Statement concerning the case of illegal wildlife trade

ALIVE News Monday, 15 November, 1999x

1. Preface

The illegal wildlife trade involving Umeda Wan Wan Land in Osaka has made a landmark case in the history of criminal investigation of illegal wildlife trade in this country, resulting in prosecution of all concerned.

The trial is pending now and we ernestly hope that all that are responsible will be punished with the maximum penalty.

On the other hand, this case has revealed that the systems of the government of Japan are not functioning regarding deterrence of illegal importation at the water's edge (the Customs), restriction of illegal trade within the country (Environment Agency), disposal of confiscated live animals/plants (Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Environment Agency).

This indicates that there exist serious problems for implementing CITES provisions.

We, the undersigned, submit recommendations to the competent authorities as per attached.

2. Regarding the provision of "Law for the Conservation of Endagered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora"("LCES") on ordering the return of confiscated live animals/plants to the country of origin not being applied to this case .

It was of great concern whether this case would become the first case to which the provision on ordering the return of confiscated live animals to the country of origin under "LCES" has been applied, but it did not.

The Environment Agency claims, in answer to our questioning, that the guilty party has already volunteered to bear the cost of returning the confiscated live animals to the country of origin and it is deemed unnecessary to apply the provision to this case. But this claim does not hold.

The signification of the provision of ordering the return of confiscated live animals/plants to the country of origin is not merely in order that the guilty party should be placed responsible for bearing the cost for the return of confiscated live animals/plants. The foremost implication of this provision is that the government concerned should be the one that is ultimately responsible for decision-making as to the disposal of confiscated live animals/plants and risk involved in doing so.

For example, should confiscated live animals spend the rest of their lives in a deteriorated care facility with no hope of being released to the wild as the result of improper selection of such a facility on the government side or die while in transit because of inappropriate handling, the government concerned would be held responsible for the outcome. This provision was enacted for the purpose of urging the government of importing country to become aware of its resposibility for enforcing CITES provisions in an effective manner and to willingly perform its duty.

The government of Japan has already tranferred the legal ownership of the confiscated live animals to the government of Indonesia while they are still in Oji Zoo. Thus, the Indonesian consulate general, on behalf of the government of Indonesia, became the exporter and the government of Indonesia importer.

The only further involvement of the government of Japan is to issue a reexport permit and will not be responsible for anything else. It is hard not to come to a conclusion that the government did not apply the provision of "LCES" so as to be able to evade the responsiblity.

That is also deemed to be the very reason why the provision on ordering the return confiscated live animals/plants has never been applied to any of past cases after "LCES" was enacted more than 6 years ago.

If we continue to let the executive body of the government deal with this issue in this manner, the provision on ordering the return of confiscated live animals/plants will prove nothing but a dead letter and this will give adverse effects on effective implementation of CITES provisions. We will keep urging the government of Japan/Environmental Agency to establish methods for enabling the provisions of "LCES" applicable in an appropriate manner.

3. Regarding the confiscated live animals that have been returned to the government of Indonesia

For the illegally imported animals that have been returned to the country of or igin, we plan to monitor the way the animals are cared for in the rehabilitation facility. We are especially concerned about the way the designated facility for orangutans operates; while this facility has programs for releasing orangutans to the wild, the monitoring data after releasing them to the wild from the facility has not been made available. And there are other unknown factors that we would like to look into.

Also, we plan to coordinate our efforts with experts and work to improve programs for releasing illegally captured/traded/confiscated animals to the wild as well as being involved with the issue of conservation of habitat for wildlife in Indonesia.

The Japan Indonesia Orangutan Protection and Investigation Committee
5-11-8 Ikuta Tama-ku
Kawasaki 214-0038
Tel & Fax (044) 955 7406
Akira Suzuki
Chairman

The Japan Wildlife Conservation Society (JWCS)
2-5-4-7F Toranomon Minato-ku
Tokyo 105-0001
Tel & Fax (03) 3595 1171
Masayuki Sakamoto
Secretary-General

All Life in A Viable Environment (ALIVE)
1-17-16 #201 Honkomagome Bunkyo-ku
Tokyo 113-0021
Tel (03) 5978 6272, Fax (03) 5978 6273
Fusako Nogami
Director