AR-News: Article re Taiping Four gorillas

[Shirley McGreal]

New Straits Times » Features

EARTH MATTERS: Gorillas in the mist
Sarah Sabaratnam and Elizabeth John

Apr 27:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Four gorillas which arrived in Taiping Zoo in the
beginning of 2002 sparked off a trail of inquiry.
Being a species threatened with extinction and
protected under a convention, questions were raised
about the legality of their presence here, and the
destination they were later despatched to. ELIZABETH
and SARAH SABARATNAM delve into the matter.
  IT has been exactly two weeks since the four lowland
gorillas - dubbed the Taiping Four - were flown away
in secret to a zoo in Pretoria, South Africa.

Yet the international attention, the accusations and
the pressure that mounted after the gorillas arrived
at the Taiping Zoo two years ago have not abated.

Questions continue to be asked: Why was the media not
informed of the transfer? Why did Malaysia choose the
Pretoria Zoo? Why did the authorities not respond to
Cameroon's request for the gorillas to be returned to
their country of origin? Why are those implicated in
misleading the authorities about the origin of the
gorillas, not being prosecuted?

Misliah Mohd Bashir, the Department of Wildlife and
National Parks director of enforcement, seems
unruffled by these queries. Like most Malaysians, she
probably is not impressed by foreigners telling us
what to do. She says the decision Malaysia made
complies with the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

The decision (to send them to South Africa) had also
been approved by the World Association of Zoos and
Aquariums, she says.

"We also don't know for sure if the country of origin
for the gorillas is really Cameroon - they only made
an application for the specimens (in November 2002),
eight months after the animals were confiscated.

"In such a case, where animals are confiscated, and we
are not sure of the country of origin, we have the
final decision as to where to send them." This is in
accordance with Article VIII, section 4 (b) of the
CITES text which reads: "the Management Authority (in
this case, the Department of Wildlife and National
Parks) shall, after consultation with the State of
export, return the specimen to that State at the
expense of that State, or to a rescue centre or such
other place as the Management Authority deems
appropriate and consistent with the purposes of the
present Convention."

Malaysian authorities had also earlier said that they
were satisfied that the Pretoria zoo was capable of
looking after the gorillas. These reasons seem valid.
However, they may not be in the best interest of the
gorillas.

NGOs such as the International Primate Protection
League (IPPL) and primatologist Jane Goodall had felt
that a sanctuary and not a zoo would have been a more
suitable destination for the gorillas.

They also felt that the gorillas should have been
returned to their country of origin which is
speculated to be Cameroon; South Africa was unsuitable
as gorillas do not exist in the wild there.

Ian Redmond, who has researched gorillas in the wild
for many years, when contacted by e-mail, highlighted
the need to send the animals to a country where there
are gorillas in the wild.

"I'm sure the keepers at Pretoria will do their best,
but the quality of life for these four orphans simply
cannot be as good in a city zoo in a latitude outside
the tropics as it could be in a well-run sanctuary in
their country of origin, where climate and food plants
are natural to them and a forest enclosure is
planned."

Upon closer inspection though, Malaysia's ultimate
decision could have been influenced by the possibility
in the future of a zoo-to-zoo exchange programme with
Pretoria - should the gorillas breed successfully
there and produce offspring. Another question that has
been asked is why a third party is being allowed to
benefit from the gorillas - which is in contravention
of CITES.

"Nobody is benefiting. Usually all our confiscated
animals are sent to the Malacca Zoo and we could have
kept the gorillas within the country but because they
are a high-profile animal, we had to send them to
Africa. We decided on South Africa because it is
suitable," says Misliah.

Why did we have to send them away at all?

Gorillas are animals threatened with extinction and
are therefore protected under Appendix I of CITES,
which does not permit their trade for commercial
purposes. They are also totally protected in their
countries of origin.

CITES allows the animal to be imported or exported
only in exceptional circumstances such as for
scientific research or for animal exchange programmes
between zoos. In the case of the Taiping four, the
Taiping Zoo had put in the application for the
gorillas as part of an animal-exchange programme with
the University of Ibadan Zoological Garden in Nigeria.

Sun bears and Malayan tigers were to be sent to Ibadan
in exchange for the gorillas. But we stumbled (see
accompanying story) with the documentation procedure
and our authorities did not act on the discrepancies.
Despite this, Malaysia went ahead and issued a new
CITES import permit for Taiping Zoo, for five
gorillas, in December 2001.

Then on Jan 18, 2002, four gorillas (one is believed
to have died during the transfer) arrived in Malaysia.
The transfer of the gorillas was facilitated by
Nigercom Solution Sdn Bhd, a company appointed by
Taiping Zoo.

In March 2002, when the IPPL heard of the transfer of
the gorillas to Malaysia under "suspicious
circumstances", it initiated an investigation. An IPPL
investigator was sent to Malaysia and the media in
Africa was alerted. There was a breakthrough in the
investigations when Glenn McKenzie of the news agency
Associated Press investigated the Ibadan zoo and found
an elderly female gorilla living by herself,
confirming that the zoo did not have a
captive-breeding programme.

According to the IPPL, zoo employees informed McKenzie
that many young gorillas had passed through the zoo -
and that many of those awaiting shipment had died
there. "One keeper stated that the baby gorillas who
reached the Ibadan zoo came from Cameroon."

This led the Nigerian Government to conduct a
presidential inquiry and the Malaysian authorities to
conduct investigations into the matter. Investigations
by the Nigerian authorities confirmed that the Ibadan
zoo does not have a breeding programme as stated in
the CITES export permit.

According to the Animal Welfare Institute quarterly,
the inquiry in Nigeria identified the perpetrators
which included animal dealer Tunde Oduyoya "whose 1999
fax to the world's zoos offering baby gorillas for
sale had caused an international scandal; and Dr Dora
Akinboye, the director of the Ibadan zoo.

Malaysian authorities conducted their own
investigations and found that Nigercom Solution had
vacated its premises. They contacted the CITES
secretariat in Switzerland which confirmed that the
permits issued by both countries in question were
genuine but misleading as they stated that the
gorillas were captive-bred.

Following an official inquiry with Taiping Zoo
director Dr Kevin Lazarus, Misliah came to the
conclusion that Taiping Zoo was aware that the
gorillas were not from a captive-breeding programme in
the Ibadan zoo but did not disclose this information
in its application.

She also said that where the CITES management
authority of Malaysia was concerned, it had complied
with CITES procedures all the way.

Mohd Nawayai Ishak, director of the Malaysian
Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria, feels
that where Malaysia is concerned, "we did nothing
wrong". "We feel that as the Malaysian Government
followed all the requirements, and that the CITES
secretariat issued an import permit based on our
documents which were in order, the Government has not
done anything wrong."

But conservationists are still not happy as no one in
Malaysia has been charged with contravening the CITES
by falsely declaring the origin of the gorillas.

Says Redmond: "Last year Nigeria set a good example by
sending back two confiscated gorillas and setting up a
presidential inquiry to take legal action against
those involved in wildlife traffic. Malaysia, sadly,
did not.

Thus, instead of sending a message that smuggling
valuable species will result in prosecution for the
offenders and professional shame for all those
knowingly involved, the impression is that with luck
you can get away with it, or at least avoid any
negative consequences."

He feels that sending the right message about illegal
trade of gorillas is important because such activities
cause untold damage. "We should recall that these four
infants represent, at a conservative estimate, 56 dead
gorillas! "At least four out of five infant gorillas
die in trade, so four live babies equal 20 captured,
and each infant is captured by killing at least two
adults - the mother and father - so four live babies
equal 40 dead adults and 16 infants that died before
reaching adequate care."

Many parties have denounced Malaysia for not taking
any action against those implicated. Three things need
to be clarified at this juncture. Although a precedent
should indeed be set, the point is the authorities in
Malaysia don't actually have anyone to implicate.

Dr Lazarus has been blamed but there is no proof that
he knew that the gorillas were captive-bred.

Also, the Protection of Wild Life Act, as it is, has
flaws that will no allow any action to be taken, even
if anyone is implicated.

A second issue is why the department issued an import
permit if a suspicious export permit arrived at their
desk here before it issued an import permit. This is
in direct contravention of the CITES. Misliah also
showed us a few suspicious-sounding letters from the
Ibadan zoo to the department. Furthermore, warning
bells would have been clear enough after the
application by a commercial company, Fish Paradise, to
import six gorillas.

Better tabs on companies like Nigercom Solutions are
also needed. Is it really so easy for companies and
the people running it to disappear?

A third problem with charging anyone in Malaysia lies
with our laws. The Protection of Wild Life Act does
not require applicants to state whether the animal is
captive-bred or sourced from the wild.

There are also no provisions to prosecute anyone who
falsely declares where an animal was sourced from.

Obviously, there is room for improvement in our level
of vigilance and enforcement. Chris R. Shepherd, from
TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, a conservation organisation
that monitors the illegal trade of wildlife, says in
future, the authorities in Malaysia have to do
everything possible to ensure that this does not
happen again.

"In the future, authorities should take every measure
to ensure that animals imported for zoos are obtained
from legal sources. Better communications with the
country of origin will help prevent issues like this
one. If in doubt the trade should not be allowed."



The writers can be contacted at 
<mailto:features at nstp.com.my>features at nstp.com.my



Question of permits and approval



WHENEVER there is a request (as there was from Taiping
Zoo) for an Appendix 1 species (in this case
gorillas), the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
management authority in Malaysia, the Department of
Wildlife and National Parks, would first have to issue
an import permit to, in this case, the management
authority in Nigeria.


It will only do so after it is satisfied that the
application is for an animal-exchange programme
between the zoos; that the zoo is qualified to keep
the animal, and the gorillas were captive-bred in
Nigeria.
The Minister of Environment can only approve the
application.


Upon receiving the CITES import permit and
application, the management authority in Nigeria needs
to ensure that the gorillas are captive-bred and not
wild caught before issuing an export permit for the
gorillas to be exported to Malaysia.


According to Misliah Mohd Bashir, the Department of
Wildlife and National Parks director of enforcement,
all these papers were in order - that is Taiping Zoo
applied for the gorillas through the proper channels
in 1999. So the department issued an import permit
which in the end lapsed before it was utilised.


However, she said, suspicion arose when the export
permit arrived at the department in October 2001) for
the export of six gorillas to a private company called
Fish Paradise. The export permit was also issued
before the import permit by Malaysia, which is in
direct contradiction of CITES provisions.


The department then wrote to the Nigerian management
authority and the CITES secretariat asking that they
verify the CITES export permit sent to Malaysia.


However, no reply was given. Instead, on Nov 6, 2001 a
new CITES export permit was issued directly to Taiping
Zoo by the CITES management authority in Nigeria. The
export permit verified that all the specimens were
captive-bred in the Ibadan zoo.


Meanwhile the CITES secretariat in Geneva responded on
Nov 13, 2001 expressing its concern that a serious
infraction against the convention was taking place.


But Malaysian authorities went ahead and issued an
import permit in Dec 2001 for the one that had lapsed
earlier.


The gorillas arrived two months later, and this was
followed by international outcry.