- January 2017
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- May 2016
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- October 2011
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- July 2008
Category Archives: kenya
By Jonathan FowlerJuly 11, 2014 3:03 PM
Thailand faces an international wildlife trade ban unless it reins in its ivory sector, which is a magnet for traffickers, global regulator CITES said on Friday.
“There have been years without any real action on the ground when it comes to controlling the illegal ivory market,” said Oeystein Stoerkersen, chairman of CITES’s governing body.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora has set Thailand an August 2015 deadline to fall into line or risk wide-ranging sanctions.
Bangkok is under additional pressure to report back by January on steps to bolster recent laws on registering ivory importers, traders and legal stockpiles, that CITES claims are insufficient.
“Without that, Thailand will face a ban, and a suspension of all trade no matter what commodity it is, of the 35,000 species listed with CITES,” he told reporters.
A ban would prevent the country trading anything appearing on that list with another country, including orchids and exotic wood, which are significant export products for Thailand.
“I think that is a strong signal,” said Stoerkersen, adding that Thai diplomats at the talks had acknowledged that their country needed to do more.
But environmental campaigner WWF said the body should have hit Thailand harder, given that Bangkok pledged last year to smash the illegal trade but the quantities of ivory on sale rose sharply.
“A suspension of trade in all CITES goods from Thailand would have been justified,” said WWF analyst Colman O’Criodain.
Current Thai law allows ivory from domesticated Thai elephants to be sold, making it simple to launder poached African ivory, WWF said.
“Thailand’s market is fuelling the illegal assault on African elephants,” said O’Criodain.
The decision on Thailand came as delegates wrapped up a week-long CITES conference on trade in endangered species.
Earlier this week, CITES chief John Scanlon told AFP that elephants would be wiped out in some parts of Africa unless more countries got involved in efforts to prevent poaching and smuggling.
Over the past three years, more than 60,000 African elephants have been killed, far outstripping their birth rate.
Crime syndicates and militias in Africa have become increasingly involved in the multi-billion-dollar illicit trade, taking advantage of Asian demand for ivory to use in decorations and traditional medicines.
– ‘Next generation will not forgive us’ –
Stoerkersen said Thailand had become a “sink” for African ivory, sucking in imports bought by foreigners for export to other Asian countries.
“It’s more or less an unregulated market,” he said.
Along with China, Thailand is part of the “Gang of Eight” countries that have faced scrutiny over the ivory trade, but it is now seen as the key offender.
Speaking at the conference in Geneva, William Kiprono, who leads Kenya’s Wildlife Service, said his country is cracking down hard on poachers and illegal ivory traders.
He said that the country is currently recruiting hundreds more wildlife rangers, but said more action was also needed from consumers.
“In some places, they think that ivory just falls out of an animal just like feathers,” he said.
“We need to work together. If we don’t act, we are going to lose our wildlife, as Kenya, as Africa and the globe. And the next generation will not forgive us,” he said.
During the conference, CITES also banned trade in the emperor scorpion from Ghana due to unsustainable harvesting, and raised concerns about the illegal trade in cheetahs and snakes, as well as illegal logging.
This article can be found in the following link: http://news.yahoo.com/thailand-faces-trade-ban-over-ivory-failings-171518386.html;_ylt=AwrTWfyyQsNTwAkAhQjQtDMD
A Young Chinese Conservationist Discusses His Country’s Role in the Ivory Trade
Christina Russo, A Voice for Elephants, National Geographic
Gao Yufang, 26, is a Chinese researcher and conservationist who graduated last month with a masters from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.
At Yale, Gao focused his studies on the ivory trade, with emphasis on the varied, sometimes conflicting understanding about the Chinese role in it. This, he believes, creates obstacles to stopping the slaughter of African elephants.
During the past two years Gao has conducted research in Kenya, Botswana, Tanzania, Hong Kong, and mainland China and analyzed nearly 3,000 Chinese news articles, as well as a large volume of statistical data on the Chinese ivory market.
Last December, at the invitation of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the Botswana government, he spoke as a youth ambassador at the African Elephant Summit in Botswana.
This month, Gao will be returning to China and hosting two African conservationists—Resson Kantai and Christopher Kiarie, also in their 20s—on a tour of China’s ivory markets.
Russo: Tell me about your forthcoming trip to China.
Gao: The three of us are going to Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Xiamen, Quanzhou, Fuzhou, and Shanghai. These are the main ivory trading centers in China. We’re going to visit these cities and talk to the general public, the Chinese media, and Chinese conservation groups about elephant conservation. We hope to create a China-Africa conservation fellowship.
Do you think youth are particularly important in this conversation?
Many people, even in the Chinese conservation community, are not participating in elephant conservation or talking about the ivory trade. Because of the lack of participation from Chinese civil society, there’s lots of misinformation about the Chinese ivory trade. Most of the ivory researchers are not Chinese.
My generation—the youth generation—is the most active group in Chinese society. With this trip, we are trying to create the opportunity for youth to participate, because actually they’re really keen and energetic and enthusiastic about elephant conservation when they learn about it. If we provide them the opportunity, they will take it.
What led you to study the ivory trade while you were at Yale?
When I came to Yale in September 2012, everyone was talking about ivory trade. As a Chinese in the U.S. who understood how the conservation community in China works, I was seeing a great gap in understanding the ivory trade. I felt that people were—and are—talking past each other. So I got curious: What is really going on here? And this curiosity motivated me to take on the ivory trade project.
What did you notice about the way China, the U.S., and Africa “spoke” to each other about the trade and the poaching crisis?
What I found is one of the major obstacles for solving this elephant poaching problem is that each party has a very different view about the motivations and constraints of the other parties.
What are some of the misperceptions from Africa’s perspective about China?
Africa’s perspective is influenced by the West’s perspective. Many African conservationists have never been to China, and what they know about the ivory trade is usually from the news media or Western international conservation organizations.
In this Western narrative, most people believe elephant poaching is caused by Chinese demand for ivory. Also, that China’s economic development has created a large middle class and this middle class buys ivory for social status.
Is this true?
If you say hundreds of millions of Chinese middle class [people] are demanding ivory, this is an exaggeration of the ivory market in China.
The majority of the Chinese never see ivory in daily life. In my research, I estimate that over 99 percent of Chinese never buy ivory, and the potential ivory buyers are less than one percent of the Chinese population.
The problem is that China has a very large population, so even a small percentage can have a great impact. Ivory is a tiny industry in China, and Chinese government officials say they’re worried about the counterproductive impacts of this exaggeration. But it is also true that China does bear an inescapable responsibility in the trade.
You have found that this concept of the “middle class” itself is somewhat misguided. You explain it’s more specific than that, and the primary ivory buyers are the baofahu or tuhao.
Yes, the Western media and conservation organizations talk about the middle class, but it is actually more specific. From a typical Chinese perception, the baofahu and tuhao are the major buyers of ivory. The charactersistics of the baofahu or tuhao are that they are very rich—but also very uneducated—and they want to show off their social status.
This is still not the whole picture, because the ivory market in China is very diverse. Attributing the problem to baofahu underestimates ivory consumption, while attributing the problem to [the] middle class overestimates the ivory demand. The truth is in the middle.
Photograph by Robert Sutcliffe/Elephants Without Borders
Please talk about the ivory markets in China.
There are three types: the white, the black, and the gray.
The white market is the legal ivory market. The black market is the illegal market. The gray market [is] where the legality is uncertain.
So the white market consists of 145 ivory shops and ivory repair outlets and 37 ivory factories. Most of these facilities are located in the eastern part of China, especially Guangzhou, Shanghai, and Beijing. And the number of these legal ivory facilities has increased from 40 in 2004 to 182 in 2014.
Many Western NGOs and media have already talked about the legal market. And some researchers and journalists went to investigate the legal market and found a lot of loopholes and violations of the ivory identification and registration policy.
The black market takes two forms, and the first is the physical market. The other is the online market. In the past few years, the Chinese government has tightened control of the physical black market. So what I found is that many ivory dealers are now shifting their business to online trading.
One of the main forms of online trading is the Baidu Post Bar. Ivory traders will sell the ivory by using some [other] word—they don’t say it’s “ivory” but will say it’s “white plastic,” for example. Every day people visit the bar, and the illegal ivory traders post photos of raw ivory or worked ivory. And they ask potential consumers to contact them and communicate on Wechat, which is the Chinese version of WhatsApp. The illegal dealers will then send the ivory to the buyers.
Is this bar internationally used, or just domestically?
The bar is an Internet platform, so everyone around the world, as long as they can read Chinese, can go to the website. But the trade is within China. Chinese dealers sell the illegal ivory to Chinese buyers. Some dealers have direct connections with middlemen in Africa.
Tell me about the gray market.
The gray market is the live auction market of ivory art works. I feel this is very important. Sometimes, when talking about the auction market in China, many conservationists, especially English-speaking conservationists, confuse this with the online auction. This is a live, off-line market.
Why is this off-line market so important?
This is where the big money is. In the gray market, the current ivory registration and identification system doesn’t distinguish antique ivory from new ivory. But the ivory collectors do distinguish antique and new ivory. And antique ivory is the most expensive.
According to the Chinese ivory control policy, all ivory in China can only be sold in the white market, the legal market. But because the auction market is a very new thing, it is not well regulated.
How does this gray market affect the ivory trade and poaching?
The trade trend of ivory at the off-line market started to increase around 2006, mushroomed after 2009, and then peaked in 2011. After 2011 it suddenly diminished.
Before 2011, the trend of the ivory gray market is significantly correlated to elephant poaching in Africa. The price can be incredibly high in the gray market. The Chinese media, when they talk about the ivory market, usually [mean] the auction market. So those ivory carvings that achieve an incredibly high price bring lots of attention from the media, and this in turn increases the perception that ivory is a good investment. People anticipate that if they buy an ivory carving at this moment, in the future it’s going to make a lot of money.
Another step in my research is to understand the conditions that caused the different trends in the three markets. May I explain this?
Many conservation groups, animal welfare groups, and the media believe the 2009 CITES one-off sale stimulated ivory demand. This is the perception of many reports. But I’m not satisfied with this. To understand what caused ivory demand in China, we need to understand why Chinese buy ivory. We need to understand the different values of ivory in Chinese perception.
Chinese society has attached many values to ivory. The economic value of carved ivory as a good investment is the first. The second is the social value of ivory. The third is the cultural value of ivory as a traditional art. Ivory carving in 2006 was officially designated as a national intangible cultural heritage. The fourth value is the esthetic value—those who believe ivory is very beautiful, the necklaces and bangles they think are very pretty. The fifth is the religious value, such as ivory statues and guru beads, Buddhist ivory pendants, and statues of Quan Yin. The last is the medical value. Some people believe that if you wear ivory bangles, for example, it’s good for your health.
It’s also important that we understand the social change that promoted some of these values. I identified two trends.
The first was the preservation of traditional culture. In 2002 the Chinese authorities started to recognize the importance of protecting traditional culture, and there were lots of initiatives launched to protect this, and ivory carving is just one. The carvers seized on this opportunity, and ivory carving became an official national intangible cultural heritage in 2006. This increased the cultural value of ivory, and it’s one reason the authorities would like to have the ivory trade.
The second, and most important, trend is the boom of arts investment in China, especially after 2008 and 2009, because around this time the stock market and real estate market didn’t perform as well as expected. So people started to invest in many forms of arts and antiques and collectibles, and this included furniture, paintings, antique books, and ivory.
This art market is related to the gray market, because the auction market is an important channel for liquidation [of] investment[s]. The arts investment boom increased the value of ivory as an investment alternative that has driven ivory demand in China.
But in 2011 the authorities imposed an ivory auction off-line ban. A lot of Chinese news articles talked about this ban, but the English media rarely talk about this. This is important: Because of this ban, the ivory gray market suddenly diminished, and the [price] increase of ivory slowed down.
Some groups in China are now lobbying to drop the ban. The problem is that because it’s poorly regulated, new ivory can enter the market and can be fabricated to look antique.
In your research, did you come to understand whether Chinese buyers of ivory know—or care—that elephants are being killed for the their ivory?
Professional ivory investors know a lot about ivory, and they know a lot about elephant poaching. They distinguish the different types of ivory—they say it’s yellow, white, or blood ivory, and they have different explanations for each kind.
Some of these professional investors openly say that blood ivory is from [a] poached elephant. And the ivory was got when the elephant was still alive. Of all the kinds of ivory, blood ivory is the most expensive. So they know exactly where the ivory comes from.
But the general public, who simply buy ivory because of, say, its esthetic value, I believe they don’t know the ivory came from poached elephants. They simply consider ivory the same as other beautiful jewelry, like jade.
So let me get this straight. From everything you are telling me, Chinese professional investors and art collectors are the most influential group driving the trade in your opinion?
But we must distinguish between collectors and investors. Investors care about money. Collectors also care about cultural value and esthetic value. And the collectors, some of them are really good people. They want ivory from legal source[s]. The collectors can be very law abiding.
When you graduated from Yale, you decorated your hat in honor of Mountain Bull, an iconic Kenyan elephant who was recently killed for his ivory.
At Yale we have a tradition of decorating our hats. People know me as “the elephant guy.” So I put an elephant on my head, and at that time Mountain Bull was killed.
I feel I have the responsibility to help elephant conservation in Africa. I’ve received a lot of support from many, many people, and it’s those people, the ones who are motivated by their genuine love for the elephants, that most encourage me.
I realize this problem is very complicated. Many people here in the U.S. care a lot about [the] elephant because of its intrinsic value and because they feel a moral responsibility or they want to protect [it] for the next generation. But Africans may have different concerns—about livelihood and issues about development and well-being. You cannot simply impose your own values and ask them to have the same feeling you do.
So what I’m trying to do is to listen to the different actors, whether U.S. rich people or local African people who are suffering from conflict with elephants and must think about next meals or the Chinese who care about culture. I try to understand all this, and how we can bring people together to find common ground. I really believe ensuring a viable future for elephants is the common interest for the global community.
By BEATRICE OBWOCHA
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will be in Kenya in June to attend a high level environmental meeting whose main agenda will be to address the rise in cases of poaching.
The first UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) will bring together high level representatives from 160 UN member states and will see over 1,200 participants from government, business and civil society converge in Nairobi for five days.
Ministers of Environment and Foreign Affairs, Chief Executive Officers of some international organisations and judges are expected to attend the conference that will take place in Nairobi from June 23 to 27, 2014.
A statement from UNEP stated that “ Ministers and international leaders will gather to address two key sustainable development and environment topics of current international concern, namely: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including sustainable consumption and production and the illegal trade in wildlife to address the escalation in poaching and surge in related environmental crime.”
According to the conveners, the environmental rule of law will also be discussed by leading representatives of the international judicial community, including Chief Justices, Attorney Generals and Judges.
The role of Finance in the Green will also be addressed in the meeting.
UNEA is the newly constituted UN platform for decision making on environment that is tasked to chart a new course in the way the international community addresses environmental sustainability challenges.
As the new governing body of UN Environment Programme (UNEP) as well as the world’s Environment Assembly, UNEA has the mandate to make strategic decisions and provide political guidance in the work of UNEP and promote a strong science-policy interface.
The Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of UNEP Mr Achim Steiner said the broad range of actors from the world of economy, finance, social sciences, legislation and the judiciary will participate in the conference to help shape the global environment agenda.
“In this new forum, UNEP and its partners will be able to provide governments and other policymakers with the science, policy options and platform, for international cooperation to more effectively address the environmental dimension of sustainable development.
“The convening of the first UNEA session in Nairobi – home of UNEP and the often referred to environment capital of the world – represents a coming-of-age for the global environment community,” he said.
Kenya’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Martin Kimani said Kenya is ready to host such a high profile meeting.
“Our country has made immense strides in building a Green Economy – observe our cutting edge geothermal developments and the high percentage of our GDP from nature tourism.
“The success of UNEA and UNEP are high in our priorities. Kenya is taking every measure to ensure the success of this landmark event. We are inviting delegates from around the world to actively participate in this historic moment and make their contributions to the assembly in a safe and friendly city that is rolling out every welcome to them,” he said.
This article can be found in the following link: http://www.nation.co.ke/news/Ban-Ki-moon-to-attend-anti-poaching-meeting-in-Nairobi/-/1056/2330310/-/lrmxup/-/index.html
By Khy Sovuthy and Simon Henderson, The Cambodia Daily
The General Department of Customs held a press conference Thursday to provide the first update since May 12 on the investigation into Cambodia’s biggest ever seizure of illegal ivory. But customs officials did not mention whether the investigation had identified any person or persons responsible for the smuggled ivory, and declined to respond to questions on the identity of the smugglers.
“After investigating this case we have discovered that the 3,008 kg of ivory was transported from Kenya in Africa,” Kin Ly, the head of the Sihanoukville port’s customs and excise department, told reporters.
He explained that port authorities were alerted about the containers by the regional intelligence liaison office of the Customs Enforcement Network, a global intelligence service monitoring shipping cargo.
The containers were supposed to be carrying beans from Malaysia, but a scan after their arrival at Sihanoukville revealed a cargo of more than 500 elephant tusks.
Most of the elephant tusks smuggled through Southeast Asia are bound for Vietnam and China, which have lucrative black markets for ivory, and Bun Chiv, deputy chief of the port’s customs office, said Thursday that the final destination of the Kenyan ivory was almost certainly not Cambodia.
“Cambodia was not the destination country for this ivory,” he said.
Neither he nor Mr. Ly would answer questions regarding the shipping company that consigned the containers, Olair Worldwide Logistics, which has two office listings in Phnom Penh and one in Sihanoukville.
The company is registered with the Ministry of Commerce as having three shareholders: Seang Sokhorn, Eang Chantha and Huy Soly.
Neither the company nor the shareholders could be reached Thursday.
Richard Schiffman, New Scientist
AT THE headquarters of the Mara Elephant Project, Marc Goss contemplates a jumble of squiggly lines superimposed on a Google Earth map. Each line represents the recent movements of a GPS-collared elephant in the Maasai Mara National Reserve in Kenya. Generally, the animals move too slowly to notice.
Occasionally, however, Goss sees what he calls “a streak” – when one of the lines suddenly lurches forward. It means the animal is being chased by poachers. If the streak stops cold, Goss surmises that another elephant has just been killed.
An unsustainable four elephants are killed in Africa every hour for the ivory in their tusks. But while impoverished locals are enlisted to pull the triggers, it is highly organised transnational crime syndicates and militias that run the poaching and reap the lion’s share of the profits, fuelling terrorism and increasingly war.
That’s the conclusion of a joint report by the conservation group Born Free USA and C4ADS, a non-profit organisation that conducts data-driven analysis of security and conflict issues.
Varun Vira, a senior analyst at C4ADS and one of the authors of the report, says it is the first study to look at the problem through the lens of conflict and national security rather than conservation. The report, titled Ivory’s Curse, draws on publicly available government data, news reports and interviews with government officials and conservationists.
It paints a bleak picture of a slaughter which is disastrous not just for elephants, but for the stability of African nations, and claims that blood money from ivory has helped to bankroll almost every conflict in Africa in recent decades. “The modern ivory trade was built on war,” says Vira.
In 2013, roughly 400 tonnes of ivory was trafficked, representing the tusks of 50,000 elephants – a billion dollar a year business. The price of ivory inChina, which is by far the largest market, has sky-rocketed from $6 a kilo in 1976 to $3000 today – far more than most Africans earn in a year (see diagram).
The report identified seven regions where conflict and ivory trade are deeply connected, and shows that much of the poaching takes place across borders(see map). For instance, the report builds on previous findings that Somali terror group al-Shabaab funds itself with money from tusks poached in northern Kenya, adding that the ongoing civil war in the Central African Republic (CAR) is being partly funded by ivory. Meanwhile, Nigeria’s Boko Haram is targeting elephants in Cameroon.
In Sudan, government-allied militias complicit in the Darfur genocide fund their operations by poaching elephants in Chad, Cameroon, the CAR and northern Democratic Republic of the Congo. South Sudan, which boasted 130,000 elephants 25 years ago, is down to just 5000 animals today due to poaching by both sides in the recent conflict.
Some populations have been hit particularly hard and may never recover. The report predicts that African forest elephants could become extinct in the Congo basin within two decades. In addition to political instability, much of the blame lies with the proliferation of Chinese mining and timber operations in the area. These build roads through the rainforest that give poachers access to previously remote areas.
There are a few bright spots. Relatively wealthy Namibia and South Africa have so far kept elephant poaching largely in check through political stability, aggressive patrolling and community-based conservation. Remoteness also helps. Elephant numbers in sparsely populated Botswana are at an all-time high.
Elephants in east Africa are facing what Iain Douglas-Hamilton, zoologist and founder of Save the Elephants, calls “a crisis but not yet a catastrophe”. Elephants are “amazingly resilient creatures”, he says, and in regions where up to half of their deaths are caused by humans, the animals can still manage to maintain healthy communities. But when that number rises above 50 per cent – as has happened in much of Africa – reproduction rates can’t replace the losses, and the species spirals into decline.
The more successful countries shouldn’t rest on their laurels, Vira says. One way to tackle the problem in future is to predict the next poaching hotspots. The report’s authors have developed an index that includes factors such ascorruption and arms availability to predict at-risk reserves. As elephant numbers in central Africa decline, poaching is spreading, mainly to the south and east.
“Just looking at the diminishing numbers elsewhere in Africa and the economics of the trade, poaching has to eventually shift to southern Africa where 50 per cent of the elephants are today,” Vira says.
The hotspots for poaching are already shifting. Until a decade ago, the Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania boasted the largest concentration of pachyderms on Earth. But two-thirds of its elephants were killed between 2009 and 2013. The report alleges that poachers are being abetted by senior officials in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.
The report endorses data-driven methods, like Goss’s live GPS mapping, to maximise the efficiency of gamekeeper patrols.
It also suggests that African governments should ramp up efforts to intercept ivory as it travels through the supply chain. Disrupting distribution networks can make the trade costlier and more risky for all those involved.
But even the best policing in Africa will fall short if demand for ivory remains high. A separate report will focus on the ivory trade in Asia. And Douglas-Hamilton is already working with China’s celebrities to convince young people that owning ivory trinkets isn’t cool. However, changing cultural values takes time – time Africa’s elephants may not have.
Editorial, New Scientist
15 May 2014
The funding of Boko Haram’s atrocities by the illegal ivory trade show that poaching is not just a problem for conservationists, but for all of us
MORE than 200 girls abducted by terror group Boko Haram in Nigeria; 23,000 African elephants killed for their tusks last year. On the surface all these crimes have in common is that they happened on the same continent. But there is an intimate connection: like many terrorist organisations in Africa, Boko Haram is funded by sales of illegal ivory (see “Ivory poaching funds most war and terrorism in Africa”).
Elephant poaching is usually framed as a conservation issue. But increasingly it is a national security and humanitarian one, too. According to a recent report from Born Free USA and data analyst C4ADS, ivory has become the “bush currency” militants, terrorists and rebels use to buy weapons and fund operations. Government corruption is thought to play its part too.
Most of this ivory ends up in east Asia, where demand is high and rising. According to the report, a single tusk can fetch $15,000.
The link between ivory and violence adds even more urgency to the need to quash this deadly trade. Previous campaigns to cut demand for ivory by reducing its acceptability have had an impact. As they have been replicated with other products such as shark-fin soup, this suggests that wildlife crimecan be tackled in this way. Such campaigns always include a strong element of awareness-raising. The fact that ivory is used to bankroll conflicts provides yet more ammunition that conservationists should exploit.
Of course, the ivory trade is only one part of a web of wildlife crime that is itself part of a global criminal network dealing in drugs, weapons and people. Cutting demand for ivory won’t on its own defuse Africa’s conflicts. Militants will simply plunder other resources such as hardwood or the mineral coltan, which may end up as furniture in your house or electrical components in your cellphone.
When it comes to wildlife crime, it is easy to point the finger at Chinese demand for ivory, rhino horn and tiger penis while forgetting that all consumers contribute to some extent.
The illegal wildlife trade is worth an estimated $20 billion a year; some of that money ends up funding groups like Boko Haram and their violent ideology. It is time for a global awareness campaign to alert us all to the ways we encourage the slaughter of endangered animals, the dubious trade in scarce natural resources and the terrorisation of vulnerable people.