivory trade ban went into effect. Unfortunately. funding from other sources has 

proven erratic. In the immediate aftermath of the ivory trade ban, when the world was sensitized 

to the elephant's dilemma, funding flowed from various unilateral and multilateral bodies and 

NGOs to projects in many parts of Africa. Since then, much of it has dried up. A 1995 review 

cosponsored by WWF and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with support from the elephant 

fund, revealed that many African wildlife and parks departments have undergone massive budget 

cuts, sometimes on the order of 90 percent or more in four years, as was the case with Tanzania 

from 1989-1993. This not only underscores a very serious trend, but also makes the monies 

authorized by the AECA even more valuable and needed. 

2 
78 

From WWF's perspective, some of the strengths of African Elephant Conservation grants 

program include: 

• Emphasis on small grants. By emphasizing small grants, FWS is able to move monies 

relatively quickly with minimal bureaucracy, while also allowing for a wide spectrum of 

projects to be supported. The African elephant inhabits some 35 countries, and 

conservation needs and capacity vary widely. The Service has chosen to provide 

maximum reasonable flexibility by keeping grants small, while maintaining a broad focus 

to ensure that meritorious projects throughout sub-Saharan Africa are funded. 

• On-the-ground focus. Virtually all monies coming from the fund go directly into the field 

where it is needed; just 3 percent goes for administration. Moreover, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service has been responsive to emerging needs, as witnessed in 1993 when an 

anthrax outbreak threatened Namibia's elephant population. Emergency assistance was 

provided from the African elephant fund, and helped head off a potential catastrophe. 

• Balanced set of projects. In the beginning, the African elephant fund supported mostly 

anti-poaching projects, as these were the immediate priority. Since then, we are 

encouraged that, while grants are still targeted at clear and identifiable needs, the fund 

supports not only anti-poaching but many other activities, such as elephant population 

research and censuses, efforts to mitigate elephant/human conflicts, investigations of the 

ivory trade and cataloging ivory stockpiles, elephant translocations, and identifying new 

techniques for elephant management. 

• Coooeration with range states. All FWS projects receive approval from the host country 

government before proceeding. We have found that there is a very clear process and 

commitment to consultation and, where possible, collaboration with African governments. 

• Matching funds. Since the elephant grants program was initiated in 1990, more than $5 

million in matching contributions has been spent on the various projects supported -- more 

than a 1: 1 match. In addition, the fund has played a catalytic role in larger initiatives, 

such as in the Central African Republic's Dzanga Sangha Reserve. In a major effort to 

protect important wildlife habitat and biodiversity by working with surrounding 

communities to link conservation with development needs, African elephant funds are 

used to support three teams of game scouts that patrol the reserve and combat poaching. 

In partnership with WWF and others, the U.S. government has been able to play a 

focused role in the conservation of this biologically-important area that is important for 

forest elephants and many other unique species. 

• U.S. Leadership. Last but not least, the AECA has allowed the U.S. to put its 

money where its mouth is, and to set an example for other countries to follow. 

The commitment of this Congress to ensuring a continuing source of support for 

these initiatives will be critical to the long-term viability of many elephant 

conservation initiatives. 

3 
79 

The list of specific initiatives supported by the African Elephant Conservation Act is 

impressive, and I would encourage members to review it. These projects have provided critical 

seed money to new elephant conservation initiatives in Africa, provided supplemental funds for 

existing projects with needs that could not be met from other sources, and helped build 

conser;ation infrastructure within elephant range states. With projects receiving matching 

support organizations like WWF, Safari Club International, the Wildlife Conservation Society, 

and others, the African Elephant Conservation Fund has clearly multiplied its conservation 

benefits substantially. We urge Congress to continue its strong support for this important 

program. 

The Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act 

This Subcommittee is well aware of the crisis facing rhinos and tigers in the wild and the 

staggering declines these species have experienced. Ninety-five percent of the world's wild tigers 

have disappeared since the turn of the century, with losses to poaching accelerating over the past 

decade. Three tiger subspecies have become extinct in the past fifty years, with the remaining 

five subspecies now confined to scarce habitat fragments in their fortner range. Similarly, more 

than 95 percent of Africa's black rhinos have been lost, but in just two decades, down to fewer 

than 2,000 aniinals today. Asian rhinos have fared even worse -- recent reports indicate that the 

Sumatran rhino population, for example, has been cut in half in the past decade, with numbers 

now totaling fewer than 500 animals. 

It is probably not necessary to provide more details on the seriousness of the situation. 

What is important is finding new resources for conservation and invigorating global efforts to 

protect remaining populations of these species. The most immediate threat to the survival of 

rhinos and tigers is poaching for the trade of their valuable body parts to East Asian medicinal 

markets. Stopping the illegal trade is fundamental to successful fie11 conservation efforts, and is 

an issue that, fortunately, has received significant attention in the past three years, through both 

CITES and actions taken by the United States. Passage of the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act 

was one indication of the seriousness with which both Congress and the Administration have 

addressed the issue. 

Because the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act is relatively new, its full potential to 

address the threats to these species has not yet been realized. The f1rst appropriations for the 

Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund just came through in the long-delayed FY1996 Interior 

spending bill. By following an approach similar to that used for the African Elephant Fund, the 

Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund can prove equally effective. The Fish and Wildlife Service 

appears to be showing the same commitment to emphasizing small grants, looking for a balanced 

portfolio of projects and working with host government agencies and NGOs to identify priorities 

and allocate funds. We are encouraged by the positive responses WWF has received from 

partners in the field throughout Asia and Africa about the fund's creation. As our field 

colleagues report, it means a great deal in range states that the U.S. government again is 

demonstrating a global commianent by acting as a partner to help save these critically endangered 

species. 

4 
80 

Protection of heavily-traded species such as tigers and rhinos must involve a multipronged approach focused on reinforcing conservation efforts around protected areas and 

strengthening trade controls at both the producing and consuming ends. The Rhino and Tiger 

Conservation Act recognizes this, allowing for funds to be used for activities that address on-theground habitat protection needs as well as trade threats outside of range countries. With recent 

breakthroughs in Asian consuming countries such as Taiwan, China; and South Korea, largely 

the result of pressure from CITES and Pelly Amendment sanctions imposed by the United States, 

we are for the flfSt time seeing important new commitments to wildlife trade enforcement in key 

tiger and rhino consuming countries. Funds from the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act can help 

build on this important progress. 

In the field, we have learned the hard way that successful conservation measures for 

critically endangered species do not come cheap or easy. But we also have learned that strategic 

investments and long-term commitments pay off. Earlier this year, the World Conservation 

Union (IUCN) reported that, for the first time in perhaps two decades, rhino populations 

throughout Africa are either stable or increasing in most areas, suggesting that recent investments 

have begun to show results. An important example is the Kenya Black Rhino Conservation and 

Management Plan, a Kenya Wildlife Service initiative supported by WWF and other 

organizations which aims to build conservation infrastructure and develop rhino sanctuaries. 

Kenya is well on its way to achieving its goal of 600 black rhinos in the country by the year 

2000. In this program, a policy of intensive protection and management of several key 

populations in relatively small areas has been successful in increasing rhino numbers, to the point 

that surplus rhinos are used to re-stock larger areas of protected rhino habitat. The only 

downside of this approach is its costs -- this is a multi-year, multi-million dollar program. In a 

similar initiative in Zimbabwe, the· translocation of rhinos to "Intensive Protection Zones" (IPZs) 

within established protected areas has proven important to conserving remaining black rhino 

populations. But, as in Kenya, the costs are significant -- the Zimbabwe government has said 

that it takes as much as $600 per square kilometer to translocate, monitor, and maintain one 

animal, or about $8,000 per animal per year. The Zimbabwe government is seeking several 

million dollars to implement this plan. Clearly, significant new funding is needed to secure 

remaining rhinos over the long run. 

The Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund can provide important new support for 

conservation efforts by building on some of the important successes already achieved as well as 

providing emergency monies to help head off disasters. It is important to remember that some of 

these species have weathered major crises before. The white rhino, for example, was nearly 

extirpated in South Africa at the tum of the century, but now. numbers over 7,000 in that 

country, due to the high priority given wildlife conservation by both the state and private sectors. 

In the 1930s, poaching reduced the Siberian tiger population to 40-50 individuals before strict 

protection helped its numbers rebound to some 500 in the wild in the 1970s. The fact that the 

population has been reduced to fewer than 200 today is troubling but does not necessarily mean 

doom, as long as action is taken quickly and support is sustained. In fact, poaching levels have 

been dramatically reduced from the disastrous winter of 1993, and we are cautiously optimistic 

that the situation in the Russian Far East will continue to improve. 

5 
81 

Since the passage of the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act, WWF has collaborated with 

the Wildlife Conservation Society to develop a framework for identifying high priority areas and 

actions for conserving tigers in the wild. The plan addresses immediate and long-term threats to 

tigers throughout their range, taking into account the full array of habitat types and integrity, 

poaching pressures, management needs, and trade control and policy issues. I would like to 

submit a copy of our report for the record. WWF believes that some of the priorities identified 

might prove useful to the Fish and Wildlife Service as they implement grants under the Rhino 

and Tiger Conservation Fund. Some of these include: 

• Developing conservation infrastructure for areas identified as critical tiger habitat, based 

on ecoregion, habitat integrity, and poaching and trade pressures; many of these areas 

include key parks and reserves, but also habitat units outside of protected areas; 

• Funding surveys of tiger habitat areas not yet ranked in importance, so that their 

significance for tiger conservation can be assessed; 

• Supporting the recently established Global Tiger Forum as an important multilateral 

mechanism for transboundary initiatives that are necessary to conserve many key tiger 

habitat areas; 

• Strengthening regional wildlife training institutions to support tiger conservation training 

needs on a systematic basis; 

• Strengthening CITES trade controls in key tiger range states and consumer 

nations, by supporting enforcement and training workshops, particularly in crossborder areas where priority tiger habitat is found; and 

• Supporting efforts to work with traditional Chinese medicine communities in consuming 

countries, to disseminate information on tiger conservation needs, explore the use of 

substitute medicinal products, and develop appropriate consumer messages to reduce 

demand for tiger products. 

Many of the priorities identified in this tiger strategy apply to rhinos as well. In some 

areas in Asia, tigers and rhinos share core habitat; thus, strengthening anti-poaching measures 

and improving habitat management in key areas can benefit both species. For example Nepal's 

Chitwan and Royal Bardia national parks and Bhutan's Royal Manas National Park are important 

areas for both the Bengal tiger and the Indian rhino. 

WWF hopes that these suggestions prove helpful to the Fish and Wildlife Service as the 

Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund gets up and running. We look forward to the fund proving 

as successful as its African elephant counterpart. 

6 
82 

The Future 

WWF believes that the positive results of the projects supported by the African Elepi)ant 

Conservation Fund and the enthusiasm expres~ by our conservation partners in the field over 

establishment of the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund, are the most important signs of the 

strength of the acts that created them. They have allowed the U.S. to play a lead role where it 

really counts -- funding initiatives in range countries to help ensure the survival of these critically 

endangered species in the wild. 

We understand that the Interior Appropriations bill for FY1997 contains $1 million for 

the African Elephant Conservation Fund and $400,000 for the Rhino and Tiger Conservation 

Fund. WWF strongly supports the increased appropriation and very much appreciates the action 

and foresight of the Appropriations Conunittee. As noted earlier, the elephant funds have 

generated more than matching support from other sources over the five years of the program's 

existence, and there is little question that many times the amount appropriated by Congress will 

come from the private sector and other sources for tiger and rhino conservation efforts. We hope 

that this year marks the beginning of an enhanced public-private partnership to preserve the 

African elephant, the tiger, and the world's rhinos for future generations. 

Thank you. 

7 
83 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID C. MURCHISON 

PRESIDENT, SOUTHERN AFRICA WILDLIFE TRUST 

BEFORE THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

JUNE 20, 1996 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to express my views on the 

effectiveness of the African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 and the Rhinoceros and 

Tiger Conservation Act of 1994. I have been directly involved from the beginning in the 

consideration and implementation of these measures, and, in the case of the elephant 

statute, my comments are based on firsthand knowledge of its effectiveness in Africa. 

I am President of the Southern Africa Wildlife Trust, a foundation organized 

under the terms of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code to advance and carry 

out wildlife conservation projects in the southern Africa region. The Trust presently 

administers an important grant under the 1988 Act in Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe 

and Tanzania. I have also served as project officer in executing four other grants under 

the Act designed to reduce widespread commercial poaching of the elephant in 

Zimbabwe, Zambia and Tanzania. 

The Southern Africa Wildlife Trust was established a few years ago by members 

of the African Safari Club of Washington who saw the need to become directly involved 

in efforts to reverse the rapid deterioration and degradation of African wildlife habitats 

and to develop and put into effect meaningful and effective conservation measures. 

Some years earlier, members of the same Club, including Kermit Roosevelt, Russell 

Train and Maurice Stans, had organized the African Wildlife Foundation essentially for 

the same reasons, and Judge Train, who was Chairman of the Club's Conservation 

Committee, followed a similar course again when he became head of the World 

Wildlife Fund of the United States. Both of these organizations, of course, have been 

very successful in their conservation work, especially in central and east Africa. The 

Trust is attempting to follow a like path in the southern Africa region. 

Almost eight years have now passed since enactment of the African Elephant 

Conservation Act. Looking back, there can be little question that its authors had a 

remarkable understanding of the crisis confronting the elephant, as well as the foresight 

to provide effective remedies. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. The 

moratorium on all ivory imports into the United States, implemented promptly by 

President Bush in 1989, had the predictable effect of smothering demand for ivory, 

while the matching funds provision established the basis and the incentive for positive 

conservation measures to reverse the decline in elephant population numbers. This 

twin-pronged strategy has proven more effective than any of us dared to hope when 

Congressmen Fields and Beilenson crafted the legislation. 
84 

-2-

One of the earliest matching funds grants under the Act for which I had 

responsibility was aimed at reducing the high level of commercial poaching of the 

elephant in the lower Zambezi Valley of Zimbabwe. At the time, anti-poaching 

personnel of Zimbabwe's Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management 

were under-equipped and unable to interdict the many and well-planned incursions 

from Zambia of squads of heavily armed commercial poachers, who crossed the 

Zambezi River almost at will and killed huge numbers of black rhinos and elephants. 

Under the terms of the grant authorized by Constance W. Harriman, then Assistant 

Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, we were able to provide stateof-the-art communications equipment, including hand-held six-channel radios with 

encoded transmission capability, four-wheel drive vehicles, generators, camp stoves, 

tents, sleeping bags and a variety of other essential items of field equipment sufficient to 

equip 181 men operating out of 15 base camps in three-man anti-poaching teams 

throughout the Valley. Since then, thanks to the leadership skills of Zimbabwe's 

wildlife department, and countless acts of individual heroism by rank-and-file rangers 

and scouts engaged in firefights with commercial poachers, a level playing field would 

appear to have been established and the number of incursions significantly reduced. 

We must not forget, however, that many anti-poaching rangers and scouts have 

sacrificed their lives in this struggle and continue to do so. 

During a monitoring trip to verify the actual use of the equipment provided 

under this grant, I personally witnessed an incursion into the Zambezi Valley of a band 

of commercial poachers from Zambia, armed with AK47 assault rifles, and the firefight 

that followed. There were no fatalities during this contact, and the poachers were put to 

flight. Captured weapons and other effects confirmed beyond question, however, that 

they had crossed the Zambezi from Zambia and intended to return there. 

I have administered similar grants in other areas of Zimbabwe and in Zambia 

and Tanzania, all having as a main purpose the reduction of commercial poaching. 

Without exception, these have been successful in accomplishing that purpose in 

significant degree. In each of these countries, commercial poaching has been-- and 

continues to be-- the greatest and most immediate threat to the elephant and the rhino, 

even though the two-pronged strategy of the ivory ban and conservation grants has 

achieved a reduction in the level of poaching. In the view of this witness, it would be a 

major mistake to assume that the devastating impact of poaching is a thing of the past. 

The fact is that poaching remains a major threat, one that must be reckoned with on a 

continuing and ever-vigilant basis. 

In an effort to maintain public awareness of the enormous toll taken by 

international commercial poaching operators, the Southern Africa Wildlife Trust 

presently administers an innovative awards program designed to give due recognition 

to the rangers and scouts who have put their lives on the line in carrying out their 

dangerous anti-poaching missions. Under this program, qualified personnel are 

presented Awards for Meritorious Service to Wildlife Conservation. To qualifY, a 

recipient must have participated in a hostile engagement with armed commercial 

poachers; he must have exhibited personal bravery in the course of the encounter; the 
85 

-3-

anti-poaching operation must have been a successful one, and the poachers must have 

been captured, killed or put to flight. Each award includes a laminated certificate of 

commendation, a bronze medallion to be worn on the recipient's uniform, a pair of 

high-quality binoculars to be taken on future missions, and an honorarium in the 

equivalent amount of $100.00. In Zimbabwe, Botswana and Zambia, we have also 

established a Roll of Honor on which the names of recipients are inscribed and which is 

part of the wildlife department's permanent personnel record. In addition, a bronze 

Roll of Honor plaque bearing the names of recipients is displayed at each department's 

headquarters. 

It is gratifying that the awards program has enjoyed an extraordinary level of 

public acceptance in these countries of southern Africa. In April of this year, sixty-nine 

scouts and rangers received the award in an official ceremony at Hwange in Zimbabwe. 

Attached as Appendix 1 is a press announcement issued by the U.S. Information Service 

in Harare describing that ceremony. The event was shown on Zimbabwe's national 

television and was given page one treatment in its newspapers. A similar ceremony 

was held at Maun in Botswana later in the month and another in Tanzania in May, both 

of w!'tich also received wide public support. 

Financial support for the awards program is provided by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service, the Houston Safari Club, the Dallas Safari Club and the Philadelphia Safari and 

Conservation Club. Its success has been due entirely to their unwavering commitment 

to wildlife conservation. 

In addition to the grant funds it contributes to the awards program, the U.S. Fish 

& Wildlife Service is providing funds for 48 African elephant conservation projects in 

seventeen range states. It would be difficult indeed to find a better example of efficient 

and effective implementation of a Congressional enactment than the Service is 

providing in these projects. I have examined each of them, and, considered 

individually or as a group, there can be little question that they reflect and carry out the 

intent of Congress. 

In the early 1990s, a little-known grant project administered by the American 

Embassy in Zimbabwe resulted in the development of an elephant conservation 

procedure without parallel in this century. In 1992-3, Zimbabwe suffered its most 

severe drought in many decades. The toll taken on wildlife was staggering. In 

Gonarezhou National Park, in the southeast lowveld region, hundreds of elephants 

died of thirst, and many hundreds more were faced with death by thirst or by culling 

unless a major rescue action could be mounted. At this point, a former officer in 

Zimbabwe's Department of National Parks, Clem Coetsee, developed a removal and 

relocation system that has forever changed elephant conservation principles. Under the 

Coetsee system, an entire family group can be darted from a helicopter, using 

haloperidol and trilafon, two relatively new tranquilizers. The immobilized elephants 

are initially loaded onto "capture trucks" and then moved to tractor-trailers, where they 

are placed in modified shipping containers. After receiving an antidote, the elephants 

are transported to predetermined new habitats. During the drought, Coetsee moved 
86 

- 4-

well over a thousand dying elephants to new homes and thus averted a disaster of 

immense proportions. A grant under the African Elephant Act made this rescue 

possible. Since then, Coetsee has translocated over a hundred elephants from Kruger 

National Park in South Africa to new habitats. One such move involved relocating a 

family group of thirteen from Kruger to Waterburg in the Northern Transvaal, a 

distance of about 500 kilometers and requiring a trip of ten hours. There were no 

elephant fatalities, and Waterburg now has elephants again for the first time in one 

hundred years. Coetsee has managed similar relocations in Kenya, and at this hour is 

arranging to relocate several family groups in Uganda. In all of these instances, 

translocation has been the sole alternative to death. 

The conservation significance of the Coetsee system cannot be overstated. For 

the first time in history, entire groups of excess, unwanted or dying elephants can be 

moved instead of culled. Today, in such countries as Botswana, Zimbabwe and South 

Africa (Kruger), elephant populations cannot be sustained in many established habitats. 

New habitats must be identified to receive these animals, unless they are to be 

dispatched on the culling grounds. Fortunately, there are many such habitats, both 

privately and publicly owned. In Zimbabwe, which now has a national population of 

about 64,000 elephants, the question of culling versus relocation is squarely presented. 

Experts have identified available habitats, but translocation costs and other factors raise 

a myriad of subsidiary questions. As noted, the same issues are present in Botswana, 

but solutions are similarly difficult to come by. 

It is the considered view of this witness that the Coetsee system is invaluable and 

should be utilized. At the same time, ways must be found to reduce the costs of 

relocation. Due to the urgency of the problem, it would seem that the U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service again should give the matter priority in its administration of grants 

under the Act, just as it did in 1992 during the Gonarezhou drought. A solution in the 

near term would appear essential, unless the gains that have been made over seven 

years are to be forfeited. 

Mr. Chairman, in the context of this oversight hearittg, the men and women of 

the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service who have worked on African Elephant Conservation 

Act matters since the late eighties deserve great credit for the job they have done. I 

would like to mention several of them on this record, even at the risk of leaving out a 

deserving name. Connie Harriman, John Turner, Doug Crowe, Marshall Jones and Ken 

Stansell each has played a vital role in performing the tasks directed by Congress, 

including the historic rescue at Gonarezhou. Without their dedicated involvement, I 

seriously doubt that the program in all of its aspects could have succeeded. While Ms. 

Harriman, Mr. Turner and Dr. Crowe are not employed by the present Administration, 

others continue to carry the torch with the same dedication. I am pleased to note that, 

only recently, the African Safari and Conservation Club of Philadelphia has presented 

its prestigious Gold Medal to Ken Stansell for his unflagging efforts as African Elephant 

Coordinator in the Office of Management Authority. 
87 

-5-

Most of all, we owe so much to Congressman Fields and Congressman Beilenson 

for their strength of purpose and perseverance in bringing this landmark legislation to 

fruition and then securing the necessary funding. One can only wonder who will speak 

for the elephant, not to mention the rhino and the tiger, after next January. Someone 

must follow their example, and do it effectively, or America will live to regret its failure. 

Speaker Gingrich said it best when he observed last July on the floor of this 

House during consideration of continued funding of projects under the Elephant Act 

that "when we look at countries that have voluntarily imposed on their own local 

people economic deprivation in order to sustain these species so that our children and 

our grandchildren can have a chance to see some of the most magnificent animals in the 

modem era; and then to say that we are going to allow them to disappear, and join that 

dinosaur skull I have in my office and be extinct, for $800,000 total, it just seems to me 

that there are lots of other places to find savings." 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
88 

APPENDIX 1 

U.l ... POfWM'ftON 1PY10L P.O. ao• 6010 MUIAM TIL.. 11tNOntelt 

SIXTY ·NINE SCOUIS ANP RANGERS TO GET BRAVERY AWARDS 

Two Ameri()llt cooservllionlsu, David C. Murehbon, Preaident of the Soulhem Africa 

Wildlife Trust, and KcnnC!h SWlaeU, Chief of the OtGc:e of MllnKt~cmcnt Alllhority and 

African Elephant Coordinator of the U.S. Fiih •ml Wilcllifc Service, will attend ceremonies 

on April 13 a1 1030 to honor 69 Nationll! Pai'ICJ ICC>Uil ud rouaers at llwonac Main Camp. 

Envircmment and Tourism Minister Chen Chiu•u~pc..dc will •l•u be In attendence tu 

presc.nt·modal5 for bravery to ou~>;lalldlDIJ scout•. riiiiJlctS and other dcpa~1ment penOMel, who 

lave ewbit.od-pcrsonal bravery in direct enned contatt with commercial poachers during 

succcsafu1 anti-poaching opcrationt iD which poachers were eaptured, killed or put to 11isht. 

U.S. Deputy Chief of Miuioo James Carra&her, Mr. Stanoell oud Mr. Murchison will pre•ent 

awwd$ for Meritorious Service to Wildlife Cun~rvation. The two AmcriCIUl conservationists 

will allio iive ~o~~ti-poachins cqwpment to the Department of National Parks and Wlldlife 

Mu>asen-t. 

The award consilii of a medal 10 be wum uu lhc recipient's uniform, a certiflcato of 

COIIUIIelldation, a pair or field binoculan; aod an honorarium in the tmount of US$100.00 In 

addirioa, each rec:ipieal's name is enrolled on the Roll uf Huuor of the Department of 

National Parks and Wildlife M~Maement and will appear on the bron~e Rull u£ Honor plaque 

displayed in the recepuon area of the depuuncut's hcadquartcn in llaro.n>. 

The program of awards, which Is approved by the covcmmcnt• uf Zimbab'l'e •nd the United 

States, is administered by the Southern Africa Wildlife Trust and •uppurlcd by funding from; 

tile U.S. Pim and Wildlife Service of the Department ot the Inceriur, tbo HuuOiun Safari Club, 

the African Safari an~ Conservation Club of Philadelphia, ~IC Dallas Safari Club, and the 

African Safari Cl~b of WasbiaJion. 

In addition to ill grant to tile Southern Africa Wildlife, 11>e U.S. Fi>lt "''II Wildlife Service is 

provillitls funllitl& for 48 African elephant con....-vlo!ion projects in 17 counlri" in cooperatiQll 

wilb African s~nu 1111d noa·Jovemmen141 or&anlulioos. In Zimbabwe, the ScrviJ~ 

has provided furullDa for four lllojur project£ under Mr. Stansell's din;ctiou to cou•crve the 

elephant in cooperation with the Department or Natior.al Parks and Wildlife M;u••1emeut, the 

American Embu&y llld tbc AUican Safari Club or Woshlngtou. D.C. 

The Houston, Plliladelphla and Dallas Club• ""'majur i.n~cpendent aafart organizatlon• in the 

Unilcd Slales that also are coiDJIIItted to pruvidiiiJI cooperative •upport for programs to 

coniK:rvc African wildlife. 

April 9, 19!16 
89 

SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET 

David C. Murchison, President 

Southern Africa Wildlife Trust 

c/o Howrey & Simon 

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20004-2402 

202/ 383-6938 

202/ 383-7189 (Mrs. Lopez) 

SUMMARY: 

The witness has been familiar with the African Elephant Conservation Act of 

1988 since its inception. His knowledge of the effectiveness of the Act is based upon 

firsthand experience in Africa in the administration of grants under the Act. He has 

administered grant projects in Zimbabwe, Zambia, Tanzania and Botswana. The 

primary focus of these projects has been to assist wildlife departments in their antipoaching enforcement activities. 

The moratorium on ivory imports implemented by President Bush and the grant 

projects authorized by the Act have served the purposes intended by Congress. The 

rapid decline in elephant population numbers appears to have been arrested, and recent 

surveys in southern Africa suggest that populations in such countries as Zimbabwe, 

Botswana and South Africa have stabilized if not increased during the period the Act 

has been in effect. The authors of the Act and those responsible for its administration 

deserve great credit for this result. 

Significantly, in the course of the administration of one grant project, an 

innovative method was developed in Zimbabwe to translocate elephant family groups 

by darting them with tranquilizing drugs and removing them by vehicle to new and 

viable habitats. Never before in history have large numbers of elephants been 

translocated successfully, and this new method (known as the Coetsee method) 

promises to become a major conservation tool in future efforts to save the elephant from 

extinction. It is recommended that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service give high priority to 

future grant applications designed to identify new and sustainable habitats to receive 

translocated elephants. It is also recommended that, as in the past, major emphasis be 

given to projects designed to reduce the incidence of commercial poaching, which 

continues to be the greatest immediate threat to the survival of the elephant throughout 

its range. 

The African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 should be continued. In no event 

should the level of funding be reduced below the current modest level. The Rhinoceros 

and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 should also be continued and funded. 
90 

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION 

~ SOCIETY FOUNDED IN I 895 AS THE NEW YORK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY 

THE RHINOCEROS AND TIGER CONSERVATION ACT 

and 

THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION ACT 

TESTIMONY 

before the 

SUBCOMMfiTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, and OCEANS 

of the 

COMMITI'EE ON RESOURCES 

of the 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Prepared by 

Dorene Bolze 

Senior Policy Analyst 

Wildlife Conservation Society 

June 20, 1996 

I would like to thank the members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and 

Oceans for the opportunity to participate in this oversight hearing on the African Elephant 

Conservation Act and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. On behalf of the Wildlife 

Conservation Society, I would like to convey our strong support for these Acts and the funds 

they created to support conservation efforts for African elephants, rhinoceroses, and the 

tiger; comment briefly on priority activities these funds need to support; and discuss the need 

for a legislative change needed to address an oversight in existing law regarding products, 

such as Asian medicinals, that are being sold in this country labeled as containing tiger and 

rhino and/or other enoangered species as ingredients. 

I testified before the predecessor of this subcommittee in May, 1994, in support of the 

passage of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act and the fund it would establish. In 

that testimony I discussed the conservation needs for all five species of rhinoceros and for the 

tiger and the urgent need for financial assistance. I will not repeat any of this information in 

this testimony and would refer members of the subcommittee to this prior testimony for 

background information on the status and threats to rhinos and the tiger. 

The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) has been dedicated to better understanding 

and protecting wildlife and ecosystems since it was founded in 1895 as the New York 

Zoological Society. WCS scientists have greatly expanded our knowledge of species and 

habitats through pione ~ring , long-term field studies; have effectively promoted the cause of 

conservation through :: heir direct role in establishing over 100 national parks and reserves; 

18!5TH STREET AN D SOU THERN BOULE VARD· BRONX . NEW YOR K 10460 USA. t7 18 1 220·5100 

WIL DLIFE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS I N 4' NATION S • BRON X ZOOIWILOLIFE CONSERVATION PARK • AQUARIUM f"OR WILDLIFE CONSE R VATION 

C E NTRAL f'ARK QUEENS . AND PR OSPE CT PARK WILDLIFE CENTERS · ST CATHERINES WILDLI FE SURVIVAL CE NT ER 

CONSERVATION • EOUCAT10N • SC1ENC E 
91 

have trained innumerable conservationists and wildlife managers in developing countries; 

have helped to nurture the institutions in which the latter must work; and have contributed 

key ideas to the on-going debates over natural resource management and conservation. 

WCS, headquartered at the world-renowned Bronx Zoo, is presently pursuing its 

mission through over 250 field projects in over 52 countries in Latin America, Africa, and 

Asia; environmental education programs reaching schools in 47 states and overseas; 

endangered species propagation in New York and Georgia; clinical and research programs in 

wildlife health sciences; and five public wildlife conservation centers in the Bronx, Brooklyn, 

Manhattan, and Queens, including the Aquarium for Wildlife Conservation. 

For over 30 years, WCS has been working to conserve the African elephant. We 

supported some of the first systematic surveys of elephant populations in the early 1960s and 

launched the first large scale survey of elephants in Afri~ forests in the mid-1980s. WCS 

has dedicated significant resources and staff expertise to field research, protected area 

management, and training in-country professionals in African forest countries. This 

complements our years of work on the African savannas, studying the ecological role of 

elephants and integrating the needs of local communities in management efforts. WCS 

initiated the Ivory Trade Review Group that assessed the effect of the ivory trade. The 

group's conclusions led the IUCN African Elephant and Rhino Specialist Group, chaired at 

the time by former WCS staff, Dr. Western, who is now Director of the Kenya Wildlife 

Service, to recommend a moratorium on the ivory trade in May of 1989. As member of the 

African Elephant Con!lervation Coordinating Group, who has been a recipient of funds from 

the African Elephant Conservation Fund established by the African Elephant Conservation 

Act, WCS has been working with African nations, especially in the forest zone to design and 

implement elephant conservation plans. 

WCS has been working to protect rhinos in the wild since 1928 when it supported 

work by the Wild Life Protection Society of South Africa to create Kruger National Park. 

WCS efforts have involved purchases of vital rhino habitat for protected areas, ecological 

and behavioral studies, captive-breeding, genetic studies to address the validity of sub-species 

for conservation purposes, assessments of the range and status of rhinos, translocation of 

rhinos in Africa to re·establish populations, the establishment of protected sanctuaries in 

Kenya, and the funding of anti-poaching efforts in Africa. 

Through the work of Dr. George Schaller, in the 1960s WCS completed the first 

extensive field studies of the tiger in the wild. Currently, we have undertaken a five-year 

Global Tiger Campaign which is a comprehensive plan to protect the tiger in viable 

populations throughout its remaining range. We are focusing on both establishing long-term 

conservation efforts for the tiger in the wild and reducing the illegal trade and demand for 

tiger products. WCS field scientists are involved in research, community development, and 

as technical advisors ia every country containing tigers. 

-2-
92 

The Funds of these Acts are Valuable and Deserve More Financial Support: 

WCS strongly supported the establishment of both the African Elephant and 

Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Funds. The African Elephant Conservation Fund 

(AECF) has been in operation since 1988 and is the model for the Rhinoceros and Tiger 

Conservation Fund (RTCF) which has just become operational this Spring and has not yet 

awarded any grants. There is no question that funds are scarce in many of the range states 

of these species. Thus, these funds offer financial resources that would otherwise simply not 

exist for specific efforts to conserve these species. However, the dollar value need to 

conserve these species throughout their ranges is many times greater that the combined $15 

million annually over five years that these funds could potentially provide. Thus, it is vital 

to use these funds to leverage other support and other conservation action. One way the 

AECF does this is by requiring a one-to-one match for successful grants. The AECF also 

requires that grants will only be awarded to projects that have the support of the host 

government. This requirement reflects the need to cooperate with and support the needs of 

the range states as part of a successful project. 

WCS has been the recipient of funds from the AECF and has been pleased with the 

minimal bureaucracy and relatively quick response to proposals and subsequent flow of 

funds. We are confident that the Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service can 

continue to manage both funds well if they were to be fully appropriated. In addition, almost 

all of these funds would go to vital projects, since the Acts limit the overhead charge by the 

agency to 3 percent. 

We are please<! to hear that the House Appropriations Committee increased the 

allocations for the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund from $200,000 to $400,000 and 

for the African Elephant Conservation Fund from $600,000 to $1,000,000 for the 

Department of Interior's budget for the next fiscal year. We are especially pleased to hear 

of the increases in the ie funds in light of the severe threats of a zero allocation to these funds 

during the debates of : ast year's budget. But, these allocations, especially for the RTCF, are 

a small percentage of what could be allocated. Of the seven species that these two funds 

support, strong arguments can be made that the Sumatran and black rhinos are the most 

endangered, yet the RTCF will only have $400,000 to share among all five species of 

rhinoceros and the tiger. Recognizing that there are budget constraints, at the very least the 

RTCF should receive $2 million, one-fifth of its possible $10 million appropriation. This 

recommendation is based simply on the RTCF receiving the same proportion of its total 

allocation that the AECF would receive. 

Recommendations for project suwort for the African Ele,phant Conservation Fund· 

Over the course of the AECF, emphasis has shifted from an original heavy focus on 

anti-poaching needs to addressing complex management questions and status revi~ws. This 

shift reflects the change in initial need from addressing the immediate threats froin rampant 

-3-
93 

ivory poaching in many areas to focusing on long-term conservation needs and building the 

capabilities of range states to manage elephant populations. WCS has received support for 

several of our forest elephant research and conservation efforts from the AECF. The fund 

awarded $34,094 for our training courses in elephant biology and monitoring techniques to 

Ghanaian wildlife officers, $141,873 from 1994-1996 to support the largest on-going 

population study of forest elephants in forest clearings in Central African Republic, and 

$197,750, also from 1994-1996, to support anti-poaching efforts that included equipment and 

protection of the high density elephant population in the northern Congo. 

WCS has focused much of our attention on the African forest elephant for the past 

eight years and would like to make a few comments on some of the priority needs that the 

AECF should support in the forest zone. As mentioned in the introduction, WCS conducted 

the first and only large scale survey of the African forest elephant over several years in the 

late 1980s. From this, we provided estimates of the total population to inform the ivory 

trade debate at the CITES Conference of the Parties in Lausanne, Switzerland. Our 

preliminary information indicated that prior assumptions that elephants were prevalent and 

secure in the forest zone were invalid and factored into the decision to list the African 

elephant on Appendix I and close the international trade. In fact, although one-third of all 

African elephants were found to be living in the rain forests, they suffered from an almost 

tota11ack of parks an<l inadequate protection. Now we must build on that baseline 

information and conduct a new regional survey of the major forest elephant countries. 

Without such follow up in the form of monitoring there is no way to assess how resources 

that have gone into protected areas, new logging management regimes, controlled hunting, 

and other conservation initiatives are affecting elephants. The ground based surveys that are 

used for monitoring efforts can uncover new or continuing poaching pressure, illegal ivory 

trading activity, and C<ther potential threats. They can also identify key areas for new 

protected areas. A to1> priority for the forest region must be to follow up on the region-wide 

baseline surveys, now done over five years ago, and provide the much needed monitoring 

effort for the African forest elephant. 

Recommendations for project support for the Rhinoceros and Tj~er Conservation Fund: 

In our prior testimony on the merits of establishing this fund, we discussed the 

general conservation needs for rhinos and the tiger. We would like to take this opportunity 

to refer to some recent efforts that would be valuable to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 

assessing meritorious projects to support. 

Despite the large amount of publicity that tigers have received in the past few years, 

there have been no coordinated efforts to fully address both the short and long term 

conservation needs of the tiger. The WCS' Global Tiger Campaign was launched in 

response to this lack of a comprehensive conservation effort for the tiger. An initial effort 

was to assess past conservation efforts, assess the current threats, and develop a conservation 

-4-
94 

strategy. This is provided in Savin& the Ti&er: A Conservation Strate&Y. a WCS Policy 

Report, which was released in December of 1995. We have provided a copy to all of the 

members of the full committee. 

Surprisingly little is known about the overall status, distribution, and ecological needs 

of the tiger across its formerly vast range, due to a lack of scientific research on most 

populations. In addition, management, legislative, and enforcement efforts in both countries 

with tigers and in consumer nations have been inadequate to non-existent. In order to 

reverse the decline of the tiger and stabilize populations in the wild, the immediate threats to 

the tiger must be addressed. This involves scientifically-based research and monitoring of 

tiger populations, improving on-the-ground protection and management of tigers and their 

prey, halting the illegal trade in tiger parts, and building public support among both people 

who live near tigers and consumers of tiger products. The heart of this strategy is to focus 

efforts on securing the long-term future of high priority tiger populations. 

The top priority tiger populations need to be managed to protect tigers. Poaching 

needs to be controlled and human presence minimized in these tiger areas. Core areas that 

are critical habitat for tigers must be inviolate, and the landscape surrounding them needs to 

be carefully managed to meet the needs of local people. In addition, there must be a strong 

effort to stop hunting and enforce protected-area laws, monitor tiger and prey populations, 

and build public support among local people for the conservation efforts in these top priority 

areas. Complementing this on-the-ground effort is the need to halt the illegal trade. This 

requires prohibiting the trade, enforcing these laws, and reducing demand which is the 

driving force behind the trade. Saving the Ti&er delineates the range of specific actions 

needed to accomplish this conservation strategy. This report has already been provided to 

the Fish and Wildlife Service and staff at the United States' Agency for International 

Development and the State Department. We offer it as a guide to the Fish and Wildlife 

Service in assessing project proposals to the RTCF. 

WCS and WWF-US have just completed a preliminary assessment of a new 

ecologically-based apJlroach to identifying the most important tiger conservation areas. The 

design of this priority setting framework and preliminary assessment was funded by the 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Save the Tiger Fund, which was started by a $5 

million gift from the Exxon Corporation. The assessment identified key tiger areas in a 

total of eight major tiger habitat types within five different bioregions- the Indian 

Subcontinent, Indochina, Sumatra, central and southern China, and the Russian Far East. 

The preliminary analysis, mostly based on satellite data on remaining habitat, identified 24 

top priority conservation areas in all of the bioregions except central and southern China. 

Attached for the record is a copy of the executive summary of our the preliminary report to 

NFWF. We are now in the process of soliciting reviews and refining this document. We 

hope that this assessment will also help guide decisions on awards from the RTCF. 

-5-
95 

Rhinoceroses: 

WCS and the World Wide Fund for Nature have almost completed an assessment of 

the costs and effectiveness of various approaches to protecting rhinos in the wild. When it is 

ready we will distribute copies to the Fish and Wildlife Service. One of the challenges to 

this assessment as been the varying quality and amount of data in order to perform similar 

analyses for all five species of rhinoceros. As was stated in prior testimony, unlike the other 

species of rhinoceros, no reliable estimate exists on the location and size of viable 

populations of Sumatran rhinos and their level of protection. It is essential to support much 

needed surveys of the Sumatran rhinoceros in order to design a conservation strategy for this 

species. WCS conducted an initial survey of the Sumatran rhino in Sabah's Greater Danum 

Valley Conservation Area which was known to have rhinos. Not only were fewer rhinos 

found in this remote area than expected (maybe 15-25 in the 1000 km2 area), but there were 

many signs of illegal hunting, including poachers' camps. 

Though there is little information on the status of the Sumatran rhinoceros, this does 

not mean that little conservation attention and funding has not been dedicated to this species. 

Unfortunately, much of this attention has not been focused on the top priority needs of antipoaching, surveys, and local education. Instead financial resources have been devoted to the 

much more politically palatable work of attempting to establish a captive breeding program 

which does not address any of the immediate threats to the species. For the record, I have 

provided a copy of a recent essay by Dr. Alan Rabinowitz in Conservation BioloL:y, 

"Helping a Species Go Extinct: The Sumatran Rhino in Borneo." Dr. Rabinowitz, WCS 

Director for Asia, critiques the efforts to conserve the Sumatran rhino and offers what are 

the priority needs for this species that RTCF can support. 

ControllinL: IlleL:al Tr4de: OversiL:ht in U.S. Wildlife Law on Traditional Asian Me!licines 

Coinplementin,: the need to protect tigers and rhinos in the wild is the need by 

consumer nations to c1>ntrol the illegal trade and reduce demand. One of the primary lessons 

to learn from the demise of the black rhino is that the valiant efforts by a range state to 

protect its rhinos or tigers against poaching is for naught if there is no equal effort by the 

importing countries to control the illegal trade. 

In our previou.1 testimony WCS commended the US government for focusing on the 

consumer nations for their role in the demise of the rhinos and tiger because of their lack of 

effort to control illegal trade. Until recently, there has been little attention placed on 

consumer nations. WCS supported the Secretary of Interior's certification of the People's 

Republic of China and President Clinton's import embargo on wildlife products from Taiwan 

under the Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman's Protective Act for continuing to trade in 

rhino and tiger parts and undermining the effectiveness of the CITES prohibition on 

international trade. 

-6-
96 

As a consequence of US and CITES attention to this issue, China, Taiwan, and South 

Korea have now prohibited the internal sale and use of rhino products, and China and 

Taiwan have done the same with tiger products. South Korea has finally joined CITES, 

though it imported two tons of tiger bone in 1993 from China in contravention of Chinese 

law banning exports. In China, most billboards and advertisements for tiger and rhino 

products have been taken down, and tiger bone wine and other products are no longer openly 

for sale in shops. 

The illegal trade still poses a huge and immediate threat to the tiger and rhinoceroses. 

Undercover trade investigations have found that rhino hom and tiger products are still 

available in China, Taiwan, and South Korea. But, equally important is that market 

investigations have found that rhino and tiger products are widely and openly for sale 

throughout Europe and right here in the United States. WCS staff visited New York City's 

Manhattan based Chinatown twice this month and found every pharmacy we checked offering 

tiger products and many offering rhino products. Thus, it is time for the United States to 

focus on its role as a consumer nation. 

Unfortunately, recent efforts over the past two years by the Fish and Wildlife Service 

to enforce the laws against the importation of endangered species products, such as Asian 

medicines with rhino hom and tiger bone as ingredients, have been hampered by the fact that 

not all of these cheap over-the-counter products appear to contain the animal ingredients as 

labeled. Currently, the Fish and Wildlife Service can confiscate these products on import 

under the presumption that they are made with tiger or rhino as ingredients, since they are 

labeled as such. However, when the Fish and Wildlife Service has been forced to prove that 

the seized products do in fact contain tiger bone, for example, the Fish and Wildlife Service 

Forensics Laboratory has not been able to find calcium, an indication of bone, in tested 

products. A further complication is that the manufacture of tiger bone plasters, glues, and 

similar products dissolves the proteins in the bone needed to identify the species origin of the 

bone. Since the agency can not prove that these products contain these prohibited 

ingredients, the agency has no authority to prosecute for the illegal importation of these 

products under the Endangered Species Act. Thus, the confiscated shipments are returned to 

the importer. These products do violate product labeling laws that are enforced by the Food 

and Drug Administration, but they do not violate the Endangered Species Act. 

The problem of counterfeit products of endangered species or the difficult nature of 

proving the veracity of a product claiming to contain an endangered species was not foreseen 

when the Endangered Species Act was drafted. We strongly recommend that this committee 

support some simple language change to the Endangered Species Act that would expressly 

cover products labeled as containing species listed on the Act or on Appendix I of CITES. 

Such language would bring our laws on these products in line with the laws of Hong Kong, 

China, and Taiwan, the later two being countries that the United States has pressured to 

improve their laws on this very issue. This language change would eliminate the costly 

forensic lab tests and burden to prove that these products are real or fake. Instead, any 

product claiming to be made of an endangered species or CITES Appendix !-listed species is 

-7-
97 

illegal. 

As just mentioned, some of these products already violate product labeling laws; 

however, the Food and Drug Administration has shown little interest in the problems 

presented by Asian medicinals. An exception is the regional office of the Food and Drug 

Administration out in Los Angeles which is cooperating with the regional office of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Asian medicinal use is not only a wildlife conservation issue, but 

human health issue as well. The Forensic Lab has found levels of mercury, arsenic, and 

lead in some of these.over-the-counter Asian medicines that are above levels allowed for 

products for human consumption. This and other issues related to the lack of oversight on 

those claiming to be trained traditional Chinese practitioners are all the realm of the Food 

and Drug Administration. 

Certainly from the perspective of the role of the United States as a major importer 

and consumer of pre-made, or over-the-counter, traditional Asian medicines that claim to 

contain rhino, tiger, and other prohibited species as ingredients, it behooves us to adjust our 

wildlife laws to address this issue. Senator Jefford's office has drafted a short bill which 

they hope to introduce soon that will add the necessary language to the Endangered Species 

Act so that the prohibi.tions apply to products labeled as containing listed species. I urge the 

committee to introduce a companion bill in the House to the same and work to pass it in this 

current session of Co~: gress . This simple legislative effort would be a valuable complement 

to a . well funded Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund. 

-8-
98 

A Framework for Identifying High Priority Areas and Actions for 

the Conservation of Tigers in the Wild 

A Report Submitted to the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation in Two Parts: 

Pert 1: A Framework for Identifying High Priority Areas for the Conserva~on 

of Free-ranging Tigers IPsnthera tigris) 

Eric Dinerstein1

, Eric Wikramanayake 2, John Robinson•, Ullas Karanth3

, Alan Rabinowitz'. 

David Olson' , Tom Mathew'. Prashant Hedao'. Melissa Connor3 

Pert II: Controlling the Trade and Reducing Demand for Tiger Products: 

A Preliminary Assessment of Priority Needs 

Ginette Hamley' and Dorene Bolze3 

'World Wildlife Fund-US (WWF), 2Consulting Biologist, 3Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) 

with contributions by: 

Bijay Kattel, Deputy-Director General, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Beber 

Mahal, Kathmandu, Nepal 

z .. ba Zalnal, Con.rvatlon Off"ICer, Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Kuala lumpur, Malaysia 

Sukianta Lulli, Director Sumatra Program, WWF-Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia 

Judy MHia, Director, TRAFFIC Eaat Aaia 

John S.ldenatlcker, Curator of Mammals, National Zoological Park. Smithsonian Institution, 

Walhington, DC 

Chri1 Wemmer, Aailtant Director for Conservation, Conservation and Research Center, National 

Zoological Parle, Smithaonian lrmitution, Front Royal, VA 

Steven Prinvn, Coordinator, Rusaian Far East Conservation Program, WWF-US 
99 

TABLE OF CONTENTS: 

Executive Summary page 4 

Part 1: A Priority-Setting f=ramework for Financing the Conservation of 

Free-Ranging Tigers page 11 

I. Introduction 11 

II. Approach 13 

Ill. Auuament of Priority Tiger Conservation 

Units (TCUsl acroaa Asia 22 

IV. Priority TCUs for Surveys 41 

v. Summary of Important Findings 43 

Part II: Controlling the Trade and Reducing Demand for Tiger Products: 

A Preliminary Aaaesament of Priority Needs page 45 

I. 

II. 

Strengthening the Capacity of Countries to Control Trade 

Raduclng Demand for Tiger Products and Building Public 

Support for Conserving Tigers In the Wild 

Part Ill: Annexes 

Annex 1. 

Annex 2. 

Annex 3. 

Annex 4. 

Indices for ranking TCUs 

Databases for Scoring Tiger 

Conservation Units 

A Model Workplan: Tiger Conservation 

Efforts In the Ruaalan Far East 

1994 CITES Resolution of the Conference of 

the Parties 

2 

46 

page 60 

60 

67 

75 

97 
100 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: 

We would like to thank Packard Corporation, the Environment Systems Research 

Institute (ESRI), and the Save the Tiger Fund (a special project of the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation created in partnership with the Exxon Corporation) for 

providing funding for the assessment. We would also like to thank all those 

biologists and conservationists in Asia who updated the databases and maps of 

remaining habitat. Dr. John MacKinnon and Gillian Bunting (WCMC) graciously 

provided the data needed in a timely fashion. We would like to thank Andrea 

Brunholzl for improving this document and Patrick Hurley for assistance in final 

produetion. Generous donations from the Hewlett Packard Corporation and the 

Environmental Systems Research Institute IESRI) to the WWF-US Conservation 

Science Program made the mapping work possible; we gratefully acknowledge 

their commitment to conservation. E. Dinerstein was supported in part by the 

Armand G. Erpf Conservation Fellowship and contributions from Jeffrey Berenson. 

3 
101 

Part 1: A Framework for Identifying High Priority Areas for the Conservation of 

Tigers IP.,tiHNs tigris) in the Wild 

Executive Summary 

Tigers are threatened with extinction in the wild. The combination of rampant 

poaching of tigers and their prey-the former largely spurred by the Chinese 

medicinal trade-and unabated habitat loss due to fragmentation, degradation, and 

conversion has intensified the long-term threats to the survival of healthy wild 

populations. Responding to this crisis, conservation groups, donors, and national 

government agencies have distributed funds to halt the decline of tiger 

populations, but in an sd hoc manner. Most of the funding has been earmarked 

for a few-protected areas, and in some cases, for activities that will do little to 

rectify the current crisis. Many important sites and activities have been 

overlooked for funding, largely because there has been no method of 

systematically identifying priorities. This project provides that method. 

The Ideal conservation strategy would be to protect all blocks of natural habitat 

containing tigers and to stop all illicit trade of tiger products. But due to limited 

financial and human resources, conservation activities must be prioritized for the 

next few years. Also, these priorities must also be set in a rational, transparent 

manner based upon the best data available. 

To address these problems, we created an objective priority-setting framework to 

address four goals. First, we identified areas across the tiger range where 

conservation action and funds would have the greatest impact on conserving 

tigers over the long term. Second, we identify general approaches appropriate for 

high priority areas. Third, for the first time, we mapped tiger areas across the 

Indian Subcontinent, Indochina, Southeast Asia at a scale suitable for regional 

conservation planning. Fourth, we have identified priority countries and activities 

for building enforcement and trade control capacity and for reducing the demand 

for tiger products (see Part II of this document). · 

Our approach is ecology-based, rather than tsxonomy-bssed, meaning that instead 

of seeking to conserve putative subspecies of tigers per se, we seek to conserve a 

suite of wild areas that represent the range of ecological conditions in which tigers 

occur. This approach recognizes that tigers are uniquely defined by the ecological 

conditions in which they live. A tiger population living in the boreal taiga of Russia 

will have different demographic, genetic, and behavioural characteristics than a 

population living in the subtropical alluvial grasslands of Nepal. By conserving 

examples of tiger populations in distinct bioregions, ecosystems, and habitat 

types, we meet a fundamental goal of conservation biology-msintsining 

4 
102 

representation-while also conserving the range of communities in which tigers 

occur. The tiger "representation" approach has the favorable consequence that 

conservation efforts directed at tigers also protect many other species found in the 

same habitats. thus emphasizing the important role of tigers as "umbrella" species. 

To achieve representation, we first divided Asia into five distinct bioregions-the 

Indian Subcontinent, Indochina, Southeast Asia, Central and Southern China, and 

the Russian Far East (Amur-Sakhalin bioregionl. We further divided bioregions into 

a total of 8 Tiger Habitat Types (THTsl. in which approximately 159 Tiger 

Conservation Units (TCUs) occur. We relied upon local experts to evaluate the 

boundaries of the TCUs we delineated. Using GIS, we overlaid remaining habitat 

data, with data on roads, railroads, urban centers, villages, and agricultural 

land-features that restrict movement of tigers between habitat blocks. We 

formally defined TCUs as a block or cluster of blocks of existing habitat that 

contains, or has the potential to contain, interacting populations of tigers. 

We evaluated TCUs on the premise that the decline of tigers across their range is 

caused by: 11 the fragmentation, degradation, and loss of habitat, and 21 Intensive 

poaching pressure on tigers and their prey. These threats affect the integrity of 

the habitat, impoverish the biological communities in which tigers live, and reduce 

tiger populations. To index these changes, we created three variables: a) habitat 

integrity, which includes the size, degree of degradation, fragmentation, and 

connectivity of tiger habitat blocks; bl poaching pressure, which indexes the 

intensity of illegal hunting and potential for its control; and cl tiger population 

status, which indexes tiger abundance and recent trends in numbers within each 

THT. 

For each TCU, a score was assigned for each of these three variables. We relied 

on regional and local experts to generate scores; these evaluations were 

augmented by published accounts and unpublished reports reviewed during this 

study. We then combined these scores in a weighted fashion, reflecting the 

reversibility of threats to tiger conservation. We considered a loss of habitat 

integrity to be the most difficult to reverse, and thus weighted this variable twice 

as high as poaching pressure, which can be turned around more easily. Poaching 

pressure, in its turn, was weighted twice as high as population status, reflecting 

the observation that tiger populations can rebound quickly if they and their habitat 

and prey are protected over sufficiently large areas. For each TCU therefore, we 

assigned a score for each of these three variables, and weighted these scores in a 

4:2:1 fashion . Each TCU thus has a unique score, which reflects the probability of 

persistence of the resident tiger population over the long term. 

5 
103 

TCUs were thus categorized into the following three levels: 

Levell TCU: A TCU offering the highest probability of persistence of tiger 

populations over the long term. They are essential for a global tiger conservation 

strategy. Levell TCUs share the following attributes: large blocks of habitat 

suitable for tigers and prey with adequate core areas and low to moderate 

poaching pressure on tigers and prey species either as a result of remoteness or 

vigilant protection. 

Level II TCU: A TCU offering medium probability of persistence of tiger populations 

over the long term. They contribute best to a bioregional tiger conservation 

strategy. Level II TCUs share the following attributes: moderate to large sized 

blocks of habitat suitable for tigers with adequate core areas and moderate to high 

poaching pressure on tigers and prey species, but with potential for implementing 

effective anti-poaching measures in the near future. 

Level Ill TCU: A TCU offering low probability of persistence of tiger populations 

over the long term due to its small size, isolation from other habitat blocks 

containing tigers, and fragmentation within its respective THT. With intensive 

management and protection, Level Ill TCUs can harbor small populations of tigers. 

Level Ill TCUs share the following attributes: small blocks of habitat suitable for 

tigers with little or no core area and high poaching pressure on tigers and prey 

species that endangers conservation efforts. 

TCUs requiring immediate surveys: Any TCU that potentially contains extensive 

blocks of appropriate tiger habitat with or without protected core areas, but data 

on habitat quality, poaching pressure, or population status for the most important 

habitats within the TCU are lacking. 

During the process, scores for each TCU were compared only with other TCUs 

that shared the same Tiger Habitat Type (THn within the same bioregion. Thus, 

we did not compare TCU scores from the Indian Subcontinent bioregion with TCUs 

from the Southeast Asia bioregion, nor, within the Indian Subcontinent bioregion, 

did we compare TCUs from the Alluvial Grasslands THT with TCUs from the 

Tropical Dry Forest THT. This approach ensures better representation of predatorprey dynamics and regional patterns of biodiversity across the range of the tiger. 

In all, we identified 24 TCUs as Level l -(15% of all TCUs), 22 as Level II (14%), 

and 101 as Level Ill (63%). The Levell TCUs are recommended as highest priority 

areas and should be the target for soliciting proposals to conserve tigers . 

Although we stress a biogeographic rather than a country approach to setting 

6 
104 

priorities, we point out that all tiger range states contain at least one Level I TCU. 

We also identified 13 TCUs (8%) that require Immediate Surveys. We urge the 

financing of surveys in these TCUs immediately to better rank these TCUs and 

determine their contribution to a regional tiger conservation strategy. 

We also discuss the prospects for tiger conservation in the two other bioregions, 

the Russian Far East (RFE)and Southern China. Based on extensive conservation 

planning already completed in the RFE and the major gaps in knowledge about 

tigers in Southern China, we recommend appropriate conservation activities to 

determine the current status of tigers (Southern China) and better protect tigers 

and their habitats (RFE). 

The results of this study give important new knowledge about tiger conservation 

(illustrated in accompanying maps, graphs, and databases). We found that: 

1) Virtually all of the Level I TCUs straddle or lie near international boundaries. 

The exceptions are a few units in central and southern India and Sumatra. · This 

result will be essential for venues like the Global Tiger Forum to ensure that transboundary conservation activities are given high priority. It will also support the 

rationale for the trans-boundary initiatives already underway in Asia. 

2) Strict protected areas typically cover only a fraction of a TCU. This spatial 

relationship has particular relevance in India which contains more tigers than any 

other country. Half of all tigers in India live outside official Project Tiger reserves, 

but much of the remaining half are restricted to other protected areas that are not 

official Project Tiger reserves. While tigers do exist outside sanctuaries and 

reserves, reproduction of tigers in these exterior habitats is low or may be 

nonexistent. This study points toward the need to upgrade management for 

biodiversity in many of the larger TCUs to maintain the long-term health of tiger 

populations and their habitats. This goal will likely require increased cooperation 

among multiple sectors of national and state governments. 

3) Several Level I and II TCUs are very large, and we recognize that they will not 

receive complete protection. Since tiger habitat is being rapidly lost, this study 

can serve as leverage for more "conservation-friendly" land use and improved 

landscape management within these high-priority TCUs. If proper use is planned 

and enforced, habitat linkage zones, effective core areas, and buffer zones can be 

better maintained. 

4) The habitat integrity index used in this study provides only a snapshot in time 

as to habitat quality within each TCU. The length of this study was too short to 

assess the trajectory of tiger habitats over the next 10-20 years . However, we 

point out that some of the most intensive, large-scale logging in the Indochina 

7 
105 

bioregion is occurring or slated for many of the Level I TCUs, and many of these 

same areas suffer from intense poaching of tigers and tiger prey. We urge finerscale studies focusing on Lavell and Level II TCUs to assess trajectories. 

51 The only prime example of a TCU that conserves a representative unit of tigers 

living in mangrove ecosystems is the Sundarbans TCU on the border of India and 

Bangladesh. Other TCUs containing mangroves in Indochina or Southeast Asia are 

mere remnants of mangrove habitat and tiger populations are severely depleted. 

Thus, the Sundarbans TCU emerges as a global priority for tiger conservation. 

61 There was no significant relationship between the size of a TCU and its score 

(i.e., value as a high priority TCUI. Thus, the largest blocks of remaining habitat 

may not always be the best areas to conserve tigers. Some large blocks are quite 

degraded across most of the TCU or are not considered prime habitat. In other 

words, one cannot simply select the largest blocks of habitat and assume to have 

identified the most important units. 

In sum, this analysis should help guide international donors to those areas 

requiring immediate attention while simultaneously allowing them to make a more 

cost-effective investment in tiger conservation. From a possible list of 159 TCUs, 

we strongly recommend a portfolio of sites that, at a minimum, include some 

portion of the TCUs classified as Level I, II, or targets for surveys. These TCUs 

best capture the intrinsic biodiversity value of tigers, the ecological value of tigers 

as top predators In ecosystems, and the Importance of tigers as "umbrella species" 

for conservation. 
106 

Part II: Controlling the Trade and Reducing Demand for Tiger Products: 

A Preliminary Assessment of Priority Needs 

Executive Summary 

The most immediate threat to tigers is poaching, particularly for the trade in tiger 

parts for use in Asian medicinal products. Until very recently, however, 

conservation efforts have focused almost exclusively in protected areas and 

reserves that contain tigers and have not addressed the increasing illegal trade in 

tiger parts that drives much of the poaching. It has become critical to focus on 

controlling trade as one element of a comprehensive strategy to conserve the tiger 

in the wild. In 1994, over 100 countries, including key consumer and tiger range 

states, supported a specific CITES tiger resolution which addresses the needs 

associated with trade control, enforcement, and reducing demand for tiger 

products. 

The needs associated with trade control fall into two principal categories: 

strengthening capacity to control the trade and reducing demand for tiger 

products. This preliminary assessment identifies immediate needs and offers 

specific actions for addressing them. 

Strengthening the capacity of countries to control the Illicit trade In tiger parts and 

products requires law enforcement infrastructure, including specific laws with 

meaningful penalties, government agencies with clearly defined responsibilities, 

trained manpower, and intelligence-gathering networks. Our assessment identified 

eleven priority tiger range countries and four priority consumer nations for 

targeting efforts to improve trade control capabilities. We recommend five specific 

activities to address training and technical needs: holding workshops to address 

enforcement communication, information, and collaborative training issues, 

particularly in cross-border areas; undertaking detailed reviews of capacity-building 

needs as a basis for developing enforcement and trade control plans; establishing 

tiger trade monitoring networks to collect and disseminate information; developing 

identification guides on tiger parts and products to improve enforcement; and 

conducting independent market surveys to determine levels of trade, monitor 

trends, and assist in trade control efforts. 

Effective legislation is essential to controlling trade in tiger parts and products but 

is lacking in almost every tiger range state and major consumer nation. In 

response to international pressure, several consumer nations have recently 

enacted specific domestic measures to control the tiger trade, but it is too early to 

determine the longterm effectiveness of these. We therefore recommend 

conducting detailed reviews of tiger trade control laws and regulations ~nd making 

9 
107 

recommendations for strengthening provisions. We further recommend that 

appropriate assistance be provided to Bhutan, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar to 

encourage formal participation in CITES. 

Reducing demand for tiger products is also critical to successful long-term 

conservation of tigers in the wild. Currently little is known of the demographics of 

tiger product users, the possible alternatives that might be advocated as 

replacements for tiger products, and associated market dynamics. Efforts that 

target these issues should focus primarily on the East Asian markets of China, 

Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan, as well as the large 

Asian communities In the United States, Canada, and Europe. In addition, it is 

critical to build general public support for conserving tigers and an understanding 

of the links between tiger product consumption and the decline of the species in 

the wild. 

Wa recommend specific activities that target three different audiences in the 

priority consumer countries: traditional Chinese medicine !TCM) practitioners, 

users of tiger products, and the general public. It is essential to design and 

implement these activities within the cultural context of the different target 

audiences. The recent international symposium on traditional Chinese medicine 

and wildlife conservation sponsored by TRAFFIC, WWF, and the Hong Kong 

government, underscored that working with the TCM community is a top priority. 

Efforts with the TCM community need to focus on disseminating information on 

the relationship between the decline of the tiger and use of tiger medicinal 

products, exploring possible substitute products, enlisting the support of the TCM 

community in trade control efforts, and collaborating on consumer education 

efforts. 

Broad public awareness efforts are also needed to target the general public and 

should be linked with specific efforts targeting the TCM communities and tiger 

user groups. Four specific activities we recommend are: using tiger public 

awareness coordinators to develop a suite of outreach and educational efforts, 

enlisting corporate and international advertising and marketing support to 

disseminate tiger conservation messages, designing school curricula on tigers 

accompanied with training teachers, and designing a general educational kit that 

addresses the range of tiger conservation issues for use with a wide variety of 

audiences. These same activities are also recommended to build public support 

for conserving tigers in range countries. 

10 
108 

' 

Prepared Statement of Tony 

~ Fitzjohn, Field Director, Mkoma:r.i 

Game Rese rve, Tanzania 

mE MKOMAZI PROjEcr 

SUBMISSION TO THE SUB COMMmEE BY TONY FITZJOHN ON BEHALF OF 

THE GOVERNMENT OF TANZANIA AND THE GEORGE ADAMSON WILDLIFE 

PRESERVATION TRUST 

1. CURRICULUM VITAE 

Field Director, The George Adamson Wildlife Preservation Trust . Resident in Africa since 1968. Worked in the 

field in Conservation and Operational Programmes since 1970. Nearly 18 years in the Kora National Reserve ( 

noN Kora National Park), North Central Kenya, 'Mlrking on rehabilitation programmes for lions and leopards. 

Constantiy elepOSed to problems of poaching and habitat destruction rendered more acute by position of Kora 

in disputed border zone between Kenya and Somalia and the southerly movement of Somali tribesmen, their 

families and ever increasing stock as years of mismanagement . poaching and overstocking have turned their 

own homelands into a desert This was dramatically illustrated by the murder of George Adamson in 1989 .. 

Since 1989 Wildlife Advisor to the Ministry of Tourism, Natural Resources and Envircnmen~ Government of 

Tanzania, worl<ing in the Mkomazi Game Reserve on programmes of habitat renewal, the restoration of 

infrastructure and practical endangered species programmes irr;oMng the African Wild Dog ( Captive Breeding 

and Translocation ) and the Black Rhinoceros involving the construction and stocking of Tanzania's first Rhino 

Sanctuary in 45 sq. kms. of thick bush rhino habitat This is a subsequent development of the George 

Adamson Wildlife Preservation Trust and has been a physical and critical success to date. 

An educational and village assistance programme, demand led by the villagers themselves, has been in place for 

the past 4 years and will ultimately cover a minimum of 41 villages. Support includes the rebuilding of schools, 

creation and support of Women's Groups, football teams, the building of a day Technical Secondary School , a 

handicapped children's unit fees to pay for children's school fees, training of a teacher at the Wildlife College, 

hospital runs, the rebuilding of a large dispensary and hospital and more. 

The funds have been obtained (privately) for a Conservation Tourism Development to build a top end of the 

market eco-tourism lodge to act as the first real revenue base for the Mkomazi Game ReseNe and to provide a 

presence that will assist greatly in both the protection and understanding of the area. It is also expected to make 

a profit after the first few years of operation. 

Funds raised and applied to date are in excess of U.S. $ 1 . 5 million and the same amount will be invested over 

the next 5 years in the above programmes. 

Lecture given at The Royal Geographic3i Society, London. on work in Africa and management 

pas~ present and future. 

Lecture given and Member of The Explorers Club. New York 

Nominator for the Goldman Environmental Prize since 1989. 

Pilot with a Cessna 206 Robertson. Over 2000 hours flown on surveys, game counts. anti· poaching patrols. 

Self- taught and part trained mechanic, electrician, builder, plumber , civil engineer etc. 

Background of George Adamson Wildlife Preservation Trust and Mkomazi Project , Appendix 1. 
109 

2. CORE SUBMISSIONS 

1. THE CITES BAN IS SUCCEEDING. WITHOUT THE ~THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT 

WOULD HAVE BECOME EFFECTIVELY EXTINCT. 

2. THE LIFTING OF THE BAN OR DOWNGRADING FROM CITES APPENDIX 1 WOULD 

CAUSE AN IMMEDIATE AND IRREVERSIBLE CRASH IN POPULATION AND INEVITABLE 

REUSTING AS ENDANGERED . 

3 . THE PRESENT ESCALATION IN POACHING IS A MARKET RESPONSE TO A 

PERCEIVED SOFTENING OF THE BAN AND INTERNATIONAL OPINION • 

4. THE ECONOMIC CASE FOR RETAINING THE BAN IS COMPEWNG. 

5. THE FUTURE SURVIVAL OF THE ELEPHANT AND TRADE IN IVORY IS BEST 

SECURED BY AN INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEESHIP UNKED TO DEBT CONVERSION. 

3. THE STATISTICS 

Wildlife Statistics are always difficult and flawed. In Africa they are highly suspect . ( see • Four 

Years After The CITES Ban: Illegal Killing of Elephants, Ivory Trade and Stockpiles" by 

H.T.Dublin T. Milliken and R.F.W.Bames pp 86.) 

Accountability is very poor. 

Two years from the ban is far too soon to make even tentative conclusions. The calves being 

bom now must have a chance to reach breeding maturity before any judgements are made. 

Enforcement of all or any regulations imposed on trading and export are rudimentary. The 

more complex and sophisticated the regulations become the more hopeless, corrupt and 

unworkable become their implementation. 

Any quotas or controls are virtually impossible to maintain. 
110 

4. EVIDENCE FROM THE FIELD 

Real evidence comes from the field from those who are able to observe clearly on a daily basis 

patterns in population and movement and the effect of natural and human influences and from 

those who are neither reluctant nor afraid to both record and share this information. 

The filling in of questionnaires and the more vociferous criticisms in "safe" areas where there is 

obvious human I animal Conflict do not come into this category. 

There is a near unanimous view that the ban has been a success ( see Dublin , Leakey , et at ) 

Day to day observations from Wardens, Rangers and academics in the field confirms the 

increase in elephant populations and regular breeding beyond any doubt . 

The contrast from the pre-ban days is enormous . (see Appendix 2 : Daphne Sheldrick's notes 

on Tsavo National Park- only one area- just before the ban in 1989.) If the ban is not extended 

for another long period, or the elephant is downlisted to CITES Appendix 2, there is no doubt 

that this sort of killing will start all over again. 

The result of the ban was a vast increase in morale, not just amongst the field staff protecting 

the elephants but within society as a whole. The psychology of success. 

The protection of the elephants and their habitats automatically gives added security to human 

populations surrounding the wildlife areas. 

5. FUNDING 

The funding to NGO's ( Non Governmental Organisations ) has and will increase with the 

perception of success. The pressure is off Government's meagre Treasury returns to the 

Wildlife Sector and reluctance to go into further debt on aid budgets purely for Wildlife. 

It is a fallacy to think that more money will become available the worse it becomes and the 

private sector NGO's will come to the rescue and take over a last-stand rescue operation. 

The more cataclysmic the situation becomes the less they will get So much more will be 

needed to clear up the mess and a lot less will come in assistance. It will be perceived as 

throwing good money after bad when the chance to do something in time had already existed 

and been deliberately ignored or passed over. 

Government funding after the ban ·was still at high levels . Holly Dublin's statistics were 

misleading for Kenya as the new parastatal Kenya Wildlife Setvices funded an enormous 

amount of anti poaching field work directly from Headquarters in Nairobi as individual Park 

budgets were reassessed along with personnel. 
111 

6. THE INCREASE IN POACHING. STOCKPIUNG AND THE BLACKMARKET 

The ivory trade, legal or illegal, is a market like any other and reacts swiftly to economic change, 

REAL OR PERCEIVED. 

The present increase in poaching and sUlckpiling (see Dublin et al ) anticipates a possible 

relaxation in the ban and has been coincidental with anecdotal reports from the field to that 

effect. Poaching is rampant in Zaire with Sudanese gangs crossing the border daily and cutting 

down elephants in their hundreds with automatic weapons. Uganda is being hit badly and 

southern Tanzania is seeing a retum to pre ban poaching. Even Kenya , with better law 

enforcement and infrastructure is seeing a severe rise in poaching after 6 years of dedicatad 

service by Wildlife personnel, many of whom have given their lives . 

The effect of the ban has been virtually to close the European and North American markets to 

ivory products. As expected, there is evidence that .,_ markets are opening for illegal trade, 

mainly Taiwan and North Korea. 

Relaxation of the ban sends precisely the wrong message to all the markets and will vastly 

increase the demand for illegal ivory. 

It is a matter of record that In most states control and accounting systems are totally inadequate 

to restrict the trade. 

7. ECONOMICS 

The economic prosperity of East African states is strongly linked to tourism, and wildlife forms 

the central core as reflected in all the statistics . 

The protection and presence of the elephant exemplifies success or failure in these 

Govemmenfs policies in perpetuating its ' wildlife for future generations' and as a world natural 

resource. 

Poaching and associated lawlessness is fatal to tourism (Kenya is an example of this at 

present.) . Countries with poor infrastructure do not stand a chance. 

Economic success reduces dependency and pressure on Western aid budgets. 

Assistance to Third World range states may be achieved by debt relief linked to environmental 

protection. This has been done b8fore in Debt for Nature. 
112 

8. STOCKPIUNG AND ILLEGAL IRAOE. THE SOLUTION 

With a notoriously inelfeetuallicensing system and 90~ of the Ivory in South Africa in private 

hands, with a trade that never has been, or ever will be able to be controlled and given the fact 

that it is physically impossible to protect the elephants in some of the huge trads of land they 

survive in (e.g. Tsavo, Kenya, Selous , Tanzania) and population figures for elephant that 

could be halved if note was taken of the viable areas in which they might remain, it is clear that 

any resumption of trade or downgrading would be a disas18r of epic proportions. 

The future lies in an International trustee system to regulallt storage and eventual trade and 

as part of this development !hera must be an lntamational consensus that the ban on the ivory 

trade will fat a considerable period d lime, certainly 20 years at a minimum . In this way 

•anticipatory" stockpiling of ivory will be tarminated. 

The United States of America ara the world feeders in environmental matlars and they must 

lead the way for the others to follow. If they do not then the elephant is doomed, Africa is 

diminished and future generations will blame us for their grief. 

Tony Fitzjohn 

Field Oirec:tor 

The George Adamson Wildlife Preservation Trust 

USA 

Suite203 

1350 South Abbot Kinney Boulevard 

Venice 

California 90291 

c/o Global Communications for Conservation 

150 East 58th Street 

New York 

New York 10155 

Tel: 212 838 9800 Fax: 212 753 0731 

TANZANIA 

Mkomazi Game Reserve 

POBox376 

Same 

Kilimanjaro Regtion 

UK 

2 Marchmont Gardens 

Richmond 

Surrey TW10 6ET 
113 

~ THE MKOMAZI PROJECI' 

APPENDIX I 

THE GEORGE ADAMSON WILDLIFE PRESERVATION TRUSTS 

The George Adamson Wildlife Preservation Trusts UK, USA and Holland were founded in the 

late 1980's, shortly before the murder of George Adamson in Kora National Reserve in Kenya. 

The Trusts are dedicated to the continuation of his w011< and specialise in the rehabilitation 

and rescue of threatened ecosystems and endangered species. The Trusts are now 

expanding to Gennany. 

Since 198g the w011< of the·Trusls has centered upon The Mkomazi Project through their Field 

Director, Tony Frtzjohn. Since that time, over one and a half million dollars have been invested 

in this unique undertaking. The Trusts have commenced critically important projects to 

reintroduce endangered species, namely the African Hunting Dog and the Black Rhinoceros. 

The Trusts are primarily funded by small groups of individuals and also achieve considerable 

support and assistance from corporate sponsors and charitable institutions. In the past, 

invaluable support and assistance has come from the Friends of Mkomazi, Global 

Communications for Conservation, Tuskforce, Tusk, BP, Ray Rowe Trust for Animals, British 

Airways, Sir Anthony Bamford (who has donated a JCB), Friends of Serengeti, Save the Rhino 

International, The Born Free Foundation, The Elsa Conservation Trust, The Royal 

Geographical Society, Neumann's Coffee Group, Friends of Conservation and many others. 

The Trusts represent a new spirit of direct 'hands on' dynamic conservation, concentrating 

limited resources to the best conceivable effect The conservation of the environment and 

wildlife is now the subject of many excellent projects. However, The Mkornazi Project has a 

unique aspect. The rebuilding of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, the rehabilitation of its wildlife, 

the endangered species programmes and the outreach programmes do not simply attempt to 

'hold the line' on conservation. TlJey are an endeavour to re-establish a complete ecosystem 

and thus positively reverse the damage that has been done. In addition to limiting this 

damage. it is also essential that we should now master the techniques of revival and renewal, 

in order that an ecosystem becomes self sustaining. That process is the driving force of The 

Mkornazi Project. For that reason it is believed to be one of the most important projects in 

Africa today. 
114 

THE MKOMAZI PROJECT 

The Mkomazi Game Reserve occupies 1 ,500 square miles of Tanzania immediately adjacent to 

Tsavo National Park in Kenya. Together they form one of the largest ecosystems in Africa. 

Surrounded by the Pare and Usambara Mountains and within sight of Mount Kilimanjaro, 

Mkomazi is potentially one of the most beautiful and important game reserves on the continent. 

Until1988, it represented a classic example of ecological decline and degradation, over grazed, 

persistently eroded and the subject of indiscriminate and widespread poaching. In 1988, the 

Tanzanian Government commenced The Mkomazi Project, with a view to ensuring the complete 

rehabilitation of this vast area and the reintroduction and establishment of its endangered 

species. The Mkomazi Project was awarded National Priority Status. 

The George Adamson Wildlife Preservation Trusts have been the Governments main partner in 

this unique and important endeavour. Since 1988 the entire resources of the Trusts have been 

devoted to this project. Roads and airsbips have been cleared, a radio network has been 

installed with full reserve coverage, rangers have been supplied and equipped, water sources 

have been sited and pumped, countless airmiles have been flown on anti-poaching patrols and 

the result has been one of spectacular success. One of the most fragile, threatened and 

beautiful parts of Africa has been reborn. 

As part of the programme, the Trusts are now engaged in the rehabilitation and reintroduction of 

endangered species, namely the African Hunting Dog and the Northern Black Rhinoceros. East 

Africa's first captive breeding and translocation programme for the African Hunting Dog has 

commenced in Mkomazi, with the arrival of twenty five African Hunting Dog puppies in August 

1995. The Trust has also constructed Tanzania's first rhino sanctuary, a 50 square kilometre 

development with heavy electrified fencing and security. East African Black Rhinos are being 

bought at a premium of $60,000.00 each from National Parks Board South Africa, where they 

have been breeding this particular sub-species for the past 34 years and are now prepared to 

return them to East Africa, as long as their stringent conditions are met. Tanzania held over 

10,000 rhinos less than twenty years ago; today maybe 50 have survived. The opportunity to 

start the first breeding programme for the Blank Rhino in Tanzania is being supported by many 

wildlife organisations throughout the world, but more help is needed for the ongoing annual 

running costs to ensure both the peace and safety of these remarkable animals. 

The Trusts have obtained private funding for the building and development of a Conservation 

Tourism Lodge in Mkomazi, where the majority of the profits go back into the local communities, 

the rhino sanctuary and the management of the reserve, thus making the reserve virtually self 

sustaining. 

The Outreach Programme coveis the 41 villages surrounding the reserve. This educational and 

village assistance programme, demand led by the villagers themselves, has been in place for 

the past 4 years and will ultimately cover a minimum of 41 villages. Support includes the 

rebuilding of schools, creation and support of Women's Groups, football teams, the building of a 

day Technical Secondary School, a handicapped children's unit, fees to pay for children's 

school fees. training of a teacher at the Wildlife College, hospital runs, the rebuilding of a large 

dispensary and hospital and more. 
115 

The pvaching in 

ceriou• in l9RR 

extracts. 

nnd around the 'T'""'vo Nat:i.on~~ l••~k l.i<::ca•lle ~ that l started tu keep • Diory. Here aro snmP15 l!:leph~uL:s gunned down Lualeli Ranch 

End May 1986 

26.6.88 

4.11.118 

24.8.88 

3.butting Tsavo . l. 

5 ~lophanta g~nnod do~n n~ar .~avo West. 

3 !lephanh gunned down a towlu~ys later. 

;l4 carcasea fuund by Dill Woodley and Patrick 

Hamilton a few days l~r-.r. I 

4 Elephanta gunned <lown in ~'~~fa. 

l !Uephant s~o,t \>r, !!.~sen -:. 8ying of gu1'""· wounds. · f · · 

l Elephiill\: !:!'PO d .... 1fi t·."·· .. ! ~~i~~ '1!. ;'f~{l . . ~P3HR~ ito ~oak." 'Ra~~~r~ ~~t g~ .s~~f!t~~· and 

l':urly - elepttatlt uolv~r { ~ !ccpJ.te an lnl;ensivo sc::tfeb. ""yp,l;ef ril~d poached by 

the ~angers ~nd the tusks $ulu. : -. ' ;; ( l : ._ .... -= ;,) _ -_ . I _ ...... 

E.lepl:tt;!l\:. .. p()a .. . chi .. 'l9 ra."'P"I't. ~ .. ~ .. ~911\P. ,1. e~~ly . .,:.. ~t 

~fo6~rt~:~v~i ~ti~! ~~~~i~Q~t~~ r~~~~:ai:n . on~ 11Cin ~n .. ~~1 t'! " ~ · · fiii . rHe6e•~t~~ TAl.'O%'ted see1riq ~o\:hi::' .. ( 9n lhe - or river, 

2 m:tt ~f ~i:9~ \:he 'it'atf-(R.Q . , but no action 

t•kerl. ; Pal:ri c:k Hamilton sent c.lown to do a recce and Cou11d about 60 dead, including 

O•phQn Bul<~nezi (aged 1 R YP.ars) . 

3 ~~:~~~it:i !~~~~ ~~~-~ b~ ~it~. 'f'rAv<n: alcn~ 

500 fresh ca•caces ~•en QY ~11 l W,o~le,y anc;l 

~:at~i ck ~a.m i, f-9,~ ' 1'Q rs ~yJ st lon~ ' The elt:pllants ·on U1e J::~:Jt\,;-n QOIJI)da,ry all: ~Ut i:nnipill(ted. >, ,\ C 'I" ' • " ; ~ \ 1 ' 1 ] 1 01 1 ' 

60 r:lo:~ •a.nts, \l~n ~~ d~w~ I' ~J~ Jipe i 11 it'S<\¥€! to •. WOI!:<- " ' • T • ". ~ 

50 i~~~ d do~~ i~ Jae~gau j ,~~ ~utside the 

4 !::leph~nt~ ahot whil~t dr~nkinq a.t sh .. uc. in Northern Kenyii, as they were being 

!JI•otographed by touria!:sland 'l'l'lr AHtn· 

Further shots hea·r·d· int;a!ll\~Ho:utW . · throughout thlll. ~ay an'4 "' ke nc><:t, .s:o obvioual,:r m;:u~y others b; . t:he dust. 

16 Carca's@ls c:~unted later. I 

20 killed in Meru Na.tiona .l kark. 

!10 J::lephants quuned. down on! the Tiva in . -~.f. .· . -; . - . : I 
::;eptember 

116 

'I'savo l<ast. I 

6 Elephant3 lying dead in a hAAp ln Meru 

Matil'lnAl ParK. Seen by Tim Corfield. 

Marcus Russell repl'lrts Elephant! being 

masaccred in drov~~ ln Tsavo ~ast 

National Parle 1 

l co"' shot in thA process of gi vibq bi:tlh. 

Touri3t Car ehot at in Mern Nat~onal Pc>rk "nd a tourist shot in Lhe chest. 

14.9.80 The I'rccident says; that pi'IAr.hers can be bhot on o;.i.sht 

in Kenya's N~tional Parks. 1 

19.9.88 

2.10.88 

l::i.l0.8S 

18.10.88 

24.10.88 

Shoot out-. l'ln the Ranches bord~~ J1g Tsavo 

left 6 Pullcemen wounded and l ~aad. 

No Shifta casualties. Papers !r:ull or GP.neral ::;erv1ce UniL/Poacher en'g11gemente: uul more GQU caoualties than pdachers. 

12 Elephants qunn~d down in the NJrth. 

Reports revAal tnat the SecuriJy Fo~ces are not ~Lcpared to mix with tHe Somalis. 

At encounters, belt" with ammurhtion and 

guns are abandoned and Lhey ruri. wu.rdcn 

K.i.oko saw 95 bandite: feasting dn a gira£fQ; repl'lrt.ed th1s to a GSU unit 

nearby, bul Lhey did nothing. / Thera are reports that Ivory is ar.tu~lly being c11r.ved in the bush supe~·vlsed by 

UL len tcls. I 

ll Elephants found killed .i.n Tsavo East. An 

orphaned bwby found near Ndara/was ~Aid 

"to be the result: of recent killinq~". 

Anoeher sm~ll orphan seen near/ ninA Harea 

in th" Park - never retrievt::d :su 1nust 

hav~ dled. I 

Vet flown down to tLy and save. a wounded 

Elephant riddled with bulletsJ No hope 

o£ recovery, ~o the J:;lephant a.~ :shot. 

Ray Mayere: (on a Ranch bornP.ri/ng Tsavo) 

says t-.hAt the elephants tl•d-L ~sed to 

r:requenl his Ranch are no mor~. All 

the cmaller game also mnssacrjd. Only n few dikdik, lesser kuuu and a handful ur impala remain. 1 

7 Elephants found u .. ad by Ken !:;Jeldricl< in 

Meru Nationu.l Park. Elephants thP.rP. all 

pathetically t.P.rrit1ed ant1 hucldled nt::aL 

the Lodqe (40 uuu). G Somalis 3Cen I 
19.10.88 

30.10.RH 

31.10.88 

1.11.88 

12 .11. 88 

7 .lZ .88 

8.12.88 

117 

strolling down the road . I 

24 ~leph~nt£ gunned down on th~ Ranches 

bordArinq the ~ark. l 

Jill Woodley went down r.o savo East to 

try and retrieve som" or t:~e orphaned babies constantly being reported by tou:ri~t$. I 

2 Baby el.,~Juwt.s found frc:1hly l<ill .. d by 

lions. Gunshocs hA~rd ne~rby. 

1 baby elephant killed by lions at Saln 

in Tsavo East. I 

4 Elephant~ S:uund dead near Snln in Tsavo 

East - obviously the rasul't of t.h, gunshots h~~rd earlier. I 

I 1 Elephant poached near Rur.huma. :ihitta 

911ng teasted in a local ACL!.i.can pub, one man guarding the door wi.t:h !a gun - thAn 

stole some ~o~t~ and made ott. 

2 baby elephants found dead Jear Rnchuma in 'l'~;ovn :East. Marcus Russeil I:"!JO-' Ls 

ma~~~s more killed by lion~, •oma running around wcunnP.<'I witl) broken leas, 

lost and terrltieu, ~c..:eaming in fear. 

Shifta r~in~n Meru Park H.J .• and 

masaccred Lhe Pork's 5 semi t:une White 

Rhino, took the horns a~d got clean away on foot as the Ranger tore~ cowered under bed~ and in the bush. Itlreally looks 

lilce the li:NBD of wiJ dl if~ and there seems NOTHlNI.i that can be clune. 

8 Elephants shot:. nP.ar Ki tieh Camp in the 

Mathews Rang ... 

JO ~l..,phants 9unne0. down a.t D~kcr. in T"avo 

Ea.st. I 

1 &mall orphan killP.<'I by liors· 

14 Elephants gunned down botween ~ruba ann :Kul;a.lu in '1'$"vn East. I 

All the rhino~ in the Meru Rninc Sanctuary 

have been poached . I 

Ken T~ylor of Galana R~nr.h hAld up at gunpoint by Sh1t'ta who ~Lole! the content 

ot the safe. "We are ndl:. a£raid of ' those women I" the·y scoffed, ret'erring 

to the G.s.u. and Ranger~. 

l 

Kitich Camp, Mathews - 2 empiovees shot by 

Somalis ia C.cont of clier\ts. I 
118 

10.12.98 9 ~lAphllnt:l qunne4 4own bY Sh.i.!'LA ib the 

NuLl.llern Area Taavo I:Ldt. / 

a o~phane4 babies ~~~n frnm the air but never retrieved. I 

J~nua~~ 89 12 Som111111 hAve apparently been kill ~::11 ln Tsavo over the last rew month• ;u\12 the Park i• appa.ronut quiet. Also 

amazing raina throuthout. ! 

144 EleplumLIII kllled il\ 'l':savo Na.tiona.l {lark up unt~l th~ 'O~.h Mlly 1~89 when Leakoy was appoint~n with a mandate to I 

"c:lean up the Department". Hlil U;a;-ed about 4,000 pcr:::onnel. 

12.6.81) iltohant Count Besul.t.s:- 5,SOO in Tsav~ Ecosystem; 

1.7,000 in Kenya over~ll. ' 

Note:• ~hill was the t1rst eomprehen~1ve count un~ertaken since 

David lett TaAYO. Ua1n9 his Block Mapa some 8 ailrc:raft: wH;h expc~ionee4 obaarvora eounted th~ Area over three ~r four d~ys. 

Jctuua;..:y 1990 Al:lout 31 olophantc poac:hod betw~An!.Tanuary and 

March, about: aeven n! them 1n '1'savo near ltiilo11~ ~uu t.ali. 

Mrs. Th~tohor'l ~•1•••• ot Mon~ Kong ~toeks respodsible. 

I March 24 t.!l ., 1990 ; - U elepha.nto l<illecl in Taavo East, ..,; ght between Voi and Lugards .FallA and tive ;ust outside the: I.Joundary ~t Xul.alu. 6 Policemen kill&d in an ambush at Kclni, eeveral 

utlui~.u wcn.an4ed. l 

Januarv 1993:- 7 Elt:ph.:mt:s shot on the Ya.tta, o c:h with a frontal brGin chot, proaumably by a ~nm~l.i marksmtn/ poacher. 

Dr. Le~k~y left the Kenya Wildlife Service in Mar h/April 1qq4, 

Wc3tcrn appointed end of ~ay 1994. 1 

June 1994 T.Savo Eicpiiant count. Undertaken l'"d"' t.h!'! direction 

of Dr. I a in Dougl '"" Hamilton again us1nq the ~~~~~~ .. 1 Block Maps as before and num .. .Lous aircraft with experienced observers. 

6,700 Elephants in Tsavo itself. I 

7,000 1n the Tsavu E~osystem. I 

No freth careases seen in th41! Park. One seen in Mkomad. 

Overall Kenya population e11timaled at 15,000. 

~ '!'he Tsavo ec.;o:;y:;Lem in the .sixties w;,.::J c~ctimated to hold 

roughly 35,000 iO,OOO elephants (an liT"~ nf l&,.uuu square miles 

encompassing hnth Tsavo .t:ast and west N~tional Pa'rks and the areas surruumlln9 them, including Mltomaz1 in Tanz'ania; in ot.h"'r 

word3, " count of all th• elephl'lnt that could conceivably utilise 

the Park were they driven in Ly h.:unan expansion dr p;,.ohinq). The Elephant Die-off which took plaee in 1970 tndk a toll ot 9,000 elephants frnm malnutrition. The po:;L 111~-off count of 

the ecosystem broughl'up some 20,000, 14,000 of ~heee being in 

the Park itself (E~~t and Weal:). The count wa~ !thorough only in 

the Pa7:k itself be~.liii!':A t.hP.re were not the resou:r;~;e::; Lv do the 
119 

entire ecosystem in the same intense way. 1 

A clan<Jt;::;Line undercover count undcrt.1ken by onoernad 

individuals in 1979 , wh'!ln in-house poaching was at its heighL 

along with somali and Xa1uln• poaching brought up roughly only 

0,000, down from the 11,000 counted previously. This figure 

radically nl'!c:lined turther but there were nu ~uunls allowed 

during Lhe co~:.-upt w.c.M.D. regime. The reaultc of the much l~ter counts which were undertaken whP.n Dr. Leakey was appointed ~~ Director of K.W.S. are shown abuve. The iatest 1995 count 

undon:taken by K.W.S. showed 8,500 Elephant left within the Tsavo 

ecocyctem. The popubtinn P.!ltimated for Kenya as a whole (undt!1· westernl is between 10,000 csuu 20,000. Pers9nally I would put 

it lower - probo.bly 15, 000. j 
120 

Essays 

Helping a Species Go Extinct: The Sumatran Rhino 

in Borneo 

AlAN RABINOWITZ 

Wildlife Conservation Society, International Prograau. I 85th Street and Southern Boulevard, 

Bronx, NY 10460, U.S.A. email 0007174173@mci.mailcom 

Abstract:. TIH! Sumatran rhinoceros bas been declining In numMn for more tiHm a cmtu:ry. primarily due 

to bunting and to loss of Its babltat tu land Is convertftl to other uses. Only in tiH last qum-ter century bas 

tM tntemattonal community made conc:ertftl eflorts to rn.oerw tbls d«lin~ Howwer; go't.¥mment officials.. 

international funding agenc~ and conservation "'8antzRttons, wbll~ paying Up service to tbe tUN!d for 

strong actton, bave often laltf7J tbe patb of least rai.stana In belplng tbi.s species. Mucb of tiN money and 

effort put toward Sumatran rhino conservation bas focused on nftll teclmologta or polftlcally exjH!dlmt 

strategies that bave linle to do with /be real reasons b«Jind tiH rlJtno's d«ltiW. Tbe prlmRry means of 

Sumatran rblno conservation In /ndonest4 Qnd Malaysie\ wiNrr! viable populations migbt sttll extst, ts still 

the capture and anempted breeding of tbts spectes-wbtcb, unUl now, bas failed. I examined the btstory of 

the Sumatran rblno in Borneo and tbe rw:ent situation In Sabab, wbere at least two Important populations 

of tbts species migbt still suroive. Sabab is presented as a case study tbRt ts tndtcattve of 1M pllgbt of the 

Sumatran rbtn() tbrougbout tt.s present range.. 

Ayudando a una espccie a e:xtinguitse: E1 Rinocc:rontc: de: Sumatra c:n Borneo 

Resumen: Los rinocerontes de Sumatra ban wntdo drc:ltrumdo en nUmero por mas de un stglo, Mbldo 

prlncipalmente a Ia prestOn de Ia caz-a y a Ia ph'dida de su babtuu a medida que ~ tierra es modiftcada para 

otros usos. Rectin durante el Ultimo cwarto de stglo, ban b4bldo esjuef%os concrrUidos por parte de Ia 

comunidad lntemactonal para retJRrttr esta d«llnoddn. Sin rmbargo, agentes del goblemo, agendas de 

ayuda fUmctera tnternactonal y organtz«lcmes cons~lcmtstas, mtentras bablan de Ia rwcesldad de una 

acctOn d«lslva, ban tornado a mmudo rl camino del menor- esftwrzo para ayudar a e$la rspecte. La nuzyor 

park del dinero y de los esfuenos trivntldos pam 14 con#rVtiCI.On del rlrlQUf"'nte de Sum4~ se ba concentrado en nuevas temologfas o estrategtas pollttcam.ente convententa. qu~ tlmm poco que vw con las 

razones rea/es detrds de 14 d«Un.actOn del rinoceronte. La «ttvldad principal pam Ia ~tOn del 

rlnoceronre de Sumatra en Indonesia y Malluta_ ddnde aUn par«en ext.sttr poblaclon«s vlobles, Involucra la 

captura y el tntmto de crla de esta espr:ci~ lo cual basta /4J «tualldad ba jracasado. Este lrtWajo e:camlna 

Ia bistorla del rlnoceronte de Sumatra en Borneo y los recientes acont«lmtmtos m Sabab, dOnde por lo 

menos dos tmportantes pobl~lones de esta esjl«le parecm aUn sobrevivlr. SabRb se presmta como un caso 

de estllllto. dOnde Ia sttuactOn es trultcatlva de Ia diflcil sttuactOn que atravleza el rlnoceronte de SumaiTa 

a to largo de su 4Ctual area de dlstribuci6n. 

Introduction 

H is rio small miracle: that rhinos still walk the face: of the: 

earth. No other group of animals has been so highly 

prized for so long yet managed to survive human onP4/W" submllted Sepllmbw II. 1994; rrv1sed '"""uscrlpt acceptftl 

No~lwr , 1994-

Corucrnr~ 81olosr. Pqn 482--488 

Volum~ ~.No. 3.)une 199~ 

slaught. The focus of our obsession with thls animal has 

revolved around the: protuberance of hardened hair on 

the animal's head known as rhino hom. Rhino hom 

played an important role in medieval Ollncse medicine, 

a role that it conlinues to play in traditional Ollncse 

practices of today. 

The usc and trade in rhino hom is recorded from 

China as early as 2600 B.C. (NoweU ct al. 1992), spte:ld· 
ing in later years to Western ASia and the Roman Empire 

(Hirth & Rockhill 1911; Schafer 1963). But ~hat was 

once a familiar animal throughout much of China was 

already considered a rarity "by !he time of !he ages 

illuminated by books" (Schafer 1963 ). By !he rang Dynasry ( 600-900 A.D.), large quantities of horn were being imponed to China. With !he opening of new trade 

routes, horns were brought to China from nonhem Somalia, !he Anb states (Hirth & Rockhill 1911 ). and !he 

southeast Asian auas of modern day Vietnam, java, 

Sumatra (Mills 1970 ), !he Malay Peninsula (Hirth & 

Rockhlll1911), Bomeo(Mjoberg 1930), Cambodia(TaKuan 1993 ), lotos (van Wus!hof 1871) and Thailand 

(Gervaise 1688; Bowring 1857; Bock 1884). The near 

extinction of the Javan and Sumatran rhinos in modem 

times has been largely attributed to !he trade during !he 

rang Dynasty (Schafer 1963). 

The preparation of rhino hom for particular ailments 

is often cited from the Divine Peasant's Herbal, written 

in !he lint cennuy B.C. (Nowellet al. 1992), and from 

!he Pen Ts'ao Kmg Mu, a weD-known sixteenth century 

Chinese medical text. Although !here have been modifications and revisions to !he Chinese medical phannacopoeia since !hose tlm<:s, modem medical and popular 

books contain both old and new applications for rhino 

hom (Read 1982; Yen 1992). Many licensed doctors 

and pharmacists in Taiwan continue to sell or prescribe 

rhino hom for !heir patients (NoweU et al 1992; Loh & 

Loh 1994a ). In mainland China, an increase in !he availability of rhino horn and an increased demand by !he 

phannacles Is of growing concern ( Loh & Lob 1994b ). 

The rhino family, containing five living species, once 

ranged widely throughout !he more open habitats of 

Africa and !he troPical and subtropical habitats of east· 

em Asia, including Sumatra, Java, and Borneo. Today 

rhinos survive only in small, disjunct populations. lbe 

Sumatran rhinoceros, !he smaDest of !he rhino species, 

was once found throughout Assam, Myanmar, ThaDand, 

Indo-China, !he Malay peninsula, Sumatra, and Borneo. 

Today, breeding populations of this species are thought 

to exist only in Sumatra, the Malay peninsula, and nonhcast Borneo. 

The survival of all five rhino species into the twentieth century can be anributed to a number of factors: 

legal protection of the species, an increase in the num· 

ber of protected areas where they survive, the ability for 

cenain rhino species to live in rugged and isolated for· 

ested areas, and political and socioeconomic factors that 

have closed down many of the historic tcade routes for 

rhino hom. The traditional use of rhino hom has !jot 

12ded with time, however, and with !he present Chin<'sc 

economy growing at an unprecedented rate, these productS arc becoming ever more aft'or<bble to the: new consumer class. 

During !he 1970s, rising prosperity in parts of Asia 

created a resurgence in demand for rhino parts. and dtis 

121 

7ht Sumllnn Rhino in 11om<o .,3 

demand, coupled with escalating prices, encouraged 

greater hunting of the rhino. Bc:tween 1970 and 1987, 

an estimated 8596 of the world's remaining rhino population was lost (fitzgerald 1989). Many small, fragmented populations were wiped out. As mUJlons of dol· 

Iars were spent on efforts to reverse: this uend, most 

rhino populations continued to decline. 

I examined lhe case of the Sumatran rhino in S2bah, 

Malaysian Borneo, where at least rwo important populations of this species might still survive. First I discuss 

how, for !he last rwo decades, highiy publicized dfons 

to save the Sumatran rhino have been concerned more 

with high-profile, technical Issues !han with !he more 

difficult job of protection and management in the field. 

Then I . will show how the decline of this species in 

Borneo bas been watched and documented for more 

than a century, while eft'orts to remedy this situation 

have fallen terribly short of what is needed. 

International and Regional Efforts to Save the 

Sumatran Rhino 

In response 10 continued concern for the decline of 

Asian rhino species, !he Asian Rhino SpcciaUst Group 

(AR5G)was created by !he Species Survival Commission 

of !he World Conservation Union. The lint meeting of 

!his group, convened In Thailand in 1979, emphasized 

the need for data collection, research and monitoring 

efforts, protection of rhino habitats, reduction of poachIng, and strict control of trade In rhino products. A second meeting of !he AR5G, held in Malaysia in 1982, 

analyzed Asian rhino distribution patterns, estimated 

numbers of animals, and put forth conservation requirements. By !he !hied meeting in Singapore In 1984, !he 

ARSG decided to launch a program to capture 

"doomed" Sumatran rhinos for breeding In captivity In 

Asian, European, and North American zoos. Doomed rhinos were loosely defined as animals whose lives were in 

immediate danger due to the clearing or conversion of 

forest for other uses. 

The Sumatran Rhino Trust (SRT), an organization 

spawned from the American Association of Zoological 

Parks and Aquariums, initially worked out an agreement 

with Malaysia for !he expon of animals to !he United 

States with !he aim of establishing a captive-breeding 

program. But protests over the shipping of Malaysian 

rhinos to western zoos resulted in the dissolution of the 

proposed agreement and !he establishment of a separate 

Malaysian captive-breeding program. Political diJfer· 

ences between the state of Sabah and the national goverrunent then led to the creation of rwo separate Malaysian breeding programs, one in Peninsular Malaysia 

and one organized by !he newly formed Sabah Rhino 

and Wildlife Conservation Committee, each to be 

funded and coordinated individually. 

~·­ V~ume 9. No. ),June 199S 
Because of the lack of cooperation between the different countcics in the region, the founh and fifth meetings of lhe Asian Rhino Specialist Group in Indonesia 

(1986) and Malaysia ( 1987), respectivdy, were hdd to 

design a comprehensive conservation action plan for all 

Asian rhino species. The subsequent plan (Khan 1989) 

concluded that there was still time to reverse the rapid 

decline of the Sumatran rhino. The creation of captive 

populations was deemed an important component of 

any Sumatran rhino conservation plan. While recognizing the importance of tn situ protection and management of wild populations, this plan clearly emphasized 

ex situ management of captive rhino populations by the 

ARSG. 

In 1987, the SRT signed an agreement with the Indonesian government. It continued to acknowledge that 

protection and management tn situ was a top priority 

for Sumatran rhino conservation, but the agreement 

stipulated the foUowing: 

(I) A donation ofUSI60,000 per rhino would be paid 

to the newly established Indonesia Rbino Foundation once rhinos were received in SRT facilities in 

North America. 

( 2) In the event of death during transport to the zoos 

and for a period of one year, an indemnity of 

USJ25,000 per rhino would be paid by SRT to the 

Indonesia Rhino foundation. 

(3) In the event of death during capture, US$5000 per 

rhino would be paid by SRT to me Indonesia 

Rhino Foundation. 

( 4) All expenses for the survey, capture, and transport 

of rhinos would be covered by SRT. 

( 5) SRT would contribute 120,000 per year for the 

duration of this agreement for improving protection and management for rhinos in National Parks. 

ln 1993, the SRT was dissolved after five years and a 

cost of more than US S2.5 million. Virtually none of lhe 

money wenc to improving lhe protection and manage· 

ment of wild rhinos in existing protected areas. This 

program, along with the similar efforts in Sabah and Peninsular Malaysia to catch doomed rhinos for breeding. 

were expensive f2ilures resulting in the capture of 3 5 

rhinos and the deaths of 12 rhinos between 1984 and 

1993 (Foose & Zainuddin 1993). The failure was partly 

a result of lhe skewed sex ratio of captured animals. Still, 

as of 1993. the surviving 23 rhinos ( 14 females, 9 males) 

were being held in 10 separate areas in Indonesia, Pen· 

insular Malaysia, Sabah, the United Kingdom, and the 

United States. Other than one facility in Peninsular Malaysia with five rhinos, no more than three rhlnos were 

at any of the other facilities (Foose & Zainuddin 1993 ). 

Because adult males and females were never together in 

the same place for a significant amount of time, there 

have been no births from captive Sumatran rhinos to 

Con.tctvaUOn BtoloaY 

Volume 9. No. 3. june 1995 

122 

IWJinowitz 

date, except for one female who was pregnant when 

captured. 

The Sumalran Rhino in Borneo 

Although Borneo was once home to both the )avan and 

the Sumatran rhino, lhe )a van rhino was thought to have 

disappeared due to natural causes about 12,000 years 

ago (Cranbrook 1987). The Sumatran rhino, described 

as a disUnct subspecies on Borneo (Groves 1965 ), was 

still considered relatively common into the early twentieth century (Weedon 1906; MjOberg 1930). The harvesting and sale of rhino horn. regarded by the government as simply another forest product, was encouraged 

throughout the early 1900s (Payne 1990a ). 

By the turn of the century, the alarm was already 

being sounded about the rhino's decline, because hunting for the highly prized hom continued unabated to 

· support a primarily Chinese market ( Shelford 1916; Harrisson 1988 ). By the 1950s it was reported that the 

Sumauan rhino has been hunted to ncar extinction in 

Borneo (Harrisson 1955, 1956), partially due to the 

hunting skills of the indigenous people (van Str~en 

1986 ). This did little: w dampen trade however, as countries such as Singapore continued to obtain rhino hom 

from Borneo (Talbot 1960). 

By the 1960s Harrisson ( 1965) estimated that there 

were no more than two rhinos left in Sarawak. possibly 

five in Kalimantan, and 11-13 in Sabah. The fauna Con-

~rvation Ordinance of 1963 in Sabah and the Wild Life 

Protcccion Ordinance of 1958 in Sar:JWak protected rhi· 

nos on paper but did little to deter poaching or to ensure the prosecution of offenders. Ten years later there 

was still virtually nothing known of existing rhino numbers (Rookmaker 1977). In 1982, Davies and Payne 

( 1982) estimated that I S..30 rhinos remained in Sabah 

and recommended procected status for tvvo areas that 

stiU contained numbers of rhinos: Silabukan and Danum 

Valley. Shortly thereafter a summary of reports com· 

piled by van Strien ( 1986) indicated that rhinos were 

virtually gone from Sarawak and most of Kalimantan. At 

this point, S2bah contained the most important popula· 

tions of Sumatran rhino outside of Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia. 

Efforts to Protect the Sumalran Rhino In Sabah 

Between 1979 and 1987, as Sabah became the focus of 

attention for Sumatran rhinos in Borneo, some positive 

steps were taken by the Game Branch of the Sabah Forest Department and sub~quently by the newly formed 

s3bah Wildlife Department to protect the areas where 

these last populations existed. 

Danum Valley was long considered one of the most 
pristine lowland forest areas left In Borneo. Free of hu· 

man habitation and known to contain a rich divenity of 

wUdllfe, the area was assumed to be relatively undis· 

turbed because of its ruggedness and inaccessibility 

(Marsh & Greer 1992 ). When lhe presence of rhinos 

was first suspectc:d in lhls area in 1976, lhe Danum Val· 

ley was proposed as a national park ( Kiew 1976 ); it was 

later recommended for protection as a game sanctuary 

(Davies & Payne 1982). However, lhe state-run Sabah 

Foundation, which maintained a long-tcnn timber con· 

cession in lhe area, did not want to relinquish its rights 

to lhe land. Instead, in 1982 a 438·km2 area was dcsig· 

natc:d as "Danum VaUey Consemttion Area," in which 

logging wouid be prohibitc:d but control would remain 

under lhe Sabah Foundation. Soon !hereafter, buildings 

foe research and visitor accommodarions were constructe:<! at lhe site (Andau 1987}. Research conductc:d 

at lhe site in lhe late 1980s verified lhat at least one 

population of rhinos was decUnlng in numbers (Ahmad 

1991}. By 1989 a traverse lhrough lhe area recordc:d 

only a single set of rhino footprints (Payne 1990b ). 

A second area, lhe Silabukan Forest Reserve, had been 

commerclaUy logged since lhe 1960s, even while it was 

lhought to contain one of lhe largest remaining concen· 

tration of rhinos in Sabah. In lhe early 1980s, Davies and 

Payne ( 1982) verilic:d lhe presence of a breeding population of Sumatran rhinos in this lowland forest and 

pushc:d for protection of lhe area. FlnaUy, in 1984 1220 

km2 were gaaettc:d by the Sabah government as lhe 

Tabin Wildlife Reserve, primarily for lhe protection of 

rhinos (Andau 1987}. But, selective logging in lhe re· 

serve continued under license lhrough 1986 (Payne 

1986) and "unolliciaUy" through lhe early 1990s. 

Six walk-lhrough surveys in Tabin conducted by lhe 

Wildlife Department between 1980 and 1991 indicated 

a minimum of three to seven rtiirlos .in the area, with 

steady declines in Thino sign between lhe 1982 and 

1991 surveys (Jomitin 1991). Noticeable shifts in rhind 

distributions between surveys caused cnouJh alarm tor the recommendation of urgent follow·up rcsclittch to 

investigate lhe possibility of declining rhino illillllle!f!l 

(Shukor et at. 1989). No such tesear~h ~ cv~r co~: 

ductc:d . . The ,first ~elli ~~~ t.;,; 11\e ~"~~~Iii 

t~YI\'= 1986> mtcd HliliS i\btt:lllili as the ltlosr set! ~ 

illrbi,iS iii< v.in"_lltfibln. . << ''·' •• iii~. Aii2n lthinO, Acilon,Pian. (Khan 1\18?~ Tlbln 

Witdllte Re5erve aJid. Dan\lrQ, )l~ey were tln&ted out u 

11\c ·tW9 iiiatn ir~. iVhere VW.ie population• ottere likely stlU. to ~tst ln ·Sabah. Tbc plan cited estimates of 20 and 

IO}'Idlvldulll, respectively, although no definitive sur· 

'ttf$ had been carried out at dther site:. Specific a(;tivt· 

ties recommended by lhc plan for protecting rhlnooln 

Sabah include:<! lhe following: 

( I ) strenglh<ning lhe stalling. funding, and IOI!lillcil 

support of lhc Sabih Wildlik b~lttfticrlt to ..UoW 

123 

lor ~ctive protection and rcscarch of 'Mid rhino 

populations; 

( 2) stricter legislatiOn oplnst rhino poaching; 

(3) rcvi.,.. of lhe sltJe \1l1d protected status of Danum 

VaUey CO<ISCMtlon Area and Tahin Wildlife Re· 

serve. 

( 4) Surveys in Danum and Tabln to detennllle the tiUe 

status of the rhinos thett. 

( 5) Capture of lsolatm 0< lllreatened rhinos foe captive breedina or tnnslocation. 

These recommenditlolls, while appropriate, did llttll! 

more than rephnse similar recomlncndaliclnlllliille due· 

ing lhe first meeting of lhe Asian IUilno Specialist Group 

in 1979. The fact lhat !here had been littk progress on 

lhese issues, 1Q years 111\er they had lint bcal dl5cusSed, 

was not mentioned As of i 992, tllom: were Still no «:· 

liable estimates of rhino dthsitics lor any part oi Sabah. 

Of lhe five activities tecommended by lhe Attlon Pian, 

only lhe captute or doomed rhinoS was carried oui wiih 

any serious int~nL 

In September 1992, I organiZed a rhino sUJ:Vey by lhc 

aulhor at lhe request of lhe Sabah Foundation and ihe 

Sabah Wildlife Department to assess rhino abundance 

and to standardize a methodology for future rhino sur· 

veys and monitoring· in lhe area. The survey was also 

intended to provide data to lhe Sabah Wildlife Depart· 

ment for use in upgrading lhe Greater Danum Valley 

Conservation Area into a park or wildlife reserve, 

Using methodology developed by Botner ( 1979) and 

van Strien ( 1986 }, two smaU groups of rhinos, each con· 

sisting of two to three individuals, were found lhrough 

intense surveying of areas totalling 80 km2 (Rabinowica 

1992). J.ssu!Wn& lh~1 .. oW.c~ tlliDOI miJII!t be tlmilarly 

dlltrlbUted, 1111 Hllmtte of 1~23 rhinos wu made foe 

lhe IOOO·tan• Grtltcr 0111\um Villey Conserntion Area. 

While thl!l ntlinatt Wil!l ffiote thalltwlce lhat speculated 

by ihe ~lillllllllilo OII Plait (khllll 1989), thi• survey 

put to rest ihe ~UlliJlUOII !1\tt mu~h of !he area was uiidJ.iliUffitd alld jjttlt~ ted by vittul! of Its ruggedness 

artJl,.i-\jl~ilbii. . .• ' 

tliilj> IWtl Out Qt seven teams found rece.iu evideo10,e of 

!~ ?.f~~ . j~5 ~$ nc unl~rcd o~y 01d rhihO \80· !Ji wl\11. old. hunting camps. This included an 

area. wbcre rhinos had been studied in 1986 (Ahmad 

1991) but were now no longer present. Of the two 

teams that discovered fresh rhino sign, one was located 

adjacent to lhe fteld station and tourist accommoda· 

Uons, an area with regular human activity but no hunt· 

ing. The second team, which wu dropped by helicopter 

into the moat remote section of the study arc:a, encoun· 

[ercd an onsoing rhino-poaching expedition. The hunters lied along a well-used trail peppered wllh old camp· 

sites, Indicating a history of poaching In lhe area. 

Despite: the serious and unexpected nature of these 

findings, lhere was no attempt by lhe Wildlife Depart· 

Conserndon BJoloiY Volume 9, No. 3, JUM 199' 
486 Tbt Sumalt'211 Rhino in Borneo 

ment to look into the situation. The following year there 

were: srill no patrols sent infO lhe area, nor any effort to 

check or monitor the recem rhino sign lhat had been 

derected. Because no immediate action was taken ro 

change the protected status of the Danum Valley despire 

the survey, the Wildlife Department did not feel compelled to pursue further surveys or. management activi· 

tics in the area. 

In Tabin Wildlife Reserve, meanwhile, other activities 

were underway. As part of an environmencal management project funded by the United Nations Develop· 

ment Program in the early 1990s, a wildlife specialist 

was hired as a consultant to the Sabah Wildlife Depanment, and a New Zealand consulting firm was contracted to provide a manager for the Tabin Reserve. A 

second Tab in Management Plan was produced ( ANZEC 

1992) that did little more than restate the initial 1986 

plan (Payne 1986 ). IUegal logging and poaching were 

still identified as the major threacs to the reserve. 

Despite new infrastructure, the assignment of a full· 

time staJf, and the presence of foreign consultants assigned to Tabin Reserve, there were still no systematic 

patrols or surveying of the area when I visited and 

trained staff there in 1992. During a 1992 elephant census in Tabin, spoor of only one rhino was encountered 

in Il81cm of transects (Dawson 1992). Later that year, 

rhino tr2.cks were sigtued cl~ to the Tabin ranger St2· 

tion in an area frequented by visicors and researchers 

but with virtually no hunting pressures. Although the 

implication of these track locations, which were similar 

to some of the track locations in the earlier Danum 

rhino survey, were of potential managemem impor· 

tance, there was never any follow-up to the reports. At 

the time of this writing, there has not been a single 

reliable estimate of the number of rhinos that migbt still 

survive in Tabin, nor has any systematic management 

been carried out for the species. 

With encouragement from the foreign wildlife specialist, the Sabah Wildlife Department shifted most of its 

emphasis to the capture of doomed Sumatran rhinos--

this, despite the fact that organized patrols in the field 

were not being encouraged, proper surveys were not 

being carried out, and the foreign consultants themsdves were insufficiently trained to handJe wild·caught 

rhinos. Furthermore, the definition of doomed rhinos 

had now been expanded to include any rhino found or 

captured outside of an already existing protected area, 

which did little to encourage new rhino surveys or the 

protection of remaining forest areas where rhinos still 

survived. 

Of two new rhinos captured since 1992, both in the 

forests of an area proposed for protection along the Kinabatangan River, one died in C2ptivity under the care of 

a foreign veterinarian sponsored by the United Natiorui 

Development Program and another was radio-collared 

by the Program's wildlife specialist and put in an enclo· 

Coruc!"'allon 8lol01f 

Volumt' 9, No. ,i. jUne' 199~ 

124 

sure in Tabin. The rhino immedialc:ly broke free of the 

enclosure and went into the forest. Despite the collar, 

the animal was never followed after its escape. Under 

the same management, efforts to capture, collar, and 

relocate additional rhinos were continued. 

Discussion 

Despite protective legislation and the creation of protected areas where rhinos survive, Sumatran rhino populations continue to decline. Within the last two decades, the international community has stepped in to 

assist in the prmectlon of this species. During that time, 

every report, management strategy, and action plan has 

come to the same conclusion: The decrease in rhino 

populations is due to poaching carried out primarily to 

collect the hom and to habitat loss as land is converted 

to other uses. 

The problem, however, has been that once: the causes 

of decline of the Sumatran rhino were recognized, the 

actions needed to remove or neutralize these causes 

were never fully implemented. Both Malaysia and Indo· 

nesia acceded to the Convention on International Trade 

of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), 

in 1978 and 1979 r<spectively, which effectively 

banned the legal trade in rhino products. Yet the legislation needed to fully implement CITES W2S never enacted in either country (Nichols et al. 1991 ). Furthermore, even the existing legislation relating to wildlife 

protection in Malaysia and Indonesia was rarely used to 

discourage trade in rhino parts or to prosecute offenders. 

In Sabah, as elsc'where, the easiest, most palatable, and 

most visible steps toward Sumatran rhino conservation 

were taken first. Rhino habitat was better secured 

through the creation of protected areas that were not 

controversial and thac caused minimal interference with 

ongoing logging activities and agricultural development 

plans. Tabin Wildlife Reserve, for example, gained full 

protection only after most of the valuable timber had 

~en taken out, and Danum Valley remains protected 

only at the discretiorf of the Sabah Foundation, the 

stare's largest timber concessionaire. Other manage· 

ment activities, such as antipoaching patrols, education 

campaigns, and surveys to assess the adequacy of re· 

serve size, were increasingly discussed but never implemented because they were more difficult, time consuming, and som.etimes conlroversial if they conflicted with 

existing land-use policies. 

Emphasis in time, money, and effon has been placed 

on the capture and breeding of rhinos, despite the fact 

that such activities alone, even if successful. would not 

solve the problem nor remove the causal factors of 

rhino decline in the wild. Although such activities involve known techniques and provide a high-profile out-
~binowitz 

let for govemment spending and intemational funding, 

the implication that captive breeding can save the Sumatr:m rhino makes the failure of in situ conservation 

seem less serious. This, in turn, helps create a self· 

fulfilling prophecy ·that wild populations have a low 

probability of survival. 

Olughley ( 1994) distinguishes two advancing fronts 

in the field of conservation biology. The first, which he 

calls the declining-population paradigm, is concerned 

with the external causes that drive populations toward 

extinction. Research efforts are aimed at determining 

why populations are declining and how to neutralize the 

causes. The second, called the small-population paradigm, deals with the risk of extinction as a consequence 

of small population size. Here one deals with the genetics and dynamics of a small, finite population. While the 

Conner paradigm is mostly empirical and lacks scientific 

rigor, the latter is mostly theoretical and thus more attractive by virtue of its seemingly "hard" scientific ap· 

proach. 

The small·population paradigm dominated much of 

the science of conservation biOlogy in the 1980s (see 

Soule & Wilcox 1980; Frankel & Soule 1981; Soule 

1986, 1987), but it is almost completely removed from 

the real world ( Olughley 1994 ). The proponents of this 

approach, using tenns such as extinction vortices, min· 

imum viable populations, popUlation and habitat viabil· 

icy analyses, inbreeding depression, and metapopulation 

analysis, do their field work in the laboratory, in captiveholding facilities, and at the computer. They acknowl· 

edge the need for in situ protection of wild populations, 

but their results almost always point to the same conclusion: declining populations in the wild will tvtnN· 

ally become extinct, and thus captive breeding is 

needed to save the species. 

Using decision analysis, Maguire et al. ( 1987) pre· 

dieted the probability of SUmatran rhino extinction if 

cenain actions were or were not taken by Indonesia and 

Malaysia. The choice of possible actions included in· 

creased control on poaching, new and/or expanded pro· 

cected areas, fencing of existing protected areas, trans· 

location, and captive breeding. Not surprisingly, the 

cap[ure and breeding of wild rhinos were viewed as the 

most promising means of saving the s~cies. 

But as with other auempts at linking theory with man· 

agement applications, the actual attempts to establish a 

captive Sumatran rhino herd that would help repopulate 

the wild herd fell far short of expectations. Not only was 

the sex ratio of captured Sumatran rhinos highly 

skewed, but those in captivity proved extremely difficult to breed. Furthermore, the international and regional captive-breeding programs were subjected to the 

same political and economic realitles that caused Ma· 

guire et aJ. (1987) to so easily discard other conserva· 

tion actions. 

While some of the blame for the decline of the Suma125 

The Sum~tran Rhino in Bom«J 487 

tran rhino must be placed on the Indonesian and Ma· 

laysian governments, the rest of it falls squarely in the 

lap of international funding and conservation orgartiza· 

tions. The international community, with its funding and 

expertise, has played a major role in directing 'he 

course of rhino conservation over the last quarter century. Unfortunately, it has uied to avoid dirtying its 

hands with controversial and difficult issues such as 

poaching, protected-area staff training and wages, and 

the establishment of new reserves in areas where local 

communjties, government agencies, or entrepreneurs 

wish to alter or use the land for other purposes. Foreign 

advisers and nongovernment conservation organizations have all too often avoided such issues because of 

the risk of becoming an unwelcomed guest. 

While political, cultural, and socioeconomic issues in 

Indonesia and Malaysia continue to interfere wirh Suma· 

uan rhino protection, these difficulties have never been 

insurmountable. The rhino simply has not been considered important enough for governments and large fund· 

ing agencies to tackle these realities. Only when a firm 

commitment is made to save the Sumatran rhino will the 

species stand a chance of survival. Regrewbly, our years 

of accumulated failures and avoidance of issues have not 

moved us closer to this kind of a commitment. The 1993 

report of the Asian Rhino Specialist Group to the United 

Nations Environment Program Conference for Rhinoc· 

eros Range Sta[es, Consumer States, and Donors, esti· 

mated a new three-year cost for rhino conServation in 

Indonesia and Malaysia at approximately US It 4 milllon. 

As part of this cost, a two·million·doll2r prograro by the 

Global Environmental Facility is already underway to 

establish yet another conservation strategy for southeast 

Asian rhinos in Indonesia and Malaysi:i.. This "new" sttat· 

egy, based primarily on viable population theory, enW!s 

the foUowing components: wild population protection, 

sanctuary management, captive propagation, and gene· 

bank technologies. The suategy ignores the fact that the 

only means likely to save the rhino in the wild involves 

intensive, on-the-ground protection and management 

ac[ivities. 

Meanwhile, the decline of the Sumatran rhino continues. In August 1994, 12 more Sumatran rhino horns 

were confiscated in Taiwan that had been smuggled on 

a fishing boat from Malaysia (The Jakarta Post, August 9, 

1994 ). In Sabah, the Wildlife Deparrment continues to 

capture doomed rhinos from areas that have no' been 

adequately surveyed nor even considered for protected 

status. After all these years, do we know how many 

Sumatran rhinos we are dealing with? No, but soon we 

might have a nice round figure. 

Acknowledgments 

I would like to thank George Amato, William Conway, 

Jim Doherty, John Robinson, Christina Spotgler, Peter 

Consci'Yadon IUolosY 

Volume 9, No. },june 199' 
Walsh. <111d three anonymous reviewers for helpful sug· 

fti$1JON and critial review of the 11WW5Crip~ 

..-reCII(cd 

Ahmad. Abd., Halnid tun. 1991 . A srudy ol current abundanc;c and 

seven~ oop«U on th< l«dinJ «ooosY c( ....,..,.. rl>lnocftot 

(~"""-u-..oo1Gto¥COI96S)Inth<Dinluo 

Valley Add Ca>b< AI<>.,_ DaN. Sol>oh. B.S.- Univeftl<y 

"-' ""m'a.- Anaw, P. 1987. ConactvaUon o( the Sumatnn rtllnoccros ln Saba.h, 

~--lalCD(1)•3!>-46. 

ANQ<; U..Md CONu.lunts. 1992. Saba.h cn'+'ironmC'nW mana,cmmt 

plan l'oc' Tabin. and Kubroba WUdUfc Rc:xtvcs. Rcpon. to Unltcd 

N ...... Dcvclopmcnt ........... KD<a KiNbolu. Mobysia. 

Bock. C. 1884. Tc:rDplcs and dcphanlS! 1be n:arnUvc ot.a jowncy Q( 

CKplon<ion tbrousl> upp« Siam and too. 5amp<on '-• M-on. 

...... "' ........... Loodon. ... Wllilt OI<Nd ....... Banpo!L 

Bomer, M. 1979. ,0, !i<11! lllt\IY <liM Sunwnn rbino<croo~l· !!"'_... Ecolot!Yand bdlmourconoc...uon>ltuallon In 

~Jw;s Dwd< • vm.a, Zw1<h. 

-....,}. IIS1()969~ Tho Jdnadom aDd pccpl< ofSiua. Oxfcnl 

l.loi-<y-"""' Lunlput. 

Cauplcy, G. 1994. DirectioN in conscrndon bM>IofY.J""""" of An· 

..... EcolotiY 63•21 s-24<. 

c.r..lxoolc. G. G. 1987. Tho ricba Ot 1bc wtlcl• LvM1 .......... of 

--"""- Oxfcnl Unl....,.<y ....... Slnppot<. Davies, G., md j . Payne. 1982. A faunal '-"Vt:y ol s.bah.. Rc:port to the 

Game Branch. Sobah Foratty Dcpartmcnc Wod<l Wlldlift Fw>dloblsysio. Kuob Lunlput. """"""s 1992. Eotlowins <lq>Nnl ~ \!1 T ..... Wlldllle ... 

,...., Saboh. ._ '\>.~ W\I<Wf< ~ WoridWildllf< 

~~-.._.. 

fl~" 111!19. lne<n>atlooal-lr.l<lt•- buJinao Is 111 Wo,ld W!ldli'II'UncS-USA. W..,....on. D.C. 

._, J. ....a~~- 199'- Intcmadooal-fotlbc 

......_ rl1lno (~~--~Tho Wilds. Colum· 

bua.OIIlo-

-

~ 

0 . K .. IIMI M. E. Soul~. 1981. ~ ""'noludoa. 

IJohoaslty ....... Canlbrtda<. fi>Pnd. ...,_, N. 1688 (1989~ The naNn! and political hbtory of th< 

~of Slua. Tnaslatlon by }cl>n Y~ Will« Lotus Pr<ss. 

llanola>IL Gtova. C.~· 196,. l>rc:latptiocl ol a new subepc:ck:s 01 Rhlnoccrol.. 

trona Borr~u>, o~ ~ ~t Sauacticr· 

""""'lcb< MlneUunacn liiD(3)•123-UI. 

llatNoon, T. 19SS. Bomeo founa ...,......,. 0ry>< 3(3)•134-137. 

Hatris:loa, T. 1956. Rltinoc:«<S in Bomco and «ndcd to OUna. 1'be 

Satawok ......... - · Vll (8~ 1Wc1>in8. Sonw.k. ttarrblon. T. 1965. A future l'or Bomco's . (lqiii(2):99-IG4, 

Hatritaoa.. T .• uUtor. 198& Bomco ~All acc:ou.nc o1 the Oxford 

Univcnlcy -\illlllfl93J. OXto.d Unl~ Pras, Oxfunl. 

tuRb. ~ P •• and W. w. Rockhill. 191 t. Owl Ju·kua: His work on the 

Odnnc and Anb trade in lbe twdfth and lhirtttnth cmtw'ies, 

<atidcd 0\u-&n<N.In>p<rialA<ad<my of5a<ncco. Sc • ............._ 

........ J..,.t!A.C. 1991 Arq>ortonaaoN<yc(~~"~l\IW:IIdll(< 

RcscN<, Saboh 16-i«1111~ Ullll· ~ 1\\ Ill<- Wlldlae De· 

' ~f!ll:~~~·, "Wa~ . ~ Ill- \~ ~ - · on action pion lot 1h<it c........,.tioto. . .,.,~~ Unlcn. Gbnd, sw;tz<t,.;., . l(Jcw, 8. H. 1976. A "'"'<l' of th< J>fOI>O!!Cd D¥.um V'!'I<Y ......... 

1'2ri<.Sabah. World Wildlik ~~ ~ .._. 

Lob.)., ""' K. Lob, I~ lllolno II' T~ '1'-'fnllk 8ul· 

lnln 1oi(l);.5s-58, . 

Voll.&alc 

~-­t. No l. J~ tm 

126 

1M. J., and k. Loh. 1994b. A spot check on the avaibbWty of rhino 

products in Guanphou and StunghaJ. China. Traffic Bulletin 

140) 7~. 

Macuire. 

~ 

LA .. U. S. Seat, and P. F. Brus.wd. 1987. Manaaina: critically 

~des: the Sumatn.n rhino as a Ca.K SNcty. Paces 141-118 in M. E. Soul~. editor. Vl.abk populations Cor conscrv:a· 

tion. Catnbridgt' Univef'5ity Prd.s, Cambridsc, England. 

Marsh. C. W .• and A. G. Greer. 1992. ~ land·wc l.n Sabah, MabysU: 

An lnuoduction to Oanum Valley. Phi.losophia.l Tr2N1Ctlons ot 

th< Royal So<lecy of London B 33S•331-339. 

MWs,). Y. G. 1970. Y""·YaiSbo:ng·l.allofMaHuan(IOH Tnns!at<d 

from thC' 0\in<:se taL H2kluyt Society, Catrtbrid8c, England. 

MJObcr& £. 1930. Forot ltk and td¥mNres ln the Malay archipclaco. 

Translated from Swcdbh. Georae AJJcn & Unwin. London, En&bnd. Nichols, Q. G., JC. S. Fuller, E. McShanc-Caluzi, and E. Klctner· 

ldcCNOdc. 1991. WUdutc trade bws ot Asia and OcanJa. Tratfic 

U.S.A. . ..,......,. ... D.C. 

Nowell, K., Otyi Wci·Ucn. and Pd Chia-jai. 1992. The horru rL a 

d.ilcmrna: 1bc trwii:Cl fOf" rhino hom in Tatwan. Tratfic lntcma· 

...... ~ En&Jand. Payne, J. 1986. Tabin WUdlife ltc:scrve, Sabah: a pre:Umloary 

mcnt plan. Rq>on to Sabah ForC$t OcpanmenL World WUdlU'c 

f'Und.-Malaysla, Kuala l..utcpur. 

Payne,}. 1990a The discrlbuc.ion and swu.s of the Asian two-homed 

rbinoc:ctos (DI«rof"blraw $lltr~Q/'rmsls ba:n1.sso"l) in SabaJ:l ~-. laysia.. Project 393'. World Wildlife Fund~~~~fl , Kuala l.umpUI'. . 

Payne, J. 199Gb. llcpof1 ~ 1. ~C'Y ol the. distrilxltion of rhinoceros 

in IOU.~~ Sabah. November~ 1989. Wortd Wild· 

Ilk Funci-:Malaysia. Saboh Dcputm<n• Kota Klnabalu, Malaysia. 

Rablnowjtt, A. 1992. Rhino twVC')' In the Grt"akr Oanura Consc:rva· 

lion Area. WOcWt'c Comcrvat10n Society, New Yort.. 

Rnd.. B. E. 1982. Olincsc: nutetia lllCdka: animal drup. Southcm Ma· 

CCrials Center, Taipct. 

· Rookmakcr, L C. 1977. The distribution and status of the rhinoceros 

Dkworlllruu ftlmotrmsU, in Borneo--a rC"+'icw. BiJdraat'n tot~ 

- 47(2)•197-2().1 . 

Sc.tuter, E. H. t963. 1bc:aoldcnpcachcsolSatoarbnd:AsrudyotTang 

c:xocic:$. Univcnity ol Calitomia Press, Berkeley. 

Shctfotd., R. W. C. 1916. A natw"allst in Borneo. T. F«~r Unwin, Lon· 

don. 

Shukor M. N .. LN. Ambu, and A. Tuup. 1989. 1\hlno sury~ tA 'hbln 

'lllildllf< Racm: Lahad Datu. Saboh Muxum. ~ 3o77-<ll. 

SouSt, M. E. 1986. ConJc:rn.t&on ~ llM -~ ol scarCity and 

diversity. Sinaucr ~ $Unckrland, Massacbuxtts. 

Sou. It, M. E. 1 9t;l7 .. ~4*1 .,;,pulaUOn.s for conservation. catnbrtdgc 

un1~-. cambridg<, England. 

. M. !., and 8. A. WUcox, editors. 1980. Conservation biOIOSf: an 

evoluUon:uy<eologkal pc:rspccdvc. Si.nauer Associa~ . Sunder· 

land, Massachusc:ns. 

Ta·Kuatt, Choo. 1993. The WStOmSofCambodia 11296-12~7~. TtaAS· 

btu!lnco English from the French by P:aul Pc\Uot ol;·ortgi.nal Chi· 

nest text by J. Gilman d 'AI'Cy Paul.~~ Society, Banpok. 

Talbo<, L 1960. A look at lll<ttl~ ~ Or)o< Y(4&S)•IS3-29S. 

van Stricn. N. \ ... 1bc:. Su.matn.n rftlnoccros Dt~l"w SlltJII41· 

~ Efbchcr, 181-4) In the Gununa Lcustt NatiOnal Park Suma· ~ ._,... Yulsg Paul Pu<y, H........._ van WUSlbof, · 1871 . VOfliC l.oitain 21WI: Roytwnes de Cambodgc ct 

laouwcn. Bulletin de la Societe etc. Gcop~ . Sixitmc Scric, 

Tome Ocux:le~. 

Wc:cc:SQQ., W. C. M. 1906. A )oumcy across Blicbh North Bomco to.. 

Jfckf; ~ilh a brid account ol SOIDC futtber c:xplondons In the 

IJuaior 0( chat state. Utq)UbUshcd tqJOn. Sabah Su.cc Ard\l.ves, 

Kota Kdubalu, """ysia. 

Yen. Kun·Y"* 1991. The iUusuu:cd Cbinne materia mcdlca.: crude and_....... SMC PubllJilln&. Talpd. 
127 

AECA Grant Projects 

in Range Countries 
African Elephant Conse

Distribution of G

[ nvrorwnental lnve$tJc.tion A/lertcy 

*A Percentage of total funds allocated FY90-FY95 
129 

AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION ACT 

GRANT PROGRAM 

The African Elephant Conservation Act (AECA) was enacted in October, 1988 

in response to the then alarming decline of African elephants since the 

mid-1970's. This Act provides for two actions: (1) the review of African 

elephant conservation programs in each ivory producing country and the 

establishment of a moratorium on ivory from any country that fails to 

maintain an adequate elephant conservation program and (2) the development of a grant program to provide financial assistance to support protection, conservation, and management of African elephants. In accordance with the 

first provision, the President, in June, 1989, established a moratorium on 

all ivory imports. While it was determined that several countries were 

able to maintain adequate conservation programs internally, there was no 

effective mechanism to control international trade in ivory products. That 

moratorium remains in effect. 

A total not to exceed $5 million for each of fiscal years 1989, 1990, 1991, 

1992 and 1993 was authorized to be appropriated to an African Elephant Conservation Fund established for the grant program. The Congress appropriated $350,000 in fiscal year 1990, $765,999 in fiscal year 1991, $957,000 in fiscal year 1992, and $1,15g,ooo in fiscal year 19g3. The AECA 

was reauthorized in 1992 for 7 years. A total of $1,137,000 was 

appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 1994, and a total of $1,166,?t67 

was appropriated for fi.scal year 1995. Over 300 proposals exceeding $240 

million have been received under the program. Most proposals total cost 

far exceed the funds available annually, and as such matching donor 

cooperators and reduced scopes of work are developed for highest priority project proposals based on program criteria. To date, 62 grants, involving 48 projects, in 17 African countries have been funded with the combined 

total of $5,102,881 obligated for the program . . These projects have been 

administered in cooperation with a total of 3 African governments (Burkina 

Faso, Malawi, and Tanzania) and a total of 19 non-government organizations. In addition, $7,092,479.00 has been generated through matching funds to 

augment the support made available through the grant program. 

CRITERIA FOR FUNDING GRANT PROJECTS 

The Act established specific criteria for project proposals and project review and approval. Additionally the Conference Report, adopted with the 

passage of the Act, identified priority actions for funding. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service uses these criteria and direction in administering the 

grant program. Projects are evaluated for funding based on the following criteria: 

1. PROJECTS WITH AFRICAN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. The Act encourages African 

government agencies responsible for African elephant conservation to submit 

proposals and. requires that evidence of support by governmental entities 

of countries where the project is to be conducted accompany any project proposal submitted by nongovernmental organizations or the private sector. 
130 

The Service works through the Department of State to coordinate local 

government participation . African countries that demonstrate a desire to 

enhance elephant conservation programs will receive priority for funding. 

Also, projects where two or more African countries work cooperatively on elephant conservation programs will receive priority for funding. National 

government priorities are considered first priority for funding if several 

projects are received for a country. 

2. PROJECTS DIRECTED AT ANTI-POACHING. The Conference Report identified assistance that would be used in efforts to halt the poaching of 

elephants as that most urgently needed by the African countries and 

directed that a high priority be given to projects that would assist such 

efforts.· The majority of project proposals received to date indicate that, even with the recent ban on ivory importations, local government priorities are for anti-poaching assistance . Such projects receive first priority for 

funding . 

3. PROJECTS THAT ADDRESS COUNTRY ELEPHANT CONSERVATION PLANS. The Act 

encourages the development of biologically sound conservation programs and 

establishes criteria that give priority to projects that develop sound 

scientific information necessary to insure healthy, sustainable Afri can elephant populations. An international coordination group has assisted 

range countries in developing country conservation plans, and other 

countries have produced theirs independently. The goal of this process is 

to assist African governments by providing the means to maintain 

ecologically viable elephant populations. These plans identify country 

specific actions required to maintain elephant populations at sustainable 

levels. Projects that support implementation of country plans receive 

priority for funding . 

4. HIGHEST PRIORITY PROJECTS IN EACH REGION. The Act recognizes the 

importance of the elephant in maintaining the biological diversity of 

Africa and encourages all countries within the range of the African 

elephant to support its conservation. The Act recognizes that some African 

countries have effective elephant conservation programs, but that many others do not have sufficient resources to properly manage, conserve and 

protect their elephant populations. Priority will be given to funding projects in each of the four geographic regions in Africa to restore and 

maintain healthy elephant populations, in balance with local ecological conditions, over the widest possible extent of their historic range. 

5. COOPERATIVE PROJECTS WITH MATCHING FUNDS. The Act provides for the 

acceptance and use of donations to provide assistance to projects funded 

under the grant program. Priority will be given to cooperative projects that provide for matching funds from other sources and/or provide interim 

support for projects with future funding secured . 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Biologist Mark Phillips, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Office of Management Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive 

Room 420C, Arlington, VA 22203, telephone 703/358-2104, extension 5450. 
131 

PROJECTS FUNDED THROUGH 6/20/96 

(RANGE-WIDE PROJECTS) 

AECCG DATABASE. Funding was provided to the African Elephant Conservation 

Coordinating Group to support development and maintenance of the 

African Elephant Project Database, to initiate the development of 

specific Elephant Conservation Plans for each range state, and to 

support regional meetings on elephant conservation in West and Central 

Africa . (FY92) 

AESG ACTIVITIES. Funding was provided to the International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature to assist the African Elephant Specialist Group in its efforts to develop the most current data base for elephant conservation . (FY91, FY93, and FY96) 

AWARDS PROGRAM. Funding was provided to the Southern Africa Wildlife Trust 

to support a meritorious service awards program to recognize wildlife 

rangers that have demonstrated bravery beyond the call of duty in 

African elephant anti-poaching enforcement operations. (FY93, FY94 and 

FY95) 

CITES LAW ENFORCEMENT SEMINAR. Funding was provided to the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species Secretariat to assist in the 

development of a law enforcement seminar dealing specifically wit~ 

African elephant anti-poaching and law enforcement issues. The seminar 

would develop a model program for use throughout Africa . (FY92) 

CITES ASSISTANCE TO COP 9. Funding was provided to the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species Secretariat for African 

elephant related issues relative to the 9TH Meeting of the Conference 

of the Parties. (FY95) 

EDG ACTIVITIES. Two projects were funded in cooperation with the 

Environment & Development Group. The first, to coordinate a meeting on 

the African elephant in Botswana, and the second, to make an assessment 

of investments in elephant conservation. (FY94, FY95) 

NAIROBI CONFERENCE. In corporation with the European Economic Community and the Government of France, funding was provided to the United 

Nations Environmental Program to hold an inte~national meeting in 

Nairobi, Kenya on elephant conservation focusing on the coordinated 

development of priority projects for elephant conservation and 

coordination of donor country bi-lateral project funding. (FY92) 

TRAFFIC. Funding was provided to the World Wildlife Fund for Nature for 

two projects. The first assisted in the funding of African elephant 

related activites associated with the establishment of a TRAFFIC office 

for EAST/SOUTHERN Africa, a.nd the second project provided funding to 

assist in the development of a data base on current ivory stockpiles. (FY93, FY94 and FY95) 
132 

UNEP. Funding was provided to the United Nations Environmemt Programme for 

the development of the Lusaka Agreement on Co-operative Law Enforcement 

Operations directed at illegal trade in wild fauna and flora, with a focus on elephant ivory. (FY94) 

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY. Funding was provided to conduct genetic research to 

explore the possibility of the existence of two separate species of 

African elephant and the management implications of such a possiblility. (FY95) 

WWF . Funding was provided to World Wide Fund for Nature to provide technical assistance on elephant conservation projects throughout the 

African elephant range states. (FY95) 

(COUNTRY SPECIFIC PROJECTS) 

BOTSWANA. Funding was provided in cooperation with the World Wildlife Fund 

for Nature and the Department of Wildlife and National Parks to assist 

in the development and implementation of an elephant conservation plan 

for Chobe National Park. (FY91) 

BURKINA FASO. Funding was provided to the Director of National Parks and 

Reserves for elephant anti -poaching and management .assistance. (FY90) 

CAMEROON. Three projects were funded . One, in cooperation with the 

American Embassy, provided equipment to the Department of Wildlife and 

National Parks for elephant anti-poaching operations in Waza National 

Park. The second in cooperation with the World Wildlife Fund for Nature 

provided funding to assess the impacts of crop raiding elephants, and 

the third, also in cooperation with the World Wide Fund for Nature 

provided funding for the monitoring of elephant populations. (FY91, 

FY93 and FY95) 

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC. Four projects were funded. Two were in 

cooperation with the World Wildlife Fund, to provide elephant antipoaching equipment and assistance in Dzanga-Sangha Reserve, and 

elephant surveys in the Bangassou forests. A third, with the U.S. Embassy, was to facilitate outreach to rural communities on elephant conservation . The fourth project was in cooperation with the Wildlife 

Conservation Society for elephant research . (FY90, FY93, and FY94) 

CONGO. Funding was provided in cooperation with Wildlife Conservation 

Society to provide anti -poaching e~uipment and assistance in the Congo. 

(FY93 and FY96) 

ERITREA. Funding was provided for the protection of a remnant population of 

elephants recently discovered along the Eritrea/Ethiopia border in 

cooperation with the State Department . (FY96) 

GABON. Funding was provided in cooperation with the World Wildlife Fund 

and the Department of Wildlife and Hunting for anti-poaching assistance 
133 

in the Petit Loango Faunal Reserve, and the Gamba Protected Area. 

(FY90, and FY93} 

GHANA. Funding was provided in cooperation with the Wildlife Conservation 

Society to train Ghanian wildlife officers in elephant biology and 

ecology. (FY95} 

KENYA. Two projects were funded . The first provided funding for the 

compilation of a comprehensive reference library on the African 

elephant, in cooperation with UNEP. The second provided funding for 

improving techniques in African elephant applied research and 

monitoring, in cooperation with the World Wide Fund for Nature. (FY94 

and FY96} 

MALAWI. Three projects were funded in Malawi with the Department of 

National Parks, Wildlife and Tourism. One project conducted a status 

survey of elephants in Malawi's protected areas, a second provided 

emergency assistance for water due to the drought conditions, and a third provided assistance to the CITES Standing Committee. (FY90, FY92, 

and FY93} 

MALI. One project was funded in cooperation with the State Department to 

manage the elephants in the Gourma region . (FY95} 

MOZAMBiQUE. Funding was provided in cooperation with the Environmental 

Investigation Agency and the World Bank for the rehabilitation of 1the 

Maputo Elephant Reserve. (FY95} 

NAMIBIA. Two projects were funded. One was in cooperation with the World 

Wildlife Fund, to respond to an emergency disease outbreak in the 

desert elephant due to the drought. The second was in cooperation with 

the Namibia Nature Foundation to coordinate transborder aerial elephant 

status surveys. (FY 92 and FY93} 

SENEGAL. A cooperative project was funded with Senegal National Parks 

Service and the Friends of Animals to provide anti -poaching assistance 

to Niokolo-Koba National Park, which contains the western most 

remaining elephant population on the continent. (FY93 and FY95) 

TANZANIA. Six projects were funded in Tanzania in cooperation with the 

Tanzania Department of Wildlife . One assisted the Department in the 

administration of the Eastern Africa Regional Meeting on elephant 

management and conservation. The second provided anti-poaching equipment and assistance to the Department of Wildlife in cooperation with the African Safari Club of Washington, D.C .. The third provided excess U.S. military vehicles to the Department for elephant antipoaching operations. The fourth was a cooperative project with the 

Friends of Conservation to provide security assistance and to conduct 

status surveys of elephants in the Serengeti Ecosystem. The fifth was a project with Safari Club International supporting a game scout quota 

monitoring program. The sixth was a project with the Center for 

Wildlife Conservation assessing long term impacts of elephant poaching. (FY91, FY92, fYg3, and FY95} 
1M 

ZAMBIA. Two projects were funded in Zambia. One was a cooperative project with the World Wildlife Fund and the Zambia Anti-Corruption Commission 

to establish a Species Protection Unit to assist in elephant antipoaching efforts. The second was a cooperative project with the 

African Safari Club of Washington, D.C. and the Minister of Tourism and 

Natural Resources to provide elephant anti-poaching equipment and 

assistance to their Remote Game Scout Program. (FY90, FY91, and FY95) 

ZIMBABWE. Five projects were funded in Zimbabwe. Two were in cooperation with the African Safari .Club of Washington, D.C. and the Department of 

National Parks and Wildlife, for elephant anti-poaching equipment and 

assistance in the Lower Zambezi Valley and, for an intelligence liason 

support project. The third, in cooperation with the American Embassy provided emergency assistance to the Department to assist in the 

development of techniques for translocation of elephants. The fourth 

was a project with Safari Club International to introduce a 

comprehensive system of quota setting and monitoring in rural 

communities. The fifth was a project with the University of Cambridge 

to study deterrence of crop-raiding elephants. (FY91, FV92, and FV95) 
135 

United States Department of the Interior 

AflllR[SS 01'\ LYTHF. UIRJ.::CTO it. 

fiStf A.'IU WU .lll .lFt: Sl::R\1( :f: 

In Reply Refer To: 

FWS/ AIA/CCU96-00413 

Honorable Gerry Studds 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Studds: 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Wa5hington, n.C. 20240 

JUL I 8 1993 

Thank you for your letter of June 25, 1996, requesting answers to several follow up 

questions from the Subcommittee's hearing related to the African Elephant Conservation 

Act and the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act. 

Attached are the questions which you forwarded to me and their response. If you have 

additional questions please contact me at 208-6393 . 

Thank you for your continuing interest in the conservation of threatened and endangered 

species. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. 

With best regards, 

Sincerely, 

Attachment 
136 

FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS 

AFRICAN ELEPHANT AND RHINOtriGER HEARING 

1) Ivory Trade: Is there any reliable way to mark "legal" ivory in a manner that 

could not be duplicated easily or in a manner that could be reliably differentiated 

from poached ivory? 

Answer: Research is underWay in two different areas to be able to reliably identify 

sources of ivory. One involves the analysis of mineral content in a sample of ivory. This 

technique has been able to identify animals from different habitat types. ·However, similar 

habitats are found in many countries within the current range of the African elephant. This 

technique is not sufficiently reliable at the present time to determine the country source of 

ivory. The second technique uses DNA analysis and can be much more specific in its 

identification, however, this technique requires a sample of tissue other than ivory for the 

identification. Such a technique would not work for parts of tusks, pieces of raw ivory, or 

tusks that contain no residual tissue. As an alternative to a marking scheme, other types of 

controls have been proposed that might include point source shipments, and a limited 

window for legal shipments. Such alternatives have not been evaluated. 

2) ESA/trophy trade permits: Do you issue permits to allow trophy trade under the 

Endangered Species Act? What criteria are necessary to issue those permits? 

Answer: The Service fully supports sport-hunting in the context of overall programs for 

the conservation of species and recognizes the economic benefits that can accrue to other 

countries from well-managed programs. The Service issues approximately 1,000 import 

permits for sport-hunted trophies annually. For certain species listed as threatened under 

the ESA, the Service has been able to determine that the taking of such species, in 

controlled circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that such take provides 

benefits, usually in the form of revenues for conservation programs, enhances the 

conservation of the species. Examples include Argali sheep from rwo Asia countries and 

African elephants from eight countries. For other countries that also allow sport~hunting, 

the Service has not been able to find that adequate controls were in place or that revenues 

generated provided tangible benefits to the conservation of the species. 

Concerning species listed as endangered under the ESA, the Service has generally been 

unable to find that the taking of such species in sport hunting programs would enhance 

their survival and contribute to their conservation and recovery. The high overall threats 

to the continued existence of endangered species generally preclude the ability to make the 

necessary findings that would permit imports resulting from the killing of such species. 
137 

However, the Service is currently reviewing a program for the conservation of endangered 

cheetahs in Namibia that if fully implemented, could provide the basis for enhancing the 

survival of the species. That program includes sport-hunting as a component of Namibia's 

conservation strategy for the species. Although the initial applications for cheetah trophy 

import permits have recently been denied, the applicants now have appeal rights. There 

are also indications that additional information may be received from Namibia regarding 

the implementation of a management program there which will need to be taken into 

account during the appeal process. 

3) Elephant Trophy Hunting: It is often claimed that trophy bunting is not 

detrimental to the survival of elephants, since such a low percentage of the populations 

is taken for this purpose. However, research has demonstrated that female elephants 

prefer to mate with males over the age of 35. As a result of poaching, there are, in 

general, very few of these males left. In addition, trophy hunters also prefer these 

older males who have large tusks. Has the effect on elephant populations of trophy 

hunting of these older males ever been taken into account in Management programs? 

Are there any reliable estimates of how many of these older males exist? How often 

are censuses take, and what methodology is used. 

Answer: Current understanding of African elephant biology indicates that elephants are 

long lived animals with highly developed social organization. Age at sexual maturity for 

both sexes is early teens. However, their social structure results in significant competition 

among males with the more dominant males involved in breeding. There is also evidence 

to suggest that even in those populations that have not been significantly_Jeduced by 

poaching, and have remained stable and increasing overtime, the overall tusk size in males 

has decreased over that reported earlier in the century. 

Since tusk size correlates to age, younger bulls are breeding successfully. 

While it appears true that females tend to breed with the most dominant males available, 

the overall decrease in tusk size does not appear to appreciably affect the sustainability of 

African elephant populations that are otherwise well managed. While sex and age criteria 

are taken into account, population surveys tend to be larger in scale to determine overall 

heath and vitality of the various elephant populations in the country. Sport hunting quotas 

are generally very small as compared to overall elephant population size for the country. 

However, it is important that management programs that include sport-hunting ensure that 

harvest from various populations within the country is regulated at that level. 
138 

Testimony of the Enyjronment.allnyestjgatjon Agency on 

The African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 

Tbe Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 

Sybcommjnee on Fisherjes. Wildlife and Oceans 

U.S. House of Representatives 

The African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 

As an international, environmental organization which has been working on the 

African Elephant issue for the past ten years, both in Africa and in international 

fora such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), 

EIA fully supports the U.S. African Elephant Conservation Act (AECA). 

The Act was a major factor in closing down the illegal ivory trade in mid-1989 and 

in heralding the decision taken by CITES later that year to ban all international trade 

In elephant products by placing the species on Appendix I of the Convention. This 

decision, made under the Act, to ban ivory Imports unilaterally played a significant 

role in galvanizing other ivory importing nations, such as Japan, to ban trade well in 

advance of the CITES decision. 

There Is no doubt that funding has been one of the primary needs of African 

countries struggling to enforce both international and domestic wildlife law. The 

African Elephant Conservation Act has fulfilled a significant part of that need and it 

is imperative that this funding commitment is at least held steady, if not increased. 

As many governments and institutions are aware, elephant poaching and Illegal 

ivory trade have slowed considerably In many parts of Africa since the ban. In 

some areas, poaching has been eliminated altogether. For this reason, the vast 

majority of African governments support the continuation of the Appendix I listing. 

Aside from the reduction in poaching levels, the listing has been instrumental in 

helping elephant conservation In purely economic terms. Some African 

governments report that they have been able to divert funds from anti-poaching 

into other, forward-looking elephant conservation programs. 

This does not mean that there is no need for anti-poaching efforts, but the 

Appendix I listing has given not just the elephants but also their African protectors 
139 

time to cons-ider the long-term future of the species. It is a truism to say that if 

elephants are to be long-term survivors in the wild, local communities should be 

abie .io benefit froiTI ttielr r:Jrese~. There are those who argue that the answer to 

this is resumed ivoiy trade, blit ii IS 4rylikely that the lessons learned from the mass 

sla~ghter of the 1970s and 1980s wili til! fOrgotten so quickly. What purported to 

be 'sustainabie use' of elephants in the form of internatidfiili trade tUrned out to be 

the principal instrument of the species' demise. By 1988, over 90% of all ivory in 

international trade was from poached elephants. The international community, 

foiiQwitig Tanzania's lead, reaiized that it was simply unable to control worldwide 

trade iii a iiighiy~valued commodity such as ivory arid it was banned. 

Six yeats lat_ei', despite strenuous iobbying by a srnaU but vocal minority, the great 

majority of J.i;frieari "liphlifit range states continue to support the Appendix I listing. 

It is lmperatiile tHat tAt! Wisnes of tii~se coUntries be respected and that the listing 

remain in place. 

One of the Benefits of the interri.iltionai re-think on w~;ry has been an upsurge in 

calls for the eeonomie benefits of totirisrn to be thaMelted to local communities. It 

Is an urif<1rt1Jnate fact that in Africa, as Well as in many other parts of the 

developing world, the tourism industry remains largely under the control of affluent, 

often foreign, operators. Some of these operators have the foresight to ensure that 

communities living in wildlife areas do benefit in a signiftCant - and dignified - way 

from the presence of tourists but. sadly, many do not. 

Yet there are superb examples In many parts of the continent of locally-managed, 

non-consumptive projects which are successfully reducing negative attitudes 

towards wildlife while substantially improving the living standards of rural 

communities. Observers have spoken of the communal effort which goes into these 

projects, as opposed to the divisive and - in countries with a shoot-to-kill policy -

dangerous pastime of elephant poaching. 

A major benefit of a non-consumptive approach is that it reduces the 

understandable temptation to poach and smuggle, activities which are encourii!JtHI 

by putting a price on the head of a dead elephant. It is incomprehensible that some 

African governments are seeking increased funding for anti-poaching activities 

while simultaneously lobbying for a revival of the ivory market which fuelled the 

poaching of the 1970s and 1980s. 

Since EIA began its project to assist in the rehabilitation of the Maputo Elephant 

Reserve, Mozambique. a project which is partially funded under the Act, local 

conservationists have reported increased sightings of elephant. This is taken to 

signify that, as poaching has decreased, so the animals have begun to lose their 

fear of humans and are more easily seen. The eventual aim of the project is to help 

to put in place the infrastructure necessary for eco-tourism. Naturally, elephants 

will play a major role in attracting tourists. 
140 

It is our view that it would do well to give priority to funding non-consumptive, 

community-based tourism projects under the AECA. Such a policy is beirig adopted 

by many far-sighted governments in Africa and funding of such projects would fit 

well with current thinking across the continent. · 

The Appendix I listing has provided a breathing space for elephants and for policymakers alike. The next step is clearly to implement long-term strategies for the 

survival of the species. Benign 'use' of elephants is the least damaging and 

potentially the most lucrative way of deriving benefits from the African elephant. 

We therefore urge the Congress and the Administration to substantially increase 

funding for the AECA fund, and particularly for existing community-based elephant 

tourism projects and to initiate new ones, in consultation with the appropriate 

African government departments. 

The Rhinoceros and Tiger Conseryatjon Act of 1994 

The much-needed U.S. Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act was an ui'gent 

response to the alarming situation faced by all extant species of rhinoceros and 

tiger. 

The problem common to both of these species is that of consumption of their parts 

and derivatives for Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCMl. While, in the case of the 

tiger, there are also problems with habitat loss, the poaching of this species is 

clearly the primary cause of its rapid disappearance in the wild. The welldocumented trade In tiger bones, teeth, claws and other parts is testament to this 

fact. In the case of the rhino, the situation is even more clear. · 

The failure of the Appendix I listing for these species is often cited as 'proof' that 

bans do. not V'{Ork or, worse still, that CITES itself does· not work. This is a highly 

simplistic view of the way in which the Convention is supposed to be implemented. 

Apart from voting to place a species on Appendix I of the Convention, member 

nations have the responsibility to enact parallel domestic legislation within a 

reasonable period afte~ the listing. Both the rhino and the tiger were unfortunate 

enough to be consumed in nations which, bluntly speaking, had no interest in 

implementing or enforcing CITES. The Peoples' Republic of China and Hong kong 

were two members of CITES whictl ftagrantly failed to implement CITES legislation. 

Taiwan, not a Party to CITES, had nevertheless agreed to implement domestic 

legislation in line with Convention. 

It was not until 1992 that Taiwan felt the pressure of the international community 

in terms of its total neglect of CITES legislation on numerous endangered species, 

in particular the rhinoceros. Highly publicized consumer campaigns, political 

pressure and, most of all, the certification of Taiwan under the U.S. Peliy 

Amendment resulted in rapid changes to Taiwanese legislation and an increased 
141 

effort to enforce it. Non-government organizations in Taiwan joined in the chorus of 

criticism and, since then, there have been major seizures of endangered species 

made by government enforcement officials. Recently, the Premier made a gift of silc 

rhinoceros to the King of Swaziland, the underlying message being that Taiwan 

was responsible for the almost total extinction of the rhino in that countrv. 

Taiwan is a classic example of what can be achieved with a political will ,to 

conserve wildlife species. The U.S. played a major role in creating that political will. 

The pattern of east Asian consumption of endangered wildlife follows the pattern 

of economic growth in that part of the world. If, as the Chinese economy grows, 

its per capita consumption of rhino horn mirrors that of Taiwan, it will require 

seven thousand rhinos per year to fulfill the demand in China alone. This does not 

include the consumers of Hong Kong, Korea nor the many Asian communities in 

other nations around the world. 

There is only one way to protect rhinos, tigers and other rapidly diminishing 

species, and that is to stop consumption. Captive breeding simply cannot hope to 

fulfill demand, and a legal trade in 'farmed' products of rhinos and tigers will simply 

provide a cover for the illegal trade which, for the trader, is a much cheaper and 

easier option. 

We hope that Congress will seek significantly greater appropriations for ~unds 

under the U.S. Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. These funds would provide 

the best possibie protection for both rhinos and tigers if it were to concentrate a 

significant portion of its funding on consumer education projects in east Asia. The 

region has ,opened up to the international press, satellite television, U.S. radio and 

television stations and, therefore, is accessible to positive attitudes towards wildlife 

protection. Now would be the perfect time for funding to be used for media 

campaigns to change public opinion and end consumption of these products. In 

addition, pressure must be maintained on the governments of consumer nations to 

enf()rce ever more strongly the international and domestic legislation designed to 

protect rhinoceros and tiger populations in the wild. 

0 


ISBN 0-16-052997-2 

90000 

9 780160 529979