CITES - a model of bureaucratic ineffectiveness.

1
INDEPENDENT PRO BONO LEGAL ANALYSIS
FOR ITEM 38 ON THE AGENDA FOR THE 65TH MEETING
OF THE CITES STANDING COMMITTEE CONCERNING ASIAN BIG CATS
FOCUSING ON THE CURRENT STATUS OF CITES DECISION 14.69
AND THE GUIDANCE ISSUED IN SUPPORT OF IT
PLUS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE
ON THE TRADE IN LION BONES FROM SOUTH AFRICA TO ASIA
Report for the 65th meeting of CITES the Standing Committee
Richard Hargreaves – LLB, FCILEx1
Table of Contents
Section Page
Executive Summary 1
1. The full assessment of Asian big cat measures at CoP16 2
2. Decision 14.69 incorrectly marked as 'superseded 3
3. Legal analysis of why Decision 14.69 has not been 'superseded' 4
4. Notification to the Parties No. 2008/059 incorrectly marked as 'Not valid' 6
5. Legal analysis of why, objectively, the guidance in the Annex to Notification
2008/059 should still be considered 'Valid'
7
6. Why Decision 14.69 and the guidance in the Annex to Notification No. 2008/059
are important
8
7. Implementation of the CITES provisions on managing captive breeding
facilities
9
8. Additional and new photographic evidence relevant to Decision 14.69 11
9. Concluding remarks concerning Decision 14.69 and Notification No. 2008/059 23
10. Additional and new photographic evidence concerning the lion bone trade 25
11. Recommendations 32
Annex – Late 2012 Review of implementation of Decision 14.69 for CoP16 34
Executive Summary
The writer has prepared the following report for the assistance of the CITES Standing
Committee at its sixty-fifth meeting in Geneva, Switzerland from 7-11 July 2014. This report
is specifically with regard to the Standing Committee's deliberations under Agenda item 38
concerning Asian big cats. The writer has read and reviewed the Asian big cats documents
posted on the CITES website, under Agenda item 38, for the present meeting and also the
Environmental Investigation Agency's document titled 'EIA Briefing Document on Asian big
cats for the 65th
Meeting of the CITES Standing Committee'.
1 The writer is an English qualified lawyer who has, since 2009, researched and written a number of
articles and briefings on a pro bono basis focusing on the issues facing wild cats from a legal
perspective. Four of these articles have been published in a specialist American legal journal at the time
of writing in late June / early July 2014 whilst further briefings were prepared for the GTI, TRAFFIC and
numerous other non-governmental organizations.

2
For the purposes of this report it can generally be taken as read that the writer agrees with
the Environmental Investigation Agency's recommendations and proposed amendments of
the Secretariat's recommendations in SC65 Doc. 38, as set out in their briefing document
referred to above2
. The only exceptions to this are where the writer's recommendations
below differ slightly as to the approach to be taken concerning Decision 14.69 and the
guidance in the Annex to Notification 2008/059. The writer also makes additional
recommendations with regard to the worrying trade lion 'bodies', 'bone' and 'skeletons', the
scale of which should not be underestimated.
Aside from the matters covered in this report the writer also observes generally that the
terminology used for the Secretariat's recommendations under Agenda item 38 could
usefully be strengthened from e.g. requesting reviews of implementation to instructing
implementation where it is clear this has been lacking or even non-existent.
The writer has prepared this report on a pro bono basis, free of charge. Pro bono is a term
frequently used within the legal profession often translated as 'for the public good'. It is
hoped that the contents of this report will complement and in some places expand upon the
information and conclusions in the reports at SC65 Doc.38 and its first Annex and also EIA's
briefing referred to above. It is further hoped that, for the public good of Asia's big cats and
their natural habitats, this report may even help to persuade the Standing Committee to
agree some robust and meaningful actions on these issues at its sixty-fifth meeting.
1. The full assessment of Asian big cat measures at CoP16
Within Resolution Conf. 12.5 (Rev. CoP15) on the Conservation of and trade in tigers and
other Appendix-I Asian big cat species it was previously stated in 2010 that the CITES
Conference of the Parties:
INSTRUCTS the Secretariat to report to the Standing Committee and the
Conference of the Parties on the status of Asian big cats in the wild, their
conservation, and trade controls in place in Parties, using information
provided by the range States on measures taken to comply with this
Resolution and related relevant Decisions and any relevant additional
information provided by relevant countries3
.
On 3 September 2012 the Secretariat issued Notification to the Parties No. 2012/054 stating
that:
In order to facilitate the reporting of the Secretariat required under
Resolution Conf. 12.5 (Rev. CoP15), and to enable a full assessment at
the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP16), all Parties, and
particularly range States of Asian big cats are requested to inform the
Secretariat of:
i) all measures taken to comply with Resolution Conf. 12.5 (Rev. CoP15),
in relation to all species of Asian big cats;
ii) stockpiles of captive-bred or confiscated tiger body parts and
derivatives; and
iii) any actions proposed to deal with the stockpiles4
.
2 http://eia-international.org/wp-content/uploads/EIA-Asian-big-cats-briefing-for-SC65-FINAL.pdf
3 http://www.cites.org/eng/res/all/12/E12-05R15.pdf
4 http://www.cites.org/eng/notif/2012/E054.pdf

3
Within Notification No. 2012/054 the Secretariat also stated that:
All Parties with intensive operations breeding tigers on a commercial scale
are requested to fully implement Decision 14.69 in respect of the number of
breeding operations and also for the total number of tigers, and report to
the Secretariat on the measures implemented to comply with this
Decision5
.
The Secretariat advised Parties that it “would appreciate receiving this information by 25
September 2012”6
.
At the time of writing of its Asian big cats document for CoP16, in early October 2012, the
Secretariat had received just one response to Notification No. 2012/054, from Thailand. The
Secretariat confirmed that it would continue to pursue the submission of the reports
requested “to enable a full assessment” at CoP167
. By the end of January 2013, however,
only one further response has been received, from China.
This meant that the hoped for 'full assessment' of implementation of the CITES Asian big cat
measures at CoP16 simply did not happen. Whilst the proposed administrative amendments
of Conf. 12.5 (Rev. CoP15)8
were agreed9
, the standard reporting Decisions that were
proposed10
were adopted as Decisions 16.68 – 16.7011
(after slight amendment12
) and it was
agreed that Decisions 15.46 to 15.49 would be deleted13
it is understood that:
Over the course of the 10-day meeting there was only about 15 minutes
available for Parties to intervene from the floor to share their concerns with
the rest of the international community14
.
2. Decision 14.69 incorrectly marked as 'superseded'
The situation outlined above meant that important matters such as Parties' efforts towards
implementation of and compliance with CITES Decision 14.69 were not addressed. Firstly
due to lack of submissions from Parties in response to Notification 2012/054 and secondly
owing to time constraints at CoP16 itself.
Whilst that situation is itself concerning it is of equal, if not more, concern that Decision 14.69
was then subsequently placed on the list of Decisions 'superseded' following CoP1615
,
where it remains at the time of writing in late June / early July 2014.
Decision 14.69 was adopted as a result of the 14th
meeting of the Conference of the Parties
to CITES in 2007 (Cop14). It remains to this day a clear and robust statement by the
Conference of the Parties that:
Parties with intensive operations breeding tigers on a commercial scale
shall implement measures to restrict the captive population to a level
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 See Paragraphs 6 and 7 at: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/16/doc/E-CoP16-50.pdf
8 Set out in Annex 2 at: http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/16/doc/E-CoP16-50.pdf
9 http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/common/cop/16/sum/E-CoP16-Plen-06.pdf
10 http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/common/cop/16/com/E-CoP16-Com-II-30.pdf
11 http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid16/212
12 http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/common/cop/16/sum/E-CoP16-Com-II-Rec-14.pdf
13 Id.
14 http://eia-international.org/too-little-time-at-cites-cop16-for-threats-to-tigers
15 http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/dec/valid16/CoP15-Dec-remaining-after-CoP16.pdf

4
supportive only to conserving wild tigers; tigers should not be bred for trade
in their parts and derivatives16
.
It is stated on the 'CoP16 source documents for the changes to the list of Resolutions' page
on the CITES website at the time of writing that:
(…) a number of Decisions were not reviewed [at CoP16]. As such, they
remain valid but are now superseded17
.
A link to the list of superseded Decisions referenced above then follows that statement.
Conflictingly, however, Decision 14.69 then fails to appear on the list of 'Decisions of the
Conference of the Parties in effect after its 16th
meeting'18
. This is despite the fact that list is
introduced on the 'Decisions of the Conference of the Parties to CITES in effect after the 16th
meeting' page on the CITES website, at the time of writing, as the list of “(...) all valid
Decisions” (writer's emphasis added).
Not surprisingly the Secretariat has been asked to provide clarification on this matter by at
least one Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) that the writer is aware of. The writer was
advised that the Secretariat confirmed that Decision 14.69 is indeed still valid and whilst the
Secretariat does consider it 'superseded' it will apparently not be proposing its deletion at the
17th
meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP17) in South Africa in 2016. Instead the
Secretariat will purportedly propose that the wording of Decision 14.69 be incorporated into
Resolution Conf. 12.5 (Rev. CoP16) at CoP17 as an alternative to asking for Decision 14.69
to be retained any further19
.
3. Legal analysis of why Decision 14.69 has not been 'superseded'
Whilst the incorporation of the Decision 14.69 wording into Resolution Conf. 12.5 (Rev
CoP16) (and / or its successor(s)) would be a most welcome development, the current
situation and that purported proposal do raise legitimate concerns.
To begin with, put simply, Decision 14.69 was not superseded at CoP16 or at all. Given that
the Secretariat has confirmed it is still valid, Decision 14.69 should quite rightly take its place
on the list of 'all' valid Decisions still in effect following CoP16.
The definition given for the term 'Decision' on the Glossary page of the CITES website at the
time of writing states:
Decision
An agreement between the Parties typically containing instructions to a
specific committee, Parties or the Secretariat.
Decisions are typically intended to remain in effect for a short period only,
usually until a particular task has been completed. Many Decisions require
a report to be submitted at the meeting of the Conference of the Parties
following that at which they were adopted, and so would remain in effect
from one meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the next. The list of
Decisions is therefore revised by the Secretariat after each such meeting,
16 Id.
17 http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/16/source/cop16changes.php
18 http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/dec/valid16/E16-Dec.pdf
19 Anon. 2014

5
in accordance with Resolution Conf. 4.6 (Rev. CoP16), second DIRECTS,
paragraph b), at which time it deletes the Decisions that are out of date20
.
The introductory page to the Decisions section of the CITES website complements the
above definition where, at the time of writing, it states:
The Decisions, however are of a different nature. Typically they contain
instructions to a specific committee or to the Secretariat. This means that
they are to be implemented, often by a specified time, and then become
out of date21
.
Decision 14.69 stands out, however, because there is nothing 'typical' about it.
Further, the 'particular task' within the first part of Decision 14.69, that those Parties with
intensive operations breeding tigers on a commercial scale shall implement measures to
restrict their captive populations to a level supportive only to conserving tigers, is far from
being 'completed'. In reality, given the spread of commercial tiger farming in recent years,
that task is considerably further away from being completed in July 2014 than it was when
Decision 14.69 was initially adopted seven years earlier, at CoP14 in June 2007.
Finally, Decision 14.69 contains no 'specified time' within which it has to be implemented.
Accordingly, as worded, technically, Decision 14.69 cannot 'become out of date'.
supportive only to conserving wild tigers; tigers should not be bred for trade
in their parts and derivatives.
It is both an ongoing requirement that has not ever been implemented or enforced since the
day it was passed and a statement of the intent of the Conference of the Parties at the same
time. It can easily be seen why the wording would be more suited to Resolution Conf. 12.5
(Rev. CoP16) but that leads into the next concern.
An attempt was made previously to incorporate the wording of Decision 14.69 into
Resolution Conf. 12.5 (Rev. CoP14), at the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties
(CoP15) in 201022
. That attempt was strenuously resisted by China at the time23
and the
move did not happen on that occasion. It would be naïve to think that any further attempt at
CoP17 in 2016 would not be similarly resisted.
Accordingly, if a further attempt is made in 2016 might that not simply lead to some sort of
'watered down' compromise wording with a view to appeasing any Party or Parties against
inclusion of the Decision 14.69 wording into Resolution 12.5 (Rev. CoP16)?
Decision 14.69 stands out to the outside world as a comparatively clear and robust
statement by the Parties to CITES that, put simply, commercial tiger farming should not be
happening or tolerated. To water that statement down as part of a tidying up exercise to get
a comparatively aged Decision 14.69 'off the books' would, frankly, be a travesty and a
massive failure.
20 http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/terms/glossary.php
21 http://cites.org/eng/dec/intro.php
22 See Paragraph 12. c) at: http://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-43-02.pdf
23 See Paragraph 24 at: http://cites.org/sites/default/files/common/cop/15/inf/E15i-16.pdf

6
The situation for Tigers and other Asian big cats is critical at this time and clear statements
like Decision 14.69 cannot simply be put in stasis for three years whilst they are erroneously
marked as 'superseded'. There is no apparent evidence of any formal rule on the CITES
website or at all that says a Decision of the Conference of the Parties should automatically
be marked as 'superseded' and effectively downgraded as to appear virtually non-existent if
it is not specifically considered by the following meeting of the Conference of the Parties.
In addition to the above, even if there were such a rule, the situation leading up to and
during CoP16 would make its application to Decision 14.69 on that occasion completely
unjust. It would be akin to saying that as only two parties provided any feedback with regard
to Decision 14.69 for CoP16, because there was therefore so little documentation to discuss
and even less in terms of time to have such a discussion, Decision 14.69 was therefore
superseded. That would make no sense whatsoever.
For the sake of completeness, if any of the content of Decisions 16.68 to 16.70 that were
agreed at CoP16 had effectively replaced, re-enacted or even strengthened the wording of
Decision 14.69 then a sound case could potentially then be made for saying that it actually
was superseded at CoP16, i.e. in real, substantive terms. That was simply not the case
though. In the circumstances:
It is recommended that the Standing Committee instructs the Secretariat to transfer
Decision 14.69 from the list of Decisions superseded after CoP16 to the list of all valid
Decisions still in effect after CoP16 forthwith, with an accompanying and robust Notification
to the Parties from the Secretariat confirming to them that Decision 14.69 remains fully valid
in terms of the requirements set out within it.
It is recommended that the Standing Committee instructs the Secretariat to re-issue, within
the above mentioned Notification to the Parties, the requirement from Notification 2012/054
that: 'All Parties with intensive operations breeding tigers on a commercial scale are
requested to fully implement Decision 14.69 in respect of the number of breeding operations
and also for the total number of tigers, and report to the Secretariat on the measures
implemented to comply with this Decision [by 1 June 2015 in advance of and in readiness for
a full assessment of implementation of Decision 14.69 at the 66th
meeting of the Standing
Committee]'.
4. Notification to the Parties No. 2008/059 incorrectly marked as 'Not valid'
Following the 57th
meeting of the Standing Committee in July 2008, in accordance with the
Standing Committee's request, the Secretariat issued Notification to the Parties No.
2008/059 dated 8 October 200824
. The background to this Notification can be found in the
Summary Record from the 57th
meeting of the Standing Committee where it is recorded that:
Several participants noted that there was no reporting requirement in
Decision 14.69 but all agreed that reports were necessary. There appeared
to be consensus that reports should be submitted at the 58th meeting of
the Standing Committee. The Secretariat offered to issue a Notification to
the Parties calling for such reports, but added that it believed it would be
useful to provide further guidance on the form such reports should take and
which operations were to be regarded as affected by the Decision.
24 http://cites.org/sites/default/files/notif/E059.pdf

7
(…) The Committee agreed to establish a working group to clarify how the
implementation of Decision 14.69 might best be reported to the
Committee25
.
Following the working group and the 57th
meeting of the Standing Committee the Secretariat
confirmed in the Notification itself that:
The Secretariat was asked to distribute a Notification to the Parties to
provide guidance in determining: to which Parties [Decision 14.69] applied;
how such Parties might report; and the issues to be covered in such
reports26
.
As requested, the Secretariat then went on to set out, in a valuable Annex attached to
Notification No. 2008/059, much helpful guidance for Parties to consider 'in determining
whether Decision 14.69 is applicable to them'27
. Crucially this included the Secretariat's
important opinion, reflecting its understanding of the intention of the Parties at CoP14 when
Decision 14.69 was adopted, that:
“trade”, in the opinion of the Secretariat, may be regarded for the purposes
of [Decision 14.69] as referring to both domestic and international trade28
.
Regrettably, however, purely because Notification No. 2008/059 itself contained the date of
28 February 2009 for submission of Parties' reports with regard to Decision 14.69, the whole
Notification (i.e. including the Annex with the valuable guidance) was, after that date,
excluded from all further 'Lists of valid Notifications' published by the Secretariat each
January. The last time that Notification No. 2008/059 appeared on such a list was January
200929
.
5. Legal analysis of why, objectively, the guidance in the Annex to Notification
2008/059 should still be considered 'Valid'
Given that the Secretariat has confirmed Decision 14.69 is still valid despite its current,
incorrect and unhelpful placement on the list of Decisions superseded after CoP16, it is
logical that any official guidance concerning Decision 14.69 should also still be valid.
A good case could also be made that Notification No. 2008/059 should itself not have been
marked as 'Not valid' as any suggestion that the key date within it was met or complied with
would fall down when placed against the evidence which clearly shows that reporting on
implementation of Decision 14.69 has never been good and was still being requested right
up to CoP16 in March 2013.
Similarly, even if the date of 28 February 2009 in Notification No. 2008/059 was superseded
by e.g. the date of 25 September 2012 (being the date within Notification No. 2012/054 by
which the Secretariat asked Parties to fully implement Decision 14.69 and report back to it
on the measures they had taken to implement it) that would still not give just cause to mark
the whole of Notification No. 2008/059, i.e. including the vital guidance relating to Decision
14.69, as 'Not valid'.
25 http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/com/sc/57/E57-SumRec.pdf
26 Supra note 23
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 http://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/notif/2009/E001A.pdf

8
The guidance contained in Notification No. 2008/059 is so 'Valid' and so important that some
Parties even proposed it's inclusion within Resolution 12.5 (Rev.), alongside the Decision
14.69 wording when that was also proposed for inclusion in the Resolution30
.
Put simply then, whilst the original deadline date in Notification No. 2008/059 may no longer
be valid, the substantive guidance in the Annex to that Notification is more Valid today that it
has ever been. Accordingly:
It is recommended that the Standing Committee instructs the Secretariat to transpose
verbatim the Annex from Notification to the Parties No. 2008/059 into a new Notification to
the Parties that contains no key dates that could cause such a Notification to erroneously be
marked 'Not valid'. That Notification should then remain valid until the wording of Decision
14.69 is complied with in full or moved (at which point a new Notification should be issued in
identical terms to reflect the new location of those words).
6. Why Decision 14.69 and the guidance in the Annex to Notification No. 2008/059 are
important
Resolution Conf. 12.5 (Rev. CoP16) only urges:
those Parties and non-Parties on whose territories tigers and other Asian
big cat species are bred in captivity to ensure that adequate management
practices and controls are in place to prevent parts and derivatives from
entering illegal trade from or through such facilities;31
Decision 14.69 goes much further and is a clear statement / requirement by the Conference
of the Parties to CITES that:
supportive only to conserving wild tigers;
Decision 14.69 also provides the Conference of the Parties' clear statement that 'tigers
should not be bred for trade in their parts and derivatives', effectively complemented by
the Secretariat's opinion in the Annex to Notification No. 2008/059, reflecting its
understanding of the intention of the Parties at CoP14, that '“trade”, in the opinion of the
Secretariat, may be regarded for the purposes of [Decision 14.69] as referring to both
domestic and international trade'.
Without getting into the unsavoury situation of being obliged to prepare lengthy pro bono
legal opinion to try to save words that have not ever been realistically implemented or
enforced since they were first adopted, those words themselves are still potentially powerful.
They go far further on the issue of commercial tiger farming than the wording of the main
Resolution on tigers and other Asian big cats ever has.
At the time of writing it is still the current policy of CITES, as reflected in the Secretariat's
report for the present meeting at SC65 Doc. 38, that:
it remains crucial (...) for those Parties and non-Parties on whose territories
tigers and other Asian big cat species are bred in captivity, to ensure that
30 Supra note 21
31 http://cites.org/sites/default/files/document/E-Res-12-05R16.pdf

9
adequate management practices and controls are in place to prevent parts
and derivatives from entering illegal trade from or through such facilities32
.
This is because, as the Parties to CITES note 'with concern' in Resolution 12.5 (Rev.
CoP16):
(…) despite inclusion of Asian big cat species in Appendix I, illegal trade in
specimens of nearly all these species has escalated and further threatens
their long-term survival in the wild33
.
Decision 14.69 is a robust and powerful statement of the intent of the Parties to CITES that
Parties with commercial tiger farming operations are required to implement measures to
restrict their captive populations to levels supportive only to conserving wild tigers. They are
required to do this because meeting demand from captive bred sources only serves to feed,
fuel and further stimulate the illegal trade in Tigers and other Asian big cats that, as the
Conference of the Parties notes with concern, 'further threatens their long-term survival in
the wild'.
Decision 14.69 makes it far clearer than Resolution Conf. 12.5 (Rev. CoP16) that tigers
should not be bred for trade in their parts and derivatives. Similarly, the valid guidance in the
Annex to Notification No. 2008/059 makes it clear that 'trade' in that respect is intended to
include domestic trade. That is why Decision 14.69 and the guidance in the Annex to
Notification to the Parties No. 2008/059 are so important. They are currently far more robust,
clear and specific on the issue of commercial tiger farming than the main Resolution on the
conservation of and trade in tigers and other Asian big cats.
7. Implementation of the CITES provisions on managing captive breeding facilities
Tragically there are certain Parties, within whose territories tigers and other Asian big cat
species are bred in captivity, who have failed and continue to fail to ensure that adequate
management practices and controls are in place to prevent parts and derivatives from
entering illegal trade from or through such facilities.
Similarly tragic is the fact that there are also Parties who have failed to implement the first
limb of Decision 14.69, to implement measures to restrict their captive populations to levels
supportive only to conserving wild tigers, since the date Decision 14.69 was first adopted
back in 2007. By virtue of the clearly evidenced acts of their commercial tiger farmers, that
they have allowed to go unchecked, those same Parties have also failed to respect the
Conference of the Parties' clear statement and intent that tigers should not be bred for trade
in their parts and derivatives.
Perhaps most of tragic of all however is the fact that these countless failures, breaches and
contraventions have been allowed to go on unchecked in terms of compliance and / or
enforcement measures on an ongoing basis throughout virtually the entire period that CITES
has purportedly been working to address the issues facing tigers and other Asian big cats.
As regards implementation of Decision 14.69 specifically, the writer prepared a previous pro
bono review, including substantive detail and evidence concerning implementation, in an
article written in late 2012 (in the hopes that it might prove to be of assistance at CoP16 in
Bangkok in March 2013)34
. The writer does not intend to go over the same ground again so
32 http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/com/sc/65/E-SC65-38.pdf
33 Supra note 29
34 Hargreaves, R. (2012) A Review of CITES Decision 14.69 on restricting captive tiger populations to
levels supportive only to conserve wild tigers. Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society
(VI), 93-114.

10
is instead exhibiting the published version of that 2012 article as an Annex to this report for
the convenience of any interested Parties.
Put simply, it was the writer's conclusion that, based on the available evidence up to late
2012, China, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Thailand and Viet Nam (plus, in all
likelihood, Cambodia) had all been continually in breach of both parts of Decision 14.69
since it was first adopted back in 2007 and continued to be in breach of both parts of it on an
ongoing basis at that time. In addition, the writer also submitted that the United States of
America had also been in breach of the first part of Decision 14.69 on a continuing and
ongoing basis, again since the Decision was first adopted in 2007.
Tragically, the evidence up to and since that article was written in late 2012, up to the time of
writing of the present report in late June / early July 2014, only seems to confirm the writer's
previous conclusions and indicate that matters have declined still further. As the consultants
instructed by the Secretariat in respect of the present meeting variously note in their report at
SC65 Doc. 38, Annex 1:
Seizures of suspected captive-origin tigers (live and frozen) have risen in
three Southeast Asian countries (Lao People’s Democratic Republic,
Thailand and Viet Nam), and evidence suggests such trade is also taking
place in Indonesia
NGOs have observed several different brands of wine which appear to
contain tiger parts of captive origin for sale in China
suspected captive-origin tiger seizures since 2000 have been made
primarily in Thailand and Viet Nam, but also in China and the Lao People’s
Democratic Republic
it seems evident that captive-derived parts and derivatives are increasingly
entering the market.
seizures of live tigers and frozen tiger parts have risen sharply in recent
years, and given that such seizures are generally made far from protected
areas (...) it is more likely they originate from controlled captive conditions
rather than from wild tropical habitat.
Tiger specimen seizures, especially including live animals and frozen
bodies, have risen in South-east Asia in recent years (…) of 61 live tigers
seized from 2010-2012, 74% were confiscated in three South-east Asian
countries – the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Thailand and Viet Nam.
(…) many are suspected to have been bred in captivity.
It is also possible that captive animals illegally enter trade in Indonesia,
where seizures are rising, with the equivalent of 50 tigers seized from
2010-2012.
The rising number of frozen and whole tiger bodies seized in trade
suggests that many of these animals originated from captive facilities.
Specimens of suspected captive origin are increasingly evident in seizures
in range States35
.
35 http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/com/sc/65/E-SC65-38-A01_0.pdf

11
These conclusions only serve to illustrate further the dire situation with regard to some
Parties' lack of implementation of and even flagrant disregard for CITES' Asian big cat
captive breeding provisions since at least 2007. The fact that no compliance and / or
enforcement measures have ever been taken to address such flagrant and ongoing
disregard for the relevant provisions must almost certainly be a contributing factor to the
increased levels of captive origin parts now being found in illegal trade.
8. Additional and new photographic evidence relevant to Decision 14.69
Although, in light of the content set out above and in the Annex to this report, it may not
seem necessary to provide any further evidence illustrating ongoing breaches of Decision
14.69 the writer recently viewed relevant, additional, copy evidence on these issues as set
out below. For the avoidance of doubt the writer has informed relevant environmental
investigatory leads of the existence of this evidence (much of which has already been placed
in the public domain) and has also been provided with the requisite authorization for its use
within this report as follows:
Xiongsen Bear & Tiger Mountain Village, Guilin, China – Early 2014
Given the evidence set out by the Secretariat's consultants at Figure 28 on page 52 of their
report for the present meeting and also at page 6036
, as well as the voluminous additional
evidence set in numerous previous reports detailing this establishment (including the joint
report by one of the consultant's from 200737
, her follow up chapter from 201038
and the
writer's 2011 article39
), it will come as little surprise that the writer can now confirm that lion
bone wine was still being sold in tiger shaped bottles at the Xiongsen Bear & Tiger Mountain
Village at the beginning of 2014.
The lion bone wine that the writer has seen film evidence of was in the exact same 1kg size,
porcelain, tiger shaped bottles pictured by the Secretariat's consultants in Figure 28 of their
current report. A bottle of this lion bone wine purportedly cost CNY280 at Xiongsen at the
start of 2014 which converts to approximately US$45 at the time of writing in late June / early
July 2014. The ingredients were listed as white wine, African lion bone, snake and additional
Chinese medicinal herbs.
In addition, the writer has also seen evidence indicating that the wording on Xiongsen Bear
& Tiger Mountain Village bags in use at the start of 2014 proclaims that Xiongsen,
presumably at that time, contained 1,800 tigers, 400 bears, 250 African lions and over 100
other 'rare animals'. As can be seen from the screen 'grabs' at Figures 2 and 3 below the
previously reported40
appalling conditions that the tigers have to endure at Xiongsen clearly
did not improve between 2010 and 2014.
36 Id.
37 Nowell K, and Xu, Ling. (2007) Taming the Tiger Trade: China's Markets for Wild and Captive Tiger
Products since the 1993 Domestic Trade Ban. TRAFFIC East Asia, Hong Kong
38 Nowell, K. (2010) Tiger Farms and Pharmacies: The Central Importance of China's Trade Policy for
Tiger Conservation. In Tilson, R. and Nyhus, P. (eds.) Tigers of the World: The Science, Politics and
Conservation of Panthera tigris. Elsevier, Pp 463-475.
39 Hargreaves, R. (2011) China's Tiger Farms: Much Law but Little Justice. Journal of the WildCat
Conservation Legal Aid Society (V), 1-40.
40 See for example: Jones, R. (2010) Exposed: Dark secret of the farm where tigers' bodies are plundered
to make £185 wine. Daily Mail - available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1252500/Exposed-
Dark-secret-farm-tigers-bodies-plundered-make-185-wine.html

12
Figure 1: Entrance to the 'Xiongsen Bear & Tiger Mountain Village' Guilin, China – Early 2014
Figure 2: Appalling living conditions for the tigers at Xiongsen – Early 2014
Figure 3: A starving tiger living (?) in appalling conditions at Xiongsen – Screen 'grab' from footage
taken at Xiongsen Early 2014, a copy of which footage was subsequently passed to the writer.

13
Further, two separate sets of evidence of starving tigers at Xiongsen four years apart from
one another could even conceivably be suggestive of a trend / potential methodology
involving starvation of the tigers at the site. Whatever the facts of the matter, as it always has
done, Xiongsen clearly continues to epitomise the type of establishment that the Parties at
CoP14 intended to be consigned to the history books with the adoption of Decision 14.69.
Given the emphasis that Parties laid upon the guidance in the Annex to Notification No.
2008/059 at CoP15 and the Secretariat's recent confirmation that Decision 14.69 is still valid,
it stands to reason that the Notification No. 2008/059 Annex guidance is, in principle at least,
also still valid. For the avoidance of doubt that guidance makes it clear, for the purposes of
Decision 14.69, that:
“intensive operations” may be regarded as operations focused exclusively
or primarily on the frequent production of tigers; [and]
“commercial scale” may be regarded as a level of production that enables
a breeding operation, or is intended to enable it, to derive a substantial
proportion of its revenue from the production of tigers, including, but not
limited to, sale of parts and derivatives41
;
On that basis it then simply becomes a clear statement of fact that the 'Xiongsen Bear &
Tiger Mountain Village' is and always has been an intensive operation breeding tigers on a
commercial scale that has continually caused China to be in breach of CITES Decision
14.69 since the date it was first adopted.
Accordingly, with regard to Xiongsen, Decision 14.69 effectively states to China the CITES
Parties' requirement that it 'shall implement measures to restrict the captive population
[there] to a level supportive only to conserving wild tigers'. As set out in the Annex to this
document that would arguably be only those tigers at Xiongsen within one or more of the
official, international tiger studbook programs (of which there are none at Xiongsen) and / or
a minimal number that might conceivably help to conserve wild tigers through legitimate
education and e.g. a flow of ticket funds to legitimate projects in the field. Ten animals at
most ought to be sufficient for those purposes and even then there would have to be a
drastic improvement in their living conditions.
China was even encouraged as far back as 2008, within the Notification No. 2008/059
Annex guidance, to put in place:
the development of a strategic plan, incorporating deadlines, for the
phasing-out of intensive breeding operations on a commercial scale [such
as and including Xiongsen and others like it] or their conversion to
operations devoted solely to the conservation of tigers42
.
That has not ever been done and, as mentioned above, CITES and the Parties to it have
acquiesced to China and other neighbouring Parties' continual flagrant disregard of the
relevant provisions to such an extent that parts and derivatives from captive facilities such as
Xiongsen are now frequently found within the illegal trade on a scale not ever witnessed
before.
41 Supra note 23
42 Id.

14
Sri Racha Tiger Zoo, Chonburi Province, Thailand – Early 2014
The Sri Racha Tiger Zoo has caused Thailand to be in breach of Decision 14.69 since the
date it was first adopted in much the same way that Xiongsen and others have caused China
to be in breach.
There can be no doubt that the Sri Racha Tiger Zoo is an 'intensive operation' where the
working practices are 'focused exclusively or primarily on the frequent production of tigers'
and where there is a 'level of production that enables (...) or is intended to enable it, to derive
a substantial proportion of its revenue from the production of tigers'. One of the Secretariat's
consultants reported, as far back as 2000, that:
Tigers at Thailand’s Sri Racha Tiger Zoo are fed meat from associated
commercial crocodile and pig farms. Tigers are breeding rapidly (...) Sri
Racha has developed a technique of pulling young Tiger cubs off their
mothers at a young age and suckling them with farrowing pigs, so that the
Tiger mothers can breed again as quickly as possible. The owner of a
traditional medicine shop in Bangkok told an investigator in 1999 that he
had many Tiger penises in stock, which, since he had bought from Sri
Racha Tiger farm, were not illegal in his opinion (…)43
.
The 2002 export of 100 tigers from the Sri Racha Tiger Zoo to a Chinese / Thai joint venture
called 'Sanya Maitree Concept Co. Ltd', based at Sanya in China's Hainan Province is also
well documented44
. These were apparently for a new tourist attraction at Sanya called 'Love
World' but a spokesperson for the joint venture allegedly stated they could eventually have
over 1,000 tigers there and that tourists would be likely to eat tiger meat at Sanya45
.
Unsurprisingly that export met with a great deal of concern at the time, apparently justified a
decade later by charges being placed against a Thai Deputy Prime Minister in respect of the
export (as he was the head of the forestry department at the time). A 2012 newspaper
article reported that:
He was charged under an article in Thai law which includes the "abuse of
power, failing to carry out his duty and/or corruption," according to
Teerayhut Mapame of the attorney general's office46
.
The Sri Racha Tiger Zoo also has a notoriety for the it's 'missing' tigers (in terms of the
numbers clearly being bred there not tallying with the number apparently on site)47
, the
previous deaths of many of its tigers due to a bird flu outbreak from cheap infected chickens
they were fed48
and the previous evidence of products containing tiger bone on sale at the
site49
.
The Sri Racha Tiger Zoo's cruel commercial exploitation of its tigers in various tiger shows
and bizarre attempts at educational displays is also well documented. As was noted as far
back as 2001:
43 Nowell, K. (2000) Far From a Cure: The Tiger Trade Revisited. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK.
44 Nyhus, P.J., Tilson, R. and Hutchins, M. (2010) Thirteen Thousand and Counting: How Growing Captive
Tiger Populations Threaten In Tilson, R. and Nyhus, P. (eds.) Tigers of the World: The Science,
Politics and Conservation of Panthera tigris. Elsevier, Pp 223-238.
45 Ellis, R. (2005) Tiger Bone and Rhino Horn: The Destruction of Wildlife for Traditional Chinese Medicine,
Island Press, Washington.
46 http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/751177.shtml
47 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/scandal-of-zoos-missing-tigers-6170235.html
48 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bird-flu-strikes-thai-zoo-tigers/
49 http://www.eia-international.org/wp-content/uploads/Thailands-Tiger-Economy-low-res.pdf

15
The efforts at education are very poor with Sri Racha Tiger Zoo providing
the worst kind of inaccurate ideas and misinformation50
.
Again, however, nothing has been done and as a result, as set out below, Sri Racha Tiger
Zoo continues in 2014 with the same cruel exploitation and ridiculously flawed attempts at
education that were reported there nearly fifteen years ago:
Figure 4: Sculpture of tiger cubs suckling from a pig
at the Sri Racha Tiger Zoo, Thailand – Early 2014
Figure 5: Targets for visitors to shoot to release morsels of meat for tigers underneath.
Sri Racha Tiger Zoo, Thailand – Early 2014
50 Id.

16
Figure 6: Sow raising a baby tiger cub
Figure 7: Sign with explanation for the public of why sows feed tiger cubs
Figure 8: Visitor bottle-feeding young tiger. Sri Racha Tiger Zoo, Thailand – Early 2014

17
Figure 9: Young tigers in small cages. Sri Racha Tiger Zoo, Thailand – Early 2014
Figure 10: Member of staff in bizarre African type costume constantly hitting a tiger
so it faces forward for visitors' cameras. Sri Racha Tiger Zoo, Thailand – Early 2014
Figure 11: Tiger being made to walk the tightrope during the 'performance' for visitors.

18
Figure 12: Tiger being made to jump through a hoop of fire during 'performance'.
Figure 13: Forlorn and subdued tigers at the end of the performance
Thailand's Sri Racha Tiger Zoo is and always has been an intensive operation breeding
tigers on a commercial scale. By virtue of Decision 14.69 the Conference of the Parties to
CITES effectively told Thailand in 2007 that it shall implement measures to restrict the
captive population at Sri Racha Tiger Zoo and all other sites on Thai territory falling within
the remit of Decision 14.69 to a level supportive only to conserving wild tigers. Thailand has
not ever done that. As with China, Thailand was also encouraged in 2008, within the
guidance in the Annex to Notification No. 2008/059, to put in place:
the development of a strategic plan, incorporating deadlines, for the
phasing-out of intensive breeding operations on a commercial scale [such
as and including Sri Racha Tiger Zoo and others like it] or their conversion
to operations devoted solely to the conservation of tigers51
.
51 Supra note 23

19
Again, that has not ever been done and again, as with China, CITES and the Parties to it
have acquiesced to Thailand's continual flagrant disregard of the relevant provisions on
these matters to the extent that the provisions themselves now look like they have simply
been 'brushed under the carpet'.
The Parties to CITES and the CITES Standing Committee should not allow that to happen.
Tigers and other Asian big cats cannot afford to have provisions such as Decision 14.69 'fall
off the radar' for three years between Conferences of the Parties due to administrative or
interpretational error.
Muang Thong tiger farm, 30 kilometres north of Thakhek, Lao People's Democratic Republic
– Late 2013 / Early 2014
The Laotian intensive operation breeding tigers on a commercial scale at Muang Thong,
approximately 30 kilometres north of Thakhek, is comparatively new compared to some of
China or Thailand's larger, more established, tiger farms. Despite this, back in 2010 when it
was presumably still in its infancy, it was described even then as 'the largest tiger farm
Southeast Asia'52
.
In an article from April 2010 Vietnamese journalists detailed their visit to what was then and
probably still is Lao People's Democratic Republic's largest tiger farm. They detailed how
one of the owners explained to them that the farm made a loss in its first year, going into
profit in its second year and then on to 'very high' profits by the time of their visit (which was
presumably in late 2009 or early 2010)53
. This could give an establishment date for this
large Laotian tiger farm around 2006 or 2007.
Coincidentally 2006 also witnessed the only officially reported export from Canada to the Lao
People's Democratic Republic throughout CITES' entire history, the export of 3 live tigers.
Figure 14: CITES trade database showing the export of 3 tigers
from Canada to Lao People's Democratic Republic – June 2014
The details on the relevant permits could presumably be checked and verified without big
problems. If those details revealed a link to what the writer will now refer to as the 'Thakhek
tiger farm' that would be sound indicative evidence that the Laotian tiger farmers had, in part,
followed the Chinese model from some 20 years earlier (when five purebred Siberian tigers
(Panthera tigris altaica), that had been exported from the United States of America to China,
were moved to the Breeding Centre for Felidae at Hengdaohezi in 1986 to help establish this
site as probably China's oldest intensive operation breeding tigers on a commercial scale54
).
The writer was recently allowed to view copy film evidence, that could usefully be located,
obtained, verified and analyzed by INTERPOL, wherein it is explained that, around late 2013
/ early 2014, one of the Vietnamese owners of the Thakhek tiger farm apparently confirmed
to visitors to the farm at that time that he had been obliged to travel to Vientiane to pay the
52 http://ankorcivilization.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/breaking-into-southeast-asias-largest.html
53 Id.
54 Jackson, P. (1996) Concern about Chinese Tiger Programme, IUCN Cat News (25) p. 13

20
equivalent of approximately U$1,000,000 in order to be allowed to carry on operating
following the exposure from the 2010 media report referenced above. This source of
evidence also includes detail to the effect that, around late 2013 / early 2014, the Thakhek
tiger farm contained approximately 400 tigers but also clouded leopards and bears as
evidenced below from screen 'grabs' of footage taken within the farm during that period.
Figure 15: Cage upon cage of tigers in appallingly cramped conditions at the Thakhek tiger farm,
Lao People's Democratic Republic - Late 2013 / Early 2014
The tigers at the Thakhek tiger farm are purportedly fed on a diet of chicken bone and feet
that is imported from Thailand with rations of approximately 2 kilograms per tiger per day. A
disease outbreak in recent years, suspected to be bird flu, apparently led to members of staff
from the farm having to be quarantined. Further, despite subsequent, weekly antibiotic
injections for the tigers it is understood that there may even be another outbreak of bird flu at
the site at the time of writing of the present report in late June / early July 2014.
Figure 16: The Thakhek tiger farm also breeds other rare animals such as bears
and clouded leopards as evidenced from this screen 'grab' of
footage from the site from Late 2013 / Early 2014

21
Those who asked what antibiotics were injected were purportedly advised to ask the
manager of the intensive operation breeding tigers on a commercial scale in Thailand's
Ubon Ratchathani province. This person apparently attends the Thakhek tiger farm
frequently to address such issues. The operation in Ubon Ratchathani was the first of three
to be set up in Thailand by Tiger Kingdom Trakarn Co., Ltd. As there has been no
implementation, compliance and / or enforcement measures taken with regard to Decision
14.69 since its adoption in 2007, Tiger Kingdon Trakarn Co., Ltd. now has additional sites at
Chiang Mai (since March 2008) and Phuket (even more recently). The public face of these
newer sites is geared far more towards tourists and commercial tiger 'petting' experiences55
than the site at Ubon Ratchathani.
Returning to the Thakhek tiger farm, the visitors referred to above were apparently advised
that if they wanted to buy a live tiger for meat this would cost 8,000 Thai baht per kilogram at
the start of 2014, compared to 6,500 Thai baht in late 2013. This converts to approximately
U$ 250 per kilogram at the time of writing in late June / early July 2014 and would
corroborate with what they were also purportedly told, that a tiger from the Thakhek tiger
farm weighing around 200 kilograms would cost approximately U$50,000. The visitors were
apparently further advised that the unfortunate chosen animal would then be electrocuted
following which the Thakhek tiger farm would buy back any unwanted parts and even offer
discounts in respect of the animal's intestines etc.
Customers to the Thakhek tiger farm are purportedly primarily Chinese and Vietnamese with
Chinese customers generally preferring male tigers owing to the extra value accorded to the
tiger's penis. Vietnamese purchasers are apparently less fussy in this respect, purportedly
purchasing both male and female tigers for their bones which are apparently prized for tiger
bone 'glue' and 'cake' in Viet Nam. There is apparently even a facility and an expert on site
at the Thakhek tiger farm who will boil their tigers' bones down into this glue that is
documented as being preferred by Vietnamese consumers56
.
Figure 17: Tigers in cramped conditions with no enrichment and only one destiny
Thakhek tiger farm - Late 2013 / Early 2014
55 http://www.tigerkingdom.com/Phuket.html
56 http://envietnam.org/images/News_Resources/Publication/tiger_trade_investigation_findings_2010.pdf

22
In terms of transporting the tigers, the aforementioned visitors to the Thakhek tiger farm
were apparently advised that, if consumers were wary of transporting their purchases
themselves, this could be done for them by a bus company in the area that will purportedly
take parts as far as Vientiane or Boten for an agreed sum. Transporting live tigers by road,
they were advised, is now too risky. They were purportedly told that this is now done using a
Laotian army helicopter instead at an additional cost of U$30,000, plus U$800 per shipping
cage used (up to a maximum of twelve per flight (each containing one sedated live tiger))
plus a further U$10,000 to cover paperwork and additional 'payments'.
It was apparently made clear to these visitors to the Thakhek tiger farm that they would
basically be unable to source tigers from anywhere else along that stretch of the Mekong
river, either on the Laotian or the Thai side, as the owners of the Thakhek tiger farm had
close connections with the various boat operators who would almost certainly be involved in
any attempts to source tigers from elsewhere in the area.
The Vietnamese journalists who infiltrated the Thakhek tiger farm in 2010 reported that one
of the farm's Vietnamese owners told them that he had '(…) taken thousands of tigers to
Vietnam!'57
.
Lao People's Democratic Republic joined CITES on 1 March 2004 and the Convention
entered into force there on 30 May 200458
.
There is no doubt that the Thakhek tiger farm is an intensive operation, breeding tigers on a
commercial scale that falls within the remit of Decision 14.69. There is also no doubt that
Lao People's Democratic Republic has failed to act in accordance with the Conference of the
Parties' instruction to it that it shall implement measures to restrict the captive population [at
the Thakhek tiger farm and any other intensive operations breeding tigers on a commercial
scale within Laotian borders] to a level supportive only to conserving wild tigers.
Again, as with China and Thailand's similarly non-existent implementation of Decision 14.69
nothing has been done to even remotely attempt to compel compliance by the Lao People's
Democratic Republic.
Casino Town, Undisclosed Location, South-east Asia – Early 2014.
For the sake of completeness, in the hopes that it may assist the Standing Committee, with
regard to the point cited by the Secretariat's consultants and referenced by the Secretariat
and EIA that wealth has replaced health as a primary driver of demand for Asian big cat
products throughout Asia, the writer attaches additional evidence that would appear to
support this conclusion.
Only a matter of weeks before this sixty-fifth meeting of the Standing Committee the writer
was forwarded the photo below of a menu in a casino area within South-east Asia clearly
showing tiger meat on sale for the affluent clients of the casinos. The writer understands this
photo was taken only a day or two before it was forwarded to him.
It is the writer's firm belief that the tiger meat used for such meals would almost certainly be
from captive bred tigers whose existence in the area has been encouraged by lack of
implementation, compliance and enforcement of Decision 14.69.
57 Supra note 50
58 http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/parties/chronolo.php

23
Figure 18: Evidence of tiger meat on sale for rich casino clients in South-east Asia
Photo taken a matter of weeks before SC65, 2014
9. Concluding remarks concerning Decision 14.69 and the guidance in the Annex to
Notification No. 2008/059
A simple, preliminary literature review of the various reports and evidence that have been
released in recent years leads to the following preliminary (and by no means complete) list of
intensive operations breeding tigers on a commercial scale. In accordance with the
instruction of the fourteenth Conference of the Parties to CITES, measures should have
been implemented by the relevant Parties many years ago to restrict the captive populations
of these establishments to a level supportive only to conserving wild tigers:
China
Hengdaohezi Breeding Centre for Felidae and associated sites, Harbin59
Xiongsen Bear & Tiger Mountain Village, Guilin60
Shenynag Forest Wild Animal Zoo61
Sanya Greatest World of Love62
Dalian Forest Zoo63
Badaling Safari World64
Nanjing Pearl Spring Zoo65
59 Supra notes 35-37 amongst numerous others
60 Id.
61 IFAW (May 2007) Made in China – Farming Tigers to Extinction
62 Supra notes 42, 43 and 59 amongst numerous others
63 http://eia-international.org/wp-content/uploads/EIA-Hidden-in-Plain-Sight-med-res.pdf
64 Id.
65 Id.

24
Qinhuandao Wild Animal Park66
+ as many as 200 other smaller establishments67
Thailand
Sri Racha Tiger Zoo68
Tiger Temple69
Tiger Kingdom, Ubon Ratchathani and associated sites
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Muang Thong tiger farm 30 kilometres north of Thakhek70
+ at least two others71
Viet Nam
Thanh Canh Tourism Park72
+ numerous other smaller establishments as documented previously73
Cambodia
Any tiger farms found to exist, as referenced in a 2010 report by the Vietnamese NGO
Education for Nature Viet Nam74
(although Cambodia's presumably verifiable statement for
the present meeting that there is 'No breeding currently' of Asian big cats within its borders75
is acknowledged).
United States of America
All businesses of tiger breeders who frequently breed tigers for commercial sale to private
owners for profit as these would be clearly also be 'intensive operations breeding tigers on a
commercial scale' as defined in Notification No. 2008/05976
.
----------------------------------
Tragically for Asian big cats the Parties set out above have made little or no effort
whatsoever to implement Decision 14.69 since the date it was first adopted. More tragically
for Asian big cats, however, is the fact that situation has been allowed to carry on
unchecked, on a continual and ongoing basis, again since Decision 14.69 was first adopted
back in 2007.
66 Id.
67 Supra notes 35 and 61
68 Supra notes 32 and 41-48
69 Supra note 32 amongst others
70 Supra note 50 and present report
71 As referenced in 'EIA Briefing Document on Asian big cats for the 65
th
Meeting of the CITES Standing
Committee'.
72 http://envietnam.org/library/Wildlife%20Trade%20Bulletin/ENV_WCB_April_2011.pdf
73 Supra note 54 and also: http://tuoitrenews.vn/features/3189/tigers-in-captivity-p1-–-the-large-cats’-lair
and: http://tuoitrenews.vn/features/3186/a-godfather-of-tiger-bone-paste
74 Supra note 54
75 http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/com/sc/65/EFS-SC65-38-A02.pdf
76 Supra note 32

25
From a legal interpretational point of view the wordings used in Decision 14.69 and the
guidance associated with it in the Annex to Notification No. 2008/059 actually have the
potential to be very useful and effective. As with any legal provisions though, they are only
as effective as their enforcement which, in the case of the Decision 14.69, has been non-
existent.
The fact that Decision 14.69 was erroneously marked as 'superseded' following CoP16 only
serves to add insult to the injury caused by so many years of non-compliance going
unchecked. As a result of this administrative or interpretational error there was no mention
whatsoever of Decision 14.69 within Notification No. 2013/037 on Asian big cats dated 27
August 201377
or the questionnaire annexed to it, that Parties were asked to follow in
providing reports of their implementation of Resolution Conf. 12.5 (Rev. CoP16)78
.
Parties were required to report on their implementation of Decision 14.69 in Notification No.
2012/054 of 3 September 2012, hardly any did and then the requirement to implement it and
report on that implementation was completely absent from Notification No. 2013/037 dated
27 August 2013.
Even if the Standing Committee now makes the recommendations set out in this report at
this sixty-fifth meeting that will still mean the period from CoP16 in March 2013 to SC65 in
July 2014 has been completely wasted in terms of the requisite emphasis that needs to be
continually placed upon Decision 14.69 until it has been fully implemented.
It is still the Parties' prevailing view in Resolution Conf. 12.5 (Rev. CoP16) that 'those Parties
and non-Parties on whose territories tigers and other Asian big cat species are bred in
captivity [are urged] to ensure that adequate management practices and controls are in
place to prevent parts and derivatives from entering illegal trade from or through such
facilities. This is because, at the Parties recognise, 'illegal trade in specimens of nearly all
these species has escalated and further threatens their long-term survival in the wild'.
Working to prevent parts and derivatives entering illegal trade from Asian big cat breeding
facilities is not enough though. The fourteenth Conference of the Parties recognised this.
That is why they set out a clear requirement that 'Parties with intensive operations breeding
tigers on a commercial scale shall implement measures to restrict the captive population to
a level supportive only to conserving wild tigers'. It is also why they put out a clear, simple
and robust statement that 'tigers should not be bred for trade in their parts and derivatives'.
The Secretariat has confirmed that the requirement and statement within Decision 14.69 are
both still valid. The fact that they have been neglected for sixteen months since CoP16 due
to a basic administrative or interpretational error is bad enough. If that situation is allowed to
persist until the next 'battle of the words' over Decision 14.69 at CoP17 in 2016 that would
be a massive failure. In the circumstances the writer strongly encourages the Standing
Committee to adopt the recommendations in this report in addition to those already
proposed elsewhere under this Agenda item.
10. Additional and photographic evidence concerning the lion bone trade
In their report at SC65 Doc. 38, Annex 1 the Secretariat's consultants quite correctly advise
that:
77 http://cites.org/sites/default/files/notif/E-Notif-2013-037.pdf
78 http://cites.org/sites/default/files/notif/E-Notif-2013-037-A.pdf

26
In recent years South Africa has reported the export of large quantities of
lion bone sourced from captive animals to China, the Lao People’s
Democratic Republic and Viet Nam (...).
This is of concern for several reasons. Illegal trade in lion body parts for
medicinal purposes is considered a threat to African lion populations (...) as
well as to the small population in India’s Gir forest (...). Legal international
trade in bone reported as from captive-bred lions could serve as a cover for
illegally wild-sourced lion parts. Secondly, it is very difficult to distinguish
whole lion bones from tiger bones (Nowell 200079
), and particularly if the
bones are processed into some form of derivative product (...). This look-
alike issue presents a significant challenge for government authorities
seeking to enforce CITES restrictions on commercial trade in tiger bone
and other Asian big cats listed in CITES Appendix I. Finally, the use of lion
bone perpetuates the consumption of big cats for tonic or medicinal
purposes (…)80
.
The Secretariat's consultants then go on to set out, at Figure 29 of their report, the trade
figures from the CITES Trade database for imports of lion 'bones' from South Africa by
China, the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Viet Nam for the period 2009-2012
inclusive.
The writer is obliged to point out that, in addition to the imports of lion bones set out in the
Secretariat's consultants' report, China, the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Viet Nam
also imported the following numbers of lion 'bodies' and 'skeletons' from South Africa over
the same period:
2009 2010 2011 2012
China - 8 16 12
Lao People's Democratic Republic 80 - - 49
Viet Nam - - - 72
Table 1: Tiger Range Country imports of lion 'bodies' from South Africa from 2009-2012 inclusive
(CITES Trade Database)
2009 2010 2011 2012
China - - 2 2
Lao People's Democratic Republic 5 130 496 108
Viet Nam - 91 - 8
Table 2: Tiger Range Country imports of lion 'skeletons' from South Africa from 2009-2012 inclusive
(CITES Trade Database)
That amounts to an additional 1,079 dead lions in trade over the same period.
Further, the above figure does not include the additional imports from South Africa by China,
Lao People's Democratic and Viet Nam, over the same period, of 217 lion 'trophies', 108 lion
79 Supra note 42
80 Supra note 34

27
'skins', 33 lion 'skulls' and 93 'live' lions. Evidence of these can also be found on the CITES
Trade Database.
The majority of the lion exports set out by the Secretariat's consultants and above are
reported, certainly by South Africa, as having come from captive bred sources within South
Africa.
The South African Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs ('the Minister') previously
reported on some of this trade in March 2011, in response to official Parliamentary
questioning. At that time the Minister referred to 327 lion 'carcasses' having been exported
during 2009 and 201081
. Later, in April 2011, the Minister confirmed that these 327 lion
carcasses were all exported from South Africa to the Lao People's Democratic Republic82
.
When asked about exports of lion 'skeletons' the Minister responded, in June 2011, by
advising that permits were issued for the export of 85 lion 'carcasses' to Lao People's
Democratic Republic in 2009 and 171 lion 'skeletons' to Lao People's Democratic Republic
in 201083
. In August 2011 the Minister confirmed that these 171 lion ‘skeletons’ were
included within her March 2011 figure of 235, for lion ‘carcasses’ exported to Lao People's
Democratic Republic in 201084
.
The Minister also acknowledged in August 2011 that the term ‘carcasses’, being inconsistent
with the terminology used by CITES, should not have been used. The Minister advised that
reporting would be standardised in terms of the CITES reporting guidelines moving
forwards85
.
Further, the Minister also confirmed her understanding in August 2011 that the term
‘skeleton’ in the context of CITES refers to ‘substantially whole skeletons’86
. Importantly, this
confirmed that at least 171 of the 235 lion ‘carcasses’ exported from South Africa to Lao
People's Democratic Republic in 2010, as well as all other lion 'skeletons' exported from
South Africa from 2009 onwards, were indeed ‘substantially whole skeletons’. In addition,
evidence from the CITES Trade Database confirms that 711 of the 842 lion 'skeletons' set
out in Table 2 above were exported with purpose code 'T' (i.e. export for commercial
purposes) with the remainder exported with the 'Hunting trophy' purpose code, 'H'.
Finally in August 2011, the Minister also separately provided details of the names of the
exporters and importers for each lion bone export consignment from South Africa to Lao
PDR in 2009 and 201087
.
Exporter Details
The exporter named most often by the Minister was 'Mr JJ van der Westhuizen (Letsatsi la
Africa)'. Mr van der Westhuizen was at the centre of an early lion bone trade permit scandal
in South Africa when he was granted a permit to sell lion bones from his Letsatsi la Africa
Wildlife and Predator Park (‘Letsatsi la Africa’) on 1 December 200988
.
81 https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/parliamentary_updates/question259.pdf
85 Id.
86 Id.
88 http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Anger-over-lion-bone-sales-20091210

28
Letsatsi la Africa and the van der Westhuizen family also featured in a previous ‘Carte
Blanche’ television program in South Africa that looked into the issue of the lion bone trade.
In this program Ronelle van der Westhuizen confirmed that Letsatsi la Africa was (and
almost certainly still is) involved in the export of lion bones from South Africa. At the time she
was filmed, she confirmed that Letsatsi la Africa were currently "...busy with a big sending
that needs to go out".
Whilst the Minister’s information provided no quantities against each of the exporters named,
as mentioned, Letsatsi la Africa was the exporter who she named most often. Ronelle van
der Westhuizen’s comment provided further indicative evidence suggesting that Letsatsi la
Africa was behind the bulk of the lion bone, carcass and skeleton exports from South Africa
from 2009, 2010 and beyond. More recently, it has also emerged that Tam Safaris in South
Africa's Eastern Cape Province is also a large exporter in this respect89
.
Importer Details
With regard to the importers of lion bones and skeletons in Lao People's Democratic
Republic, the importer named most often by the Minister was 'Vixay Keosovang'.
Vixay Keosavang is understood to be the head of the so called 'Xaysavang network' in Lao
People's Democratic Republic90
of which a ‘key figure’ in the company, Chumlong
Lemtongthai, was arrested over the illegal rhino horn scandal in July 201191
. In November
2012 Chumlong Lemtongthai was sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment after pleading guilty
to smuggling rhino horn92
. In Court it is reported that:
Lemtongthai said that he came to South Africa after the director of Laotian
exports company Xasavanga sent him to this country "to enquire about the
purchasing of lion bones"93
.
Vixay Keosavang, who has been described as the “single largest known illegal wildlife
trafficker in Asia”94
, remains a free man. Based in Lao People's Democratic Republic with
purported connections to influential people, he is considered largely untouchable95
.
Despite the lack of precise figures per transaction, from the evidence confirming Vixay
Keosavang's involvement in the lion bone trade and the numbers involved in the Xaysavang
network's endangered species trading generally, it seems probable that the Xaysavang
network received the majority of the dead lion skeletons and parts exported from South
Africa to Lao PDR from 2009, 2010 and beyond.
New Information
The above conclusion is supported by evidence that the writer has seen in the form of a
translation (from Vietnamese) of a conversation with Vixay Keosavang that apparently took
place late in 2013. This has been passed to INTERPOL and, based on the evidence seen
by the writer, it is the writer's personal belief that it is genuine. In the circumstances it is the
89 http://www.pressreader.com/bookmark/FK51ZEOP8Y51/TextView
90 http://eia-international.org/vixay-keosavang-an-untouchable-kingpin-of-wildlife-crime
91 http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Hawks-Sars-net-trafficking-kingpin-20110710
92 http://mg.co.za/article/2012-11-09-conviction-deals-blow-to-rhino-horn-syndicate
93 http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2012/11/06/rhino-kingpin-guilty
94 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/1m-bounty-on-the-pablo-escobar-of-
animal-traffickings-head-9069547.html
95 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/world/asia/notorious-figure-in-animal-smuggling-beyond-
reach-in-laos.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=global-home&

29
writer's personal view that INTERPOL should locate, obtain and verify the footage from
which this translation is apparently derived so they can analyze it and have their own official
translation made. INTERPOL have confirmed that the information set out below is
acceptable for release in this report.
From the conversation translation seen by the writer, Vixay Keosavang apparently confirmed
that:
- Lion bone trading was his main source of business towards the end of 2013, within
which he apparently sells lion skeletons in three 'classes'. His 'first class' skeletons are
essentially fully intact, including the skull. He was purportedly selling these at a rate of
22,000 Thai baht per skeleton towards the end of 2013. His 'second class' lion
skeletons do not include the skull but do include virtually all other bones. These
were apparently being sold late in 2013 at a rate of 18,000 Thai baht per skeleton.
Finally, his 'third class' lion skeletons do not include the skull and are missing other
bones also. These were apparently being sold at a rate of 15,000 Thai baht
towards the end of 2013.
- He only currently sells lion bones and skeletons to, primarily three, Vietnamese clients
from Viet Nam's Ha Tinh province and he only orders lion bones and skeletons when
they place an order with him first. These clients apparently purchase approximately 10
tonnes of lion bones and skeletons from him every year that he transports to the
Vietnamese border for them.
- His Vietnamese clients from Ha Tinh province use lion bones in tiger bone 'cake' as
'(…) there is almost no different between lion bone and tiger bone' and only their tiger
bone cake 'cook' can tell the difference.
Figure 19: Tiger bone 'cake' on sale in a hotel shop in Hanoi, 2013.
The main ingredient could well be captive bred African lion
from South Africa, fueling and further stimulating demand for tiger products
- He can also source tiger bone but this would take longer to obtain even though he
apparently confirmed he is friends with one or more of the owners of the Thakhek tiger
farm and apparently also confirmed that he has his own tiger farm that contained 30
live tigers towards the end of 2013.

30
- Although he had not done so for nearly three years, he could purportedly facilitate, as
a middle man in terms of shipping and paperwork, import of wild Malayan tigers
(Panthera tigris Jacksoni) from Malaysia and / or captive bred tigers from Thailand into
the Lao People's Democratic Republic. These are apparently cut into three pieces for
transport by car, with one or two tigers being the average per shipment, but the
purchaser(s) would have to purchase from the Thai and / or Malaysian dealers directly.
Transport of whole tigers could also purportedly be arranged into Viet Nam through
one of his contacts at a rate of approximately U$4,000 per 100 kilograms of tiger.
- His main lines of trade towards the end of 2013 were lion bone, turtle, snake, lizards
and pangolin trading.
As illustrated, this tiger bone 'cake' is well documented in trade in South-east Asia with one
method of consumption apparently being to dissolve slices in rice wine that is then drunk
afterwards.
Figure 20: Rice wine being poured over slices of tiger bone 'cake'
Figure 21: Tiger bone 'cake' dissolving in rice wine

31
Figure 22: Stirring tiger bone 'cake' in rice wine to assist dissolving process prior to drinking
Taken together the evidence set out above strongly suggests that the substantial trade in
lion bones and skeletons from South Africa to Asia since 2008 genuinely is feeding, fueling
and stimulating demand for products containing the parts of tigers and other Asian big cats
in the region.
The South African Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs was asked as far back as
February 2010 whether she would consider banning the export of lion bones and if not, why
not. She responded to this question (No. 123) on 1 March 2010 stating:
No. The banning of the export of lion bones will only be considered if the
export has a negative impact on the survival of the species in the wild. This
is not currently the case96
.
Four years later in February 2014 the Minister was asked:
Whether, with reference to her reply to question 123 on 1 March 2010
(details furnished), she will now consider banning the export of lion bones,
skeletons and carcasses, owing to the negative impact that this trade is
having on the world’s few remaining wild tigers, as these lion bones are
being passed off as tiger bone cake and tiger wine, thereby fuelling and
sustaining the demand for products containing wild tiger bones; if not, why
not, given the evidence (details furnished); if so, what steps will she take?97
Again, the Minister replied:
No. As indicated in my reply on question 123 on 1 March 2010, the
banning of the export of lion bones will only be considered if the export has
a negative impact on the survival of lions in the wild. The Department of
Environmental Affairs has not been provided with evidence that lion bone is
traded as tiger bone. The lion bones, skeletons and carcasses, which are
exported from South Africa, are by-products of the lion hunting industry.
Lion hunting is regulated in terms of provincial and national legislation, and
is sustainable at this point; and the majority of lions hunted in South Africa
originate from captive breeding operations. Less than 5% of lion hunts
conducted in South Africa targets wild lions. Utilisation of lion within South
96 Question No. 123 at: http://www.pmg.org.za/questions-and-replies/2010/02/24/questions-replies-no-101-
125
97 Question No. 240 at: http://www.pmg.org.za/questions-and-replies/2014/03/10/water-environmental-
affairs

32
Africa’s national parks is not allowed, thus effectively 67% of the free
roaming lions within South Africa is strictly protected98
.
With respect, this approach is unhelpful and is either naïve, ill informed or both. In terms of
fueling and stimulating demand for their parts, the trade in lion bones and skeletons from
South Africa to Asia poses a far greater threat to wild tigers and, as the Secretariat's
consultants correctly point out, the Asian lions in India's Gir forest than it currently does to
Africa's wild lions.
The Secretariat's consultants recommended in their report that:
The Lao PDR and Viet Nam should also be requested to clarify the
purpose for recent sizeable imports of lion bone from South Africa99
.
The Secretariat did not see fit to transpose that recommendation into its own
recommendations for the Standing Committee at this sixty-fifth meeting but it is hoped that
the evidence set out above will encourage the Standing Committee to make such a request
in any event. In the circumstances:
It is recommended that the Standing Committee request Viet Nam and the Lao People's
Democratic Republic to provide a report to the Secretariat, by 1 June 2015, clarifying the
purpose(s) for which their substantial imports of lion 'bodies', 'bones' and 'skeletons' from
South Africa since 2008 were used, for consideration by the Standing Committee at SC66.
In addition, in light of the evidence set out above, given the apparent risks posed to tigers
and other Asian big cats by the trade in lion parts from South Africa to Asia:
It is recommended that the Standing Committee urge South Africa to suspend all exports of
lion parts to China, Lao People's Democratic Republic and Viet Nam until further notice; and
It is recommended that the Standing Committee urge China, Lao People's Democratic
Republic and Viet Nam to suspend all imports of lion parts from South Africa until further
notice.
11. Recommendations
As mentioned above, the writer agrees with the Environmental Investigation Agency's
proposed amendments of the Secretariat's recommendations in SC65 Doc. 38 and also with
their additional recommendations in their briefing document for the present meeting100
. The
only exceptions to this are where the writer's recommendations with regard to Decision
14.69 differ slightly in terms of approach. To conclude therefore, the writer's own
recommendations for the Standing Committee at this sixty-fifth meeting are collated below
for convenience in the hopes that they will be of assistance to the Standing Committee:
It is recommended that the Standing Committee instructs the Secretariat to transfer
Decision 14.69 from the list of Decisions superseded after CoP16 to the list of all valid
Decisions still in effect after CoP16 forthwith, with an accompanying and robust Notification
to the Parties from the Secretariat confirming to them that Decision 14.69 remains fully valid
in terms of the requirements set out within it.
98 Id.
99 Supra note 35
100 Supra note 2

33
It is recommended that the Standing Committee instructs the Secretariat to re-issue, within
the above mentioned Notification to the Parties, the requirement from Notification 2012/054
that: 'All Parties with intensive operations breeding tigers on a commercial scale are
requested to fully implement Decision 14.69 in respect of the number of breeding operations
and also for the total number of tigers, and report to the Secretariat on the measures
implemented to comply with this Decision [by 1 June 2015 in advance of and in readiness for
a full assessment of implementation of Decision 14.69 at the 66th
Committee]'.
It is recommended that the Standing Committee instruct the Secretariat to transpose
verbatim the Annex from Notification to the Parties No. 2008/059 into a new Notification to
the Parties that contains no key dates that could cause such a Notification to erroneously be
marked 'Not valid'. That Notification should then remain valid until the wording of Decision
14.69 is complied with in full or moved (at which point a new Notification should be issued in
identical terms to reflect the new location of those words).
It is recommended that the Standing Committee request Viet Nam and the Lao People's
Democratic Republic to provide a report to the Secretariat, by 1 June 2015, clarifying the
purpose(s) for which their substantial imports of lion 'bodies', 'bones' and 'skeletons' from
South Africa since 2008 were used, for consideration by the Standing Committee at SC66.
It is recommended that the Standing Committee urge South Africa to suspend all exports of
lion parts to China, Lao People's Democratic Republic and Viet Nam until further notice; and
It is recommended that the Standing Committee urge China, Lao People's Democratic
Republic and Viet Nam to suspend all imports of lion parts from South Africa until further
notice.
=========================================

34
Annex
Hargreaves, R. (2012) A Review of CITES Decision 14.69 on restricting captive
tiger populations to levels supportive only to conserve wild tigers. Journal
of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society (VI), 93-114.
Prepared on a pro bono basis late 2012
in the hope that it may have been of assistance at CoP16, Bangkok, March 2013

A Review of CITES Decision 14.69 on Restricting Captive Tiger Populations to
Levels Supportive Only to Conserve Wild Tigers 93
A REVIEW OF CITES DECISION 14.69
ON RESTRICTING CAPTIVE TIGER
POPULATIONS TO LEVELS SUPPORTIVE
ONLY TO CONSERVE WILD TIGERS
Richard Hargreaves, LLB, FCILE
International Legal Correspondent
WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society
Following the 62nd
meeting of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and
Fauna (CITES) Standing Committee in July 2012 (SC62), the
CITES Secretariat issued Notification to the Parties No. 2012/054
on 3 September 2012 on the “Conservation of and trade in tigers
and other [CITES] Appendix-I Asian big cat species.”1
In the
Notification the CITES Secretariat stated that:
All [CITES] Parties with intensive operations
breeding tigers on a commercial scale are requested to
fully implement Decision 14.69 in respect of the
number of breeding operations and also for the total
number of tigers, and report to the Secretariat on the
measures implemented to comply with this Decision.2
The Secretariat also stated, inter alia, that “to enable a full
assessment at the 16th
meeting of the Conference of the Parties
(CoP16), all Parties, and particularly range states of Asian big
cats are requested to inform the Secretariat of (…) stockpiles of
captive-bred or confiscated tiger body parts and derivatives; and
any actions proposed to deal with the stockpiles.” The Secretariat
1
See http://www.cites.org/eng/notif/2012/E054.pdf
2
Id.

94 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Winter 2012, Vol. VI
advised Parties that it “would appreciate receiving this
information by 25 September 2012.”3
It is hoped that all relevant Parties submitted substantive and
timely responses to the Secretariat so that the full assessment of
Asian big cats at CoP16 in March 2013 can be as meaningful as
possible. If not, perhaps the present article may assist the Parties
with the full assessment due at CoP16, specifically in relation to
implementation and compliance with CITES Decision 14.69.
Decision 14.69, adopted at CITES CoP14 in 2007 and still in
force at the time of writing in late 2012, states:
Parties with intensive operations breeding tigers on a
commercial scale shall implement measures to restrict the
captive population to a level supportive only to conserving
wild tigers; tigers should not be bred for trade in their parts
and derivatives.4
At the 57th
meeting of the CITES Standing Committee in
July 2008 it was noted by a number of attendees that there was no
reporting requirement attached to Decision 14.69 and yet many of
those present were of the view that reports ought to be submitted.
Accordingly, the CITES Standing Committee agreed to set up a
working group whose remit would be “to clarify how the
implementation of Decision 14.69 might best be reported to the
Committee” with the general consensus being that reports should
be submitted in readiness for the 58th
Committee in July 2009.5
The CITES Secretariat subsequently issued Notification to
the Parties No. 2008/059 dated 8 October 2008, for which it drew
upon input from the working group and to which it attached an
Annex providing “information and observations that Parties may
3
Id.
4
See http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/14_66-68-69_15-70.php
5
See http://www.cites.org/eng/com/sc/57/E57-SumRec.pdf

find of assistance in determining their response, if any, to
Decision 14.69.”6
trade in the opinion of the Secretariat, may be
regarded for the purposes of this Decision as
referring to both domestic and international trade;
intensive operations may be regarded as
operations focused exclusively or primarily on
the frequent production of tigers;
commercial scale may be regarded as a level of
production that enables a breeding operation, or
is intended to enable it, to derive a substantial
proportion of its revenue from the production of
tigers, including, but not limited to, sale of parts
and derivatives; and
a level supportive only to conserving wild tigers
may be regarded as a level determined solely by
the objective of contributing to the long-term
conservation of the species in the wild, having
regard to the need to preserve the genetic
diversity of existing subspecies and populations.7
The Secretariat’s guideline definition of “a level supportive
only to conserving wild tigers” is particularly significant because,
as Nowell and Ling noted in 2007:
Reintroduction [of animals into the wild from captive-
bred stock] is a laudable goal, when it is feasible, but
there is no record of success with this in Tiger
conservation. It has never been seriously attempted or
successfully accomplished, and a review of scientific
literature fails to find any advocates for it among
6
See http://www.cites.org/eng/notif/2008/E059.pdf
7
Id.

specialists with extensive experience in wild Tiger
conservation.8
In the circumstances the CITES Secretariat’s reference to
“having regard to the need to preserve the genetic diversity of
existing subspecies and populations” was more likely guidance to
the effect that affected Parties should implement measures to
restrict their captive tiger populations to only those animals of
known genetic lineages in recognized regional studbook
programs. In addition, it is submitted that the Secretariat might
also acquiesce to Parties having a minimal number of additional
animals in zoos not officially involved in scientifically managed
captive breeding programs, provided that those tigers’ existence
in captivity could be conclusively shown to contribute “to the
long-term conservation of the species in the wild.”9
Ascertaining the maximum number of tigers that the Parties
could potentially need in captivity to contribute to the long-term
conservation of the species in the wild, by having regard to the
need to preserve the genetic diversity of existing subspecies and
populations, i.e. within scientifically managed captive tiger
breeding programs is comparatively straightforward. In 2010
Nyhus et al. advised that:
More than 500 zoos, aquariums, and facilities are
accredited by three major regional associations with
managed captive tiger programs: North America’s
Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), The
European Association of Zoos and Aquariums
(EAZA), and the Australasian Regional Association of
Zoological Parks and Aquaria (ARAZPA). Zoos that
belong to these associations manage tigers using
standards, including those governing animal health,
8
KRISTIN NOWELL & XU LING, Taming the Tiger Trade: China’s Markets for
Wild and Captive Tiger Products since the 1993 Domestic Trade Ban,
TRAFFIC (2007).
9
Supra note 6.

husbandry, genetic management, conservation and
education.10
The same year Kathy Traylor-Holzer explained that:
Genetic management [within these scientifically managed
captive tiger programs] strives to retain the same genetic
variation in the captive population as that in the wild
population from which it is derived.11
Holzer futher stated that most of these “captive management
programs have set a viability goal of retaining at least 90% of the
gene diversity of the wild population for 100 years.”12
Based on
population projections using the figures for stud book animals
Holzer advised, in 2010 that the global captive Amur tiger
(Panthera tigris altaica) population could reach 90% genetic
diversity with genetic management and the global captive
populations of Sumatran tigers (Panthera tigris sumatrae) and
Malayan tigers (Panthera tigris jacksonii) could be viable in the
long term with “periodic supplementation with new founders
from the wild.”13
Holzer also advised around the same time that
there were no “organized cooperative management programs” for
Indochinese tigers (Panthera tigris corbetti) or Bengal tigers
(Panthera tigris tigris) and, unfortunately, the South China tiger
(Panthera tigris amoyensis) captive population was not viable in
the long-term with only 69% gene diversity and none remaining
in the wild.14
Put simply it follows from this that the officially recognised,
scientifically managed captive tiger breeding programs already
had enough captive pure bred animals within their programs in
10
PHILIP J. NYHUS, ET AL., Thirteen Thousand and Counting: How Growing Captive Tiger
Populations Threaten Wild Tigers, TIGERS OF THE WORLD: THE SCIENCE, POLITICS AND
CONSERVATION OF PANTHERA TIGRIS (Philip J. Nyhus & Ron Tilson eds., 2nd
ed., 2010).
11
KATHY TRAYLOR-HOLZER, The Science and Art of Managing Tigers in
Captivity, TIGERS OF THE WORLD: THE SCIENCE, POLITICS AND CONSERVATION
OF PANTHERA TIGRIS (Philip J. Nyhus & Ron Tilson eds., 2nd
ed., 2010).
12
Id.
13
Id.
14
Id.

2010 when a total of 1,118 tigers of known genetic lineage were
recognised as being within such programs.15
Within this figure, Thailand was recognised as having 14
genuine pure bred Indochinese tigers of known genetic lineage in
a recognized regional program (albeit not, as mentioned above, in
an organized cooperative management program); China was
recognised as having 67 South China tigers of known genetic
lineage in captivity; North America was recognised as having a
total of 267 Amur, Sumatran and Malayan tigers of known
genetic lineage in captivity; and there were no tigers of known
genetic lineage in captivity in Vietnam, Lao People’s Democratic
Republic (PDR) or Cambodia.16
Given these circumstances it is thus submitted that the only
figures within the CITES Parties’ responses to Notification
2012/054 should be:
1. Updated figures for the captive bred populations referred
to above; and
2. The figures for Parties’ other minimal holdings of captive
bred tigers, in zoos not officially involved in
scientifically managed captive breeding programs, whose
existence in captivity could be conclusively shown to
contribute to the long-term conservation of the species in
the wild.
Should the Parties refer to any captive bred tigers within their
territories not falling within the above criteria, then it is thus
submitted those would be references to captive-bred tigers being
held in contravention of CITES Decision 14.69. Accordingly, in-
line with the guidance in Notification 2008/059, any such
references should be accompanied by:
A strategic plan, incorporating deadlines, for the
phasing-out of any intensive breeding operations
15
NYHUS, supra note 10.
16
NYHUS, supra note 10; HOLZER supra note 11.

containing those tigers (or the conversion of such
operations so that they are legitimately devoted solely to
the conservation of tigers); and
A policy with regard to what will happen to any surplus
tigers currently being held in any such intensive breeding
operations.17
And of course, these would be in addition to the
requirements within Notification 2012/054 that the Parties
provide the CITES Secretariat with details of any “stockpiles of
captive-bred or confiscated tiger body parts and derivatives” and
also with details of “any actions proposed to deal with the
stockpiles.”18
If there is a good response to Notification 2012/054 it is
hoped that a constructive and meaningful assessment of Parties’
implementation and compliance with Decision 14.69 can then be
carried out within the full assessment of Asian Big Cats that is
due to take place at CITES CoP16.19
But how should those
carrying out the assessment determine which captive bred tigers,
outside of scientifically managed captive breeding programs, are
contributing to the long-term conservation of the species in the
wild?
Drawing upon the 2010 article Why Keep Tigers in Zoos? by
Sarah Christie of the Zoological Society of London,20
it is
submitted that (aside from personal positions on keeping tigers in
captivity at all) minimal numbers of captive-bred tigers outside of
scientifically managed breeding programs might conceivably
contribute to the long-term conservation of the species in the wild
if the legitimate zoos holding those tigers:
17
Supra note 6.
18
Supra note 1.
19
Id.
20
SARAH CHRISTIE, Why Keep Tigers in Zoos? TIGERS OF THE WORLD: THE
SCIENCE, POLITICS AND CONSERVATION OF PANTHERA TIGRIS (Philip J. Nyhus & Ron
Tilson eds., 2nd
ed., 2010).

1. Did their best to ensure that they only kept pure bred
tigers of known genetic lineage, regardless of the fact
that their tigers would not be within any of the
recognised scientifically managed programs;
2. Participated in the International Species Information
System (ISIS) which is a computer-based information
system detailing wild animal species in captivity;
3. Kept full records and details in respect of all of their
tigers and also marked each of them using microchips
and / or DNA profiling;
4. Kept independently verified records of all of the births
and deaths of their tigers including full details in respect
of the causes of deaths of their tigers, ideally with full,
independent, veterinary post mortems carried out in
respect of each of them;
5. Kept independently verified records confirming how
each of their tigers was disposed of after death and
independent veterinary post-mortem;
6. Had in place and complied with stringent professional
standards in terms of governing the health and genetic
management of their animals;
7. Provided enrichment for their tigers and maintained the
utmost standards in terms of the husbandry and welfare
of their animals;
8. Established and/or provided funding for projects in the
field, with a view to helping to preserve the few
remaining populations of wild tigers, for example
through funding scientific research, paying for forest
rangers within key areas of tiger habitat, paying for
camera traps and / or funding campaigns aimed at
reducing demand for products containing parts or
derivatives of tigers; and

9. Only displayed their tigers to the public in such a way as
to not cause any stress to their animals and with the
proviso that any such display of their animals to the
public was done responsibly for education purposes and
raising awareness of the plight of tigers in the wild.
Nyhus estimated that, in 2010, the total number of captive-
bred tigers in captivity throughout the world, outside of the
official scientifically managed breeding programs but within zoos
that might conceivably fit within the parameters set out above to
be 561. Nyhus references the zoos within the official breeding
programs as Zoos managed as opposed to Zoos not managed.
These included 196 in North America, an estimated 50 in China,
16 in Thailand, 6 in Cambodia, 2 in Vietnam and none in Lao
PDR.21
Of the 10,485 other captive-bred tigers that Nyhus estimated
to be in captivity throughout the world in 2010, referred to as
private meaning privately owned tigers, they estimated that 5,160
were in China; 4,428 were in North America, 775 were in
Thailand, 50 were in Indonesia, 41 were in Vietnam, 17 in
Cambodia, and 14 in Europe and Russia.22
These are the tigers
that Decision 14.69 was passed to address and these are the tigers
whose numbers should have gone down between 2010 and the
dates of the Parties responses to Notification 2012/054. As
Nyhus explained:
The unmanaged tiger population is a different creature
altogether. They are no longer Amur or Sumatran or
Bengal tigers. They are tiger soup. It is improbable,
and, in fact, undesirable that any will ever be released
into the wild, despite the argument by some owners of
China’s tiger farms to the contrary, and thus they
remain genetically indistinct large predators in cages
with little or no value to the future of their kind. As
21
NYHUS, supra note 10.
22
Id.

tigers they have no worth, but for sellers of their parts
they are worth a fortune.23
Unfortunately, based on the status updates below (provided
for relevant CITES Parties to whom Decision 14.69 is likely to
apply) it seems the prospects are not good for a finding by CITES
CoP16 in March 2013 that significant progress has been made by
Parties in terms of implementation and compliance with Decision
14.69.
China
In my 2011 article, that focused on China’s tiger farms and
considered a number of instances in which China’s tiger farmers
could give cause for China to be in breach of Decision 14.69 (as
well as other provisions of CITES), has already highlighted the
growth in China’s population of captive-bred tigers held in
private tiger farms to nearly 6,000 with the potential to breed an
additional thousand tigers every year.24
It also noted the
indicative evidence that came to light suggesting that China may
have opened up a limited domestic trade in the skins of tigers and
other Asian big cat skins, with publication by China’s State
Forestry Administration (SFA) of Notice #206 dated 29
September 2007.25
Given the clear guideline definition that, in
the opinion of the CITES Secretariat, trade in the context of
Decision 14.69 may be regarded as referring to both domestic
and international trade26
this would represent a flagrant breach of
Decision 14.69 by the Chinese government itself in addition to
the likely contraventions caused by China’s tiger farmers.
I do not propose to duplicate any of the content of my earlier
article here; instead it is hoped that it will be sufficient to
highlight the fact that, by late 2012, China had yet to provide
clarification in relation to the content and provisions of SFA
23
Id.
24
RICHARD HARGREAVES, China’s Tiger Farms Much Law but Little Justice, V
JOURNAL OF THE WILDCAT CONSERVATION LEGAL AID SOCIETY (2011).
25
Id.
26
Supra note 6.

CITES - a model of bureaucratic ineffectiveness.

CITES - a model of bureaucratic ineffectiveness.

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a CITES - a model of bureaucratic ineffectiveness.

Semelhante a CITES - a model of bureaucratic ineffectiveness. (20)

Último

Último (20)

CITES - a model of bureaucratic ineffectiveness.