[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING THREATS TO CONSERVATION AND NATIONAL
SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 26, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-143
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-869 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Massachusetts
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
TREY RADEL, Florida--resigned 1/27/ GRACE MENG, New York
14 deg. LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TED S. YOHO, Florida
LUKE MESSER, Indiana
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Kerri-Ann Jones, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs,
U.S. Department of State....................................... 5
The Honorable Daniel M. Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior....................... 17
Mr. Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of
Justice........................................................ 28
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Kerri-Ann Jones: Prepared statement................ 8
The Honorable Daniel M. Ashe: Prepared statement................. 19
Mr. Robert G. Dreher: Prepared statement......................... 30
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 60
Hearing minutes.................................................. 61
The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign
Affairs: Material submitted for the record by the National
Rifle Association.............................................. 63
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York: Prepared statement...................... 66
The Honorable Edward R. Royce: Questions submitted for the record
to the Honorable Daniel M. Ashe................................ 68
The Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of South Carolina: Questions submitted for the record to
the Honorable Kerri-Ann Jones, the Honorable Daniel M. Ashe and
Mr. Robert G. Dreher........................................... 71
INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING
THREATS TO CONSERVATION AND
NATIONAL SECURITY
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2014
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m., in
room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Royce. This hearing will come to order and I'm
going to ask the members to come down to the committee and take
their seats so we can get started.
This hearing is on international wildlife trafficking and
threats to conservation, threats to security, and I would just
start with the observation that we have a major slaughter going
on across the African subcontinent.
If we had looked at the numbers a few years ago we would
have found that between 1990 and 2005, South Africa lost 14
rhinos a year. Friends, last year there were thousands
slaughtered in South Africa.
It gives you a sense of the magnitude of what is happening
to the white rhino, the black rhino. If we look at elephants,
last year--well, back in 2011, 17,000 elephants were killed in
sub-Saharan Africa illegally. Now we go to the following year--
30,000 killed in 1 year.
How can this be? How can this new battlefield in this fight
end up in such absolute slaughter, threatening the extinction
of some of these species?
There is a battlefield there and part of it is with
organized crime and part of it is that organized crime has
tools that poachers in the past did not have, and increasingly
rebel groups and especially terrorist organizations like al-
Shabaab are carrying into the fight a new type of weaponry that
these animals have not been up against in the past and the
battle where this is being carried out is in South Africa's
national parks.
Some years ago, some of us worked to set up a national park
system--Congo Basin Forest Partnership Act. Well, now those
parks across Africa are the battlefield in which these species
are being slaughtered.
So as one witness will tell the committee, we are at a
pivotal moment in the conservation movement with an alarming
and unprecedented dramatic increase in the slaughter of
wildlife.
Driving that slaughter, of course, is the value and we--I
talked a little bit here about what happened to the black
rhino. The value of rhino horn right now is $60,000 per kilo.
Now, that is more than platinum. That is more than cocaine.
So you can see why these criminal syndicates are part of the
chain. You can have terrorists or poachers or some of these
rebel groups that do the work on the ground but they pass it
off to a criminal syndicate that then moves it to market.
If you looked at the cost of ivory, tusk, $1,000 per
kilogram. So that makes trafficking among the most lucrative
criminal activities worldwide right now, generating $8 billion
to $10 billion per year and that cash flow allows today's
poacher to buy something he hasn't had in the past. He has got
at his disposal helicopters, high-powered weapons, night-vision
goggles.
And then you take into account the intelligence community
and what they are briefing us on and they are saying that
traffickers' use of sophisticated networks is now part of the
program to move these products and that this is not just a
threat to wildlife anymore.
Increasingly, they say, you have terrorist and rebel groups
capitalizing on this trade and that that is a threat to
national security.
One example, al-Shabaab--al-Qaeda's affiliate in Somalia--
they have turned to the ivory trade for funding. Joseph Kony
and his Lord's Resistance Army, when we talked a little bit in
the past in these hearings about exploiting child soldiers,
well, they are exploiting the region's most unique and limited
natural resource to fund its brutal violence as well as
exploiting children.
In response to this crisis, I authored legislation last
Congress to expand the State Department's rewards program to
target transnational criminal syndicates. That has been done.
The first issue--the first example of this is the Pablo
Escobar of wildlife trafficking, Vixay Keosavang, has been
caught. His number-two man was caught in South Africa and just
got 40 years. Ivory and rhino horn were among what was being
shipped out of the country.
In order to take a comprehensive look at this--at this
problem, the President established an interagency task force.
As a starting point the group developed and published the
National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking and we are
going to assess that today.
We are going to look forward to hearing that report and,
uniquely, the task force also sought advice from an advisory
council of outside experts and this included David Barron of
the International Conservation Caucus Foundation.
David has worked with Congress for years on these critical
issues. There are many others including Africans whose views
must be heard on this subject and as this strategy was being
developed several of us urged the administration to act boldly
to utilize the tools--the law enforcement tools right now that
we currently use to dismantle other illicit transnational
networks.
I know of no reason why we can't make the same argument,
and one thing is clear to me. Whether dealing with global
terrorist networks such as Hezbollah or international arms
dealers such as Viktor Bout or even--or even tackling North
Korea's illicit activities, when the U.S. Government is
focused, when the government is directed, it can deliver
devastating blows to our enemies.
We have seen that. We have seen them put people like Viktor
Bout behind bars. What is needed here is exactly that approach
and what we want to do is encourage the administration to do
precisely that, and I am sure our NGO groups want to see the
same follow through.
So future generations will judge our response to this
crisis. If we want a world still blessed with these magnificent
species, we need creative action. We need very aggressive
action.
We need to work with source and transit and demand to
confront the challenge, and as Director Ashe will testify, the
criminals have raised their game. We now must do the same, and
I will now turn to the ranking member for her opening comment,
Karen Bass from Los Angeles.
Ms. Bass. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for today's
hearing and in general for your leadership on this issue.
I know that many people here are aware of Mr. Royce's
leadership on this issue for many years but a few months ago I
was attending a dinner and had an opportunity to hear his full
history on this issue. So I want to thank you for your
leadership over many, many years.
I also want to thank our witnesses today for your great
work and commitment to solving this international crisis. I am
encouraged by the worldwide movement and the administration's
focus on this issue and I look forward to continue to be
involved in the implementation of the National Strategy for
Combating Wildlife Trafficking.
As I know we will hear more of and have heard some,
international wildlife trafficking is not only a security and
conservation issue but it also undermines the stability and
development of many African nations.
Throughout the continent, recent spikes in poaching has
caused instability by providing funds for illicit activities,
spreading violence and hurting the nation's ability to develop
indigenous and local sources of revenue through wildlife
tourism.
I have seen first-hand the importance of wildlife tourism
to local community development. A couple of years ago, I was on
a CODEL to Gabon and also to Botswana and I met with members of
communities alongside eco-oriented wildlife sites.
Many of the people provided services for or worked at these
eco-sites. In Botswana, for example, I visited a village where
the villagers had a contract with a firm in South Africa and
the South African company came and helped them develop a small
but a high-end resort--tourism resort.
And they were able to, one, employ all of the members of
the village in terms of building the resort but also people who
came and visited the resort after a few years, they were able
to generate $\1/2\ million in revenue for the village, which
they then plowed back into the development of the village, and
it gave me a whole new way to look at this issue.
I know that if trafficking continues at the current rate it
will undercut success that has been made at this site and many
others and prevent other communities from developing their own
strategies to use wildlife tourism and community development.
So I look forward to your testimony today and also to see
more of what we can do to end this but also to assist the
various nations in their further development.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Congresswoman Bass.
Any other members want to make an opening statement? Yes,
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would like to thank the chairman for
holding this hearing, and for those of you who don't know it
takes someone to make a decision on how we are going to
allocate our time here.
And I think your decision, Mr. Chairman, to hold a hearing
on this subject demonstrates the scope as well as the depth of
your world view.
And not all chairmen would have a hearing on this issue,
and today we acknowledge the destruction of these majestic
species in Africa and we realize and we underscore that closing
our eyes to this perhaps historic malady that we are facing in
humankind today not only is it just the obliteration of wild
species in Africa but also as important to our own security,
which so often happens when we close our eyes to some evil that
is going on. We end up not being able to close our eyes.
As the chairman has pointed out, terrorists and others now
are using this very vehicle to handle their own affairs--to pay
for their own affairs, which threaten the rest of the world and
threaten all of us.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
We will go to Mr. Cicilline from Rhode Island.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Chairman, I want to just take a moment to applaud your
leadership on this issue and to say that I was at the same
dinner and I was profoundly moved learning of your very long
history in this area.
And I am particularly delighted to also recognize the new
but equally passionate leadership of our ranking member of the
Africa Subcommittee, Congresswoman Bass, and look forward to
what we can do as a committee and as a Congress to address this
very important issue, and I thank the witnesses for being here
and I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline.
This morning, we are pleased to be joined by
representatives from the Department of State, the Department of
Interior and the Department of Justice, who represent the three
co-chairs of the Presidential Task Force on Wildlife
Trafficking.
Prior to her appointment as Assistant Secretary of State
for Oceans and International Environment, Dr. Kerri-Ann Jones
worked in several capacities within the U.S. Government
including positions in the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy, the National Science Foundation, the U.S.
Agency for International Development and NIH.
Dr. Daniel Ashe serves as the 16th Director of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the nation's principal Federal
agency dedicated to the conservation of fish and wildlife and
the conservation of their habitats.
Earlier in his career, Mr. Ashe was a staffer here on
Capitol Hill where he worked, of course, on conservation
issues, and welcome back.
As Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Environmental
and Natural Resources Division, Mr. Robert Dreher is tasked
with prosecuting these environmental crimes, and without
objection your full testimony will be put in the record, and if
I might suggest you might want to summarize.
If you could hold it to 5 minutes, and members are going to
have 5 days to submit any additional statements or questions
that you might respond to and any extraneous materials for the
record that they might want to put into the record.
So, Dr. Jones, if you could start. We appreciate you being
with us.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KERRI-ANN JONES, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND
SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. Jones. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Royce and
Ranking Member Bass, and members of the committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here before you today
with my colleagues to address wildlife--the wildlife
trafficking crisis.
At the outset, I would like to extend my thanks to Chairman
Royce and other Members of Congress for focusing strong
attention and action on this pernicious multifaceted crisis.
If this is left unchecked, we will be facing more serious
threats to conservation, local economies, security as well as
health. This terrible problem has been recognized by Congress,
by the NGO community around the world, by the private sector
and across the executive branch.
The President's July 2013 Executive order called for
action, establishing an interagency task force and an advisory
council, and earlier this month, as you mentioned, Chairman,
the President released the National Strategy for Combating
Wildlife Trafficking which lays out a clear whole of government
plan forward with three strategic priorities.
These are strengthening domestic and global enforcement,
reducing demand for illegally-traded wildlife at home and
abroad and building international cooperation and public-
private partnerships to combat illegal wildlife poaching and
trade.
The September 2013 white paper on wildlife poaching from
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence points out
that the increasing demand and high profitability of illegal
wildlife products has broadened the scope and scale of the
problem, particularly in Africa.
African countries are facing mounting security challenges
where they are often outgunned by heavily-armed criminal
operations. Strengthening enforcement is a necessity and we
have taken some actions to begin to address this crisis.
This past November, Secretary Kerry announced the first
ever reward for information leading to the dismantling of the
Xaysavang Network, a transnational crime syndicate facilitating
wildlife trafficking across Africa and Asia.
Chairman Royce's efforts were instrumental in being able to
put out this announcement for reward and we thank you,
Chairman.
For the last decade, the department has partnered with
other U.S. agencies to stand up five regional wildlife
enforcement networks and our goal is to connect these regional
networks and create a global network.
Our foreign assistance will continue to strengthen policies
and legislative frameworks to enhance investigative and law
enforcement functions and to support regional cooperation among
enforcement agencies.
They will also work to develop capacities to prosecute and
adjudicate crimes related to wildlife trafficking. However, to
address wildlife trafficking we must also address demand.
We must remove--reduce the market for these products. To do
this, we intend to strengthen our efforts with international
partners to communicate the negative impacts of this
devastating trade on security, environment, local economies and
public health.
For example, USAID's Asia Regional Response to Endangered
Species Trafficking, or ARREST--the ARREST Project--has
launched a series of demand reduction campaigns in Asia's three
biggest wildlife market and transit countries and a first Asia-
wide smart phone application that will help counter illegal
trade in wildlife. And, of course, we will continue to work
through our missions around the world to get the message out
every way we can.
The third strategic priority recognizes that solutions to
this challenging problem require partnerships. We continue to
strengthen our diplomatic work to raise the profile of this
issue.
We are highlighting the issue in the G-8, in Asia regional
bodies and at the U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and
Criminal Justice.
We have secured the inclusion of language to address
wildlife trafficking in two security resolutions adopted in
January 2014 sanctioning African armed groups.
At the recent London conference, 42 nations in the EU
signed on to a declaration that the U.S. helped shape that
includes the commitment to avoid the use of endangered species
in government purchases and also calls for the continuation of
the prohibition of a ban on ivory trade.
We are working with key partners like Indonesia, where just
a couple of weeks ago Secretary Kerry signed an MOU with--a
memorandum of understanding with Forest Minister Hassan that
addresses wildlife and conservation.
We are working with China. Law enforcement entities in
China and the U.S. joined other countries including 26 African
and Asian nations in a successful global investigative effort,
Operation Cobra II.
This was a follow-on to an earlier activity, Cobra I. Both
have been very successful. Also, in the upcoming strategic and
economic dialogue with China we plan to again address wildlife
trafficking and to push for concrete actions in terms of
raising public awareness to reduce demand and strengthening law
enforcement.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate Secretary Kerry's
continued commitment to tackling this very important illegal
trade issue.
We are committed to do more and work smarter with partners
around the world to support wildlife range states, to maintain
the integrity of their national borders and to protect their
iconic wildlife for future generations.
Congress has shown great leadership on this issue. We
appreciate your support and we very much look forward to
working with you--continuing to work with you on this important
issue.
Thank you for the invitation to be here today and I look
forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jones follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Ashe.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL M. ASHE, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH
AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Ashe. Good morning, Chairman Royce, Ranking Member
Bass, committee members. On behalf of Secretary Sally Jewell, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify here today about the
National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking.
Spurred by President Obama's Executive order, the strategy
begins the process of leveraging resources and expertise across
the Federal Government to crack down on the poaching and
trafficking that is devastating some of the world's most
beloved animals, evidence of that trafficking is on display
here on the tabletop before us.
As recent events demonstrate, United States leadership is
vital. Since we crushed the United States' stockpile of seized
illegal ivory in November, China and France have followed suit,
and Hong Kong has also announced its intention to do so.
At my right in front of Dr. Jones is a sample of the
crushed ivory from our Denver event in November. In addition,
this past year we concluded our most successful CITES
conference ever with nine of the 10 U.S.-sponsored proposals
gaining approval by member nations.
The Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service will help lead the strategy's implementation
with our colleagues in the Department of Justice and State,
building on the foundation that has been laid through decades
of international conservation and law enforcement work.
We have a four-tiered approach to combating wildlife
trafficking with our international partners. First, we continue
to work with international law enforcement agencies to disrupt
and dismantle trafficking networks and arrest those responsible
for the brutal slaughter of these magnificent creatures.
We have a photo, I think, showing some 1,500 raw tusks that
were recently seized in Togo, the largest seizure yet by a West
African nation, and perhaps that will be displayed in a moment.
We provide critical financial and technical support for on-
the-ground conservation efforts and to build the capacity of
range states to protect wildlife and bring poachers and
traffickers to justice.
We work here in the United States and with our partners in
Asia, Europe and Latin America to reduce demand for wildlife
products and we continue working with CITES member nations to
support sustainable trade and well-managed wildlife management
programs that provide jobs and economic development
opportunities in development range countries, as Ranking Member
Bass was speaking to, thus reducing the allure of poaching and
trafficking.
Now highlighting some of the strategy's most significant
actions, we are using the full extent of our existing legal
authority to stop virtually all commercial trade of elephant
ivory and rhino horn within the United States and across its
borders.
Just yesterday, I signed a Fish and Wildlife Service
Director's Order 210, beginning the implementation of that
effort. All commercial imports of African elephant ivory into
the United States will be prohibited without exception.
Nearly all commercial exports of elephant ivory will also
be prohibited with the exception of a very small, strictly
defined, class of antiques with verified documentation of their
antiquity.
Domestic commerce will be prohibited, again, with the
exception of documented antiques and other items clearly
documented as legally imported prior to the protection of the
species under CITES Appendix 1.
The strategy also recommends the continued sale of the Save
Vanishing Species semipostal stamp. The public has purchased
more than 25.5 million stamps, generating more than $2.5
million for conservation of elephants, rhinoceros, tigers,
marine turtles and great apes.
I want to conclude by asking you to consider this moment in
history. Mr. Rohrabacher referenced the leadership that is
being demonstrated here. We have a chance here and now to take
action to ensure that elephants, rhinos and hundreds of other
wild plant and animal species do not vanish from the wild.
Because of the President's leadership, that of good
colleagues and friends and other great institutions and that of
this great committee, we can dare to dream that our
grandchildren will be able to see these iconic species, their
heritage as global citizens, in their native habitat in the
wild.
I look forward to working with your committee to help to
make this dream a reality. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
Mr. Dreher.
STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT G. DREHER, ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Dreher. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Bass and
members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs----
Chairman Royce. Let us try it one more time on punching
that button.
Mr. Dreher. Okay.
Chairman Royce. There we go.
Mr. Dreher. That seems to be working.
Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Bass and members of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the work with the Department
of Justice regarding wildlife trafficking.
The Department of Justice has long been a leader in the
fight against wildlife trafficking and we are deeply engaged in
the administration's efforts to combat wildlife trafficking and
implement the National Strategy.
Earlier this month, Associate Attorney General Tony West
led the U.S. delegation at the London conference on illegal
wildlife trade at which more than 40 countries agreed to a
declaration on the need for international action to address
this crisis.
And the Department of Justice served as a co-chair along
with my fellow co-chairs from the Department of State and
Department of Interior and worked closely with 14 other Federal
agencies to develop the National Strategy.
As the strategy recognizes, strong enforcement is critical
to stopping those who kill and traffic in protected species.
The environmental crime section of the Department of Justice
works with the U.S. Attorneys Offices around the country and
with our Federal agency partners to enforce the Lacey Act and
the Endangered Species Act as well as statutes prohibiting
smuggling, criminal conspiracy and related crimes.
In our prosecutions we are increasingly seeing the
involvement of criminal organizations, including transnational
criminal organizations, that may threaten the security
interests of the United States and its allies.
We are currently involved, for example, in prosecuting
cases developed through Operation Crash, an ongoing multi
agency effort with very strong involvement of the investigative
agents of the Fish and Wildlife Service and other Federal
agencies including Customs and Border Patrol, to detect and
prosecute those engaged in illegal killing of rhinoceros and
the trafficking of rhinoceros horn. This initiative has
resulted in multiple convictions, significant jail time,
penalties and forfeited assets.
Recent Operation Crash cases involve organized criminal
elements that speak to the scope and scale of this problem. In
one such case, Zhifei Li, a Chinese national, pled guilty this
past December to organizing a conspiracy in which at least 30
raw rhinoceros horns and numerous objects made from rhino horn
and elephant ivory worth more than $4.5 million were smuggled
illegally from the United States to China.
Li admitted that he was the boss of several antique dealers
in the United States who helped him obtain and smuggle wildlife
items and that he supplied ivory to three illegal-carving
factories in China.
In another case, Michael Slattery, Jr., an Irish national,
was recently sentenced to serve 14 months incarceration as well
as to pay a fine and forfeit proceeds from his illegal trade in
rhinoceros horn.
He admitted to illegal trafficking throughout the United
States and is alleged to belong to an organized criminal group
engaged in rhino horn trafficking.
We have seen success in prosecuting those illegal--who
illegally traffic in elephant ivory including, for example, a
defendant whose import-export businesses were fronts for
smuggling into the United States products from endangered and
protected wildlife species including raw elephant ivory.
Another ivory case concerned a 2-year criminal conspiracy
in which six defendants pleaded guilty to illegally importing
ivory through the New York's JFK Airport.
In our cases, we seek substantial penalties including
incarceration appropriate for crimes of this magnitude. Strong
enforcement in the United States is not enough, however. As the
National Strategy recognizes, wildlife trafficking is a global
problem that requires a global solution.
For that reason, the Department of Justice has for many
years worked closely with other Federal agencies to help
foreign governments build their capacity to develop and
effectively enforce their own wildlife trafficking laws.
Our efforts in this area include training our foreign
counterparts on the legal, investigative, prosecutorial and
judicial aspects of enforcing wildlife laws.
We seek to help our partners craft strong laws, strengthen
their investigation and evidence-gathering capabilities and
improve their judicial and prosecutorial effectiveness.
I temporarily lost my place but I am soon about to recover
it.
Chairman Royce. Feel free to summarize.
Mr. Dreher. Well, let me just say that we are very proud
of our record of achievement in this area. The National
Strategy is a reminder that much more is needed. The strategy
calls for Federal coordination through a whole of government
approach and is a strong basis for our continued movement
forward.
We will commit our efforts to the prosecution of wildlife
criminals and give it--treat it with the seriousness that these
crimes warrant and deserve. We look forward to working with
Congress to strengthen existing laws and to adopt new
legislation to improve the tools available to address this
challenge.
We welcome the longstanding interest of the members of this
committee and others in the House and Senate in addressing this
crisis, and thank you for the opportunity to participate.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dreher follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you very much. If I could go to Mr.
Ashe first with the observation, Director Ashe, that Fish and
Wildlife has began to do with the Embassies exactly what we
have had the DEA or FBI do in the past, which is to say you are
starting to station. I guess, in Thailand you have done this.
We are trying in sub-Saharan Africa. I guess it is in the
paperwork to get one of your--one of your agents in the Embassy
there. I wonder--and I think it is in Tanzania that you are
focused on that.
Is there anything Congress could do to help expedite that
and get that in place, get those agents on the ground in the
Embassies?
Mr. Ashe. I think, as you said, with the help of the State
Department and USAID we have had--we have had success. We will
have our first law enforcement agent stationed in Bangkok later
this month.
We are working with the State Department. Our goal through
the end of this year is to have two agents in Africa, two
agents in Asia and one agent in Latin America, and we--and I
think that the most important thing for Congress, obviously, is
to provide the financial support for that.
We will--we did receive an increase in the most recent
appropriations bill. We would hope to receive additional
funding in the coming year to provide further support for this
effort and encouragement, of course, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. When we checked in on Tanzania, what was
the hold-up at State on that? Do you know offhand or----
Mr. Ashe. I do not know the particular hold-up.
Chairman Royce. If there is anything we can do to expedite
that just----
Mr. Ashe. Tanzania is--actually, what we are trying to do
is station an expert in Tanzania that is not law enforcement.
At this point, Tanzania has not requested law enforcement
assistance so a little bit different situation in Tanzania.
Chairman Royce. Likewise, most of us have been out there
to talk to the head of state and to the legislature. I know
Karen Bass makes frequent trips to that area.
So if there is anything we can do with their legislature or
their executive branch to elicit that request, especially given
what is being looted out of--trafficked out of Tanzania, we
would be happy to do that.
I am curious on another subject. Since the Attorney General
and the Secretary of State consult with the Treasury Secretary
on the designation process, there is existing authority to go
after transnational criminal organizations that could be used
here because the Treasury Department has the ability to
sanction property, sanction assets of transnational criminal
organizations.
So how would the Department of Justice request to Congress
to place wildlife trafficking as a predicate crime for money
laundering, bolster the effort in--to attack the financing
aspect of this if you feel that is important, and if you do is
it possible from the panel here that we might get legislative
language to do exactly what DOJ suggests here? Can you get me
that draft language?
Mr. Dreher. Mr. Chairman, we welcome your interest in this
and we would be happy to work very closely with the committee
to try to develop language. The National Strategy does ask for
help from Congress.
We are seeking to have the same law enforcement tools that
we have available to us to combat other very serious forms of
transnational crime, and for wildlife trafficking some of those
tools are more limited than we would benefit from including, in
particular, making wildlife trafficking a predicate offense for
money laundering charges.
We would also seek help in making--getting clarification of
our authority for asset forfeiture in cases where the predicate
offenses were wildlife trafficking. We really want to try to
take the profit out of this crime.
But, Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to work with the
committee and as closely as we can.
Chairman Royce. That language would be very helpful and
very welcomed, I think, by the committee and we would work that
out and move it quickly.
Local community-based conservation was the other aspect of
this that I wanted to ask you about. When I was chair of the
Africa Subcommittee one of the trips we took with Secretary
Colin Powell was to Central Africa.
We spent time there with Michael Fay, National Geographic
explorer in residence, who explained to us the critical
importance of supporting on-the-ground local actors who are on
the front lines of this fight, who have a stake in the fight,
and realizing the impact that local community engagement could
bring to conservation and we went forward and authored the
Congo Basin Forest Partnership Act.
Now, with our wildlife trafficking crisis, what unique role
does community-based conservation play and what is their
potential here for reducing wildlife poaching and how could we
better work with these local community groups who now have a
stake all right in--you know, through their sustainable
development practices of, basically, monitoring the population
there--the elephant populations and so forth.
How might we be able to work with those community-based
organizations? Director Ashe.
Mr. Ashe. Again, I think working collaboratively is the
key to that and that is this--the power in this all of
government approach.
Certainly, we have--we have had within the Fish and
Wildlife Service, within our international affairs program we
have for decades now focused on building capacity within range
state nations and I think that that is what we have to do and
we have to build local incentive for the conservation of these
species, and the State Department has been a great partner in
that effort.
Again, it is resource limited. We have great NGO partners,
many of whom will be stepping up their efforts as well.
But I think what you reference, Mr. Chairman, is the key
that we have to--we have to work at the community level. We
have to build capacity, law enforcement, economic development
capacity related to these issues.
We can't do that--any one of us cannot do that alone. We
have to--we have to do that together. We have to have many,
many more resources to get the job done.
Chairman Royce. The last issue I was going to ask your
collective support for is an aspect that wasn't mentioned in
the strategy and that is the role of the Defense Department.
Many of the park rangers in these African countries don't
have the capacity to fend off poachers because they are
outgunned and many of these African countries depend on their
militaries, frankly. They use the military there to protect the
wildlife and to protect the borders.
So the DoD has a long relationship with some of these armed
forces, leveraging those relationships by having them provide
the training to these military forces, or advising them could
be very helpful in combating poaching.
But I can tell you there has been a lot of--there has been
a lot of push back from the DoD in the past when I have talked
to them about this or we have floated this issue.
I think it would be very helpful if the three of you would
sort of expand this strategy to include that component because
if we are serious about preparing these park rangers they are
going to need a little bit more help than just what we are
talking about here.
You are going to have to bump it up, and I think you are
going to find that the DoD has provided technical assistance to
African armed forces. It would just be changing the attitudes
of DoD to get them to understand that this is part of
subverting transnational crime and some of these terrorist
groups and others who are benefitting out of this by
cooperating.
What do you think about that, Director Ashe--whether the
three of you think that is possible.
Mr. Ashe. I think, again, the opportunity for increased
intelligence capacity, increased information sharing, training
on the ground can certainly be enhanced by the involvement of
the U.S. Defense Department.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, I think one of the tragedies in
all of this is, you know, if you will recall about 18 months
ago we lost--we, the collective we--lost a park ranger at Mount
Rainier National Park in an unfortunate incident and caused a
moment of, certainly, within the entire Department of the
Interior and I think within the nation as a whole, a moment of
grief.
Well, we see, you know, that one national park--Virunga
National Park in the Congo--over the last decade they have lost
100 rangers trying to protect these animals.
So we need better--we need to better equip and train them
and we need to provide mechanisms of support for their families
because when those rangers are lost that is a family's income,
a family that is essentially put at risk. And so we need better
tools to deal with that aspect of this.
Chairman Royce. Well, what I am trying to get you to focus
on is if the DoD is going to provide technical assistance to
African armed forces, if you expand this to the park rangers
and get them that capacity. Right now, they are outgunned.
So I think you need to be--you need to convey that and see
if you can't get us a little bit--if we get the administration
to support that, frankly, that would be very helpful because we
just went through a round here late last year on this. So that
is, I guess, what I am asking you to do.
Dr. Jones, if you could convey that and----
Ms. Jones. Yes.
Chairman Royce [continuing]. Try to--the three of you
rally around that I think it would be helpful.
Ms. Jones. If I may, Chairman, one of the strengths--I
think it was--is this on now? One of the strengths of the
approach that we have in the task force is that DoD is a member
of this task force and we have been in discussions with DoD and
with AFRICOM and we----
Chairman Royce. Right. Right.
Ms. Jones [continuing]. And we will continue those and I--
--
Chairman Royce. And there is no mention of the strategy or
role for the Defense Department in this document. That is why I
am pushing you. I am saying we got push back last year.
I am just saying if they are outgunned, you know, you have
got some people out there that can give them that capacity and
the intel and sort of level the playing field and we want you
to really push on that.
My time has expired and I am going to go to Karen Bass.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Bass. I just want to follow up on that because I know
in the discussions that I have had with AFRICOM while traveling
and with DoD there just didn't seem to be--just didn't seem to
be a real high priority. So I would definitely appreciate that
message being sent.
Along with that, you know, I also think of equipment that
we might be able to be helpful with. I know in one country we
talked about the use of drones.
In Gabon, for example, that wouldn't work because of the
rain forage--rain forests. But in other countries, you know, it
might be a very appropriate use.
I wanted to ask some questions, following up from the
conversation that we were having before the hearing started,
about the U.S. in terms of the--you mentioned before how most
of the ivory is passing through but then there are also
consumers in the U.S.
I, prior to this, didn't really view our country as a
problem. I thought it was more overseas, and so I wanted to
know your opinion about what we should do here in terms of
current law, increasing penalties, deterrents, et cetera.
What are your ideas that we should do here?
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Congresswoman Bass.
I think the first step is to end commercial trade in the
United States. So as you mentioned, you know, in Los Angeles
you can visit probably dozens of antique stores. You can do
that here in Washington, DC, New York City, Seattle. Any major
U.S. city you can go into an antique store and see items like
this for sale.
It is very difficult from a law enforcement perspective to
tell the difference and tell that this is an antique--it is 100
years old--something else is not. And so we need to end the
trade and so that is one step we can take.
Ms. Bass. Well, you know, actually the stores that I was
mentioning are not antique stores.
Mr. Ashe. Right. They are just bazaars. You can go to the
Dulles bazaar, the monthly bazaar here at Dulles Airport and
there will be probably a dozen, you know, stalls where people
are selling ivory products and so----
Ms. Bass. It is kind of hard to say if you have 100 items
that are exactly the same that they are antiques.
Mr. Ashe. And so what we have--what we have found is the
legal trade in ivory has become a smokescreen effectively for a
burgeoning new trade because the value of these products is so
high and has escalated so dramatically.
So we need to take that step and it is not just important
from the standpoint of ending the trade. It is important from
the standpoint of establishing U.S. leadership on this issue.
So the next big step is to use diplomacy on the global
level to reduce demand and that is--long term that is the most
important ingredient and the U.S. has to be able to speak from
a position of leadership and I believe our ban on ivory trade
in the U.S. sets an example for the world as our crush of ivory
did back in November. It allows us a position of leadership in
the world and a voice of leadership.
Ms. Bass. Any other comments? Thank you.
Ms. Jones. I think that Director Ashe's point about the
leadership is one that we have a real opportunity to move
forward on now. Just a short while ago, the Prime Minister of
Vietnam went out to all of his ministries and said you need to
now pay more attention to wildlife trafficking, very similar to
what we did with the--President Obama did with his Executive
order, and Secretary Kerry had raised this with the Prime
Minister during a visit and talked about this issue.
So I think that our ability to sort of have a full court
press in all of our diplomatic engagements and being very
credible about what we are doing at home and also talking about
how we can work together will begin to bring down both the
supply and demand.
But our challenge now is to maintain momentum and I think
with this strategy and the implementation plan that will come
from it we will be able to do that.
Ms. Bass. You know what? In thinking about my trip to
Botswana and how they were able to--actually, the same
villagers that understood that this was part of their economic
development prior had been participating in poaching.
And I am just wondering if there is, you know, some role
that the U.S. might play in either technical assistance,
education in other communities around the continent where you
have people who are actually participating--you know, the
residents in the community that lives nearby because they are
desperate because of the poverty.
They are seeing it from a very shortsighted perspective and
if that might be a role that the U.S. could play is to go
around and provide that technical assistance to show how this
could actually improve your development and not view it so
shortsightedly.
Ms. Jones. Well, I had the opportunity to travel to
Tanzania where I visited some of the USAID programs that try to
do that.
Ms. Bass. Okay.
Ms. Jones. They have programs called Wildlife Management
Areas where a community actually looks at the economics of
being able to have tourism in their area and it is a jointly-
owned process.
I sat in a room where they looked at income from tourists
coming in and there was a real sense of what the value of the
wildlife and their whole environment was to that community. And
so there is a long history of doing that and I think there are
more examples of that spreading in different countries through
different activities of USAID.
Connecting that then to national policies which have more
protection and also have better national policies will, I
think, make a big difference from local all the way up to the
national.
Ms. Bass. And I know I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. Just
quickly, what about the African Union? Do you think the African
Union is aggressively taking this issue on? Are we working with
them?
Ms. Jones. Yes. We are--we are working with them. We have
raised it with them and we continue to raise it with them. I
would think that it is something that they have responded to.
My former boss, Under Secretary Hormats, raised it with the
leader of the African Union and we will continue to do that.
I think our approach has been, from a diplomatic
standpoint, to work at this bilaterally, regionally, through
international organizations, through every channel we can. And
so that is the approach we are going to keep.
Ms. Bass. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Rohrabacher of California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Couple of--just look at some specific suggestions, and Mr.
Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General, would you--I
think you mentioned asset forfeiture and could we have--today
if the assets are seized from these people who are breaking the
law and are poaching and are being destructive of this natural
resource, does that then go into the fund for preserving them
and enforcing the law or does the asset forfeiture just go into
a general law enforcement fund?
Mr. Dreher. There is some opportunity to direct funds that
are seized or assets that are seized into law enforcement funds
that can have some benefit for us. The Endangered Species Act,
for example, has a fund program that lets us use it for some
limited purposes.
There isn't--there isn't an ability to really direct the
assets that are seized directly to law enforcement in a larger
way. It is a very limited opportunity, and in many cases when
we seize assets under other statutes, when we, for example are
charging crimes involving smuggling, you know, the assets will
go directly to the Treasury and not to law enforcement
activity.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that
perhaps a source of revenue for this effort would be that we
direct the assets that are seized from people who are breaking
the law by murdering these species that that be directed
specifically to that fight. That might increase the
capabilities of those who are enforcing the law.
In terms of technology, is there--we have incredible
intelligence technology today. We can zero in, and do these
countries that are trying to oversee large areas where you have
poachers actively murdering these elephants and rhinoceroses--
do they have the capability--do they have technological
capability that would be affordable to them to get that job
done? Whichever--Mr. Ashe.
Mr. Ashe. I would say across the board, Congressman, no. I
mean, as Chairman Royce indicated in his opening statement that
what we have seen, because of the escalation in value and
demand for these products the--you know, criminal networks have
upped their game.
And we used to deal with poaching, which is--you know, much
like we deal with poaching in the United States, it was
opportunistic. It was locally driven by local economies.
We now see organized syndicated trafficking networks and
they have--they are very sophisticated. They have access to
technology and arms and equipment that our--that our colleagues
in these range states do not have.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So in terms of overseeing a large animal
reserve in Africa, we have people who are at a great
disadvantage because they do not have what perhaps an infantry
squad in Afghanistan would have----
Mr. Ashe. Correct.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. Available to them. All
right.
That is--we have a lot of--Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of
excess military equipment that--left over from these adventures
in the Gulf that might be available to these people at a very
low cost because we have it there.
And who would--Secretary Jones, what countries would you
give gold medals to and what countries would you put on the
dirty guys list?
Ms. Jones. That is a very good question. What I have been
seeing in my travels is that the governments--many of the
governments are trying to do the right things and much of the
poaching and the activity is coming from groups that cross
borders.
I think that a country like Tanzania is trying very hard to
do the right things. I think that South Africa is trying. I
think Kenya is trying. I know that there has been an effort
with the legislators in Kenya to look at policies.
So in terms of engagement and our discussions, we are
seeing a lot of leaning into the right policy directions. It is
the implementation question.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I am going to put you on the spot because
what happens quite often--I always ask the question is what are
your most highest priority for budget issues, which are lowest
priority, and everybody is always willing to give their high
priorities but they are never willing to tell us the low
priority because they know that that is where we will cut. In
terms of the question I just asked----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Rohrabacher, my lowest priority in the
budget is defunding Obamacare.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you. Madame Secretary, you gave us
some good countries.
Do you have any bad boy countries that we should put on our
list of people who are not doing the adequate job and perhaps
intentionally not, maybe through corruption or whatever? I
notice you didn't mention Zimbabwe or any other country like
that.
Ms. Jones. No, I don't have--I mean, honestly, I don't
have a country I would put on that list and it is--from my
perspective, it is not a budget issue. I mean----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh, no. I am not talking about budget. I
am just saying who you are telling us we got to watch out for
these guys because they are not--they are not only not doing a
good job, they may be in cahoots with the bad guys, versus you
gave us a few lists there of people that deserve a gold medal,
and which one deserve the, you know, bad recommendation?
Ms. Jones. I think--I don't think I can answer that
question because I am--seriously, you know, I would turn to
Director Ashe to maybe say what he is seeing on the ground.
But from a policy perspective, what I am hearing is that
the governments are trying to take the right actions. So I
would turn to Dr. Ashe and maybe he is going to say on the
ground.
Mr. Ashe. Congressman, I guess I would say that the most
important thing right now is we have the opportunity to learn
that. I think what we are finding is that these--because of the
value of these products they are finding the path of least
resistance and often times that is not the range state. The
range state is taking----
Mr. Rohrabacher. I see. Yes.
Mr. Ashe. So I think the important thing is for us to
learn the answer to your question. I think right now we don't
know that. It looks like the bad guy might be Zimbabwe or it
might be Congo or it might be--but really, they may be doing
everything they can do within their power. So I think we need
to learn that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I know if we are talking about fish
and sharks that the Chinese like to have their shark fin soup
and they are destroying--I--we used to when I was a kid--I am a
surfer and all that--I used to spend a lot of time and I--
frankly, surfers and sharks don't get along. But I like to eat
shark. I mean, I--we used to barbecue it.
But the fact is that the Chinese, with their consumption
patterns are destroying sharks--the whole shark population
around the world and that is an issue of concern and I would--
Mr. Chairman, I would think that whether it is China or
elsewhere, the consumers of these products--those governments
need to be brought to task as well. Thank you very much.
Chairman Royce. And take shark fin soup off the menu.
Let us go to Gerry Connolly of Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to
pick up on Mr. Rohrabacher's question because what he is
getting at is the word efficacy.
It is not--it seems to me, if we care about this subject it
is not satisfactory that somebody is bending into the right
policies--doing the best it can.
The question is, is it effective? Are we losing this battle
or are we winning it, and what are the metrics that get us to
winning? And Mr. Rohrabacher's question has to do with bench
marking. What are the best practices and, bottom line, are they
working? Otherwise, they are not best practices.
So, Dr. Jones, let me reframe the question. As we look for
models where there are clear metrics, where there is the
commitment of the government, there are the resources in place
and in fact we are seeing trafficking go down and the organized
traffickers moving on somewhere else because it is just too
hard there, what would you cite? Where would you cite?
Ms. Jones. Thank you, Congressman.
I think that question gets at the two parts of this
problem--the supply and demand--because we have been talking
about both market countries and range states. And, certainly,
the U.S. and China are two of the biggest markets for these
products.
And shark fin soup was also mentioned and there have been
campaigns that have shown that there has been an effect in
reducing the demand for that by outreach.
So we have been increasingly engaged with the Chinese to
work on market demand because the reason these prices are so
high is because people will put out the money for this.
So I would say that we do need benchmarks. We are at the
turning point.
I can't--I can't tell you exactly how much we have done
with China to reduce demand of ivory right now but I think what
we need to do as we move into this implementation plan is look
at how the outreach going to affect demand, how are we going to
increase seizures, how many more rangers are we going to have
on the ground and how many national policies do we have.
So it is from the ground up to the policy that we have to
have benchmarks and we will just have the strategy out and we
are going to get to that with the implementation plan, but to
make the point that it is both pieces of this.
It is the supply, demand and transit and so we have to have
benchmarks for each piece of that and that is what we are
working toward.
Mr. Connolly. Dr. Jones, I appreciate that commitment but
this problem is not a new problem. One could infer from what
you just said that we are pretty far behind the curve here in--
and we are not--we don't even have an implementation strategy
to set benchmarks or metrics? We are just getting around to
that?
Ms. Jones. Well, we are just getting to an implementation
plan based on this recent strategy.
Mr. Connolly. Is there a single country of origin, hold in
abeyance China or the United States as consumer countries, but
is there a single country of origin you can point to where
substantial progress has been achieved, where poaching is down
and animal populations are either stabilized or, in fact,
growing?
Mr. Ashe. Mr. Connolly, I would--I would suggest Namibia.
Mr. Connolly. Namibia.
Mr. Ashe. Namibia is an excellent example of a country
that has an exceptional program and record. There are 5,000
black rhinoceroses left in the world. Eighteen hundred of those
are in Namibia.
Mr. Connolly. We might not--we might not want to bring too
much attention to that.
Mr. Ashe. Right. That is right. And so we--what we owe
those countries is support. So, for instance, I mean, Namibia
right now is, you know, going through a process of allowing the
harvest of a black rhino.
They can--they have a--they have a quota of up to five per
year. They have never filled their entire quota and right now
it is very--it has become very controversial because they are
going to allow the harvest of a single black rhino. But we owe
them support----
Mr. Connolly. Yeah.
Mr. Ashe [continuing]. Because they are the gold standard.
And so I would suggest Namibia and so that we can expand that
example throughout Africa.
Mr. Connolly. And I think you have just put your foot--
your finger on something that I think is really important.
Look, we have got to be bottom line focused here, including the
State Department. Are we making progress or are we falling
behind?
You can have the best strategy, best policy, the best
aspirations in the world and still lose the game, and where we
find a good actor who is not only trying to do the right thing
but actually making progress, I agree with you--then let us get
behind them big time to show others the reward system that
faces them if they start to put the resources in to try to, you
know, fight back against the poachers and the traffickers
because I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I am alarmed at what I am
hearing in this hearing.
Not lack of effort, not lack of commitment but we are
losing this game. We are not--we are not making progress and we
are up against actually something far more organized, far
better financed, far more violent and dangerous on the ground
than most of the local governments or even military can,
frankly, handle.
And we are going to have to think through our strategy here
and make it a lot more robust if we are going to begin to turn
the tide. Otherwise, we are going to lose this battle.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Connolly, I think you are right. On a
lot of fronts we are--we are losing. In Namibia, we are winning
or Namibia, I should say, is winning and part of that is
because they have a community-based local conservation program
of the first rank there and it is something of a template.
Mr. Connolly. Yes.
Chairman Royce. And if that can be expanded then on other
fronts I think the tide can be turned.
Mr. Connolly. And Mr. Chairman, just to underscore--just
to underscore what you said, because you are putting your
finger exact, we have got to look at benchmarks.
We have got to look at best practices and try to encourage
them elsewhere. Otherwise, we can have a lot of international
agreements and strategies and goals and policies but meanwhile
we are losing--we are losing the game.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
Randy Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In reading through this report it brings up a whole lot of
questions and I guess it does get the bench marking and what my
friend, Mr. Connolly, was saying, trying to get a benchmark and
trying to make progress.
So I have got some questions. In our report--and this is
not from you all's testimony but I do want you all to answer
the questions if you can--we talk about eyewitness accounts
from the Lord's Resistance Army, LRA, which talks about some of
the abductees, for example, Joseph Kony has ordered his
fighters to get elephant tusks and they are going to terrorist
groups.
Are we building a database of the terrorist groups that are
involved in this kind of trafficking?
Ms. Jones. Thank you for the question.
We are closely following all of the activities and the
different kind of illicit groups that are involved. So there
are terrorist groups. There are militia groups. There are some
just rogue military and then you have that collection tied into
organized and syndicated crime.
And so yes, we are certainly doing more to have information
on some of these issues and to also work with our partners to
get more information. So yes, we are trying to move forward on
that.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Are we communicating those terrorist
groups to our military forces, those who are responsible for
the war on terror?
Ms. Jones. We are sharing our information with the
appropriate players.
Mr. Weber. Okay. And have they taken any action that you
know of against these groups based on the information that you
have sent them, Dr. Jones?
Ms. Jones. I can't speak to that at this time here.
Mr. Weber. You do know that this is not the appropriate
setting?
Ms. Jones. Yes.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Then we will talk offline. And then
keeping in line with that questioning, of those terrorist
groups that we are identifying with the database, are we rating
and ranking them in what order are the most--the most active
and second most active?
Ms. Jones. It is difficult to talk about all the details
at this--in this setting. There is a lot of information we are
trying to gather and also share that with partners and other
players and we are continuing to sort of raise the importance
of this issue as how it ties into all of these networks and
their activities.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Because we are talking about funding
but--in the war on terror. You know, once we have identified
these groups and you even--in our report it talks about there
are certain--seems to be certain routes that they use in
smuggling across the different countries.
You talk about them traversing country lines, state lines,
borders. Have we identified those routes? Are we, you know,
staking out those routes?
Ms. Jones. We are beginning to track those routes and we
are beginning to sort of use that information in how we respond
and share it with partners in sort of the coordinated
operations that I was mentioning in my testimony, these
different sharing of information between all of the countries
involved in Africa and Asia to understand those routes.
So I think we are in the process of getting more
information on how all of these different illicit activities
are coming around this activity because this is just about--
this is about money and so we are tracking the money.
We have to follow the money and that is one of the things
we are really working on from both----
Mr. Weber. Okay. That is a great segue to my next question
about the money because we have instituted a rewards program.
How successful has that been? Is it paying out? Are we--how
successful has that been?
Ms. Jones. Well, we have just started that as the
legislation expanded that reward system to include wildlife
crime. So it is just in November that we have announced the
first reward and I haven't heard--I haven't gotten any feedback
on that yet. But I can get more and get back to you.
Mr. Weber. Okay. And then you mentioned Namibia, I think,
as being a success story. On the scale of countries--on the
scale of the amount of trafficking, where do they fall? Are
they number two? Are they number 22?
Mr. Ashe. I would put them at the top of the scale.
Mr. Weber. Well, now, that is in success.
Mr. Ashe. Right.
Mr. Weber. But in terms of volume.
Mr. Ashe. Volume--well, they have little trade and so from
a--from the standpoint of risk they are low on the scale. So
they have a very effective management and customs control
regime so----
Mr. Weber. Okay. And then last question--I am running out
of time--so, I mean, I don't mean to disrespect them or the
assessment that they are a success story but if they have
little traffic--if they are a small country and they didn't
have a whole lot to fight then it would have been easier for
them to be able to fight that.
Are we rating countries' governments on how they respond to
this problem--some of them are cooperating, some are not? Are
we rating those governments?
Mr. Ashe. We are--we have not to date. I think that is the
point. I can go back to a statement Mr. Connolly made that, you
know, this has been going on for a long time. I guess I would
say it has not.
I mean, what we have seen in the last 24 months is a
dramatic escalation, 7,000 percent rise in the value of
rhinoceros horn. And so what we have seen in just the last 24
months is that these things have become so lucrative that these
syndicated networks have rushed in.
And so we are just learning about that and so the routes of
trade, for instance, what--our traditional approach to dealing
with wildlife poaching is you go after the poachers. You get
the poachers.
And so what we now need to do is we need to let these
things move so that we can discover their routes of trade and
who is making the money and where they are. And so we are--we
are just beginning and the questions you are asking are the
right questions and we need to--we need to do that.
We need to identify which countries are the risk, both the
source countries, the transit countries and then the demand
countries--where are the highest risks and how can we stack and
attack those.
Chairman Royce. Maybe--Mr. Weber, maybe I could answer
some of that because in the case of al-Shabaab, to go right to
your question, in September 2013 al-Shabaab, of course,
attacked the Westgate Shopping Mall in Nairobi.
Sixty-seven people were killed there and 200 people were
wounded, and shortly after that attack the Kenya President
Kenyatta identified illegal trade in ivory as a source of
funding for the terrorist group.
And President Kenyatta made it very clear--I think I--I
think this was in the Wall Street Journal where I read this--
where he said al-Shabaab acts as a facilitator and broker, you
know, in ivory.
One of the reports we have shown that al-Shabaab gets up to
40 percent of the funds necessary for its operating expenses
through the ivory trade. The calculation of the quantity on the
black market is up to 600,000 monthly.
So when a terrorist organization like that is looking for
hard currency and they are demonstrably involved in this
activity and the consequences of this is that they are able to
sustain an operation in which they, you know, create casualties
to this extent, and as the President said this cannot be
curtailed without an offensive against overseas buyers and he
said we need a global plan to end a business that endangers our
wildlife and bankrolls a tax on our people in Kenya.
That would be one example, but also from 2012 we had the
situation with the Janjaweed and many of us are monitoring what
they have done not just in Darfur, of course, and in Chad but
in the Central African Republic.
But in--on March 2012 the Janjaweed perpetrated one of the
worst elephant slaughters in recent history anyway, riding over
600 miles from Sudan all the way to the national park in
Cameroon. There, they slaughtered more than 300 elephants--more
than 300 elephants.
That is the just the attack on Cameroon. They also attacked
Chad. They also attacked several other countries. They went
through Kenya on an attack. So you have these terrorist
organizations that aren't just a threat to wildlife.
I mean, they are carrying out ethnic cleansing, frankly, or
carrying out military operations against those who they feel
are their enemies.
But one of their sources of hard currency is what they are
doing in the rhino and ivory elephant trade.
Mr. Weber. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. And so that is why I want to give you the
specifics on that. But we go now to Grace Meng of New York.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for
holding this important hearing.
As you know, China in recent months publicly destroyed
large quantities of ivory, and sort of a two-part question. The
first part is I wanted to get your take on whether you think
there has been enough action behind this great symbolism, and
second, we talked about shark finning before.
I have been a very small part of a national effort to
eliminate the consumption of shark finning. We have been
successful as of last year in New York State, not only via law
enforcement methods but also in terms of education and
increasing cultural awareness.
And I also would like to get your take on the cultural
elements affecting the demand side here in the U.S. or abroad
and what are some strategies we can use to reach out to
communities where demand for ivory is high.
Ms. Jones. Thank you.
The Chinese did destroy about--I think it was six tons
maybe of ivory recently and we took that as a very good sign
but is a sign--it is a symbolic sign of moving away from sort
of a national support of this kind of trade.
But more substantively, we have been working closely with
the Chinese and we have been seeing a strong interest on their
part to partner with us on a number of ways of looking at this.
So they have been very active, as I mentioned, in this
international operation to look at all of the different points
along the trade route, those COBRA operations where COBRA II
recently, I think, had something like an increase of 400
arrests and 350 seizures and China was a partner in that
activity.
Now, that is in a multilateral setting but we are also
seeing--we have engaged the Chinese through the strategic and
economic dialogue, which is one of our main bilateral
engagements, to discuss issues with them.
And last year for the first time we discussed wildlife
trafficking in this forum for our strategic relationship and
our economic dialogue which show the importance of it and it
was a very engaged discussion and we have been having very good
follow-up on this.
So there is engagement and there is interest. There is
also--we have been working with the China-U.S. joint liaison
group on law enforcement because there are all these different
pieces of the problem that have to get attention.
So, clearly, China realizes that it is a large market for
these products. We are also a large market so we have been
trying to assume a leadership together on this and engage in
every way that we can.
We have a lot of work to do but I do think that there has
been some progress and I personally have been involved in the
discussions. We also see it in our relationship on illegal
logging, which is related to this issue.
Now, the point about changing demand, we have been talking
about that because there is a cultural issue. There is a
younger generation coming up in our country and around the
world that is very conservation minded and we are working with
the Chinese about messaging how do you get this out. That was a
very important part of the whole shark fin campaign.
So I think there is a lot we can do and we are getting, as
I said, a very positive response.
Mr. Ashe. Ms. Meng, I would say one thing about the ivory
crush and the elimination of confiscated stockpiles is that we
have seen encouraging results initially at the--at last year's
conference of the parties for the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species.
There was agreement that all parties to the convention, 179
member nations, should report on their stockpiles and that is
due by the end of February. And so by the end of February, we
will have a sense of what are nations carrying in terms of
stockpiles.
The U.S. stockpile, which we destroyed in November, was
about six tons. A country like China would have many times
that, and so having that information we will then be able to
put that in context because it is not just the symbolism. It is
the risk that that--those stockpiles represent because they
have to be secured.
In the U.S. our stockpiles are very secure. In other
European nations they would be very secure but in many of the
range and demand countries the security of those stockpiles is
an issue.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
We will go to Ted Yoho of Florida.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate you being
here today, and it just--I never cease to be amazed at the
stupidity, ignorance and brutality and greed of my fellow man
on something like this.
I want to build on Ms. Meng's questioning on the cultural
elements. You are seeing that change in the Asian countries
where the big demand is. We can only hope that we do more of
that.
I assume you have videos of these animals slaughtered, the
remnants of that, and I assume this goes through a regular
business transaction.
You have the supply side, which is the animal, and then you
have the facilitator, the poacher, then the facilitator, the
broker and eventually the buyer.
What is the poacher on an average--is there an average
figure that they receive out of this and is there an economic
incentive we can say don't do it--we will give you the money?
Ms. Jones. I can sort of give you an estimate for one that
I remember when we were discussing this with the Kenyans. I
think the amount that the poacher was getting was like five
times the annual salary of a ranger. It was some inordinate
factor.
But that may be off. I mean, Dan may have a better number
on that.
Mr. Ashe. Like, in terms of the value--the end value of
the product they are getting very little. But in terms of the
comparison to their--what they could otherwise make they are
making very much.
Mr. Yoho. So they are making thousands?
Mr. Ashe. By equivalent, yes.
Mr. Yoho. Yes.
Mr. Ashe. And so I think that is the issue that the
chairman mentioned, the community-based approaches to these
challenges. It is very important that the people see a value in
an elephant tusk that is beyond the immediate harvest because
that represents a dead elephant. That represents a dead
rhinoceros. So that is a one-time harvest.
Mr. Yoho. Right. And that also represents a lifestyle for
somebody for 2 or 3 years probably in those countries, right?
Mr. Ashe. Correct.
Mr. Yoho. Yes. And they are looking at their family or
lifestyle. The demand side, again, I just, through education,
you know, it just--it is mind boggling that somebody thinks
that, you know, they are going to get a hangover and they are
going to crush up some rhino horns and make a powder and, you
know, instead of just educating them a better way to deal with
their problems instead of getting rid of our resources.
And if you look at the life span of a rhinoceros, it is,
what, 45 to 60 years and, you know, sexual maturity of the
female is, I think, 6 to 8 years of age and the males 10 to 12
and they have got about a year and a half gestation period.
Is anybody looking at, and I don't even know if I want to
go here, but animal husbandry to raise them and then harvest
the ivory? Because you were saying in Namibia that they allow
for the harvesting of a male.
I mean, are they using a tranquilizer gun or is it it is
killed--shoot to kill and then have your picture taken with it?
I mean, are they looking at using tranquilizers and then
removing the antler or the horn versus killing the animal?
Mr. Ashe. There have been a lot of--of course, elephants
you can't remove the tusk. Any kind of ranching or farming of
elephants is difficult because they are slowly reproducing
long-lived animals.
Mr. Yoho. They sure are.
Mr. Ashe. Rhinoceros, they are--you can remove the horn
from a rhinoceros. There has been some experimentation with
doing that but they grow back and at the value of these horns
if you cut the horn off, you know, low even that little bit is
extremely valuable. And so there have been attempts to--at what
we would call traditional management approaches to this and
because of the value of the products they are--they have been
largely unsuccessful.
That doesn't mean we can't try in the future. The case I
mentioned in Namibia is a sport harvest so that would be--that
is a, you know, post-reproductive male that is essentially
outcompeting reproductive males.
They need to take it out of the population for good
management purposes. The individual who would harvest that has,
you know, purchased the--you know, the privilege to do that
for, I think, close to $300,000. All of that money would go
back into management. That is why Namibia has such an exemplary
program.
Mr. Yoho. Let me get your opinion on doing the ivory crush
and breaking the supply side. Is that going to increase the
value of them, obviously, and is that going to create more
demand and a more black market? I guess you can't get any much
more of a black market.
Mr. Ashe. The material that we crushed was confiscated--is
contraband.
Mr. Yoho. Right.
Mr. Ashe. So it would never go into trade. So destroying
it would have no----
Mr. Yoho. But it decreases the supply side so the demand
or the value is going to go up on the stuff they can get,
right?
Mr. Ashe. No, because it would have never been in trade
anyway.
Mr. Yoho. But I am talking about future procurement of the
horns.
Mr. Ashe. Presumably, but if you end the demand--if you
end the trade and you end the demand then that is the way, I
think, we have to deal with it. We have----
Mr. Yoho. I agree. I mean, that would be the best way and
just get people off of this stuff. I just find it horrendous
that people are doing this in the 21st century. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Yoho.
We go now to Mr. Matt Salmon of Arizona.
Mr. Salmon. Thanks a lot, Mr. Chairman. I think it goes
without saying that we all support the idea of protecting and
preserving and cultivating endangered species all around the
globe, particularly elephants and rhinoceroses.
This hearing is really helpful as we look toward the best
models of how to access and address--excuse me, address this
program globally. Mr. Ashe and Dreher, as you are working on
new regulations on the domestic sale of ivory--I am talking
about ivory that is already legal and here, not the future
stuff--I think it is important that we avoid the trap of
intended consequences.
Specifically, I would like to urge you to adopt rules that
do not harm U.S. collectors--I mean, people that already have
it within the family.
I am particularly concerned about families that might have
a family heirloom currently that is ivory, which could be, you
know, a gun handle or a knife handle or a statue which has been
passed down from generation to generation with little regard of
paperwork sometimes.
And so I am hoping that as we develop the rules we don't
get a situation where we are essentially taking family
heirlooms and making them worthless. And so while I completely
support going forward and making sure that, you know, that
folks that are acting in an illegal way that we prosecute them
to the nth degree of the law and that we make sure that, you
know, that we do this for the future.
But how can we balance in rule making to make sure that
people that have had legal ivory in their homes for years--from
years and years and years aren't hurt by the, you know, law of
unintended consequences?
Mr. Ashe. It is a difficult proposition although I would
say unequivocally that people who have a family heirloom that
has been passed from generation to generation can continue to
pass that heirloom. They can own it. They can possess it. They
can move it.
Mr. Salmon. They can't sell it, though.
Mr. Ashe. They cannot sell it.
Mr. Salmon. And that, to me--I mean, it renders the thing
basically valueless.
Mr. Ashe. If it is a family heirloom it strikes me that
the value is in the generational value of the product. The
challenge for us is that these products are--it is very
difficult to judge the authenticity of them because of the
value of them and the relatively low penalties associated with
trafficking in them that the risk is low, the value is high and
so legal trade is a significant smokescreen for effective law
enforcement.
Mr. Salmon. I understand that it might be difficult. But
what I am saying is not all--I mean, I might have an heirloom.
What if I have a Picasso that is left to me but maybe my folks
leave it to me and we come on economic hard times and we
decide, you know, I need to sell that Picasso because of the
value of the product.
I am saying something that has been in the family for a
long, long time is there a way to do rule making so that we
prosecute the bad guys that are trying to exploit, you know,
new ivory, exactly what you are trying to accomplish.
Your goal is not to punish people that have owned legal
ivory for the last 100 years. Your goal is to make sure that
for the future that we don't have bad actors and further, you
know, dealing with causing extinction or, you know, a dwindling
of those resources.
So is there a way to develop the rule so that people that
have had legal ivory don't get caught in the cross hairs?
Mr. Ashe. I think there is a statutory exemption in the
Endangered Species Act for antiques over 100 years of age and
but what we will have to do is ask for rigorous documentation.
Now, if you own something that is extraordinarily valuable
like a Picasso or a, you know, a Steinway you are going to have
that documentation because you will be able to show a trail of
transaction over many periods because they are extremely
valuable.
And so I think that people will be able to document that
for things that are--that have extraordinary value.
Mr. Salmon. What if I--what if I owned a firearm that had
ivory grips on it and perfectly legal, but I sold the firearm?
Am I going to be in the cross hairs of the government because I
am--you know, I am selling something that I have owned for
several years but I have decided I want to sell it?
Mr. Ashe. Well, I guess I would--from the standpoint of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, our priority for law
enforcement is syndicated commercial-scale trafficking.
Mr. Salmon. Okay.
Mr. Ashe. We are not looking for the average American,
although it would, under our proposed ban, if that firearm is
not an antique then it would be illegal for you to sell it and
the--and you would need to be aware of that.
And so I think that is--we do--it is our opinion that we do
need to end the legal commerce in ivory and we need to do that
at some point in time.
Mr. Salmon. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Ted Poe--Judge Poe of Texas.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
here.
I am very concerned, like a lot of folks are, about this
actual disappearance of some of the world's animals because of
these outlaws that are killing them and selling them for money.
It is all about that filthy lucre, money, and it involves a lot
of bad guys--terrorists, criminal gangs, you know, solo thieves
and bandits.
But it is all about the money, and I am really concerned
that they may be actually eliminating species, that they are so
successful that they are not breeding enough of these animals
to catch up with the robbers of their lives.
Lacey Act--I want to talk about that. Hypothetical question
and, really, I am looking for some answers on what we can do,
Congress, to go nail these people. Maybe that is not polite
language, certainly not diplomatic language.
But anyway, we got a company--let us use the hypothetical--
operating in Africa, and they are a conservation company and
they trade in endangered animals. They violate the Lacey law.
If they are an American company they are subject to the
Lacey law in the United States. Is that correct? American
company, they are violating the Lacey law, operating in some
African country and they could be prosecuted under the Lacey
law. Is that correct?
Mr. Dreher. I think the predicate offense in a Lacey Act
violation is putting into commerce or importing into the United
States an article that is taken in violation of foreign law.
Mr. Poe. Oh, yes. That is assumed.
Mr. Dreher. So they would have to be bringing it into the
United States. Yes.
Mr. Poe. They are bringing in--they are bringing it to
America.
Mr. Dreher. And if they are doing that in violation of the
host country's wildlife laws, yes, that would be a Lacey Act
violation.
Mr. Poe. Go after them. Nail them. But you got a foreign
country doing exactly the same thing in the fact that they
recruit. They are in violation of the Lacey law in other areas.
But let us say they advertise in the United States. They
recruit hunters to go to their little game ranch wherever it is
in Africa but they are notorious for operating and trading in
illegal, you know, ivory or whatever it is.
But they still are able to get access to American hunters
and advertising because the Lacey law doesn't apply to them. Is
that--is that correct?
Mr. Dreher. Again, I think unless the American
participants are bringing in to the United States----
Mr. Poe. They are not doing that. They are not bringing it
in.
Mr. Dreher. They are not bringing back trophies?
Mr. Poe. No. But you got this corporation--foreign
corporation operating, doing the same thing only they are
operating in another country.
The only thing they do in the United States is recruit
hunters to go and they--you know, hunters go and, you know,
don't bring the trophies back--illegal trophies back in the
country.
My real question is how can we get the Lacey law or some
type of action to go after these independent foreign
corporations that are doing this and really competing with the,
you know, good corporations of the United States that have vast
amounts of land that they conserve, doing the right thing, but
they compete with these guys that are involved in the trade?
I don't know that I framed the question very well. What can
we do to go after those folks I guess is really my question.
What can we do legally--legislatively? Ideas--I am open to
ideas, Dr. Jones.
Ms. Jones. Yes. There are a couple of things that come to
mind, Congressman. I think you raise a very good dimension of
this. One is the typical diplomatic route. We work with these
countries to show them how the Lacey Act works and sort of try
to encourage them to have laws just like it. So we do try to do
that.
The second thing is in trade agreements, that we have
environmental provisions that elevate this and try to ensure
that countries involved in trade relations are dealing with
issues like this and following international agreements like
CITES and that is part of the requirement in the trade
agreement.
And so we do have environmental sections of our trade
agreements and we are in the process of trying to put these
into some of the new agreements that are under negotiation.
Mr. Poe. Can't we at least prohibit those companies--we
know about their--what they are doing in another country. We
can't reach them because they are a foreign company. Can we
prevent them, since they are doing this activity, from at least
advertising and recruiting in the United States?
Mr. Ashe. If they are--I think, as Dr. Jones mentioned, we
have other international instruments like the Convention on
International Trade and Endangered Species and if their
activities are undermining the implementation of those other
international instruments then we can bring an action.
We can sanction those countries under the Pelly Act so we
have--we do have mechanisms to ensure that international
instruments are being effectively implemented. They are not
being undermined. And so perhaps we should look at the Pelly
Act. But I would applaud you, Congressman, for your reference
to the Lacey Act.
It is the workhorse of national and international wildlife
law enforcement and I would just, you know, say to the
committee tomorrow there is a hearing before another committee
of this House of Representatives where some significant actions
are being considered that will weaken our ability to enforce
the Lacey Act.
And so we need effective voices to not just maintain the
Lacey Act but strengthen the Lacey Act as a means of
enforcement.
Mr. Poe. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Yes. Thank you, Judge Poe.
And, again, we thank our three witnesses here. We
especially want to thank also the NGO community that are really
integral to, frankly, the partnership that has got to be put
together here to bring the amount of tension necessary to
elevate this issue before it is too late, as I indicated in my
opening statement, before we reach the point where these
species have been slaughtered to the point of extinction.
So thank you all for your efforts here, and we will be back
in touch because we do need that draft language, your
assistance on that front, and thank you again to our witnesses.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Edward R. Royce, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California, and chairman,
Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]