Tiger is endangered – no commercial trade allowed
As I previously
explained in one of my posts, all tiger species are included in Appendix I of
the CITES Convention. This means that the species is threatened with
extinction.
Article I of
CITES stipulates that trade of specimens of these species must only be authorized
in exceptional circumstances. In particular, the commercial international trade
in Asian big cat species and their parts and derivatives has been prohibited by
the Convention since 1975 (with the exception of the Asiatic lion and the Amur
tiger Panthera tigris altaica, which
were included in 1977 and 1987, respectively).
The system
However, Article
VII of the CITES Convention states that those specimens of an animal species
included in Appendix I (the tiger amongst them) that are bred in captivity for
commercial purposes shall be deemed to be species included in Appendix II. Now,
Appendix II species, as opposed to Appendix I, includes species that are not
necessarily threatened with extinction, and therefore trade is allowed as long
as the right permits are produced.
Captive
breeding of tigers is not a new problem. Already in 2007, when the
signatory parties of CITES met in their biannual meeting (CoP 14.69), they
decided that Parties with intensive operations breeding tigers on a commercial
scale shall implement measures to restrict the captive population to a level
supportive only to conserving wild tigers; tigers
should not be bred for trade in their parts and derivatives.
Parties to
CITES have been requested (Notification to the Parties No. 2012/054 of 3
September 2012) to provide information on the status of implementation of this
decision. Only Thailand,
China and India had
responded on time for CoP 15.
The problem
Tiger farms
appear to exist in China, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam (Nowell and
Xu,2007; ENV, 2010). According to the Chinese
data, there are over 5000 tigers in captivity. Captive bred is done for the
purpose of reintroduction, genetic conservation, public education, exhibition,
and performance.
Trade in
captive-bred tiger skin is legal according to Chinese legislation as long as
they are registered. On the contrary, tiger bone is banned from trading with
medicinal purposes since 1993.
Captive breeding
being legal brings to my mind the following questions: who controls that the
animals are bred for the above purposes? Who decides the number of bred animals?
Is there a limit? Who controls that animals are not just simply killed to sell
their parts? How do authorities differentiate, if it is possible, between a
dead wild tiger and a dead captive-bred tiger? What happens with the animal
parts once the tiger is dead? How are these authorities complying with the 2007
Decision?
China argues
in its report and I quote that “it has
labeled most of the captive bred tigers with microchips and established a
database for those labeled individuals, which enable the captive tigers to be
fully monitored by the forestry authority and prevent the captive bred tiger
parts from entering the illegal trade from or through such facilities.”
In order to
supervise the dead body of captive bred tigers, a practice seems to have been
put in place to dismember the frozen carcass in standardized methods, seal the
tiger bones, label the tiger skins and destroy other tiger parts.
Thailand
seems to use the same approach as well as individual stripe-marking as a tool
for enforcement activities.
The EIA
has reported several times on the way tiger captive breeding is conceived and implemented
in several countries, notably China. There is a concern that captive bred
tigers are entering illegal trade (Plowden and Bowles, 1997; Bulte and Damania,
2005; Williamson and Henry, 2008; Nowell and Xu (2008); Irvine, 2010) given the
impossibility of differentiating between a captive bred/wildlife tiger once
they are dead.
TRAFFIC has
also raised concerns in its recently updated report Reduced
to skin and bones revisited.
From a legal
point of view, it is difficult to assess only with this information how it
works in practice. Nothing seems to prevent the deliberate killing of the
animal, which means that captive breeding may well be used to turn legal what
from the outset is considered as illegal. Neither of the reports provided to
CITES go into the details of captive breeding, which I believe should be read
by the international community as a worrying sign. If someone can provide me
with a translation of the legislations in place, I could make a legal analysis.
Needless to say, I am always happy to receive information on this subject that
I have not come across yet, and which could improve this first attempt to
understand the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment