The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime has released a new report on great ape trafficking.

The under-reporting of great apes seized in illegal trade incidents, both nationally and internationally, is flagged as a serious problem in bringing a true appreciation of the great ape trafficking situation to the attention of governments, international organizations, and the media. Relevant institutions in the UN system and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) are singled out as needing improvement in their approaches concerning the illegal trade in great apes.

By far the main demand driver for removing African great apes from the wild is for bushmeat, sold in local markets or transported to urban areas. Great ape body parts, particularly skulls and hands, have a local market for use in traditional medicine or rituals, and the skulls are sometimes purchased overseas by collectors, academic institutions and artists. Several seizures have been made of great ape skulls nationally or shipped internationally.

This report deals only with live African great ape trafficking, but infant capture often results as a byproduct of bushmeat hunting. Another potential deleterious impact of the illegal great ape trade was thrust into the spotlight by the COVID-19 pandemic. The most likely cause of the pandemic is that the virus passed from an infected wild animal to humans in a food market,4 although the possibility of a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is favoured by some.

Most illegal great ape imports are done without veterinary health inspections or certificates, which raises considerably the risk of introducing one or more zoo-notic diseases to humans in destination countries. The COVID-19 pandemic has raised government and public awareness about the health risks involved in the illegal wildlife trade (IWT), which may lead to better legislation aimed at controlling this frequently ignored threat.

This report describes the evolution of this recent black market, which is different in important respects from the traditional exotic animal markets that preceded it. In some countries, the political and economic interests of corrupt government and law enforcement officials facilitate the illegal trade and hinder effective actions to stop it. Even international organizations dedicated to wildlife conservation are not free from the political and economic interests that impede successful trafficking-mitigation efforts, particularly in the case of great apes.

The report can be accessed here.

Editor’s note: Great ape capture in the wild and trafficking for the exotic pet trade has been rising for about two years. Prices for the infants have also been rising, providing even more incentive to the traffickers to increase their efforts. This new twist to infant capture introduces an alarming development that hopefully will be nipped in the bud. This article summarizes the situation at the time of writing. It is not over yet.

This is the ‘first incident in the world’ where baby apes have been kidnapped for ransom. The abductors have demanded a six-figure sum and threatened to harm the chimpanzees if their demands are not met

FP Explainers September 26, 2022

Three baby chimpanzees have been kidnapped in Congo for ransom. Image Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons (Representational Image)

In a first, three baby chimpanzees have been kidnapped from an animal sanctuary in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

The kidnappers have demanded a six-figure ransom to free the three baby chimps– Monga, César and Hussein, reported The New York Times (NYT).

“This is the first time in the world that baby apes were kidnapped for ransom,” Franck Chantereau, co-founder of the sanctuary where the kidnapping took place, told CNN.

The sanctuary – Young Animals Confiscated in Katanga (shortened to  JACK in French) in Congo’s Lubumbashi – houses 40 chimpanzees and 64 monkeys of 14 species that have been rescued from Congo’s illegal wildlife trade, notes NYT.

How did the kidnapping take place and why were the chimps targeted?

Let’s take a closer look:

The abduction

As per CNN, the kidnappers broke into the sanctuary around 3 am on 9 September and took away three of the five baby chimpanzees rescued by Franck this year.

His wife Roxane Chantereau, co-founder of the sanctuary, received three texts and a video on WhatsApp showing two baby chimpanzees moving across a dirty floor covered with tumbled furniture, as per NYT.

As the video panned across the room, the third chimp was seen standing on a dresser with her arms tied over her head.

In the three voice messages, the kidnappers threatened to kill the chimpanzees unless Roxane paid the ransom money. Further, they reportedly threatened to kill her and abduct her two children.

“They told us that they had planned to kidnap my children because they were supposed to come here on vacation. But they didn’t come so the kidnappers took these three babies hostage and demanded a large amount of ransom from us,” Franck was quoted as saying by CNN.

The kidnappers claimed to have drugged the chimpanzees and threatened to hurt the hostage animals if their demand was not fulfilled.

The kidnappers have demanded a six-figure ransom to release the three baby chimps. Wikimedia Commons (Representational Image)

A few days later, Roxane Chantereau again received texts from the kidnappers warning that they will decapitate one of the baby chimpanzees and sell the other two to Chinese traffickers, Franck told NYT.

He stated they have not heard from the abductors for two weeks now which is “worrying” them.

He stated the authorities have taken the case “very seriously” and “consider the robbing of these babies as a security threat for the country,” NYT reported.

Franck said the sanctuary is unable to pay the ransom money, adding that if they heed the demand, this incident is likely to occur again in the coming months. Expressing apprehension, he told CNN there is no guarantee if the chimps will be returned even after the kidnappers are paid.

The authorities are also not in favour of paying the ransom.

Calling the abduction “inhumane and unnatural”, Michel Koyakpa, media adviser to DRC’s environment minister, told CNN, “we will not give in to this kind of demand”.

Koyakpa said the search is on to find the stolen baby chimpanzees.

Notably, Congo, which has a rich biodiversity, offers sanctuaries the same legal protections as national parks.

Sanctuary targeted earlier

In 2006, months after the sanctuary was opened, a group of people had broken in and torched the baby chimps’ sleeping place, leading to the death of two of the five apes that were there then, reports CNN.

While in September 2013, the sanctuary’s education center was targeted and set ablaze by miscreants, however, there were no fatalities.

Illegal wildlife trafficking

Illegal wildlife trade is not rare in Congo. It is the only country in Africa where all four great apes– chimpanzees, bonobos, western gorillas and eastern gorillas–  are found.

Congo has become a hotspot for wildlife trafficking.

The illegal trade of ivory, rhino horn, pangolin scales, and poaching of live baby chimpanzees, gorillas and bonobos has become rampant in Congo amid increase in demand for primates in China, Pakistan, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, Franck told NYT.

This is the first time that an ape has been kidnapped from a sanctuary in Africa for ransom. Wikimedia Commons (Representational Image)

However, this is the first time that an ape has been kidnapped from a sanctuary in Africa for ransom.

Franck said the buyers of these exotic animals are mostly rich people. He added that they do not understand the consequences of their action as to capture one baby, an entire family of up to 10 adults is killed by poachers.

Experts fear that if the kidnappers are not punished, there can be more kidnappings for ransom. “If they get away with this, these cases are going to happen over and over again,” Adams Cassinga, founder of Conserv Congo, a nonprofit group battling wildlife trafficking in DRC, told NYT.

He said the Congo government and global community must come together and send a stern message that such incidents will not be “tolerated”.

https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/explained-why-three-baby-chimpanzees-were-kidnapped-from-a-congo-sanctuary-11337121.html

Bua Noi, meaning Little Lotus in Thai, has festered in a bleak cage on top of a Bangkok department store for the last 33 years, deprived of sunlight and natural vegetation. She has never smelled the scents of nature that would float in on a fresh breeze in her tropical forest homeland back in Central Africa. She has never experienced the joy of having a baby. I therefore empathized as she glared at me with a ferocious scowl through the bars the first time I saw her many years ago.

Bua Noi has the distinction of being the only gorilla in all of Thailand. This gorilla has become the standard bearer for all the thousands of captive wild animals exploited for commercial gain in Thailand. She might also be the key to freeing many more illegally captured and trafficked wild animals held in private zoos and safari parks and putting a halt to a thriving trade that threatens endangered species. A highly disputed question has been, was Bua Noi acquired legally? If not, there can be a legal case for freeing her.

Pata Zoo is the Guantanamo Bay of the world’s worst zoos – no amount of campaigning seems able to close it. Bua Noi is its star prisoner, the focus of campaigns by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Thai animal welfare crusader Sinjira Apaitan, who has launched a Change.org petition that is closing in on its target of 150,000 signatures requesting the release of Bua Noi. 

Background

Pata Zoo was opened in 1983 by Vinai Sermsirimongkol, a businessman who owned the seven-story high Pata Pinklao Department Store in the unfashionable west side of the Chaophraya River, which cuts through Bangkok, Thailand’s capital and largest city (8.2 million people). Vinai converted the top two floors into a zoo, with cabinets holding reptiles and amphibians on the sixth floor and mammals in cramped cages on the top floor, including chimpanzees, orangutans, tigers, other big cats, bears and a male gorilla that Vinai named King Kong, who arrived in 1984 with a CITES export permit from the Aachen Bird and Animal Park in West Germany. The Thai CITES import permit was issued to Siam Farm Zoological Garden, Bangkok. No further details are known, unfortunately, since this trade was not reported to the CITES Trade Database by either country, an infraction of CITES regulations, since Great Apes are Appendix I – no commercial trade from the wild. 

When Vinai died, his younger brother Kanit took over and has been fighting doggedly to keep “the world’s saddest zoo” open to the public. A 2010 story in The Guardian newspaper quotes Kanit as saying that, “…the zoo is a respite for people looking to escape the concrete jungle of Bangkok and to reconnect with nature. The animals are especially popular with children.” 

The comment about children is true, but there is nothing resembling “nature” in the concrete, barren zoo. I first visited the Pata Zoo in Bangkok in 2013 while attending the 16^th CITES Conference of the Parties, a massive gathering of over 4,000 people concerned with the fate of the world’s wild plants and animals. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) regulates trade in over 37,000 wild species. I had been invited to attend because I was the lead author on a United Nations report on illegal great ape trade entitled Stolen Apes that was being launched at the conference. 

I found the zoo to be a deplorable place to hold animals, with desolate cages marred by rusted bars and concrete floors. Big cats paced back and forth in well-worn tracks or slept, while great apes reached out for bananas offered by visitors or stared forlornly through the bars. Bua Noi seemed frustrated and angry at being cooped up for 26 years (in 2013) in a prison with no vegetation. King Kong had died in 2007, so the last six years she had been alone. 

I revisited the zoo in 2019 and found Bua Noi and the other great apes where I had left them six years earlier. It was heartbreaking to think that they had been there all that time, in addition to all of the years since they had arrived. There was even a bonobo (pygmy chimpanzee) in a dark cell above a chimpanzee cage, which I had not noticed before – perhaps arrived in the interim? No bonobo imports to Thailand are reported in the CITES Trade Database. No gorilla imports to Thailand are reported in the CITES Trade Database. So how could Bua Noi be a legally acquired import as the Bangkok Post reported in a 2014 story, repeated in 2020?

I knew from personal investigations that a steady stream of orangutans were smuggled into Thailand to feed its commercial zoo industry, so it would not be surprising if gorillas and bonobos were as well. 

During the 2019 visit I was in Bangkok with a cameraman shooting footage for a film series on great ape trafficking entitled “Stolen Apes”. One of the series focuses on Bua Noi.  A man holding a monkey who seemed to be a supervisor came up to us and asked us to stop filming. I asked him, “Where does this gorilla come from?” He replied, “She was born in a German zoo, came here legally 30 years ago.”

I could elicit no more information from him. I decided to get to the bottom of the question of from where and how Little Lotus did in fact find herself at Pata Zoo. I combed through old copies of the very informative International Primate Protection League newsletters, exchanged emails with IPPL’s founder Shirley McGreal, scoured the gorilla studbooks, used Google to search out old stories on Pata Zoo and Bua Noi on the Internet, searched various NGO websites and social media accounts of individuals named who were connected with gorilla trafficking and reviewed the  TRAFFIC reports on great ape trade.

From the information amassed I have reconstructed a scenario that is consistent with known facts.

The Scenario^[1]

Bibi received the order for four more baby gorillas in July 1987 from his father Walter, who was in Hohenstadt near Nuremberg in what was then West Germany. Walter Sensen moved back in 1985 from Equatorial Guinea, a former colony of Spain, to Hohenstadt because of a few brushes with the authorities, just as earlier in 1981 he had had to escape from neighboring Cameroon. Bibi replaced Walter in 1985 and now lived in Bata, a pleasant town on the Equatorial Guinea coast about 30 kilometers south of the border with Cameroon. Walter and Bibi were wild animal traffickers supplying shady zoos around the world with rare animals using their company African Animal Export. Bribes had secured them a five-year exclusive contract with the government for exports of gorillas and chimpanzees.

Bibi, real name Bernd Sensen, sent out word to his contacts in the villages of Rio Muni (mainland Equatorial Guinea) and nearby Cameroon and Gabon that he needed baby gorillas. Kurt Schafer, a known bird and animal trafficker, and Dr. Daeng of Siam Farm in Bangkok had put in an order for the four infants. By early September Bibi had the four infant gorillas, two males and two females, all under a year old. The gorilla mothers ended up as bushmeat, killed and butchered in front of their terrified infants.

Equatorial Guinea was not a member of CITES at the time and the Sensen’s had an in with the Minister of Industry, Commerce and Promotion of Enterprise, Florencio Esoro Obiang Angue, who signed a ministerial export permit number 381 for the four gorillas. Bernd submitted the permit to the Thailand CITES Management Authority in Bangkok and requested an import permit. Thailand rejected the minister’s document as not equivalent to a CITES export permit. Since gorillas were listed as CITES Appendix I, protected from commercial trade, Bernd knew that without a Thai import permit they had a problem. 

Walter made some telephone calls to traders he knew and made a new arrangement. Only one gorilla would go to Thailand – it was too risky shipping all four now that the Thailand authorities were alerted – and two would go to Aritake Chojouten in Japan, a notorious animal trafficker. It wouldn’t be difficult to find a buyer for the fourth. Bibi got hold of Wabi Bello, a Nigerian trafficker who specialized in African grey parrots, to get him a certificado de origen. The Certificate of Origin had Wabi Bello’s name on it and showed that he was exporting one gorilla that weighed 10 kilograms to Siam Farm Zoological Garden, Bangkok, Thailand. The document had official-looking stamps on it, so Bibi was happy and paid Bello the agreed price.

Bernd Sensen flew with the four gorillas as personal effects to Spain on Iberia airlines, using Minister Angue’s export permit. On 9 September 1987 he shipped the baby gorilla from Spain to Bangkok with the certificado de origen and two were shipped the same month to Chojouten in Japan, where he sold them to Chiba City Municipal Zoo for US$575,000. Fraudulent documents claimed that the two gorillas were bred in Ringland Circus, a modest outfit that toured Spain, it didn’t even have a permanent home.

The Iberia airlines waybill for Bua Noi identified the recipient as Dr. Daeng, Pata Zoo, Bangkok. The Pata Zoo owner, Vinai Sermsirimongkol, paid Siam Farm the agreed price for Bua Noi, just as he had paid them for Bwana in 1984. Vinai hoped that when Bua Noi became old enough she would mate with Bwana, now renamed King Kong, and give him valuable offspring to sell and recoup his expenses.

Walter Sensen was convicted and jailed for 2 years on 14 March 1990 in West Germany for illegally shipping three gorillas from Cameroon in January 1987 to Taiwan. He was later freed on appeal and continued to export gorillas and other great apes from Central Africa, assisted by his son Bernd. The situation became so alarming that the CITES Secretariat had to issue a Notification in 1988 warning CITES Parties not to accept imports of CITES-listed species from Equatorial Guinea.

So Bua Noi was not born in a German zoo, was not imported legally from anywhere, but rather she was just one of many ill-fated gorilla and chimpanzee infants captured in the wild by bushmeat hunters who killed their mothers and sold them off to traffickers. In the 33 years that Little Lotus has been suffering in her concrete cage in Pata Zoo she has paid back the zoo owners many times over what she cost them.

What now?

Recently, Sinjira joined forces with Polish activist Joanna Sobkowicz to launch the website freegorilla.org to raise awareness of Bua Noi’s story and give updates about the campaign to free her. 

“I met with Kanit in 2014”, Sinjira told me, “he promised to move all of the large animals from the rooftop by 2020. I am waiting.”

There are two possibilities of where Bua Noi could go, if freed. The first is to a wildlife sanctuary in Thailand, the second is to be repatriated back to Central Africa. As with most alternative choices, there are pros and cons with both.

In June the famous singer Cher came on board with her Free the Wild organization. Cher has written a personal letter to the Honourable Minister Varawut Silpa-Archa (Thailand Ministry of Natural Resources), requesting his urgent assistance for the rescue and release of Bua and the other primates kept at the zoo.

Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne, the co-founder of Free the Wild, said, “I can advise that things are looking very hopeful.” After the success of freeing Kaavan, a lone elephant in the Islamabad Zoo, Free the Wild should be taken seriously.

Damian Aspinall of the Aspinall Foundation  is ready to sponsor and transport Bua Noi to a sanctuary in the Congo, which is actually in the general area from which she was stolen.  

The alternative possibility is a wildlife sanctuary located not too far from Bangkok. The sanctuary has a good track record for looking after rescued wild animals properly and it will also accept other primates from Pata Zoo, including chimpanzees, orangutans and the bonobo. 

Back to Africa might sound like the ideal solution to Bua Noi’s plight, but transport from Bangkok to Brazzaville, with layovers and plane changes, could be quite hazardous for a 33-year old female gorilla. The stress would be extreme. The maximum age for females in captivity is about 40 to 50 years, so she is probably close to the average age for mortality right now. Adjusting to life in a forest, even one where she would be supervised, could be a shock for Bua Noi, who reportedly has become attached to her two regular caregivers at Pata Zoo. 

Transport from Bangkok to the sanctuary would take about two hours by road. The surroundings are pleasant, with plenty of natural vegetation, fresh air and sunlight. With luck, one or two of her regular caregivers could go with her, at least for a transitioning period, to help her adjust to her new surroundings. 

And Khun Kanit Sermsirimongkol, Pata Zoo owner, could come to visit her, as he cares about Bua Noi as well. It would be a generous gesture on Khun Kanit’s part, gaining him the appreciation and respect of the international community and the Thai people.

With the verification provided here that demonstrates that Bua Noi was acquired in the wild and shipped and imported illegally into Thailand, there are good grounds to justify that she be freed. 

Illegal capture of endangered species in the wild for commercial zoos and the exotic pet trade is an enormous problem. Added risks of zoonotic spillover events are only too evident with the current COVID-19 pandemic. Commercial zoos such as Pata and many others like it encourage human-animal interaction for a fee (framed selfie photos, petting, playing, etc.). Three-quarters of all emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic, according to the United Nations Environment Programme, transferred from animals to humans, facilitated by environmental destruction and wildlife crime. 

It is in the best interests of both humans and animals that commercial zoos and safari parks stop importing animals captured in the wild. Closing Pata Zoo and freeing Bua Noi would help current efforts to stop this type of wildlife trade and signal to the world that change is possible. 

^[1] Walter Sensen has passed away, but a draft of this article was sent to Bernd Sensen asking for corrections or comments. None have been received.

Nick, Khun Lee, Eddy and Tom

I was very occupied the next few days with my other operation in Africa. I heard from Jeffrey that nothing happened on the 30^th of November, there were mis-communications between Khun Lee and Ton, Tom’s agent. Tom called Jeffrey in his room at the hotel the night of the 30^th, scaring the heck out him, which he later wrote up for the NYT. Jeffrey left Bangkok on the 1^st.

On 1^st December I WhatsApped Freeland: “…give me an update.” They replied, “…again it was a no-show, we will need to wait and try again tomorrow.”

Since nothing seemed to be happening, I emailed Freeland on 2^nd December:

“Hi R. and [Khun Lee],

I was thinking, what if I started communicating with Tom again directly? I can say I’m back in Bangkok and very keen to receive the orangs and pay the money and be done with it. What did you say to explain my absence?

I think I could sign back onto WhatsApp with my former number if you stop using it. I will have to sign on again and they will send a 6-digit code to the number, which you will receive.  Then you will have to pass it on to me so I can verify.

Brief me on what has been said, and send me some screen grabs. We can say that I’m going to meet them with Mr. Lee to do the exchange.

Regards,

Xxxx”

Back then, a WhatsApp account was tied to a device, not to a SIM card. So even if the SIM card of the number the WhatsApp account was set up with was not in one’s phone, you could still operate it as long as you inserted the verification code. Since then, WhatsApp has done an update that allows it to detect the SIM card so the account will only operate with the device and SIM card together.

R. of Freeland replied immediately:

“Just to update you for yesterday, Ton lied to us and said he was delivering the kids in a black Toyota, this story later changed to ‘they will be delivered by taxi’. We waited until about 7:30, our driver was then asked to travel to Chanthaburi and would be paid 20,000 THB to deliver the Orangs. At this point we refused to proceed and called it a day.

Both [Khun Lee] and I agree that your plan would be a good idea. Please call me at your earliest convenience and we can do this while we are all together so I can pass you the 6-digit code.”

Chanthaburi? That was like a 5-hour drive southeast from Bangkok to a town only 40 km from the Cambodia border. It didn’t make any sense.

I called them and got the WhatsApp account using my Thai mobile phone number set up on my phone. I saw that Tom had sent me a message saying “Hello” at 18:35 on 29^th November and another message early the morning of 30^th November saying:

“Use this code to verify my WhatsApp messages and calls to you are end-to-end encrypted:

[three lines of numbered code]

No one had replied to either of Tom’s messages. Khun Lee had the SIM card, had he even put it in a phone to read Tom’s messages? That’s why Tom called Jeffrey’s hotel room the night of the 30^th, no one was answering my number.

I discovered that Exoticpet88 was back online. This photo of the kids was posted 1^st December:

These two were posted 3^rd December:

This photo was posted on @exoticpetworld on 1st December:

Because Nick had disappeared, Tom was advertising the kids for sale. It would be disaster if someone else bought them.

On 2nd December I WhatsApped R. at Freeland: “Exoticpet88 is back and showing the kids.”

No response, so on 4th December I emailed R.:

“Strangely, the Instagram account exoticpet88 (https://www.instagram.com/exoticpet88/) is back online. The account had no posts from 27 April, then was kicked off of Instagram in around October, I don’t know how they got back on. They are showing the kids from 1st December. The account they replaced it with is still functioning (https://www.instagram.com/exoticpetworld/) and also showing the kids.

I hope Khun [Lee] was serious about refunding me the THB 100,000. Are you going to try and arrest the bank account holder for fraud?”

No reply.

On a whim, I thought I would try contacting Tom using my +27 South Africa WhatsApp, which I had on another mobile phone:

Tom never replied to the old David WhatsApp number.

Still no reply from R., but on 6th December I was copied an email from the head of Freeland to Jeffrey, offering to collaborate on future sting operations to generate stories. One line caught my eye: “You saw [Lee] and [E.] in action during the on-the-job training support.” So Inspector X was being trained, he wasn’t an experienced police operative. I thought he looked young. The head of Freeland concluded: “Meanwhile, believe it or not, Op Kid continues in SE Asia. Hopefully more to come, but lets see.” He didn’t sound overly optimistic.

I received nothing more until 8th December, when R. sent a WhatsApp for me to call. I spoke with R. and with Khun Lee. I tried to formulate a plan of how Khun Lee could act as my agent in Bangkok to conclude the deal with Tom in my absence, me pretending to be in Phuket. I would contact Tom with my usual WhatsApp, saying that after no one had delivered the kids as agreed, I went back to Phuket. I would say I left the $17,150 with Khun Lee to pay for the kids. So if Tom was still in Bangkok, I would authorize Khun Lee to meet with Tom, make sure the kids were in good health, and give him the cash and take the kids. I would fly up to Bangkok and bring the kids back to Phuket.

Talking to Khun Lee about setting up how the sting would go was like an old Abbott and Costello skit, “who’s on first?”, except there was no humor in it. It was almost as if he didn’t want a concrete plan of who would do what, where and when. The call concluded with no clear understanding of what the next steps would be.

I contacted Tom on 15th December:

 
Nick: Lee is an idiot I don’t know what is wrong with him. I am trying to get my money back from him. When you didn’t show up Sunday or Monday 2 weeks ago I left money with him. I got fed up and left Tuesday. Lee has over $17,000 of my money. Why didn’t you meet to give kids and take money? I only get nonsense answers from Lee

Tom only replied with a photo:

 
[Next Day]

Nick: Ohhh they look adorable! Can I send someone to see them? If everything looks good I’ll fly up and we’ll finish it

Tom: Ok
Tom: Give me the number of your person .

Nick: Let me find someone I have to ask them. Do they have to go very far from Bangkok?

Tom: Just a bit . but we can easily work it out to see your kids .
Tom: Did you get your money back , Sir ?
Tom: Mr. Lee , Sir . your 17,000 $ .

Nick: Lee said he would give my money when I came up again

Tom: Ok.

[I didn’t want Khun Lee to run the op, so contacted Noi to see if she was in Bangkok. She wasn’t, she had left the country for something. But she sent me these screenshots from after the blown meeting of 1st or 2nd December, it wasn’t clear from R.’s communications which day the attempted meet took place:

 
This was the result of Khun Lee’s great management skills. I sent these screenshots to R. and said someone else should manage the sting meet for Freeland. R. said ‘Eddy’ would do it, one of their Thai operatives.

[Two days later]

Tom: Hi
Tom: Any update yet , Sir ? Holidays are approaching and I think we should plan as soon as we can .

Nick: I finally found someone who said they can contact you tomorrow. I don’t know that many people in Bangkok I had to ask Noi. She refused but said she knew someone who had time

Tom: Ok
Tom: So he will come to see the kids and take it ?
Tom: In fact I can send down the kids for you too but we have to manage how I should get paid and safe for both of us .

[Next day]

Nick: Noi said this guy can go look to see if kids are healthy and if they are I’ll come to pay and take them. His number is +66 64 275 xxxx
[This was Eddy’s number]

Tom: Ok
Tom: Let me forward the number now .

Nick: Ok

Tom: Noi told me you were inspired to get otans babies because you saw them in phuket zoo , rite ?

Nick: Yes. I was there with Jeffrey and they looked so cute

Tom: Great .
Tom: They got two babies , rite ?

Nick: Yes the keeper told me they got them from a zoo in Bangkok

Tom: But kept in the zoo is not good for them .
Tom: Really
[This was rich coming from an ape slaver.]

Nick: I think they were born in a zoo so what to do?

Tom: If they were captive born then should be OK . safari world in Bangkok got lots of jubenile otans when I was there
Tom: And at least ten little babies they got .
Tom: They breed them quite successful .
[More useful intel on Tom, he had inside info at Bangkok Safari World]

Nick: Really?

Tom: Yes
Tom: A lots of them .
Tom: My agent talked to Eddy today .
Tom: Eddy will go and meet your kids in the next couple of days .

Nick: I should have asked if they wanted to sell. Can they sell to individuals? Is eddy noi’s friend?

Tom: Eddy is nois contact .

Nick: Ok fine I hope he goes soon
[I was trying to distance myself from Eddy, in case Tom asked me any questions about who he was. If asked, my story was that Noi just gave me the phone number with no name.]

Tom: They can’t sell to private person .

Nick: What I thought

Tom: In fact Eddy could take back the kids for you if you want .
Tom: He can go inspect , inform you and take it back if you want .

Nick: Lee would have to give him the money. Let me think about it and find out from Noi more about who eddy is

Tom: Ok , Sir .

[Next day]

Tom: Hello

Nick: Hello

Tom: Have you spoken to Noi about Eddy ?
Tom: My guy in bkk is on stand by for you

Nick: She hasn’t answered my call maybe she’s busy. I sent her message to call me

Tom: Ok

Nick: Noi called me and said Eddy is very trustworthy. He will go look at the kids and if they are in good health he will let me know and I will tell Lee to deposit the money. Should it go into the same account as before?

Tom: Yes , Sir .
Tom: Ok
Tom: I will tell my local guy to set up meeting with Eddy , Sir .

Nick: Wonderful

Tom: Will.update

[I was in communications with R. and another Freeland staff member coordinating the meet between Eddy and Tom’s agent. We were all on the same page. It was disappointing that Tom would not be there for the sting, but hopefully his agent would be able to spill the beans on the network and the true identities of Tom and others.]

[Next day, 21 December 2016]

Nick: Hello Tom. Eddy is not answering his phone. Did he pick up the kids?

Tom: My guy is waiting for him since one hour .
Tom: He said he is on the sky train

Nick: Ok I’ll try to be patient

Tom: Ok
Tom: Eddy called you back yet ?

 
[Tom’s guy never took the kids to a vet. The deal was supposed to be a handover of the kids to Eddy, Eddy would inform Lee, and Lee would deposit the final payment. I received a call from Freeland that the courier had been arrested and the kids seized by the police. I later discovered that the sting had been held in a mall parking garage. Why? What happened to the plan to make the arrest in the vet’s office? I was never to receive an answer to my question.]

Nick: Noi told me kids were seized. What do l do?

[No reply]

On 25th December I sent a last message:

Nick: Merry Christmas Tom

The +855 81 number went dead, never to return to service, and the Exoticpet88 and Exoticpetworld IG accounts disappeared from the Internet.

There was considerable media coverage of the sting (selected):

AP on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCHe8zYIDsE

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1167496/baby-orangutans-rescued-in-thai-police-sting

https://www.freeland.org/post/exotic-wildlife-trafficking-ring-broken-in-asia

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38409849

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4063418/Baby-orangutans-rescued-Thai-police-sting.html

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2016/12/22/thai-police-rescue-two-baby-orangutans/95742732/

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/news/thai-police-rescue-two-baby-orangutans/videoshow/56124321.cms

http://www.thestartv.com/episode/thai-wildlife-authority-agents-seized-two-smuggled-infant-orangutan-from-sting-operation/

baby-orangutans/vp-BBxsilS / https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/thai-police-rescue-two-baby-orangutans/vp-BBxsilS

http://www.khou.com/features/baby-orangutans-rescued-in-thailand/376899269

http://thailand-uk.com/forums/showthread.php?21750-Baby-orangutans-rescued-from-Thai-taxi

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/world/its-really-saddening-see-thai-police-rescue-baby-orangutans-in-wildlife-trafficking-bust-v1

http://globalheadlines.ddns.net/news/baby-orangutans-rescued-from-thai-taxi

http://www.entirenewslink.com/baby-orangutans-rescued-from-thai-taxi/

http://hottestnews.xyz/sciencenature/baby-orangutans-rescued-from-thai-taxi/

http://journaltimes.com/news/world/video-thai-police-rescue-baby-orangutans/video_33d70f5a-6de0-5765-a2e7-3892694bfd7c.html

http://www.bta.bg/en/gallery/image/3837244

http://theworldlink.com/news/world/video-thai-police-rescue-baby-orangutans/video_3783ccaf-ea34-5b43-89f1-804bba58e74d.html

http://azdailysun.com/news/world/video-thai-police-rescue-baby-orangutans/video_e43d6cd8-1a1d-5fd1-b489-d064bd581940.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-23/thai-police-rescue-two-baby-orangutans/8144566

http://www.bkgnews.com/sciencenature/baby-orangutans-rescued-from-thai-taxi/

http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/world/video-thai-police-rescue-baby-orangutans/video_a453a52f-08cf-5658-8e28-6d3168672bb5.html

https://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/panorama/vermischtes/zwei-baby-orang-utans-aus-schmugglerhaenden-befreit-130814731

https://freetheapes.org/2016/12/28/infant-orangutans-rescued-in-police-sting/

Video of Bangkok trafficker and orangs https://www.facebook.com/edwin.wiek/videos/10153985145382443/

Freeland sent me some photos of the bust.

I only found out later that there was only a taxi driver in the car, no ‘agent’ of Tom’s – unless the driver was the agent.

 
The kids were taken to a government wildlife holding facility outside of Bangkok.

 
I tried for weeks to get news from Freeland of what was happening with the case, but no one would give me a straight answer, just saying it was in progress. I didn’t even know if anyone had been arrested or if a prosecution was planned. I thought at least Jirapat, the person in whose bank account I had made the deposit, could be prosecuted. I only found out from tweets on Edwin Wiek’s Twitter account later what happened.

 
Nothing. No arrests, no prosecutions, no investigation. The only good outcome, other than preventing the trafficking of the kids, was Jeffrey’s New York Times article, which came out almost a year after the sting:

End of Part III.

by

Nick

Editor’s note: This comprehensive account describes the prodigious effort it took to set up relations with a large-scale exotic pet trafficker based in Southeast Asia and pull off a sting operation. Exoticpet88, the name of an Instagram account, was reputedly run by a kingpin animal trafficker named Joe. The account advertised a wide range of wildlife species for sale, with most of the animals or birds being captured in the wild. Exoticpet88 operated a farm on the outskirts of Jakarta, Indonesia, where it held the animals before shipment. The network was made up of field wildlife collectors in Southeast Asia and wildlife suppliers further afield in Africa and Latin America, inferred from the species seen in online posts. They had particularly strong connections with traders and buyers in the Middle East and South Asia.

It took 5 months of effort, with dead-ends, stops and starts, shifts in undercover identities, and great persistence to finally lay a trap aimed at catching the head of the Exoticpet88 network in the act of illegally selling two infant orangutans. The undercover investigator used various aliases and this narrative describes how others assisted in the operation. The investigator last used the alias Nick and this is his story.

PART I – David and Joe

I first heard of Exoticpet88 in late December, 2015, when Patricia emailed me with a screenshot of his Instagram account as it appeared on a mobile phone. She wrote, “Instagram account exoticpet88 … is apparently a man who calls himself Joy [sic] in Thailand. He exports all kinds of animals to the Arab countries via the Oman airport. He sends gibbons with dogs in crates, so the dogs’ barking veil the gibbons. He is one of many Thai dealers, I’m told, that do the same. They take animals from all over Southeast Asia (gibbons, lorises, orangs, etc.). He even has a picture of a clouded leopard on the attached image.”

I first met Patricia Tricorache of the Cheetah Conservation Fund electronically in June, 2015, when she emailed me out of the blue asking if I knew anything about cheetah cub capture and trafficking from the Horn of Africa. I said I didn’t, but that I’d seen quite a few posts on social media of cheetahs either being offered for sale or being flaunted by proud owners, mainly in the Gulf. Since we were both engaged in investigating illegal wildlife trade, me with great apes and her with cheetahs, we agreed to collaborate. Soon after that, she began sharing with me a very large collection of material that she had amassed from years of work. I had only started looking at Facebook and Instagram accounts in March of that year, so Patricia’s information provided me with a huge boost.

I reciprocated by sending her the account links of cheetahs I came across, after checking first with her Excel spreadsheet that listed those she had already found. We soon had an active exchange system running, demonstrating the truth of the adage that ‘two heads are better than one’.

Over time I developed my methodology of how I would find new traffickers, figure out who was linked with whom, who was a dealer, who an exotic pet owner (i.e. buyer), who was both, and discerning the networks of suppliers, middlemen, clients and those who collaborated closely with one another. It took a while to determine the composition of the interlinked wildlife trafficking networks based in South, Central and Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Americans, Europeans and Hong Kong Chinese also appeared in the exchanges, but not mainland Chinese. I thought this odd, until I discovered that China does not allow Facebook or Instagram to operate. Chinese use mainly Weibo, Alibaba, Taobao (owned by Alibaba) and WeChat to conduct the trafficking business.

The way I recorded the information I found online also evolved over time. After about a year I had down pat how I would crop the screen grab to include the photo, the name of the account, any important comments on it (which might mean more than one screenshot if I had to scroll down) and the date. I would label the screenshot in a numbered sequence with the date of the post DD/MM/YR. I downloaded mainly great ape posts, but I also started collecting information including contact emails and mobile/WhatsApp numbers, other social media accounts, posts of financial transactions (some of the traffickers actually posted bank transfer and deposit documents), visits to other countries, group photos, Friends and Followers of interest, and any other photos that might provide useful information about activities, identities and locations. I discovered that re-posts of the same animal photo on different accounts was fairly common, which created problems for identifying who made the original post and when it was made. Some ‘for sale’ advertisement posts were also deleted after a sale was made, creating more difficulties in recording everything that was going on, as I must have missed many of those. I made up a couple of Excel databases, one with the names and data by country, the other with the names and numbers of each species seen to get a count.

The work was extremely time-consuming and as the number of persons-of-interest (POI) increased, it became progressively more difficult to monitor all of the existing POIs and add new ones. Some of the POIs had multiple Facebook (FB) and/or Instagram (IG) accounts in different names, and determining that took time. Accounts would also close from time to time, I was never certain of the reason, and sometimes I could find a new one pop up owned by the same POI as a recently closed account.

Back to Exoticpet88

Patricia gave me access to her screengrabs of Exoticpet88. Most were crops of the photos only, but some were whole page screen grabs so I could see the photo, name of the account, a few comments and how long ago it was posted. One of these proved that the account owner was based in Jakarta and strongly suggested he was selling chimpanzees. Where were they coming from? The screengrab was dated 14 July 2014 and it was 87 weeks old, so posted around April 2012. There were other posts of chimpanzees, infant orangutans, all kinds of monkeys, big cat cubs, red pandas, reptiles (including crocodiles) and colorful birds. On many of his posts and in his profile he gave his email address. In early 2016, the Exoticpet88 account disappeared from Instagram.

“I am in Jakarta”. Exoticpet88 was selling chimpanzees. Where were they coming from?

I made some enquiries and was told that Joe had quit the exotic pet trading business. Some time earlier I had come across a Kuwaiti who announced he was quitting the business. His IG moniker was @exoticpet, plus other accounts with a variation on the name. Was there a connection with @exoticpet88?

An IG account owned by a Kuwaiti animal trafficker.

In August 2016 I decided to contact the old @exoticpet88 email address with an alias name email account I had set up for other purposes years earlier, so if @exoticpet88 checked it he would see it was old and not one set up recently just to contact him.

I wrote, “Hello, are you still in business? I’m looking for something.”

Three weeks later a ‘Joe TK <exoticpet88@gmail.com>’ replied:

I’d struck pay dirt! Over two weeks later I replied, “Am looking for young otans.” In previous communications with Indonesian traffickers some referred to orangutans as ‘otans’, so I thought using the term would show Joe that I was not a novice.

The next day he replied, “Give me your cell number pls”.

Two days later I responded, “Use WhatsApp +XXXXXXXXXX”, giving him a WhatsApp number from a country I was not in, to help hide my identity. As I travelled around I opened WhatsApp accounts on different devices with the country codes and numbers of the different countries. As long as we stuck with WhatsApp I was okay, but if he wanted a cell phone call I was dead, unless I was actually in the country of the number at the time.

Joe got back to me the next day with the message below.

A zoo license? I guessed he was being careful, trying not to appear to be what he was – a big-time exotic pet trafficker, as his IG handle indicated. Our conversation progressed as shown below. I’m the green-coloured text.

The person I thought was Joe called me by mobile service network, not WhatsApp audio, I imagine to confirm that I actually was in South Africa. I was using a +27 country code SIM card and just happened to be in South Africa at the time. The man spoke reasonably good English with what sounded like a Malaysian or Indonesian accent. He said that Joe was no longer running @exoticpet88, but that he was. He said for me to call him Tom. After speaking briefly, he sent me a video of a young orangutan he said was for sale. He asked me if I knew a wildlife trader in South Africa named Eddy. I said I didn’t. I later passed the name on to someone who studied wildlife trade based in South Africa with TRAFFIC. He hadn’t heard of any Eddy either.

His mobile number was +855 81 followed by six numbers. I went online to see if I could trace it, using Truecaller and a reverse caller number lookup app, plus just using a Google search. Nothing. A +855 area code is both the country code for Cambodia and a toll-free number that can be purchased for use in the USA and Canada. But there was no ‘81’ city code for Cambodia and the only five mobile prefixes in the country were +855 11, 12, 15, 16 and 18. No 81. All the North American +855 numbers require seven following numbers, and Joe’s was eight. Indeed a mystery.

 
It was now the 3^rd of October, I was leaving South Africa on the 5^th. There was a New York Times journalist very interested in doing a story on great ape trafficking and he was eager to go along with me to witness the sting and arrest, but it was difficult setting a time when he could go to Indonesia. That explains my “am checking with partner and buyer” above. I flew to another country on the 5^th and contacted Tom on 6^th October with the South African WhatsApp number.

I had found that Tom or his associates had set up a new IG account in September or October 2016 called @exoticpetworld and many of the posts were re-posts from @exoticpet88.

This post of an orangutan infant posted on 10th October 2016 was first posted on @exoticpet88 in 2014.

It looked like Tom and/or his associates were reviving the online business.

Otans selling quickly to China was not good news. I knew that there was a rapidly expanding zoo and safari park industry there, orangutans were popular.

I was in Dubai 18-22 October to collect information about wildlife traffickers operating there from various sources that I had developed over the previous two-and-a-half years. I replaced the South African SIM card with a UAE one.

I traced the number to Byat Juma bin Byat, one of the owners of Amazonpet, a major exotic animal trafficker in the UAE. I had recently visited their two pet shops in Al Warsan, on the outskirts of Dubai, and had been monitoring their ads of great apes, gibbons, tiger and lion cubs and other endangered species for a couple of years. I had even posted comments on their IG account asking to buy chimpanzees, but no reply, and then on 19^th October while in Dubai I sent a message by WhatsApp to the number advertised on their IG account asking to buy an ape pet. They replied that they only had reptiles. I thought it was too risky to contact them again with the same UAE number and a different cover story. By 23 October, when Tom sent me the number, I had already left Dubai and could not therefore buy a new UAE SIM card. Bad timing.

Six months earlier, in March 2016 Amazonpet posted this photo, along with many others around the same time, of apes, big cats, etc., so their WhatsApp message to me that they sold only reptiles rang hollow.

My exchange with Tom ceased for the time being.

End of Part I

ELIZABETH CLAIRE ALBERTS wrote a wonderful story in The Dodo on Poco, one of Sweetwaters Chimpanzee Sanctuary’s most famous residents. We reprint it here.

He might look different, but he’s the sweetest chimp — and loves to show off for visitors at his new sanctuary home.

It’s been more than two decades since Poco the chimpanzee was rescued — but anyone who visits Sweetwaters Chimpanzee Sanctuary, where Poco now lives, is reminded of where he came from. Poco spent nine horribly long years locked inside a tiny cage, which is now displayed on the sanctuary grounds.

Poco’s cage used to be suspended from a shop roof in Bujumbura, Burundi. He was kept there to attract customers, who would buy bananas and other snacks to feed him. While no one really knows how the shop owner got Poco in the first place, rescuers believe he was stolen from the wild when he was 3 years old.

Poco was never let out of his metal prison, which forced him to live standing in an upright position. Not only would this have been uncomfortable, but it’s unnatural for a chimp to stand like this. Poco was also exposed to the sun and wind and rain.

In the early 1990s, things finally changed for Poco. Authorities managed to confiscate him from the shop owners, and transferred him to a rescue center run by the Jane Goodall Institute (JGI) in Burundi. After spending two years being rehabilitated at the JGI center, civil war broke out in Burundi — and Poco was transferred to the Sweetwaters Chimpanzee Sanctuary in Kenya, which is run by Ol Pejeta Conservancy.

Poco’s time at the JGI rescue center had helped him move forward, but he still had a lot of emotional healing left to do when he arrived at Sweetwaters.

“When he got to Ol Pejeta it was emotional to see him still traumatized by hearing human voices,” Roxanne Mungai, communications and marketing administrator for Ol Pejeta Conservancy, told The Dodo.

But with time, Poco blossomed into a happy, healthy chimp. He loved the space and freedom to move around at the sanctuary, and he enjoyed meeting the other rescued chimps.

“He was introduced to a healthy population of chimpanzees who he observed and interacted with, and learnt to behave like a chimpanzee,” Mungai said. “It was amazing that despite his tough nine years in the cage, he [was] relatively healthy enough to be rehabilitated.”

“He enjoys fishing for honey and other treats at the enrichment structures put up at the Sweetwaters Chimpanzee Sanctuary,” Mungai added. “He is good friends with one of our older chimpanzees called Max.”

Poco still stands in an upright position, which is how he stood in his cage — and this is how visitors identify Poco from the other 36 chimps living at the sanctuary.

“Poco is always a favorite among our visitors and is identified by his unique ability to stand on his hind legs,” said Mungai, adding that Poco oftens stands this way to show off.

“He really likes people and will strut or throw sticks to get the attention of visitors,” a spokesperson for Ol Pejeta Conservancy wrote on Facebook. “Poco is one of our more gentle chimpanzees, and his bipedal swagger ensures he stands out from the crowd!”

While Poco was lucky to be rescued, wild chimps continue to face numerous threats— people are rapidly destroying the forests in which they live and poaching them for their meat. Wild chimps are also captured and sold into the entertainment industry or as pets.

The sanctuary keeps Poco’s cage out on display to this day to help spread awareness about the issues wild chimps face.

“They [visitors] get emotional hearing about his story and how he overcame being enslaved,” Mungai said. “We can only say he was strong and lucky.”

To help rescue other wild chimps from captivity, you can make a donation to Ol Pejeta Conservancy.

 [If you would like to see Poco run click here]

VIEW THE COMMENTS

The Abraham Foundation, based in New York City, USA, kindly responded to a PEGAS request for funding to allow the project to continue operating into the new year, when hopefully PEGAS can obtain sufficient funds to continue its important work.

PEGAS has targeted a number of high profile wildlife traffickers that it will try to put out of business, and there are a number of captive great apes that are in dire need of a sanctuary. The work will carry on, thanks to Nancy Abraham and the Foundation. Thank you.

PEGAS, working in collaboration with Sam Wolson Media, has produced a short 4-minute video that explains why the Sweetwaters Chimpanzee Sanctuary exists, its history and connection with Dr. Jane Goodall, the renowned chimpanzee expert and conservationist. Jane was kind enough to narrate the video herself. The residents of Sweetwaters are the victims of the illegal pet and zoo trade, as the video explains.

Please view the video here

Wildlife conservationists and law enforcement officials are becoming increasingly concerned about the use of the Internet in marketing and trading protected wildlife species. Before the Internet, live wild animals, plants and their products were normally traded in physical market places, auction houses or shops. Sellers and buyers congregated physically to trade, which set certain limits on the numbers of traders who could participate and the quantity of products that could be sold and shipped around the world.

With the arrival of the Internet, thousands of traders can communicate instantaneously with one another in cyber-space and sell millions of items at the touch of a key. Traders can use e-commerce websites and social media platforms, such as Instagram, WeChat, Twitter and Facebook, to advertise wildlife with photographs showing a multitude of items. They all have private messaging functions between users, which can allow illegal trading to take place anonymously. WhatsApp, Snapchat and other private communication applications can also be used to negotiate illegal trades out of sight of law enforcement.

The Project to End Great Ape Slavery (PEGAS) has been investigating online trading of great apes for about two years now, collaborating closely with the Cheetah Conservation Fund. Cheetahs and great apes share the unfortunate distinction of being popular exotic pets of the wealthy in the Middle East, former Soviet Union countries and elsewhere. The exotic pet and rare species industries make extensive use of cyber-space to conduct trade. Critically endangered CITES Appendix I species such as great apes and cheetahs can attract very high prices from buyers for unscrupulous traffickers, and they have organized suppliers in source countries, creating sophisticated wildlife trafficking networks.

One of the objectives of the PEGAS project is to coordinate actions of organizations and individuals who are engaged in similar work to stop great ape trafficking. With this in mind, PEGAS organized an Illegal Wildlife Cyber-trade Information Exchange Workshop, which was held 21-22 March at Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Kenya.

Those accepting invitations to attend were Tania McCrea-Steele, the Global Wildlife Cybercrime Project Lead of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW); Pauline Verheij, Senior Legal Investigator, Wildlife Justice Commission (WJC); Sarah Stoner, Senior Wildlife Crime Analyst, WJC; and Patricia Tricorache, Assistant Director for Strategic Communications and Illegal Wildlife Trade, Cheetah Conservation Fund (CCF). Joss Wright, Research Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute and Co-Director of the Oxford University Cybersecurity Doctoral Training Centre provided information electronically on illegal wildlife trade that he is investigating on the Dark Net.

Workshop participants visiting Sudan, the last northern white male rhino on Earth

The workshop focused on reviewing the strategies and tactics used by the participating NGO’s to detect and disrupt wildlife cybercriminals with the aim of increasing our impact by adopting a coordinated and consistent approach to tackling the problem across the NGO community. We presented our respective objectives, methodologies, outputs and outcomes and discussed ways of improving our effectiveness.

Each participant gave one or more PowerPoint presentations summarizing their objectives, methodologies, outputs and outcomes.

IFAW was one of the first to recognize the threat that online sales posed to wildlife. Tania McCrea-Steele explained how up to now IFAW has focused on e-commerce websites. In a recent background paper prepared for the OECD entitled ‘E-commerce and Wildlife Cybercrime: Effective policies and practices to stem the growth of illicit trade’, Tania summarized IFAW’s actions in this growing area. In 2004 IFAW launched an investigation called Caught in the Web that documented massive online marketing of live endangered and protected species and their parts including elephants, rhinos, sea turtles, tigers, lions, falcons, primates, parrots and serval cats. Three years later, another IFAW investigation, Bidding for Extinction, focused on eBay sites in the U.K., U.S., Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Germany, France, and China.

IFAW’s investigation in 2008 (Killing with Keystrokes) found 7,122 online advertisements for CITES Appendix I and II species over a period of just six weeks across eight countries. In response to the report’s findings which highlighted the large amount of ivory available for sale over e-commerce sites, eBay introduced a global ban on the sale of ivory across their marketplaces.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service doesn’t have a cyber crimes unit, but IFAW’s findings inspired it to launch undercover stings in 2011 and 2012 called respectively Operation Cyberwild and Operation Wild Web, an example of using outputs successfully. USFWS charged 154 perpetrators in Operation Wild Web and officials seized a huge variety of illegal wildlife products.

In 2013, IFAW found that ads for endangered wildlife products available for sale in Australia, mostly on eBay, had increased 266 percent since 2008. In 2014 IFAW looked at 280 online markets across 16 countries (Wanted Dead or Alive). In just six weeks it found ads for 33,006 endangered animals and their parts. They found 56 live great apes offered for sale in 40 online ads, plus 8 other ads offering multiple species, including great apes.

Russia and Ukraine posted the most great ape ads (38 total). In 2015 IFAW released Elephant vs Mouse, exposing the illegal ivory trade on Craig’s List, a popular P2P e-commerce website, leading to Craig’s List pledging to monitor wildlife ads more vigorously and delist those that were advertising illegal items.

A growing number of online technology companies are banning the trade in endangered species on their sites. In 2008 Chinese online marketplace Tabao banned species included in China’s Wildlife Protection Law, while eBay’s ban on the sale of ivory across all their platforms came into effect in January 2009. In September 2009 Alibaba, a huge Chinese e-commerce site that provides online trade for individual consumers as well as businesses, banned all online postings of elephant ivory, rhino horn, shark fins and the parts and derivatives of sea turtles, tigers, bears and other protected wild animal and plant species.

More recently Etsy banned the sale of ivory and all other products made from endangered species in July 2013 and Chinese giant Tencent, that owns WeChat and the QQ instant messenger launched “Tencent for the Planet. Say No to Illegal Wildlife Trade” in May 2015. TRAFFIC, WWF and IFAW have been working with online companies to develop a united front against online wildlife crime across the sector. This has resulted in seven companies, including eBay, Etsy, Gumtree, Microsoft, Pinterest, Tencent and Yahoo! adopting a new standardised policy framework in August 2016.

Example of illegal ivory for sale on a Chinese social media site

Enforcement efforts are more challenging to track as prosecution data is not collated; however there have been a number of international and national operations, cross border investigations and successful prosecutions.

INTERPOL’s Project WEB (2013) was the first international enforcement operation investigating the scale and nature of online ivory trade in Europe. The operation found 660 advertisements of ivory items conservatively valued at approximately EUR 1,450,000 for sale during a two-week period on 61 Internet auction sites in nine European countries. Operation Cobra 3, an international law enforcement operation tackling the illegal trade in endangered species which took place in spring 2015, led to over 300 seizures of animals, plants and derivatives in the UK, the majority of which had been sold online.

Most recently Operation Thunderbird, a global wildlife crime operation held over a period of three weeks in January and February 2017, ensured that investigating online marketplaces and social media was an integrated part of the operation. In addition to these operations there have been multiple successful prosecutions.

Online wildlife trafficking has been elevated to the largest international conservation forum, CITES, through the adoption of multiple Decisions and the inclusion of specific text on this issue in a Resolution. This was addressed most recently with Decision 17.92 Combatting Wildlife Cyber-crime which was adopted at CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP) 17 in 2016. The Decision seeks to capture changes to legislation, establish best practise models, develop enforcement guidelines, and engage with online technology companies. In addition there is an obligation to report back at CITES Standing Committees and create a Resolution on the issue for CoP18.

IFAW has developed a standardised methodology for researching online wildlife trade which they have shared with interested enforcement agencies, NGO’s and academics. In addition, IFAW has developed a procedure for identifying scam ads on e-commerce websites. Posting fake adverts for wildlife has become a small industry in its own right. The scammers collect a deposit and shipping costs from the customer for nonexistent animals or products and are never heard from again.

The Wildlife Justice Commission was launched in March 2015 as a non-governmental charity registered in the Netherlands and is based in The Hague. WJC’s mission is to help disrupt transnational, organised wildlife crime by exposing criminal networks and the corruption that enables them to flourish by convincing – or if need be pressuring – governments to enforce the law. Pauline Verheij explained how one of WJC’s first investigations, dubbed ‘Operation Phoenix’, focused on the northern Viet Nam village of Nhi Khe, which is a hub of international wildlife product illegal trade, including ivory, rhino horn and tiger parts sold in the village, plus a much larger range and quantity of products sold online, including bear, pangolin, sea turtle and helmeted hornbill parts.

After gathering evidence for a year using undercover investigator visits to Nhi Khe and monitoring of online social media sites of traders based there (mainly WeChat and Facebook), WJC mapped out a network 51 perpetrators involved in selling over USD 53 million worth of illegal wildlife products. They contacted the Vietnamese government in January 2016 and provided a ‘Map of Facts’ report on their findings, requesting them to take appropriate law enforcement action. The government initially ignored the report.

The value of the illegal wildlife seen for sale by WJC

To apply further pressure, WJC held a public hearing in November 2016 in which the evidence of illegal wildlife trade was presented to the public. An Accountability Panel made up of distinguished legal personalities reviewed WJC’s information and described it as objective and reliable. They determined that Nhi Khe is, and continues to be, a major hub for wildlife crime in protected species. The government made a few token arrests, but has not yet taken the necessary steps to shut down illegal wildlife trade in Nhi Khe and neighbouring villages.

Sarah Stoner described how WJC uses iBase to store, process and analyse data. Both the social media account and a traded species product are recorded entities, provided with an ID code and a screen grab of each ad. The analysis produced links that are relationships between the entities. The analysis showed clearly who were the biggest dealers and determined the quantities of each product sold and the estimated value. Relationships between the various actors were also ascertained. The study concluded:

• WeChat was the most popular platform and was used by one third of traders and WJC detected at least 8,300 images of illegal wildlife offered for sale on WeChat
• WJC found that Vietnamese traders are targeting Chinese customers via WeChat
• The volume and scale of products offered for sale on WeChat by a relatively small number of individuals was unprecedented and was occurring in an organised manner
• Emerging Trend: WJC identified Chinese customers are using WeChat Wallet, particularly WeTransfer, to transfer funds to their Vietnamese suppliers
• Facebook was used by a minimum of eight subjects
• WJC detected a minimum of 200 offences under Article 190 of Viet Nam’s Penal Code
• The estimated minimum value of products found for sale on Facebook equated to USD 445,356 along with a strong indication of trade occurring on a commercial scale
• 31 of the 51 dealers (61%) used either WeChat or Facebook to trade illegally; some used both; WhatsApp was also used to communicate.

The illegal items illegally sold in Nhi Khe added up to hundreds of animal deaths

The Cheetah Conservation Fund was founded in 1990 and is an international non-profit organization headquartered in Namibia, with operations in the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and partner organizations in several other nations. Patricia Tricorache explained how she began recording cases of cheetah IWT in late 2005 mainly in the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Somaliland/Somalia, Djibouti and northern Kenya), which is the source area for most of the cheetahs going into the pet trade. She also records the illegal trade in parts (skins, bones, etc.) reported from anywhere. CCF uses Excel spreadsheets to both record and analyze the data. Since 2007, CCF has observed 641 live cheetahs in trade and found 406 cases of confiscated live cheetahs. Add to this at least 119 cheetahs represented in traded or confiscated parts totals 1,166 cheetahs taken from the wild in 10 years. CCF estimates that five cubs die for every one that makes it to the pet trade. With the total population in Africa estimated at only 7,100, the loss of so many cheetahs a year in illegal trade is seriously affecting their survival in the wild.

As alarming as the above numbers are, they do not represent the totality of the trade due to the difficulties in obtaining data. CCF’s field associates estimate that 300 cheetahs per year are being smuggled out of Africa for the pet trade. Consequently, in an effort to understand the trade better and obtain a broader picture, in 2014 , Patricia began searching the social media sites for cheetah dealers and mapping relationships between them. She continues to monitor them closely, having recorded well over 1,000 cheetahs offered for sale on the Net since 2012. This figure, which is much higher than the data collected through reports, indicates that the trade may indeed be closer to 300 cubs per year.

CCF collaborates with a number of partners, including IFAW and PEGAS, and its data served to support the inclusion of IWT of cheetahs on the CITES 16^th Conference of the Parties agenda. Since then, CCF and has worked within the CITES process to raise awareness about cheetah IWT, which resulted in Decisions 17.124-17.130 being adopted at the CITES 17^th Conference of the Parties in 2016. The Decisions call for the creation of a forum on the CITES website where users can exchange information on cheetah IWT and the development of a CITES cheetah trade resource kit that compiles relevant information and tools to assist in implementing the Convention with regard to trade in cheetahs, and addresses inter alia: identification of live cheetahs and parts and derivatives thereof; advice on procedures to be followed in case of seizures including handling, DNA sampling, guidance on the immediate and long-term disposal of live animals (e.g. decision trees based on relevant CITES Resolutions, veterinary care, contact details of experts or potential rescue centres, advice on procedures, reporting on disposal activities); and lists of suitable housing facilities for long-term placement of live cheetahs; and other relevant materials.

CCF also engages in demand reduction through awareness creation materials and campaigns and is in the process of building a cheetah genetics database at its laboratory in Namibia to support forensic investigations.

CCF carries out demand reduction activities

A bit of relatively good news was communicated by Joss Wright of the Oxford Internet Institute, who reported that he has found very little IWT on the Dark Net. It would appear that there is little incentive for traffickers to go to the trouble of establishing themselves on the Dark Net, where transactions have to be made using bitcoin, a virtual currency. Dealing in IWT on the open Net has proven to be low risk, low cost and very efficient. Unless law enforcement becomes much more effective against Internet dealers, it is unlikely that the Dark Net will be used for wildlife trade.

PEGAS made presentations during the workshop outlining its objectives, the methodology used in finding and tracking traffickers and the results achieved thus far, explained in the photos below.

During the workshop participants agreed that we are working towards the following outcomes:

• Disrupt wildlife cybercrime through enforcement actions including arrests, seizures and prosecutions
• Raise awareness with governments at an international and national level on the scale and severity of wildlife cybercrime
• Raise awareness with buyers on the negative impact of illegal wildlife trade on both the conservation and welfare of the animals being traded
• Effect policy and legislative trade at the international (CITES) and national level to specifically target wildlife cybercrime (i.e. adding offering for sale as an offense where this doesn’t exist)
• Ensure online tech companies (particularly social media platforms) pro-actively implement their wildlife trade policies

The participants decided to work together to explore the possibility of developing collaborative projects that would further the goal of reducing IWT, focusing initially on great apes and cheetahs.

The results of the workshop greatly exceeded the expectations that PEGAS initially had of its usefulness, and feedback from the participants has been very positive. We all learned a great deal, and PEGAS has a lot of work ahead to upgrade the way in which data are recorded and processed in its online IWT monitoring work.

Not only was the workshop technically and conceptually valuable, it was also very enjoyable, being held on the beautiful Ol Pejeta Conservancy where the wildlife that we are all working to conserve was seen in great abundance.

PEGAS represented Ol Pejeta Conservancy at the Walk for Animals in Dubai’s Zabeel Park on 10 February, 2017. The purpose of the Walk was to create awareness about the abuse that domestic and exotic pets can suffer by uncaring owners.

The PEGAS Project Manager set up a table with reading materials on Ol Pejeta Conservancy and its Sweetwaters Chimpanzee Sanctuary, along with souvenir objects, in order to attract visitors from the Walk. PEGAS explained to visitors about the wild animal conservation objectives of Ol Pejeta and why there was a need for a chimpanzee sanctuary.

PEGAS set up a table

There was a surprising lack of awareness in the public PEGAS encountered about the problem of illegal trade of wild exotic species for use in the pet trade. PEGAS realizes that much more needs to be done to inform residents of the UAE about illegal exotic animal imports to the country and the negative impacts that this has on wildlife conservation, particularly with great apes.

Mahin Bahrami on left and Zara Hovelsas on right of the Middle East Animal Foundation, a PEGAS partner in the UAE

On 5th and 9th July a Kenyan television station, Nation TV (NTV), featured a 45-minute segment on its NTV Wild programme that toured Sweetwaters Chimpanzee Sanctuary on Ol Pejeta Conservancy. Several staff were interviewed along with the PEGAS Project Manager, who explained to viewers the tragic problem of illegal great ape trade. The video of the programme can be viewed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMQqLe5CSOs.

A story published on 16 March 2016 in the Doha News reported that a man was apprehended trying to sell a baby chimpanzee by a patrol from the Department of Environmental Protection. No details were given, but if a patrol saw it the man must have been trying to sell it outdoors. A person commenting on the story said that he had once seen it at the Wakra roundabout in Doha.

A photograph accompanying the story showed a miserable baby chimpanzee on a car seat wearing a child’s pajamas. The pajamas looked familiar.

One of the online traffickers PEGAS has been monitoring, located in Qatar, posted a video on 18 February of the baby chimpanzee that was later seized. The pajamas are identical with those in the newspaper report and the size and facial characteristics of the infant in the photograph and video are the same.

The baby chimpanzee seized in Doha in mid March 2016

This is the seized chimpanzee. This video post from 29 February demonstrates that a dealer was offering the chimpanzee for sale online for 75,000 rials, about USD 20,600.

The commentary displayed on the video post shows that the man was offering the chimpanzee for sale for 75,000 Qatar rials (about USD 20,600). It looked like he had a buyer, as one commentator asked that the dealer call him at a number provided. Apparently, the deal was not concluded. He also advertised it for sale on a Kuwaiti traffickers post on 29 February.

The dealer in Doha posted that he had a chimpanzee for sale on an Instagram page of a trafficker based in Kuwait.

Another infant chimpanzee was seized in November last year in Doha and the trafficker was arrested, though no further information is currently available on what has happened to the accused or the chimpanzee. The article said that the chimpanzee was sent to the Doha Zoo, but the zoo closed in 2012. Some animals are being moved to the Al Khor Park, and others were supposed to be moved to shelters in Rawdat Al Faras farm, but the fate of the two infant chimpanzees is unknown.

Another infant chimpanzee seized in Doha in November 2015. (Photo: The Peninsula newspaper)

There were three other adult chimps already living in Doha Zoo (Rita, Timmy and Tina) and what has become of them is also unknown. PEGAS is making enquiries.

Rita, Timmy and Tina, three chimpanzees about 15 years old in Doha Zoo. (Photo: Hilda Tresz)

Qatar is currently constructing a new zoo and safari park that is supposed to be the biggest in the region. The new zoo will cover 75 hectares, seven times the size of the current facility, and it will be divided into several regions representing the natural and climatic features of three continents, with a planned 3,000 animals. There will be a combination of drive and walk through exhibits and other facilities. It is expected to open at the end of 2017.

Schema of the new 75-hectare Doha Zoo planned to hold 3,000 animals. How many will be great apes and where will they come from?

This joins the safari park type expansions of the Dubai and Al Ain zoos in the UAE. Thousands of wild animals are pouring into the Gulf region to supply these new developments. Conservationists concerned about illegal wildlife trade need to monitor the sourcing of these animals carefully.

A government spokesman said that the new Doha Zoo “will be an entertainment outlet for the country’s residents and tourists”. PEGAS hopes that the “entertainment” does not take after what is seen in some places in East Asia, where great ape infants are used as photo props with visitors and juveniles are trained to perform in front of fee-paying audiences. Will this be the fate of the two chimpanzee infants?

PEGAS has written to the Qatari CITES office enquiring about the possibility of relocating the chimpanzees to Sweetwaters Chimpanzee Sanctuary, but has yet to receive a response. There is precedence. In 2001 two baby chimpanzees smuggled in to Qatar with a shipment of birds from Nigeria were sent to Chimfunshi sanctuary in Zambia.

If you would like to help, please write to:

Mr. Fawaz Al-Sowaidi
Director of Protected Areas and Wildlife Department
Head of CITES Management Authority
P.O. Box 7634
Doha, QATAR
Email: fasowaidi@moe.gov.qa

Politely enquire about the fate of the two seized chimpanzee infants and respectfully suggest that they should be sent to an appropriate facility that can offer secure and nurturing care in the company of other chimpanzees. Ol Pejeta Conservancy is one of the few wildlife establishments in the world that can offer to cover all transport costs, through the PEGAS project, and lifetime care for chimpanzees in need of a home.

Stay tuned.

On 9^th November, 2015, PEGAS organized a meeting with several key people involved in great ape conservation and welfare. The purpose was to exchange information with a view to enhancing synergy and cooperation in all of our respective activities. The meeting elicited unexpected – for PEGAS – differences of opinion on the best way forward. More on this will be presented in future posts.

Please see below a summary of the discussions, which was sent for review to all of the participants.

REPORT OF MEETING

Great Ape Illegal Trade Information Exchange Meeting 

9 November, 2015 

Introduction and purpose of the meeting 

GRASP and PEGAS welcomed the participants to the meeting.

The names of individuals who expressed various points of view or who shared items of information will in most cases not be given, and only a very general summary will be presented here.

PEGAS organized the meeting with considerable assistance from GRASP, for which we are most grateful. It was held at the United Nations Office in Nairobi on 9^th November 2015 from approximately 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The meeting participants (list in the annex) introduced themselves and briefly summarized their interest in great apes.

The purpose of the meeting was to exchange information related to illegal great ape trade: how and why it persisted – supply and demand drivers; what the scale of it was and the trends; what measures could be taken at the national and international levels to halt it; the issues of corruption and law enforcement; where and how many great apes were in captivity and in need of relocation to a sanctuary; the question of sanctuary space and capacity to care for new arrivals; policy related to relocating captive great apes; databases to capture, analyze, store and report information on illegal trade and sanctuaries; CITES enforcement issues; and future plans.

Great Apes in need of rescue and relocation

It was proposed that a database containing the following information be established: the location and number of great apes in need of sanctuaries by species, the capacity and willingness of sanctuaries to accept or not new arrivals by country and species, and the policy that would apply to relocating great apes from one country or region to another.

The final outcome was that no database of this kind will be produced, there was insufficient support from participants.

GRASP has a list of captive great apes in need, but it is not freely available. Many of the participants spoke of large numbers of great apes known to be in deplorable conditions. PASA has protocols and guidelines of how to deal with such cases, but these do not seem to operate in practice. Each case has its own individual characteristics, and efforts to relocate apes can be very time-consuming and expensive to achieve. The case of the Taiping Four gorillas was presented as an example, which took several years and considerable effort and expense to complete. CITES stated in 2007 that it should stand as an example and act to prevent a repeat occurrence – which has not been the case. [The Guinea to China C-scam began in 2007, the same year.]

The consensus opinion of the group seemed to be that relocation should be attempted only in extreme cases. In most instances, because of multiple factors – expense, difficulty, opportunity costs (more important things could be done with the time and money), sanctuary limitations – the apes would regrettably have to remain where they were. The PASA policy, however, was that if great apes were seized or otherwise acquired in a country and presented to a sanctuary in that country, the sanctuary was required to take the ape(s) in; lack of space and funds was not an excuse to reject acceptance.

Repatriation of internationally seized apes would preferably only be done soon after seizure. Those apes trafficked years ago and held in captivity abroad for long periods are not high priority for limited sanctuary space in Africa, except at a non-range country sanctuary such as Sweetwaters. Chimfunshi was suggested as being included, but some felt that this sanctuary was not up to standard. If a relocation was proposed from outside Africa to a PASA sanctuary, it would have to come with sufficient funding attached to cover the expense of caring for the ape over the course of its expected life span.

More sanctuaries are needed in range State countries that do not have them (e.g. Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia and CAR), and existing sanctuaries need to expand, but there was no master plan of how to achieve it. Each country and sanctuary seems to operate independently.

Status and trends of illegal great ape trade

GRASP is keeping records of seizures with various partners reporting to it. The average rate over the past 18 months (?) was 2.11 apes a week seized, which is a higher rate than the period before the Stolen Apes report (2005-2011). Anecdotal reports from the media and informed individuals suggest that trade, particularly of orangutans, is at a high level. A high level for apes, however, was still very low compared to many other species. This, and the fact that CITES only accepts formal seizure data from governments, the WCO, INTERPOL and other official sources, was suggested as one reason why the CITES Secretariat does not accord priority to great ape trafficking.

Considerable discussion ensued about the motivation behind lack of action by CITES in regard to great apes and its reluctance to allow creation of a WG within CITES. The following were offered as explanations: (1) CITES has 35,000 species to deal with, only those with high levels of illegal trade and economic value are accorded concerted attention. Great ape trade does not cross the threshold; (2) related to (1), since CITES only accepts official trade records, it misses much of the informal reporting on trafficking and defends its actions based on the official data; (3) CITES does not want to tackle great ape trafficking because it does not want to enter into conflict with influential import countries such as China, Russia and the wealthy Gulf states, and (4) most of the informal sector reports presenting data on the trafficking have been presented in such an aggressive manner that the Secretariat is biased against according the data a platform in a WG.

It was pointed out that the main demand motivations for great ape trade persisted: (1) pets, (2) entertainment, (3) private menageries for the wealthy, (4) commercial zoos and safari parks.

Pegas announced that Vietnam, China and the Middle East (Egypt and the UAE) were developing new safari parks, the former USSR countries and eastern Europe were emerging as markets for great apes in the pet and private menagerie area, the Middle East had many online great ape traffickers, TRAFFIC had found many great apes in commercial and private ownership in SE Asia, and even India was now implicated in illegal trade [one of the Dubai online traffickers operates in India and is Indian]. The Indonesian land-clearance fires were creating increased opportunities for orangutan trafficking.

Views were divided on whether the best approach to address illegal great ape trade was at the national level or internationally through CITES. CITES was recognized as being ineffective and there were loopholes in using CITES permits and government-to-government ‘Ambassador’ gifts. Some felt it was generally impossible to improve CITES enough, so the national level law enforcement and community education approach was the preferred course of action, while others thought that CITES could be reformed enough to be effective.

Corruption was recognized as the biggest hurdle to achieving effective national action. In Africa, EAGLE had made corruption the keystone of its law enforcement strategy. They had found that approaching high-level government officials to back their work had led to successes down the line through the courts and police. But it was a constant battle with the accused attempting to bribe their way out at every level. Prosecutions could not always be successfully completed, or even if they had been, keeping convicts in prison needed constant monitoring and action, as there were cases where they were let out in irregular fashion. In high-level cases, influential people could intervene to sway the police or the courts to drop cases. The Doumbouya case in Guinea was offered as a ‘success’ example. Will it succeed in the long run against efforts to divert justice? Will it serve to deter others? Time will tell, but it is an excellent example to break the common impression that impunity prevails with ‘connected’ individuals.

Some felt that creating awareness and education at the local level worked effectively to reduce bushmeat hunting, the consequent creation of ape orphans, and the resultant trafficking. JGI offered parts of eastern DRC and Congo-Brazzaville as examples of places where billboards, a TV programme and community meetings had reduced cases of ape orphans significantly.

A participant pointed out that as long as the demand remained, and end-users were willing to pay USD 20,000 for a chimpanzee and USD 150,000 or more for a gorilla, traffickers would operate a market for great apes that no amount of supply country law enforcement or community work alone could effectively deal with. The demand had to be cut off, which posed an equally huge challenge. There were signs in China that the young generation was producing people that could change attitudes towards wildlife exploitation from within, and this should be encouraged. Partnerships could be established to work with Chinese NGOs and the media to campaign against illegal great ape trafficking. EIA and WildAid had been approached about undertaking great ape work, but neither had shown much interest.

Some expressed the view that better data were needed on the trade. An inventory of great apes in captivity in various countries and their uses would be extremely useful. A baseline of numbers was needed from which to monitor future activity. Age and sex was needed and ideally some form of identification – DNA profiles, microchips, facial recognition from photos, fingerprints, were all suggested.

DNA data could indicate not only source area, but also the presence of international trade in Africa, which was of relevance to CITES. The numbers of illegally traded apes could be increased substantially by DNA data indicating the movement of great apes from one country to another, which CITES could not ignore. Some asked, who would pay for it? Others pointed out the difficulty of obtaining permission to take DNA samples.

GRASP great ape illegal trade database

GRASP briefed the meeting on the status of the database they intend to launch. It was consulting with various partners on how the database should be structured, what variables would be included and so on. The World Conservation Monitoring Centre will host the database. It should enter into operation in 2016. GRASP stated that it would consist mainly of seizure data, similar to ETIS. A participant advised that it should be compatible with other relevant databases as much as possible. Some participants would like to know the format and how best to report instances of illegal trade they knew of to GRASP. GRASP stressed that illegal trade reports it received would be closely vetted to establish accuracy and to eliminate multiple source reports of the same case, which it had already experienced in Indonesia, for example. There was some uncertainty about how non-seizure trafficking reports would be dealt with, for example the online great apes seen for sale or great apes turning up in safari parks from unknown sources with no CITES paper trail. These issues would be resolved over the course of the next few months.

GRASP would in future be reporting to CITES on great apes jointly with the IUCN Section on Great Apes, which should provide a higher profile for great ape trafficking. It was signaled that the CITES-MIKE illegal killing of elephants programme had been expanded in the new MIKES programme to include great apes in some monitoring sites. GRASP could perhaps liaise with them to see if any relevant data might emerge.

Plans to ensure that a Great Ape Working Group be created at CITES SC66

PEGAS has prepared a Working Document and an Information Document to appear on the Agenda item ‘Great Apes’ at the 66^th CITES Standing Committee meeting in Geneva in January 2016. Doug Cress of GRASP, Mark Jones of Born Free, Ian Redmond of Ape Alliance and Solomon Kyalo of KWS have made valuable comments that are producing revised versions. The first recalls the history of great ape trafficking in CITES and demonstrates that it is still occurring. CITES measures to date to address it had been inadequate and the CITES Resolution Conf. 13.4 (Rev) that deals with illegal great ape trade needed review and strengthening. The Info Doc provided the detailed history in CITES of great ape trade and reports selected incidents that had occurred since CITES last took action and were still occurring. Both documents called for the creation of a working group to discuss the issue. The documents had also been sent to two NGO members who were part of the CITES delegations of Cameroon and Congo-Brazzaville (a Standing Committee member) respectively, asking if they might be able to co-sponsor the submission, but no response had been received.

KWS, which is the Kenya CITES Management and Scientific Authorities, spoke to explain how they supported the submission of the documents and that they were seeking the co-sponsorship of Uganda, since Uganda is a member of the Standing Committee and is a great ape range State. KWS hoped that after the issue was discussed in a WG at SC66 that a range State consultative meeting could be held well before the 17^th Conference of the Parties in late September 2016. The range State meeting would formulate a joint position with recommendations of what revisions should be made to RC 13.4 and any other actions that could be taken to control the trade.

Suggestions for strengthening CITES Resolution Conf. 13.4 (Rev.) Great Apes

This topic was included with the previous agenda item in a joint discussion session. Meeting participants pointed out that many of the areas that needed addressing to strengthen measures to control great ape trafficking were included in other CITES working groups. These included fraudulent permitting, lack of timely monitoring of improper permits, lack of timely reporting of illegal trade, failure of the Secretariat and Parties to enforce Articles of the Convention and national law, and so on. It was suggested that the new electronic permitting system that CITES intended to establish might deal with many of these problems.

Various participants advised that suggestions for RC 13.4 revision should be specific to great apes and not overlap with topics that CITES was dealing with in other WGs. One participant stressed that the WG would be important to act as a forum for bringing non-official reporting of great ape trafficking into CITES documents and therefore permit Parties for the first time to examine their significance. Up to the present, most of the NGO investigations that have revealed the extent of illegal great ape trade have not been discussed in CITES meetings. Even the UNEP Stolen Apes report findings have not been admitted into official CITES documents. This lack of examination of unofficial data allows the Secretariat to continue to maintain that great ape trade is insignificant.

Some expressed the opinion that if the attempt to create a WG failed that political capital would have been wasted. The same objectives might be able to be achieved in the other WGs. However, none of the other WGs seemed to present a forum for presentation of the unofficial trade data that was in the Information Document and information that would be created as the result of investigations in future. It was anomalous that every major species group, and some not so major, had a WG, except for great apes. Was this simply a result of the Secretariat wishing to prioritize species by trade scale, a cost-benefit approach motivated by limited staff and time, or was there something else?

In spite of the risks of failure with this strategy, many if not most of the participants (no vote was taken) thought it was worth a try. If no WG was established, another attempt could be made at SC67 or CoP17.

Possibilities for continued information exchange to enhance cooperation

The Ape Alliance, a network of dozens of NGOs and individuals concerned with great ape welfare and conservation, announced that it had recently created a Great Ape Illegal Trade Working Group (http://www.4apes.com/working-groups/ape-trade). The WG had not yet formulated a Terms of Reference or work plan, but it could very well act as a forum for continued information exchange. PEGAS will consult with Ape Alliance and Born Free/Species Survival Network to formulate a ToR in the coming weeks and communicate the results to everyone.

GRASP also offers a forum for information exchange and is already a useful source of information dissemination through its Newsletter bulletins (email newsletter@un-grasp.org to sign up), Twitter (https://www.twitter.com/graspunep) and Facebook page (https://web.facebook.com/graspunep).

Recommendations for follow-up action

1. Establish the ToR of the Ape Alliance Working Group on Illegal Great Ape Trade.
2. Disseminate to participants.
3. Engage other NGOs and interested parties in concerted action concerning illegal trade.

Participants were requested to send in any other recommendations they might think of (pegas@olpejetaconservancy.org).

PARTICIPANTS’ LIST

Great Ape Trade Information Exchange Meeting

9 November 2015

Daniel Stiles           PEGAS, Ol Pejeta Conservancy, pegas@olpejetaconservancy.org

Doug Cress             UN-GRASP, Douglas.cress@unep.org

Laura Darby           UN-GRASP, Laura.Darby@unep.org

Johannes Refisch UN-GRASP, johannes.refisch@unep.org

Theodore Leggett UNODC, Theodore.LEGGETT@unodc.org

Javier Montaño       UNODC, javier.montano@unodc.org

Mark Jones             Born Free Foundation, markj@bornfree.org.uk

Ofir Drori                 EAGLE, lastgreatape@yahoo.com

Gregg Tully             Pan African Sanctuary Alliance (PASA), gregg@pasaprimates.org

Franck Chantereau PASA, jack@lub.gbs.cd

Susan Lutter         PASA, sllutter@gmail.com

Becky Rose           PASA, rebeccar0214@gmail.com

Debby Cox            Jane Goodall Institute, dcox@janegoodall.org

Jim & Jenny Desmond Humane Society of the United States, jjdesmond@hotmail.com

Solomon Kyalo      Kenya Wildlife Service, cites@kws.go.ke

Ian Redmond        Ape Alliance (via Skype), ele@globalnet.co.uk

Julie Sherman      WildlifeImpact, julie@wildlifeimpact.org

The Pan African Sanctuary Alliance (PASA) held a PASA Strategic Development Conference in Nairobi 4-7^th November. PASA is a coalition of wildlife sanctuaries and NGO’s working across Africa to protect primates in the wild and to ensure those orphaned primates are cared for to the highest standards.

As part of the conference activities a number of the delegates from all over Africa came on a special visit to our sanctuary. The delegates included other primate sanctuary managers from chimpanzee range states and ape conservation programme managers, as well as some of the PASA Executive Board and the new Executive Director who had flown in from Oregon, USA. They visited the Sweetwaters Chimpanzee Sanctuary so they could see for themselves the excellent facilities we have here on Ol Pejeta Conservancy for looking after these very special primates.

Stephen Ngulu, the Sweetwaters manager, guides PASA visitors

During their day they of course visited the chimps themselves and spent time seeing how much they enjoyed living in Laikipia. They also got an exclusive behind the scenes tour to see the housing facilities we have here. The most recent extension to the housing was completed in April 2013 and expanded the capacity of the sanctuary by 35 so we now have space for approximately 75 chimpanzees. Sweetwaters could expand even further in future if necessary.

Sweetwaters chimpanzees live a good life

The PEGAS Project Manager was on hand to explain exactly how this extra capacity can help relieve some of the population pressure on other sanctuaries who are close to or full to capacity. Despite some sanctuaries being full there are still many apes out there in range states that need rescuing from the illegal bushmeat trade or the illegal international trade in live apes. They also need a home within a PASA sanctuary and the SCS with its new increased capacity is ready to fill the places with chimps in dire need of somewhere to stay.

This visit has been followed up by a meeting held on Monday 9^th November in Nairobi, hosted by PEGAS to further discuss ways we can all come together to find the best way we can all cooperate to do what is best for the chimps that are in such desperate need of our help.

GRASP published the following alert [edited] on its press release webpage in June 2014:

The illegal trade in live chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and orangutans showed no signs of diminishing – and may actually be getting worse – since the Great Apes Survival Partnership (GRASP) published the first-ever report to gauge the global black market in great apes in 2013.

Three chimpanzees captured in Ghana before transport.

The three chimpanzees in Dubai after shipment. (photos captured from Instagram)

“The number of apes being trafficked and confiscated indicates that serious threats remain to wild populations,” said GRASP coordinator Doug Cress. “Either the illegal trade is increasing or law enforcement is improving, but it’s clear there is still a significant population of [great apes] being captured and sold.”

Unlike wildlife contraband such as elephant ivory or rhino horn, the overwhelming majority of great ape confiscations occur within national borders. Only 5 percent of the total confiscations in 2013 and 2014 crossed international borders.