Earlier this week, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) reported that on May 6 a group of 17 heavily armed poachers, who presented themselves as part of the transitional Séléka government but were of Sudanese origin, entered the Dzanga-Ndoki National Park.

They then headed to Dzanga Bai, a large clearing where between 50 and 200 elephants gather at any given time during the day and night for the mineral salts. Ecoguards later reported that they saw these poachers fire at elephants from the observation platform used by scientists and tourists.

Located in southwestern CAR, the Dzanga-Sangha reserve (which includes the Dzanga-Ndoki National Park) is part of the Sangha River Tri-National Protected Area (TNS), which includes Nouabalé Ndoki National Park (NNNP) in the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville) and Lobéké National Park in Cameroon. Dzanga-Sangha is home to rare western lowland gorillas and more than 1,000 forest elephants. (This population is part of several thousand that share habitat with NNNP.)

While most World Heritage sites in elephant range states are seriously affected by poaching, the remoteness of the Dzanga-Ndoki National Park, combined with on-the-ground support by WWF and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), have helped protect it from major poaching incidents. Until now.

For the past 30 years WWF, WCS, and the CAR government have collaborated on programs within the Dzanga–Sangha protected areas that both protect wildlife and support livelihoods for hundreds of local people.

For nearly 25 years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) also has supported efforts in the park, including funding research on the forest elephants that use Dzanga Bai.

Dozens of Elephants Dead

Following the retreat of poachers on the evening of May 8, ecoguards explored Dzanga Bai the next day and found more than 26 elephant carcasses: 20 adults and four youngsters in the clearing itself and two in the river nearby. All their tusks had been hacked off.

An assessment of additional damage, possibly including other elephant carcasses in the surrounding forest and smaller clearings, is ongoing. It is reported that at least one of the camps in the park has been ransacked.

Elephant slaughter at Dzanga Bai, CAR. Photograph courtesy of WWF.

A Surprise

The violent incursion took conservationists by surprise. Months earlier, groups of poachers originating from Sudan, who were killing elephants in the Ngotto forest (some 60 miles from Dzanga Sangha), had been successfully blocked from advancing toward Dzanga-Sangha by government troops supported by WWF.

WWF staff in the area thought the poachers had left the region and started their trek back to Sudan in order to beat river levels rising in the rains; their donkeys and camels would be unable to cross the swollen rivers.

While lawlessness in the area had increased over the last two months—rebels repeatedly pillaged park headquarters and WWF offices, and there had been some local elephant poaching—nobody was ready for the methodical attack.

Since 2010, poachers had sought the Dzanga Bai elephant clearing, but conservationists had managed to prevent them from reaching it.

“We didn’t expect to find our worst nightmare: the most experienced elephant killers of these parts of Central Africa,” said Bas Huijbregts, who leads the Illegal Wildlife Trade Campaign for WWF in Central Africa.

“With our staff evacuated after the pillaging,” Huijbregts said, “our main priority was maintaining a minimum protection presence to stop local poachers from going on a rampage in the park while continuing to try to mobilize reinforcements from central government troops in Bangui. We were not prepared for this.”

Elephant slaughter at Dzanga Bai. Photograph courtesy of WWF.

Who Are the Poachers?

Who are the poachers? The answer is unclear. The vehicle carrying the group into the park was branded as Séléka. The poachers did not speak the local language or French.

“We understand that these Sudanese poachers came with a mission order from Séléka powers in Bangui,” Huijbregts said.

In March, Séléka, which means “union” in the local Sango language and is an alliance of seven opposition groups, finally ousted former CAR President François Bozizé. Chaos has reigned since then.

There have been many reports of looting, rapes, killings, and other human rights abuses since the takeover. On April 29, the UN Security Council issued a statement expressing strong concern about the worsening humanitarian and security situation and the weakening of CAR institutions.

The Séléka-dominated government is having a very difficult time establishing control over the country. There are many fighters who report to no one, and many splinter groups, who refer to themselves as Séléka but who may or may not be part of the “official” alliance. It seems that each of the seven members of the alliance has its own chief of staff and armed fighters.

One such subsidiary of Séléka is currently stationed in Bayanga, a town near the park, where they’re in charge of protecting Chinese diamond prospectors. Unlike previous groups who sacked  the region, these men are reportedly well-disciplined. They have helped reestablish some rule of law and have had meetings with local authorities and ecoguards.

On Wednesday, this subsidiary delivered a message to the poachers in the park from the Séléka leadership in Bangui asking them to leave the park immediately and report to the Bayanga-based Séléka.

It appears that the poachers obeyed. According to WWF, by the evening of May 8, they had left the park with their truck fully loaded with ivory.

Since the shooting, WWF reports that no elephants have been seen in the area.

What Is Happening Now?

The CAR ministry of environment in Bangui was expected imminently to announce a mission to secure the area in and around the Dzanga-Sangha protected areas. But when that announcement will be made, what such a mission would be, and who would be involved is unclear.

It would likely be made up of agents from the ministry of environment, plus some compilation of other forces. These could include members from one or more of the seven groups that make up Séléka and perhaps some of the official armed forces, who reportedly have little or no weapons or equipment.

As of May 10, most of the park’s 42 ecoguards are back at their posts—watching and waiting.

“We’re at war right now, and it’s foggy,” explains Richard Ruggiero, Chief, Branch of Asia and Africa at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ruggiero has worked on the ground in Central Africa for over 20 years. “The possibility exists that we can turn this around in the very near future.”

Indeed, it’s not the first time conservationists have faced this situation. In 1997, rebels threatened to wipe out elephant herds in the Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park in the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville), and a group of dedicated conservationists and government rangers successfully prevented it.

“We are considering all options,” Huijbregts said. “We urge the government in Bangui to send the support troops to the area that were promised almost two weeks ago. In the meantime, we continue to support the local rangers, who, against all odds, are still doing their job.”

The Greater Malady

Whatever actions are taken to resolve this crisis, the larger issue is the underlying incentive for the elephant poaching: high demand and high ivory prices.

“What we’re seeing in Dzanga-Sangha is a symptom of a greater malady,” Ruggiero said. “The malady is human selfishness and ignorance that produces the market that causes all of this demand. We’re seeing the symptoms being played out in CAR. The disease is greater and comes from elsewhere.”

“At the end of the day, one of two things will end poaching,” Huijbregts added. “Either there is no more demand, or there are no more elephants. The choice is up to us.”

Baby forest elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis) amidst other elephants in Dzanga Bai, a forest clearing in Dzanga Sangha Protected Area, CAR. Copyright WWF-Canon/Carlos Drews

While some non-governmental organizations, such as the Humane Society International and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, were deeply disappointed by the failure to uplist polar bears from Appendix II to Appendix I, which would have banned all international trade in the species and their parts, Steven Amstrup—a renowned polar bear scientist—believes that limitations on trade don’t address the real challenge facing the iconic animals.

He argues, as does the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, that international trade restrictions would have little conservation benefit because the primary threat to polar bears, by far, is rising temperatures and the subsequent loss of sea ice. (See “On Thin Ice,” by Susan McGrath, National Geographic, July 2011)

Amstrup has been studying polar bears and their habitat since 1980. Much of what we know about them, and even how scientists study them, comes from his work. He joined Polar Bears International as a senior scientist in 2010. Before that he was Polar Bear Project Leader with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) at the Alaska Science Center. In 2012 his lifetime contributions were recognized when he was awarded the Indianapolis Prize, a “Nobel Prize” for animal conservation.

I talked to Steven Amstrup about the CITES decision and the fate of polar bears. The conversation was transcribed by Dustin Circe. You can listen to it in full at www.laurelneme.com/wildliferadio.

Laurel Neme: Were you involved in the proposal at the CITES convention put forth by the United States to uplist polar bears from Appendix II to Appendix I that would basically have banned all international trade in polar bears and their parts? What did you think of it?

Steven Amstrup carries two cubs back to their mother. She was immobilized during a capture operation. Photograph courtesy Steven C. Amstrup

Steven Amstrup: I was not involved in drafting the proposal at all. I no longer work for the U.S. federal government, and these kinds of proposals are typically put forward by agencies, or agencies collaborating with other organizations.

The proposal was put forward based on the threats to polar bears. However, the further limitations on trade have nothing to do with the global warming and the disappearance of polar bears’ habitat. In fact, I sometimes wonder if these proposals couldn’t actually become a distraction from the main thing we need to focus on, which is reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases.

Laurel Neme: Did you expect it to pass? Would it have helped elevate the issue, even though it wasn’t the trade that was hurting the polar bears but that trade was yet one more thing hurting them?

Steven Amstrup: Actually, I didn’t know how it was going to go. The CITES conventions are often as much politics as they are science. The science is very clear, that all polar bears ultimately are threatened with extinction. Unless we come to grips with emissions, and reduce them, we are going to lose all polar bears. I think all the scientists in the world who are most familiar with the knowledge that we currently have about polar bears believe that that’s the case. Will there be some polar bears that may survive in some small pockets for some small time? Maybe, but it’ll be nothing like the extent and numbers of polar bears that we have now.

So the people who put forward this proposal are thinking about the future of polar bears. But restricting legal trade across international borders has no guarantee of affecting harvest, and affecting harvest is not really the problem. In 2010, I wrote a paper that ended up being published in Nature, and my colleagues and I showed pretty clearly that saving polar bears is all about stopping temperature rise. Only if we get our act together and do that will these on-the-ground measures, like restricting hunting, restricting human access to certain areas in the Arctic, be effective if we also are lowering our emissions.

Further, with regard to CITES, the limits on international trade are not necessarily or obviously linked to reductions in harvest. I think there’s an assumption that if the people who harvest polar bears have fewer avenues for trading their skins and other parts, maybe fewer of them will be harvested. But trade within countries—and the main country that harvests polar bears is Canada—is likely to continue. In Canada polar bear hunting is a very important part of aboriginal culture. It’s not clear that restricting trade would confer a conservation benefit. And it is clear that it would likely alienate many of the people we would like to have as allies in the fight against global warming. These are the people who live in the Arctic and who, like polar bears, are the main victims of global warming that’s caused by you and me living in lower latitudes. So I think the main emphasis in trying to uplist polar bears from Appendix II to Appendix I is a little bit displaced.

That isn’t to say that the people who proposed it aren’t genuinely concerned about the future of polar bears. I think they are. But I know that I would like to see the kind of energy that was going forward by various governments to uplist polar bears in CITES, I’d like to see that same amount of energy at the government level to address greenhouse gas emissions. That’s what we really need to do to save polar bears.

Female polar bear (Ursus maritimus) with a cub of the year. Svalbard, Norway. Copyright Kt Miller/polarbearsinternational.org

MISPLACED PUBLICITY?

Laurel Neme: Do you think having this proposal, and having some press on it, has raised the awareness of people about global warming, even though it wasn’t adopted? Or was it misplaced publicity?

Steven Amstrup: I have mixed feelings about that. The logic that I just used is, if we restrict trade, is that likely to reduce harvest and is that likely to result in some prolonging of the ability of polar bears to live in certain areas? My conclusion is that it probably isn’t. But like all models, that could be incorrect. Unfortunately, I don’t see much in the general media about what assumptions are going into the various negotiations. And what I really see is a lot of emotion about, “Well how could you possibly go out and shoot these beautiful animals that are threatened with extinction?” And that’s the wrong level of what we need to be talking about. We need to be talking about the real root cause of the threat.

Polar bears, like other wildlife, are renewable resources if they have stable habitat and are managed in a sustainable way. I think we can’t lose sight of that, and we can’t lose sight of the fact that many cultures have a history going back thousands of years of hunting these animals. So we need to tread very carefully if we’re going to adopt a large umbrella piece of legislation like CITES uplisting that can affect the lives of lots of people.

Unfortunately, the media attention I’ve seen on this has been largely, “Oh well, how could they not be uplisted because they’re a threatened species or they’re an endangered species?”—and there has been very little in the way of discussion about what that really means or why polar bears are endangered and what we really need to do to save them.

Now, I’m not going to say that at some point in the future we won’t want to just pull out all the stops we can: banning international trade, closing off hunting seasons. All of those things may eventually be on the table. But for the foreseeable future there are a number of populations that we can probably harvest safely (I don’t want to say sustainably because that suggests perpetual balance between harvest and stable populations). But they can be harvested for a number of years before global warming begins to negatively affect their habitat, like it is the habitat in Alaska or Hudson Bay now. So there are places where bears can safely be hunted for some time to come, in a transient sense. And to stop that hunting globally [and ban international trade] because we want to address a belief that somehow [it] will allow us to get to the root answer of reducing greenhouse gases, I’m not sure there’s much logic there.

Laurel Neme: The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group disagreed with the U.S. proposal to uplist polar bears for the same reasons you mentioned. You are a member of that group, correct?

Steven Amstrup: Yes, and I was on the drafting committee of that position statement.

Female polar bear (Ursus maritimus) with a cub of the year walks on sea ice at sunset. Svalbard, Norway. Copyright Kt Miller/polarbearsinternational.org

WALK SOFTLY TO SAVE BEARS

Laurel Neme: What’s next to protect polar bears? What can people do to help? You’ve been quoted as saying “polar bear conservation can’t occur in the Arctic.”

Steven Amstrup:  That really is the crux of it. The traditional model of conservation has been that we can build a fence around an area, we can keep people out, we can control hunting, and then we can go home at night and sleep well, thinking that we have saved this species or habitat.

But you can’t build a fence to protect polar bear habitat from rising temperatures. And that’s what we’re faced with. The only way to save polar bears is for you and me and everybody else we know to walk more softly on the Earth, to recognize that we have to use less carbon-based energy.

The situation with global warming is relatively straightforward. You hear a lot in the news about the uncertainties—how soon it’s going to be a certain temperature in a certain locale, or when is the first summer that the sea ice is going to disappear entirely in the Arctic. These are questions that scientists can’t predict very well because of the tremendous amount of chaos in the climate system.

That chaos is going to continue, and it’s going to prevent very precise kinds of predictions like that. That chaos is going to be occurring over a higher and rising [temperature] baseline. And so the only reason that the uncertainty created by the natural variation, or chaos, in the system is important is if we don’t care about the future that we’re leaving for our children and grandchildren. Because it will get warmer.

You can think of this as a threshold exceedance issue. We may not be able to say the first year the sea ice is going to disappear entirely in the Arctic, but we know with absolute certainty that it will if we stay on our present greenhouse gas emissions path. And so, to me, a lot of that uncertainty, or all of that uncertainty, is largely irrelevant because we know we’re on a bad path. We’re on a very bad path. We’re on a path that very soon will take us far off course of a climate to which humans have become accustomed and in which they thrive. And yet we’re just proceeding along and not doing anything about it.

A VERY BAD PATH, BUT IT’S NOT TOO LATE

Laurel Neme: Is it too late to save the polar bears? Are we on that path? Can we change that?

Steven Amstrup:  We are on the path that will result in polar bears being eliminated. But my work and the work of many others has shown that there is still time to save them.

We have to acknowledge that we’ve already probably put enough carbon into the atmosphere that some polar bear populations, at the southern extent of their range or in areas where warm currents affect the sea ice, those may disappear because of emissions we already have released. But we still have time to save many of them. That was one of the outcomes from my paper in Nature.

We still have time. However, every year we delay puts us farther down that path, and at some point, it’s going to be too late to act. Because the warming that we’re putting into the atmosphere now is not felt immediately, there’s a latent effect. The ocean absorbs a lot of the heat. Ultimately, the temperature that the Earth will achieve based on a certain amount of carbon being released this year won’t be felt for 20, 30, 40 years. So we need to recognize that the farther into the future we go, the closer we get to crossing some of those thresholds that we aren’t going to like very well.

Laurel Neme: If people ask their congresspersons for a less carbon-based energy policy, or to fund research and development, as well as taking their own actions to take more public transportation, that all would be helpful. Correct?

Steven Amstrup: Absolutely. The bottom line is that we really need to pay the hidden costs of relying on carbon. We have basically grown our society, grown our culture, by subsidizing it with the primary productivity of the past. That is, the oil and gas and coal that’s been in the Earth for millennia. We’re bringing it out and putting it back into the carbon cycle.

What we need to do is say, okay, to the extent that we’re going to continue to use carbon-based energy, we need to pay the full costs. And the full costs are the things that we will be imposing on the people in the next generation—and the polar bears.

I think the real lesson is that we can coexist with these creatures. We have the ability to change our ways so that we can continue to have polar bears.

When you’re flying over the sea ice in a helicopter, and you look down, and it’s all this rubble—from a high altitude it looks almost like the surface of a cracked eggshell—and you look at that and think how could there be any life down there? Then you get down there, and you realize that these giant white bears have figured out a way to not only survive out there but to thrive and to become the biggest of the non-aquatic carnivores. To me, that’s just so impressive.

I have to think that we, as humans, who are in total control of whether or not those giant creatures continue to exist, will take the action necessary.

On March 14-15, at least 86 elephants were killed in Tikem, near Fianga in the Mayo Kebbi East region of southwestern Chad, close to the Cameroon border. Among the victims were more than 30 pregnant females, many of which aborted their calves when they were shot. The calves were left to die, and reportedly some were shot. It’s too sickening to even comprehend.

Elephant calf aborted after its mother was shot in March 14-15 poaching incident. Photo courtesy of SOS Elephants of Chad.

The massacre occurred in the closing hours of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) 16^th Conference of Parties (COP16) meeting (held in Bangkok from March 3-14), where the topic of elephants was high on the agenda.

The timing was also just weeks after the discovery of 28 elephant carcasses, all stripped of their ivory tusks, in Cameroon’s Nki and Lobeke National Parks and at least 15 carcasses across four separate locations in Central African Republic.

All these incidents followed numerous reports of columns of Sudanese poachers crossing Central African Republic and heading toward Cameroon and Chad.

Both the Chad and Cameroon governments had responded to this advance notice. In December, the Chad government sent soldiers and military aircraft to patrol the region and Cameroon deployed its Rapid Intervention Battalion (BIR), a special forces military unit. But neither was able to find the poaching gangs and stop them.

“We’ve been aware of the poachers’ presence and movements since last November in the Central African Republic, but given the means at hand, and difficulty of working in this vast, remote landscape, it has been very challenging to fully address the situation,” says Richard Ruggiero, Chief, Branch of Asia and Africa at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Emergency Acknowledged

A three-day emergency meeting on the poaching of elephants, organized by the Economic Community of Central African States (CEEAC), was held in Yaoundé, Cameroon from March 21-23. The 70-plus participants included ministers of defense, foreign affairs, and wildlife protection, as well as representatives from the United Nations Development Program and other organizations, such as the World Wildlife Fund and SOS Elephants.

Some attendees suggested that because key people such as the forces on the ground were not immediately involved, the assessment and resulting plans were not suitable for the real needs.

Inside the CEEAC emergency meeting. Photo courtesy of SOS Elephants of Chad.

The final declaration acknowledged that national initiatives to combat poaching and illegal wildlife trafficking had failed. It also reiterated the need for countries involved throughout the ivory supply chain (origin, transit, and destination) to coordinate efforts to combat the transnational, organized crime networks that are operating in the region.

Delegates adopted a plan of extreme urgency to fight poaching (PEXULAB), which includes immediate anti-poaching measures in the northern zone of Cameroon, the north and southwest of the Central African Republic, and southern Chad.

The plan calls for: mobilization of military forces in Chad and Cameroon to support anti-poaching brigades; creation of national coordination units and a mechanism for inter-state coordination; exchange of information on poachers’ movements; implementation of a tripartite agreement that would allow intervention by mixed (multi-country) brigades; and criminalization of poaching and illegal ivory trade so that penalties mirror those for organized transnational crimes.

Around the world, penalties are notoriously low for wildlife crimes. On March 19 in Ireland, for instance, two rhino horn dealers were fined 500 Euros ($650) each for illegally smuggling eight rhino horns, valued at an estimated 500,000 Euros ($650,000) on the black market.

Delegates at the emergency meeting also called on ivory consuming nations to adopt measures to reduce demand and restrict illegal entry of ivory. While they welcomed Thailand’s recent announcement to ban its illegal ivory trade, they pressed that country to actually implement the ban. They also urged other destination countries to redouble their efforts to combat the illicit trade.

The CEEAC meeting plan echoes the themes of CITES COP16, namely: the need to work across source, transit, and range states; the need for coordinated, transnational efforts; the need to treat illegal killing of elephants and other wildlife and illicit trade in ivory and other wildlife parts as serious crimes; and the need for more effective enforcement by way of prosecutions, higher penalties, and advanced operational techniques already used to combat illicit trade in narcotics.

“We’re up against formidable opponents here, so it’s not going to be easy.”

“We’re dealing with an extremely difficult situation,” CITES Secretary-General John Scanlon says. “We’ve got rebel militia groups, on very rare occasions rogue elements of the military, and organized criminals all involved in the illegal killing of elephants and illegal ivory trade,” “We’re up against formidable opponents here, so it’s not going to be easy. That’s why COP16′s focus on political engagement and on enhancing operational effectiveness is so important.”

 Just Another Toothless Meeting?

Financing for implementation of the CEEAC emergency plan, as well as for medium- and longer-term actions, is still needed. While a 1.8 million Euro ($2.3 million) budget and timetable for actions were laid out for PEXULAB, the status of financial commitments is unclear. PEXULAB documents specified the need to set up a supra-national task force to maintain “the momentum between Governments and partners for the financing of operations.” The meeting’s final declaration invited the international community and other partners to come forward with money.

To further complicate matters, lingering political instability in the Central African Republic came to a head on Sunday when rebels seized the capital and President Francois Bozizé fled the country (seeking temporary refuge in Cameroon). This chaotic situation implies that poachers can continue to roam that country with impunity.

To Ofir Drori, coordinator of the Central and West Africa Wildlife Law Enforcement Network (which has assisted in the jailing of more than 800 traffickers), the meeting missed the point. “All the talks and discussions just distract us from what it’s all about,” he said. “Corruption is the number one obstacle of wildlife law enforcement. Until we are ready to fight it, we lose the war against the poachers.”

Poachers Poised for More Attacks

Based on sightings from the air and ground, it appears that the Sudanese poachers have broken into small bands of 10 to 15 men and are widely dispersed. However, the specific movements and exact locations of the poachers in and around Chad and Cameroon are unconfirmed, and the accuracy of reports is unclear. Some reports place a gang or gangs of poachers in or near Cameroon’s Bouba Ndjida National Park, which was the site of the slaughter of hundreds of elephants in early 2012.

“We’re watching developments closely and are working with our partners in southern Chad, including African Parks Network and others,” Ruggiero says. “The Chadian authorities on the ground are engaged, and we have assurances that our Cameroonian partners are fully informed and will react appropriately.”

Already, Chadian troops are pursuing the poachers and have engaged them. On Monday, President of SOS Elephants Stephanie Vergniault said that “the Chadian Président has deployed a lot of troops to catch the poachers and is very determined to get them before they leave the Chadian territory.” She noted that earlier in the day there had been a violent exchange of gunfire between some poachers and the regular army in Loumobogo (close to the Central African Republic). She also reported that authorities seized 30 tusks and that “Chad has declared a total war to the poachers.”

Chadian anti-poaching troops. Photo taken in December 2012 or January 2013. Photo courtesy of SOS Elephants of Chad.

Lack of financing and need for high-level commitment and coordination for wildlife crime law enforcement were top issues at the CITES COP 16 meeting. But those concerns voiced by the delegates did nothing to help the pregnant elephants massacred days ago in southwestern Chad.

They, and tens of thousands of other elephants, are the victims of a perfect storm of high ivory prices driven by soaring Chinese demand, low risk of ivory traffickers getting caught, low penalties for those who do, and a lack of priority at either local levels or higher political ones to get serious about elephant poaching.

Encouragingly, Chad appears to be actively pursuing the poachers. But the situation in Cameroon and the Central African Republic is less clear, and the bottom line is that the Sudanese poachers are still hunting.

Elephants near the SOS Elephants camp. Photo courtesy of SOS Elephants of Chad.

Hi! I am Celia Ho, a 14-year-old girl from Hong Kong. I have been working on an ivory ban campaign to help save elephants from the inhumane ivory market.

Elephants have always been a symbol of happiness for me since I watched a scene of elephants playing light-heartedly in a documentary when I was very small, and I love every part of them, their intelligent eyes, lovely noses… They have emotion, feelings and close relationship with one another just like humans! But I have never thought of the exacerbating difficulties they have been encountering in recent decades until an inspirational article by Mr. Bryan Christy.

Celia Ho. Photo courtesy of Celia Ho.

An Inspiration, “Ivory Worship,” by Bryan Christy

Mr. Christy’s “Ivory Worship” from the October edition of National Geographic was the inspiration of my campaign. When I opened the plastic bag and got the magazine out, excitedly as usual, the bloody cover picture of a ranger hacking off a dead elephant’s tusk immediately caught my eyes and drove me to find out what was happening. Then, the detailed facts and data showed me everything. Some people buy ivory for religious purposes, some for status recognition. The hunger of the inhumane trade is unlimited, and myriads of elephants are slaughtered every year.

I would like to show my thankfulness to Bryan, who has kindled the fire inside me to speak out loud for elephants. Being a student, I actually did not know what I could do except write a letter to the newspaper, which was South China Morning Post, and that was the turning point of my life.

My Partner, Mr. Christian Pilard

My letter about the ivory ban was noticed by Mr. Christian Pilard, the founder of Eco-Sys Action. A few days later, he replied to my letter with supportive and encouraging words. So we were in contact and started our partnership in this campaign. Christian, who has given me a lot of useful advice and freedom  to make decisions on my own, is always a perfect partner to work with.

Another Inspiration, Dr. Jane Goodall

Dr. Jane Goodall, who has always been my idol, had a trip to Hong Kong last year! She is my role model because of her devotion to save chimpanzees throughout her whole life. In her talk, she talked about her story from scratch, the moments she spent with chimpanzees, the importance of a coexistence of humans, wildlife, and the environment. Everything she mentioned and experienced encouraged me to take a deep breath, take out my ivory ban poster, and ask for her support. I will never forget the moment when she smiled at me, autographed my poster, and asked for my email address, giving me a new nickname, The Elephant Girl. Thank you Jane for being the first supporter of my campaign!

My Ivory Ban Campaign

My campaign has gained support from 60 organizations and 26 schools so far. They are a huge encouragement for me to keep on fighting for elephants because so many of us are always on the elephants’ side.

Not surprisingly, only a few of those supporters are from Asia/China—conservation ideas or organizations in Asia are not as ubiquitous as in other continents. Let me quote an example from a survey in China by the International Fund for Animal Welfare: “Seventy percent thought tusks can fall out and be collected by traders and grow back, that getting ivory did not mean the elephant is killed, and more than 80 percent would reject ivory products and not buy any more if they knew elephants were being killed, so it’s ignorance.”

Celia holds an educational poster illustrating the issues facing elephants. The poster can be downloaded from her website. Photo courtesy of Christian Pilard, Eco-Sys Action.

Thus, educating people, especially young ones in Asia and spreading the ivory ban idea are very crucial to the ivory ban’s success. To make these goals a reality, I have been, and will be, taking part in some conservation events in Hong Kong, which is one of the main transit places. Some of the events are:

• The Eighth Annual ESF Environmental Conference. Thank you Ms. Jenny Quinton from Ark Eden for giving me a chance to join the Eighth Annual ESF Environmental Conference, which aimed at encouraging students to start conservation campaigns and develop a sense of caring about the environment and wildlife. It was my honor to share my team’s ivory ban campaign with other students and introduce to them the aggravating circumstances and the imminent extinction elephants are facing. We also won the “Most International Award.”
• Sending a letter to the General Secretary of CITES, John Scanlon, on behalf of children supporting the ivory ban.
• Walking the Green Tiger at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
• On April 22, there will be a conservation film show about stopping a huge dam project on the Yangtze River at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Thank you, Mr. George C.K. Jor from CUHK, for letting me display my campaign and information about the ivory ban at that event, which many students and people in the conservation field will attend.

Attracting international attention

Yao Ming has been very active and is always a keen supporter of the elephants. I think getting him involved would send a message to (young) people in China that they can help by, for example, being united against ivory and telling their parents and friends not to buy ivory. If there is far less demand, then there will be far fewer less elephants killed. I believe that his support can gain more awareness worldwide about the rampant ivory trade because he is a celebrity who strongly supports the ivory ban. He is one of my idols too!

We need your help!

My main targets are schools in China.  The slogan of my campaign is, “School United for Elephants,” because this is the place where awareness can be raised and where a chain reaction can happen. For example, if one school in Hong Kong can liaise with one school in China, and that school in China can liaise with another one, etc., then it becomes very powerful.

If you are enthusiastic about the ivory ban, you have the power to save elephants:

• Tell people around you not to buy ivory. You may find helpful the pdf file, the ivory ban poster, and other educational materials on the Resources part of my website: http://ecosysaction.org/celia’s-corner/resources.html Please spread the idea as much as you can, like writing a letter to a newspaper, talking about it on Facebook, filming a video.
• Download the poster from my website and take a photo with you holding it. Please send the photo to me afterwards.
• Introduce the ivory ban issue and my campaign to Chinese or Asian schools near you so I can contact them and spread the ivory ban idea. Educating the younger generation is very important as they will determine the future and the fate of the Earth.

 No poaching! No ivory trade!

“If we are the most intellectual creature that has ever walked on the planet, how come we are destroying that planet?” says Dr. Jane Goodall.

Every tusk costs a life at least! Is it worthwhile?  Ivory is not a necessity for people, but elephants are very crucial animals to the whole world, especially the ecosystem. No poaching! No ivory trade!

My website: http://ecosysaction.org/celia’s-corner/

My Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Elephant-Girl-Celia-Ho/207892889353942?ref=hl

Celia’s campaign comprises three facets. First, she hopes to draw ivory consumers’ attention to the plight of elephants in order to reduce ivory demand. Secondly, she focuses on educating young people about the illegal ivory trade, especially in China, because they have the greatest possibility to become future ivory consumers. Lastly, she wants to expand international attention on the issue. Already she has support from Jane Goodall, who has nicknamed her “The Elephant Girl,” as well as from over 40 other organizations.

However, Celia’s real hope is for other young people to take action. To her, young voices can be powerful and a very effective way to affect ivory consumers because “parents listen to what their children have to say.”

“Everyone has his or her power, which is very influential,” she explains. “They can make good use of their social network, by maybe writing a status on Facebook or sending a letter to newspapers, just like I have done.”

The following interview with Laurel Neme tells Celia’s story. You can listen to the entire conversation at Laurel Neme: The Wildlife Radio. To learn more about Celia’s campaign, visit her website Celia’s Corner and her Facebook page The Elephant Girl: Celia Ho.

Celia’s Campaign

Laurel Neme: What got you interested in elephants?

Celia Ho: I started to be interested in elephants when I first read the cover story written by Bryan Christy in National Geographic. It inspired me a lot. And I have also comprehended the troubles elephants are facing. That is why I started my campaign, to help them get out of this inhuman trench.

Laurel Neme: Why are the elephants important to you?

Celia Ho: Firstly, I love elephants very much. That is one of the reasons why they are important to me. I love them because they are very intelligent animals. They have many emotions as well. They have a strong bond with one another. Actually, it was their character that has moved me to try to help them [as well as] the difficulties they are facing.

Laurel Neme: What is your campaign to help elephants?

Celia Ho: We are working on the first step: spreading the idea of an ivory ban. There are basically three parts of [my campaign]. The first part is drawing ivory consumers’ attention so that the demand for ivory can be reduced. And the second part is educating young people, especially in China, because they have the greatest possibility to become future ivory consumers. The last part is drawing international attention on this ivory trade issue.

Laurel Neme: Are your friends now interested in the issue?

Celia Ho: Yes, some of them are very interested in what I have been doing. I was very glad to explain the whole thing once again to them because I also got their supportiveness in return. Although some of them did not respond much, I thought this would be a special opportunity for them to understand the urgent needs of elephants.

Laurel Neme: How are parents taking your campaign, including your own parents? Do they use ivory?

Celia Ho: Actually, ivory can only be bought by rich people, and I and most of my friends are not very rich to afford this kind of luxury product. [My parents and my friends’ parents] support everything.

Laurel Neme: Going back to your campaign, what are you doing to reduce demand for ivory and draw attention to this issue?

Celia Ho: I tried different methods. For example, I have written many status [updates] on public platforms and social networks. I also write some letters to newspapers so they can publish my letters and help the idea spread. Because … [my message] may not reach my target [ivory consumers] by these kinds of methods, [I also focus on] the third part [of my campaign], which is letting their children, the young people, influence them. Educating young people is a very effective way to influence the consumers because parents pay more attention to what their children say.

Laurel Neme: What are you doing with young people?

Celia Ho: The easiest method is approaching my classmates, of course, because we are friends already. I take every chance to share my campaign and the difficulties elephants are facing to them during school days. In addition to my friends at school, I also pay attention to friends that are in other social circles. Because everyone has many friends, that’s why I’m trying to ask all of my friends to help spread the idea. Then the power is going to [be] very powerful.

Laurel Neme: How are you reaching other schools?

Celia Ho: The first step is approaching schools in Hong Kong, because Hong Kong is an international city and it is also very near to China. I have approached three or four schools in Hong Kong, including mine, and I’m looking forward to approach more and more in China, because China is the place where huge demand is located.

Laurel Neme: What has been the reaction when you approach the schools?

Celia Ho: Honestly, some of them didn’t reply much. I was not surprised because this issue is not popular enough and my campaign is also not popular enough. But I will keep trying by showing them how important and urgent this issue is. And I am sure they are going to join us finally.

Laurel Neme: How did you get the attention of Jane Goodall and various organizations, including Eco-Sys Action, who have been helping you?

Celia Ho: I have to tell the story from scratch. I first sent a letter to the South China Morning Post, which is about the ivory ban. I did not expect any feedback. But it was surprising to see. A man called Christian Pilard [Founder and President of Eco-Sys Action] wrote back to me through the South China Morning Post by letter. I remember that day was a school day, and I just read the newspaper, just like I used to do, and it was very surprising to see so many supporting me and encouraging me.

Their support also came along with many encouraging and positive words, which has spirited me up a lot because I know that I am never alone. There are so many people worldwide working on this issue. And our power is very powerful because we are all united.

Laurel Neme: What can people do to help?

Celia Ho: Everyone has his or her power, which is very influential. They can make good use of their social network, by maybe writing a status on Facebook or sending a letter to newspapers, just like I have done. They can also educate people around them and their parents, because they all have the possibility to become ivory consumers. Young people’s voices can be heard easily, and they are always noticed by others. I think their voices can be much more powerful than grown ups.

I hope everyone can pay more attention to the farmers and the wildlife because most of them are facing difficulties caused by humans, development, or activities. I hope everyone can develop a sense of caring to our Earth by maybe reading more National Geographic to know more about our Earth in order to have a desire to help solve the problems we are now facing.

In CAR, groups of poachers on horseback or with camels have been reported in the western and southwestern parts of the country, including several locations near Dzangha-Sangha National Park. The poachers are reportedly speaking Arabic and English. At four separate locations, several fresh elephant carcasses were found. These killings may be serving as “tests” to assess the readiness of troops and other anti-poaching forces.

Last Wednesday, Project Ecofaune, a program funded by the European Union, reported a massacre of elephants near Mbaéré-Bodingué National Park in southwestern CAR. While details on the numbers killed remain sketchy, this morning Ecofaune noted that a group of 24 Sudanese poachers were in the peripheral zone of the Mbaéré-Bodingué National Park and that 10 men were poaching blithely around Ngotto, less than 40 miles away. Reports indicate that several elephants were injured and that elephants had panicked and taken refuge in and around the village. There are also indications that these poachers are becoming aggressive toward people.

The poachers have also made incursions into Chad. On January 27, a surveillance team from the Chadian non-governmental organization SOS Elephants encountered a group of 40 presumed Sudanese elephant poachers between Baibokum and Bessao in the Logone Oriental region of Chad. Two days later, the team found four fresh elephant carcasses in Monts de Lam (also in Logone Oriental).

This Chadian soldier (with Stephanie Vergniault, president of SOS Elephants) was shot in the leg in August 2012 while fighting poachers in the Mayo Lemie region. Photograph courtesy SOS Elephants.

In both countries it appears villagers are giving intelligence on the elephants’ locations to the poachers in exchange for meat.

“There’s no doubt …we’re seeing a spike in illegal killing and illegal trade with respect to elephant, most prominently within central Africa,” CITES Secretary-General John Scanlon noted. “We’re seeing, quite clearly, that organized crime is engaged… And rebel militia are also involved, in particular in Central Africa as a way of supplementing income for illicit activities. Responding to this threat goes beyond the capacity of your average park ranger.”

In Cameroon, the government has deployed its special forces military unit, the Rapid Intervention Battalion (BIR). In Chad, the army has been pursuing the poachers and chasing them to the border, according to Stephanie Vergniault, president of SOS Elephants.

Weak Link

CAR is one of the poorest countries in the world and has long been plagued by conflict and coups. The government’s capacity to deal with this or any other threat is severely lacking, as was in evidence throughout December 2012 and early January this year when rebel forces, threatening to overthrow the government, captured one-third of the country.

The Chadian army unit in charge of the anti-poaching effort. Photograph courtesy SOS Elephants.

Unable to repel the rebels, CAR President Francois Bozizé pleaded for military assistance. Chad’s President Idriss Déby Itno sent forces who were soon joined by troops from other central African countries and South Africa, with France supporting these efforts. The United States temporarily closed its embassy and evacuated its staff because of the security situation. A cease-fire and peace plan were agreed on January 11, with President Bozizé allowed to remain in power until his term ends in 2016 and Nicolas Tiangaye, an opposition lawyer, appointed as prime minister. However, on January 30^th the Voice of America reported the rebels had broken the agreement. The political situation remains in flux.

Even if the capacity existed, it is unclear if the political will to address poaching is there. According to the Voice of America, after signing the peace deal in January, President Bozizé declared he would “work to strengthen ties with China, and to promote oil exploration and development.” In neighboring Chad, SOS Elephants President Vergniault says the Chinese are largely responsible for promoting the illegal ivory trade, with ivory “smuggled through Chinese nationals working for the China National Petroleum Company” on an oil pipeline project.

Chad’s President Idriss Déby Itno meets with SOS Elephants president Stephanie Vergniault in January to discuss the elephant poaching situation. Photograph courtesy SOS Elephants.

The EU Ambassador noted in a January 30^th letter to Cameroon’s prime minister that, despite troop deployments around some of Cameroon’s protected areas, the elephants remain under imminent threat from the “worrisome movement of armed groups in neighboring countries.”

The situation is similar in Chad. In response to the movement of poachers from Sudan across CAR to the Chad border, last December Déby sent military aircraft to patrol the Mayo-Lemie–Chari Baguirmi regions, where elephant numbers have more than doubled from 300 at the start of 2012 to around 700. Last August Déby launched a massive search that captured five of the poachers responsible for a massacre of 63 elephants in that same area. And this morning five trucks with 100 more soldiers arrived in the Logone region to hunt the poachers. Déby’s personal concern over elephant poaching is well known.

The weak link remains CAR. As Vergniault explains, “Apparently the poachers ran away [from the Chadian soldiers] in the direction of Cameroon. But in Cameroon anti-poaching units are also after them. Their only option is CAR.”

Several columns of Sudanese poachers, comprising between 150 to 200 men riding on camels and horseback, have been sighted in recent weeks by villagers and by staff with Project Ecofaune, a program funded by the European Union that aims to protect CAR’s wildlife. Project staff also described the firing of 60 or so shots by poachers near Ecofaune’s base at Sangba (near Dzanga-Sangha and Boumba Bek National Parks in southwestern CAR and southeastern Cameroon respectively). No elephant carcasses have been found yet, and the shots may have been intended to intimidate staff at the camp.

Informers recognized one of the poachers as part of the group responsible for the killing frenzy that according to some reports left as many as 650 elephants dead in and around northern Cameroon’s Bouba Ndjidah National Park in February 2012. This connection was confirmed when the head of the gang told a village health care worker while being treated for minor injuries in mid-October that the men had decided to return earlier than usual to take advantage of the greater ground cover during the rainy season. The February massacre occurred during the dry. According to Project Ecofaune’s Monthly Security Bulletin, the leader noted that back in February “they had a lot of losses in Cameroon” and that they now wanted to get there ahead of the dry season “to strike by surprise.” (While rangers could not repel the attack, Cameroon’s military killed one poacher and drove out the rest within a month; one soldier was killed, and two others injured.)

While the poachers’ destination may now be northern Cameroon, that may shift. Depending on the season and the threats, the elephant herds in central Africa roam between Chad, Cameroon, and the Central African Republic. According to Stephanie Vergniault, president of SOS Elephants, a wildlife organization based in Chad, during the past few months hundreds of elephants have moved into southwestern Chad seeking refuge from heavy poaching in northern Cameroon and CAR. She says that the numbers near the SOS Elephants camp in Mayo Lemie increased from 300 at the start of 2012 to around 700 now.

The poachers have followed a well-worn path, entering CAR from Sudan at Tinga on or around September 8. By November 22 they were seen near Ndele heading towards Bamingui-Bangoran National Park in northwestern CAR close to the border with Cameroon. To reach northern Cameroon they must first cross into Chad. Difficult rainy season conditions, including swollen rivers and marshland, are hindering travel, and they may not enter Chad for another week or two.

These men are lethal. Each carries one or two individual weapons, typically AK-47s, and the group has at least six Russian shoulder-fired anti-tank grenade launchers (RPG-7s) and four Thuraya satellite phones.

These men are lethal. Each carries one or two individual weapons, typically AK-47s, and the group has at least six Russian shoulder-fired anti-tank grenade launchers (RPG-7s) and four Thuraya satellite phones. In October the poachers took a young villager hostage and forced him to guide the group before releasing him a week later.

The Cameroon government has mobilized its special military unit, the Rapid Intervention Battalion (BIR), yet questions remain whether this is enough. Vergniault is urging Chad’s President Idriss Déby Itno to offer CAR President François Bozizé military support to address the threat while the poachers are still in CAR. “Once these small groups of assimiliated ‘nomad-style horsemen’ enter Chad, it will be very complicated to detect them,” she says. Last August, after 63 elephants were slaughtered in southwestern Chad, the government launched a massive search for the poachers, but it took weeks before forces caught them. “The border between Chad and CAR is full of small mountains and forests,” Vergniault explained, “so that poachers can easily hide in small groups pretending they are [local] nomads.”

Assistance is needed because the CAR government lacks the capacity to tackle this poaching threat. Currently, multiple armed rebel groups operate with impunity throughout the country, including the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in eastern CAR. The LRA is a militant group headed by Joseph Kony and accused of numerous human rights abuses. A September New York Times article by Jeffrey Gettleman noted that the LRA uses ivory to finance itself and that the group was responsible for killing dozens of elephants in Garamba National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) this past spring. In December 2011 the United States deployed a small number of U.S. forces as advisors to CAR’s national military for pursuit of the LRA.

The leaders of CAR and Chad have a close relationship, so military assistance by Chad may be welcome. In 2003, then General François Bozizé ousted President Ange-Felix Patassé, presumably with backing from Chad’s President Déby.

Already President Déby has sent military aircraft to patrol southwestern Chad, where elephants have congregated. Vergniault is hoping he will extend this military reach to stop the poachers while they are still in CAR. This would protect the elephants and prevent a “nightmare that will spread around the area.”

SOS Elephants President Stephanie Vergniault with her assistant keeper and orphaned baby elephant. Photo courtesy of SOS Elephants.

It appears that the poachers came from Sudan because their horses wore blankets found only in that country. Government forces also recovered 65 elephant tusks, three horses, one of which had drowned, a donkey, three assault rifles, and 400 rounds of ammunition.

At an August 21 press conference the Secretary-General of Chad’s Ministry of Environment and Fisheries Resources, Mr. Sandjima Dounia, named the five suspects—Mahamat Ousman Abadai, Markhani Brahim, Mazou Mainou, Adam Mahamat, and Yerima Hadjar—and said they would need to answer for their crimes. He also noted that the government was intensifying its search for additional poachers to prevent a resurgence in elephant killings.

Military officials with a jacket taken from elephant poachers. Photo courtesy of SOS Elephants.

Following the capture of the poachers, Chadian communities have gathered to support the country’s elephants. The wildlife organization SOS Elephants, traditional leaders, and administrative authorities together have initiated an education campaign to explain why elephants deserve protection and how creation of a safe corridor could help. Poaching has made the elephants in this region extremely aggressive, so much so that they will charge without provocation.

Peasant with arm broken by charging elephant, August 2012. Photo courtesy of SOS Elephants.

Chadian communities and SOS Elephants are also working to create a 145-square-mile protected area along the Chari River. Most of the necessary administrative steps have been completed, and the designation will be made as soon as the environment ministry gives final approval.

According to Stephanie Vergniault, President of SOS Elephants, this relatively small area is home to about two-thirds of Chad’s remaining 1,500 elephants. Classifying it as protected will make it easier to keep track of the elephants, and an aerial counting is planned for November.

In the meantime, local communities and wildlife department officials monitoring the herds report that over the last eight months elephant numbers in Mayo Lemie-Chari Baguirmi have increased dramatically, from 300 to around 1,000, as herds flee poaching in other parts of the country and seek a safe place to live.