Putting a stop to ivory trade

MALAYSIA’S national legislation on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), namely the International Trade in Endangered Species Act 2008 (Intesa), was passed almost a decade ago. Since then, Intesa has been lauded for providing stringent penalties on various illegal trans-boundary wildlife trade-related offences.

In general, any import, export, re-export, possession or transit of wild animal or plant species listed in Intesa must be accompanied by a permit or other written document which approves such transactions. This permit or document is granted by the relevant national authorities of importing or exporting countries. Generally, individuals who commit offences under Intesa are liable to a fine of up to RM100,000 for each animal, plant, or recognisable part and derivative of the animal or plant upon conviction. Offenders can also be imprisoned for a term of not more than seven years.

Despite this, illegal trade of wildlife remain a major problem in Malaysia, which has recently been labelled a significant transit country for illegal wildlife trade, specifically for ivory smuggling, “CITES: Come up with a plan” ( The Star, Sept 13).

TRAFFIC reported that between 2003 and 2014, a massive 63,419kg of ivory confiscated through 66 seizures worldwide were linked to Malaysia. Only 19 of the seizures occurred in Malaysia and the rest were intercepted overseas after the illegal shipments had passed undetected through our ports. All these seizures might be just the tip of the iceberg as well.

In the National Ivory Action Plan, which was submitted to the CITES Standing Committee early this year, various measures taken by Malaysia to curb ivory smuggling were highlighted. But why, despite all these measures plus the strict penalties under Intesa, are smugglers continuing to use Malaysia as a transit country for the illegal ivory trade? It seems the criminals are taking their chances due to a low rate of detections.

We need to take more coordinated measures if we want to win the battle against wildlife crimes, especially ivory smuggling. The new National Policy on Biological Diversity 2016–2025 (NPBD) has outlined how we should accomplish this. The NPBD has targeted that by 2025, poaching, illegal harvesting and illegal trade in wildlife would be significantly reduced.

The first action identified in the NPBD to achieve this target is to empower enforcement through strengthened capacity and improved collaboration among all law enforcement agencies, including foreign affairs, environment, customs, forestry, fisheries, maritime, wildlife, airport and port authorities, police and the judiciary to break trafficking syndicates.

The existing inter-agencies cooperation in tackling wildlife crimes is ad hoc in nature and involves only limited enforcement authorities. To be truly effective, a more well-established institutional set up with various government enforcement actors involved is essential. Involvement of these agencies must be formalised to maintain steadfast commitment from all parties and to ensure optimal coordination.

Such an institution can also promote better intelligence-gathering and sharing at domestic level to improve detection of wildlife crimes. High detection of violations followed by strict enforcement measures like prosecution would best improve compliance with wildlife protection laws. MARIANI ARIFFIN UPM Serdang