WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE/BREEDING

Information and Discussions on General Conservation Issues
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Lisbeth »

How Namibia is Outsmarting Criminals Involved in the Illegal Wildlife Trade

By Gail C. Potgieter - Based on an interview with Jo Tagg, Director of Rooikat Trust.

Serious crimes are being committed in Namibia – crimes against our precious wildlife, our natural heritage and, ultimately, our people. The criminal syndicates behind poaching are highly organised, professional and very clever. They are growing rich by stealing Namibia’s natural heritage, using poor Namibians to do their dirty work for them in return for less than 10% of the product’s market value. Those poaching on the ground thus bear all the risks associated with illegal activities, yet see precious little of the profit.

It is time to turn the tables on the illegal wildlife trade syndicates, and Namibia is doing just that. To combat this type of organised crime we need to be even more organised, professional and smarter than these shadowy syndicates. Doing this requires collaboration, funding and an unwavering commitment to stop poaching and trafficking, which is a different goal to just catching poachers. Whereas catching poachers is part of the job, in reality they are viewed as entirely expendable by their criminal bosses and can be easily replaced with others willing to do the same dirty work. Stopping poaching and trafficking, however, requires a smart, strategic approach that goes beyond the poachers on the ground and uses ‘weapons’ that are far more effective than guns.

Namibia’s first weapon is collaboration both within the country and with those who tackle illegal wildlife trade in neighbouring countries. Operation Blue Rhino in Namibia is a joint initiative between the Protected Resources Division of the Namibian Police Force (NAMPOL) and the Intelligence Investigation Unit (IIU) of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET). This team includes police officers who were selected from different divisions and regions, and MET officers from the IIU and the regional offices. Blue Rhino also works with the Namibian Defence Force, Save the Rhino Trust and their colleagues in Botswana and Zambia.

Using their collaborative network and funding from a few key donors who understand their operational needs, Blue Rhino has achieved enormous success in just the first six months. From July to December 2018 they arrested 88 suspects, opened 37 new dockets in the courts and confiscated 30 wildlife parts including three rhino horns, eight elephant tusks and 12 pangolin skins. Five live pangolins were also confiscated and released back into the wild. The extent of their success is not fully revealed by these impressive statistics, however, as they have disrupted illegal wildlife trade and started to dismantle a number of criminal syndicates. This sends a severe warning to other syndicates that still operate in the country. In some cases they have even managed to arrest poachers before rhinos or elephants were killed; this is a direct result of the significant investment Blue Rhino have made in intelligence gathering and analysis.

There are a number of poaching incidents for which no one was ever arrested or charged. With this new collaborative effort and focus, these former weaknesses are being addressed by employing another weapon in Namibia’s armoury – effective investigation through the strategic deployment of resources. Effective investigation is based on collecting and analysing hard evidence which can be used to build solid prosecutorial cases against suspects.

Arresting poaching suspects is only the start of a long legal process that includes building a case, presenting dockets to prosecutors, going through bail application hearings, prosecution and finally sentencing those found guilty. In the past, prosecutors and magistrates were not fully informed of the seriousness of wildlife crime, which allowed people to get bail and disappear, or to receive lenient fines and sentences. The MET has responded by developing a handbook for valuating and prosecuting crimes in Namibia, which is intended for investigators and prosecutors who are now working closely together on wildlife crime dockets, based on a shared sense of purpose and vision.

In 2017 Namibia primed another weapon in its armoury by increasing the legal penalties for illegal wildlife trafficking. Today, anyone caught with rhino horn, elephant ivory, pangolin scales or other controlled wildlife parts can be fined up to N$15 million or imprisoned for up to 15 years, or both. Those caught trying to buy or sell these parts, both locally and for export, can be fined up to N$25 million, be imprisoned for up to 25 years, or both.

State prosecutors will vigorously oppose bail for foreign nationals arrested for wildlife crime, and those found guilty will be deported once they have paid their fines or served their prison sentences. The state also opposes bail for Namibian suspects who are flight risks, may interfere with investigations or are likely to offend again. These maximum sentences are aimed at the high level criminals who ultimately drive the poaching activities. Such criminals are far more difficult to catch than the low-level poacher or product transporter, and once they are caught we need to ensure that the sentence truly reflects the seriousness of their crimes.

Besides enacting these tough new laws, prosecutors, magistrates, and judges are now more aware of how these crimes may be linked to other serious crime (e.g. drug and human trafficking). The on-going awareness workshops with legal professionals will ensure that suspects are charged using as many different pieces of legislation as possible, and will thus feel the full force of Namibian law. The result of this work was demonstrated by recent statements made by Magistrate Clara Mwilima when she sentenced a Namibian citizen caught in possession of ivory – after handing down a N$ 50,000 fine (or five years in prison), she stressed the seriousness of wildlife crime as a threat to protected species, ecosystems and the economy. The convicted person's vehicle was also declared forfeited to the state.

Beyond these new strides in the right direction, the Namibian investigative and anti-poaching teams recognise the need to reach out to neighbouring countries. As a thin strip of Namibian land between Botswana and Zambia, the Zambezi Region is especially vulnerable to trafficking wildlife products, because poachers who have killed an elephant in one country can quickly hop across the border with their ivory into the next country. Consequently, our teams are working closely with their Zambian and Batswana colleagues to ensure that poachers trying to use the Zambezi as a corridor are stopped in their tracks.

The Zambezi Region is part of the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA), which provides a platform for information exchange among the governments and other organisations in Namibia, Angola, Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe. KAZA has the largest remaining population of elephants in Africa, so stopping ivory poaching in this region is of global significance. In February 2019 Namibia hosted a workshop funded by USAID for judges, magistrates and senior prosecutors from all five KAZA countries to spread the message about the importance of successful prosecutions and tough sentences for wildlife crime. MET and NAMPOL featured strongly in this workshop, as they demonstrated their search and seizure procedures for the attendees.

The final weapon that Namibia is employing to combat wildlife crime is all too often overlooked. Yet this particular weapon has enormous potential: it can be the game changer that finally sends the crime syndicates packing. That weapon is the average Namibian citizen. This is the ‘man on the street’, or the equivalent in our rural areas – those living on farms or in villages. A criminal can hide from police or anti-poaching units in uniforms, as they are easily identifiable. What will really give him sleepless nights, however, is when ordinary Namibians he encounters, and even those he does not see or notice, represent the eyes and ears of the law.

The Namibian strategy is based on the simple recognition that Namibia’s natural resources ultimately belong to Namibian citizens. By recognising this right through the conservancy system, the government has included its citizens as joint managers and owners of wildlife. This means that when a foreigner comes to Namibia to kill rhinos, elephants or pangolins he is not just stealing from the government, but from the people of Namibia. As Namibians living on communal or freehold land benefit from wildlife, they make this logical connection and are motivated to blow the whistle on poachers.

Namibia is making great progress in combating wildlife crime using its full array of strategic weapons, but the war is far from over. Our investigative procedures and legal system must align even further to counteract the changing strategies of poaching and trafficking syndicates who are quick to respond to Namibia's adaptive law enforcement approaches. There is every reason to have confidence in Namibia's commitment and integrated strategy to fight and prosecute wildlife crime. Finally, every Namibian citizen needs to become fully aware of the severity of wildlife crime, so that we use our incredible collective power to help the authorities crack down on those who would dare to steal from us.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rhino Poachers Caught Due to Tip-off From //Huab Conservancy Member

The //Huab Conservancy in the Kunene Region is home to some of Namibia’s free-ranging black rhino, but until recently the conservancy has struggled to generate income from its wildlife. Due to its largely inaccessible location off the main tourism route in southern Kunene, //Huab’s members have reaped few benefits from their wildlife in the past. This changed when Ultimate Safaris established a lodge in the conservancy in 2016 and developed a unique rhino tracking tourism product that employs conservancy rhino rangers to monitor the rhinos and allows guests to view them unobtrusively. Ultimate Safaris is thus demonstrating the tangible value of rhinos to local people.

During June 2017 a member of the //Huab Conservancy noticed some suspicious activity on the road north of Khorixas while herding livestock. Knowing that these people might be on the way to kill one of the black rhinos, he alerted the local authorities. This tip-off led to the rapid deployment of police and MET rangers to the area, where they found the suspects and arrested them. They were armed and clearly prepared for poaching activities. The driver who dropped them off in the area, and was to collect them later, was lured back to the area, resulting in the arrest of the driver and the impoundment of the vehicle. This was enough evidence to open a court case against them. Criminal syndicates will find it increasingly difficult to operate in areas where the local people understand the value of their wildlife and know what to do when they spot suspicious activities.


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Lisbeth »

Image

The Breaking Point: Could this report spell the end of SA’s wildlife trade?

BY IGA MOTYLSKA - 12TH JUNE 2020 - IOL

Much is being written about the trade of live wildlife for human consumption at wet markets around the world, such as the one in Wuhan where the Covid-19 pandemic is believed to have spread from. Many are concerned with how similar zoonotic spillovers can be prevented in the future.

The Chinese Academy of Engineering claims that the ‘legal’ wildlife industry is valued at $74 billion. South Africa is the largest exporter of live wild animals to Asia. At least 5 035 live wild animals were exported from South Africa to China between 2016 and 2019, according to The Breaking Point report published by the EMS Foundation and Ban Animal Trading (BAT).

This China section of the Extinction Business Report Series was pre-released in light of the Covid-19 pandemic to draw urgent attention to the extensive irregularities in the ‘legal’ trade – in which South Africa plays a leading role.

The report illustrates how South Africa’s legal trade in live wildlife and their derivative parts could provide a front for the illegal trade. South Africa witnessed the fifth highest number of wildlife trafficking seizures in the world between 2016 and 2018.

The United Nations’ Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) attempts to govern the global trade, on the condition that it is legal and sustainable. CITES allows for regulated international trade of certain captive-bred endangered and threatened species from registered breeding facilities for ‘non-commercial’ purposes.

The report claims that “any captive breeding and trade legitimises and normalises consumption, which renders reduction campaigns incoherent and ineffective, and puts wild species at further risk of exploitation”.

It uncovered how wildlife traffickers exploit the convention’s many irregularities and loopholes. Illegal shipments of wild-caught threatened animals masquerade as legal exports. CITES’s exporting permits still operate on a manual, paper-based system that is subject to fraud and falsification – many lack verified export addresses, are unsigned and undated, and are not checked prior to export.

Conservationist and wildlife photographer, Karl Ammann, also documented the shortcomings of the CITES permitting system in his The Cites Permitting System And The Illegal Trade In Wildlife report which exposes how CITES lacks enforcement capabilities. Highly protected Appendix 1 animals are also traded into theme and amusement parks, circuses, laboratories, zoos and safari parks. Middle men and companies that front as legitimate, registered wildlife importing entities also illegally sell animals on to third parties.

“It’s time to rethink the role of CITES,” said CITES’ former Secretary-General, John Scanlon, during the ‘Can CITES help prevent the next pandemic?’ webinar hosted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). He called for CITES’s urgent re-evaluation and questioned whether wildlife trade cause the next pandemic.

The CITES Secretariat responded to the pandemic by stating that health risks and“matters regarding zoonotic diseases are outside of CITES’s mandate”.

China has taken the first step. Beijing, Zhuhai and Shenzhen have implemented a permanent ban on the consumption of wildlife by offering temporary buyouts of exotic species and compensation to breed livestock or switch to growing tea, fruits, herbs and vegetables. Wuhan has imposed a five-year ban on the trade and consumption of wildlife. Similarly, each country would need to amend their legislation.

In response to the report, the Minister of the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF), Barbara Creecy, held an online meeting with the EMS Foundation and BAT.

In a press statement issued after the meeting, the report’s authors responded saying, “we believe a moratorium is an appropriate first-step response to addressing the expansive systemic problems. Given the degree and nature of the failings of the current system, it would be irresponsible to continue exporting wild animals until the investigation has been completed and the problems have been addressed”.

While she did not agree to a moratorium on the export of live wildlife and declined any policy discussions, DEFF committed to increased transparency via appropriate forums and the strengthening of the export permit system.

The DEFF agreed to investigate the allegations over the next three months and to undertake any necessary remedial action. It will also review whether remedial action might strengthen the regulatory and administrative systems in pursuit of the Convention, as well as South Africa’s conservation and sustainable use objectives.

She maintained that “South Africa remains committed to the highest level of compliance with its international obligations, and to act in accordance with and in fulfilment of the Convention’s legal and scientific requirements.”

The report argues that “bans have lower transaction costs than regulations and send clear signals that consumption is no longer socially and ecologically legitimate”.

Furthermore, it called for an alternative global agreement to be drafted in the spirit of the Convention and recommended that in situconservation be prioritised in the place of wildlife trade.

Indeed, in the words of Scanlon, “The Covid-19 pandemic has reminded us in a devastating way of the interconnected nature of things, most particularly between economies, the environment, human and wildlife health and welfare”.

Original article: https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa ... e-49309757


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Lisbeth »

Image
epa07335066 Some of the over eight metric tons of pangolin scales are displayed along with elephant tusks weighing more than two metric tonswith at a Hong Kong Customs press briefing at Kwai Chung Customhouse Cargo Examination Compound in Kowloon, Hong Kong, China, 01 February 2019. According to Hong Kong Customs, illegal wildlife products were seized inside a consignment of frozen meat whilst in transit from Nigeria to Vietnam. It is the city's largest ever pangolin scale seizure and third largest ivory seizure. Scientists estimate the haul to represent the deaths of around 500 African elephants and up to 13,833 African pangolins. EPA-EFE/ALEX HOFFORD

HANOI, July 24 (Reuters) - Vietnam's Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc has issued a directive to ban the Southeast Asian country's wildlife trade with immediate effect in order to reduce the risk of new pandemics, a government statement said. The directive bans imports of live wild animals and wildlife products, eliminates wildlife markets, and enforce prohibitions on illegal hunting and trading of wild animals, including online sales, according to the statement issued late on Thursday.

Vietnam is an important destination in the Asian region for illegal wildlife products such as pangolin scales and elephant ivory. There have also been seizures of rhino horns, which is believed to have medicinal value.

While the directive is likely to be welcomed by conservation organisations, one group said it did not go far enough.

“The wildlife consumption ban mentioned in the directive is insufficient as some uses of wildlife such as medicinal use or wild animals being kept as pets are not covered,” said Nguyen Van Thai, director of Save Vietnam’s Wildlife.

“It would be better to have a clear and detailed list of the various uses of wildlife that are prohibited.”

In February, 14 conservation organisations in Vietnam sent a joint letter urging the government to “identify and close markets and other locations where illegal wildlife is on sale”.

The Southeast Asian country is reported to have many wildlife markets and also a booming online trade in animals, with existing laws often poorly enforced.

Neighbouring China has also pledged to ban the trade and consumption of wild animals in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak.

Scientists suspect the virus passed to humans from animals and some of the earliest infections were found in people who had exposure to a wildlife market in Hubei’s provincial capital Wuhan, where bats, snakes, civets and other animals were sold (Reporting by Phuong Nguyen Editing by Ed Davies)


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Lisbeth »

Image
Anderson’s crocodile newt (Echinotriton andersoni), an endangered species found on six Japanese islands. Image by Neil Dalphin / Creative Commons.

Stolen from the wild, rare reptiles and amphibians are freely traded in EU

BY ELIZABETH CLAIRE ALBERTS - 14TH SEPTEMBER 2020 - MONGABAY

With its pastel-colored skin and mouth that seems fixed into a smile, the web-footed gecko (Pachydactylus rangei) is a charming-looking creature. The species, which is endemic to the Namib Desert, is nationally protected in South Africa, where it’s considered to be a critically endangered species. Yet these geckos are regularly collected for the international exotic pet trade, and have even appeared for sale on European Facebook pages.

The trade of the web-footed gecko is just one case discussed in a new report published by Pro Wildlife, an animal welfare and species protection group based in Germany. The report documents more than 120 reptile and amphibian species that are protected in their countries of origin, but are able to be legally traded within Europe due to the European Union’s lack of internal trade barriers and controls. The report states that approximately three-quarters of reptile species and more than 80% of amphibian species caught up in the European exotic pet trade are also not listed under CITES, the multilateral treaty that either prohibits or strictly regulates international trade of threatened species.

“It’s not illegal to possess these animals and to sell these animals within Europe,” Sandra Altherr, co-author of the report and co-founder of Pro Wildlife, told Mongabay. “We try to keep pressure on the EU to get this forward, and the time is very good because the EU is just discussing its EU wildlife action plan and also its biodiversity strategy, and so they have the tools to combat this wildlife crime, but we feel they need a push.”

This report is the third in Pro Wildlife’s “Stolen Wildlife” series. The first two reports, published in 2014 and 2016, cover similar ground, but the new edition shows that this trade is still happening, and even becoming more extensive.

“When we started this issue, we didn’t have the idea to produce a series, but the problem is that the European Union is politically not very flexible, and so far this problem has not been targeted,” Altherr said. “The new report is about the developments in the most recent years, and we try to show that not much has changed, and that even more countries are targeted by this kind of wildlife crime.”

To keep abreast of the trade, Altherr and her colleagues regularly monitor online sale platforms, including closed Facebook groups and Terraristika.com, the website for an annual event billed as the largest reptile trade fair in the world. Traders seem particularly interested in species with vivid color patterns and other striking biological features, as well as newly identified species, valued for their rarity. In many cases, traders seem to track down new species based on geographic information published in scientific papers.

“It’s just like a GPS map for them to look where they find new, precious animals,” Altherr said.

One example of traders exploiting science is the colorful Sylvia’s tree frog (Cruziohyla sylviae), a new species described in a scientific paper in 2018 from a specimen found in Costa Rica. The following year, the species was being sold at the Terraristika trade show in Hamm, Germany, likely as a result of the geographic location being published in the paper.

While a lack of official trade records makes it difficult to ascertain how many nationally protected rare species are caught up in the European exotic pet trade each year, Altherr says that taking even a small quantity from the wild can negatively impact threatened species.

“[O]ne argument of the EU Commission [is]that it’s not millions of animals affected,” Altherr said. “That’s true because we are talking about rare species. And so of course, it’s just maybe a few hundred or a few thousand … but when we are talking about critically endangered animals, every single animal, taken from the wild is a problem.”

Juan Carlos Cantu, program director for Defenders of Wildlife Mexico, says there is a huge demand in Europe for rare, endemic species originating from Latin American countries such as Mexico.

“We have some endemic species that are so rare … even scientists have only seen a few of them in the wild,” Cantus told Mongabay. “And yet, you see them being sold in Europe. So that’s very alarming.”

Cantu says that a lot of smuggling goes undetected, so the problem is usually much bigger than numbers may indicate. There are also high mortality rates among trafficked animals, according to one study.

“If you see a few that are being sold in Europe, that means that about 100 more have been taken out [of the wild],” Cantu said. “And for an endemic species with a small population, that’s a lot.”

Listing a species under CITES Appendix I (which prohibits all trade except in exceptional circumstances) or Appendix II (which places strict regulations on any trade) can help stop illegal smuggling of threatened species, but these procedures aren’t straightforward, Altherr said. CITES meetings only take place once every three years, and a lack of data or even commercial interests may hamper the process of listing new species under CITES, according to the report.

Alternatively, range states can apply to get species listed under CITES Appendix III at virtually any time, Altherr said. Appendix III does place some restrictions on the trade of listed species, but anyone found violating those restrictions tend not to face harsh penalties, according to Altherr. And once an Appendix III-listed species is within the EU, it can still be legally traded.

“As long as the EU does not punish the import of those nationally protected species, then this game is just going on,” Altherr said.

CITES listings also tend to be reactive, the report states, and a species may be severely impacted by trade before regulations are put in place to stop it.

What is really needed, according to Altherr, is something equivalent to the Lacey Act in the U.S., which prohibits the import, transport, sale, or purchase of wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold, not only in violation of U.S. law, but of foreign law. In other words, the Lacey Act makes it illegal in the U.S. to trade species that are protected in other countries. Still, some traders find a way to bypass this conservation law by acquiring animals during their breeding season, and offering their “captive-bred” offspring for sale.

While no law can fully protect species from being trafficked, Altherr says new legislation could provide the means for law enforcers to confiscate smuggled animals and prosecute traffickers.

“What is illegal in the country of origin can’t be legal here [in Europe],” Altherr said. “We see a special responsibility of the EU, as the main destination for these animals, to stop this.”

Citations:

Altherr, S., & Lameter, K. (2020). Stolen Wildlife III — The EU is a main hub and destination for illegally caught exotic pets (III). Retrieved from Pro Wildlife website: https://www.prowildlife.de/wp-content/u ... on-PDF.pdf

Ashley, S., Brown, S., Ledford, J., Martin, J., Nash, A., Terry, A., … Warwick, C. (2014). Morbidity and mortality of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals at a major exotic companion animal wholesaler. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 17(4), 308-321. doi:10.1080/10888705.2014.918511


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Lisbeth »

Why do people want these animals as pets? :-? 0-


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Alf
Posts: 11606
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 12:40 pm
Country: south africa
Location: centurion
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Alf »

There’s weird people out there O**


Next trip to the bush??

Let me think......................
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Lisbeth »

CITES protection of animals no longer fit for purpose, says wildlife filmmaker

By Don Pinnock• 21 September 2020

Image
Despite being illegal in terms of CITES Appendix I, wild animals are being exported to Asian safari parks and cruelly trained to perform before crowds. (Frame grab: Karl Ammann's ‘Stolen Giants’)

One of the world’s worst wildlife scams is being permitted by the United Nations organisation formed to protect wild animals from over-exploitation and regulate trade. It all hinges on the letter Z on an export and import permit.

Is forcing an elephant to sit on its haunches while twirling a hula hoop on its trunk or teaching a chimp to ride a bicycle in a tailcoat science, conservation or cruelty?

This is a question that has vexed filmmaker and wildlife investigator Karl Ammann for many years because they are activities permitted, by implication, under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

Ammann is in the final stages of editing a film, Stolen Giants, that has taken years, often with secret cameras, to try to answer that question and expose the cruelty, largely in Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese and Indonesian zoos.

Image
A frame grab from Karl Ammann’s forthcoming film, ‘Stolen Giants’.

CITES was formed in 1975 to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten the survival of the species in the wild. It accords varying degrees of protection to more than 35,000 living entities.

It has three classes of protection, the highest being Appendix I. These are wild species threatened with extinction and which are, or may be, affected by trade. They are subject to strict regulation in order not to endanger further their survival, and translocation may be authorised in only exceptional circumstances.

Image
A frame grab from Karl Ammann’s forthcoming film, ‘Stolen Giants’.

In what appears to be a belief that they constitute exceptions, the convention permits the transport across national borders of species “which form part of a travelling zoo, circus, menagerie, plant exhibition or other travelling exhibition”. Part of the conditions for this permission is that the species “are not to be used for primarily commercial purposes”.

Image
A frame grab from Karl Ammann’s forthcoming film, ‘Stolen Giants’.

But are zoos valuable? A study by Emory University found there was no evidence to support the argument that zoos promote attitude change, education or interest in conservation among visitors. While some are involved in saving threatened species, this is not true for elephants. There is no record of an elephant that has gone from a zoo back into the wild. It is a one-way ticket.

There is no definition within CITES documentation of what constitutes a zoo. The zoo community all defend the decision that any Z classified shipment (for zoo purposes) is automatically considered for “education, conservation and research”. While many Western zoos may be operated as “not for profit” operations, in South-East Asia the aim is the opposite.

Image
A CITES permit for the export of elephants. (Supplied by Karl Ammann)

Image
A CITES permit for the export of elephants and other animals. (Supplied by Karl Ammann)

According to Ammann, this provision is a loophole being used throughout Asia because of the vagueness of the provision, the definition of zoo and the activities which animals are being forced into to entertain visitors. Another problem is what’s defined as “commercial purposes”.

“What bothers me most,” he says, “is that the international zoo community seems to be very keen to argue that any import with code Z is automatically non-commercial. I have documented the import of some 150 CITES Appendix I-listed elephants from Laos to China with an average price in Laos being about $50,000. By the time the same elephant, after some training, arrives at the end consumer, it sells for up to$500,000. By this time the transaction has passed through brokers and middlemen incurring huge bribes to officials issuing the CITES permits. Yet all this, according to CITES criteria, is not classified as “primarily commercial”.

Image
A CITES permit for the export of elephants from Tanzania to China. The permit is illegal as elephants are Appendix I. (Supplied by Karl Ammann)

Image
An annual Chinese quote for the import of wild animals tax-free. (Supplied by Karl Ammann)

“I sourced all the balance sheets and profit and loss statements for a zoo which imported 18 chimps. It could not be more commercial. Nobody in China seems to be in the business for education, science or conservation. It’s all about the money. But with the Z purpose code suddenly it’s no longer commercial. So the zoo community and its decision and policymakers, as well as CITES, are a very big part of the problem, tolerating and exploiting this loophole to the detriment of wild creatures.”

In the past decade, Zimbabwe has exported about 140 elephants to China, but is not bound by the Z code. In 1997, following a proposal by the country, CITES voted to transfer African elephants in Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe from Appendix I to Appendix II. The proposal which convinced delegates claimed it was “especially iniquitous to prohibit a country from trading in one of the few resources in which it has a competitive advantage. Africa has few such advantages. Ivory is one of them”. Elephants, said the proposal, should pay their way.

Image
A frame grab from Karl Ammann’s forthcoming film, ‘Stolen Giants’.

Until CITES banned the movement of all elephants out of Africa in 2019, Zimbabwe had been capturing wild baby elephants for sale. The Zimbabwe Parks Board reports an income of $30,000 an elephant, though at the China end of the pipeline they are listed at $125,000 each. The value is not increased by duty, but by middlemen in Zimbabwe and China cashing in to the tune of millions of dollars greasing palms.

China’s need for wild animals is driven by a booming market in safari parks and zoos – 120 new ones were added in the past decade alone.

Image
A frame grab from Karl Ammann’s forthcoming film, ‘Stolen Giants’.

“There’s not enough captive-bred animals,” Ammann says, “so a lot of them are coming from illegal imports and taken straight from the wild. It’s a huge drain on biodiversity and illegal in terms of CITES.” Many wild animal imports are duty-free – 70 elephants and 75 rhinos a year are permitted free to encourage import.”

In Huzhou, a massive safari park, Longemont, is under construction at a cost of $2.9-billion. It expects to host about 30,000 visitors a day. It plans to exhibit 11,500 animals. Entrance will be $40 a person, netting about $438-million a year. The park calculates its return on investment will take a mere four years. There’s absolutely nothing “scientific” about Longemont. Wild animals are simply big business.

Image
A frame grab from Karl Ammann’s forthcoming film, ‘Stolen Giants’.

Tracing Z-permit imports, Ammann found that 32 Zimbabwe elephants had gone to Changxing Taegu Longzhimeng Animal World and Cultural Tourism Development, which is the official importer for the Longemont. There they are trained to perform by Thai and Chinese mahouts).

The same safari park also illegally imported eight young Laotian elephants which changed hands and ownership several times on the way to Longemont and are now performing several times a day.

Animals like elephants and chimps increase in value dramatically when they’re trained to perform in these parks and, in the process, undergo initial training, first by punishment and, once broken in, by reward. They are forced to do unnatural things. This violates CITES permits, but the convention looks the other way.

Eight additional elephants went to Yongyuan Biotechnology Co Ltd which produces Chinese traditional medicine.

“How can any of this be passed off by CITES as ‘not for commercial purposes’, and how can the international zoo community endorse this?” asks Ammann.

“It’s all about profit.

“CITES essentially plays god as an authority. It’s immensely powerful, deciding the fate of countless earthly creatures by controlling the trade in them – alive or dead. But it’s ineffective when it comes to cracking down on wildlife trade offenders.”

Amid a global pandemic likely to have been caused by the wildlife trade and a biodiversity crisis, says Ammann, CITES increasingly appears unfit for purpose.

“A functional authority would reverse this trade and, for instance, would under Article VIII of the convention insist on the return of the 150 or so Laotian elephants to their country of origin where there are successful reintroduction efforts.

“It would also force the return of young Zimbabwe elephants to Africa for rehabilitation and care in a wildlife sanctuary. If it’s unable, or unwilling to take such action,” says Ammann,”‘then really, what’s the point of it?”

“In this way, CITES has become part of the problem, encouraging the illegal trade in high-value Appendix I species and creating high rewards in a low-risk business for a wide range of very dubious players.” DM


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Lisbeth »

Image

How Africa’s exportation of ‘countless’ wild animals fuels the deadly wildlife trade

BY EMMA LEDGER - 1ST NOVEMBER 2020 - THE INDEPENDANT

We are working with conservation charity Space for Giants to protect wildlife at risk from poachers due to the conservation funding crisis caused by Covid-19. Help is desperately needed to support wildlife rangers, local communities and law enforcement personnel to prevent wildlife crime

Wild animals are being shipped out of Africa to China under the guise of being transferred to zoos when in reality they are entering the illegal wildlife trade, The Independent can reveal.

The director of conservation group Ban Animal Trading, Smaragda Louw, said 400 giraffes were sent from South Africa to one zoo in China. “Three months later I travelled to the zoo to check and there were only 16 animals,” she said.

“Anyone I tried to speak to in order to find out where the other giraffes were either couldn’t speak English or was too scared to talk to me.”

In Bangladesh, she visited an address that three lion cubs were sent to. It turned out to be a shoe shop in a shopping centre, she said.

“It’s impossible to find out what happens to these animals once they leave Africa,” she explained. “They are countless, and they are either sent to addresses that don’t exist, or they reach a conservation facility before being sold on privately.”

The Independent told last month of the drain of Africa’s chimpanzees leaving the continent destined for zoos and conservation facilities in China.

Global conservation organisations have since demanded closer scrutiny of the wildlife trade. Chimpanzees and other animals exported from Africa can be sold on privately, fuelling the deadly illegal wildlife trade.

The Independent’s Stop the Illegal Wildlife Trade campaign seeks an international effort to clamp down on poaching and the illegal trade of wild animals.

Image

We are working with conservation charity Space for Giants to protect wildlife at risk from poachers due to the conservation funding crisis caused by Covid-19. Help is desperately needed to support wildlife rangers, local communities and law enforcement personnel to prevent wildlife crime (The Independent )
Iris Ho, senior specialist for wildlife programmes and policy for Humane Society International, believes the exploitation of blurred lines between the legal and illegal trade is “widespread”.

Ho said:“Whether it’s under the guise of zoos or educational purposes, the international trade in live animals has been problematic for years.

“Most countries don’t have a comprehensive record of the movement of the animals once they are imported. So if a zoo later sells, exchanges or sends the animals to another zoo or circus, there is no record of the transaction.“

Such a lack of transparency and loopholes are the breeding ground for illegal activities.”

Ho cites one case from last year in which more than 30 baby elephants were sent from Zimbabwe to China, where they were then held in quarantine pending distribution to amusement parks and other facilities.

This was in defiance of the spirit of a landmark vote at a meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) two months prior which had agreed a near-total ban on live elephant exports from Zimbabwe and Botswana to zoos.

Campaigners blame the seemingly lax oversight of governments and the fact that enforcement of CITES regulations is left to each country to police.

“Trade in endangered species is always tricky,” says Gregg Tully, executive director of the Pan African Sanctuary Alliance. “CITES covers the import and export, but there is not a similar kind of international oversight to ensure the animals go where they’re intended once the trade is complete.”

The practice is not limited to Asian and African countries. Recently it was revealed that the Australian authorities had been rubber stamping exports of exotic birds to a zoo in Germany, when in fact the facility is not open to the public.

Conservation groups believe the grey area between the legal and illegal movement of wildlife is also fuelling the trade of animals for circuses.

China banned animal circuses in 2011, yet Ban Animal Trading’s director Louw says the circuses continue. She believes the industry is reliant on the legal import loophole that perpetuates the flow of undocumented animals.

“South Africa plays a big part in this problem,” says Louw. “There is no electronic system for animal export permits, it’s all done by hand, so it is open to corruption.

“The trade of animals is a very secretive business. We can find out exactly how many caravans or tyres were shipped out of South Africa in any month, but not live animals. No one wants to talk about it.”

Original article: https://www.independent.co.uk/world/sto ... 49332.html


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Lisbeth »

Unregulated international trade in reptiles threatens South Africa’s vulnerable species

Opinionista • Charan Saunders • 10 December 2020

The majority of South Africa’s snakes that are exported are wild-sourced and, along with most indigenous lizards, are not CITES-listed, meaning they can be moved out of the country without having to declare the source as either wild or captive-bred.

This article was supplied by the Conservation Action Trust.

A new report, Plundered – South Africa’s cold-blooded international reptile trade, explores loopholes in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) regulations and finds that an ineffective local permitting system is allowing the illegal international trade of South Africa’s reptiles.

While still awaiting the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries’ (DEFF’s) investigation into their previous report, Breaking Point, the EMS Foundation and Ban Animal Trading (BAT) have released the third instalment of the investigative report series, The Extinction Business. EMS and BAT again appear to be fulfilling DEFF’s oversight function, exposing the unregulated export of 4,500 reptiles, snakes and amphibians between 2013 and May 2020 as exotic pets, food and leather.

CITES was set up to ensure wildlife trade is sustainable, but it focuses on the most valuable species, traded in large volumes, and largely ignores lesser-known species. According to a recent article in Nature Communications, the scientific data on reptile species is unreliable and insufficient, with 30% of all reptile species not having been assessed for their IUCN Red List status. CITES only covers 9% of reptile species while 36% are currently traded. This means 75% of the reptile trade is not covered by any international trade regulation.

It is the responsibility of DEFF to implement the CITES framework in our own domestic legislation as a baseline and, where CITES is inadequate, to legislate appropriately for South Africa. Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) regulations, under the Nemba Act, require the government to give national protection to listed threatened or protected species to ensure their survival in the wild. Activities such as the collection, breeding and export of these species without a non-detrimental finding (NDF) to assess the effects of removal, should not be allowed because they may threaten the survival of the species in the wild.

Of the 2,179 indigenous tortoises identified in the report, 2,029 were exported to pet shops, cafés and traders, and even the ones destined for zoos were tagged for commercial trade. Most of these tortoises, exported as pets and food, are listed on CITES Appendix-II. This requires an NDF before export permits can be issued and the issuing authority must ensure the specimen was legally obtained.

The South African Scientific Authority, however, has failed to prepare an NDF for any indigenous tortoise species, nor is there a system or the technology for checking their origin. Unperturbed, South Africa is allowing the export of indigenous tortoise species, including the TOPS-listed Angulate tortoise, relying on the honesty of the exporters to declare the source as wild or captive-bred.

The report findings suggest that anyone contemplating surrendering their tortoise to a zoo should not imagine it will be rehabilitated and released. All tortoises that are confiscated or surrendered, including CITES-listed tortoises, are labelled captive-bred and many are then sold to South African wildlife traders. The National Zoological Gardens (Pretoria Zoo), which falls under the South African National Biodiversity Institute, and the Johannesburg Zoo supplied wildlife traders with hundreds of tortoises for the international market.

The report also found 262 snakes and 117 reptiles were exported to pet shops and pet cafés and alleges that the trade in reptiles and amphibians is driving poaching from the wild.

The majority of South Africa’s snakes that are exported are wild-sourced and, along with most indigenous lizards, are not CITES-listed, meaning they can be moved out of the country without having to declare the source as wild or captive-bred. Verification of exports is poor, especially of venomous species, and the investigation found that CITES permits were issued for reptile species categorised as captive-bred when it is well known that these species do not breed in captivity.

Similarly, for amphibians, export permits were issued for some frogs, for which there are no registered breeding facilities, or which have never successfully bred in captivity. Notwithstanding the stipulations of TOPS, many of these are likely to have been sourced from the wild.

At least 50% of these animals in the international pet trade are wild-caught or poached. It stands to reason, given the high cost of breeding facilities, lack of verification systems and poor training at customs, that it is much cheaper, and with slim chance of capture or consequence, to simply pluck specimens from the wild. This is unsustainable and should be banned.

The global legal trade in wild animals is unsustainable and is stimulating the market for animals, fuelling the illegal trade. It is the loopholes in the legal system that are exploited by the illegal trade, and CITES, with limited facility to monitor and little apparent will to enforce compliance, is effectively toothless.

According to Smaragda Low of Ban Animal Trading, “the commercial trade in reptiles and amphibians offers no conservation value. Whether taken from the wild or bred in captivity, they cannot be released and offer no value to conservation of the species in the wild.”

Trade decisions also cannot be divorced from welfare, health and ethical considerations. Reptiles are animals capable of boredom, fear, pain and suffering, all trademarks of the animal trade. Lacking facial expressions and the ability to vocalise any distress, they suffer in silence. Their low metabolic rate means their suffering can be more prolonged than mammals. In addition to the 70% mortality rate at wholesalers, 75% of reptile pets die within the first year at home.

Most emerging diseases are zoonotic, and wildlife constitutes a large and unknown reservoir of bacteria and viruses. International trade endangers indigenous wildlife through the spread of disease or predation by escaped animals. The spread of disease can also threaten livestock, rural livelihoods, international trade and human health.

The global legal trade in wild animals is unsustainable and is stimulating the market for animals, fuelling the illegal trade. It is the loopholes in the legal system that are exploited by the illegal trade, and CITES, with limited facility to monitor and little apparent will to enforce compliance, is effectively toothless.

DEFF, as the custodian of our environment, should be controlling the export of our indigenous reptiles and amphibians to ensure sustainability of trade. While TOPS-listed animals are protected, many of our indigenous reptiles, snakes and amphibians are not listed on TOPS, may not have been assessed for vulnerability and therefore have no protection. According to the Southern African Reptile Conservation Assessment, information on these animals is incomplete, out of date and poorly collated.

Until accurate population assessments have been completed, the impact of trade on these species cannot be assessed. It should then follow that a moratorium be placed on the trade of all unassessed species until such an analysis has been done and proven not to have a detrimental impact on wild populations.

However, for the purpose of exotic food, pets and leather, which serve only to enrich a handful of traders, we are placing at risk not only our wildlife, but also health and many other livelihoods. Given that South Africa does not have the resources to enforce restrictions, an outright ban would be cheaper, safer and kinder. DM


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75834
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE

Post by Richprins »

O/


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
Post Reply

Return to “Other Conservation Issues”