THAILAND: End inhumane wildlife trade

[Guest guest]

EDITORIAL: End inhumane wildlife trade

 

Published on July 24, 2005

 

 

Controversial elephant deal with Australia belies even worse abuses fuelled

by greed and corruption

 

 

The elephant-exchange deal between Thailand's Zoological Park Organisation

(ZPO) and two Australian zoos has drawn the ire of wildlife-conservation

activists in both countries. However, the crux of the dispute is much more

than hair-splitting technicalities over the prohibition of cross-border

trade in wild animals under the Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (Cites). It highlights Thailand's

shabby record with regard to its own indigenous wildlife.

 

 

The deal finally got the green light from Canberra last week, and eight

elephants currently housed in Kanchanaburi will soon be on their way to

Sydney's Taronga Park Zoo and the Melbourne Zoo.

 

 

The " exchange " has been condemned by wildlife groups in both countries, who

say the elephants should remain in their native habitat and not be sent

abroad. Local activists say the agreement is linked to a bilateral

animal-exchange accord signed in Canberra last year and to arrangements to

secure Australian animals for the Chiang Mai Night Safari, a pet project of

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who hails from that northern city.

 

 

Thailand is a signatory to Cites. Elephants are listed as an endangered

species, and trade is allowed only under exceptional conditions, such as for

scientific study.

 

 

Ian Campbell, Australian minister for the environment and heritage, said the

approval was consistent with both the Australian Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999 and Cites. He insisted that the

elephant importation would be part of a breeding programme that represents

Australia's contribution to the preservation of the species.

 

 

But wildlife activists claim the justification cited by Canberra was an

afterthought and a dishonest move to get around Cites, as the original plan

was to acquire the animals simply for exhibition at the two public zoos in

Australia.

 

 

The transaction calls for a cash payment and in-kind contributions from

Australia in the form of 10 indigenous Australian species, koalas, kangaroos

and other marsupials. Conservationists say they fear that such a move could

set a dangerous precedent.

 

 

It is an important debate, because of the treasured status here of elephants

and the reality that Thailand has difficulty managing their welfare. The

Kingdom has about 3,000 captive elephants and 1,600 in the wild, but their

natural habitat has dwindled.

 

 

At present, most domesticated elephants are used for taking tourists on

jungle treks or performing in shows. Unfortunately, many, along with their

mahouts, are out of work and must roam the streets of Bangkok and other

cities, begging for their keep.

 

 

The elephant deal is done, but many other dubious and troubling animal

" exchanges " are looming, and they have the potential to generate far greater

controversy.

 

 

Thailand needs to get its priorities straight. There is no denying that

Thailand is a flagrant offender of Cites rules and has consistently failed

with wildlife-conservation programmes, thanks to the widespread corruption

that fosters the notoriously lax law enforcement.

 

 

Meanwhile, Thai zoo officials are reportedly scouring the world for up to

1,500 animals for the Chiang Mai Night Safari. The most contentious deal is

with the Kenyan government, to capture 300 wild animals. Wildlife groups

everywhere have voiced outrage.

 

 

There was also news last week in a Calcutta newspaper of Thai authorities

offering wildlife officials in the northern Indian state of Assam another

" exchange " : three chimpanzees and two orang utans for one male Indian rhino.

 

 

 

The Thai government should be very careful about trading in orang utans,

animals that are not native to Thailand, given that Indonesian officials and

wildlife groups have been lobbying for the return of dozens of them from a

private tourist facility in Bangkok. DNA tests proved beyond all doubt last

year that more than 40 orang utans at Safari World were indeed Indonesian

and not bred in captivity as claimed by the park-owner.

 

 

The government would be very wise to ease concerns about its wildlife

exchanges by returning the Safari World orang utans to Indonesia as promised

and treading very carefully in its contentious animal deal with Kenya.