New report confirms grim outlook for elephants

By Matt McGrathEnvironment correspondent, Johannesburg  

• From the sectioncie

Share

Image captionThe illegal trade in ivory has seen elephant numbers plummet

Elephant populations in Africa have declined by around 111,000 over the past 10 years according to a new study.

The African Elephant Status report says that poaching is the main driver of the fall, the worst losses in 25 years.

However the authors say that long-term issues such as the loss of habitat also pose a significant threat.

The report has been presented at the Cites meeting which is considering new proposals on elephant protection.

---

War on elephants - Alastair Leithead, Africa correspondent

Image captionThe growing demand for ivory in Asian markets means the illegal trade continues to threaten the future of elephants in Africa

• Every year in Africa between 30,000 and 40,000 elephants are poached for their ivory, and it's thought there are only 400,000 left.
• Even accounting for the newborns, this rate of killing calls into question whether these amazing creatures will still be around in a generation, especially as Africa's ever-increasing population is reducing the space for them.
• Organised crime runs the ivory industry.

Extract from The War on Elephants; article on how the very existence of Africa's elephants is threatened by poachers

More from Alastair:

Why elephants are seeking refuge in Botswana

Shocking reduction in Africa's elephant numbers

---

Wide range of sources

Figures published earlier this year in the Great Elephant Census indicated that African elephant populations had declined by around 30% over the past seven years.

This new study from conservation group IUCN incorporates this information but also uses data from elephant dung counts and individual observations amongst other sources.

The authors say the overall total for elephants in Africa is now around 415,000, although there may be an additional 117,000 to 135,000 in areas not systematically surveyed.

This represents a decline of some 111,000 from the report carried out in 2006.

Image captionPercentage change estimates are per year for 2010-2014, so total losses are three or four times the percentages indicated on the graphic

Poaching is the main driver of the drop. East Africa, the region most affected by killings for ivory, has experienced around a 50% reduction in numbers.

However it is not the only cause of concern to the authors.

"We are particularly concerned about major infrastructure projects that are cutting up the elephant ranges, this is a particular problem for road development in central and east Africa," said Dr Chris Thouless, one of the report's authors.

"These are all major issues that will have to be dealt with once the poaching crisis is over."

Community conservation

While report highlights the losses there are also some gains.

Elephant populations in South Africa, Namibia and Uganda have all increased. Elephant ranges have expanded in Kenya and Botswana, with community based conservation showing real success in Northern Kenya.

While these are positives, the overall picture is one of dramatic decline, fuelled by criminal activity that would decimate these giant creatures, if continued.

"Larger quantities of illegal ivory are leaving Africa than ever before," said Ginette Hemley from WWF.

"The transnational crime syndicates driving the slaughter must be dismantled, and consumer demand for ivory cannot persist if we hope to secure a safe future for elephants."

The report comes as the Cites meeting here in Johannesburg is facing significant division on how to handle the poaching crisis.

Talks on extra protections for elephants will begin on Monday with a number of countries led by Kenya seeking extra protection.

Others, including Namibia and Zimbabwe, are seeking to liberalise the safeguards and open up a trade in ivory. Another proposal here, which might garner more support, is aimed at ending all domestic markets in ivory. The meeting continues until 5 October.

All our elephants are gone here in California where we had at least three species, Columbian (Imperial) Mammoths, dwarf mammoths, and Mastodons. I believe California's problem with Sudden Oak Death has a lot to do with no elephants culling diseased trees in California for 12 to 14,000 years. Why not bring a herd of endangered African elephants to California where there are large tracts of oak trees for them to eat? If anyone wants to help with this, let me know.

U.S. government is breaking the Constitution by financing Israeli racist settlement building

The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the U.S. government cannot aid in the establishment of any religion yet we have been financing the establishment of the Jewish religion in Palestine against the peoples of Palestine interest, indeed, against their survival as a people. All legally-enforced public segregation was abolished by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If racial segregation is illegal in America, our government cannot finance racial segregation in other countries as it has been doing in Israel for decades. It's time to end the free money to racist Zionists.

Obama and all Congressional members who have voted for huge amounts of financing for Israel are all guilty of breaking U.S. laws prohibiting U.S. support of racial segregation. They should ALL be impeached. Hillary or Trump should be impeached if they continue this lawless course for the U.S. government with American citizens forced to pay for racial segregation in Israel. That's where most of Israel's U.S. tax-payer money goes, towards financing illegal and immoral racial settlement building protected by Israeli military protecting Israeli racist settlers who are illegally stealing land in Palestine where Israelis are not permitted to live.

Do not vote for either Hillary or Trump as both will continue American financing and military aid to a proven lawless rogue state, Israel, with the most violations of U.N. Resolutions and mandates of any country on earth. Vote for Jill Stein for President for a change of U.S. policy to make America inline again with desegregation. Segregation outside the U.S. with U.S. citizens paying for it must end.

The Obama Administration Temporarily Blocks the Dakota Access Pipeline

The surprise move came after a federal judge declined to stop the 1,100-mile fossil fuel project’s construction.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the hundreds of Native protestors who have joined them in rural North Dakota won a huge but provisional victory in their quest to stop the Dakota Access pipeline, as the U.S. government announced late on Friday afternoon that it was voluntarily halting work on the project.

The triumph tasted all the sweeter because it had followed so closely after a seemingly immense defeat. Mere minutes after a federal judge declined the Tribe’s request for an injunction to stop construction on the pipeline, the Obama administration made a surprise announcement that it would not permit the project to continue for now.

“Construction of the pipeline on Army Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe will not go forward at this time,” said a joint statement from the Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Army. “We request that the pipeline company voluntarily pause all construction activity within 20 miles east or west of Lake Oahe.”

The Army will now move to “reconsider any of its previous decisions” regarding whether the pipeline respects federal law, especially the National Environmental Policy Act, the statement said.
The Obama administration also announced that it will invite tribes to formal consultations this fall about whether any federal rules around national infrastructure projects like the Dakota Access pipeline should be reformed in order to protect tribal resources and rights. It will also consider whether new laws should be proposed to Congress.

As planned, the Dakota Access pipeline would run 1,100 miles from oil fields in northwest North Dakota to a refinery and port in Illinois. Hundreds of people, many of them from Native communities or nations, have gathered on tribal land near the Missouri River since April to protest the pipeline’s construction. The camps are one of the largest Native protests in decades.

In July, the Standing Rock Tribe sued the Army Corps of Engineers, the federal agency which approved the pipeline. The tribe claimed that the pipeline’s construction would destroy nearby sacred and burial sites, and that, if the pipeline ever leaked or failed, it would pollute the tribe’s drinking water. It sought a temporary injunction to halt its construction. I wrote about the tribe’s case this week.

On Friday, the court declined that injunction request with a 58-page ruling. (The Department of Justice, apparently waiting for the decision, issued its own statement blocking the pipeline minutes later.)

The judge, James Boasberg of the D.C. district court, said that the Army Corps had sufficiently followed federal law in approving the pipeline. The tribe’s claims that the pipeline crossed archeological sites were moot, since most of those sites were on private property, he said. And he seemed to lament that the injunction was sought under the National Historic Preservation Act and not the Clean Water Act, where he hinted that the tribe would have had sturdier standing.

“This Court does not lightly countenance any depredation of lands that hold significance to the Standing Rock Sioux,” wrote Boasberg. “Aware of the indignities visited upon the Tribe over the last centuries, the Court scrutinizes the permitting process here with particular care. Having done so, the Court must nonetheless conclude that the Tribe has not demonstrated that an injunction is warranted here.”

Of course, all this will change now that the executive has stepped in. “This federal statement is a game changer for the Tribe and we are acting immediately on our legal options, including filing an appeal and a temporary injunction to force DAPL to stop construction,” said a statement from the Standing Rock Sioux on Facebook.

While the government’s block is temporary, the pipeline’s future now looks much more uncertain than it did hours ago. Most of the pipeline will be built on private land owned by Energy Transfer Partners, but it still needs Army Corps approval to cross federal waterways. Given the outcry from climate activists, the Obama administration may be more willing to cancel the pipeline’s federal permits, as it did with the Keystone XL pipeline last year.

I found it particularly interesting that the administration’s statement called out the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). That law requires federal agencies to account for environmental risks and hazards when they approve a project. Earlier this year, President Obama decreed that the NEPA process should account for the costs of greenhouse gas emissions—a potential opening for federal agencies to obstruct a huge fossil-fuel infrastructure project like Dakota Access.  

Regardless, Dakota Access looks like a tentative success for Native protestors and the climate activists who supported them. It also hints at how actively the current Democratic administration will involve itself in environmental issues, especially when pushed by the climate movement.

“In recent days, we have seen thousands of demonstrators come together peacefully, with support from scores of sovereign tribal governments, to exercise their First Amendment rights and to voice heartfelt concerns about the environment and historic, sacred sites,” said the joint statement. “It is now incumbent on all of us to develop a path forward that serves the broadest public interest.”