AR-News: Hilary Chiew's article from the Malaysian Star

[Shirley McGreal]

Tuesday April 20, 2004

Shackled by the law
By HILARY CHIEW, reporter for the Star (Malaysia)

THERE was a glimmer of hope in February that the four baby gorillas 
illegally acquired by Taiping Zoo would get a chance to return to their 
homeland in Cameroon.

Cameroonian Environment and Forestry Minister Oben Tanyi-Mbianyor held a 
private meeting with then Science, Technology and Environment Minister 
Datuk Seri Law Hieng Ding on the sideline of the 7th Conference of Parties 
to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP7 CBD) hosted by Malaysia 
from Feb 9 to 27.

On Feb 21, Tanyi-Mbianyor had earnestly requested for the gorillas to be 
returned to his country as opposed to the Malaysian Government's decision 
to send the animals to Pretoria Zoo in Pretoria, 50km north of 
Johannesburg, South Africa. He did not want the matter to be publicised as 
he was hoping that the diplomatic channel would work. But unfortunately his 
efforts had been in vain.

The four gorillas, dubbed the Taiping Four, had landed in Pretoria Zoo on 
April 15.

They were brought into Malaysia in 2002, disguised as captive-bred 
specimens in a purported animal exchange programme with Nigeria.

Under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites), 
Resolution 10.7 (Annex 1), which governs the disposal of confiscated 
animals arising from illegal trade, states: "Where the country of origin 
desires return of the animals, this desire should be respected."

In fact, as early as November 2002, a joint statement was issued by Nigeria 
and Cameroon at the 12th Conference of Parties of Cites in Santiago, Chile, 
in which the two Central African Governments called for a DNA analysis of 
the gorillas to determine their place of origin. The statement also asked 
for them to be returned to Cameroon if indeed they belonged to the western 
lowland gorilla species which originated from Cameroon. However, no DNA 
analysis was carried out.

Investigations in Nigeria confirmed that the babies were poached from the 
Cameroonian forests, smuggled into Nigeria and laundered as captive-bred 
specimens by the University Zoo of Ibadan.

Tanyi-Mbianyor followed up with a letter to Law requesting for the animals 
to be sent to a gorilla rehabilitation sanctuary following the Cabinet's 
announcement to hand over the primates to Pretoria Zoo last July.

The announcement was greeted with strong criticism from the primate 
conservation community which charged that it would send the wrong message 
to wildlife traders and unscrupulous zoos, that laws could be manipulated 
to acquire endangered species. They also hit out at Pretoria Zoo's vested 
interest in the four young gorillas to replenish its gorilla gene pool and 
to boost the zoo's profile.

The International Primate Protection League (IPPL), the Pan African 
Sanctuary Alliance and the Jane Goodall's Institute had rallied behind the 
Limbe Wildlife Sanctuary in Cameroon, saying that the Sanctuary was the 
ideal temporary home for the gorillas and that the primates would stand a 
better chance of returning to the wild in the future.

The proponents had submitted a declaration of support signed by 65 
conservation and animal welfare organisations to both Tanyi-Mbianyor and 
Law. The declaration applauded the stand taken by the Cameroonian 
Government in protecting its wildlife by asking for the return of the four 
animals and urged for further investigation into the matter.

Controversial choice

It is perplexing why Malaysia failed to consider Cameroon's request.

An inside source said the eleventh-hour appeal by the Cameroonian minister 
could not have come at a worst time as the country was gearing up for the 
general elections and politicians like Law were preoccupied with election 
matters.

"Perhilitan officials were eager to close the file as quickly as possible. 
The Cabinet's nod to the Pretoria plan sealed the fate of the gorillas," he 
added.

Perhilitan enforcement director Misliah Mohd Basir said the disposal plan 
was based on Cites regulations that allowed the animals to be placed at any 
appropriate centre, and that the final decision rests with the country 
which had confiscated the animals.

She questioned why the Government's decision was criticised while it had 
always been Perhilitan's practice to deliver confiscated specimens to its 
rescue centre at Malacca Zoo.

"By right, the same procedure should follow for the gorillas too. (Of 
course), since the gorillas are a high-profile species, the common practice 
could not be followed," she added.

"The choice of Pretoria was as advised by the Cites secretariat."

Cites senior enforcement officer John Sellar, however, maintained that the 
secretariat neither endorsed nor questioned the final decision but noted 
that it complied with the convention's guidance.

Sellar said both offers from the Pretoria Zoo and Limbe Wildlife Sanctuary 
were passed on to Perhilitan.

The secretariat had distanced itself from the discussion on the most 
suitable long-term home for the gorillas as proponents of the zoo and 
sanctuary option engaged in fierce debates over the last one year.

However, it was understood that some time in January, the secretariat had 
for an unknown reason requested Malaysia to review its decision but the 
intervention was deemed too late by Perhilitan.

Misled again?

Law had lamented that he was misled into signing the import permit that 
facilitated the importation of the gorillas and argued that whatever 
decision reached was in the best interest of the animals.

In announcing the Cabinet's decision, Law said Pretoria Zoo was picked 
based on its sound financial status, its commitment to cooperate in the 
breeding of gorillas through its membership in the Conservation Breeding 
Specialist Group and its facilities and expertise.

He said he was convinced by the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums 
(Waza), which claimed that the zoo had a decade's experience in breeding 
gorillas.

Pretoria Zoo's supposedly good track record was challenged. IPPL's chairman 
Dr Shirley McGreal revealed that three out of four adult gorillas in the 
zoo, acquired from the wild, died between 1995 and 1998, while two newborns 
also died within six and 17 days in 1989 and 1990 respectively. One of the 
babies had a fractured skull, raising doubts of the zoo's capability in 
caring for the gorillas. Its remaining male has been alone for six years 
and there is concern if he would accept any newcomers.

Following this revelation, a senior ministry official expressed concern 
that it was likely that the minister was not given the full information to 
help him reach the right decision.

South Africa's Environment and Tourism Affairs Minister Valli Moosa said in 
an interview during COP7 CBD that he was not aware of Pretoria Zoo's dismal 
record, and claimed that the decision was approved by Cites.

The selection of South Africa as the recipient of the four gorillas 
infuriated the conservation community which had pointed out South Africa's 
role in facilitating the illegal passage of the gorillas in January 2002.

McGreal had criticised South Africa's Cites management for its lack of 
scrutiny on wildlife consignment in transit and the use of the national 
carrier South African Airways in transporting the primates from Nigeria to 
Johannesburg and onward to Bangkok where the consignment was flown by a 
joint-carrier service operated by Malaysia Airlines and Thai Airways into 
Penang airport.

McGreal pointed out that the Pretoria solution was a blow to Cameroon which 
had established two sanctuaries for gorillas rescued from illegal traders.

Bilateral agreement

Primate conservationists like McGreal are weary of the agreement reached 
between Malaysia and South Africa. She had questioned an earlier plan to 
strike a bilateral agreement with the recipient of the Taiping Four which 
included the return of their offspring to Malaysia.

She said such a plan would make a mockery of Cites which strived to prevent 
commercial exploitation of animals as it was detrimental to their survival 
in the wild.

The Cites secretariat had made it clear that it would not be appropriate 
for anyone involved in this illegal trade to benefit from it, now or in the 
future.

Misliah said Perhilitan would be signing a memorandum of understanding with 
Pretoria Zoo pertaining to exchange of technical expertise in breeding 
programme as well as animal exchange. The contents of the MOU have yet to 
be finalised.

Another bone of contention is that personnel implicated in the case were 
not prosecuted despite repeated calls by the Cites secretariat and 
conservation groups to punish the culprits.

Sellar said Cites had asked Perhilitan to conduct a thorough investigation 
into the illegal transaction and prosecute those responsible for violating 
the national laws relating to implementation of Cites regulations.

Although the international agreement is non-binding, signatories are 
obliged to enact national legislation that adopts the Cites provisions.

In Nigeria, a presidential commission's inquiry had resulted in the sacking 
of several key personnel implicated in the illegal trade of the four baby 
gorillas poached from the forests of neighbouring Cameroon.

It is learnt that in the course of invetigations, Perhilitan has been 
frustrated by its laws which do not provide for prosecution against 
concealment of information.

An inside source said there was no relevant section under the Wildlife 
Protection Act 1972 whereby Taiping Zoo director Dr Kevin Lazarus could be 
taken to task for misleading the authorities. Handicapped by the law, the 
director was issued a strong warning letter instead.

Dr Lazarus, in his application for import permit, had claimed that the 
gorillas were captive-bred.

Misliah acknowledged the shortcomings in the law and pledged to look into 
it, adding that procedures involving animal exchanges between zoos would be 
tightened in future.

Indeed, this whole unpleasant episode should serve as a lesson and we 
should not drag our feet in pushing for the amendments to the Wildlife 
Protection Act 1972.