in the reading i see that africom, the united states command for africa is working with the botswana defenses on providing communications and other logistical support and capabilities to better address poaching. i wondered either dr. hamilton, mr. cardamone if you have input on whether that is a model worthy of replication, whether you think africom has been contributing significantly to the anti-poaching efforts. there are other regions obviously. we centrally focused here on central africa, where there are much less well developed national defense structures, and they have much more pressing challenges. so i'd be interested in what you think africom can and should be doing on supporting international efforts by our african allies. and second, usaid and its efforts both in habitat

preservation and in conservation. would be interested in whether the carpe program offers coordinates in the congo basin. if you would on what africaom and usaid can and should be doing. >> i think it's been very effective in has happened in botswana. it's one of the very few of the sites that are looked at under the program that have very low poaching levels. they have not only the botswana army dedicated, but they have help from the u.s. forces as well. i think it would be very helpful to have more involvement, especially in east africa. there has been a huge amount of money poured into central africa, and quite rightly so, because it was the worst hit area. but we're now seeing levels of poaching in east africa that formally would be typical of central africa. and we just got to stop that. if we could have much more help

with training maybe from the u.s. forces, and indeed, intelligence and surveillance and any of the resources that they could marshall, it would be a great help. >> mr. cardamone? >> i think africom's ability to train forces and assist forces that can interdict and prevent this trafficking are very valuable and helpful, not only to address the very real problem of poaching, but the long line that leads back to regional and national security. it's by taking the product out of action, you take the money out of the system as well. and so militant groups and the rebel forces and entities that work encountered to u.s. interests is certainly primary among what africom is trying to do. this is a way to sort of starve

the beast. >> dr. douglas-hamilton referenced doppler radar pa and the potential benefits of being able to better track not just elephants, but also poached elephant ivory. my impression from your testimony is that the elicit pathwa ivory makes it from africa to the markets of whether thailand or china are relatively well-known. would it be advantageous in fighting poaching and illegal i've troy have a more sophisticated capacity to track specific tusks or pathways for the illegal trade? mr. scanlon or mr. cardamone, would you care to comment on that? >> i think absolutely. we're working very closely with parties on using more modern forensic techniques in wildlife crime. dna testing. we work with the south african government in particular to see whether or not they can enhance their in-house capacity, because

we need to know where the stock is coming from, and if we can track it from destination to home, it will be advantageous. we're also looking at other technologies. we've also raised the discussion with china as well, and other states in the asian region with respect to using modern techniques for tracking wildlife contraband, which would make it much easier to carry out enforcement measures. >> i found dr. douglas-hamilton's pair fries if the buying stops, the killing can do, quite compelling and intend to raise this particular issue with national leaders in east africa on my upcoming visit. thank you so much for your testimony here today. >> thanks a lot, senator coons. senator udall? >> thank you, chairman kerry, and really appreciate you holding this hearing and focusing on this issue. i believe it's a very, very important one. i just recently came -- returned from africa on a trip that was

focused more with on pepfar and hiv/aids. and it's incredible what we're doing there. but that's another side part of the picture. but we had an opportunity when there was a national holiday to spend a couple of hours in a game park up in northern namibia, otosha, and saw these just magnificent creatures that are there. and i really identify with what secretary scanlon said. very, very poor countries where individuals are gaining a living, you can call it ecotourism, or sustainable range management or whatever, but they're out there on the ground, living, and as a result of these animals, they're able to stay in the country rather than go into the shanty towns where you just have this abject poverty. and so i wanted to focus a little bit.

and so it was incredible just to be there and to see that and have that experience and see the creatures, and know that people, this is part of their livelihood. and -- these poachers are taking that away from them. i think it could cause real instability there on the ground. i would like to focus a little bit, and senator kerry did a good job on a couple of the issues, but focus a little bit more on the law enforcement side of this. it seems to me, and dr. hamilton, i want you'd to talk a little bit about this, if you had very strong wildlife penalties, elevating wildlife penalties, and ten you had strong prosecution, that you could -- you could nip this at the bud. now granted it's grown to the

point where you have 200 armed horsemen moving from sudan, so you need a significant counter force to do something about that. but is there a problem in terms of the penalties? is there a problem in terms of enforcement? and then what are the witnesses here at the table believe we can do about that in order to plug that hole. because i think you start there with that issue. please, doctor. >> there is a big problem on the penalties in general across africa are far too low. and enforcement of those penalties that exists is far too weak. i can speak to kenya in particular, where there is a plan under the new constitution to bring in much more severe penalties. and i know the kenya wildlife searches and the engineers are pushing to have this law introduced much earlier. but it is crucial that the magistrate should be given the message and the power to punish properly, which they do not have

at present. the same is true elsewhere in africa. and there are few countries that have strong law enforcement in that respect. >> in all the countries where we have the big problem in terms of the elephants being wiped out, don't have very strong penalties and don't have very good enforcement? >> well, i'm not aware of every single case. >> yeah. >> there is always great latitude for magistrates to take initiative. and they need to be given great political direction. so if this point is raised at the highest levels with african governments in discussion, then it could be put on the agenda. and i think it's really important that the u.s. government and the corn relations committee should take every opportunity to do that. >> i think many of us are interested in doing that. secretary scanlon and mr. -- >> thank you, senator. and yes, one thing we've noticed is sometimes a seizure is seen

as a success. i mean a seizure is part of the enforcement chain. but you have to go beyond a seizure. you have to investigate. you are to prosecute, and you have to penalize. and so what we're trying to push is that a seizure is an important part of the enforcement process, but the whole enforcement chain needs to be engaged from the customs to the police, the prosecutors through the judiciary. this goes to the whole issue of rule of law and good governance. the other thing we're finding is that quite often those who are prosecuted are, if you like, at the wrong end of the chain. they are those in the front line of poaching, perhaps those that are not driving this illegal trade. they're the ones that are being engaged at a low rate to actually involve themselves in poaching and illegal trade. we need to actually catch the kingpin. we need to find out who is it, where he is driving this trade and ordering the purchase of these elicit items. that's why we put in place through this consortium i mentioned before training in

what is called controlled deliveries. it's been used in dealing with illegal trade in narcotics whereby you don't seize the contraband when you identify it, you track to it home. so you can find out who in fact ordered the ivory, and get that person, not the person lower down the chain. so we're trying to use more effective enforcement techniques that have been used in drugs, in fighting the war against drugs, et cetera, and apply them to wildlife crime. south africa is a very good example of a state that has taken very strict measures with respect to wildlife crime. and they have over the past few months incarcerated nationals of mozambique for over 20 years for smuggling in rhino horn and nationals of vietnam for over ten years for smuggling in rhino horn. they are very harder with with respect to anyone coming to steal their wildlife. and they have put in place the sort of measures, the sort of coordinated measures through the international crime bureau of interpol to really clamp down and send a strong message, you steal our wildlife, you're going

to jail. so we use south africa as a good example, albeit with all that effort, they're still really struggling to deal with this illegal trade in rhino horn. >> do each of these countries that are having a problem in terms of the elephants being wiped out, do they have the capability you're talking about in terms of getting the kingpin? >> i would say no. and the analysis we've done shows that the highest rates of illegal killing are those states that have the weakest governance. so where you have the weakest governance, you find the highest levels of illegal killing and as we were talking about earlier, this whole issue of governance and rule of law and having systems in place. where it's weak we see high levels of killing. >> well, i'm going to stop because we have senator risch has showed up, chairman kerry, and we are very excited about the idea that a republican has shown up to at least question. we don't know what senator risch's position will be. but i'm going to yield the floor at this point.

>> thank you so much. you guys have been doing all you can to make us elephants extinct. i thought i should come up. i do have a serious question. you mention the rule of law and strong governance as being helpful, maybe even critical in controlling the illegal trade. i think that's probably true in everything, whether it's narcotics or whether it's piracy of intellectual property or what have you. who are the -- who are the bad actors? where do you find the countries where they can take the product in and rework it to whatever they do with the ivory to put it into the stream of commerce, and are protected by the government or essentially by the culture there. who are the bad actors in this regard? >> thank you, senator. i think as a general statement, we can say that the risk of detection with wildlife crime is

lower than with other crimes. the penalties associated with wildlife crime are lower than other crimes. and the risk of incarceration are lower than others. so that's pretty much a general statement. and we then see examples where wildlife commerce is perhaps taken more seriously. i just gave south africa as an example where very long custodial sentences were given to individuals stealing the wildlife of south africa. i'd say it's a bit of a mixed bag in most parts of the world, with respect to the sorts of measures that are in place. one thing we have noticed is what i said before, that seizure is sometimes seen as a success. seizure is in fact a failure. that animal is dead. you've seized the contraband, but the person who wanted it is still wanting it. you know, that's why we've put in place this training and controlled deliveries and other more effective techniques in dealing with crime, whether it's wildlife crime or not, because we have to get to the perpetrators, those who actually are driving the demand. and i would say in those

countries where demand is driven, they have quite strong laws. in china, for example, it used to be they had the death penalty as the highest penalty for wildlife crime. it's now life imprisonment is the highest penalty that can be imposed for wile life crimes and other states vary. in thailand i know they are looking at their legislation. they do have a problem with domestic controls over ivory. they have a legal domestic market. it's not well regulated. it needs to be tightened. we're in discussion with them on that. these are sorts of things are very targeted where we as a secretariat tend to work with the state to try to lift them up to a level that would be more in keeping with the objectives of the convention. >> you're not able to identify a particular hot spot in the world, though? you refer to it as kind of checkered and a mixed bag. you don't have one particular area that you can put your finger on and say look, this is something -- this is an area we really need to concentrate on. >> there are certain areas we have to concentrate on.

i think the mainland market for rhino horn seems to be vietnam. i think we need to at a political level and at an operational level really enhance our effort there's, because we need some very strong political signals coming with respect to this being unacceptable and really enhance the effort being made at an operational level. because they've made no seizures there i think since 2008. yet all the evidence coming from south africa and other countries that this is a prime destination. with respect to other states, i think if we look at africa, i think the other states that we'll all be familiar with that have weaker systems in terms of their rule of law and governance. and as you said, senator, it's not just wildlife crime, it's other types of crime as well that perhaps aren't getting the attention that they deserve. again, we try and work with these states to lift them up. there was one state in africa, nigeria, that was a subject of a trade smungs because of lack enforcement effort that was lifted at the last standing

committee in august of last year following the enactment of new legislation and the establishment of a new authority. so the societies doing to them where they see a systematic lack of effort to put in legislation or enforcement measures. somalia is subject to a trade suspension for all trade at the moment. and there is one other state subject to a trade suspension for lack of legislation, mauritania. so there are certain states that have been identified by the parties and have been subject to recommended trade suspension for failure to fully comply with the convention. >> anybody else got a comment on that aspect of the issue? >> i'd just like to say that i fully support mr. scanlon's idea that you have to go to the person at the top, who is driving the trade, what is the demand and who is that person or who is that syndicate. and interdicting just the low-level poachers is not going to get at the problem.

the major difficulty about finding who that head of the syndicate is the ability to hide behind legal structures throughout the world in various jurisdictions around the globe. and that's either through a shell corporation that hides its money in a secret bank account, that also his behind a nominee trust or a foundation. so there is layers upon layers upon layers of opacity in the financial system and in the corporate structures that enable these syndicates to hide behind. and i think that's the thing that the international community can do as far as attempt to cut off the money supply. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator. appreciate it. you mentioned earlier -- let me ask you a quick question. on the seized material, how much

of that finds its way back into the market? is there a -- do you have any sense of that, dr. hamilton? do you, the cites folks have a sense of that? where does it go? what happens to all this? i saw in the video there briefly enormous stocks of tusks of seeds material. but knowing the way things work in a lot of those places, i'm wondering -- i mean does that stay in the evidence room? is it destroyed? what happens to it? >> sometimes it gets destroyed. we had a burning of ivory in kenya recently, which was a consignment that had been seized in singapore, and it had come from nairobi. but that ivory was not kenya ivory. it had come from all sorts of other countries. and kenya had been used because of its efficiency in transport as a transit point.

so that ivory eventually was surrendered back to kenya and the countries of origin were identified through detective work and through looking at the dna profile of some of the dna found on the ivory. and it was agreed amongst all those parties that they should burn that ivory and destroy it, which was a very good solution. and it sent out a strong signal. >> well, does that need to become the norm? should there be a part of the convention should require that all stocks are assembled and in fact destroyed? because if there is a secondary value, seizing it and then selling it or putting it into the black market under the table or otherwise, it doesn't do you much good you. still have the same incent alternative go after it. >> yes. i think it would be an excellent idea. but one would need perhaps to tie some recompense to those

countries so that the stocks to be destroyed nevertheless attract an equivalent money in aid that could be put into elephant conservation. >> well, it's an interesting idea. we do have our reward bill which we're working on bipartisan. and i hope maybe we can, you know, frame something into that. mr. secretary general, you also talked about the need to send strong messages here. you talked about the three state where you ought to do that, the range state, theie transient ste and finally the consumer state. we talked a bit about the consumer state and what we may be able to do there. clearly, it is critical to highlight the need for china, thailand, japan, vietnam, other countries, and i think we need to put this on the agenda at asean and other meetings to get them to raise the level of enforcement and penalty, number one. number two, what other messages

do you have in mind that might make a difference at each of those state levels in the range state, transient state, and consumer state? >> thank you, chairman. one of the great strengths of cites is its a very pragmatic and very operationally focused convention. so it works very much at ground level trying to actually achieve things. one of its weaknesses has been the high-level political engagement. and and with some of these issues, if we don't get very high level political engagement and very strong political signals, it's very harder at the arpgsal level. one of our objectives is to lift the debate. not lose the operational side, but lift the debate into a higher political sphere so that in countries that are consumer transit countries, at the highest level the message is unequivocal. this is not going to be tolerated. you will be punished severely if you're found breaching this convention in the national legislation that implements it. so we are working with all states consumer range and

transit states in trying to bring them together at a higher political level to have that discussion about what they're going to do in terms of sending these messages. we do, chairman, have an opportunity at our next conference at the parties in march of next year to have a higher level ministerial session whereby we can bring together higher political figures to actually send these very strong -- excuse me, very strong signals. that's an obvious opportunity. but we are in conversation with states. i should say we're also doing that at the operational level. and there are good exchanges i know at the operational level between south africa and vietnam, for example, on rhino trade. but we are really strongly of the view working through the sort of you've just mentioned, asean to get this on the agenda and send a message will have a significant impact, a positive impact. >> and anybody, how do we -- you

talked about the high return for minimum investment. with respect to a couple of those things on the front line, on the range state. i mean if 200 people can get on their horse in transit countries and come raging in with their ak-47s and massacre 400 of these animals, we got a fundamental problem in terms of security forces, law enforcement, army, whatever it is. what, if anything, can be done to augment that capacity? should that -- could that happen through the african union? could that happen through some other kind of coordinated force or something? i mean it seems that some minimal level of increased deterrent force would send a pretty strong message. dr. hamilton? >> i think any forum should have

it raised. the point is that this elephant crisis is just not on many people's radar. until now. neither in the states nor in africa. with increased awareness and raising this point, all these four should be used. but it won't avoid the need for the nitty-gritty, which is to build up forces on the ground to engage local people and get them on side. and to use everything in our armories to solve this elephant problem. >> we're going to have three votes in the senate which generally finds a way to end our hearings one way or the other. in about five minutes. so we have a moment here for colleagues to weigh in with additional questions. and a lily way. but i want to -- i mean as i said in my opening comments, and i understand it, i mean we are

inundated, we have a lot going on. a lot of people out of work. we got a lot of deficit issues, budget, i mean there is a lot going on. people are consumed. the trick here, though, is not to lose sight of the connectedness of all of these things. this is not just about elephants. it's not just about poaching in one place. the dots connect here to the whole issue of failed states, governance, lack of law enforcement, preying on people, the sort of random violence that comes as a consequence of this, the enormous sums of money criminal syndicates are walking away with billions of dollars out of this. and one of the things that i saw a full square in the 1980s when we began to look at noriega's

bank of preference and ran across osama bin laden's name is this is all interconnected. the opaqueness is used by all of these elicit entities, including terrorist groups to move their money, to avoid accountability, to stay outside of governing structures. and all of those entities that are outside of those governing structures are depleting the capacity of states to function and to do what they're supposed to do. so, you know, i think that this worth raising the heat on it a little bit because those same thugs who can come in there and do that are also going to rape, pillage, plunder, move narcotics, facilitate somebody's ability to get money elicitly that may wind up blowing up a bunch of people in some community square. and so i think it is important to fight back against failed statism.

against the absence of governance. and i view this as a component of that. am i wrong? or what would you say to that, both of you involved on the enforcement side? >> yeah, i think that's right. it's not an africa problem, it's a global because of all the connections you have just laid out. what facilitates that is the opacity in the system. justice brandeis some time ago said sunlight is the best disinfectant. he was talking in another era about a different issue, but that comment holds to this. without international effort, international focus, without global political will, this problem will not go away. neither will the problems of terrorism or transnational crime, because the connective tissue is the opacity in the financial system. and until organizations like the g20 and others really focus on

this, we're going to be talking about this problem for quite a long time. >> do you want to comment, mr. secretary general? >> just briefly, chair. i think the interconnections you talked about are supported by what we observe through the convention. it's supported by what interpol is observing and has passed resolutions on, and is also observed by the u.n. commission on crime prevention and criminal justice and the resolutions they passed on the topic. >> dr. douglas-hamilton, you mentioned doppler rad eed dar p possibility of thinking out of the box. can you fill that in a little bit for us? >> i think darpa have discussions, quite intellectual ones, and we have discussed for putting up gunshot detectors on all the hills and integrating this into a system that is sort of command and control system

but at a local level, where it's very easy to get it, the information fed back to a quick reaction force. in a way, it's anti-poaching is like a minor guerrilla war. part of it is you have to reach out to hearts and minds. other part is you have to beat people in the field. and for that, the more technical support we can get, the better. >> well, give the committee just a short end, a one-minute version of the one, two, three things that you think will make the greatest difference here that need to be followed up on. >> i think number one is the anti-poaching in the field. which we've covered fairly well. number two is controlling the transit points. >> we have been dealt with well by the secretary general, and where we need, again, more tracking mechanisms for following ivory and rhino horn because we've got this huge