tv [untitled] May 29, 2012 4:30pm-5:00pm EDT
4:30 pm
any information, neither names nor addresses, about the true owners of the firms. this lack of information means that shell companies with hidden owners, are opaque to law enforcement. while most shell companies are likely to be involved in legitimate businesses, u.s. national security is left to chance because of our inability to tell the difference between an l.l.c. created by a dentist in texas and one set up by a government entity in tehran. victor boot provided amprms to e taliban, controlled at least a dozen shell corporations which were registered in texas, florida and delaware. the u.s. was the locale of choice for foreign politicians
4:31 pm
establishing u.s. shell companies to laupder their money. when good laws are in place to counter money laundering, finance institutions comply with the law. recent reports confirm this may not be the case. 75% of uk banks were not sufficiently complying with anti-money laundering regulations, there's no reason to believe that the situation is any different at american banks. indeed, major american financial institutions, including the former wachovia bank have allegedly not been performing due diligence on their customers. congress should address these problems. senate bill 1483, the incorporation of transparency and law enforcement's assistance act is bipartisan legislation
4:32 pm
that will establish official ownership registries that can be -- the bill is hardly supported by the departments of justice, treasury and homeland security and many law enforcement organizations also endorsed the bill. by implementing s-1483, not only will the nation's security be stronger, the united states will secure the moral high ground needed to encourage it's allies and global fora like the global financial task force in paris, the g-8 and g-20 to consider ownership registries as a new international norm. primary point i want to make today is that the mechanisms in the global financial system, that permit the laundering of illegal ivory proceeds of the same mechanisms, used by victor boot, drug cartels and terrorist groups. shell companies, secret bank accounts and a host of other
4:33 pm
opaque entities create a structure that facilitates poach o'clock of all types. corporate registries should be a priority for congress. thank you again for the opportunity to address the committee. my written testimony has been provided for further details. and i look forward to your questions. >> well, thank you very much. your full testimony will be placed in the record in full. we appreciate it. secretary general? >> thank you very much, chairman kerry and thank you to yosef and to the committee members for your interest in this topic. it's a great honor to have an opportunity to testify before you this morning. -- march 1973 at a conference that was hosted by the united states government. and the united states had been a very strong supporter of the implementation of cites before
4:34 pm
that time. as you know, cites regulates trade in around 5,000 species, to be sure such trade is legal, sustainable and traceable and there's a high volume of legal trade, which is a multibillion dollar business. but today we're here talking about another aspect of societies and that is tackling illegal trade in wildlife and this is a growing problem worldwide. the value of this illegal trade is now estimated at being anything between $5 billion and $20 billion per year. that excludes timber and marine resources. and the -- when you look at the published results of specific enforcement operations undertaken by organizations such as interpol and the world customs organization. and chair and committee members, it is very clear, organized crime is actively involved in
4:35 pm
the illegal trade of wildlife. this has been made clear by interpol, by the secretary and it's governing body which has passed resolutions on the top pick and by the national institution of drugs and crime. there is absolutely no doubt that organized crime is involved in the illegal trade of elephant ivory and rhino horns. we have talked this morning about a major spike in the illegal killing and the illegal trade of both elephant ivory and rhino horn and these are reaching levels that cannot be sustained. there's been record seizures of large -- of ivory. you can't take 800 kilograms from ivory, from central africa, export it to east africa and
4:36 pm
then to asia without carefully planned networks. and with rhino, we have gone from 13,00013,000 -- 13 illegal killed rhinos. this is despite the efforts of the south african government which has really enhanced it's effort. the societies exist with the objective of survival of species in the world. ade goes well beyond the impact of those species. criminal syndicates are well adapted in avoiding detection. they're exploiting some of the poorest people on the planet.
4:37 pm
they are corrupting officials and they are wounding and killing enforcement officers in the field. as such they are depriving local people of legitimate development choices and depriving states of revenue, not to mention robs states of their cultural heritage and their natural resources, this is undermining the rule of law, it is undermining security and it must be stopped. the examples given you here regarding cameroon and we -- we had rebels crossing into northern cameroon, massacring elephants for the purpose of getting their ivory that they'll use to finance activities they want to take with respect to local conflicts. can i give you another example? it's not in my written testimony, but we're just finishing a video we're doing regarding the killing of rhinos, and it's in krueger national park in south africa where we have interviewed local people who have relied on the rhino for
4:38 pm
their livelihoods. the final comment by the woman we interviewed is this, when you'you e you're killing rhino, you're killing us. this is destroying the livelihoods of local people. but these se-- there are very hh profits to be made. respect to rhino, the latest we have is black market prices have gone up to $600 a kilo gram. the risk of detection is low. and if you are detected, the risk of prosecution is low, and if you are prosecuted, the risk of incarceration is also low in far too many cases. but we know how to beat these send yaccats, we have to apply more often and with greater rigor. the risks associated to local people, to governments and to security is such that we must up
4:39 pm
the ante. we know what to do. we need to take additional measures operationally. that's in terms of legislation, that's in terms of penalties that can be imposed and in terms of -- we need to take better coordinating efforts, both internationally, regionally and at -- convictions to start incarcerating people who are committing these crimes. chairman, it should not be the animals behind bars, it should be the criminals that are behind bars. we need states at the highest possible level to say this activity will not be tolerated, whether it's from a range state where the poaching takes place, a transit state are the
4:40 pm
contraband makes it to it's intended destination or a consumer state. and we also have to look at human resources, the sharing of technology and financial resources. i had the opportunity to work in many financial organizations over the years and i can say that you can get very high returns for investing in this area for a minimal investment. we have seen the creation of the international consortium at the international level, a consortium of the society's secretary, unit poll, the world bank and the world customs organization, signed off by the head of all organizations be it president, secretary general, executive director, providing coordinating support including the network of wild life enforcement networks that the united states has been good support of. at a political level, we're very happy to see the outcome of the
4:41 pm
u.s.-china strategic and economic dialogue in may of this year, where paragraph 47 said that china and the united states would work together to combat illegal trade in wildlife and they'll have a meeting in june following up on the implementation of that paragraph. society has no financial mechanism, the global environment facility does not serve as a financial mechanism to the convention, where it does serve as a mechanism to the convention, this is a historic anomaly that we also believe we have an opportunity to correct, to let parties decide the financial mechanism to tackle this major problem. the 40th anniversary of our convention will be in march this year, the convention is in both cites and in other parts of the world, the washington convention. this coincides of the 16th convention of the parties and that provides us a wonderful opportunity to take stock of the current situation, to put in
4:42 pm
place new initiatives, to state clear and concise messages regarding not tolerating this crime and to open up the global environment facility to societies. chair, we're all in this together, we're only going to succeed if there's strong action taken at a national level in all states, but we desperately need ongoing international support. in your inspiring opening remarks, you said issues deserving attention need to get focus, and we certainly appreciate the focus you're giving and your committee is giving to this issue and we greatly appreciate the support the united states is providing and has historically provided in tackling this illegal trade in wildlife. thank you again. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary, we appreciate it. appreciate your leadership and what cites is trying to -- it's interesting about the financial
4:43 pm
mechanism. i want to bear down on a couple of things here. dr. douglas hamilton has said that he thinks the single thing that might have the greatest impact and that would really, quote, save the elephant is to have the biggest consumer country, china, reinstate unilaterally, the import ban. could you speak to that, secretary general? do you concur that that would have the single greatest impact? >> we have got the major consumer states of ivory appear to be china and thailand, with respect to rhino, it appears to be vietnam, seems to be the primary destination for rhino horn. whether we open up trade or not, we leave within the role of the parties to determine. they were the two one up sales in terms of elephant ivory
4:44 pm
following the ban in 1989. we will be presenting a report to our standing committee in july of this year, it will be released in the next week or two which will include a thorough analysis of where we are at now with respect to illegal trade and illegal killing in elephants. clearly the issue of demand has to be tackled. if we can curb demand, we can curb supply. but in terms of what these individual parties want to put in place, i would leave that to them. >> we had -- there was a ban in place for a number of years, correct? how many years did we have the ban in place? >> it was the best part of 20 years. >> and there was a ban globally on any kind of importation, wasn't there? >> that's correct. but it was relaxed to allow some sales of stockpiles from countries that did not have a poaching problem. >> when was it relaxed?
4:45 pm
>> the secretary general can probably answer that exactly. i think it was 2008 was one of the times and there had been a previous ivory sale to that. >> and it was relaxed wrchlt to a few countries only? >> yes. botswana, libya and south africa initially and then i think zimbabwe is included as well. >> as being allowed to export it? >> they were allowed to sell their ivory stocks in one sale. the most recent one was four countries, and they were allowed to sell to only two countries, china was one and thailand the other. they applied to be given that special biostatus. >> who signed off on that? who granted that permission? >> that was granted by the standing committee of the cites convention, i believe. >> so cites, in effect, cites
4:46 pm
has the ability to come back and reverse that, doesn't it? >> i don't know that they do. i think it's all in the hands of the parties. >> since we have cites here, secretary general, since cites relaxed it, can cites implement it again. >> the ban on the little trade in ivory remains in place. there were two, what i called one of sales because they were for existing stockpiles. it was approved by the conference of the parties and then there was only approved in terms of sales to two states, as stated, japan and china. if trade were to be reopened it would require another conference of the parties. >> so what you're saying is the only thing that was relaxed was the two one off sales. as to two countries, thailand and china? >> japan and china. >> japan and china. excuse me.
4:47 pm
so it appears as if that has indeed whetted the appetite? >> i would say there are differing opinions on that, there are some that are strongly of the view that it has whetted the appetite and it has opened up trade. and there are those of a contrary view that don't see a correlation between it. the secretary will express itself in the paper to the standing committee. >> the bottom line remains that you've got two countries, maybe three that stand out, for their illegal activities, china, thailand and vietnam? thailand and china, as to the elephant, correct? >> in terms of in states, china and thailand on the -- on all the analysis we do seemed to be the largest instate. it's not the only ones, but the primary instates of illegal trade of ivory and our analysis
4:48 pm
suggests that vietnam is the primary instates of rhino horn. >> in my experience of law enforcement certainly dealing with drugs and other issues, but also on this committee, in the 1980, we did a lot of work on narcotics globally. and that led us to do a lot of work on the banking structure, and then some of these opaque issues, et cetera, which i understand are very damaging. but the question is, i mean i think you have to approach this comprehensively, not only this one band-aid, but certainly, china getting tougher on the importation, i mean if you can sell openly and people are buying and trading, and everybody knows what's going on, there's not a penalty, you got a problem. so it seems to me that those countries are going to have to join into the enforcement effort. is there something more that
4:49 pm
they could do? >> thank you, chair. just with respect to china and they put in place quite significant enforcement related measures, i have visited there many times and visited with the importation authorities. they have the one with the most authorities with 22 staff. the reason why we are aware that china is such a destination because of the success of chinese customs to intervene the -- closing down a number of us ports. that's why we're seeing now a number of the syndicates going through malaysia because of the chinese enforcement action at the border. they just last year put in place a coordinated enforcement ameri mechanism. they enacted 100,000 forces
4:50 pm
around the country. so i would say they are fully engaged in the enforcement initiative. the area we have to with respec domestic controls and whether the domestic controls that allowed legal trade in ivory have loosened and we need to get them tightened up in the way that doesn't allow illegally traded ivory through the legal market and that's an area where i think in dialog in terms of wide strengthening. >> i want to come back in a few minutes to the front line of enforcement. there are different lines here and tiers. and i know senator kunz with us since the beginning has a schedule conflict, so i want to allow him to ask a few questions without any regard to time. take your time and ask what you need to. >> thank you, senator kerry. >> it is interesting we have three democrats here trying to preserve the republican party symbol.
4:51 pm
go aheades. >> the chairman leaves me uncharacteristically speechless. that is amusing. thank you, chairman. thank you to the panel. i just wanted to follow up briefly with some questions since i have an opportunity to meet with folks who might be relevant to these few questions. in the reading i see that africom is working with the defense forces on providing some of the communications and other logistical support and capabilities to better address poaching. i wonder to either dr. hamilton if you had any input or advice on whether that is a model that is worthy of replication, whether you think africom has been contributing significantly to the antipoaching efforts? there are other regions we have centrally focused on central africa where there are much less
4:52 pm
well developed national defense structures and they have much more pressing challenges and so i would be interested in what you think africom can and should be doing on supporting national efforts by our african allies and second if i could, usaid and its efforts in habitat preservation and in conservation, i would be interested in whether the carpe program offers efforts to support in the congo re jn on what they can and should be doing. >> i think it has been very effective what's happened in botswana and one of the reasons it is one of the few sites looked at under the program that have very low poaching levels. they have not only botswana army but they have help from the u.s. forces as well. i think it would be very help to feel have more involvement, especially in east africa. there has been a huge amount of
4:53 pm
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 formerly were typical of central africa, and we just have 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 marshal it would be a great help. >> i think africom's ability to train forces and assist forces that can interject 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 is by taking the product out of action you take the money out
4:54 pm
of the system as well, and so militant groups and the rebel forces and other entities that are working counter to u.s. interests is certainly primary among what africom is trying to do and this is a way to sort of starve the beast. >> dr. douglas hamilton referenced darpa and the potential benefits of being able to better track not just elephants but poached elephant ivory. my impression from your testimony is that the illicit pathways by which poached ivory makes it from africa to the markets of weather thailand or china are relatively well known. would it be advantageous in fighting poaching and the trade illegal ivory to have more sophisticated capacity to track specific tusks or pathways for the illegal trade?
4:55 pm
mr. scanlon, would you care to comment on that? >> thank you, senator. absolutely. we're working very closely with parties on using modern forensic techniques in wildlife crime and dna testing. we worked with the south african government in particular and to see whether or not that can enhance their inhouse 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 and 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 paraphrase if the buying stops the killing can too 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.
4:56 pm
>> thanks a lot senator coons. >> thank you, chairman kerry and really appreciate you holding this hearing and focusing on this issue because i believe it is a very, very important one. i just recently came, returned from africa on a trip that was focused more with more on pet and hiv and aids and it is incredible what we're doing there and that's another side pardon 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, utosha, and saw these magnificent creatures that are there, and i really identify with what secretary scanlon said very, very poor countries where individuals are gaining a living, that you can call it eco
4:57 pm
tourism 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 have this abject poverty. it was incredible to be there and see that and have that experience and see the creatures and know that this is part of their livelihood and what these poachers are taking that away from them, and 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,
4:58 pm
i want you to talk a little bit about this. if you had very strong wildlife penalties, elevating wildlife penalties and then you have strong prosecution that you could nip this in the bud, granted, it has grown to the point where you have 200 armed horse men moving from sudan, and 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 and 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 that in general across africa 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
4:59 pm
under the new constitution to bring in much more severe penalties and i know that the kenya wildlife service and the ngos are pushing to have this law introduced much earlier. it is crucial that the magistrate should be given the message and the power to publish 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 am not aware of every single case, but 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 is
198 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN3Uploaded by TV Archive on
![](http://athena.archive.org/0.gif?kind=track_js&track_js_case=control&cache_bust=123094130)