SEAFOOD GIANT ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN LARGEST FIN WHALE HUNT SINCE COMMERCIAL WHALING BAN

LONDON: Iceland’s controversial fin whale hunt has now ended with a catch of 155 endangered fin whales, the largest slaughter since the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling.

 

New evidence obtained on the ground by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) and the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) reveals the ongoing involvement of international seafood giant HB Grandi in the whaling business, despite its claims to the contrary.

 

The two organisations also confirmed that major international shipping firm Eimskip continues to be closely involved in transporting whale products. 

 

In gathering evidence, EIA and AWI documented a truck belonging to Norðanfiskur – a seafood company wholly owned by HB Grandi since 2014 – transporting crates of whale meat and blubber from the whaling station at Hvalfjörður to Hvalur’s freezer facility in Hafnarfjörður.

 

HB Grandi is Iceland’s largest seafood company and its CEO, Vilhjálmur Vilhjálmsson, has repeatedly insisted that the company “is not involved in whaling and never has been.” This claim ignores the fact that multi-millionaire Icelandic whaler Kristján Loftsson is chairman of HB Grandi’s board of directors and his whaling company, Hvalur, remains its single largest shareholder (via holding company Vogun).

 

“It is deeply disappointing, but no surprise, that HB Grandi’s repeated assurances that it has nothing to do with whaling have yet again been exposed as nothing but a worthless sop to shareholders and customers who are rightly concerned about its association with the internationally condemned hunting of endangered fin whales,” said Clare Perry, Team Leader of EIA’s Oceans Campaign.

 

Another major player in the transportation of whale meat and blubber around Iceland is Eimskip, a company 25 per cent owned by Yucaipa, a private equity company based in the US. Eimskip’s central involvement in Icelandic whaling includes hauling Hvalur whale products within Iceland and shipping them overseas.

 

In January 2014, Eimskip-chartered vessel the Westerkade was used to transport fin whale meat from Iceland to Halifax, Canada. The shipment was then sent by rail to Vancouver, where it was loaded onto another vessel that sailed to Seattle before departing for Yokohama, Japan.

 

Susan Millward, executive director of Washington DC-based AWI; stated: “It’s disgraceful that a US firm is being tainted by the blood of fin whales. We implore Yucaipa, as Eimskip’s largest shareholder, to exert its influence to end Eimskip’s supporting role in Iceland’s fin whale hunt.”

 

Iceland has continued exporting whale products in defiance of an international ban on such trade; more than 7,200 tonnes of blubber and meat have been sent to Japan since Iceland resumed commercial whaling in 2006. The most recent shipment of 1,800 tonnes arrived in Osaka in late August, following passage through Russia’s Northern Sea Route.

 

EIA and AWI are calling on International Whaling Commission member states in Europe and the US to increase diplomatic pressure on Iceland to compel it to abide by the moratorium on commercial whaling and the ban on international trade in whale products under the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). 

RAKUTEN – THE WORLD’S BIGGEST ONLINE RETAILER OF ELEPHANT IVORY AND WHALE MEAT

LONDON: Japanese retail giant Rakuten is today exposed as the world’s biggest online marketplace for elephant ivory and whale meat products.

 

The new report “Blood e-Commerce: Rakuten’s profits from the slaughter of elephants and whales” – released by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) in conjunction with Humane Society International (HSI) – reveals that the company’s Japanese website carries more than 28,000 ads for elephant ivory products and some 1,200 whale meat products ads.

 

Internationally ambitious, the company owns Rakuten Shopping (formerly Buy.com) in the US, Play.com in the UK, PriceMinister in France, shopping sites in Germany, Austria, Brazil and other countries, Canadian e-book reader Kobu and popular chat app Viber, as well as being a major shareholder in Pinterest.

 

Up to 50,000 African elephants are poached each year in a worsening crisis to satisfy the demand for ivory from Japan and China. EIA and HSI research identified over 90 per cent of the ivory products sold on Rakuten Japan as “hanko” – name seals used to sign official documents. Large amounts of ivory hanko are known to have been produced from illegal ivory in Japan.

 

Blood e-Commerce outlines how Japan’s ivory control regulations have failed to comply with requirements of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to control raw ivory tusks and worked ivory “with demonstrably effective enforcement.”

 

Japanese hunters continue to slaughter internationally protected whale species, and the country imports the meat of endangered fin whales from Iceland. Large numbers of small whales and dolphins are hunted around the Japanese coast, which often contain high levels of toxic mercury; eight of nine products offered for sale on Rakuten were tested by an independent lab and found to contain dangerous levels of toxic mercury.

 

EIA President Allan Thornton said: “Rakuten’s ads are effectively as deadly as giving bullets to elephant poachers and harpoons to whalers. Rakuten must act immediately to ban all ads selling elephant and whale products or its global brand will be irrevocably tainted with the ongoing mass slaughter of these species.”

 

Clare Perry, head of EIA’s Cetaceans Campaign, added: “Rakuten’s claim to be committed to policies seeking to “protect the environment” can only be cynical lip-service as long as it banks the profits of products derived from threatened or endangered species.”

 

HSI Vice president Kitty Block said: “We call on Rakuten subsidiaries in the US, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Austria and elsewhere to urgently press Rakuten headquarters in Japan to ban all ads offering ivory and whale products.”

 

 

World Wildlife Day logo

February 2014: Further to Notification to the Parties No. 2014/004, the CITES Secretariat is pleased to make available today the logo created to celebrate the first World Wildlife Day (3 March 2014) as proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly. We welcome all countries, organizations and all interested individuals to make use of the logo in their celebration of the first World Wildlife Day.

 

The logo is created in the 6 official languages of the United Nations, i.e. Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. Detailed instructions on how to use the logo will be made available on this page soon.

United Nations General Assembly decides to proclaim 3 March as World Wildlife Day

Geneva, 23 December 2013 – On 20 December 2013, the Sixty-eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly decided to proclaim 3 March, the day of the adoption of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), as World Wildlife Day, to celebrate and raise awareness of the world’s wild fauna and flora. Read more: http://www.cites.org/eng/news/pr/2013/20131223_world-wildlife-day.php

From words to action – key organizations team up to stop the extinction crisis

Gland, Switzerland, 28 May 2013 – With unprecedented species declines and more than 20,000 of the species assessed on The IUCN Red List threatened with extinction, IUCN and other organizations come together to support the achievement of a global biodiversity target to prevent further species loss.

The partnership – Friends of Target 12 – will guide countries in their efforts to prevent further extinctions of threatened species and improve the conservation status of those disappearing most rapidly. This will help them achieve the so-called ‘Target 12’ – one of 20 ‘Aichi Biodiversity Targets’ adopted under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Japan in 2010.

“Today, species are disappearing at unprecedented rates,” says Jane Smart, Global Director of IUCN’s Biodiversity Conservation Group. “However, we know that conservation works. We need to do much more of it and at a much larger scale. We hope that this partnership will provide the concerted action that we urgently need to secure the long term survival of species.”

The initiative aims to bring together the knowledge and experience of government institutions, intergovernmental, non-governmental and community-based organizations, academic and professional networks and private sector companies working to conserve species and ensure their sustainable use. It will offer practical advice to countries on how to better protect species, providing a common space for its partners to share and build on their previous conservation successes. Partners include key international conventions on biodiversity such as the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

                                   Przewalski’s Horse (Equus ferus)

Out of 65,518 species currently assessed by The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™, 1,173 are Extinct or Possibly Extinct and 20,219 are threatened. However, past conservation action led by some of the organizations that are now joining the initiative has brought many species back from the brink of extinction. Examples include the Nepal’s Greater One-horned Rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis), Brazil’s Lear’s Macaw (Anodorhynchus leari), the Arabian Oryx (Oryx leucoryx), the California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus) and the Przewalski’s Horse (Equus ferus) in Mongolia.

Some Friends of Target 12 partners have already made specific commitments as part of the initiative and more are soon to be announced. IUCN, through The IUCN Red List and Species Survival Commission – a science-based network of almost 8,000 volunteer experts – will continue to provide information and analyses on the status, trends and threats to biodiversity in order to catalyze species conservation action.

The global species conservation fund SOS – Save Our Species, initiated by IUCN, Global Environment Facility and the World Bank will help governments and other institutions channel resources towards conserving threatened species.

“Many organizations and institutions around the world are contributing to the protection of species and are supporting the implementation of Target 12,” says Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, CBD Executive Secretary. “This partnership brings them together and enhances the support that we can provide to CBD Parties to finally move from words to implementation of the Aichi biodiversity targets.”

The partnership is officially supported by the CBD and currently has 21 partners.

CITES: Rhetoric and tiptoeing around elephant poaching

Given that the elephant poaching crisis was at the forefront of the minds of all at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES as never before, what was actually done by CITES to stop the killing of elephants across Africa?
The actual outcome was far short of what was expected and, indeed, what was needed to secure the fate of elephants.

Stage 1: Big talk (63rd meeting of the CITES Standing Committee, March 2, 2013)

When the CITES proceedings began on March 2, 2013 with the 63rd meeting of the Standing Committee, gripping speeches were delivered about “the elephant poaching crisis”, the “unsustainable” levels of elephant mortality for trade, “organised crime” and the need for “time-bound measurable action” to stop the killing and the illegal trade in ivory.
Shockingly, throughout the proceedings, there was one word that was avoided like the plague by the Parties – “China”.
This was a bizarre state of polite tiptoeing around a country, China, which had been “heavily implicated” as a destination for illicit ivory.
Despite official information presented to CITES about the laundering of ‘illegal’ African elephant ivory into domestic ‘legal’ ivory markets in China and Thailand, and despite an assessment that “any future decline in illicit trade in ivory will depend upon the actions taken by China and Thailand to deal with outstanding problematic issues in their ivory markets”, there were NO calls from governments to shut down the LEGAL domestic markets for ivory in both China and Thailand.

This blatant lack of pressure from the international community on China and Thailand is particularly appalling for several reasons, including 1) the flourishing ‘legal’ market in China for African elephant ivory was enabled by CITES Parties themselves when they decided in 2008 to allow certain African countries to sell ivory to China in a “one-off” sale that has had devastating impacts on African elephants, and 2) Thailand has for several years now been making tall claims to CITES about changing its domestic legislation to tackle illicit ivory trade in Thailand, although such action has not been forthcoming. Indeed there was much ado about the Thai Prime Minister’s inauguration speech where she said that as “a next step” the country “will work towards … the goal” of putting an end to ivory trade and to be in line with international norms.
Frankly, I’ll believe it when I see it. Until then, I will refrain from applauding the Government of Thailand for something they ought to have done years ago and have still not done – inaction which has lead to a burgeoning haven in Thailand for criminals smuggling ivory.

Stage 2: Denial, or looking the other way (CITES CoP16 Proceedings)

The progress that we did manage to achieve at the CITES conference included adoption of a recommendation that Parties report annually on government-held ivory stockpiles; adoption of a decision that Parties involved in ivory seizures of 500kg or more should collect and submit DNA samples from the ivory seized to an appropriate forensic analysis facility samples; and adoption of a resolution for implementation of the African Elephant Action Plan. These measures, if implemented effectively, will significantly help with combating the ivory trade.
Shockingly, although nine Parties identified as being of ‘secondary concern’ and six Parties identified as being of “importance to watch” were subject to a decision that directs the Secretariat to develop country-specific actions and deadlines on ensuring significant progress by July 2014 on the implementation of measures to effectively control trade in ivory and ivory markets, CITES CoP16 did not specifically address the roles of two Parties of “primary concern” ie, China and Thailand.
In addition, Parties failed to take stock of the impact of the previous ivory sales they had authorised and while on the one hand they called for actions to reduce demand for ivory, on the other they initiated the establishment of a decision-making mechanism for “a process of trade in ivory” that is expected to be adopted at the next Conference of the Parties in South Africa.
This mechanism will pave the way for adopting criteria and processes for future trade in ivory. But why did the CITES Parties not nip this in the bud in the face of the worst elephant poaching and illegal ivory trade levels, and a recognition that DEMAND is driving the poaching of elephants? As I said, denial and looking the other way.

Stage 3: Too late (64th meeting of the CITES Standing Committee, March 14)

It turns out the heart of the discussion on how to address the role of “primary concern” countries including China and Thailand was left to the very last minute, after the conclusion of CITES CoP16, in the CITES Standing Committee meeting that followed.

Such a meeting is typically for mundane housekeeping purposes and therefore lacks any significant attendance by Parties and NGOs. And so it happened that when most delegates had already left for the airport and the conference centre was mostly empty but for farewell hugs, photographs and organisers wrapping up, from about 5.30 pm in a barely half-full meeting room CITES discussed actions required by primary implicated Parties to curb the poaching and illegal trade in ivory.
No surprise at all that the Chair of the meeting concluded that there wasn’t much time to discuss this issue in great detail and they had to wrap up as it was getting late.
In brief, China and Thailand were bundled in along with other countries of ‘primary concern’ and they were all asked to submit “national ivory action plans” by May 15, 2013 aimed at reducing illegal trade in ivory and to report on implementation of these plans in July 2013 to the 65th meeting of the CITES Standing Committee in Geneva.
The decision adopted yesterday does not articulate what goes into these plans, whether they will be made public, whether there is anything CITES can do if the Parties submit meaningless documents as such plans. While the Secretariat reported that some Parties had submitted ‘draft’ plans to the Secretariat during the course of the meeting ,these drafts have not yet been made publicly available.
To conclude, what did CITES do in Bangkok to address the role of China and Thailand in ivory trafficking? It simply asked them to decide what they would like to do and then submit reports on it.
This is the way CITES deals with a “crisis”.
 

CITES MISSED OPPORTUNITIES FOR TIGERS, ELEPHANTS AND RHINOS: NGOs

The global treaty charged with ensuring wildlife is not commercially exploited to extinction[1] fell short of putting the breaks on poaching of elephants, tigers, and rhinos at its biannual meeting that closes today in Bangkok.

 

Poaching and trafficking of elephants, tigers and rhinos is at crisis levels, yet domestic trade is still allowed and international trade in the body parts of these critically endangered animals is still being negotiated. 

 

“Some experts and governments are sending mixed messages to consumers, traders, and the law enforcement community,” said Steven Galster of FREELAND.  “They are advocating for demand reduction efforts on one hand, while discussing legalisation of trade in endangered species on the other.  It's like putting water on one side of the fire of extinction, and gas on the other.

 

The bans on international commercial trade in products made from elephants, rhinos and tigers initially worked well, allowing all three species to rebound in wild.  Unfortunately, approval and continued negotiations of so-called “limited legal trade” in elephants and rhinos has rekindled what had been a dying market for ivory and rhino horn.  Trade in tiger skins and bones is also still going on in China, permitting legal trade in skins from captive-bred tigers to supply a growing luxury market for exotic home décor.

 

“Trade bans work – unless they are sabotaged,” said Avinash Basker of the Wildlife Protection Society of India.  In Basker’s home country India, the demand for elephant ivory for use in making religious items and wedding bangles has been drastically reduced thanks to the government’s laws, law enforcement and public-outreach efforts.

 

The mixed messages coming out of the Bangkok meeting confuse consumers and encourage criminals, putting elephants, rhinos, tigers and the people who protect them in grave danger.  “Criminals all along the supply chain, from poachers to smugglers to retailers, are watching what happens here,” said Mary Rice of the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency.  “It is time for this treaty to get back to its founding precautions and to stop experimenting with the fate of endangered wildlife.”

[1]  The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) was created in 1973 and came into effect in 1975.  As of 12 March 2013, 177 countries had become CITES Parties.

PROTECTION WILL HELP TO END ROSEWOOD WARS

CITES lists endangered wood in bid to halt booming illegal trade

BANGKOK, THAILAND: Granting international protection to threatened Siam rosewood is a major step towards saving the species from extinction and curbing the explosion of violence around illegal trade in the precious wood.

The London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) has been supporting the efforts  of  the Thai Government to secure listing for Siam rosewood (Dalbergia cochinchinensis) on Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), currently meeting in Bangkok.

Today, the 177 member countries of CITES agreed to the listing by consensus.  

“This is a significant step forward for this desperately threatened species,” said Faith Doherty, head of EIA’s Forests Campaign. “With this listing, the consumer markets will need to work with Thailand and the range states of Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos to ensure Siam Rosewood is actually protected, especially as there is a logging ban in Thailand.

“Finally, we have a legal tool to use in China, the main destination and where rosewood prices on the black market are spurring a flood of smuggling and associated violence.”

Thailand’s last forests are increasingly threatened by illegal logging, the major driver of which is the multi-million dollar rosewood trade to feed China’s desire for luxury ‘Hongmu’ antique-style furniture.

The increasing scarcity of Siam rosewood has driven the prices offered by international traders to as much as US$50,000 per cubic meter; with so much money involved, official corruption facilitates the trade at every stage, from forests to the borders and ports.

Violence has become a regular feature of the trade, with increasing incidents involving exchanges of gunfire between Thai enforcement agencies and Cambodian logging gangs crossing the border to steal rosewood. Scores of deaths have occurred.    

EIA’s research indicates the illegal rosewood trade in Thailand has boomed since demand surged in China in 2007 and today’s listing agreement will compel the Chinese authorities to seize illegal Siam rosewood entering the country.

“Thailand and co-sponsor Vietnam are to be congratulated for the courage to ask for help in securing international protection for this key tree species,” added Doherty.

“With formal protection in place, EIA will now be closely monitoring the illegal trade in rosewood and looks forward to working closely with all enforcement agencies in rosewood range states and China.”