The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (“CITES”), also known as the Washington Convention, came into force in 1975. It subjects international trade in specimens of selected species to certain controls. Roughly 5,000 species of animals and 29,000 species of plants are protected by CITES against over-exploitation through international trade.

Recently, UK-based non-profit animal protection law firm Advocates for Animals submitted a complaint to the CITES Secretariat in relation to China’s flagrant flouting of international law in illegally exporting elephants from Laos and chimpanzees from South Africa. Both of these species are classified by the CITES as some of the most endangered species in the world, meaning that any commercial trade for them is banned.

The 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 traded for profit. The illegal exports concerned 18 chimpanzees bought from South Africa in 2019, and an undisclosed (but regular) amount of Asian elephants bought from Laos since 2015. Ammann has previously revealed to The Independent 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 ( approximately HK$2.4 million).

More alarmingly, not only were the elephants and chimpanzees illegally exported, they were also allegedly transported contrary to the requirement to minimise the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment during transport, as per the letter from Advocates for Animals to the CITES Secretariat. Examples of these breaches included the overloading of lorries and the transporting of heavily pregnant chimpanzees. Given the above, Advocates for Animals has criticised both China for flagrantly disregarding the CITES and the CITES Secretariat for failing to enforce these breaches. Advocates for Animals has also demanded the dealings by China be immediately suspended and the CITES Secretariat to investigate the matter.

The complaint also stated that despite the ban, significant funds were generated by crowds at the Chinese zoos where the animals are sent. In this connection, the non-profit law firm accused the CITES Secretariat of failing to clarify whether zoos count as “commercial activity”. It has also criticised businesses using the façade of zoos to avoid heavy scrutiny when importing wild animals, as this undermines the intention of the CITES to tightly regulate commercial trading activities in protected endangered wildlife.

Karl Ammann, who gathered the evidence behind the complaint, also argued that wildlife traders were exploiting a loophole by claiming the elephants imported were bred in captivity, and so they had less protection and can be bought and sold. However, Ammann claimed that in fact the trafficked animals did not meet this definition. He also stated that most wildlife trades these days involved agents and brokers driving up the prices and exploiting the poor governance quality in many of the export and import countries.

The Independent recently made an enquiry with the CITES Secretariat in relation to the complaint. The watchdog responded that the complaint was being processed but 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.”

It was also added that the purpose of the convention is neither to ban nor to promote trade, but to ensure that existing trade is legal, sustainable and traceable.

Courtesy of Louis Cheung.

Main Source: Advocates for Animals; The Independent