Open Letter To

Open letter to:

John Sellar, former head of the enforcement division of the CITES secretariat

Tom De Meulenaer had of the Science Division of the CITES secretariat

Nanyuki, 10/12/2015

Dear John / Tom,

I am of course aware that you are tired of discussing the trafficking of great apes and other wildlife from a range of states in West and Central Africa to China. However I was recently sent a link to a podcast in which you, John, referred to the recent developments in Guinea and the arrest of Mr. Ansoumane Doumbouya.I was also sent a link to a communication by the Secretariat informing the Parties to CITES of this development (see below). In the circumstances I feel there is little choice but to once again try to set the record straight.

I consider these latest statements the height of double standards and, in the context with all your other public pronouncements on enforcement matters, one more attempt at a cover up (in this case going the scapegoat route without looking at the bigger picture). Based on these recent developments I decided to once more raise some of the key issues in an open letter to you, in the first instance giving you the right to respond to a wide range of questions below but reserving the right for a much wider distribution including to all the Parties of the convention

The Secretariat recently released its report on Enforcement matters for the forthcoming 66thmeeting of the Standing Committed in Geneva in January 2016. Paragraph 17 of that report states:

In September 2015, the Secretariat received formal confirmation from INTERPOL that the former wildlife director and head of the CITES Management Authority of Guinea was arrested for his suspected role in corrupt and fraudulent actions in the issuance of CITES export permits. Concerns regarding illegal trade in CITES-listed species involving Guinea have been dealt with in a thorough manner by the Standing Committee and the Secretariat. It should be noted that, while on mission in Guinea in 2011 to investigate concerns regarding illegal trade involving Guinea, the CITES Secretariat brought suspected irregular activities to the attention of the head of the anti-corruption unit and other authorities in Guinea. Although this arrest is very encouraging and commendable, it also raises concerns about the urgency and vigour with which some countries are tackling the issue of corruption. To effectively combat corruption, the promotion of good governance and swift action to identify and act against corrupt officials are vital.

Having investigated and produced a documentary on the very wide range of corrupt and criminal activities involved in the export of great apes from Guinea and aspects linked to the former head of the CITES Management Authority in Conakry, the above appears to be another attempt to once again try to close a file which is long overdue a detailed analysis if anything is to change for the better. This scapegoat approach will clearly be welcomed by a range of players who should ideally be in the dock with Mr. Doumbouya.

Once again a lot of facts do not fit with the storyline presented by the Secretariat:

- Guinea for more than a decade had constant compliance problems which were well known to the Secretariat and documented in several notices.

- The 2011 mission referred to above came on the back of a range of reports (as well as CITES trade data) indicating serious problems concerning the level of exports and falsified permits being issued by the CITES Management Authority of Guinea that were accepted by the CITES Scientific and Management Authorities of China and other parties (including the UAE, Armenia etc).

- Based on interview comments received from Mr Doumbouya and a corroborative written statement there was a meeting held at CITES CoP15 in Doha attended by representatives of the Management Authorities of Guinea and China together with a representative from the CITES Secretariat. Following that meeting the evidence shows a backlog of chimpanzees was then cleared for export all of whom were again, as with previous shipments, declared as captive bred (even though it was clear to all concerned at that stage that that not a single one of those chimps was born in captivity as stated on the export permits).

- We were told that the backlog referred to above arose as a result of China seeking to get the export permits verified by Mr Doumbouya's predecessor in post despite the fact that it had been Mr Doumbouya himself who had issued the permits. Mr Doumbouya felt his predecessor should not be in position to enrich himself any further issuing the letters verifying ‘his permits' as authentic (never mind that his predecessor was no longer even a member of Guinea's Management or Scientific authorities at that point).

- Not surprisingly, Mr Doumbouya's predecessor (who the Chinese CITES Scientific Authority has confirmed verified all the fraudulent export permits in question) is now back in the driver’s seat as head of Guinea's CITES MA now that Mr Doumbouya is 'out the way'. Bizarrely, however, none of the investigative and enforcement work to date ever seems to have concentrated on this man's role in these permit scams.

- We also have the Chinese version of a CITES import permit for 8 chimps to Shanghai Wild Animal Park issued before the corresponding export permit was issued (the norm in the context of export and import of CITES I listed animals). This declared the chimps as captive born even before the similarly fraudulent export permit was issued and it seems instructions to the Chinese CITES MA not to discuss this issue with any third party seems to have come too late in this case. If it had honestly stated that Appendix-I listed chimps were caught from the wild (i.e. in a manner clearly detrimental to the conservation of wild chimp populations) no such import or export permits would have been possible. As you know CITES keeps a register of approved breeding facilities for CITES Appendix-I listed animals. It would not have taken more than five minutes for the Chinese CITES Scientific Authority to check and satisfy itself that there were no CITES approved chimpanzee captive breeding facilities in Guinea or anywhere else in Africa for that matter.

- Clearly the enforcement team from Geneva visiting Guinea at the end of 2011 had access to all this data and a lot more.

Now we are told that:

And

Although this arrest is very encouraging and commendable, it also raises concerns about the urgency and vigour with which some countries are tackling the issue of corruption. To effectively combat corruption, the promotion of good governance and swift action to identify and act against corrupt officials are vital.

This last part is particularly ironic considering the confidential mission report we obtained in the context of doing the research for the documentary film that makes it clear that key evidence on the importers, exporters and corrupt officials who signed import and export permits was withheld from the Guinean enforcement authorities and it seems any other enforcement officials.

Accordingly, at this stage I would like to expand on this issue with some very specific questions:

1) Can you again confirm, as you did in your Mission Report of September 2011, that you received copies of the import and export permits covering China's imports from Guinea before leaving for Conakry (a fact that the Chinese CITES Management Authority also confirmed separately to the documentary production team)?

2) Can you confirm, as it was no doubt the case, that you had a lot of time beforehand and on the flight to Guinea to study these import and export permits and notice the wide range of inaccuracies, the names of the exporters and importers and the corrupt officials who signed the permits at both ends?

3) You stated that when you got to Conakry you asked for the same permits and were handed some 124 export permits but not a single one of them covered any ape exports to China (nor, supposedly, did you hand over any of the missing permits in your briefcase or left behind in Geneva). Is that correct?

4) There is no reference of you questioning the absence of the copy permits you received from China among the 124 provided to you in Guinea nor to you presenting the copy permits you received from China to other Guinean enforcement officials and asking for an explanation. Why not?

5) Would you not agree that the copy permits you received from the Chinese with the names, stamps, signatures etc. would have been key pieces of evidence to be handed to the above mentioned authorities - the very same authorities who the Secretariat now informs us were brought to the attention of the anti-corruption and other authorities in Guinea?

6) There is no indication in your mission report that you handed over any of this evidence despite stating the Guinean Police and INTERPOL authorities who you met during your 2011 mission:

“(...) had no hesitation in expressing willingness to investigate such matters as the illegal exports of chimpanzees and they also agreed to the Secretariats proposal that it would request relevant countries to supply information and evidence through INTERPOL channels. The Secretariat indicated its belief that the countries would be able to provide such information as copies of e-mail exchanges between the purchasers of chimpanzees and the persons they had communicated with in Guinea together with details of money transfers, bank accounts used in Guinea. The secretariat believed that this should allow the identification of those involved and their prosecution”.

As you already had the permits with all the details of the exporters why not hand over the copy permits you got from China listing all the exporters and importers?

7) In light of the above would you agree you have little right to now criticise CITES authorities such as those in Guinea for lack of ‘urgency and vigour’ in dealing with cases of corruption such as these?

8) How about the China end of the supply chain? Did you question the Chinese CITES Scientific Authority about their non-detriment findings in respect of China's great ape imports from Guinea? Did you ask for copies of the relevant documentation? Did you request they track down the above mentioned correspondence concerning import and export negotiations and the prices and bank transfers as you indicated you would? If not, why not?

9) As for the Chinese import permits, including one we have secured stating the Guinean chimps listed were captive bred well before the corresponding export permit was issued at the Guinean end. Where would you say this scam and falsification started?

10) After the publication of your mission report considerable pressure was applied including legal representatives demanding further clarification. As a result the 124 permits you collected (which had nothing to do with the apes in trade) were handed over to a third party expert for analysis, resulting in the publication of the 'Caldwell report'.

Again however this did not refer to a single one of the permits relating to the exports and imports of the chimpanzees to China and some other places (the exception being the permit for one bonobo having been exported to Armenia). Mr. Caldwell referred to the fact that he was aware of the trade date filed by China for the import of gorillas and chimpanzees but did not find any of these permits in the set submitted to him. Having been in possession of the permit copies submitted to you by China, even before you embarked on the trip to Guinea, would it not have been very logical, prudent, and appropriate for you (or whoever took over from you – Tom?) to add the corresponding copy permits you received from China to the set collected in Conakry and submit all of them for analysis by Mr Caldwell? Would you agree that, once again, not bringing these permits to the attention of the relevant authorities or experts once again implies an ongoing cover up?

11) A range of questions to the Secretariat about the whereabouts of these permits resulted in several outright denials of their existence (even though China had confirmed in writing they had been submitted to Geneva and the CITES MA of Guinea stated on camera they had handed all the permits they had to the team which had come from Geneva). Clearly these permits were and are the key to any further enforcement activities in the context of CITES Article VIII. They are also the key to the prosecution of Mr. Doumbouya who sits in jail not having been charged and with no option of a bond (currently looking forward to a court date). There has still been no attempt of any kind to enforce Article VIII of the convention stipulating that the transactions should be investigated, the culprits (including importers and exporters) prosecuted, the apes confiscated and if possible returned to the state of origin. Would you agree that the disappearance of these copy permits from China and them not being handed to the respective law enforcement authorities could be classified as a cover up of a wide range of criminal and corrupt activities?

12) If the arrest of the former MA of Guinea was largely based on him having been in possession of a blank but signed and stamped permit then surely the dozens of import and export permits in the Secretariat's possession would have greatly added to the evidence, not only at the Guinean end but also in questioning the relevant authorities, importers and end consumers of these great apes in China? As would the documentation relating to the request and confirmation of the permits, which the Chinese CITES Scientific Authority said came from Mr Namory Keita the new and present head of the Guinea CITES management authority, presumably?

13) The above also obliges the question when the copy permits sent to Geneva by China arrived, when they disappeared and on whose orders? It should result in reviewing the role played by the representative of the CITES Secretariat at the Doha meeting in which the Guinean and Chinese management authorities supposedly sorted out any of the complications which had arisen (with many of the 64 chimps exported to China from Guinea that year being shipped out after that meeting)?

14) You point out in your report that: “the team doubts that the responsibility for this can be laid at the door of just one individual” (at the Guinea end) stating “For instance, shipments of chimpanzees were occurring with such regularity that it seems inconceivable that they can have gone unnoticed”. Would you agree that that this questioning approach should have been extended to a wide range of parties in the importing countries and the actors at the Secretariat who attended the Doha meeting and seemingly made the permits received from China subsequently disappear?

15) The latest response to a request for some of these documents resulted in a Secretariat statement that “(...) even if we had them they could not be shared in consideration of privacy laws applicable in some of the countries concerned”. Put in context with the statement below, would you agree that the recent statement from the Secretariat is absurd?

It should be noted that, while on mission in Guinea in 2011 to investigate concerns regarding illegal trade involving Guinea, the CITES Secretariat brought suspected irregular activities to the attention of the head of the anti-corruption unit and other authorities in Guinea. Although this arrest is very encouraging and commendable, it also raises concerns about the urgency and vigour with which some countries are tackling the issue of corruption. To effectively combat corruption, the promotion of good governance and swift action to identify and act against corrupt officials are vital.

I have pointed out before that in my opinion this now certainly deserves the labelling of a cover up of a wide range of criminal and corrupt activities.

Clearly the arrest of Mr. Doumbouya could have been a starting point to deal with some of the root causes of the problem (also detailed in attached report). It could also have been the basis for e.g. a plea bargain could have led to some serious enforcement measures along the whole of the supply chain. Finally it could for once have meant setting a real example that enforcement can work and has to be considered a risk factor by the offenders. By contrast the opposite has happened with one scapegoat sitting without charges in a jail and a wide range of impunity benefitting a wide range of other players who are going about their business as usual.

John I am aware that this was your last enforcement mission and report for the CITES Secretariat and I wonder to what extent the above facts contributed to that fact?

Regards

Karl Ammann