Annex 1
CITES guidelines for the disposal of confiscated live animals
Statement of principle
When live animals are confiscated by government authorities, these authorities have a responsibility to dispose of them appropriately. Within the confines of the law, the ultimate decision on disposal of confiscated animals must achieve three goals: 1) to maximize conservation value of the specimens without in any way endangering the health, behavioural repertoire, or conservation status of wild or captive populations of the species2; 2) to discourage further illegal or irregular trade in the species; and 3) to provide a humane solution, whether this involves maintaining the animals in captivity, returning them to the wild, or employing euthanasia to destroy them.
Statement of need
Increased regulation of trade in wild plants and animals and enforcement of these regulations has resulted in an increase in the number of wildlife shipments intercepted by government authorities as a result of non-compliance with these regulations. In some instances, the interception is a result of patently illegal trade; in others, it is in response to other irregularities, such as insufficient or incomplete paperwork from the exporting country or poor packing that has compromised the welfare of the live animals in the shipment. While in some cases the number of animals in a confiscated shipment is small, in many others the number is in the hundreds. Although, in many countries, confiscated animals have usually been donated to zoos or aquaria, this option is proving less viable with large numbers of animals and, increasingly, common species. The international zoo community has recognized that placing animals of low conservation priority in limited cage space may benefit those individuals but may also detract from conservation efforts as a whole. They are, therefore, setting conservation priorities for cage space.
In light of these trends, there is an increasing demand - and urgent need - for information and advice to guide confiscating authorities in the disposal of live animals. Although specific guidelines have been formulated for certain groups of organisms, such as parrots and primates, no general guidelines exist.
When disposing of confiscated animals, authorities must adhere to national, regional and international law. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) requires that confiscated individuals of species listed in the treaty's Appendices be returned to the "State of export... or to a rescue centre or such other place as the Management Authority deems appropriate and consistent with the purpose of the Convention" (Article VIII). However, the treaty does not elaborate on this requirement, and CITES Management Authorities must act according to their own interpretation, not only with respect to repatriation but also as regards what constitutes disposal that is "appropriate and consistent" with the treaty. Although the present guidelines are intended to assist CITES Management Authorities in making this assessment, they are designed to be of general applicability to all confiscated live animals.
The lack of specific guidelines has resulted in confiscated animals being disposed of in a variety of ways, many inconsistent with conservation objectives. In some cases, release of confiscated animals into existing wild populations has been done after careful evaluation and with due regard for existing guidelines. In other cases, such releases have not been well planned. Poorly planned releases of confiscated animals may doom these animals to a slow, painful death. Such releases may also have strong negative conservation value by threatening existing wild populations. Threats to existing populations can take several forms: 1) diseases and parasites acquired by the released animals while held in captivity may spread into existing wild populations; 2) individuals released into existing populations, or in areas near to existing populations, may not be of the same race or subspecies as those in the wild population, resulting in mixing of distinct genetic lineages; 3) animals held in captivity, particularly juveniles and immatures, may acquire an inappropriate behavioural repertoire from individuals of other related species. Release of these animals could result in inter-specific hybridization.
Disposal of confiscated animals is not a simple process. Only on rare occasions will such disposal be straightforward or result in an action with conservation value. Options for disposal of confiscated animals have thus far been influenced by the perception that returning animals to the wild is the optimal solution in terms of both animal welfare and conservation. A growing body of scientific study of reintroduction of captive animals suggests that such actions may be among the least appropriate options for many reasons. This recognition requires that the options available to confiscating authorities for disposal of the animals be carefully reviewed.
Management options
In deciding on the disposal of confiscated animals, managers must ensure both the humane treatment of the animals and the conservation and welfare of existing wild populations of the species involved. Options for disposal fall into three principal categories: 1) maintenance of the individuals in captivity; 2) returning the individuals in question to some form of life in the wild; and 3) euthanasia. The last option may often prove the most appropriate and most humane.
Within a conservation perspective, by far the most important consideration in reviewing the options for disposal is the conservation status of the species concerned. For confiscated animals of endangered or threatened species, particular effort should be directed towards evaluating whether and how these animals might contribute to a conservation programme for the species. The decision as to which option to employ in the disposal of confiscated animals will depend on various legal, social, economic and biological factors. The "Decision Tree" provided in the present guidelines is intended to facilitate consideration of these options. The tree has been written so that it may be used for both threatened and common species, although it is recognized that the conservation status of the species will be the primary consideration affecting whether or not confiscated animals might be valuable to an active conservation breeding/reintroduction programme, and whether or not local or international agencies will be willing to make an investment in expensive and difficult tasks such as genetic determination of country of origin and site of capture or the establishment of reintroduction, benign introductions, or reinforcement of extant wild populations. International networks of experts, such as the IUCN-Species Survival Commission Specialist Groups, should be able to assist confiscating authorities, and CITES Scientific and Management Authorities, in their deliberations as to the appropriate disposal of confiscated specimens.
OPTION 1 - CAPTIVITY
Confiscated animals are already in captivity; there are numerous options for maintaining them in captivity. Depending on the circumstances, animals can be donated, loaned or sold. Placement may be in zoos or other facilities, or with private individuals. Finally, placement may be in the country of origin, the country of export (if different), the country of confiscation, or a country with adequate and/or specialized facilities for the species in question. If animals are maintained in captivity, in preference to either being returned to the wild or destroyed, they must be afforded humane conditions and ensured proper care for their natural lives.
Zoological gardens, aquaria and safari parks are the captive facilities most commonly considered for disposal of animals, but a variety of other captive situations exist. These include the following:
a) Rescue centres, established specifically to treat injured or confiscated animals, are sponsored by a number of humane organizations in many countries.
b) Lifetime-care facilities devoted to the care of confiscated animals have been built in a few countries.
c) Specialist societies or clubs devoted to the study and care of single taxa or species (e.g. reptiles, amphibians, birds) have, in some instances, provided an avenue for the disposal of confiscated animals without involving sale through intermediaries.
d) Humane societies may be willing to ensure placement of confiscated specimens with private individuals who can provide humane lifetime care.
e) Universities and research laboratories maintain collections of exotic animals for many kinds of research (e.g. behavioural, ecological, physiological, psychological, medical). Attitudes towards vivisection, or even towards the non-invasive use of animals in research laboratories as captive study populations, vary widely from country to country. Whether transfer of confiscated animals to research institutions is appropriate will therefore engender some debate, although transfer to an establishment that conducts research under humane conditions may offer an alternative, and one which may eventually contribute information relevant to the species' conservation. In many cases, the lack of known provenance, and the potential that the animal in question has been exposed to unknown pathogens will make transfer to a research institution an option unlikely to be exercised or desired.
f) Sale of confiscated specimens to traders, commercial captive breeders, or others involved in commercial activities can provide a means of disposal that helps offset the costs of confiscation. However, sale should only be considered in certain circumstances, such as where the animals in question are not threatened and not subject to a legal prohibition on trade (e.g. CITES Appendix II) and there is no risk of stimulating further illegal or irregular trade. Sale to commercial captive breeders may contribute to reducing the demand for wild-caught individuals. At the same time, however, it may prove to be a poor option owing to the risk of creating a public perception of the State's perpetuating or benefiting from illegal or irregular trade. Finally, confiscating authorities should be aware that, unless specific legal provisions apply, it is impossible to assure the welfare of the animals following placement.
Where animals are transferred by the confiscating authority but not sold, ownership should be specified as one of the terms and conditions of the transfer. Where the country of origin desires return of the animals, this desire should be respected. The custodian (zoo, welfare organization) of confiscated animals should only move the animals to another facility for legitimate humane and propagation purposes with the authorization of the administrative authority.
Captivity - Benefits and disadvantages
The benefits of placing confiscated animals in a facility that will provide lifetime care under humane conditions include:
a) educational value;
b) potential for captive breeding for eventual reintroduction; and
c) possibility for the confiscating authority to recover, from sale, the costs of confiscation.
The disadvantages of placing animals in a facility not involved in an established programme for captive breeding and reintroduction include the following:
a) Potential to encourage undesired trade. Some authors have maintained that any transfer - whether commercial or non-commercial - of confiscated animals risks promoting a market for these species and creating a perception of the State's being involved in illegal or irregular trade.
BirdLife International suggests that in certain circumstances sale of confiscated animals does not necessarily promote undesired trade. They offer the following requirements that must be met in order for sale by the confiscating authority to be permitted: 1) the species to be sold is already available in the confiscating country in commercial quantities; and 2) wildlife traders under indictment for, or convicted of, crimes related to import of wildlife are prevented from purchasing the animals in question. Experience in selling confiscated animals in the United States suggests that it is virtually impossible to ensure that commercial dealers implicated or suspected of being implicated in illegal or irregular trade are not involved, directly or indirectly, in purchasing confiscated animals. This suggests that confiscation results in increased costs but is not necessarily a disincentive as regards the practices or problems that gave rise to confiscation.
Placing threatened species into commercial trade should not be considered because of the risks of stimulating unwanted trade. Appendix-I species may be sold to a registered commercial breeding facility for Appendix-I species, but these specimens should not be resold or enter commercial trade. As captive-bred offspring of Appendix-I species are deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix II, there is the potential for commercial breeders to breed animals in captivity to replace wild-caught animals as a source for trade. Hence sale, in certain circumstances (e.g. to commercial captive breeders), may have a clearer potential for the conservation of the species than non-commercial disposal or euthanasia. Such breeding programmes must be carefully assessed and approached with caution. It may be difficult to monitor these programmes and such programmes may unintentionally, or intentionally, stimulate trade in wild animals.
It is essential that confiscating authorities recognize that there are many threatened species that are not included in the CITES Appendices but may require the same treatment as CITES Appendix-I species.
b) Cost of placement. While any payment will place a value on an animal, there is no evidence that trade would be encouraged if the institution receiving a donation of confiscated animals were to reimburse the confiscating authority for costs of care and transport. However, payments should be kept to a minimum and, where possible, the facility receiving the animals should bear all costs directly.
c) Disease. Confiscated animals may serve as vectors for disease and, therefore, must be subject to extremely stringent quarantine. The potential consequences of the introduction of alien disease to a captive facility are as serious as those of introducing disease to wild populations.
d) Captive animals can escape from captivity and become pests. Accidental introduction of exotic species can cause tremendous damage and in certain cases, such as the escape of mink Mustela vison from fur farms in the United Kingdom, the introduction of exotics can result from importation of animals for captive breeding.
OPTION 2 - RETURN TO THE WILD
Although CITES requires that repatriation of confiscated CITES-listed animals to the country of export be considered as an option for disposal by a confiscating authority, the treaty in no way requires that animals be returned to the wild in that country. These guidelines suggest that return to the wild would be a desirable option in a very small number of instances and under very specific circumstances. Repatriation to avoid addressing the question of disposal of confiscated animals is irresponsible. When considering repatriation, the confiscating authority must ensure that the recipients of the animals are fully cognizant of the ramifications of repatriation and the options for disposal, as set forth in these guidelines. Furthermore, the country returning an animal to its country of origin for release must ensure that the Management Authority in the country of origin is aware of the return.
The rationale behind many of the decision options in this section is discussed in greater detail in the IUCN Guidelines for Reintroduction. It is important to note that these Guidelines make a clear distinction between the different options for returning animals to the wild. These are elaborated on the next page.
a) Reintroduction: an attempt to establish a population in an area that was once part of the range of the species but where it has become extinct.
Some of the best known reintroductions have been of species that were extinct in the wild. Examples include: Père David's deer Elaphurus davidianus and the Arabian oryx Oryx leucoryx. Other reintroduction programmes have involved species that existed in some parts of their historical range but that had been eliminated from other areas; the aim of these programmes is to re-establish a population in an area, or region, from which the species has disappeared. An example of this type of reintroduction is the recent reintroduction of the swift fox Vulpes velox in Canada.
b) Reinforcement of an existing population: the addition of individuals to an existing population of the same taxon.
Reinforcement can be a powerful conservation tool when natural populations are diminished by a process which, at least in theory, can be reversed. An example of a successful reinforcement project is that involving the golden
lion tamarin Leontopithecus rosalia in Brazil. Habitat loss, coupled with capture of live animals for pets, resulted in a rapid decline of the golden lion tamarin. When reserves were expanded, and capture for the pet trade curbed, captive golden lion tamarins were then used to supplement depleted wild populations.
Reinforcement has been most commonly pursued when individual animals injured by human activity have been provided with veterinary care and released. Such activities are common in many western countries, and specific programmes exist for species as diverse as hedgehogs, Erinaceinae, and birds of prey. However common an activity, reinforcement carries with it the very grave risk that individuals held in captivity, even temporarily, are potential vectors for disease back into a wild population.
Because of inherent disease risks, reinforcement should only be employed in instances where there is a direct and measurable conservation benefit (demographically or genetically), as when reinforcement is critical for the viability of the wild population into which an individual is being placed.
"Return to the wild" - Concerns and benefits
Before "Return to the wild" of confiscated animals is considered, several issues of concern must be considered in general terms: welfare, conservation value, cost and disease.
a) Welfare. While return to the wild may appear to be humane, it may be nothing more than a sentence to a slow death. Humane considerations require that each effort to return confiscated animals to nature be thoroughly researched and carefully planned. Such returns also require long-term commitment in terms of monitoring the fate of released individuals. Some authors have advocated that the survival prospects for released animals must at least approximate those for wild animals of the same sex and age class in order for return to the wild to be seriously considered. While such demographic data on wild populations are, unfortunately, rarely available, the spirit of this suggestion should be respected; there must be humane treatment of confiscated animals when attempting to return them to the wild.
b) Conservation value and cost. In cases where returning confiscated animals to the wild appears to be the most humane option, such action can only be undertaken if it does not threaten existing populations of wild plants and animals or the ecological integrity of the area in which they live. The conservation of the species as a whole, and of other animals already living free, must take precedence over the welfare of individual animals that are already in captivity.
Before animals are used in programmes in which existing populations are reinforced, or new populations are established, it must be determined that returning these individuals to the wild will make a significant contribution to the conservation of the species. Larger populations are less likely to become extinct, hence reinforcing existing very small wild populations may reduce the probability of extinction. In very small populations a lack of males or females may result in reduced population growth or in population decline. Reinforcing a very small population lacking animals of a particular sex may also improve prospects for survival of that population.
It should be noted that where confiscated individuals are used for reintroduction (as defined above) they will form the nucleus of a new population. If such a programme is to be successful, a relatively large number of individuals will be required. Hence, small groups of confiscated animals may be inappropriate for reintroduction programmes.
The cost of returning animals to the wild in an appropriate manner can be prohibitive for all but the most endangered species. The species for which the conservation benefits clearly outweigh these costs represent a tiny proportion of the species listed in the CITES Appendices, although it includes numerous species not regulated under CITES. In the majority of cases, the costs of appropriate, responsible reintroduction will preclude return to the wild. Poorly planned or executed reintroduction programmes are the equivalent of dumping animals in the wild and should be vigorously opposed on both conservation and humane grounds.
c) Source of individuals. If the country of origin and site of capture of the animals is not known, or if there is any question of the source of the animals, supplementation may lead to inadvertent pollution of distinct genetic races or subspecies. If particular local races or subspecies show specific adaptation to the local environment, mixing in animals from other races or subspecies may be damaging to the local population. Introducing an animal into the wrong habitat type may also doom it to death.
d) Disease. Animals held in captivity and/or transported, even for a very short time, may be exposed to a variety of pathogens. Release of these animals into the wild may result in introduction of disease to conspecifics or unrelated species with potentially catastrophic effects. Even if there is a very small risk that confiscated animals have been infected by exotic pathogens, the potential effects of introduced diseases on wild populations are so great that this will often preclude returning confiscated animals to the wild.
Where confiscated animals are found to be unsuitable for return to the wild, disease screening and appropriate quarantine are, nevertheless, essential in order to ensure that they are free of disease, or that diseases and parasites harboured by these animals are found in the captive population to which the animals may be transferred. Introduced diseases can be dangerous to captive facilities, particularly in zoos where infection across different species in a collection is a serious threat. Where such quarantine can not ensure that an individual is healthy, isolation for an indefinite period or euthanasia must be carried out.
There are clearly instances where return to the wild of confiscated animals must be considered an option for disposal. First and foremost, the question to be addressed is: will returning the animals to the wild make a significant contribution to the conservation of the species in question? Release into the wild of any animal that has been held in captivity is risky. While some diseases can be tested for, tests do not exist for many animal diseases. Furthermore, animals held in captivity are frequently exposed to diseases not usually encountered in their natural habitat. Veterinarians and quarantine officers, thinking that the species in question is only susceptible to certain diseases, may not test for these diseases picked up in captivity.
Given that any release incurs some risk, we must adopt the following ‘precautionary principle’: if there is no conservation value in releasing confiscated specimens, the possibility of accidentally introducing into the environment a disease that is not already present, however unlikely, will rule out returning confiscated specimens to the wild.
There are several benefits of returning animals to the wild, either through reintroduction or reinforcement of an existing population.
a) In situations where the existing population is severely threatened, such an action might improve the long-term conservation potential of the species as a whole, or of a local population of the species (e.g. golden lion tamarins).
b) Returning animals to the wild makes a strong political/educational statement concerning the fate of the animals (e.g. orangutans Pongo pygmaeus and chimpanzees Pan troglodytes) and may serve to promote local conservation values. However, as part of any education or public awareness programme, the costs and difficulties associated with return to the wild must be emphasized.
OPTION 3 - EUTHANASIA
Euthanasia - the killing of animals carried out according to humane guidelines - is unlikely to be a popular option amongst confiscating authorities for disposal of confiscated animals. However, it can not be overstressed that euthanasia may frequently be the simplest and most humane option available. In many cases, authorities confiscating live animals will encounter the following situations.
a) return to the wild in some manner is either unnecessary (e.g. in the case of a very common species), impossible, or prohibitively expensive as a result of the need to conform to biological and animal welfare guidelines.
b) Placement in a captive facility is impossible, or there are serious concerns that sale will be problematic or controversial.
c) During transport, or while held in captivity, the animals have contracted a chronic disease that is incurable and, therefore, a risk to any captive or wild population.
Euthanasia has several clear advantages.
a) From the point of view of conservation of the species involved, and of protection of existing captive and wild populations of animals, euthanasia carries far fewer risks when compared to returning animals to the wild.
b) Euthanasia will also act to discourage the activities that gave rise to confiscation, be it smuggling or other patently illegal trade, inadequate paperwork, poor packing, or other problems, as the animals in question are removed entirely from trade.
c) Euthanasia may be in the best interest of the welfare of the confiscated animals. Unless adequate finances are available for reinforcement of existing populations or reintroduction, release to the wild will carry enormous risks for existing wild populations and severely jeopardize the survival prospects of the individual animals, which may, as a result, die of starvation, disease or predation.
d) When animals are destroyed, or when they die a natural death while in captivity, the dead specimens should be placed in the collection of a natural history museum, or another reference collection in a university or research institute. Such reference collections are of great importance for studies of biodiversity. If such placement is impossible, carcasses should be incinerated to avoid illegal trade in animal parts or derivatives.
