Hi all,
This proposed shipment of
Furcifer minor has received a great deal of attention, both good and bad. One thing that has been pervasive in these responses, however, is that much of this attention has been based on raw emotion and has tended to be light on (and often completely lacking) evidence to back up statements that are being represented as fact.
As mentioned already on this thread,
F. minor was one of many that have not been exported legally from Madagascar since 1995. This is due to a CITES Notification to the Parties (Notification 833:
http://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/notif/1995/833.txt), which recommended that all Parties suspend imports of all
Chamaeleo (now
Calumma and
Furcifer) spp. (except
Chamaeleo (F.) lateralis, C. (F.) oustaleti, C. (F.) pardalis and
C. (F.) verrucosus) from Madagascar. This recommendation stemmed from a CITES Review of Significant Trade, where the Malagasy Management Authority (MA) failed to sufficiently respond to recommendations of the Animals Committee. This recommendation, however, has now been withdrawn by CITES due to the approval by the Animals Committee of conservative annual export quotas established by Madagascar. In the case of
F. minor, that quota is zero (
http://cites.org/sites/default/files/common/quotas/2014/ExportQuotas2014.pdf). What this means is that
F. minor has not been legally exported from Madagascar since 1995 and still can not be legally exported from Madagascar.
Further, as has been stated already,
F. minor has been assessed as Endangered by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (
http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/8766/0). This assessment is based on an extent of occurrence for this species estimated to be less than 5000 km² (3,900 km²), with estimates indicating severely fragmented habitat and a continuing decline of the area, extent and/or quality of habitat. The latter refers to the native Tapia forest habitat of this species, which is heavily logged for charcoal, farm land and mining land, and has become heavily fragmented by savanna grassland. The assessment does state that this species is also found in coffee plantations, orchards, and even in villages (which I can personally confirm:
http://www.chameleonnews.com/02MayAndersonMinorField.html) and suggests that "further research is needed to clarify whether the resulting farmland represents suitable habitat for this lizard".
There is no question that the animals that are proposed to be imported in this shipment were hatched in Europe. The issue and concern that has been expressed, however, is whether these bloodlines are bonafide pre-1995 ban lines, or if they are the result of smuggled animals being subsequently bred in captivity. In the latter case, the progeny are laundered by representing them as direct decedents of these legally imported pre-ban specimens so that CITES documents will be issued. The laundering of smuggled chameleons and their offspring in order to obtain CITES export permits is quite common in SE Asia and countries like the Ukraine, and animals stemming from these situations are widely available for purchase in Europe. The issuance of CITES permits by EU CITES MAs for laundered chameleons, however, has never been a notable issue as far as I am aware. The CITES MAs responsible for issuing CITES permits in the EU have a reputation for being much more thorough than those of countries where this is a known issue, which is why few of these species have ever been issued export permits from EU CITES MAs.
In regard to this shipment in particular, in order to receive these permits, the CITES MA that issued them underwent an extensive review of the situation. Jurgen (the exporter of this shipment) had to provide documentation tracing ownership of
F. minor bloodlines back to a legal pre-1995 importation, provide evidence and documentation of multi-generation breeding consistent with the time lapsed since that original import, and allow site visits to inspect his animals, eggs, neonates, etc. My understanding is that this was done to the satisfaction of the EU CITES MA, which is why they decided to issue him CITES export permits for these animals.
Now, speculation has been made in this thread and elsewhere as to whether the US Fish & Wildlife Service (US FWS) will allow this shipment into the US. In particular, emphasis has been made on the Endangered status of this species, and that US FWS is extremely strict about importing endangered species (example:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/184761882017/10152983625317018/). Its important to note, however, that while
F. minor is assessed as Endangered on the IUCN Red List, this is not to be confused with a classification of Endangered on the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), which they are not. The US FWS is very strict on the importation of ESA listed species, however there are no US laws restricting trade in any species on the basis of IUCN Red List listing level. Since
F. minor is a CITES listed species, however, proper CITES documents are still necessary to import this species into the US.
The US FWS reviews the paperwork and contents of all shipments of CITES species being imported into the US prior to clearing the shipment at the port of entry. This is done to not only track and monitor trade in these species, but also to ensure that everything is in order. The confiscation of shipments at this point due to inconsistencies or issues with associated CITES documents is not unheard of. The US FWS, however, is bound to obey and enforce US laws and international laws that the US is a signatory to. As a result, so long as they are able to verify with the EU CITES MA that the permits are legitimate (i.e. actually issued by that authority) and all remaining procedures are appropriately followed, the US FWS would likely be obligated to approve and clear this shipment. By all indications, legally the US FWS would need to have evidence in their possession proving that the permits were obtained under false pretenses, or be able to show some other violation of proper import/export procedures, in order to confiscate or deny the shipment.
Concern over the authenticity of the documentation and evidence provided in the process of the CITES MA's review leading up to the issuance of the CITES export permit is understandable given the trade history of this species. In the absence of actual evidence that this supporting information was falsified, however, the CITES documents appear to be legitimate and thus should result in a legal importation as long as remaining importation procedures are followed appropriately. Thus, unless actual evidence to the contrary can be provided, all statements regarding these animals or their parents being of illegal origin are simply unsubstantiated conjecture.
Chris
