Global wildlife trading body under fire over highly questionable Asian elephant exports
Global wildlife trading body under fire over highly questionable Asian
elephant exports
Tracy Keeling, The Canary
January 7, 2021
See link
https://www.thecanary.co/exclusive/2021/01/07/global-wildlife-trading-body-under-fire-over-highly-questionable-asian-elephant-exports/
for photos.
2020 was a bumpy year for the wildlife trade and the UN body that is meant
to oversee the buying and selling of wild lives on an international level.
The coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic is widely believed to have originated
in this trade. As a result, the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) has faced much criticism
and calls for change.
CITES has begun 2021 with more controversy. A major complaint to the body
alleges that Asian elephant trades between Laos and China have been
potentially breaching its rules for years. The allegations cast further
doubt on whether CITES is fit for purpose.
Wildlife Trade Regulator
CITES is essentially a global agreement between 183 states – known as
parties – on international wildlife trading. Its primary purpose is meant
to be ensuring that trade doesn’t drive species to extinction. As
journalist Adam Cruise has previously pointed out, it’s not a conservation
organisation. Rather, it’s a trade organisation that “encourages the
sustainable commercial utilisation of species as a means to preserve them
for continued commercial utilisation”.
CITES doesn’t regulate trade in all wild species, just those it designates
as in need of protection. Currently, the CITES website says that amounts to
approximately 38,700 species – around 32,800 species of plants and 5,950
species of non-human animals. It lists these species in three appendices,
essentially depending on how much at risk of extinction they are. It then
sets out rules for trade of species in those different appendices.
Appendix I-listed species are, in theory, not meant to be traded at all
except for in exceptional circumstances. However, as The Canary has
previously reported, the exceptional circumstances exemption appears to be
utilised with some frequency – in 75,000 instances in 2017. Meanwhile,
there are further effective exemptions for certain trades, such as the
trophy hunting industry.
A Booming Trade in Asian Elephants
CITES lists Asian elephants in Appendix I, reserved for species that are
“the most endangered”. This elephant species certainly fits the bill. The
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has designated Asian
elephants as endangered since 1986. It’s estimated that there are only
between 20,000-40,000 of them left in the wild. Anywhere between a quarter
and a third of the remaining Asian elephants’ total population, meanwhile,
reportedly live in captivity.
But, despite being an Appendix I-listed species and classified as
endangered by the IUCN for over 30 years, there’s apparently been a booming
international trade in Asian elephants between Laos (Lao PDR) and China in
recent years. According to a media report from Laos, the country has
exported 142 Asian elephants to China through one port – Mohan Port – since
2015. CITES’ own data, meanwhile, says that Laos has exported 87 elephants
to China since 2014, including one single massive export of 50 elephants in
2016.
Serious Questions
The complaint, which the UK law firm Advocates for Animals has raised with
CITES on behalf of filmmaker and author Karl Ammann, centres on this
booming trade in Asian elephants between the two closely aligned countries.
Clearly, the figures themselves don’t appear to stack up, with the media
citing a higher figure for the elephants traded than CITES seems to have
records for.
Ammann has been investigating the trade in elephants, who are mainly
destined for zoos, for years. He’s currently in the final stages of editing
a film called Stolen Giants on the subject. He says that elephants are
regularly smuggled, via a “hidden forest trail”, across the Laos/China
border, which could partly account for the discrepancy. But the figures are
by no means the only questionable element of this trade spotlighted in the
complaint. As Advocates for Animals’ Alice Collinson told The Canary:
“Advocates for Animals has done extensive research and legal analysis on
behalf of its client and it is evident that there are some serious
questions to be answered by the Laos and Chinese authorities surrounding
the adherence to CITES when exporting and importing elephants.”
The complaint cites numerous suspected breaches of CITES’ rules. Many of
them rest on the categorisation of the traded elephants as Appendix II. One
of the special provisions for trade that CITES has is that if individuals
from an Appendix I species are bred in captivity for commercial purposes,
they are downgraded to Appendix II. As a result they get fewer protections,
trading-wise.
CITES lists all of the exported Laotian elephants under source code C,
meaning they were captive-bred, in its data. But in his investigations
Ammann has uncovered information that challenges this categorisation,
including that most Laos-born elephants have been fathered by wild males
over the last decade. So Advocates for Animals argues that the elephants
don’t meet the CITES ‘bred in captivity’ definition.
A Case to Answer, Under Either Scenario
If the elephants don’t meet that definition and are instead an Appendix I
species, as per CITES’ definitions, the trades could be in contravention of
the body’s rules on numerous counts. Many of the elephants in question
ended up in highly commercial Chinese zoos and safari parks, where
elephants perform regularly for visitors. However, people cannot use
imported Appendix I species for primarily commercial purposes.
Related to this issue, Collinson said there is:
“a growing concern that despite huge profit being made, businesses are
hiding behind the notion that zoos are for conservation and therefore
avoiding tighter controls. This is undermining the intention of CITES to
tightly regulate the commercial trade in protected animals.”
The complaint also argues that destinations were not suitably equipped to
house and care for the elephants, which would constitute a breach.
Furthermore, the complaint says that export permits were issued prior to
import permits being granted. Again, this is not allowed for Appendix I
species.
But even if CITES deems the elephants meet its bred in captivity criteria,
there’s still potentially a case to answer. Because the complaint
highlights some potential breaches that relate to both Appendix I species
and Appendix II species bred for primarily commercial purposes.
For example, it argues that traders obtained the elephants in contravention
of Laotian laws relating to the protection of fauna and flora, which would
mean the trade wasn’t allowed under CITES. Also, the involved countries
don’t appear to have carriend out non-detriment findings, whereby they
assess whether the trade would be detrimental to the survival of the
species. This must happen under the CITES system for both Appendix I and II
species, to varying degrees.
Furthermore, the complaint alleges that people trafficked some elephants
from Laos into China without customs approval or permits. It also asserts
that, in some instances, bribes took place. Finally, the complaint asserts
that people transported elephants contrary to CITES’ requirements, which
state that the risk of injury, damage to health, and cruel treatment must
be minimised during transportation.
Suspend the Trade
The Canary contacted CITES secretariat for comment on the complaint. It was
not able to comment at this stage due to the ongoing complaint process.
Advocates for Animals have, however, called on CITES to suspend all trade
in Asian elephants involving Laos and China until the matter has been
resolved and safeguards are in place. Given the scale and scope of the
possible breaches, and the heat the body has faced for its inadequacy on
other matters, that would be a wise course of action.