How the United States & Other Nations Protect Elephants

PAGE INDEX--CLICK ON TOPIC







CITES is the acronym for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna & Flora. The elephants, threatened with extinction because of poaching for ivory, were sought to be protected from international trade by being listed on Appendix I of CITES since 1989.

"Elephas Maximus" (Asian) and "Loxodonta Africana" (African) elephants are listed on Appendix I of CITES. The primary concern, however, was with African elephants. The male Asian elephants have small tusks and Asian females do not have visible tusks.

The ban in 1989 was temporary. The ban was reevaluated in 1992. 115 countries signed on to CITES. The market for ivory declined following the ban as did the poaching. The implementation of the ban caused the collapse of the ivory market. Some trading in ivory continued from stocks. Black market prices for ivory stood at $5.00 per pound in 1993. China and Taiwan continued to trade in ivory.

Several Africa countries---Zimbabwe, Namibia, and Botswana (ZNB) had called for CITES to downlist the elephants in these countries from Appendix I to Appendix II. Appendix II is the list of species which can be internationally traded with permits.

In June, 1997, at the 10th CITES Conference in Harare, Zimbabwe, the decision was made to downlist the elephant population in these countries to Appendix II. However, opponents to this decision were able to get some stringent conditions imposed. Because of these conditions, a legal ivory trade has not been started as of this date--November 1998.

1. No trade in ivory can take place until 18 months after the Harare decision came into force and then:

a. only a limited quantity of ZNB's stockpiled ivory.

b. Japan is to be the only trading partner.

c. only if poaching, smuggling and corruption are deemed to be under control.

d. only if there is no increase in poaching attributable to the Harare decision.

2. If the above problems occur, the downlisting of elephants in Zimbabwe, Namibia and Botswana to Appendix II would be reversed.

CITES UPDATES

No. 2004/030
Geneva, 30 April 2004

Notification to the Parties

CONCERNING:

Monitoring of illegal trade in ivory

1. With Notification to the Parties No. 1999/92 of 30 November 1999 the Secretariat distributed a form and explanatory notes to report seizures of ivory and other elephant products.

2. The Secretariat reminds Parties of the considerable time, money and effort that have been devoted to the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) and encourages them to submit reports on all seizures of ivory and other elephant products.

3. These reports may be submitted for inclusion in ETIS in printed form or electronically to the CITES Secretariat for passing to TRAFFIC, or directly to TRAFFIC. To ensure that any such information will be included in the upcoming analysis of ETIS data for the 13th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (Bangkok, 2004), Parties should ensure that their submissions reach TRAFFIC by 30 May 2004. TRAFFIC’s contact details are:

TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa
c/o WWF Southern Africa Regional Programme Office

Mailing address: P.O. Box CY 1409
Causeway
HARARE
Zimbabwe

Street address: 10 Lanark Road
Belgravia
HARARE
Zimbabwe

Tel: +263 (4) 25 25 33/4
Fax: +263 (4) 25 27 03; 25 29 02
Email: etis@wwf.org.zw

4. Submissions can be made using the Ivory and Elephant Product Seizure Data Collection Form distributed with Notification to the Parties No. 1999/92, which is available in electronic format from the CITES website. Alternatively, TRAFFIC will also accept electronic or printed spreadsheets of elephant product seizure information as long as they contain the minimum set of data required for entry into ETIS. With reference to the data collection form, the minimum information required to enable entry of a seizure case into ETIS is:

  • – (Question 1) source of data;
  • – (Question 2) date of seizure AND the agency or authority responsible for the seizure;
  • – (Question 4) location of the seizure; and
  • – (Question 9) number and/or volume of ivory seized by type (i.e. raw, semiworked or worked ivory); or
  • – (Question 10) number and/or volume of non-ivory elephant product seized.

5. Cases that are reported without the above information cannot be entered into ETIS and TRAFFIC will have to seek further details from the appropriate authorities.

6. Parties are also encouraged to include other important information, if known, particularly (Question 5) country of origin, (Question 6) country of export/re-export and (Question 7) country of destination/import for the elephant products seized, as this information serves to strengthen any subsequent analysis of the ETIS data.

7. Parties are reminded that ETIS includes records of elephant product seizures that have occurred since 1989. Thus, Parties are encouraged to review and provide information on seizures that have occurred in the past but that have not been reported to ETIS yet.

8. Parties are advised that they should also communicate the absence of ivory or other elephant product seizures within the course of a year. Indeed, a report that no seizures have been made is a far more useful than not communicating any information at all.

9. Finally, in reporting ivory seizures, Parties are asked to pay particular attention to the need to identify the type of ivory involved. ETIS recognizes three types of ivory: 'raw ivory', 'semi-worked ivory' and 'worked ivory'. Definitions of these ivory types are found in the Explanatory Notes that were circulated in Notification to the Parties No. 1999/92. Failure to indicate the precise type of ivory seized is the most common problem preventing data entry of ivory seizure cases and considerable time is required to clarify this issue with the appropriate Management Authorities so that such cases can eventually be included in ETIS.

10. This Notification replaces Notification to the Parties No. 2003/067 of 12 November 2003.

No. 2003/067
Geneva, 12 November 2003

Notification to the Parties

CONCERNING:

Monitoring of illegal trade in ivory

1. Notification to the Parties No. 1999/92, of 30 November 1999, describes the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS). The annexes to that Notification contain the data collection form and explanatory notes.

2. The explanatory notes provide contact details for TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, which maintains the system on behalf of the Secretariat. These details are now out of date.

3. The following are the current contact details for the supply of information or for any questions regarding ETIS:

TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa
c/o WWF Southern Africa Regional Programme Office

Mailing address: P.O. Box CY 1409
Causeway
HARARE
Zimbabwe

Street address: 10 Lanark Road
Belgravia
HARARE
Zimbabwe

Tel: +263 (4) 25 25 33/4
Fax: +263 (4) 25 27 03; 25 29 02
Email: etis@wwf.org.zw

2003/018 -- dated 04/04/03 -- Decisions in effect after the 12th meeting of the Conference of the Parties.

Decision 10.2 (Rev. CoP11) Elephants – Conditions for the disposal of ivory stocks and generating resources for conservation in African elephant range States.

Elephants – Conditions for the disposal of ivory stocks and generating resources
for conservation in African elephant range States

10.2
(Rev. CoP11)

a) The African elephant range States recognize:

i) the threats that stockpiles pose to sustainable legal trade;

ii) that stockpiles are a vital economic resource for them;

iii) that various funding commitments were made by donor countries and agencies to offset the loss of assets in the interest of unifying these States regarding the inclusion of African elephant populations in Appendix I;

iv) the significance of channelling such assets from ivory into improving conservation and community-based conservation and development programmes;

v) the failure of donors to fund elephant conservation action plans drawn up by the range States at the urging of donor countries and conservation organizations; and

vi) that, at its ninth meeting, the Conference of the Parties directed the Standing Committee to review the issue of stockpiles and to report back at the 10th meeting.

 

b) Accordingly, the African elephant range States agree that all revenues from any purchase of stockpiles by donor countries and organizations will be deposited in and managed through conservation trust funds, and that:

i) such funds shall be managed by Boards of Trustees (such as representatives of governments, donors, the CITES Secretariat, etc.) set up, as appropriate, in each range State, which would direct the proceeds into enhanced conservation, monitoring, capacity building and local community-based programmes; and

ii) these funds must have a positive rather than harmful influence on elephant conservation.

 

c) It is understood that this decision provides for a one-off purchase for non-commercial purposes of government stocks declared by African elephant range States to the CITES Secretariat within the 90-day period before the transfer to Appendix II of certain populations of the African elephant takes effect. The ivory stocks declared should be marked in accordance with the ivory marking system approved by the Conference of the Parties in Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12). In addition, the source of ivory stocks should be given. The stocks of ivory should be consolidated in a pre-determined number of locations. An independent audit of any declared stocks shall be undertaken under the auspices of TRAFFIC International, in cooperation with the CITES Secretariat.

 

d) The African elephant range States that have not yet been able to register their ivory stocks and develop adequate controls over ivory stocks require priority assistance from donor countries to establish a level of conservation management conducive to the long-term survival of the African elephant.

 

e) The African elephant range States therefore urge that this matter be acted upon urgently since any delays will result in illegal trade and the premature opening of ivory trade in non-proponent range States.

 

f) This mechanism only applies to those range States wishing to dispose of ivory stocks and agreeing to and participating in:

i) an international system for reporting and monitoring legal and illegal international trade, through an international database in the CITES Secretariat and TRAFFIC International; and

ii) an international system for reporting and monitoring illegal trade and illegal hunting within or between elephant range States, through an international database in the CITES Secretariat, with support from TRAFFIC International and institutions such as the IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group and the Lusaka Agreement.


Decision 12.33 – 12.35 Elephants – Monitoring of the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE)

Elephants – Monitoring of the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE)

Directed to the Standing Committee

12.33

By its 49th meeting, the Standing Committee, in consultation with the MIKE Central Coordinating Unit and IUCN should define the geographical scope and the nature of the data that constitute the baseline information from MIKE that must be provided before any exports can be approved.

12.34

The Standing Committee shall determine how it would conclude that a detrimental impact on other elephant populations had occurred as a result of approved trade in ivory.

12.35

By its 49th meeting, the Standing Committee is encouraged to recommend measures for improving law enforcement coordination between ivory producing and ivory importing States.


Decision 12.36 – 12.39 Elephants – control of internal ivory trade

Elephants – control of internal ivory trade

Directed to Parties, donors and organizations

12.36

Parties, donors and organizations are requested to provide urgent financial and technical support to strengthen the implementation of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12) regarding control of internal ivory trade in elephant range States for, inter alia:

a) building capacity for law enforcement within elephant range States;

b) improving public awareness of the conservation impacts from unregulated national trade in ivory;

c) improving coordination and cooperation amongst national law enforcement agencies;

d) registering and marking raw ivory in public and private possession, and registering and licensing all importers, manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers dealing in raw, semi-worked or worked ivory products;

e) introducing recording and inspection procedures as part of a system of comprehensive and compulsory national trade controls; and

f) urgently strengthening provisions in their national legislation concerning the regulation of internal ivory markets and the implementation of CITES in general where necessary.



Directed to the Standing Committee

12.37

The Standing Committee, at its 50th meeting, shall review the work conducted by the Secretariat and the Parties to comply with Decision 12.39 and shall consider whether additional measures are appropriate. In the case of non-compliance these may include recommendations to restrict the commercial trade in specimens of CITES-listed species to or from the Parties concerned.


Directed to the Secretariat

12.38

The Secretariat shall assist range States as outlined in Decision 12.36 paragraphs a) to f).

12.39

a) Contingent on the availability of funding, the Secretariat shall assess whether countries with currently active internal ivory markets (i.e. Cameroon, China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Japan, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda and the United States of America) have established the comprehensive internal legislative, regulatory and enforcement measures specified in Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12) regarding compliance with control of internal trade.

b) Where such assessments demonstrate that a Party does not have adequate measures, the Secretariat shall seek from that Party an action plan that is an outline of its programme to adopt measures to enable it to adequately regulate trade in ivory. The purpose of such a plan is to establish and commit to a timeframe for developing, approving, enacting and implementing such measures. The Secretariat shall provide technical assistance in the development of such plans.


No. 2002/011
Geneva, 6 March 2002

Notification to the Parties

CONCERNING:

Quotas for trade in raw elephant ivory

1. Resolution Conf. 10.10 recommends that Parties that wish to authorize export of raw ivory of African elephant, Loxodonta africana, establish an annual export quota, expressed as a maximum number of tusks.

2. The same Resolution recommends that Parties communicate to the Secretariat each export quota for the following year by 31 December and that the Secretariat communicate this to the Parties by 31 January of the year to which the quota applies.

3. In Notification to the Parties No. 2001/073 of 5 November 2001, the Secretariat requested the Parties to submit their quotas for 2002.

4. The list below contains the quota information that was received by the Secretariat by 31 January 2002.

Botswana 420 tusks (210 animals)

Cameroon 160 tusks (80 animals)

Gabon 150 tusks (75 animals)

Mozambique 20 tusks (10 animals)

Namibia 150 tusks (75 animals)

South Africa 120 tusks (60 animals)

United Republic of Tanzania 100 tusks (50 animals)

Zimbabwe 800 tusks (400 animals)

5. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph f) under the fourth RECOMMENDS of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev.), a quota of zero has been established for each country that has not submitted a quota.

6. Parties are requested not to accept permits issued for the export of raw ivory, other than those issued by the countries mentioned under paragraph 4 above. It should be stressed that all populations of Loxodonta africana are in Appendix I except those of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe, which are included in Appendix II subject to certain conditions (see annotation °604 of the Interpretation of Appendices I and II).

7. The Secretariat will notify the Parties when other countries have submitted their quotas for raw ivory in accordance with Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev.).

No. 2001/073
Geneva, 5 November 2001

Notification to the Parties

CONCERNING:

Submission of nationally-established export quotas for the year 2002
Correction to export quotas for 2001

1. The Secretariat plans to publish a Notification to the Parties on nationally-established export quotas for the year 2002 in March 2002, or earlier if possible. It therefore requests that the Parties provide it with details of the export quotas that they have established for 2002, by 31 December 2001 at the latest. Quotas received after that date will not be published before June 2002.

2. The information requested should preferably be presented in a format similar to that used in the table that was transmitted with Notification to the Parties No. 2001/041 of 9 July 2001, and which is available on the CITES Secretariat website. Parties should specify the origin and the type of the specimens that will be subjected to annual export quotas.

3. For species included in the table transmitted with Notifications to the Parties Nos. 2001/041, 2001/055 and 2001/066, changes from the 2001 export quota levels may also be transmitted to the Secretariat in the form of annotations to the relevant page of that table. Exports quotas for additional species should preferably be provided electronically using the standard nomenclature where applicable. In cases where export quotas remain the same in 2002 as in the previous year, the Secretariat should be duly notified of this decision.

4. Regarding export quotas for African elephant hunting trophies, the range States concerned should refer to the section entitled 'Regarding quotas for and trade in raw ivory' in Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev.).

5. Regarding the submission of reports pursuant to Resolutions Conf. 10.14 and Conf. 10.15 (Rev.), on the leopard Panthera pardus and the markhor Capra falconeri, the Secretariat reminds the Parties concerned of the provisions of these Resolutions regarding reports relating to trade in skins and hunting trophies of these species.

6. Regarding export and catch quotas for Acipenseriformes, the range States concerned are reminded of Decision 11.58 taken at the 11th meeting of the Conference of the Parties that "starting from 1 January 2001, range States should declare coordinated intergovernmental level annual export and catch quotas per basin, or biogeographical region where appropriate, for all commercial trade in specimens of Acipenseriformes. Parties should inform the Secretariat prior to 31 December of the preceding year. Parties that fail to inform the Secretariat will automatically be treated as having a zero quota for the following year."

7. The information requested should be presented in a format similar to that used in the table that was transmitted with Notification to the Parties No. 2001/042 of 9 July 2001, which is available on the CITES Secretariat website.

8. As explained in Notification No. 2001/041, Parties that intend to authorize exports in the year 2002 of specimens that should have been exported as part of the quota for the year 2001 should inform the Secretariat before 15 January 2002 about the quantities still held in stock and the reason why they have not been exported. Otherwise the Secretariat may not be in a position to confirm the validity of the permits concerned.

9. Parties are encouraged to provide the Secretariat with information pertaining to the scientific basis, the management plan or agreement upon which export quotas have been based.

10. The Secretariat has been informed by the Management Authority of Indonesia that the export quota for the year 2001 of Plerogyra sinuosa is 36,000 live specimens, and not 3,600 live specimens as erroneously mentioned in Notification to the Parties No. 2001/41 of 9 July 2001. The corrected page is attached as an Annex to this Notification.

CITES Notification to the Parties
No. 2001/030
Geneva, 18 May 2001
CONCERNING: Monitoring of illegal hunting of elephants and National reporting forms on illegal killing of elephants and enforcement actions. Monitoring of illegal trade in ivory

1 The Ivory Markets of Africa, Save the Elephants, 2000; The South and South East Asian Ivory Markets, Save the Elephants, 2002; and The Ivory Markets of East Asia, Save the Elephants, 2003.
2 Courouble, M., Hurst, F. and Milliken, T., More Ivory than Elephants: Domestic Ivory Markets in Three West African Countries. TRAFFIC On-Line Report Series No. 8, December 2003.

See the entire document at http://www.cites.org/common/cop/13/raw-docs/KE03.pdf



TRAFFIC is the wildlife trade monitoring programme of the WLF--World Wildlife Fund for Nature IUCN--The World Conservation Union

African Elephants and the Eleventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES--A TRAFFIC Network Briefing Document by Tom Milliken, Director of TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa

African Elephants Loxodonta africana are back on the CITES agenda. New proposals have been tabled for the eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (COP11). These proposals, along with a review of the decisions taken at COP10 in Harare June 1997, will be under consideration when the 148 Parties to CITES convene in Nairobi, Kenya in April 2000. TRAFFIC takes a look at the issues and recent developments in this briefing.

1. What has happened since COP10? Were Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe, the three countries whose elephant populations were transferred to Appendix II, allowed to trade ivory with Japan? Yes. In February 1999, the CITES Standing Committee agreed that the conditions set by COP of Decision 10.1 Conditions for the resumption of trade in African elephant ivory from populations transferred to Appendix II at the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties had been met. Back-to-back ivory auctions were subsequently held in the three countries with Japanese buyers in April 1999. The entire stock eligible for the one-off sale -a total of 49,574 kg of ivory, representing 5,446 tusks- was purchased for approximately US $5 million. Sent to Japan by sea, the shipment cleared import formalities on 16 July 1999, after a verification process involving Japanese Customs and the CITES Secretariat. With the conclusion of this experimental trade, the first of its kind since the ivory ban in 1990, the elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe remain on Appendix II under annotation, but with a zero quota for ivory. No other commercial trade in raw ivory can take place without the approval of a future COP.

2. What African Elephant proposals have been submitted for consideration by CITES COP 11 in April 2000? Six proposals dealing with the listing of the African Elephant in the CITES Appendices were officially submitted to the CITES Secretariat for consideration at COP11 in accordance with a 12 November 1999 deadline. The proposals are as follows: Botswana has proposed to amend the current annotation of its elephant population on Appendix II to allow for an annual quota of not more than 12 tons of ivory and trade in hides and leather goods. Botswana would also be able to trade in live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations; and international trade in hunting trophies as currently allowed. Namibia has proposed to amend the current annotation of its elephant population on Appendix II to allow for an annual quota of not more than 2 tons of ivory and trade in hides and leather goods. Namibia would also be able to trade in live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations; and international trade in hunting trophies as currently allowed. Zimbabwe has proposed to amend the current annotation of its elephant population on Appendix II to allow for an annual quota of not more than 10 tons of ivory. Zimbabwe would also be able to trade in live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations; international trade in hunting trophies; trade in hides; and trade in leather goods and ivory carvings for non-commercial purposes as currently allowed. South Africa has proposed to transfer its elephant population from Appendix I to Appendix II to allow: trade in raw ivory under an experimental quota of a maximum of 30 tons of government-owned stock originating from Kruger National Park; trade in live animals for re-introduction purposes into protected areas; trade in hides and leather goods; and trade in hunting trophies for non-commercial purposes. Switzerland, as the CITES Depository Government, has proposed to amend the current annotation of the elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe on Appendix II to provide for a quota for trade in raw ivory in the event that the above three proposals are not accepted at COP11. Switzerland further seeks to clarify a procedure with respect to exports of live elephants to "appropriate and acceptable" destinations by ensuring that the proposed recipient can suitably house and care for the animals in question, and that the animals will not be used for "primarily commercial purposes". Kenya, co-sponsored with India, has proposed to transfer all elephant populations listed in Appendix II (currently the populations of Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe) back to Appendix I. In short, Kenya and India want total protection, while Southern African countries seek conditional trade options.

3. How will these proposals be dealt with prior to, and during, COP11? Consideration of the South African proposal will follow the procedure laid out in Resolution Conf. 10.9 Consideration of Proposals for the Transfer of African Elephant Populations from Appendix I to Appendix II. The CITES Secretariat is mandated to activate a so-called Panel of Experts, composed of individuals nominated by UNEP, IUCN and TRAFFIC International. The Panel will evaluate the scientific evidence regarding the numbers and trends of the affected elephant populations; the conservation and management of these populations, and threats to their status; and the adequacy of controls on trade in ivory and other parts and derivatives. The Panel must meet within two months of submission of the proposal and a report on the Panel's findings must be submitted to the Parties for their consideration. At COP11, acceptance of any downlisting proposal will require a 2/3 majority vote. Abstentions are not counted. None of the other elephant proposals will be subjected to the Panel of Experts process because they are not downlisting proposals. For the proposals from Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe, whose elephant populations are already on Appendix II, the conditionality for the one-off sale of ivory established at COP10 was such that any future quotas for ivory require a 2/3 majority vote of the Parties. Further, as Botswana and Namibia aim to extend the allowable trade options to include trade in elephant hides and leather products (as is currently the case for Zimbabwe), a 2/3 majority vote is needed for acceptance. Finally, the Kenya/India proposal to transfer all elephant populations back to Appendix I will also require a 2/3 majority vote to be accepted. Once tabled, proposals can be made more restrictive, but they can not be broadened. It is also possible to withdraw a proposal prior to the COP.

4. What impact will further downlistings and trade in elephant products have on African and Asian elephant populations and conservation efforts on their behalf? There is always concern that any resumption of trade in ivory could give rise to the illegal killing of elephants. That is why, at COP10, the Parties approved Resolution Conf. 10.10 Trade in Elephant Specimens. This resolution mandates the creation of comprehensive, international monitoring systems to measure current levels and identify trends of illegal hunting of elephants and trade in ivory, and to assess whether and to what extent observed trends result from developments under CITES. Although it has long been appreciated that monitoring the status of elephants on the ground is a key requirement for sound elephant conservation, not until COP10 and the decision to allow a conditional one-off sale of ivory was there a firm international commitment to the development of credible monitoring systems for elephants on a continental scale.

5. What exactly are the CITES monitoring systems for elephants? Since COP10, two long-term monitoring systems have been designed, under the guidance of the CITES Standing Committee, to meet the requirements of Resolution Conf. 10.10. MIKE (Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants) is now the approved instrument for tracking the situation on the ground in elephant Range States across Africa and Asia. MIKE was developed through a process led by the Species Survival Commission of IUCN which involved the participation of a wide range of technical experts from various relevant disciplines. ETIS (Elephant Trade Information System) is the designated system to monitor illegal trade in ivory and elephant products. ETIS was designed by TRAFFIC, in consultation with statisticians from the University of Reading, U.K., and is a refined version of an earlier database known as BIDS, the Bad Ivory Database System, which was recognised in Resolution Conf. 10.10 "as the appropriate instrument for monitoring the pattern and measuring the scale" of trade in ivory.

6. When will the MIKE and ETIS reports be ready, and will they tell us whether there has been an increase in elephant poaching related to the CITES decision to allow the one-off sale of ivory from southern Africa? In fact, both MIKE and ETIS are still being developed. MIKE, which had no existing structure under which to operate, has had to be designed, funded and implemented from scratch . Understandably, this is an undertaking of major proportions. The CITES Standing Committee formally approved the MIKE design in February 1999. Currently, pilot projects to implement MIKE are underway at selected sites in Central Africa and Southeast Asia. Other steps are being taken to move the MIKE agenda forward elsewhere, and certain Southern African countries are working to fully operationalise MIKE sites in their countries with their own funds prior to COP11. While significant progress has been made to establish MIKE, the first technical analysis will not be possible until data has been collected over two successive periods of observation. This means the first year of an operationalised MIKE provides baseline data, and the first analytical output follows the second year of data collection. Thereafter, annual statistical assessments are possible, but MIKE can not deliver a technical report to COP11. This fact was duly acknowledged as far back as December 1997 in the MIKE design documents, which were approved by the CITES Standing Committee with this understanding. With respect to ETIS, the seizures database component is up and running, but the subsidiary databases are still under development, particularly the one for measuring law enforcement effort. While it is not possible to establish overall trends at this time, TRAFFIC is producing summary country reports for all of the Parties prior to COP11. In the final analysis, it is anticipated that both MIKE and ETIS will deliver analytical reports to COP12. Once fully operationalised, these monitoring systems have the potential to provide the most credible assessment ever of what is happening to elephants in the wild on a continental scale.

7. Until long-term monitoring systems under CITES are fully operational and delivering the required reports, what is CITES doing to monitor the situation now? In recognition of the fact that the long-term monitoring systems would take time to be established, the CITES Standing Committee adopted two interim protocols for tracking the illegal killing of elephants. The first protocol allows for the submission of "incident reports", whereby Parties have been invited to report instances of allegedly poached elephants to the CITES Secretariat. The Secretariat has agreed to assist in verifying such reports, including any from non-official sources, through investigation and report back to the Parties on its findings. To date, only a small number of such reports have been submitted to the Secretariat. The second protocol consists of "national reports". The Governments of some elephant Range States are already compiling data on the illegal killing of elephants in their countries as part of their own elephant conservation efforts. All Range States have been encouraged to report such information to the CITES Secretariat. Again, to date, only a handful of countries have submitted national reports to the Secretariat. To support the incident and national reporting effort, special reporting forms were developed and circulated to the Parties in 1998. It was envisaged that, together, these two reporting systems would serve as a kind of "early warning system" if elephant poaching began to escalate in a rapid and marked fashion. It needs to be appreciated, however, that while these two systems can provide valuable information about the numbers of elephants being killed, they cannot establish a comprehensive overview nor illustrate trends over time without the provision of other information, particularly on law enforcement effort. Nonetheless, it is very important to have a mechanism in place to pull together all available information on elephant mortalities.

8. Has the sale of ivory stocks from Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe been a success for elephant conservation, or has it resulted in more problems? What weaknesses have been identified? Elephant conservation is very expensive and, due to currency devaluations, inflation and competing budgeting priorities, government wildlife department budgets have dropped considerably over the years in almost all the elephant range states. In contrast to this trend, collectively, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe earned some US $5 million from the one-off sale of ivory to Japan, and Zimbabwe has earned another US $1.9 million from two elephant hide auctions in June 1998 and December 1999. All of these funds have gone into special conservation funds to support national elephant management and protection costs, or community-based conservation programmes in rural areas where Africans co-exist with wild elephant populations. In Zimbabwe, some US $575,000, about 40% of the total revenue from its ivory sale, has already been channeled back to the local communities where the ivory originated. In terms of weaknesses, some countries believe that the downlisting in 1997 and the allowance of the limited ivory sale this year has prompted increased elephant poaching. Since COP10, there is clear evidence that elephant poaching has escalated in some parts of Africa experiencing civil unrest and conflict, but it is difficult to establish a causal link between such killing and elephant developments under CITES. In certain areas, a meat trade to provision soldiers or feed tens of thousands of civilian refugees stands behind large-scale elephant killing. Recently, there have been numerous reports in the press of elephant poaching in other parts of Africa suggesting an upsurge in illegal off-take. Whether this represents a heightened sensitivity on the issue in the build-up to the CITES conference or a genuine and worrying development remains to be seen. Without an assessment of law enforcement effort, it is not possible to establish any kind of meaningful trend at this time. As mentioned earlier, very few Range States have filed incident or national reports on the illegal killing of elephants in their countries with the CITES Secretariat. The backdrop against which elephant poaching takes place needs to be appreciated. Active domestic ivory markets continue in many elephant Range States in Africa, especially Cameroon, Congo, Ethiopia, Ivory Coast, Mozambique, Nigeria and Senegal, and in Asia, particularly Burma, Thailand and Vietnam. Elsewhere, active ivory markets are found in Egypt, Singapore and throughout the Far East. There is little doubt that considerable volumes of ivory annually move through these markets. TRAFFIC has also documented the emergence of Africa- based, Asian-run ivory processing throughout much of the continent during the CITES ban period. These small-scale operations produce quantities of semi-worked and worked ivory products for illicit export to selected Asian markets. Throughout the CITES trade ban period, demand for raw and worked ivory has continued in China, Taiwan, Korea and parts of Southeast Asia, as evidenced by TRAFFIC's seizures data. For the most part, these are not new markets, and their demand for ivory is a phenomenon which functions independently of the situation in Japan, the traditional and now highly-regulated consuming ivory market into which the legal CITES trade from Southern Africa was directed.

9. What about the non-commercial disposal of ivory stocks throughout Africa that was agreed to at COP10? Has anything happened on that front? At COP10, Decision 10.2 Conditions for the disposal of ivory stocks and generating resources for conservation in African elephant range States established a specific procedure for a non-commercial donor buy-out of ivory stocks. The objective of this decision was to eliminate the security and financial liabilities that accumulating ivory stocks pose to African countries and to raise funds for elephant conservation purposes. Range States were invited to register their ivory stocks in a prescribed format with the CITES Secretariat by 18 September 1997, and these were then subjected to an audit by TRAFFIC. In the final analysis, a total of 158,077 kg of ivory, representing more than 39,947 tusks and pieces, was registered and accepted on behalf of 14 countries. Interested donors were invited to purchase the stocks for non-commercial purposes which meant that none of the ivory could be re-sold in any form at any time in the future. So far, the donor community has failed to respond to this opportunity to inject funds into elephant conservation and no stock buy-outs have transpired pursuant to this mechanism. This is a disappointing result, and the issue is sure to be addressed at the next meeting of the African Elephant Range State Dialogue and at COP11.

10. Will the elephant hide auctions in Zimbabwe, and the possibility of future hide sales in South Africa, Botswana and Namibia stimulate elephant poaching? TRAFFIC research in the past has failed to uncover any linkage between elephant poaching and a trade in elephant hides. The logistical challenges in removing commercial-quality hides from illegally-killed animals are substantial. There is no evidence to suggest that elephants are being poached anywhere in their range to support an illegal trade in hides. The value of hides is considerable and their legal sale would generate significant funds for elephant conservation and management. It has been suggested that South Africa alone could earn US $1 million annually from hide sales. The international market for hides has rebounded with the average price increasing by 76% per kg at Zimbabwe's December 1999 sale over the first elephant hide auction held 18 months earlier. For more details, see TRAFFIC Bulletins Vol. 15 No. 1 (1994) and Vol. 17 No. 3 (1999).

Species Survival Commission (SSC)
The Global Conservation Network for Species Survival

The Species Survival Commission works with Conservation organizations, development agencies, governments, and communities to conserve biodiversity and to ensure that development is sustainable. The SSC tries to ensure that all understand the biological components and dynamics of ecosystems. The Species Survival Commission helps provide decision-makers with the needed tools, resources, or information.

The IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) assesses the dynamics of biodiversity through the study of plant and animal species. Monitoring these components of biodiversity enables detection of trends, allows for identification of threats, and provides a scientific basis for determining the best conservation and sustainable development options.

The Species Survival Commission identifies threats to groups of species and actions to alleviate threats (the Action Planning process); highlights situations where commercial trade in wild species appears unsustainable; develops best practice guidelines for conservation initiatives, and ensures that relevant parties are aware of SSC’s knowledge base.Theses are some of the ways that the SSC contributes to conservation of biodiversity. For example:

SSC produces assessments like the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Analyses of the Red List reveals alarming statistics about the percentages of plant and animal species threatened with extinction and serves as a gauge of biodiversity loss. Monitoring the condition of all species, and particularly of specific groups of species such as trees or freshwater organisms, helps to identify global conservation priorities.

SSC assesses species as indicators of ecosystem health

SSC facilitates resolutions to conservation challenges, using its science-based approach and technical expertise. For example, at the request of the range states of the African elephant, SSC helps facilitate a dialogue between these states to address the complex and often contentious elephant conservation issues.

SSC advises the government Parties to international treaties, to help ensure that decisions are informed by the best available information about biodiversity, migratory species, and other issues. SSC provides scientifically-based analyses of proposals to change the way plant and animal species are regulated within the terms of the international treaty on trade in endangered species (CITES).

SSC products include:

  • IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
  • Conservation Action Plans
  • Species SSC’s news magazine
  • Specialist Groups newsletters
  • Conservation Guidelines
  • A variety of conservation reports and
    advisory materials

SPECIES SURVIVAL PLAN

The American Zoo and Aquarium Association's (AZA's) Species Survival Plan (SSP) was started to help in the effect to prevent the extinction of selected wildlife species. Most SSP species are endangered or threatened in the wild. The Species Survival Plan, or SSP, was started in 1981 as a cooperative population management and conservation program for selected species at North American zoos and aquariums. Each SSP carefully manages the breeding of a species in order to maintain a healthy and self-sustaining captive population that is both genetically diverse and demographically stable. Beyond this, SSPs include a variety of other cooperative conservation activities, such as research, public education, reintroduction, and field projects. Currently, 87 SSPs covering 116 individual species are administered by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, whose membership includes 183 accredited zoos and aquariums throughout North America.

AFRICAN ELEPHANT SSP

The African elephant SSP was begun in August 1990. One of the first priorities was to established more facilities for the handling of dangerous African bull elephants. As of February 1998, there were about 122 cows and 13 bull African elephants in the program. Why was the African elephant included in the SSP? Poachers have killed most of the older elephants for their larger tusks, and the loss of a matriarch may throw a herd into confusion. Orphaned elephants have a poor survival rate, and while elephants reach their prime at about 40 years of age, the average age has dropped to only 24 years old. Threatened by poachers and encroaching domestic livestock, some elephants face overcrowding in parks and reserves. A herd of elephants requires an enormous territory to forage for food. Increased guard protection in national parks and reserves and a forceful policy of shooting poachers on sight are some measures African nations are using to deter poaching.

ASIAN ELEPHANT SSP

The Asian elephant SSP was begun before the African elephant SSP. One of the major problems was the lack of facilities that can handle bull elephants. Research is being performed on methods to predict or control the dangerous musth phase in bulls and on artificial insemination techniques. It is hoped more elephants can be added to found genetic lines. As of February 1998, there were about 132 cows and 23 bull Asian elephants in the program. Why was the Asian elephant included in the SSP? The main threat to the Asian elephant is the loss of its habitat due to human over-population & development of agriculture. Poaching for its ivory tusks has also reduced its numbers. About 50,000 Asian elephants remain in the wild. There are approximately 13,000 trained domestic elephants. The domestic Asian elephant is rarely bred.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

The Contracting States,

Recognizing that wild fauna and flora in their many beautiful and varied forms are an irreplaceable part of the natural systems of the earth which must be protected for this and the generations to come;

Conscious of the ever-growing value of wild fauna and flora from aesthetic, scientific, cultural, recreational and economic points of view;

Recognizing that peoples and States are and should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora;

Recognizing, in addition, that international co-operation is essential for the protection of certain species of wild fauna and flora against over-exploitation through international trade;

Convinced of the urgency of taking appropriate measures to this end;

Have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE I Definitions

For the purpose of the present Convention, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) "Species" means any species, subspecies, or geographically separate population thereof;

(b) "Specimen" means:

    (i) any animal or plant, whether alive or dead;

    (ii) in the case of an animal: for species included in Appendices I and II, any readily recognizable part or derivative thereof; and for species included in Appendix III, any readily recognizable part or derivative thereof specified in Appendix III in relation to the species; and

    (iii) in the case of a plant: for species included in Appendix I, any readily recognizable part or derivative thereof; and for species included in Appendices II and III, any readily recognizable part or derivative thereof specified in Appendices II and III in relation to the species;

(c) "Trade" means export, re-export, import and introduction from the sea;

(d) "Re-export" means export of any specimen that has previously been imported;

(e) "Introduction from the sea" means transportation into a State of specimens of any species which were taken in the marine environment not under the jurisdiction of any State;

(f) "Scientific Authority" means a national scientific authority designated in accordance with Article IX;

(g) "Management Authority" means a national management authority designated in accordance with Article IX;

(h) "Party" means a State for which the present Convention has entered into force.

ARTICLE II Fundamental Principles

1. Appendix I shall include all species threatened with extinction which are or may be affected by trade. Trade in specimens of these species must be subject to particularly strict regulation in order not to endanger further their survival and must only be authorized in exceptional circumstances.

2. Appendix II shall include:

    (a) all species which although not necessarily now threatened with extinction may become so unless trade in specimens of such species is subject to strict regulation in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival; and

    (b) other species which must be subject to regulation in order that trade in specimens of certain species referred to in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph may be brought under effective control.

3. Appendix III shall include all species which any Party identifies as being subject to regulation within its jurisdiction for the purpose of preventing or restricting exploitation, and as needing the co-operation of other Parties in the control of trade.

4. The Parties shall not allow trade in specimens of species included in Appendices I, II and III except in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention.

ARTICLE III Regulation of Trade in Specimens of Species Included in Appendix I

1. All trade in specimens of species included in Appendix I shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

2. The export of any specimen of a species included in Appendix I shall require the prior grant and presentation of an export permit. An export permit shall only be granted when the following conditions have been met:

    (a) a Scientific Authority of the State of export has advised that such export will not be detrimental to the survival of that species;

    (b) a Management Authority of the State of export is satisfied that the specimen was not obtained in contravention of the laws of that State for the protection of fauna and flora;

    (c) a Management Authority of the State of export is satisfied that any living specimen will be so prepared and shipped as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment; and

    (d) a Management Authority of the State of export is satisfied that an import permit has been granted for the specimen.

3. The import of any specimen of a species included in Appendix I shall require the prior grant and presentation of an import permit and either an export permit or a re-export certificate. An import permit shall only be granted when the following conditions have been met:

    (a) a Scientific Authority of the State of import has advised that the import will be for purposes which are not detrimental to the survival of the species involved;

    (b) a Scientific Authority of the State of import is satisfied that the proposed recipient of a living specimen is suitably equipped to house and care for it; and

    (c) a Management Authority of the State of import is satisfied that the specimen is not to be used for primarily commercial purposes.

4. The re-export of any specimen of a species included in Appendix I shall require the prior grant and presentation of a re-export certificate. A re-export certificate shall only be granted when the following conditions have been met:

    (a) a Management Authority of the State of re-export is satisfied that the specimen was imported into that State in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention;

    (b) a Management Authority of the State of re-export is satisfied that any living specimen will be so prepared and shipped as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment; and

    (c) a Management Authority of the State of re-export is satisfied that an import permit has been granted for any living specimen.

5. The introduction from the sea of any specimen of a species included in Appendix I shall require the prior grant of a certificate from a Management Authority of the State of introduction. A certificate shall only be granted when the following conditions have been met:

    (a) a Scientific Authority of the State of introduction advises that the introduction will not be detrimental to the survival of the species involved;

    (b) a Management Authority of the State of introduction is satisfied that the proposed recipient of a living specimen is suitably equipped to house and care for it; and

    (c) a Management Authority of the State of introduction is satisfied that the specimen is not to be used for primarily commercial purposes.

ARTICLE IV Regulation of Trade in Specimens of Species
Included in Appendix II

1. All trade in specimens of species included in Appendix II shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

2. The export of any specimen of a species included in Appendix II shall require the prior grant and presentation of an export permit. An export permit shall only be granted when the following conditions have been met:

    (a) a Scientific Authority of the State of export has advised that such export will not be detrimental to the survival of that species;

    (b) a Management Authority of the State of export is satisfied that the specimen was not obtained in contravention of the laws of that State for the protection of fauna and flora; and

    (c) a Management Authority of the State of export is satisfied that any living specimen will be so prepared and shipped as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment.

3. A Scientific Authority in each Party shall monitor both the export permits granted by that State for specimens of species included in Appendix II and the actual exports of such specimens. Whenever a Scientific Authority determines that the export of specimens of any such species should be limited in order to maintain that species throughout its range at a level consistent with its role in the ecosystems in which it occurs and well above the level at which that species might become eligible for inclusion in Appendix I, the Scientific Authority shall advise the appropriate Management Authority of suitable measures to be taken to limit the grant of export permits for specimens of that species.

4. The import of any specimen of a species included in Appendix II shall require the prior presentation of either an export permit or a re-export certificate.

5. The re-export of any specimen of a species included in Appendix II shall require the prior grant and presentation of a re-export certificate. A re-export certificate shall only be granted when the following conditions have been met:

    (a) a Management Authority of the State of re-export is satisfied that the specimen was imported into that State in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention; and

    (b) a Management Authority of the State of re-export is satisfied that any living specimen will be so prepared and shipped as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment.

6. The introduction from the sea of any specimen of a species included in Appendix II shall require the prior grant of a certificate from a Management Authority of the State of introduction. A certificate shall only be granted when the following conditions have been met:

    (a) a Scientific Authority of the State of introduction advises that the introduction will not be detrimental to the survival of the species involved; and

    (b) a Management Authority of the State of introduction is satisfied that any living specimen will be so handled as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment.

7. Certificates referred to in paragraph 6 of this Article may be granted on the advice of a Scientific Authority, in consultation with other national scientific authorities or, when appropriate, international scientific authorities, in respect of periods not exceeding one year for total numbers of specimens to be introduced in such periods.

ARTICLE V Regulation of Trade in Specimens of Species Included in
Appendix III

1. All trade in specimens of species included in Appendix III shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

2. The export of any specimen of a species included in Appendix III from any State which has included that species in Appendix III shall require the prior grant and presentation of an export permit. An export permit shall only be granted when the following conditions have been met:

    (a) a Management Authority of the State of export is satisfied that the specimen was not obtained in contravention of the laws of that State for the protection of fauna and flora; and

    (b) a Management Authority of the State of export is satisfied that any living specimen will be so prepared and shipped as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment.

3. The import of any specimen of a species included in Appendix III shall require, except in circumstances to which paragraph 4 of this Article applies, the prior presentation of a certificate of origin and, where the import is from a State which has included that species in Appendix III, an export permit.

4. In the case of re-export, a certificate granted by the Management Authority of the State of re-export that the specimen was processed in that State or is being re-exported shall be accepted by the State of import as evidence that the provisions of the present Convention have been complied with in respect of the specimen concerned.

ARTICLE VI Permits and Certificates

1. Permits and certificates granted under the provisions of Articles III, IV, and V shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

2. An export permit shall contain the information specified in the model set forth in Appendix IV, and may only be used for export within a period of six months from the date on which it was granted.

3. Each permit or certificate shall contain the title of the present Convention, the name and any identifying stamp of the Management Authority granting it and a control number assigned by the Management Authority.

4. Any copies of a permit or certificate issued by a Management Authority shall be clearly marked as copies only and no such copy may be used in place of the original, except to the extent endorsed thereon.

5. A separate permit or certificate shall be required for each consignment of specimens.

6. A Management Authority of the State of import of any specimen shall cancel and retain the export permit or re-export certificate and any corresponding import permit presented in respect of the import of that specimen.

7. Where appropriate and feasible a Management Authority may affix a mark upon any specimen to assist in identifying the specimen. For these purposes "mark" means any indelible imprint, lead seal or other suitable means of identifying a specimen, designed in such a way as to render its imitation by unauthorized persons as difficult as possible.

ARTICLE VII Exemptions and Other Special Provisions Relating to Trade

1. The provisions of Articles III, IV and V shall not apply to the transit or transhipment of specimens through or in the territory of a Party while the specimens remain in Customs control.

2. Where a Management Authority of the State of export or re-export is satisfied that a specimen was acquired before the provisions of the present Convention applied to that specimen, the provisions of Articles III, IV and V shall not apply to that specimen where the Management Authority issues a certificate to that effect.

3. The provisions of Articles III, IV and V shall not apply to specimens that are personal or household effects. This exemption shall not apply where:

    (a) in the case of specimens of a species included in Appendix I, they were acquired by the owner outside his State of usual residence, and are being imported into that State; or

    (b) in the case of specimens of species included in Appendix II:

      (i) they were acquired by the owner outside his State of usual residence and in a State where removal from the wild occurred;

      (ii) they are being imported into the owner's State of usual residence; and

      (iii) the State where removal from the wild occurred requires the prior grant of export permits before any export of such specimens;

      unless a Management Authority is satisfied that the specimens were acquired before the provisions of the present Convention applied to such specimens.

4. Specimens of an animal species included in Appendix I bred in captivity for commercial purposes, or of a plant species included in Appendix I artificially propagated for commercial purposes, shall be deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix II.

5. Where a Management Authority of the State of export is satisfied that any specimen of an animal species was bred in captivity or any specimen of a plant species was artificially propagated, or is a part of such an animal or plant or was derived therefrom, a certificate by that Management Authority to that effect shall be accepted in lieu of any of the permits or certificates required under the provisions of Article III, IV or V.

6. The provisions of Articles III, IV and V shall not apply to the non-commercial loan, donation or exchange between scientists or scientific institutions registered by a Management Authority of their State, of herbarium specimens, other preserved, dried or embedded museum specimens, and live plant material which carry a label issued or approved by a Management Authority.

7. A Management Authority of any State may waive the requirements of Articles III, IV and V and allow the movement without permits or certificates of specimens which form part of a traveling zoo, circus, menagerie, plant exhibition or other traveling exhibition provided that:

    (a) the exporter or importer registers full details of such specimens with that Management Authority;

    (b) the specimens are in either of the categories specified in paragraph 2 or 5 of this Article; and

    (c) the Management Authority is satisfied that any living specimen will be so transported and cared for as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment.

ARTICLE VIII Measures to Be Taken by the Parties

1. The Parties shall take appropriate measures to enforce the provisions of the present Convention and to prohibit trade in specimens in violation thereof. These shall include measures:

    (a) to penalize trade in, or possession of, such specimens, or both; and

    (b) to provide for the confiscation or return to the State of export of such specimens.

2. In addition to the measures taken under paragraph 1 of this Article, a Party may, when it deems it necessary, provide for any method of internal reimbursement for expenses incurred as a result of the confiscation of a specimen traded in violation of the measures taken in the application of the provisions of the present Convention.

3. As far as possible, the Parties shall ensure that specimens shall pass through any formalities required for trade with a minimum of delay. To facilitate such passage, a Party may designate ports of exit and ports of entry at which specimens must be presented for clearance. The Parties shall ensure further that all living specimens, during any period of transit, holding or shipment, are properly cared for so as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment.

4. Where a living specimen is confiscated as a result of measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article:

    (a) the specimen shall be entrusted to a Management Authority of the State of confiscation;

    (b) the Management Authority shall, after consultation with the State of export, return the specimen to that State at the expense of that State, or to a rescue centre or such other place as the Management Authority deems appropriate and consistent with the purposes of the present Convention; and

    (c) the Management Authority may obtain the advice of a Scientific Authority, or may, whenever it considers it desirable, consult the Secretariat in order to facilitate the decision under sub-paragraph (b) of this paragraph, including the choice of a rescue centre or other place.

5. A rescue centre as referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article means an institution designated by a Management Authority to look after the welfare of living specimens, particularly those that have been confiscated.

6.Each Party shall maintain records of trade in specimens of species included in Appendices I, II and III which shall cover:

    (a) the names and addresses of exporters and importers; and

    (b) the number and type of permits and certificates granted; the States with which such trade occurred; the numbers or quantities and types of specimens, names of species as included in Appendices I, II and III and, where applicable, the size and sex of the specimens in question.

7. Each Party shall prepare periodic reports on its implementation of the present Convention and shall transmit to the Secretariat:
    (a) an annual report containing a summary of the information specified in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 6 of this Article; and

    (b) a biennial report on legislative, regulatory and administrative measures taken to enforce the provisions of the present Convention.

8. The information referred to in p