WILDLIFE CRIME/TRADE/BREEDING

Information and Discussions on General Conservation Issues
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 »

Curiously, the phrase “sustainable utilisation” does not appear to be anywhere enshrined despite what its proponents would have us believe.

Err, he must have a look at SANParks' mandate! :shock: :shock:


The Chinese wildlife trade must suffer like all other industries under Covid, what makes them special? 0-


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

The constitution and the laws are intended, I presume. Sanparks' mandate is a different kettle of fish ;-)


"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 »

As calls to shutter wildlife markets grow, China struggles with an industry worth billions

by Ashoka Mukpo on 27 April 2020

- China issued a provisional ban on wildlife consumption in late February, but on Thursday the U.S. called for the ban to be made permanent.

- “Wet markets” have made headlines, but China’s wildlife trade is vast and includes tens of thousands of online sellers and rural farmers.

- Despite using products made from animals known to be coronavirus hosts, China’s traditional medicine industry has thus far escaped new regulation.


Last Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on China to shut down wet markets where illegal wildlife are sold. Pompeo’s call was echoed by the Australian government, which on the same day urged G20 countries to take action on wildlife markets in order to reduce the risk of new diseases like COVID-19 spilling over into humans in the future.

Lost in both statements was a recognition of the complexity of China’s wildlife trade or the scale of the challenge it now faces. Wet markets have shouldered much of the blame for the deadly pandemic, but few of those markets sell wildlife and those that do only account for a portion of a supply chain that involves millions of people and vast sums of money. Unwinding China’s wildlife industry – which serves as the primary means of survival for many of those people – will be far from straightforward.

phpBB [video]


Some new polling data shows high levels of support in the region for shutting down illegal wildlife markets, even in countries where consumption of wildlife is considered a delicacy. China’s provisional ban on eating wildlife has earned praise from conservation groups as a good start, but sorting out the line between legal and illegal markets has already proved tricky.

Key sectors of China’s wildlife industry remain free from new regulations – including those that sell products made from animals known to carry coronaviruses. Traditional medicine, for example, includes the use of remedies made from bats and pangolins, but producers serving that market have so far escaped the kind of harsh new restrictions that the wildlife consumption industry faces.

In the long run, conservation experts say they hope the spike in outrage over the link between commercial wildlife exploitation and COVID-19 will lead to lasting change across the wildlife industry in China, as well as elsewhere in the region.

Wildlife markets shutter in China, but challenges remain in a vast industry

After the initial spread of COVID-19 was traced to a wet market that sold wildlife in Wuhan, the Chinese government ordered people across the country to stop trading or eating wild animals on Feb 24. The ban on consumption is provisional, with a new legal framework expected to come later this year. Horseshoe bats as well as pangolins – one of the world’s most trafficked species – have been identified as potential hosts that might have passed the virus to a human.

While the focus on wet markets can obscure the complexity of China’s wildlife industry, the small proportion of those markets that do sell wild animals have been identified as a public health hazard.

“These animals are often mixed with multiple different species in unsanitary conditions, creating a perfect environment for the pathogens that they carry to jump from one species to another,” said Jonathan Sleeman, director of the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Wildlife Health Center in an email.

Conservationists based in China say that the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted an outcry on social media, leading to calls for harsher restrictions and reinforcing perceptions of the wildlife industry as dangerous to public health.

“This pandemic is so shocking,” said Fei Zhou, chief program officer of WWF China in an interview. “It’s a catastrophe at the national level we never had in the past, and a consensus has emerged to close all the wildlife markets.”

But abroad, misconceptions of what constitutes a wildlife market and how people in China consume or purchase products made from wildlife have led to confusion.

“I think people get this message a little mixed that there are these rampant wildlife markets all over China and they’re reopening,” said Blake. “That’s not the case, it’s mostly food markets.”

Part of the wildlife trade has shifted to online marketplaces in recent years, where buyers can purchase wildlife products and have them delivered to their doorstep by courier services.

Warehouses and farms where animals are stored by sellers who operate those marketplaces can pose similar public health risks to those of in-person wildlife markets.

“The situations where you have wildlife housed in warehouses for customers can still create a high-risk disease situation for workers, who can then subsequently spread a disease if they catch it,” said David Olson, director of conservation at WWF Hong Kong in an interview.

E-commerce companies like Alibaba and Tencent have begun issuing warnings and reporting accounts that sell wildlife food products to law enforcement agencies, conservationists say.

“They use keywords to check if there are online stores or advertisements talking about wildlife consumption, and if they find those they will send an alert to the store’s owners and ask them to take it off,” said Aili Kang, executive director of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)’s Asia Program in an interview.

According to an official with China’s State Council, 17,000 e-commerce accounts offering wildlife products were shut down in a month earlier this year.

Nearly overnight, a ticket out of poverty becomes a public health hazard

For many of the 6.3 million people involved in China’s $18 billion dollar per-year wildlife farming industry, the new rules are a life-upending event.

Among the species covered under China’s consumption ban are civet cats and bamboo rats, which have featured in a years-long effort by Chinese officials to reduce rural poverty by encouraging people to legally farm wildlife. The sale of civet cats was briefly banned in 2003 after they were identified as likely hosts for the SARS virus that killed nearly 800 people, but the ban was lifted not long afterwards.

This time, conservationists say, the restrictions are likely to stick.

“The difference between the current pandemic and SARS is that this health scare is a wake-up call for the government and public that there’s a need to end these kind of markets,” said Zhou of WWF China.

But sorting out compensation for farmers involved in a trade that was legal just a few months ago and helping them transition into other industries will be challenging, particularly for a government that prizes economic development. Already, some farmers have expressed frustration at the ban and are lobbying behind the scenes for exceptions to be made.

“They want to argue that captive breeding of civet cats isn’t the problem because they can get health checks or other types of control,” said Kang of WCS. “There’s a debate within China currently between conservation groups and the captive breeding groups.”

Kang says the government is examining whether farms used for wild species can be repurposed for other kinds of domesticated livestock.

According to one Chinese official, nearly 20,000 captive breeding farms were forced to close down in February alone. Some worry that if the owners of those farms aren’t assisted in finding new sources of income, they could be pushed into the black market.

“For a transition out of the wildlife trade to be socially acceptable and effective, it is essential that the identification of alternate livelihood options is carried out,” said Elizabeth Mrema, acting executive secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in an email. “And this must be done in consultation with, rather than imposed on communities.”

Despite risks, traditional medicine escapes new regulation

While China’s ban on wildlife consumption has been welcomed by conservation groups and public health experts, some say it doesn’t go far enough. The new rules don’t cover traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), which has deep roots in Chinese culture and includes remedies derived from wildlife products like tiger bones and pangolin scales.

“The TCM lobby is really powerful,” said Olson of WWF Hong Kong. “More powerful than the wildlife farming industry even, because it’s a part of cultural tradition.”

Most TCM remedies don’t include wildlife products, but demand for those that do is high enough to link the industry to catastrophic levels of poaching across the world. China has long banned consumption of pangolin, but loopholes for use of the reclusive creature’s scales in TCM have fed the illicit trade and provided opportunities for its meat to make its way into markets and restaurants.

The decision to allow the TCM industry to continue selling products made from species that have been identified as coronavirus carriers has been met with criticism, although some NGOs are reluctant to push the Chinese government too aggressively on the issue.

“I think sometimes the international calls for action are counterproductive because of the nationalism and politics involved,” Olson said. “China doesn’t do things just because someone told them what to do.”

While production lines for TCM remedies can be better controlled than open-air wildlife markets, critics of the government’s decision say there are risks even when safety precautions are in place. Large-scale production of dried bat feces – which is used to treat eye and other ailments – remains legal and it can still be purchased online.

Bats have been a recurring feature at the center of viral outbreaks in recent years, and have been linked to the transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome [SARS], Middle East Respiratory Syndrome [MERS], Ebola, and now COVID-19.

One study from early February identified bats from a region near Wuhan as the most likely original host of Covid-19, speculating that use of the species for TCM may have been the initial vector of infection.

“Even when the selling of live wild animals at food markets would be completely prohibited in China, the trading and handling of bats for traditional medicinal purposes would remain a serious risk for future zoonotic coronavirus epidemics,” the authors wrote.

While concerns over the absence of TCM in China’s regulatory response to the pandemic remain, conservationists say the halt on wildlife consumption is a step in the right direction that they hope neighboring countries will emulate.

For now, public sentiment is soundly against the wildlife trade, but they worry about what could happen once memories begin to fade.

“After, say, five years, when people begin to recover from the pandemic and start to move back to normal, it’s possible they’ll forget what happened,” said Kang of WCS. “They may say, well we have medicine to treat Covid-19. That will be the time businesses may say, ‘now we can rethink this."


"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 »

Just decide what is illegal and arrest? -O- 0-


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

Jane Goodall: COVID-19 is a product of our unhealthy relationship with animals and the environment (commentary)

by Jane Goodall on 4 May 2020

Image
Pangolin rescued from the wildlife trade in Cambodia. Photo by Rhett A. Butler.

- Dr. Jane Goodall, DBE, is the founder of the Jane Goodall Institute and a U.N. Messenger of Peace.

- In this commentary Goodall argues that our exploitation of animals and the environment has contributed to pandemics, including the current COVID-19 crisis.

- Goodall says that wildlife trafficking, the production of animal-based medicines, factory farming, and the destruction of critical habitats all can create enabling conditions for viruses to spill over from their animal hosts into humans.

- This post is a commentary and does not necessarily reflect the views of Mongabay.


The world is facing unprecedented challenges. At the time of writing, the coronavirus COVID-19 has infected over 3.57 million people globally and as of the 4th of May 250,134 people have died, according to data from Johns Hopkins University. At present, people in most countries around the world are self-isolating at home (either alone or with family), keeping social distance and reducing going outdoors to a minimum. Some businesses have totally closed down, some carry on with staff working from home, some people are temporarily laid off, and thousands of people around the world have lost their jobs. Already the economic cost of all this is catastrophic.

We all follow the news and pray that the lockdown will end in country after country as the peak infection and death rate is reached and then gradually drops. This has already happened in China, where the COVID-19 coronavirus originated, thanks to the stringent measures undertaken by the Chinese government. We hope that a vaccine will soon be developed and that we can gradually get back to normal. But we must never forget what we have been through and we must take the necessary steps to prevent another such pandemic in the future.

The tragedy is that a pandemic of this sort has long been predicted by those studying zoonotic diseases (those that, like COVID-19, spill over from animals into humans). It is almost certain that this pandemic started with such a spill over in China’s Wuhan seafood market that also sold terrestrial wildlife for food, along with chickens and fish.

Zoonotic disease transmission in markets

When wild animals are sold in such markets, often illegally, they are typically kept in small cages, crowded together, and often slaughtered on the spot. Humans, both vendors and customers, may thus be contaminated with the fecal material, urine, blood and other bodily fluids of a large variety of species – such as civets, pangolins, bats, raccoon dogs and snakes. This provides a perfect environment for viruses to spill over from their animal hosts into humans. Another zoonotic disease, SARS, originated in another wildlife market in Guangdong.

Most wet markets in Asia are not dissimilar to farmers’ markets in Europe and the US. There are thousands of wet markets in Asia and around the world where fresh produce – vegetables and fruit, and sometimes also meat from domestic animals – are sold at reasonable prices. And thousands of people shop there rather than in supermarkets.

It is not only in China that wildlife markets have provided the ideal conditions for viruses and other pathogens to cross the species barrier and transfer from animal hosts to us. There are markets of this sort in many Asian countries. In the bushmeat markets of Africa – where live and dead animals are sold for food – the hunting, slaughtering and selling of chimpanzees for food led to two spill overs from ape to human that resulted in the HIV-AIDS pandemic. Ebola is another zoonotic disease which crosses from animal reservoirs into apes and humans in different parts of Africa.

Image
Wildlife in a market in Laos. Photo by Rhett A. Butler for Mongabay

Wildlife trafficking and the spread of disease

Another major concern is the trafficking of wild animals and their body parts around the world. Unfortunately, this has become a highly lucrative multi-billion-dollar business, often run by criminal cartels. Not only is it very cruel and definitely contributing to the terrifying extinction of species, but it may also lead to conditions suitable for the emergence of zoonotic diseases. Wild animals or their parts exported, often illegally, from one country to another take their viruses with them.

The shocking pet trade in young wild monkeys and apes, birds, reptiles and other wild animals is another area of concern. A bite or scratch from a wild animal taken into the home could lead to something much more serious than a mild infection.

Once COVID-19 was recognized as a new zoonotic disease, the Chinese authorities imposed a ban on the selling and eating of wild animals, the Wuhan wildlife market was closed down, and the farming of wild animals for food was forbidden.

There are thousands of small operations throughout Asia and other parts of the world where wild animals are bred for food as a way of making a living in rural areas. Unless alternative sources of income for these people, as well as for others exploiting wildlife to make a living, can be found and they can get help from their governments during their transition to other ways of making money, it is likely that these operations will be driven underground and become even more difficult to regulate.

Nevertheless, whatever the problems, it is clearly of great importance that the ban on trading, eating and breeding of wild animals for food should be permanent and enforced – for the sake of human health and the prevention of other pandemics in the future. Fortunately, a majority of Chinese and other Asian citizens who responded to surveys agree that wildlife should not be consumed, used in medicine or for their fur.

Image
A rescued sun bear in Malaysia. Photo by Rhett A. Butler.

Medicinal products loopholes and bear bile

The use of some wild animal products for traditional medicine is thus far still legal in China (though rhino horn and tiger bones are banned). And this creates a loophole that will be quickly seized on by those wanting to continue to trade in wild animals such as the highly endangered pangolin, rhinos, tigers and the Asiatic black bear, known commonly as the Moon Bear because of the crescent-shaped white marking on its chest.


Other Asian bears – brown bears and Sun bears – are also exploited for their bile. And so long as farming bears for their bile is legal, and products containing their bile is promoted, this will stimulate the demand for the bile.

It is important to consider the welfare of the animals who are unwittingly responsible for zoonotic diseases. Today we know that all the animals mentioned are sentient beings, capable of knowing fear, despair and pain. Moreover, many of them demonstrate extraordinary intelligence. Allowing the use of wildlife trading for medicinal purposes can lead to unbelievably inhumane treatment of some of these sentient beings.

This is most certainly the case, for example, with bears farmed for their bile in Asia. They may be kept for up to thirty years in extremely small cages – sometimes they cannot even stand up or turn around. The tiny cages prohibit all natural behavior for these intelligent and sentient animals, who endure a life of fear and suffering.

The bile is usually extracted, once or even twice a day, by inserting a catheter, pipe or syringe into the gall bladder, – a highly intrusive and painful procedure. The bears suffer from dehydration, starvation and a variety of infections and diseases. They develop liver cancer (caused by the bile extraction), tumors, ulcers, blindness, peritonitis, arthritis and other ailments. Their teeth are worn down or missing from continually, in desperation, gnawing at the bars that imprison them.

Not only is farming bears in this way extremely cruel, it is also of concern for public health reasons. Poor hygienic conditions, the permanent open wounds of the bears, contamination of bile with feces, bacteria, blood and other bodily fluids are reasons for serious concern. Finally, many of the bears are continuously given antibiotics to keep them alive and this contributes to antibiotic resistance and the emergence of superbugs, resistant to most known antibiotics. The same is true with the raising of domestic animals in factory farms. These superbugs have led to the death of many patients in hospitals around the world.

Unfortunately, Tan Re Qing, a product that contains bile taken from Asiatic black bears and said to be helpful in alleviating symptoms linked to respiratory infections, is being recommended as a treatment for patients infected with COVID-19. And this will encourage the continued practice of bear bile farming.

To end on a note of hope, the active component of bear bile, ursodeoxycholic acid or UDCA, has been available as a synthetic variant for many years, and is a fraction of the cost of bile inhumanely harvested from bears. Unfortunately many people consider bile from wild bears to be more valuable. Traditional Chinese Medicine has great value but, even if the bile from wild bears was a valuable drug, given the cruelty and the risk involved, it should no longer be used – especially as the synthetic product has the same properties. In fact, a survey conducted by Animals Asia in 2011 indicated that 87% of Chinese respondents were in favor of banning bear bile farming, and hundreds of Chinese pharmacies have pledged never to sell bear bile products.

It would be wonderful if all bear bile farms across Asia could be closed and the bears released into those sanctuaries which have been created in China, Vietnam, Malaysia and Laos. There they would be able to walk on grass, climb, bathe in ponds and enjoy the sunshine and the company of other rescued bears. And a decrease in the demand for pangolin scales and rhino horn in many Asian countries for their supposed medicinal value would give a chance for these highly endangered animals to survive into the future. As would a ban on the farming of wild animals for their fur.

Disease Originating from Factory Farming

This is not only from wild animals that zoonotic diseases have originated. The inhumane conditions of the great factory farms, where large numbers of domestic animals are crowded together, has also provided conditions conducive to viruses spilling over into humans. The diseases commonly known as ‘bird flu’ and ‘swine flu’ resulted from handling poultry and pigs. And domestic animals are also sentient beings who experience fear and pain. MERS originated from contact with domestic dromedary camels in the Middle East, perhaps from consuming products from infected camels such as undercooked meat or milk.

Conclusion

Scientists warn that if we continue to ignore the causes of these zoonotic diseases, we may be infected with viruses that cause pandemics even more disruptive than COVID-19.

Many people believe that we have come to a turning point in our relationship with the natural world. We need to halt deforestation and the destruction of natural habitats around the globe. We need to make use of existing nature-friendly, organic alternatives, and develop new ones, to feed ourselves and to maintain our health. We need to eliminate poverty so that people can find alternative ways to make a living other than by hunting and selling wild animals and destroying the environment. We need to assure that local people, whose lives directly depend on and are impacted by the health of the environment, own and drive good conservation decisions in their own communities as they work to improve their lives. Finally, we need to connect our brains with our hearts and appropriately use our indigenous knowledge, science and innovative technologies to make wiser decisions about people, animals and our shared environment.

While there is a justified focus on bringing COVID-19 under control, we must not forget the crisis with potentially long-term catastrophic effects on the planet and future generations – the climate crisis. The movement calling for industry and governments to impose restrictions on the emission of greenhouse gases, to protect forests, and clean up the oceans, has been growing.

This pandemic has forced industry to temporarily shut down in many parts of the world. As a result, many people have for the first time experienced the pleasure of breathing clean air and seeing the stars in the night sky.

My hope is that an understanding of how the world should be, along with the realization that it is our disrespect of the natural world that has led to the current pandemic, will encourage businesses and governments to put more resources into developing clean, renewable energy, alleviate poverty and help people find alternative ways of making a living that do not involve the exploitation of nature and animals.

Let us realize we are part of, and depend upon, the natural world for food, water and clean air. Let us recognize that the health of people, animals and the environment are connected. Let us show respect for each other, for the other sentient animals, and for Mother Nature. For the sake of the wellbeing of our children and theirs, and for the health of this beautiful planet Earth, our only home.

Dr. Jane Goodall, DBE, is the founder of the Jane Goodall Institute and a U.N. Messenger of Peace.

Editor’s note: Jane Goodall is a member of Mongabay’s advisory council.


"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

Press Release: BREAKING POINT – Uncovering South Africa’s shameful live wildlife trade with China

BY EMS FOUNDATION - 19TH MAY 2020 - EMS FOUNDATION + BAT

South Africa is the largest exporter on the continent of live wild animals to Asia. However authorities repeatedly fail to comply with the very basics of a regulated trade in wild animals. The legal trade with China is extensive and often corrupt, with glaring violations overlooked by authorities and benefits flowing to a few wealthy traders. It’s also acting as a cover for illicit trade.

This is documented in an extensive, meticulous report by Ban Animal Trading and the EMS Foundation – the outcome of two years research which can be accessed here.

Incidentally, South Africa and China were listed in the top five countries for wildlife trafficking seizures between 2016 and 2018.

Key points of the report show that

- Export permits frequently list fake destinations and that oversight by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is so lax it’s almost non-existent. As a result, wild animals are being subjected to cruel and degrading conditions when captured, bred, transported, displayed in Chinese ‘theme parks’ or used in scientific experiments. Their welfare is being ignored.

- The commonly held belief and one conveniently pushed by the pro-wildlife trade advocates, including CITES, is that the ILLEGAL wildlife trade that is the problem. This report shows that massive damage is in fact caused by the legal wildlife trade.

- The CITES permitting system is not only riddled with loopholes but is fatally flawed, unworkable and essentially designed to act as a cover for illegal activities as it only imposes SOME restrictions (and even those are full of ambiguities).

- The legal wildlife trade – and therefore CITES – is not protecting wild animals but hastening their demise and causing enormous suffering.

- As a result, CITES as an organisation is no longer fit for purpose and should be replaced.

- The internationals wildlife trade and the captive breeding and farming of wild animals has nothing to do with conservation and everything to do with commercialisation, commodification and profit.

- The international wildlife trade and the captive breeding and farming of wild animals is dangerous because it is increasing opportunities for zoonotic spillover and is the cause of the current pandemic.

- COVID-19 has provided humanity with a window of opportunity to do things differently and this must include the way we interact with other species.

- CITES must be replaced with a completely different-looking international preventative and precautionary legally binding agreement that establishes universal adherence to, and implementation of, a comprehensive and complete ban on the wildlife trade. This must be done as a matter of extreme urgency to tackle the dangerous, inhumane and indiscriminate trade in wild animals. Such an agreement would replace CITES and have as its fundamental guiding principle that the trade in wild animals is inappropriate, counter-productive, unethical and fundamentally unsustainable.

The report says wildlife trade riddled with irregularities with gaping loopholes in the CITES permitting system. This includes:

- Illegal shipments masquerading as legal exports of wildlife species classified as threatened by extinction (Appendix I) and endangered (Appendix II) by CITES;

- Brokering and wholesale companies and zoos implicated in the trafficking of wild-caught CITES Appendix I-listed species;

- The sale of CITES-listed species to theme and amusement parks, circuses, laboratories and zoos and so-called ‘safari parks’ in violation of CITES rules;

- Untraceable destinations, importers and addresses despite this being required in CITES permits;

- Enforcement negligence, particularly in relation to likely false declarations made by traders, agents and exporters;

- Animals traded being untraceable following export;

- Absent verification measures, and

- Lack of transparency and access to permits.

- An intertwining of the legal local and global permit system with illegal wildlife trade.

The report finds that deeply worrying practices are taking place that place both South Africa’s international reputation and the lives of wild animals in jeopardy. These include:

- The Department of Environment (DEFF) encourages trade in wild animals and their body parts without scientific evidence and without properly assessing the impact this may have on free ranging populations of wild animals. DEFF says its trade in wildlife is regulated, ‘but this does not accord with our observations.’

- Endangered animals are being caught in the wild outside South Africa, imported into certified breeding facilities and then exported from South
- Africa as ‘captive-bred’ animals under the CITES permits.

- Nearly all trained primates are not bred in captivity; they are wild-caught and illegally traded out of Africa and Indonesia.

- False declarations by traders, agents and exporters are common yet that not a single offender has been prosecuted.

- The origin of any given animal is almost impossible and once animals leave South Africa it is similarly impossible to identify where they end up.
- Stated destinations are ‘pure fiction.’

- Most export permits are in breach of CITES regulations. CITES import permits are often not signed or dated.

- Local and CITES legal wildlife trade monitoring systems contain extensive loopholes, gaps and opportunities to launder illegal items into the legal market.

- The source of so-called captive-bred animals are not checked or properly verified.
Local and CITES legal wildlife trade monitoring systems make it virtually impossible to reconcile and audit trade information or to cross-check information provided on waybills.

- The name of the importer on the permit is very often not the actual destination or address that the exported animals will be sent to.

- In China animal welfare laws governing captive wild animals are non-existent.

- The idea of ‘well-regulated’ markets is a myth, a smokescreen behind which deeply embedded interests exploit wild animals for purely commercial gain.

- DNA tests are rarely done.

- It is impossible to identify the source of baby animals arriving in China from Africa.

- CITES members are using zoos as a shield to absolve themselves of any responsibility for animal welfare. Far from being places of care and safety, ‘zoos are places of stress-inducing confinement and captivity and there is no conservation-education value to the use of wild animals.’

- CITES as an international treaty is ‘weak, untenable, impracticable, unfeasible and irreparable.’

- The research found that, between 2015 and 2019, 32 wild species from South Africa were exported to China. It lists 15 exporters and 41 importers, finding questionable listed information and permit violations in most cases. Many of the animals were being used to perform in circuses and wildlife events or were going to labs for experimentation and vivisection.

- Of particular concern was the export of CITES-listed chimps and tigers (not indigenous to South Africa), cheetahs, rhinos, lions, caracal, monkeys, giraffes and non-listed species such as wild dogs, hyenas and meerkats.

The report concludes that the wildlife trade between South Africa and China is ‘massive, ever-expanding, ecologically unsustainable, damaging and closely intertwined with illegal activities.

‘South Africa’s wildlife conservation reputation is effectively in tatters because DEFF has misinterpreted Section 24 of the South African Constitution and is, instead and expediently interpreting the notion of ‘sustainable use’ as a catchall justification for rampant exploitation of wild animals.’

The country’s international live wildlife trade, says the report, is ‘large, poorly enforced, indefensible and shameful.’ It calls for bans on:

- The live trade of wild animals, including captive-bred wild animals.

- Captive breeding and farming of wildlife for trade.

- The consumption of wild animals.

- Wet markets and wild animal markets.

- It calls for a prohibition of the international commercial legal trade and sale of wildlife and their body parts and a precautionary and compassionate approach in relation to wildlife.

The NGOs recommend the crafting of a comprehensive Global Agreement, ‘as a matter of extreme urgency, to tackle the dangerous, inhumane and indiscriminate trade in wild animals.’

The report is part of larger research into wildlife trade which will include Vietnam, Thailand, Pakistan and Bangladesh. But, in view of the Covid-19 pandemic, it was decided to release the China section ahead of the final publication.


"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
An elephant at a zoo in Wuhan, China; the country regularly imports African wildlife ( Getty )

South Africa traffics thousands of endangered wild animals to China in ‘corrupt and growing’ trade, investigation finds

BY JANE DALTON - 17TH MAY 2020 - THE INDEPENDANT

South African traders with China are illegally selling thousands of wild animals threatened with extinction and endangered, under the guise of legal exports, according to an investigation.

Monkeys have been stolen from the wild, and together with cheetahs, tigers, rhinos, lions and meerkats, they have been trafficked to circuses, theme parks, laboratories, zoos and “safari parks”, researchers found.

Their report says at least 5,035 live wild animals were exported to China from 2016 to last year – “an extremely conservative” estimate – including chimpanzees and “a bewildering number” of giraffe, which “are also eaten in China”.

The researchers uncovered how some traders have links to international organised crime syndicates and the system is riddled with fake permits, but not a single offender has been prosecuted.

After arriving in China, where laws on captive-animal welfare are “non-existent”, South Africa’s animals often become untraceable or disappeared, suggesting they either died or were sold on, the report says.

To make matters worse, in a trade that is expanding, “treating wildlife as if it is merely a commodity to be farmed” risks “unleashing myriad Covid-type diseases”.

The South Africa-based groups Ban Animal Trading (BAT) and the charitable EMS Foundation, which examined wild animal exports from 2016-19, hit out at the supposed myth that legal trade crowds out the illegal trade and that animals are treated well in legal deals.

“The legal and illegal trade are so intertwined as to be functionally inseparable,” the report states. “The research demonstrates that South Africa’s live wild animal trade with China is riddled with irregularities that are exploited by traffickers. There are gaping loopholes in the global permitting, enforcement and oversight system.”

Zoos, as well as brokers and wholesale companies, are behind the trafficking of animals caught from the wild, going to destinations that are often pure fiction; most permits are in breach of regulations, and their verification largely absent, meaning most wild animal exports in 2016-19 were probably illegal, according to the report authors.

Regulation is “failing dismally, imparting a false sense of security for those who believe that the international trade in wildlife is justified and sustainable” while “such security is wildly misplaced and, far from contributing to conservation, the legal trade is one of the single biggest factors currently undermining conservation.”

The two groups examined the scope of South Africa’s trade with Beijing by visiting the claimed destinations, examining licences and analysing data from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

“Our investigation of theme parks and zoos revealed that nearly all trained primates are not bred in captivity, but were wild-caught and illegally traded out of Africa and Indonesia,” according to the study, which also says South African exotic primate breeders export hundreds of marmosets to Chinese laboratories or breeding farms each year.

And the trade in chimps violated several regulations, yet there were no repercussions, the groups said.

More than 100 South African giraffes were sent to a Chinese zoo that holds the world record for having the highest number of hybrid animals “which have zero conservation value”.

But a global system of paper export permits allows for pervasive fraud, with widespread false declarations by traders, agents and exporters, the research found, and “once animals leave South Africa it is impossible to identify where they will land up”.

The South African government says the country ranks as the fifth-richest in Africa and the 24th richest in the world for numbers of endemic species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. It says rhino horn sales are subject to strict regulation including documentation.

South Africa is not the only country that sells wildlife to Asia. Zimbabwe has regularly exported young elephants to zoos in China since 2012 – 108 in all, according to Humane Society International.

Zimbabwe has previously said it has more elephants than it can cope with, and must be allowed to benefit from their numbers.

Demand in China for products made from all types of wildlife remains high, with a 2018 investigation finding tiger wine openly sold in shops. The report authors note that consumption of animals including tigers, threatening wild populations, is legitimised by captive breeding. There are more tigers in captivity in the world than in the wild, WWF figures show.

The report authors say photos taken at Chinese importing centres, showing barren enclosures, “tell their own story of animal welfare violation and naked greed”, while the wildlife trade allows Covid-type disease to spread.

Calling for “transformative changes” to prevent more wildlife exploitation, and prevent more coronaviruses, the study warns: “Nothing short of a global paradigm shift is necessary if we are to prevent further planetary disruption that unleashes Covid-type viruses.”

Image

The changes would include a ban on “wet” live animal markets, captive wild animal breeding and the stigmatisation of wildlife trade and consumption.

“Certainly there is no clear evidence that the legal trade somehow crowds out illegal trade,” the report says. “If anything, the presence of a legal trade … normalises consumption and triggers demand for wild-origin animals for commercial use and consumption.” And it condemns the idea of well regulated markets as a smokescreen for vested interests.

“Animals confined to life in captivity are welfare-deprived to the point that we are eroding our own humanity by continuing to endorse this system,” the document says.

Two years ago, a report by the same groups concluded South Africa’s growing trade in lion bones should be halted, and keeping and breeding lions and tigers should be curbed.

The Independent is campaigning for tighter regulation of the world’s wildlife trade.

Original article: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 13226.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 »

Why the wildlife trade convention failed to prevent Covid-19

By Don Pinnock• 27 May 2020

Image
To protect the world from zoonotic diseases, CITES needs to be amended, refocused or superseded by other international protocols, says its former Head, John Scanlon

It’s time to rethink the role of CITES, says its former head, John Scanlon. It has no teeth to enforce wildlife trade laws and could cause the next pandemic.

The pandemic which has locked down the planet’s human population is rooted in the trade and consumption of wild animals. But the UN organisation which regulates this trade, CITES, is incapable of preventing the health crisis, says its former head, John Scanlon. This calls for a major and urgent re-evaluation of the organisation, because, he says, it could expose us to the next pandemic.

Speaking in an International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) webinar, “Can CITES help prevent the next pandemic?” he said, “Perhaps we need to reverse the question and ask: Could CITES trade expose us to the next pandemic?”

He indicated that in confining itself to the regulation of trade, CITES has no teeth to protect or regulate the use within national states of the 36,000 species listed on its database. To protect the world from zoonotic diseases, he said, the convention needs to be amended, refocused or superseded by other international protocols.

“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,” he said. “Now is a critical time for fresh thinking on what needs to be done to avert the next pandemic.”

So what exactly is CITES? The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora is an international legally binding agreement adopted in 1973 that sets rules for international trade in wildlife. It regulates international trade to ensure this is not detrimental to the survival of the species.

CITES neither encourages nor discourages trade – it merely regulates trade when it does take place. It’s essentially about the cross-border movement of wildlife through a permit system. It’s often mistaken as a wildlife protection body, but has no policing or public health function.

“The value and effectiveness of CITES depends upon which lens you view it from,” said Scanlon. When viewed through the lens of avoiding over-exploitation of listed species, the convention has been quite effective. The same cannot be said when it’s viewed through the lens of public health.

“CITES does not address public health issues. The same observation can be made in relation to animal health and alien invasive species, which again do not feature in CITES decision-making.”

The convention also only applies to 36,000 of the world’s eight million species. It doesn’t require illegal trade to be criminalised, nor does it apply to poaching. It creates management and scientific authorities, but not enforcement authorities – it’s simply not a natural forum for enforcement, though is often seen as one.

Given the massive damage that zoonotic pandemics can do to economies and societies across every continent, he said, in a post-Covid-19 world this focus was too narrow. Profound changes are needed.

“CITES does not regulate the way the wildlife is harvested, handled, or stored in the source state, or how it’s handled, stored, sold or consumed in the destination state,” he said. “Captive breeding facilities, which now account for close to 60% of trade in animals, are not assessed by CITES on public health grounds. Yet all of these activities can pose a risk factor for the emergence of zoonotic diseases.”

The convention also only applies to 36,000 of the world’s eight million species. It doesn’t require illegal trade to be criminalised, nor does it apply to poaching. It creates management and scientific authorities, but not enforcement authorities – it’s simply not a natural forum for enforcement, though is often seen as one.

- The convention’s weakness in dealing with domestic trade, markets, consumption or poaching has been highlighted by a former US wildlife inspector, Jonathan Kelly. Writing in National Geographic, he pointed out that most countries do not have a government agency which screens wildlife imports for pathogens.

‘The absence of any formal entity dedicated to preventing the spread of diseases from the wildlife trade is a chronic gap around the world.”

In 2019, $4.3-billion of legal wildlife and wildlife products, including around 200 million live animals, were imported into the US annually, according to a five-year trade report. This includes 175 million fish for the aquarium trade and 25 million animals comprising mammals, amphibians, birds, insects, reptiles and spiders. On top of that, thousands of illegally traded shipments of wildlife are intercepted each year.

Article V111 of the convention listed enforcement measures and permitted confiscation against non-complying countries. However, so-called infraction reports based on this article were challenged in 2000 by CITES members who were not comfortable with having their violations put on record. The reports were then downgraded to general (essentially useless) information and the secretariat agreed to undertake ad-hoc, information-gathering visits with the consent of the country concerned.

There was also an unwillingness by CITES to act firmly against powerful but non-compliant states and poor annual reporting by members. According to Rachel Nuwer in her book Poached: Inside the Dark World of Wildlife Trafficking:

“Sanctions are hardly ever passed and they almost always gloss over bigger players in the illegal trade. As one source noted, it’s up to the CITES parties – not the secretariat – to decide who should be sanctioned, and too many countries are too influenced by powerful nations such as China to ever consider issuing sanctions against them.

“Amending the system is challenging, not the least because scientists and nongovernmental organisations can neither submit CITES proposals nor vote. Some countries unscrupulously trade votes, while others in effect buy votes.”

It’s notable that of the sanctions brought against member states in the past 30 years, 95% have been against developing countries and virtually none against developed consumer countries. The permitting system is also archaic, with lengthy questionnaires needing to be emailed to secretariat headquarters in Geneva. This makes analysis and response time extremely slow. Its website says “the Secretariat is currently working to make available an online version of the implementation report”, a note that has been there for some time.

A report by two South African wildlife NGOs highlighted “gaping loopholes” in this permitting system. They included:

- Illegal shipments masquerading as legal exports of wildlife species classified as threatened by extinction (Appendix I) and endangered (Appendix II) by CITES;

- Brokering and wholesale companies and zoos implicated in the trafficking of wild-caught CITES Appendix I-listed species;

- The sale of CITES-listed species to theme and amusement parks, circuses, laboratories and zoos and so-called “safari parks” in violation of CITES rules;

- Untraceable destinations, importers and addresses despite this being required in CITES permits;

- Enforcement negligence, particularly in relation to likely false declarations made by traders, agents and exporters;

- Animals traded being untraceable following export;

- Absent verification measures;

- Lack of transparency and access to permits; and

- An intertwining of the legal local and global permit system with illegal wildlife trade.

According to Scanlon, it’s time to look beyond CITES-listed species and use the law to help countries stop the theft of all their wildlife, plants and animals, terrestrial and marine, not just those species that are on the brink of extinction.

“It’s time to embed combating serious wildlife crimes into the international criminal law framework, which can be done via a protocol to the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, as has been done for other serious crimes.”

His suggestions were to:

- CITES to include public health criteria for listing species, possibly via a new Appendix, create a new Committee on Public Health and oblige authorities to take account of public health issues before issuing any certificate or permit.

- Create a new protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity, as has been done for Living Modified Organisms and Access and Benefit Sharing.

- Create a new agreement under the World Health Organisation, as has been done for Tobacco Control, which recognises the serious public health consequences of tobacco.

- “We need to elevate these actions into a global forum through a new or an amended convention,” Scanlon said. “We clearly need more, and if we manage to take these sorts of actions, I believe we will be best placed to avert the next wildlife-related pandemic.

“But if we do not act boldly now to institutionalise the changes that are needed to laws, as well as related funding and programmes, I fear we may find ourselves back in the same place in the not too distant future.”


"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 »

The outcome of meeting between Ban Animal Trading, The EMS Foundation and the Minister of Environmental Affairs on the export of wild animals from South Africa

BY EMS FOUNDATION + BAT - 28TH MAY 2020 - REPORT

The Minister of Environment, Barbara Creecy, initiated a meeting with the EMS Foundation and Ban Animal Trading in response to the publication of The Breaking Point Report which highlighted the shameful live wildlife trade between South Africa and China. The meeting was held this morning.

We welcome the Minister’s commitment to investigate the serious issues raised in our Report, within a three month period.

We also welcome the Minister’s commitment to strengthening the permitting system, her commitment to greater transparency within governmental systems and access to information produced by the Department, and the provinces. The Minister acknowledged that civil society has a role to play in holding the government to account and therefore the government should be transparent.

The Minister recognised that the national government has the overall responsibility and the obligation to ensure that the system implementing CITES complies with CITES regulations.

The Breaking Point Report showed the fundamental problems which are systemic in nature and relate to overarching policy issues. We were disappointed that the Minister was not willing to engage in policy discussions at this stage but she did commit to doing so in appropriate forums.

The Minister would not agree to a moratorium on the international export of live wild animals. 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. For these reasons, particularly given the fallout from COVID-19, we will continue to push for a Moratorium.

We believe our Breaking Point Report contains sufficient information to enable the Minister and her Department to identify the transgressions immediately. Over and above our Report, which is the tip of the iceberg, the Minister’s Department has all the information to hand to begin with their investigation immediately.

The organisations agreed to provide the Minister with a Memorandum that will highlight issues to be included in her investigations as well as recommendations that will address the inadequacies in the systemic framework.

We look forward to the results of the investigation. As environmental, social justice and animal protection organisations we will continue to speak up for animals and the environment.


The report can be sourced here: https://bananimaltrading.org/attachment ... 20_web.pdf


"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 »

0()


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

Return to “Other Conservation Issues”