CITES and how to traffic high profile species
The story of the Shanghai eight
In January 2014 the CITES Secretariat issued a statement that was subsequently attached as
an Annex to SC65 Doc. 34.1, on the implementation of the Convention relating to captive bred
and ranched specimens, for the attention of the 65th meeting of the CITES Standing Committee
taking place in Geneva in July 2014..
This statement concerned the large scale exports of chimpanzees and gorillas from West Africa
to China and the many questions that arose as a consequence. Those exports were classified
with source code 'C' meaning they were declared as captive borne when exported from Guinea.
As such it was hoped their export would be perceived to have not impacted the conservation of
any wild great ape populations. Also, export with source code 'C' could be more easily justified
under the very strict rules regulating the trade in species with the supposedly highest protection
status under the CITES convention.
When, in late 2011, the CITES Secretariat finally dispatched a mission to Guinea to investigate,
the subsequent report makes it clear that there were no captive breeding facilities anywhere in
Guinea and that a range of criminal and corrupt acts had been committed to get these great
apes from A to B.
Bird holding facilities, Guinea.
Under Article VIII of the CITES Convention unlawful acts, such as exporting endangered wild
apes and fraudulently claiming they are captive bred, require the CITES Parties concerned to
prosecute the players involved in such transactions, confiscate the animals in question and if
possible repatriate them to the country of their origin. None of these enforcement actions have
ever taken place in this case involving an estimated 150 chimpanzees and 10 gorillas exported
between 2007 and 2013.
Guinea, the key exporter, has been sanctioned insofar as the CITES Standing Committee, in
2013, asked that a Notification be put out stating that it 'recommends that all Parties suspend
commercial trade in specimens of CITES-listed species with Guinea until further notice'. The
problem of course is that was not the real issue in the first place. These great ape transactions
never were made for 'commercial' (CITES purpose code 'T') purposes. They were all exported
with CITES purpose code 'Z', i.e. for Zoos and Safari Park exhibits which are considered noncommercial, educational and scientific facilities!!
The key argument used by the CITES Secretariat and the Chinese authorities, why China as
importer could not and should not also be sanctioned for non-compliance with the Convention,
is:
“China noted that it had issued import permits for great apes only after
receiving formal written confirmation of the validity of each export permit from
the Management Authority of Guinea. China indicated that it regarded as legal
the importations of great apes from Guinea which it had authorized through
the issuance of import permits”.
This was actually the first time China officially confirmed it had issued CITES import permits
which are meant to be issued before the corresponding export permits. It follows that, put
simply; China never seriously considered these apes as bred in captivity. If they had and there
was a CITES approved breeding facility for apes then the second generation of those primates
would have automatically been classified for export as if they were listed on CITES Appendix-II
(as a result of which no import permit would have been required). However this is only the
beginning of the inconsistencies amongst the various explanations offered to exonerate China
of any wrongdoing.
This piece is not just about the source of the apes, whether or not they were bred in captivity
and whether or not import permits should have been issued. It is about one well documented
case of eight chimpanzees, 'the Shanghai Eight' who travelled this well trodden route from
Guinea to China.
The plight of the Shanghai Eight seems to indicate that 'the 'C' scam' as it is now known was
clearly initiated within China and as such was pre-meditated at the Chinese end of the supply
chain.
Given the levels of corruption that were found, it can safely be said that if the Guinean permit
issuing authorities had received a request for export permits for unicorns and sufficient cash in
bribes they would have issued those permits. As such, the questions arise - Did any Guinean
CITES officials dupe their counterparts in China? Or did the Chinese CITES authorities dupe
the Guinean officials?
The Shanghai Eight
These are the eight Chimpanzees who arrived in China in 2011. Imported by a Safari Park that
appears to have top level government connections and backing, This park has imported more
chimps in 2013, again using its contacts and import infrastructure to procure more of these
species than it needs. It trades any surplus 'balance' with other, far less experienced, facilities.
In June 2014 a request to a representative of China's CITES Scientific Authority, asking about
the number of chimpanzees held at Shanghai Wild Animal Park ('SWAP') resulted in the
following answer:
“It is said that there are 3 chimpanzees and only Asian elephant in the Shanghai Wild
Animal Park according to website of the park by now”.
Entrance to Shanghai Wild Animal Park
Chimps forced to perform for visitors at
Shanghai Wild Animal Park.
Evolution of the illegal shipment of the Shanghai Eight from Guinea to China
1)
On 23 December 2010 there was a press release on a Chinese
news website stating that: “A wild Animal breeding company
sued Wild Animal Park for 410,000 Yuan (U$ 50,000) and
accused the park of breach of contract”. The feature went on to
explain that the Shanghai Wild Animal Park had asked Dalian
Linda Wild Animal Breeding Company to find them eight
chimpanzees together with other wildlife. It went on to state that:
“The Breeding Company failed to find Chimpanzees in Europe
that met the park's requirement. Dalian Linda said it was
impossible to have all the members of the community less than
12 years [old]. The park refused to change its requirement and
asked to terminate the contract.”
Press release which first alerted
investigators of China’s desire for
great apes.
2)
It would appear that, well before the filing of the above court case,
SWAP turned to another supplier and importer of wildlife to source
these chimps. An application to the Shanghai Forestry Department
states:
‘In order to promote wild animal conservation [an amazing
reason considering that at the African end up to 10
chimpanzees need to be killed to secure one infant
suitable for export!?!], science and to popularize education,
SWAP made arrangements with agents Tianjin Junheng
International Trading Co. Ltd. to import wild animals like
Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) under the purpose of
displaying and breeding at zoos'.
This document is just dated 2010 with a filing reference 57.
3)
Official SWAP documentation.
On 11 June 2010 an agreement between SWAP and 'Northern International Group' was signed
for the import of 8 chimpanzees, three males and five females, at a price of U$ 16,000 each.
This agreement also outlined the conditions the importer and the buyer had to adhere to.
Northern International Group is a partly state owned trading company which has its own freight
division that would have handled all the import documentation on behalf of Tianjin Junhen
International Trade Co. As a quasi-government body it would have had no problems in doing
that.
4)
State law enforcement vehicles transporting wildlife.
This was not the first time we encountered state resources used in the transport of wildlife.
While filming at another zoo establishment in the region we photographed a police vehicle which
left a little later with a crate which clearly contained a live zoo animal. It seems safe to assume
that such transports would not encounter any scrutiny at any roadblocks and that, by inference;
Chinese demand for stocking captive wildlife facilities is endorsed as an official government
policy.
5)
On 6 July 2010 SWAP was informed by the Forestry department that it could import the
chimpanzees through Tianjin Junhen International Trade Co. The relevant documentation also
states:
“The chimpanzees shall be imported for exhibition and breeding. Please
supervise the animals and prevent them from escaping or causing any harm”.
It then asks SWAP to go through the corresponding work flow for animals, in terms of obtaining
the requisite import and export certificates, at China's relevant CITES office before 6 January
2011. This would have meant requesting an official CITES import permit which, if issued in July
2010, would have had a validity of 6 months requiring the transaction to have been completed
by January of 2011.
6)
The July 2010 document was then backed up by one dated 14 September 2010. This was
headed 'Import duty free, for breeding' and was between SWAP and the Government. It listed a
range of wildlife, including four live African Elephants from Tanzania (also declared as bred in
captivity) as well as the 8 chimpanzees from Guinea which were approved with reference '1293
(2010)'.
7)
Based on the document of 14 September 2010 the Chinese CITES permit was issued on 15
September 2010, for eight chimpanzees. They were listed as CITES Appendix I, declared as
source code 'C' (i.e. bred in captivity) and allocated CITES purpose code 'Z' for display and
breeding in a zoo. A value of U$184,000 was given, contradicting the earlier agreement in
which the price per chimpanzee was given as U$ 16,000. The Importer listed is SWAP and the
exporter is Birds Breeding Farm of BP 5881 Conakry, Rep of Guinea. It then mentions the name
SIDIBIE as a contact.
Mamadi Sidibi, Guinean wildlife dealer.
When we were investigating the wildlife
traders in Conakry previously we could not
find any such company listed. We did,
however, find this same company name
registered in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo. 'Sidibie' includes three
brothers, all of whom are wildlife traders.
Mamadi Sidibie appears to be the most
senior. He told us on camera that every
year he spends several months in the
DRC to conduct his affairs. The former
head of the Congolese CITES
Management Authority, Leonard Muamba-Kanda, in another interview, told us that he knew Mr.
Mamadi Sidibie as one of the most notorious animal traffickers. We agreed to and did supply a
picture of him so the DRC CITES authorities could ask Interpol to have him put on a watch list
and yet he still does not appear.
8)
On 21 January 2011 Mr. Ansoumane Doumbouya, the former head of the CITES Management
authority of Guinea signed Guinea's CITES export permit No. 3679 referencing the import
permit from China as no. 002645. This permit also declared these exports as CITES Appendix I
and the chimps as bred in captivity. The purpose code for the export, supposedly 'Z' for a Zoo
destination, was not included. This was just one of the many shortcomings in this export
document which would have rendered it invalid from the outset.
9)
Mr. Sidibie must have sent this export document to China. Based on information received from
a range of Guinean based dealers it would have required a bribe of U$ 5,000 to be paid to the
Guinea CITES management authority.
10)
On 17 February 2011 the CITES Management Authority of China apparently asked Guinea's
CITES Management Authority to confirm the authenticity of the export permit detailed above.
The same day Mr. Doumbouya answered China's request confirming this permit as being in
order. In an interview in Conakry in 2013, however, Mr Doumbouya informed us that he had
been ordered ‘by higher ups’ to issue and pre-sign such statements.
Mr Doumbouya advised that they had received several such requests from the Chinese
Management Authority, to 'authenticate' such permits. Inconsistently, they were all addressed to
Mr. Namory Keita (the former head of Guinea's Management Authority) despite the request from
Mr. Doumbouya (the then active head of the Authority) to his Chinese counterparts that such
requests should have been sent to him now that he was is charge.
11)
The requests for confirmation from China that Mr
Doumbouya passed us went back to 2010. One involved 6
chimpanzees, with the request from a Mr Wang XIOYAN,
addressed to Mr. Namory Keita and dated 15 April 2010.
This was just after the 15th meeting of the Conference of
the Parties to CITES that took place in Doha, Qatar in
March 2010. According to a written statement from Mr.
Doumbouya there was a meeting between the Chinese and
Guinean Management Authorities at this large CITES
Conference, with a representative of the CITES Secretariat
it attendance. At that meeting Mr Doumbouya apparently
again pointed out that these authentification requests were
still being incorrectly sent to the former head of Guinea's
Management Authority and not to him.
Fax requests from China to the
incorrect civil servant in Guinea,
asking for confirmation of CITES
permit authenticity.
12)
When we, as part of a previous documentary film shoot, questioned the Chinese CITES
Scientific Authority about these imports we were informed , via a third party translating, that:
“The proof that they were captive borne were signed by Namory Keita, the
chimps were from Animals Park Box 111 Conakry Republic of Guinea. Legally
registered in Guinea. There are at least 8 chimps from Guinea now living in 34 different zoos in China. They have been trained to perform in shows to
attract visitors. You can see the attached photos”.
This information came in form of an e-mail exchange.
13)
This feedback from China's CITES Scientific Authority inevitably leads to the following
observations:
I.
Mr Namory Keita was not the party who could have authenticated the permits in
question. He did not have the authority at that time.
II.
Having all been torn from the wild, in reality, none of these chimpanzees were
'captive borne'.
III.
CITES maintains website listing of all facilities worldwide which are approved to breed
CITES Appendix I listed species. The Chinese CITES authorities could have easily checked this
listing on the web, quickly establishing that no such approved facility exists in the whole of
Africa.
IV.
By the time the above statement was received well over 100 chimpanzees and gorillas
had been imported into China using falsified documents. It would presumably require many
more than '3-4 different zoos' to display so many wild source great apes..
V.
We could not find an 'Animals Park' as a registered company in Guinea or the owners
behind it.
VI.
The evidence that these chimps were trained for performances 'to attract visitors'
confirms that these were purely 'commercial' transactions as opposed to zoological. The fact
that visitors often have to pay in addition to the zoo entry fee to see these performances
confirms that still further. The CITES convention is specific that no CITES Appendix-I listed
species can be traded for primarily commercial purposes.
14)
The CITES trade data filed by the importing and exporting countries for 2011 shows only 4
chimpanzees as having been declared imported into China from Guinea during 2011. The
Guinean CITES Management Authority did not declare the export so the transaction is only
detailed in the official trade data from the Chinese side. There is little doubt, however, that this
2011 shipment involved 8 chimpanzees, the Shanghai Eight, with the ratio of three males and
five females having already been determined and the overall price having been fixed well in
advance. In fact most such buyers ask for picture evidence before sending the cash to a place
like Conakry.
15)
When we visited the SWAP for our film shoot we saw only two small chimps being trained below
the stadium.
We went to the management complex and showed the import permit showing 8 chimps as
having been acquired by them. They said they could not provide an answer as to the
whereabouts of the other six chimpanzees and we should go and ask the Chinese Zoo
Association in Beijing. We did as they suggested and were told that they only have some
oversight over the government owned zoo establishments and not private ones such as SWAP.
We were also advised that there are no studbooks for chimps in Chinese zoos (nor for
elephants or any other species except pandas). We saw several adult chimpanzees pacing in
very bare enclosures.
16)
A press statement in the Chinese media [(http://africa.chinadaily.com.cn/weekly/201311/08/content_17090975.htm0] at the end of 2013, on how the animals at SWAP were settled in
for the winter, shows an image of a keeper with three baby chimps in his arms and a fourth one
in the background. These were too young to be the chimps we had seen earlier in the year and
leads to the conclusion that these were very recent imports. We will wait to see if these new
imports are reported in the CITES Trade Database.
17)
The missing young chimps
from the Shanghai Eight
originally imported from
Guinea, as well as recent
reports that only three
young chimpanzees can be
seen by visitors to SWAP
in 2014 are incriminating.
The evidence seems to
indicate that once a safari
park / zoo has set up the
infrastructure to import
protected species,
circumventing the
corresponding CITES
regulations, the contacts
and that system can then
be used to import more
and pass them on. Those that are passed on are inevitably passed on for profit, to other such
institutions in China. The absence of a studbook for species like chimpanzees will make it
impossible to track such exchanges and transactions.
This one well documented transaction of 8 chimpanzees seems to be representative of how a
range of CITES Appendix-I listed species (even including elephants and manatees) are illegally
imported into China and how falsified documents, behind which officials and the CITES
secretariat can hide, have become the norm.
This transaction also illustrates how the lack of enforcement action by CITES Parties' national
authorities, the CITES Secretariat and the CITES Standing Committee is actually encouraging
this illegal trade. There is no doubt that the illegal trade that their inaction has caused to flourish
has become more detrimental to the conservation of these species in the wild than ever before.
This is also the first time that there is clear evidence that capture teams have been dispatched
specifically to secure young apes and that these primates were not a byproduct of the bush
meat trade: A very disturbing new trend.