Looking for Law in All the Wrong Places? Dying Elephants, Evolving Treaties, and Empty Threats

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1 Its full name is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (emphasis added). It was initially agreed and signed on March 3, 1973 and entered into force on July 1, 1975, after ratification by just ten countries. There are now more than 180 states parties. Up-to-date information about the content of the treaty and the list of participating states is maintained at https//www.cites.org (accessed August 1, 2016).

2 Whether and how CITES prevents or helps to prevent the extinction of wild species is perennially controversial. The treaty regulates trade in species and parts of species on the assumption that in some cases trade can be a principal cause of species endangerment and possible extinction. This raises the question of whether trade is a more powerful cause of possible extinction than, say, habitat loss, which is conventionally identified as the chief cause of endangerment and extinction, or climate change, or some other driving variable.

3 Michael Glennon, Has International Law Failed the Elephant? 84 Am. J. Int'l L. 1–43 (1990).

4 Peter Sand, The Evolution of a Treaty Regime in the Borderland of Trade and Environment, 8 Eur. J. Int'l L. 29–58 (1997).

5 John Scanlon, CITES at Its Best: CoP 16 as a “Watershed Moment” for the World's Wildlife, 22 Rev. Eur. Comm. & Int'l Envtl. L. (hereinafter RECIEL) 222–227 (2013). See also John Scanlon, In a World of 7 Billion People How Can We Protect Wildlife? The Guardian, August 30, 2016 (online at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/30/7-billion-people-how-protect-wildlife-endangered-species? accessed September 3, 2016).

6 The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) routinely tracks the deliberations associated with all the major environmental treaties. For a summary of the CITES CoP 16 discussions in Bangkok in 2013, see http://www.iisd.ca/vol21/enb2183e.html (accessed August 1, 2016).

7 The issues on the agenda for CoP 17 in Johannesburg are previewed in the documentation assembled for the 66th meeting of the CITES Standing Committee, held in Geneva from January 11–15, 2016. See https://cites.org/eng/com/sc/66/index.php (accessed August 1, 2016). The Standing Committee provides policy guidance to the Secretariat concerning the implementation of the Convention and oversees the management of the Secretariat's budget. See https://cites.org/eng/disc/sc.php (accessed August 1, 2016).

8 In terms of fauna, particular attention currently focuses on Asian big cats, elephants, great apes, pangolins, rhinoceroses, antelopes, sharks and rays, snakes, and sturgeons. See https://cites.org/eng/com/sc/66/index.php (accessed August 1, 2016). The total number of species of fauna and flora arguably afforded some degree of protection by CITES through the regulation of trade is now in excess of 35,000.

9 The origins of CITES received little serious scholarly attention until the appearance of Rachelle Adam, The Elephant Treaties: The Colonial Legacy of the Biodiversity Crisis 70–79 (2014), although see Sand (1997), supra note 4, at 31–35. On the intertwining of the history of CITES with the involvement of Americans in the work of IUCN, and with US efforts to strengthen endangered species legislation, see also the comments by Marshall Jones and Lee Talbot in US Fish & Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife News (Winter 2013) at 13 and 15–16, https://www.fws.gov/home/fwn/pdf/News_Winter'13_web.pdf (accessed August 1, 2016).

10 Many species' ranges are no respecters of national boundaries. On the legal and management challenges this raises in the case of the elephant, see S.A. Jeanetta Selier et al., The Legal Challenges of Transboundary Wildlife Management at the Population Level: The Case of a Trilateral Elephant Population in Southern Africa, 19 J. Int'l Wildlife L. & Pol'y (hereinafter JIWLP) 101–135 (2016).

11 Iconic species can be identified by the attention they attract in the international conservation community, where they are often talked about as if they were or ought to be part of the common heritage of mankind. The elephant, for example, is the symbol of CITES, and the panda plays the same role for WWF, the World Wildlife Fund. This iconic status may not and often is not of great interest to countries in the developing world that host internationally iconic species.

12 The notion that sovereign states in the developing world can do whatever they like with their fauna and flora, even if they are endangered by trade or by some other cause, is enshrined in the principle of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, which found its way into the Stockholm Declaration, issued after the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, as Principle 21. Adam, supra note 9, at 94–96; Nico Schrijver, Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Balancing Rights & Duties (1997).

13 The question, for example, of whether developing countries have sufficient incentives to protect species endangered by trade, especially at the local community level, and of how those incentives might be enhanced attracted attention about a decade ago and yielded Endangered Species, Threatened Convention: The Past Present & Future of CITES (Jon Hutton & Barnabas Dickson eds. 2000) and The Trade in Wildlife: Regulation for Conservation (Sara Oldfield ed. 2003). There is some overlap between this concern with incentivizing conservation and the even more starkly neo-liberal thinking about what developing countries in Africa should be allowed and encouraged to do with their wildlife that yielded Parks in Transition: Biodiversity, Rural Development & the Bottom Line (Brian Child ed. 2004) and Evolution & Innovation in Wildlife Conservation: Parks & Game Ranches to Transfrontier Conservation Areas (Helen Suich & Brian Child eds. 2009). See also Jonathan Liljeblad, The Elephant and the Mouse That Roared: The Prospects of International Policy and Local Authority in the Case of the Convention on International Species (CITES) (May 2008) (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Southern California) (online in the USC Digital Library, http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll127/id/80014, accessed August 1, 2016), chs. 2 & 3.

14 Andre Nollkaemper, Framing Elephant Extinction, 3(6) ESIL Reflections (July 2014), http://www.esil-sedi.eu/sites/default/files/ESIL%20Reflection%20-%20Nollkaemper.pdf (accessed August 1, 2016). But see Laura Kosloff & Mark Trexler, The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species: No Carrot, but Where's the Stick?, 17 Envtl. L. Rep. 10222–10235 (1987); Mark Trexler, The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora: Political or Conservation Success? (December 1989) (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley)(on file with the University Library), 99–133 (arguing that CITES was unlikely ever to become a useful part of international wildlife law).

15 Rowan Martin, CITES CoP 17 – Elephants, 57 Pachyderm 128–129 (June 2015–July 2016), responding to Phyllis Lee et al., Conserving Africa's Remaining Elephants and Ending the Threat of Ivory Trade: The “Big Five” Proposals for CITES, in id. at 125–127, http://www.pachydermjournal.org/index.php/pachy/issue/view/21/showToc (accessed August 1, 2016).

16 Under most understandings, the illegal wildlife trade is only one part of a bigger transnational environmental crime picture that also encompasses illegal trade in toxic wastes, carbon credits, and ozone depleting substances.

17 Handbook of Transnational Environmental Crime (Lorraine Elliott & William Schaedla eds. 2016), hereinafter cited as Handbook (2016); Environmental Crime in Transnational Context: Global Issues in Green Enforcement & Criminology (Toine Spapens, Rob White, & Wim Huisman eds. 2016), hereinafter cited as Green Enforcement (2016).

18 One great value of the new literature on transnational environmental crime is its critical assessment of the alleged linkage between terrorist threat finance and illegal wildlife trade. See especially Lorraine Elliott, The Securitization of Transnational Environmental Crime and the Militarization of Conservation, in Handbook (2016), supra note 17, at 68–87. For a brief survey of the non-legal literatures buttressing the emerging interest in transnational wildlife crime, see Angus Nurse, Policing Wildlife: Perspectives on the Enforcement of Wildlife Legislation (2015).

19 The Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry was instrumental in forming United for Wildlife, a collaboration between seven of the largest field-based international conservation organizations and the Royal Foundation. The collaboration has focuses on engaging young people, developing advanced wildlife management technologies, and improving education for wildlife policing. See http://royalfoundation.com/our-work/united-for-wildlife/ and http://www.unitedforwildlife.org (accessed August 1, 2016). Other international celebrities associating themselves with efforts to fight wildlife trafficking include Harrison Ford, Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, and Angelina Jolie.

20 “The United States and China commit to enact nearly complete bans on ivory import and export, including significant and timely restrictions on the import of ivory as hunting trophies, and to take significant and timely steps to halt the domestic commercial trade of ivory. The two sides decided to further cooperate in joint training, technical exchanges, information sharing, and public education on combating wildlife trafficking, and enhance international law enforcement cooperation in this field. The United States and China decided to cooperate with other nations in a comprehensive effort to combat wildlife trafficking.” The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, President Xi Jinping's State Visit to the United States, September 25, 2015, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/25//fact-sheet-president-xi-jinpings-state-visit-united-states. Prior to the state visit, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, visited both heads of state and shared with them his concerns.

21 The Clinton Global Initiative committed, for example, to raise $80 million in partnership with others by 2016 to fight wildlife trafficking and poaching as a security threat in Africa, and the Howard Buffett Foundation gave $25 million to Kruger National Park in South Africa to provide intensive protection for rhinos inside the park. See Rosaleen Duffy, The Illegal Wildlife Trade in Global Perspective, in Handbook (2016), supra note 17, at 112–113.

22 Elliott (2016), supra note 18, building on Rosaleen Duffy, Nature Crime: How We're Getting Conservation Wrong (2010); Rosaleen Duffy, Waging a War to Save Biodiversity: The Rise of Militarized Conservation, 90 Int'l Aff. 819–34 (2014); Rosaleen Duffy, War, by Conservation, 69 Geoforum 238–248 (2016); Elizabeth Lunstrum, Green Militarization: Anti-Poaching Efforts and the Spatial Contours of Kruger National Park, 104 Annals Ass'n Am. Geographers 816–832 (2014); Francis Massé & Elizabeth Lunstrum, Accumulation by Securitization: Commercial Poaching, Neo-liberal Conservation, and the Creation of New Wildlife Frontiers, 69 Geoforum 227–237 (2016).

23 Julie Ayling, What Sustains Wildlife Crime? Rhino Horn Trading and the Resilience of Criminal Networks, 16 JIWLP 57–80 (2013); William Schaedla, Local Sociocultural, Economic and Political Facilitators of Transnational Wildlife Crime, in Handbook (2016), supra note 17, at 45–67; Tanya Wyatt, The Uncharismatic and Unorganized Side to Wildlife Crime, in Handbook (2016), supra note 17, at 129–145; Julie Ayling, Reducing Demand for Illicit Wildlife Products: A “Whole of Society” Response, in Handbook (2016), supra note 17, at 346–368.

24 Margarita África Clemente Muñoz, The Role of CITES in Ensuring Sustainable and Legal Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora, in Handbook (2016), supra note 17, at 433–443.

25 Nineteen states parties are members of the CITES Standing Committee, representing various major regions of the world, but when the Committee held its 66th meeting in Geneva, in January 2016, there were altogether close to five hundred participants from national governments, intergovernmental organizations, and nongovernmental organizations in attendance. See Summary of the Sixty-Sixth Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora: January 11–15, 2016, 21(87) Earth Negotiations Bull. (January 18, 2016), http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb2187e.pdf (accessed August 1, 2016).

26 CITES requires parties, for example, to make regular reports to the Secretariat and, thus, to other parties, of their involvement in trade and, since 1992 under the CITES National Legislation Project, to bring their domestic legislation into conformity with key provisions of the treaty. Failures to meet these obligations were discussed at the 66th Standing Committee meeting and sanctions were recommended against non-complying states when the Conference of the Parties meets in Johannesburg in September of 2016. See CITES, Submission of National Reports, SC66 Doc.30.1, at ¶15 (November 27, 2015) and National Laws for Implementation of the Convention, SC66 Doc.26.1 at ¶ 27 (December 11, 2015), both accessible online at https://cites.org/com/sc/66/index.php (accessed August 1, 2016). In the past, similar recommendations for sanctions have been over-ridden by the CoP.

27 Rosalind Reeve, Wildlife Trade, Sanctions and Compliance: Lessons from the CITES Regime, 82 Int'l Aff. 881–897 (2006); Peter Sand, Enforcing CITES: The Rise and Fall of Trade Sanctions, 22 Reciel 251–263 (2013).

28 But see Jan Glazewski, Transboundary International Fisheries Crime and Restitution for South Africa: The Case of United States v. Bengis, 2013, in Green Enforcement (2016), supra note 17, 124–138. Other international and domestic legal instruments aimed at crime, terrorism and money laundering do make a significant indirect contribution.

29 Saving the Elephant: Nature's Great Masterpiece, Economist, July 1, 1989, at 16, quoted in Glennon (1990), supra note 3, at 18.

30 Although a former president of Tanzania did tell his country's Wildlife Conservation Society in a 1988 speech that their nation's rich wildlife resource was an accident of geography that really belonged “to all mankind,” who should help pay for its survival. Id. at 28. See also Michael Kidd & Michael Cowling, CITES and the African Elephant, in International Environmental Law & Policy in Africa 49–63 (Beatrice Chaytor & Kevin Gray eds. 2003).

31 Glennon (1990), supra note 3, at 30.

32 Id.

33 Id. at 31–32.

34 Id. at 33.

35 Id. (quoting Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Co. Ltd. (Belg. v. Spain), Second Phase, Judgment, 1970 I.C.J. Rep. 3, 32 (February 5)).

36 Id. at 37–43.

37 David Ong, The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES, 1973): Implications of Recent Developments in International and EC Environmental Law, 10 J. Envtl. L. 291–314 (1998).

38 Sand (1997), supra note 4, principally at 35–46.

39 “The use of…non-treaty-based strategies [has] been held out as evidence of the dynamic, flexible nature of CITES. While one of the older international environmental treaties, CITES is arguably among the most modern because it constantly seeks conservation strategies within the framework of CITES even if the language of CITES does not clearly provide for such mechanisms.” David Hunter, James Salzman & Durwood Zaelke, International Environmental Law & Policy 1116 (3d. ed. 2007); Michael Bowman, Peter Davies & Catherine Redgwell, Lyster's International Wildlife Law 484–485 and 533 (2nd ed. 2010) (arguing that the success of CITES is largely attributable to its administrative system, which means there is “no chance” of it ever becoming a “sleeping treaty”). See also Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith, From Sleeping Treaties to the Giddy Insomnia of Global Governance: How International Wildlife Law Makes Headway, 15 JIWLP 80–94 (2012); Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith, On the Life and Death of Wildlife Treaties, 18 JIWLP 84–96 (2015); Ed Couzens, Whales & Elephants in International Conservation Law & Politics: A Comparative Study 121–154 (2014). The work that ostensibly focuses on the means and mechanisms of treaty adaptation in CITES is actually a historical reference work by a former CITES Secretary-General. See Willem Wijnstekers, The Evolution of CITES (9th ed. 2011), available at https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/edocs/CITES-012-2011.pdf (accessed August 1, 2016).

40 Sand (1997), supra note 4, at 36.

41 Id. at 36–38.

42 Id. at 38–40; Sand (2013), supra note 27.

43 Sand (1997), supra note 4, at 40–42.

44 Id. at 42–46.

45 Id. at 46–52.

46 Id. at 54.

47 Id. at 52–54.

48 Simon Lyster, International Wildlife Law: An Analysis of International Treaties Concerned with the Conservation of Wildlife 240 (1993).

49 Kosloff & Trexler, supra note 14; Trexler (1989), supra note 14.

50 Sand (1997), supra note 4, at 55.

51 The description of both CITES and the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW, 1946) as old watchdogs of international wildlife law occurs in Couzens, supra note 39.

52 Sand, supra note 4, at 55–58; see also Richard Caddell, Inter-Treaty Cooperation, Biodiversity Conservation and the Trade in Endangered Species, 22 RECIEL 264–280 (2013).

53 Michael Bowman, A Tale of Two CITES: Divergent Perspectives upon the Effectiveness of the Wildlife Trade Convention, 22 RECIEL 228–238 (2013).

54 Id. at 229.

55 Id. at 238.

56 Id. at 231 (noting the vital role a wide range of NGOs have long played in holding states to account for their compliance with CITES through monitoring and investigative work).

57 Id. at 235.

58 Scanlon (2013), supra note 5, at 222–223 (noting how parties have been persuaded to forge broad alliances and set past differences aside so decisions can again start to be made, notably at Bangkok about marine species and tropical timber).

59 Id. at 224 and 226 (profiling the strong and increasing involvement of CITES in the work of the International Consortium on the Combatting of Wildlife Crime [ICCWC], the world's leading intergovernmental initiative in the fight against wildlife crime and a coalition put together by CITES, the International Criminal Police Organization [INTERPOL], the UN Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC], the World Bank, and the World Customs Organization).

60 Id. at 223–224 (commenting on the advice provided about elephants and rhinos by the Monitoring the Illegal Killing in Elephants [MIKE] program, the Elephant Trade Information System [ETIS] managed by TRAFFIC, and the African and Asian Rhino Specialist Groups of the IUCN Species Survival Commission).

61 Id. at 224.

62 Id. at 225–226 (involving the African and Asian Development Banks, the Global Environment Facility, the World Bank, and the United Nations Development Program).

63 See, e.g., Bill Padgett, The African Elephant, Africa, and CITES, 2 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 529–552 (1995); Beth Allgood, Marina Ratchford, & Peter LaFontaine, U.S. Ivory Trade: Can a Crackdown on Trafficking Save the Last Titan? 20 Animal L. 27–77 (2013); Joseph Vandegrift, Elephant Poaching: CITES Failure to Combat the Growth in Chinese Demand for Ivory, 31 Va. Envtl. L. J. 102–135 (2013); Ranee Khooshie Lal Panjabi, For Trinkets, Tonics and Terrorism: International Wildlife Poaching in the Twenty-First Century, 43 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 1–92 (2014); Liz Rasheed, Is CITES Endangered? NYU Envtl. L. Rev. Syndicate (November 23, 2015), available at http://nyuelj.org/syndicate/environmental-law-review-syndicate-week-of-november-23rd (accessed August 1, 2016); Troy Albert, The Elephant in the Room, 31 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 121–146 (2015); Morgan Manley, The (Inter)national Strategy: An Ivory Trade Ban in the United States and China, 38 Fordham Int'l L. J. 1511–1584 (2015).

64 Summary of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora: March 3–14, 2013, 21(83) Earth Negotiations Bull. (March 18, 2013), http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb2183e.pdf (accessed August 1, 2016).

65 See the calendar of CITES meetings reported on by the Earth Negotiations Bulletin of the International Institute for Sustainable Development just since CITES CoP 11 in Nairobi in April of 2000, available at http://www.iisd.ca/vol21/ (accessed August 1, 2016).

66 Scanlon's strategic vision should be differentiated from that of the treaty regime itself. See CITES, Implementation of the CITES Strategic Vision: 2008–2020, SC66 Doc. 14 (November 24, 2015), available at https://cites.org/com/sc/66/index.php (accessed August 1, 2016).

67 But see Annecoos Wiersema, Uncertainty and Markets for Endangered Species under CITES, 22 RECIEL 239–250 (2013) (anticipating that at CoP 17 parties would likely be asked to consider authorizing legal trade in some of the most iconic endangered species covered by the treaty—elephants, rhinoceroses, and tigers—many of the subpopulations of which have been listed on Appendix I of CITES for several years, and arguing that commercial international trade in them and their parts should continue to be banned).

68 Scanlon (2016), supra note 5.

69 CITES Press Release, Some Positive Signs but African Elephants Continue to Face Serious Threats (July 28, 2016), available at https://cites.org/eng/news/pr/some_positive_signs_african_elephants_continue_face_serious_threats_280716 (accessed August 1, 2016).

70 Id.

71 Glennon (1990), supra note 3.

72 Id. at 28. See also the articles assembled and edited by Arielle Levine & Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith in Wildlife, Markets, States and Communities in Africa, 7 JIWLP 135–216 (2004); Dan Brockington, Rosaleen Duffy, & Jim Igoe, Nature Unbound: Conservation, Capitalism & the Future of Protected Areas (2008); Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith, Nicholas Watts, & Arielle Levine, Wildlife Conservation and Protected Areas: Darwin, Marx, and Modern Science in the Search for Patterns That Connect, 13 JIWLP 357–374 (2010).

73 Glennon (1990), supra note 3, at 31. See also the clear recollections of Marshall Jones and Lee Talbot of the bedrock understanding on this matter that prevailed when CITES was first negotiated, in Fish and Wildlife News (Winter 2013), supra note 9.

74 Id.

75 CITES, National Laws for Implementing the Convention, online at https://cites.org/legislation (accessed August 1, 2016) (only 48.3 percent of signatory states have national legislation that generally meets the requirements for implementing CITES, despite a special program initiated in 1992 to remedy this deficiency); CITES, National Laws for Implementation of the Convention, SC66 Doc.26.1 (December 11, 2015), supra note 26. See also Sand (1997), supra note 4, at 46–48. The early history of the CITES National Legislation Project is told in Rosalind Reeve, Policing International Trade in Endangered Species: The CITES Treaty & Compliance 134–158 (2002).

76 But see Library of Congress, Wildlife Trafficking and Poaching: Botswana, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania (Global Legal Research Center, January 2013), available at http://www.loc.gov/law/help/wildlife-poaching/trafficking-and-poaching.pdf (accessed August 1, 2016) (summarizing what domestic wildlife laws say in these countries but not how they are implemented).

77 DLA Piper, Empty Threat: Does the Law Combat Illegal Wildlife Trade? An Eleven-Country Review of Legislative and Judicial Approaches (London: February 2014) (hereinafter Empty Threat (2014)), available at http://www.dlapiperprobono.com/export/sites/pro-bono/downloads/pdfs/Illegal-Wildlife-Trade-Report-2014.pdf (accessed August 1, 2016); DLA Piper, Empty Threat: Does the Law Combat Illegal Wildlife Trade? A Review of Legislative and Judicial Approaches in Fifteen Jurisdictions (London, May 2015) (hereinafter Empty Threat (2015)), available at http://www.dlapiperprobono.com/export/sites/pro-bono/downloads/pdfs/Illegal-Wildlife-Trade-Report-2015.pdf (accessed August 1, 2016).

78 Empty Threat (2014), supra note 77, at 1 & 281–282. The countries are Botswana, Cameroon, China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Malaysia, the Philippines, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, and Vietnam.

79 Empty Threat (2015), supra note 77, at 1 & 491–493. The countries are Angola, Cambodia, Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Indonesia, Laos, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

80 Legal scholars are not alone in this. Social scientists learned the value of looking intently at the domestic politics and law of wildlife in critiques of the community-based natural resource management fad that swept through Africa in the 1980s and 1990s. See Clark Gibson, Politicians & Poachers: The Political Economy of Wildlife Policy in Africa (1999); Rosaleen Duffy, Killing for Conservation: Wildlife Policy in Zimbabwe (2000). But there was little subsequent work. For evidence of some interest in how CITES might work domestically, though not in how it actually works in domestic courts of law, see Joni Baker, A Substantive Theory of the Relative Efficiency of Environmental Treaty Compliance Strategies: The Case of CITES, 2 JIWLP 1–45 (1999); Lye Lin-Heng, The Implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species in Singapore, 2 JIWLP 46–63 (1999); Govindasamy Agoramoorthy & Minna Hsu, CITES Implementation Through the Wildlife Conservation Law of Taiwan, 2 JIWLP 64–68 (1999); Joel Heinen & Diwakar Chapagain, On the Expansion of Species Protection in Nepal: Advances and Pitfalls of New Efforts to Implement and Comply with CITES, 5 JIWLP 235–250 (2002); Inés Arroyo-Quiroz, Ramón Perez-Gil, & Nigel Leader Williams, Developing Countries and the Implementation of CITES: The Mexican Experience, 8 JIWLP 13–49 (2005); Jerry McBeath & Jenifer Huang McBeath, Biodiversity Conservation in China: Policies and Practice, 9 JIWLP 293–317 (2006); David Wilkie et al., Can Taxation Contribute to Sustainable Management of the Bushmeat Trade? Evidence from Gabon and Cameroon, 9 JIWLP 335–349 (2006); Govindasamy Agoramoorthy, Enforcement Challenges of Taiwan's Wildlife Conservation and Animal Protection Laws, 12 JIWLP 190–209 (2009); Melissa Geane Lewis, CITES and Rural Livelihoods: The Role of CITES in Making Wildlife Conservation and Poverty Reduction Mutually Supportive, 12 JIWLP 248–275 (2009).

81 Empty Threat (2015), supra note 77, at 2. South Africa is in id. at 353–390 and Pakistan in id. at 317–352.

82 For Kenya, see Empty Threat (2014), supra note 77, at 98–126; for Zimbabwe, see Empty Threat (2015), supra note 77, at 453–459. See also Library of Congress, Kenya: Implementation of New Wildlife Law Expedited, available at http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/kenya-implementation-of-new-wildlife-law-expedited/ (accessed August 1, 2016).

83 For Mozambique, see Empty Threat (2015), supra note 77, at 213–245.

84 Id. at 4.

85 Id.

86 Id. at 6–7 (noting that in some countries there is no known record of a court ever imposing a custodial sentence for wildlife crime).

87 Id. at 6.

88 Id.

89 See, e.g., the fourteen papers assembled and edited by John Waithaka in The Kenya Wildlife Service in the 21st Century: Protecting Globally Significant Areas and Resources, 29 Geo. Wright F. 21–125 (2012).

90 The Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013, available at http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/ken134375.pdf (accessed August 1, 2016). The new statute has not yet been determined to meet the criteria for compliance with CITES. See https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/com/sc/66/Inf/E-SC66-Inf-19.pdf (accessed August 1, 2016).

91 The Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act, 1976, available at http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/ken7750.pdf (accessed August 1, 2016).

92 WildlifeDirect is a charity registered in both Kenya and the United States and founded in 2005 by Richard Leakey. See Paula Kahumbu et al., Scoping Study on the Prosecution of Wildlife Related Crimes in Kenyan Courts: January 2008 to June 2013 (WildlifeDirect, Nairobi, Kenya, 2014), available at http://www.thedswt.org.uk/wildlifecrimekenya.pdf (accessed August 1, 2016). A second project covering the years 2014 and 2015 was launched in June 2016.

93 See http://www.kenyalaw.org/kl/index.php?id=115 (accessed August 1, 2016).

94 Samuel Macharia Mwangi & Another v. Republic, (2009) eKLR, http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/54332); Koyet Lemusini & Four Others v. Republic, (2011) eKLR, http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/74286; Joseph Kioko v. Republic (2012) eKLR, http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/81923.

95 Sam Weru, Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya: Drivers and Trends of Transnational Wildlife Crime in Kenya and Its Role as a Transit Point 33 TRAFFIC (Cambridge, U.K., May 2016), http://www.traffic.org/home/2016/5/9/sophisticated-poachers-could-undercut-bold-kenyan-fight-agai.html.

96 Id. at 33, summarizing Kahumbu et al., supra note 92.

97 Weru (2016), supra note 95, at 33.

98 Id. (noting how this adds to the local burdens on investigators, prosecutors, and the courts, and stretches already-thin resources for expert and professional witnesses).

99 Id. at 35.

100 Id. at 37.

101 Id. at 35.

102 Id. at 38.

103 Bowman (2013), supra note 53; Scanlon (2013), supra note 5.

104 At CITES CoP 16 in Bangkok in 2013, Kenya was one of eight source, transit, and consumer countries identified as most responsible for allowing illegal ivory trade to flourish and required to draft and implement a National Ivory Action Plan. For a progress report, see https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/com/sc/66/E-SC66-29-Rev1.pdf (accessed August 1, 2016).