Africa Wild

These seized ivory trinkets were crushed in 2015 in Times Square, in New York City. The hope is that destroying ivory will help put an end to elephant poaching. Photograph by Kate Brooks, Redux

The black-market trade in wildlife has moved online, and the deluge is ‘dizzying’

BY RENE EBERSOLE - 18TH DECEMBER 2020 - NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

llegal wildlife ads have increased on Facebook despite its steps to combat animal trafficking. Crime watch groups are calling for broad legal reforms.

WHEN A SQUAD of federal and state law enforcement agents with guns and bulletproof vests entered a single-story brick home in Buffalo, New York, on July 5, 2018 they were searching for business records of a suspected criminal enterprise.

Experts trained to handle dangerous exotic cats congregated in a sunroom pungent with the odor of cat urine. Wearing blue latex gloves, the wildlife handlers carefully collected two young caracals distinguished by their long, black-tipped ear tufts; four juvenile servals, copper-colored with handsome black spots; and an adult savannah cat, a cross between a serval and a house cat. The homeowner, Christopher Casacci, 38, a short man with buzz-cut black hair, watched as the handlers hauled the cats away in plastic carriers to a truck outside, protesting that the savannah cat, named Tigger, was his family’s pet.

Casacci, who was running the website ExoticCubs.com, is now facing 33 charges related to trafficking protected African cats for the exotic pet trade, including disguising illicit activity by falsely declaring some of the animals as domesticated breeds, and violating a federal animal welfare law.

The unauthorized trade in protected wildlife not only violates landmark U.S. environmental laws but also the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)—a global agreement that seeks to ensure that trade in wildlife and plants doesn’t threaten their survival.

If convicted, Casacci could face as much as $1.3 million in fines and up to life in prison, according to federal attorneys prosecuting the case.

This is not Casacci’s only run-in with the law. Previously, he served five years on probation for felony forgery of drivers’ licenses that he was selling online, complete with scannable barcodes and ultraviolet watermarks.

His attorneys, James Grable, Jr., and Nicholas Romano, declined to make him available for an interview for this story but provided a statement saying that Casacci, who was then 21 at the time, and therefore much more mature now, “admitted this was wrong, accepted responsibility for his conduct, and received a sentence of probation,” which he served.

In May 2020, Casacci made the news again. Federal agents searched his Sunbeam Laboratory facility, in Lockport, New York, which made hemp products before the COVID-19 pandemic, when he retrofitted his operations to mass manufacture hand sanitizer. The authorities allegedly seized more than 22,000 mislabeled and substandard KN95 masks and a thousand unauthorized COVID-19 test kits imported from China. No charges have been filed in relation to the alleged seizures. The company has denied wrongdoing.

In their statements relating to Casacci’s cat trafficking case, his attorneys called him a “lifelong animal lover” and “not a poacher, trafficker, or abuser of animals.” They say that he embarked on his exotic cat business as an effort to rescue African kittens and place them in sanctuaries. According to them, “Casacci made every effort to follow the law and the guidance given to him by state and federal governmental officials, and as a result Mr. Casacci maintains that he is not guilty.”

Casacci may have caught law enforcement’s attention, but countless other online wildlife dealers continue to operate in plain view, experts say, because of a law that protects online companies from being accountable for illegal activity on their platforms.

The internet is now a global bazaar for the multibillion-dollar black market for exotic pets and animal parts, used for everything from curios and medicines to leather boots and skin rugs.

“We have a dizzying array of platforms where all kinds of trade is going on, often with the illegal masquerading as legal,” says Craig Tabor, former special agent in charge of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s intelligence unit, now serving as the agency’s international attaché in Gabon.

“Criminals in the U.S. can communicate with people in China, Tanzania, and Indonesia in real time, and anonymously,” he says. “They’ll use any platform available, and they will adjust their methods to evade detection, like switching terminologies and using code words.”



Illicit online trade in exotic species is a significant threat to wild birds such as the African grey parrot (left) and blue-and-yellow macaw (right). The birds are sold to brokers, who in turn offer them for hundreds, even thousands, of dollars on the international black market. In a recent 15-month survey of an Algerian e-commerce platform, researchers found nearly 270 ads illegally offering more than 560 African grey parrots for sale, most captured in the wild.PHOTOGRAPH BY WORLD ANIMAL PROTECTION
Crime watch groups have focused heavily on Facebook, with 2.6 billionmonthly users in dozens of countries and an expanding portfolio of former competitors, including Instagram and WhatsApp. (The purchase of those companies prompted federal regulators in early December 2020 to accuse facebook of illegally crushing rivals to monopolize social media. Facebook is pushing back on the allegations, saying the government “cleared the acquisitions years ago” and now “wants a do-over,” according to reporting by CNN Business.)

Facebook says it’s cracking down on wildlife trafficking by working with conservation groups to remove endangered animal postings. But some online crime experts say such policies of removing illicit wildlife for sale may be doing more harm than good. They say it prematurely alerts criminals that they’ve been spotted, creating a game of whack-a-mole in which traffickers open new accounts under different user names. And they assert that it deletes public evidence that could help authorities catch traffickers.

Facebook may be acting with good intentions. But even if that’s the case, a number of groups, including the nonprofit Alliance to Counter Crime Online (ACCO) and the National Whistleblower Center, a nonprofit that supports people who expose illicit activity, are calling for broader measures to combat cyber wildlife trafficking.

Facebook under fire

A new report by ACCO found that the number of Facebook pages and groups devoted to the trade in endangered species and their parts has grown since the company pledged to halt such sales in 2018.

The finding parallels other recent research showing widespread illegal wildlife trading on Facebook, including a study by the World Wildlife Fund reporting that during the five-month period ending in May 2020, researchers counted more than 2,000 wild animals from 94 species for sale on Facebook from Myanmar alone.

The ACCO investigators searched Facebook for 17 common word combinations associated with the illicit wildlife trade, such as “rhino horn for sale,” in four languages: English, Arabic, Indonesian, and Vietnamese. They found that more than half the 473 pages and 281 groups (representing nearly 1.5 million users) identified as selling endangered wildlife were created during the past two years.

A Facebook spokesperson did not respond to questions about the allegations made by ACCO or other groups but provided a statement about the company’s policies: “We prohibit ads and content attempting to trade, sell or purchase endangered animals, and remove content that violates our policies when we’re made aware. In addition to proactive detection, and partnerships with wildlife experts, we progressively work to improve our enforcement of our policies and respond to valid requests from law enforcement when they are made.”

In addition, the spokesperson said there is a new feature being launched on the company’s platform this month that will inform users about the illegal trade when certain wildlife-related search words are entered. “For example, if a user were to search for a protected species combined with a commercial activity such as ‘tiger + buy,’ an alert would pop up to declare that animal abuse and the sale of endangered animals or their parts is not allowed on Facebook.”



Facebook’s dominance over the internet constantly grows as the company’s algorithms make recommendations to connect users with people and groups who reflect similar interests.

“That matching is scary when people are trading illicit goods,” says Gretchen Peters, founder of ACCO, which works to fight organized crime networks trafficking everything from guns, drugs, and people to tarantulas, parrots, rhino horn, and human body parts. “If it’s illegal to do something in real life, it should be illegal to host it online,” she says.

“Governments need to enact legislation that compels social media firms to modify their algorithms to [better]detect illegal activity instead of facilitating it,” says Dan Stiles, a Kenya-based illegal wildlife trade investigator working with ACCO. “Facebook and other technology firms are sophisticated and rake in billions in annual revenue. They’re more than capable of combating the crime on their platforms, but there’s nothing in the law that requires them to do so. That needs to change.”

To that end, the ACCO and the National Whistleblower Center favor changing a 1996 law that exempts tech companies from legal responsibility for many crimes committed using their platforms. They’re also promoting passage of a new wildlife conservation and anti-trafficking law, now in the U.S. Congress, that would provide the ability for any person anywhere in the world—including employees of big tech companies—to anonymously and confidentially report animal trafficking and be rewarded financially for doing so.

The groups say that making companies more accountable for criminal activities on their platforms will require them to work more closely and cooperatively with law enforcement. Then, instead of catching one wildlife trafficker at a time, they can shut down entire criminal networks operating on the internet.

Casacci is the only person indicted so far in relation to his online exotic cat business, according to federal attorneys. Court documents allege that he launched ExoticCubs.com about three years ago, advertising serval and caracal kittens imported from South Africa for $7,500 and $10,000 respectively. The full-grown, 20- to 50-pound felines make “excellent pets,” the website stated.

In addition, it said, exotic cats can be trained to use the toilet, and it advised not to mistake the caracal’s hiss for aggression—it’s their “version of meow.” Kittens were available, the website said, for curbside pickup at Buffalo International Airport, or Casacci would drive them to within a several-hour radius of the city. He also advertised that he offered rescue services for unwanted large felines, including cheetahs, tigers, lions, panthers, and jaguars.

Between January and June 2018, Casacci imported 30 African wild cats, including 18 caracals and 12 servals, from a captive breeder in South Africa, according to court documents. Federal authorities claim that he violated the Lacey Act, which bans the illegal trade of wildlife and plants, and animal welfare laws.

A grand jury indicted him with selling 17 of the cats to buyers around the country, with falsely labeling four of them as domestic hybrids, and with 15 counts of inhumane treatment of animals. Five cats are unaccounted for in public records. ExoticCubs.com has gone dark, but photos of cats for sale that Casacci posted in 2018 are still accessible on social media.

In the print media world, if a newspaper runs a libellous story about someone, that person can sue the outlet. But they can’t sue the newsstand or coffee shop that sold the paper. If they could, few businesses would ever risk selling newspapers, especially those that run stories critical of individuals or detail malfeasance.

Similarly, an “interactive computer service,” according to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, can’t be “treated as the publisher or speaker of any information” provided by an outside party. So if someone defames a former partner or sells illegal goods on Facebook, that person, not Facebook, is held responsible.

A ‘sword and a shield’

Upon passage of the bill, one of its sponsors, Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator from Oregon, described Section 230 as providing a “sword and a shield.” The sword would enable technology firms to self-police content on their platforms as they saw fit. The shield would provide sweeping immunity from liability for content posted by third parties.

“As it turned out,” Stiles says, “the sword was made of rubber, while the shield was Teflon.” Stiles is among the many critics who say tech companies are abusing the shield.

The companies are fighting mounting efforts by legislators to reform the safe-harbor protections of Section 230, arguing that their self-policing of content such as illicit sales of wildlife and wildlife products, guns, drugs, and humans is effective.

Since 2018, more than 30 international tech, e-commerce, and social media companies have joined with conservation groups to form the Global Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking Online. Members include Facebook, eBay, Google, Twitter, and WeChat owner Tencent. The coalition is led by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Traffic (a wildlife trade monitoring group), and the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

The goal: To reduce cyber wildlife trafficking by 80 percent by the end of this year. Peters and other experts, however, question the very premise of that goal, saying it’s impossible to quantify wildlife trafficking online because deals are so often made in secret.

The coalition’s most recent progress report shows that as of March 2020 more than three million endangered species listings have been removed from the internet as a result of companies sharing data with wildlife experts, enhanced algorithms, monitoring of key word searches, and intelligence sent through volunteer citizen “cyber spotters.”

Emilie Van der Henst, a wildlife trafficking project manager with WWF and Traffic in Brussels, Belgium, praises Facebook in particular for removing suspicious content. “They have taken a large step by saying they ban all animal trade unless it comes from a qualified merchant,” Van der Henst says. “As soon as we find [animal]listings, it takes a maximum of two weeks for Facebook to take them down.”

But others say that closing accounts and deleting posts does more harm than good. “Taking down accounts is absurd because the criminals just create new accounts,” says Stephen Kohn, an attorney with the National Whistleblower Center. What’s more, he says, deleting accounts may erase crucial evidence that could be used to find and prosecute criminals. “They’ve essentially told the trafficker that they’ve been spotted, so now they can go into hiding. How nice to be a criminal, and every time I’m about to get caught, a big company warns me, then scrubs all the [public]evidence.”

The law enforcement authorities I spoke with did not want to go on the record about how Facebook works with them on their investigations. They did say it’s helpful when tech companies alert them when there’s illicit trading going on and make evidence available when requested.



In response to the Whistleblower Center’s accusations, a Facebook spokesperson referenced the company’s operational guidelines for law enforcement indicating that it has the right to disclose account records when provided with a subpoena, court order, search warrant, or national security provision.

Patricia Tricorache, a Mexico City-based independent wildlife detective, who tracks criminals selling cheetahs online and works with the ACCO, says alerting tech companies about trafficking on their sites has derailed some of her investigations. It’s her impression that “if you report it, they either ignore you, or they remove everything,” she says. “Then I lose the guy, and he just opens another account with a different username.”

At present, Tricorache is following about 550 online accounts, 80 percent of them on Instagram, that “together have offered well over 2,000 cheetahs for sale in the last 10 years.” (Scientists estimate that there are only about 7,100wild cheetahs left worldwide.)

Whistleblower charges

The National Whistleblower Center claims, according to a complaint provided confidentially to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2017, that Facebook is facilitating illegal activity on its platform, making money through advertisements generated by algorithms, and not disclosing the risk of such conduct to company shareholders—in violation of SEC regulations.

“In all its required SEC filings and communications with shareholders and potential investors since its initial public offering on May 18, 2012,” the complaint states, “Facebook has violated numerous securities laws and regulations by failing to disclose the revenue it has derived from and the massive risks it faces because of rampant illegal trafficking it has allowed to occur on its products.”

In collecting evidence to support their claim, the Whistleblower Center got some help from two anonymous former law enforcement agents who logged onto Facebook and created phony profiles representing themselves as ivory dealers. After dressing up their profiles with photographs from safari trips to make them look like authentic ivory traders, they sent friend requests to suspected wildlife traffickers in Vietnam, a major hub of the illegal trade. Then they joined Facebook groups where those individuals were active. Since they didn’t speak Vietnamese, they used Google translate to type words such as ngà voi and sừng tê giác, ivory and rhino horns.

Before long, the former agents had infiltrated a network of hundreds of ivory traffickers eager to buy their merchandise. As they fielded messages from customers such as a user in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, who wrote, “Hello I want buy ivory of you.” They also took screenshots of products offered for sale on Facebook, from elephant ivory bracelets and rings trimmed in 14-karat gold to intricate happy buddha ivory carvings, whole rhino horns, and tiger fang pendants.

Many of the postings were adjacent to auto-generated advertisements for a wide range of multinational companies, including fast food chains, major league sports teams, auto sellers, airlines, technology corporations, shoe brands, retail stores, and military equipment.

“It would have been difficult for Congress to fathom how far the internet would evolve over the 20 years since Section 230 was enacted,” reads the complaint, “and nearly impossible for it to imagine that a company such as Facebook would be worth billions of dollars, with nearly all its revenue coming from advertisements, a good portion of which appear directly alongside illegal trafficking content.”

Kohn says he was shocked when he first realized the “massive amounts of illegal activity happening on Facebook” and how much the company must be benefiting financially. “It’s unbelievable,” he says. “How can a publicly traded multibillion-dollar corporation for which investors are making billions of profits be so deeply involved in illegal wildlife?”

The SEC declined to comment on the whistleblower complaint.

A Facebook spokesperson responding to questions about the whistleblower charges reiterated the company’s policies and participation in the Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking Online to prohibit content attempting to trade endangered species.

The recent report by the Alliance to Counter Crime Online concludes that Facebook “is not just failing at removing wildlife sale pages and groups, it’s succeeding—massively—at pointing users in their direction,” illustrated by the finding that nearly 30 percent of the pages that they found trading wildlife were located through the platform’s “related pages” feature, which uses algorithms to recommend pages similar to ones that users have visited or liked in the past.

Facebook did not respond to requests for comment about the ACCO report, other than to provide a statement on the company’s policies.

Peters says it’s her impression that the nonprofits steering the Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking Online are “bending over backwards to paint the program as a success when it’s been anything but that.”

Leaders of the coalition did not agree to be interviewed about such accusations. Instead, they provided a statement summarizing the coalition’s goals, including “to harmonize prohibited wildlife policies, train staff to better detect illegal wildlife products, enhance automated detection filters, and empower users to be a part of the solution.” Among the victories cited was Facebook’s 2019 decision to ban trade in all live animals except those from verified sellers and all products from the most endangered species of animals and plants.

New crime-fighting tools

A report released in July 2020 by Traffic counts more than a dozen emerging tools for spotting illegal species for sale online. Using the same image recognition technology that identifies your photograph in a friend’s Facebook post, the programs search platforms for pictures of threatened species.

One such tool is software called ChimpFace being developed by Conservation X Labs, a Washington, D.C.-based company focused on wildlife preservation. It uses hundreds to thousands of photos of individual chimps with different face angles and in varied lighting to train the algorithm to recognize them. The more photos are uploaded, the more accurate the algorithm.

“It has huge potential,” says ape trafficking investigator Stiles. “ChimpFace can match chimp faces within a probability of more than 90 percent, but the app still needs to be perfected before it’s ready for use by law enforcement.” And even then, he says, tech companies will need to agree to use it.

David Roberts is a wildlife trade expert at the University of Kent, in Canterbury, England, who worked with a colleague to create an automated data mining system capable of detecting raw ivory for sale on eBay based on distinctive cross-hatchings known as Schreger lines. Roberts says the tool has an accuracy rate of 93 percent.

His investigations have revealed that most wildlife traffickers don’t hide their criminal activity on the so-called dark web, networks that require special software or authorization to access, or use the obvious ivory search terms. That’s why visual detection tools like the one he developed can be a major asset. Roberts says that when he shared the algorithm research with the company, “initial interest” quickly fizzled.

An eBay spokesperson, Erin Dodds, responded to questions about why the company did not adopt the technology by lauding eBay’s proprietary wildlife trafficking detection system. “In 2017-2019 alone we removed or blocked over 265,000 listings for items prohibited under our animal products policy,” she said.

In 2016, the National Whistleblower Center created an award-winning online platform that enables people around the world to anonymously file reports of wildlife crimes to authorities and qualify for financial rewards if their information contributes to successful prosecutions. Now the organization is advocating for passage of the Wildlife Conservation and Anti-Trafficking Act, which would strengthen enforcement by establishing wildlife violations as offenses under federal racketeering and anti-organized crime laws and would provide financial incentives and protections for whistleblowers.

Kohn’s hope is that if the act is passed (in combination with reform of Section 230), Facebook employees encouraged by the opportunity to receive a financial reward for credible intelligence exposing wrongdoing will become anonymous whistleblowers.

Masquerade

While judges, lawyers, and legislators are weighing whether to change landmark laws and enact new ones, wildlife detectives are spending long hours lit by the glow of their computer screens as they follow the endless labyrinth of links from one suspicious post to another. Tricorache says that sometimes dealers masquerade as conservation organizations or animal rescue operations in attempts to navigate around laws and permitting requirements.

In fact, Casacci’s claim of being a humane society was what caught the eye of law enforcement in the first place.

In early June 2018 Birgit Hutchcroft, a licensed exotic cat breeder in Tampa, Florida, was scrutinizing the terms of a deal with Casacci to buy two caracal cubs for $11,000. New York State, where Casacci lives, bans breeding and dealing wild cats (except hybrids that are at least four generations removed from the wild), considering them a danger to people and native wildlife. When Hutchcroft asked him about this, he sought to reassure her, she says, telling her that exotic cat sales are legal if the business is incorporated humane society: “As we place cats in shelters, we are covered under that aspect of the law,” he wrote in an email included among the court documents.

Hutchcroft forwarded the email to a contact at the USDA, asking if he could check Casacci’s license. “Just not sure if his credentials are sufficient,” Hutchcroft wrote. “Having second thoughts.”

In fact, Casacci’s license application to possess African cats had been denied in November 2017. Casacci withdrew an application with the USDA before it was complete, according to an email between two agency officials.

The agency dispatched an inspector, and when she arrived at his house on June 22, 2018, she found eight caracal and serval kittens in the sunroom and a “very strong odor distinctly different from the normal smells of this species,” according to her report. One serval kitten in a crate appeared lethargic, with watery eyes and diarrhea. She recommended that it be taken to a veterinarian as soon as possible. She also noted that the animal and another serval, both between nine and eleven weeks old, were so thin that they had protruding hip bones, concave abdomens, and palpable ribs, likely from malnutrition.

By the time authorities searched Casacci’s home almost two weeks later, two emaciated serval kittens had died of sepsis, according to the Cornell University necropsy report.

In a statement, Casacci’s attorneys say that “all of the kittens in his care were provided proper nutrition. Upon their arrival from South Africa, however, a small number suffered from undiagnosed health issues which Chris attempted to identify and treat with a veterinarian. It is important to note that the government has not charged Mr. Casacci with abusing or neglecting any animal, and has not charged him related to the condition of the animals in his care.”

Wildlife experts with the nonprofit group World Animal Protection and two private rescue organizations agreed to provide homes for the remaining six kittens and Tigger the savannah cat.

Tanya Smith, president and co-founder of Turpentine Creek Wildlife Refuge, in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, helped with the rescue at Casacci’s house. She took Tigger and the two smallest servals, now known as Sammy and Enzo, to her sanctuary. The servals were in bad shape, she says. “They had metabolic bone disease from poor nutrition, low blood calcium, parasites, ringworm, giardia, and coccidiosis. They were just barely alive, and we were really concerned that they wouldn’t make it.”

Lynda Sugasa, Founder of Safe Haven Wildlife Sanctuary, in Imlay, Nevada, took the remaining cats there. Servals Reina and Goya and caracals Hantara and Sorcha now live together in a 5,000-square-foot enclosure with heated dens for winter, multilevel climbing platforms, pools, and trees. “It’s nice to see them under the foliage grooming each other,” Sugasa says. But, she adds, they’re anything but domestic. “These are wild animals. They’ll always have those instinctual behaviors to bite and scratch. You can’t tame them.”

Sagasa and Smith are promoting the Big Cat Public Safety Act, which lists more restrictions on the possession and exhibition of exotic cats, including no direct contact with the public.

If Casacci is convicted, it will be a victory for authorities tracking alleged online wildlife traffickers. As of this writing, evidence of Casacci’s cat business is still visible on Instagram. Sandwiched between videos of him skydiving from helicopters and driving a red Tesla, more than a dozen 2018 posts show exotic kittens for sale. Some commenters gushed, “I want one!” Others queried: “How much?”

Original article: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/anim ... ife-trade/

South Africa is a hub for the illegal export of live wild animals and animal parts


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/anim ... cation-fo/

“They tried to bribe some of the officers at the border.”

I wonder how many times they succeed

China and wildlife trade watchdog face legal challenge over ‘flagrant’ sales of chimps and elephants

BY JANE DALTON - 23RD JANUARY 2021 - THE INDEPENDANT

Heavily-pregnant animals among species transported across continents, lawyers say

China and the world’s wildlife trade watchdog are facing legal questions over the regular trade in endangered wildlife for zoos in the country.

Lawyers have submitted a complaint to the trade regulator, accusing the country of “flagrantly” flouting international law in buying elephants and chimpanzees.

Evidence shows some chimps were heavily pregnant when they were transported across continents, they say.

The lawyers are demanding China’s dealings be suspended immediately and the watchdog investigate.

Illegal trade in wildlife is not only cruel and putting species at risk of being driven to extinction, but also creates risky conditions that allow zoonotic pathogens to emerge, experts say.

Scientists strongly suspect Covid-19 originated in hazardous Chinese street markets where numerous species mixed unnaturally and were slaughtered.

The lawyers say that in buying elephants from neighbouring Laos and importing chimps from South Africa, China has been ignoring many aspects of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites), which should protect species at risk of extinction.

Their complaint is based on evidence gathered by wildlife investigator Karl Ammann, who has discovered suspected illegal trade in animals listed by Cites as having the highest level of protection and should not be bought or sold for profit.

An investigation last year found monkeys had been stolen from the wild, and together with cheetahs, tigers, rhinos, lions and meerkats, they were trafficked to circuses, theme parks, laboratories, zoos and “safari parks” in China.

The report said at least 5,035 live wild animals were exported to China from 2016 to 2019 – “an extremely conservative” estimate – including chimpanzees and “a bewildering number” of giraffe.

The researchers claimed some traders had links to international organised crime syndicates and the Cites system was riddled with fake permits.


Caged elephants in China (Karl Ammann)

Cites, a global agreement between 183 nations, classifies both chimps and Asian elephants as some of the most endangered species in the world, meaning commercial trade in them is banned under its rules.

But the lawyers say despite the ban, significant sums of money are handed over for animals, and significant funds are generated by crowds at the Chinese zoos where the animals are sent.

Animal-protection law firm Advocates for Animals, which has submitted the complaint, is calling for all such trade be suspended while the watchdog investigates.

The lawyers accuse Cites of failing to clarify whether zoos count as “commercial activity”.

The complaint focuses in particular on the export of 18 chimpanzees from South Africa to China in 2019, and regular exports of Asian elephants from Laos to China since 2015, “illustrating a pattern of breaches”.

“The animals were suspected to have been transported contrary to contrary to the requirement to minimise the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment during transport (something which is required for all listed animals), for example, through overloading lorries and transporting heavily pregnant animals,” their letter to Cites warns.

Critics of China’s zoos and entertainment parks say painful training methods are used to teach elephants to “perform tricks”.

The Independent has previously revealed Mr Ammann’s discovery that agents in Laos are trafficking young elephants across the border with China and flying them to the Middle East for up to £230,000 each.

In some instances, officials are bribed to permit “paperwork”, it’s claimed, and elephants have been sold in breach of the law in Laos.

China has also bought elephants from Zimbabwe in the past, to the outrage of conservationists.

Elephant biologist Audrey Delsink, of Humane Society International/Africa, has previously said that elephants sent to China face a life of deprivation, suffering and psychological distress, “as far removed as can be from the life they would have led in the wild”.

Images have even suggested elephants have been mistreated and suffered ill health, according to National Geographic.

Alice Collinson, a solicitor for Advocates for Animals, said: “Our extensive legal analysis of evidence has revealed that countries such as China are flagrantly disregarding Cites’s rules, and the Cites governing bodies are failing to enforce these breaches.

“Of increasing concern is that businesses are hiding behind the notion that zoos are for conservation and therefore avoiding tighter controls, despite many turning huge profits off the back of these imports.


Chimps are held in a barren display case at Bejing Wildlife Park (Karl Ammann)

“This is undermining the intention of Cites to tightly regulate the commercial trade in protected endangered wildlife.”

Filmmaker Mr Ammann said: “Most transactions are highly commercial, involving agents and brokers driving up the prices and exploiting the poor governance quality in many of the export and import countries.”

He and his lawyers argue traders are trying to exploit a loophole by claiming the elephants were bred in captivity so have less protection and can be bought and sold – but he says the animals do not meet this definition.


Elephants being forced into standing on hind legs in China (Karl Ammann)

Cites told The Independent it was looking into the complaint by Advocates for Animals but that it could not comment on an ongoing matter. However, a spokesman added: “Regarding the status of zoos, the issue purpose codes, such as those issued under the letter ‘Z’ for the export of listed species in the context of zoos, is currently under discussion by the parties and stakeholders.

“Moreover, the purpose of the convention is neither to ban nor to promote trade, but to ensure that existing trade is legal, sustainable and traceable. Though we respect the views of groups who might oppose this, that is not the policy of the 183 Parties to Cites.”



The Covid-19 conservation crisis has shown the urgency of The Independent’s Stop the Illegal Wildlife Trade campaign, which seeks an international effort to clamp down on illegal trade of wild animals (The Independent)

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.

Original article: https://www.independent.co.uk

From Africa to the Persian Gulf: Inside the booming illegal market for wild pets

BY MIYUKI DROZ | SOPHIE GUIGNON - 22ND JANUARY 2021 - FRANCE 24

https://youtu.be/ECzGSOco1sg

In the United Arab Emirates, the possession and trafficking of wild animals have been officially banned since 2017. Yet every day on social media, Emirati citizens, particularly royals, post videos where they pose with lions, tigers or cheetahs. In a disaster for biodiversity, these big cats have been turned into status symbols, even more effective in clocking up Instagram likes than luxury cars or selfies with celebrities. Our reporters traced the source of this lucrative illegal trafficking industry to Somaliland, in the Horn of Africa, where authorities and NGOs are trying to end it.

Original link: https://amp.france24.com/en/tv-shows/re ... ssion=true

Breeding and trading endangered wild animals is not conservation – it threatens their survival

By Andreas Wilson-Spath• 9 February 2021


Main photo: Tiger for sale in Bangkok.

Conservationists have demonstrated that legalised trade and commercial breeding of wild animals stimulates demand, encourages poachers and smugglers and ultimately pushes species towards extinction in the wild. A new study supports this view.

This article was provided by the Conservation Action Trust.

People involved in the commercial breeding and trade of wild animals would have us believe that they are conservationists; that their industry – a growing and increasingly influential player in South Africa – contributes to the survival of species in the wild.

A sophisticated new study conducted in the huge Chinese market for wildlife products proves these assertions to be wrong.

What’s needed instead are more effective bans on the wildlife trade and the closure of breeding farms.

Great debate or strawman argument?

Many of Africa’s indigenous animals are under existential threat from human activities as their natural habitat is destroyed and their bodies consumed as “wildlife products” in the form of ornamentation, entertainment, food and supposedly medicinal substances.

In South Africa, wildlife ranchers and traders have built lucrative businesses on extracting financial profits from the country’s national biodiversity heritage by supplying international markets with everything from trophy hunting experiences and living animals for amusement parks to lion bones used in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).

They argue that their activities, rather than being strictly profit driven and morally questionable, are beneficial to the conservation of animals in the wild. They suggest that by breeding species like lions in captivity and trading them on legal, global markets, demand will be satisfied and prices lowered, making poaching and trafficking unprofitable.

In sharp contrast, conservationists have demonstrated that legalised trade and commercial breeding stimulates demand, encourages poachers and smugglers and ultimately pushes species towards extinction in the wild. The new study supports this view.

Breeding and legalisation drives consumer demand

A thousand adults in the People’s Republic of China were surveyed to determine the impact wildlife trade bans and breeding farms have on consumers of wild animal products, focusing specifically on bears, tigers, snakes and turtles.

The study is of special relevance to South Africa as China represents a major market for local wildlife exports and because the situation of tigers in China mimics that of lions in South Africa. More than 200 state-sanctioned tiger farms hold some 6,000 tigers in China, far outnumbering those in the wild. Similarly, significantly more lions exist in South Africa’s notorious lion-breeding farms than in national parks and nature reserves.

What’s more, lion bones imported from South Africa have become a substitute for increasingly difficult to procure tiger bones, a sought-after ingredient in TCM.

Participants in the study were presented with written scenarios describing the consumption of products like bear bile and tiger bone, and their responses were then statistically analysed.

The results show that when trade bans have been placed on such products, their consumption is considered to be significantly less socially acceptable and potential Chinese consumers expect more severe legal punishment if they purchase them.

On the other hand, when Chinese consumers understand that wildlife products come from breeding farms, this diminishes the stigma attached to their consumption, lowers anticipated legal consequences, raises social acceptability and is likely to stimulate demand. The author specifically notes that “farming tigers for medicinal use was associated with increased acceptability of tiger bone”.

Given these outcomes, it is reasonable to assume that Chinese consumers would feel more comfortable buying lion bone products if they were told that they were derived from animals bred on South African farms.

The study confirms the results of previous research which demonstrates that “tiger farming is more likely to increase aggregate demand for tiger products and stimulate higher levels of poaching” and refutes the claims of wildlife breeders and traders by emphasising that the data challenge the notion “that demand can be saturated through products from legal or farmed wildlife products”.

A 2016 South African study shows that wildlife farming can only contribute to conservation if:

• It doesn’t use wild populations for restocking;

• Consumers don’t prefer animals caught in the wild;

• Its products are cheap enough to undercut black market prices;

• It is not used to launder illegal products into legal markets; and

• It meets a substantial part of the demand and this demand does not increase as a result of the legal market.

Commercial wildlife breeding thus clearly cannot be considered an effective method of conservation.

A problematic industry

The bottom line is that South African breeders and exporters of wildlife are likely to contribute to demand in very large global markets, making the poaching of animals in the wild increasingly attractive to impoverished locals who are willing to take risks in the face of few viable alternatives to make a living and regulations that are insufficient, poorly enforced and frequently rendered ineffective by corruption.

If this fatal flaw in the industry’s stated reason for existence wasn’t enough, it is riddled with numerous other problems.

Wildlife breeding farms are reservoirs of dangerous zoonotic diseases similar to Covid-19. A recent study identified dozens of parasites, viruses, bacteria and associated diseases that are transmittable to humans in lions in South African breeding facilities.

Many of these facilities are characterised by appalling animal welfare conditions. On Chinese bear farms, bile is tapped from wounds kept permanently open for as long as 30 years and some South African lion farms have been exposed for the callous treatment of their inmates.

Research indicates that well-resourced criminal syndicates with assets in every part of the international supply chain use legal breeding farms to launder animals illegally caught or poached in the wild into legitimate markets.

Government knows the risks

The South African government is aware of the significant hazards posed by the breeding and trading of wild animals, but, like its Chinese counterpart, it has been overwhelmingly supportive of the industry.

On occasion, officials appear to address criticism from conservationists only to ignore the evidence they are presented with.

In 2013, for instance, the minister of environmental affairs commissioned a task team of experts to investigate the industry’s “long-term and potential consequences”.

When their comprehensive report, titled “An assessment of the potential risks of the practice of intensive and selective breeding of game to biodiversity and the economy in South Africa”, was published in 2018, its findings were damning.

The authors conclude that “intensive management and selective breeding of game poses a number of significant risks to biodiversity” and note that the practice doesn’t meet the requirements of government’s own policy of so-called “sustainable use” with regards to the commercial exploitation of wild animal species.

They point out that breeders are not required to register or to disclose their activities and that authorities are ill-equipped to monitor or regulate an industry that has experienced “rapid development” and “unprecedented growth”.

The government has recently included 32 wild mammal species, including lions, black and white rhinos, and cheetahs in the Animal Improvement Act, effectively assigning them to the same status as agricultural livestock. This was done simply via an amendment to a regulation, thus requiring no parliamentary oversight or public participation and was effected without any consultation with the Department of Environment, Fisheries and Forestry. The task team warns that this “would appear to entrench and exacerbate many of the risks” they associate with the industry.

Following the publication of the report – a report it commissioned itself – the government has taken no action to address the concerns it raises, thus reinforcing the impression that it is only pretending to care while simultaneously aiding and abetting the very businesses under investigation.

A future in captivity?

Unless there is a major change in official policy, the long-term future looks grim for many of South Africa’s iconic wild animals: a fight against extinction in the wild for a handful and a life in farm cages for thousands of others. But it’s not too late to rectify the situation.

By following the recommendations of researchers, by curbing the industrial-scale commercial breeding of wild animals and by supporting effective international bans on the trade of endangered species, the government can still align itself with genuine efforts to preserve our wildlife heritage for future generations. DM

Andreas Wilson-Späth is a part-time freelance writer and ex-geologist who lives and works in Cape Town.

A problematic industry

Wildlife trade – legal and illegal – is the biggest threat to global biodiversity conservation

By Peter Borchert• 11 February 2021


A Thai customs officer checks confiscated smuggled African elephant tusks, coming from Congo and reportedly destined for Laos.(Photo: EPA-EFE / RUNGROJ YONGRIT)

We have to stop what we’re doing and find a new path to sustainability for people, wildlife and the planet. But this is far from simple. And any attempt will be doomed unless we can find a lasting way to deal with corruption and criminality.

• “Certainly, even if we aren’t today thinking much about the global implications of poaching in Africa, I can guarantee that we will be if it goes unabated. How shockingly destructive and historically shameful it would be if we did nothing while a great species was criminally slaughtered into extinction. And yet, here we are in the midst of one of the most tragic and outrageous assaults on our shared inheritance that I’ve seen in my lifetime – where an elephant’s dead ivory is prized over its living condition, where corruption feeds on its body and soul, and where money only makes matters worse.” – John Kerry

These powerful words were part of US Senator John Kerry’s statement in 2012 at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on “Ivory and Insecurity: The global implications of poaching in Africa”. In that year, the enormity of South Africa’s rhino poaching crisis was sinking in. About 850 were killed in 2012, and by 2020 almost 10,000 had gone. The loss of elephants was even harder to comprehend; in the three years to 2014, the illicit ivory trade accounted for 100,000 of these magnificent beasts. And during 2011 alone, roughly one of every 12 African elephants was killed by a poacher.

Yes, wildlife trafficking is indeed a brutal, cruel industry controlled by very powerful international crime syndicates. It is ugly, ruthless, totally indifferent to suffering, and all but unstoppable, with the real big men behind the smuggling remaining anonymous and seemingly beyond the reach of law enforcement authorities.

And in this dark, secretive world, wildlife is but one commodity among many, just another product line along with arms dealing, human trafficking and drugs, all made easier by the clinging miasma of corruption that mantles all of Africa. Corruption is a global problem, of course, but here it is different. Different because its tendrils tightly weave themselves into the entire fabric of government and civil society.

Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Transparency International ranks sub-Saharan Africa as the most corrupt region in the world – these 46 countries average a mere 32 out of 100 in the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). Six of them languish in the bottom 10 most corrupt countries in the world. The social and economic impact of these sad statistics is huge. While about 41% of Africa’s people continue to live on a mere $1.90 a day, illicit wealth to the tune of more than $89-billion finds its way into overseas bank accounts every year. Funds that could have been used to build hospitals and schools, improve infrastructure and create jobs.

The situation is made even more dire because many countries that score the highest on the CPI play a significant role in facilitating clandestine, criminal activities in Africa. How so? Well, nearly half of world exports come from these rich, industrialised countries whose financial institutions – many, but not all – foster corruption merely by failing to punish foreign bribery. In other words, corruption is everywhere, even in the “cleanest” of countries.

Porous borders, widespread poverty, bribable bureaucracies that embrace everyone from presidents to paupers, international financial institutions that turn a blind eye to money laundering, eager buyers everywhere but especially in Asia… it’s a match made in heaven for the criminal syndicates.

It is so lucrative that many African countries have become killing fields where elephants and rhinos, in particular, continue to be massacred every day. The World Wildlife Crime Report for 2020 says that these two species alone could amount to almost $1-billion a year.

While the total size of the global illegal wildlife trade is by its very nature hard to assess accurately, unlawful trafficking of wild creatures and their body parts, as well as plants, ranges anywhere from $5-billion to beyond $20-billion a year.

However, these estimates fade almost to insignificance when you read the World Bank’s 2019 assessment of illegal logging and fishing. This august body calculated the real cost to the global economy of these activities to be within a staggering range of between $1-trillion and $2-trillion a year.

• … we have to stop what we’re doing and find a new path to sustainability for people, wildlife and the planet. But the doing of it is far from simple. And any attempt will be doomed unless we can find a lasting way to deal with corruption and criminality. It is at the core of everything.

With all this focus on the illegal wildlife trade, what of the legal trade? Is there such a thing? Indeed, there is. The market for exotic animals and plants is not a new one – wildlife has been traded freely and without sanction or restriction throughout the ages. Even now, in terms of international law, millions of animals and plants across thousands and thousands of species are legitimately captured and “cropped” from the wild every year and sold on as pets, food, medicine, timber, garden plants, tourist tat, and many other guises.

Estimates of the size of the legal trade vary widely, but one reliable source puts the yearly turnover in the region of $300-billion. But that was way back in 2005 – inflation alone would indicate a substantially higher figure today.

Many would argue that even this legal trade is unsustainable. WWF acknowledges this but then says, “wildlife trade is by no means always a problem and most wildlife trade is legal”. The organisation then admits that the legal wildlife trade, too, “has the potential to be very damaging. Populations of species on Earth declined by an average of 40% between 1970 and 2000 – and the second-biggest direct threat to species survival, after habitat destruction, is wildlife trade.”

As Traffic rightly says, “wildlife trade is an issue at the heart of the tension between biodiversity conservation and human development. Whether for medicine, construction, food or culture, a huge proportion of our trade, economy and way of life is entirely reliant upon wildlife products.”

With great diligence, the Traffic document goes on to outline strategies that would “increase pathways for responsible trade”. It is very hard to see how we can even entertain such worthy aims when the whole darn thing – illegal and legal – is clearly an unmitigated mess.

In July 2020, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services reviewed the scientific evidence on the origin, emergence and impact of the novel coronavirus disease and other pandemics. The report emanating from this virtual conference revealed that the international legal wildlife trade had increased 500% in value since 2005 and 2,000% since the 1980s.

Given the insufficient and inadequate regulation, the globalisation of trade routes, lack of sufficient reporting and the links between poverty and illegal hunting, even the legal trade will become unsustainable in the future, the report warned. “This information, case study data and analysis of trends suggest that the legal wildlife trade is, in many cases, unsustainable and a continuing threat to biodiversity conservation,” it said. An understatement if ever I saw one.

It all seems to paint a very bleak and depressing picture as it is so hard to see a way out. The answer is simple: we have to stop what we’re doing and find a new path to sustainability for people, wildlife and the planet. But the doing of it is far from simple. And any attempt will be doomed unless we can find a lasting way to deal with corruption and criminality. It is at the core of everything.

That said, we have to take our victories where we find them. I couldn’t help but punch the air when I read that the notorious (alleged) poaching kingpin Mansur Mohamed Surur had been extradited from Kenya to the US. There, he will face charges of conspiracy to “smuggle at least 190kg of rhinoceros horns and at least 10 tons of elephant ivory valued at more than $7-million”.

And I could not suppress a little jig of glee when suspected smuggler Chen Wong Sen’s cellphone data were analysed. Armed with this information, investigators traced Bach Van Hoa, an active member of the Hydra syndicate that smuggles elephant ivory, rhino horn and tiger parts to Chinese and Vietnamese dealers. OBP/DM

Peter Borchert’s media and publishing career spans about 45 years. As the founder and publisher of Africa Geographic magazine, he is perhaps the most awarded wildlife and conservation journalist out of Africa, winning more than 100 local and international conservation and media awards. He has authored five natural history books and has published and edited in excess of 500 magazines and books. He is the honorary chairperson and editor-in-chief of the Shannon Elizabeth Foundation which publishes www.rhinoreview.org where this article first appeared. He is also co-host of South Africa’s number one-rated nature podcast, www.artofconservation.com

Does the farming and legal trade of wildlife do more harm than good? New study

Posted on February 22, 2021 by Team Africa Geographic in the DECODING SCIENCE post series.



The debate surrounding the farming and regulated, legal trade of wildlife is one of the most polarizing discussions in conservation. Supporters of both sides have reached an effective deadlock over the historical and perceived advantages and disadvantages of each approach. A new study by the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife in the USA investigates the effects of bans/legalisation on the Chinese consumption of animal parts. The results caution against legalising trade.

In summary, the findings show that:

• The legalisation of trade impacts personal and social perceptions of the use of wildlife parts;

• The legal trade of wildlife reduces the stigma and increases the personal acceptability and social approval of animal parts’ consumption for both medicinal and non-medicinal purposes;

• The effects of wildlife farming are more pronounced on the perceptions surrounding the use of mammals: farming mammals reduces the stigma attached to using mammal parts;

• Reducing the stigma attached to the use of animal parts could see a massive increase in demand;

• Trade and farming of one species has knock-on effects on the stigma attached to other, non-target species; and

• For bans to be effective, they need to be purpose-specific – directed at both medicinal and non-medicinal use.

The background

One of the primary questions at the heart of the wildlife trade debate is the effect that legalisation has on demand for the animal part concerned – does a legal wildlife trade saturate the market or increase it? Following on from this question is whether or not farming wildlife can meet this demand and reduce poaching of wild populations. Yet even though these conversations dominate conservation circles, little empirical evidence exists to answer these complex questions. The study by Dr Rizzolo, an expert in conservation criminology, is based on an experimental vignette survey conducted in Mainland China to address some of these unknowns in a more quantifiable manner.

The survey

When used for research purposes, vignettes are essentially short stories about a hypothetical person or situation presented to the participants of the survey. The participants are then asked a series of questions based on the context of their specific vignette. In this case, the various scenarios presented in the vignettes focussed on four species (bears, tigers, snakes, and turtles) and two different uses of the animal product (medicinal or non-medicinal). It also dealt with three legal situations: the product is illegal; the product is legal and from a farmed animal; or the product is legal and from a wild animal.

Once the respondents had read the vignette, they were presented with a series of questions around the acceptability of wildlife consumption, the social approval of wildlife consumption and the legal repercussions for the various wildlife species. The survey was conducted online with a sample of 1002 adult respondents, and the demographic variables (age, gender, and income) were approximately representative of China’s population as a whole. The sample did include more highly educated respondents than is representative of China as a whole. However, given the link between social status and wildlife consumption, the researchers were comfortable that the survey captured the demographic relevant to the questions at hand.

Legal trade of wildlife = increased acceptability and social approval

The results of these surveys provide empirical evidence for the stigma effect on wildlife consumption. There is strong evidence that the legal context of a particular animal part affects not only influences perceptions of legal punishment, but also the level of acceptability and social approval for wildlife consumption. Naturally, while this acceptability does not automatically alter behaviour (purchasing and using animal parts), it does act as a decisive motivating factor. The fact that illegality decreases both acceptability and social approval challenges the idea that demand can be saturated through legal products – because demand will invariably increase with legalisation.

Interestingly, the study also indicates that legalisation and wildlife farming are related but distinct policy contexts. Hypothetical bans had a uniform effect on the survey responses for all species concerned, but the impact of legal wildlife farming was more nuanced. Where parts from mammals (in this case, bears and tigers) were concerned, wildlife farming increased the acceptability of their consumption and reduced the stigma surrounding their use.

Furthermore, wildlife farming and wildlife trade bans can also impact the consumption of non-target species. For example, in a hypothetical scenario where snake consumption was banned, this correlated with increased acceptability of the consumption of bear products and social approval of the use of tiger bones. On the other side of this spectrum, legal bear farming was associated with the increased acceptability of tiger bone and skin. The reason for use (medicinal or non-medicinal/consumptive) also affected perceptions of the use of non-target species. This demonstrates just how complex the effects of wildlife farming and trade bans can be for all wildlife, even those species not directly under discussion.

The conclusion

The author acknowledges that there are limitations to this research, including the lack of qualitative data that could have provided some insight into the respondents’ motivations. In addition, the stigma attached to the use of wildlife products is only one of several factors that influence the acceptability of consumption.

However, the study offers important insights into how the legalisation of wildlife trade and wildlife farms affects consumers and, ultimately, the demand for wildlife products. The data indicate that for bans to be effective, they need to be tailored to the species, the product, and the type of use. Where mammal-based medicinal products are concerned, a ban that explicitly targets medicinal use is needed to reduce demand, rather than just a species-level consumption ban. Notably, the study concludes by suggesting that “bans on wildlife consumption and decreased wildlife farming of mammals can have conservation benefits”.

Studies such as this are of profound importance in the realm of African wildlife conservation, as conservationists and policymakers debate the legal trade in rhino horn (both from wild and farmed animals) and the farming of lions for their bones. Understanding the real demand for animal parts once the illegal stigma is removed is vital to determining whether there is any truth to the popular theory that farmed wildlife will keep wild populations safe.