Management of the Administration on protected fauna: euthanasia without authorization, lack of registration and funds that do not arrive

• ILLEGAL ANIMAL TRAFFICKING (I) From the rhino horn to the macaw: This is how the black market for protected animals that survives the pandemic operates in Spain

• ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING OF ANIMALS (II) Trip to the confiscated animal warehouse in Barajas: "There are things that have been here for 15 years"

"Every time he saw a person he went crazy, beat himself and did not look after his health," he recalls. From birth, those black pupils reflected the landscape of their natural habitat, but that life disappeared. The winged predator was captured; a false ring began to protrude from one of its legs. Thus, the hunter tried to fraudulently endorse that the animal had been born in captivity. The irregularity was discovered, but this

could never again perch on the trees that sheltered it when it was free.

Outside of his original environment he developed a fear of human beings. "Psychologically he was very bad," laments the person who took care of him after a seizure made for illegal possession. Due to the problems generated by its traumatic past, Francesco, the Iberian goshawk, could not be returned to its habitat. For the rest of his days he needed the "special conditions" that Cristian Cabrera was willing to provide. The director

a site belonging to the rescue center he directs, set up an isolated space for visits. There, they shared 17 years of their lives. The worst of the diagnoses came during the first months of the coronavirus pandemic. The raptor had

. Francesco was euthanized for medical reasons, a decision that forever separated him from his caregivers.

The State was not previously informed about the sacrifice of Francesco, a bird that belonged to it by law

as a result of a seizure and because it is an internationally protected species. "When the animal is bad, it is suffering, the paperwork takes too long and does not seem at all ethical to prolong its agony", defends the director of Safari Madrid, Cristian Cabrera. The tumor already prevented the raptor from sticking its tongue out correctly to swallow and it had no vision in either of its two eyes. Although the Main CITES Administrative Authority of Spain, dependent on the Ministry of Commerce and owner of the specimens, claims to be unaware of the application of euthanasia without authorization, this was not the only one.

Of the 25 CITES species rescue centers that responded to the question, four claim to have had to opt for the induced death of some of these animals for medical reasons. Some sacrifices occurred with prior state authorization and others without it, but they were always applied as a last resort and for the welfare of the animal. All were like Francesco, specimens apprehended and protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The international agreement safeguards around 5,950 species threatened with extinction due to overexploitation of their trade.

The largest CITES world authority recommends that the State Authorities of each country, through Provision 17.8, approve euthanasias on protected species before they are carried out. Despite this, in Spain they have been applied with and without state authorization, according to the testimonies of the CITES rescue centers validated by the state. Therefore, the story of Francesco and his caretaker only exemplifies part of the research findings. While the Main CITES Management Authority of Spain denies that there have been sacrifices of confiscated protected animals, the directors of two establishments confirm that there are cases in which they have had to induce the death of specimens even with the prior authorization of the agency. The CITES Authority,owner of these animals until the change of jurisdiction to Ecological Transition takes place on January 2, 2022, denies having issued any prior consent.

In addition, this work reveals that, in some cases, rescue centers have received animals without prior health examinations with the consequent danger to public health. The very designation of establishments, the process in which valid establishments are determined to house protected species, has triggered an internal ministerial conflict due to the lack of coordination between the administrative and scientific departments. Another of the findings of this journalistic investigation is that, by law,

15 years after its announced creation.

Despite the refusal of the CITES Lead Management Authority, the story of Francesco, the slaughtered goshawk, is neither unique nor extraordinary. Of the 25 rescue centers that answered the question, four claimed to have opted for the induced death of one of the animals for medical reasons. They were the

All the euthanized specimens were protected by CITES and came from seizures after being victims of the black market or illegal possession.

Of the four establishments mentioned, there are two in which euthanasia was carried out with prior authorization. They took place at the Córdoba Zoo Conservation Center and at Natura Parc, Mallorca, according to the testimonies of their directors. The permission is sent by means of e-mails or by telephone and without a document that expresses the official consent. Thus, the two testimonies collected contradict the version given by the CITES Authority.

"This CITES Management Authority has never authorized a sacrifice by euthanasia," says the ministerial body.

But at the Córdoba Zoo they euthanized a Gibraltar macaque that injured itself once it received the approval of the State.

In Natura Parc they also euthanized "a snake" with prior authorization from the dependent department of Commerce.

Not only does it deny euthanasias, it also does not recognize authorizations.

If the animal is dying, I will not wait for anyone to tell me if it needs to be 'euthanized'.

In the other two remaining establishments - El Rincón de las Aves, of Safari Madrid and the Foundation for Research in Ethology and Biodiversity (FIEB), in Toledo - the sacrifices were carried out without prior ministerial authorization. It is the only difference because, as in the other two centers, the managers and their veterinary teams made the decision for the welfare of the animals themselves.

"If the animal is dying, I will not wait for anyone to tell me whether to 'euthanize' it," argues

The person in charge acknowledges that they have applied them with prior state authorization and without it. As he explains, in these cases they have prepared reports on the status of the animals for the CITES Authority before and after slaughter. "We have absolute freedom to give them the veterinary care they need, the criteria are applied by us, not by them," argues Aranda.

The CITES Spain Main Management Authority

to animals that belong to them by law.

In addition, given the disparity between establishments, the agency does not clarify whether they have ever required the centers to inform them of the status of their animals in order to evaluate and authorize them in advance.

The procedure is not specified in article 8.4 of Royal Decree 1333/2006

nor does it state whether there must be a mandatory prior state approval.

"This is part of the total lack of control of the State over the animals that belong to it by law," thinks aloud

In the establishments that host CITES species there is a register of registrations and cancellations.

However, the CITES Management Authority should require "a veterinary report justifying euthanasia," says Bustelo.

The woman expresses herself openly even though she knows there may be consequences.

With an experience of more than two decades taking in apes that are from the State, it has been five years that his center has not received any requests.

"They have blocked us, they do not send us any animals seized in Spain," he reveals.

The reason: he made a request because state financial aid was insufficient to support all primates.

A chimpanzee taken in by Rainfer for years prior to the CITES Main Management Authority lockdown.Belén García-Pozuelo.

ANIMALS WITHOUT PRIOR INSPECTION

Veterinarian

has participated in seizures of CITES species and admits that he does not know why they are sometimes asked to accompany the authorities and sometimes not.

After collaborating in several interventions in Barcelona, ​​the director of the Center for the Recovery of Amphibians and Reptiles of Catalonia (CRARC) warns: "There could be a sick animal or with a

."

Once confiscated, these specimens are distributed by reception centers located in 16 provinces.

These are the points where the CITES Management Authority has 27 designated zoos and centers - although the agency does not consider the Rainfer Primate Sanctuary, it is included in the count and on the map. "It is more operational to have specialized centers distributed throughout the Spanish geography," explains the ministerial body.

because the animals "belong to various taxonomic groups" and are seized "throughout the country", the Authority alleges.

Afterwards, they are transported to the chosen establishments.

These, on occasions, receive the seized specimens without a prior sanitary inspection by the authority, according to testimonies from those responsible for the centers themselves.

But veterinary evaluations also depend on where the apprehension occurs.

At the border, before the animals enter the country, "they always do a veterinary check," says one of the chiefs of the Barcelona customs.

The same assures another of the heads of the same body stationed in Madrid.

Although the Customs and Excise Department of the Tax Agency does not have the competence in this matter, it confirms in this way that the seized CITES specimens are sanitary inspected.

Those in charge of carrying out the veterinary tests at the border are the members of the Foreign Health Department, the Ministry of Health, Consumption and Social Welfare, according to article 12 of Law 8/2003 on animal health.

However, when asked about the sanitary evaluations of seized CITES species, this department responds that the competence falls on the General Sub-Directorate of Inspection, Certification and Technical Assistance for Trade (SOIVRE), within the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Tourism.

.

A Barbary macaque in Karpín Fauna, Vizcaya, victim of illegal trafficking.

These mammals are a source of pathologies transmissible to humans.Martina Arizu Bracht.

Despite the ministerial disagreement, the Association for the Defense and Study of Autochthonous Fauna and Flora, a center in Barcelona that welcomes seized CITES animals, receives species that come from customs with a prior sanitary inspection by the authorities, according to affirms its director of projects Nuria Vall. All the enclosures agree that when they arrive from other centers, by way of relocation, the status of the specimens is also known through the veterinary documentation. This does not exempt them from another evaluation and a quarantine period to avoid public health problems in case they suffer a zoonotic or infectious-contagious disease for other species.

He was expecting apes in "perfect sanitary condition", as the statement reflected, and the condition "was so sorry that one died."

In seizures within the territory, it is common for animals to arrive at rescue centers without a prior sanitary evaluation, according to the collection of testimonies from the 27 official establishments.

If there is, "we distrust it," says Abel García, manager of Río Safari, in Elche.

His words are shared by another center that denounces what he experienced.

His testimony and documentation appear anonymized by express request.

It all started with this document.

Official document certifying the status of two CITES specimens seized.

The male died shortly after.

It was "

", affirms with certainty the person of the establishment that received the two specimens.

He was expecting some apes in "perfect sanitary conditions", as the statement reflected, but his condition "upon arrival was so regrettable that one of them died shortly after," he complains.

Remember that the female was "very serious."

Disgust is reflected in the tone of his voice.

"It was based on their opinion and

" he continues.

The signature of YRM, an official of the Valencia City Council who in turn was a collegiate veterinarian, made the offense more minor for the person who illegally possessed the two apes.

The female who nearly died has a new life in an enclosure facility.

It lives in an establishment that the Main CITES Management Authority validated

, according to the CITES Spain Scientific Authority.

And it's not the only one.

For those he appointed as of November 21, 2006, he also did not consult the scientific part.

MINISTERIAL Clash

"We have told them that it is not done that way." The CITES Scientific Authority advises the CITES Lead Management Authority. It has been almost 15 years since the Ministry of Commerce has previously consulted the scientific part, dependent on the Ecological Transition, before determining which centers are valid to house seized protected species. The scientific area defends that it should consult it before, the Main Administrative Authority considers that it is not obliged to do so despite assuring months ago that it did.

The differences between the two authorities are caused by article 3.1 a) of Royal Decree 1333/2006. In it, it is reflected that the administrative part has to determine which CITES centers are "adequate" for the deposit of the animals, previously consulting the scientist. The latter interprets that it should be asked before validating an establishment; In Commerce they defend that they only have to consult them in advance to which centers they send the animals from among those already authorized by themselves.

At the beginning of the investigation, at the end of January 2021, the CITES Management Authority itself affirmed that it sent information to the scientific part to determine if a center was suitable to host protected species. According to this body, they inform the scientific part about the facilities of the establishment, its location, capacity, staff, experience and accommodation of similar species. Based on this, theoretically the scientific part issues an opinion on its suitability. But the head of the Scientific Evaluation Service, Bárbara Soto-Largo, categorically denies it:

.

Last February, the CITES Authority asked the scientific part in advance before authorizing three possible CITES centers in the Canary Islands, according to Soto-Largo.

It was the first time they were consulted and it was done after the neighboring Ministry - the Ecological Transition Ministry - spoiled the years by acting on the sidelines.

"Traditionally they

" adds the head of the Scientific Evaluation Service.

The distance between the Ministry of Commerce - in which the CITES Administrative part is located - and that of Ecological Transition - where the CITES Scientist is located - is less than ten minutes by car, but "there is a great lack of coordination between the two", he concludes. Barbara Soto-Largo.

Thus, the designations of CITES centers granted by the administrative part did not follow the process legally established in the Official State Gazette, according to the criteria of the Ministry of Ecological Transition.

The administrative part, which even listed at the beginning of the year the information it supposedly shared with experts from the neighboring ministry, changed its version when it learned that the CITES Scientific Authority said it was something "never" they shared.

Thus, without further coordination,

.

Document with which the Main CITES Management Authority designates Rainfer as a valid center without prior inspection.

The designation in this document belongs to Rainfer and in 2007 it did not have to pass a CITES inspection to be declared a valid center. According to Marta Bustelo, its director, they

.

"They did not come to see if we were working well or if things had changed," he says from the head of the establishment. They updated fiscal addresses to register an account number and sent other "basic information", as requested by the CITES Management Authority. After that, they received the paper that accredited their qualification. Rainfer, who previously collaborated by housing state-owned animals, does pass other inspections, such as the annual one by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, the CITES Lead Authority, who owns the animals it houses, has not been there in at least 15 years, according to Bustelo.

"

and know what they are talking about when they are mentioned," he assures.

He is not afraid of them, although colleagues from the sector have warned him that they use them as an instrument of

if "you do something that bothers them."

He believes that they should be carried out out of responsibility and for the good of the animals that belong to them.

"It's not very serious," reflects the director of Rainfer.

Other centers, such as the Mona Foundation, in Catalonia, did have a CITES Authority inspection before being validated.

That happened 19 years ago and they have not returned, according to its director Olga Feliu.

Their testimonies differ from what was initially communicated by

prior to payment of the economic allocation for the maintenance of its species. When transferring to them that there were centers that had not been evaluated in years, the organism defends that the periodicity is not regulated in the regulations. "These are procedural and internal organization issues subject to established schedules for the inspection staff," they also add in writing. In

to-

despite having requested it more than 15 times.

Interviews are not the only thing that the CITES Main Administrative party refuses to grant.

Under his custody there was supposedly a record "of a public nature", as it appears in the BOE, and which is not published.

The reason: It does not exist, although it should have been by law for almost fifteen years.

A NON-EXISTING REGISTRATION

The opacity of the CITES Lead Management Authority also extends to providing data from a registry of seized protected animals. The content of the "registry of intervened CITES specimens" is of a "public nature", as can be read in the fourth article of Royal Decree 1333/2006. But it is not accessible because it does not exist. This was recognized by the Administration after two petitions and three months requiring the content of the registry through the Transparency Portal of the General State Administration.

The registry should contain information on the CITES species seized and is independent from the one available to the Nature Protection Service (Seprona) and from the one carried out by the Customs and Excise Department as a result of its interventions. This ministerial record would have to include, on the one hand, a breakdown with the copies confiscated for administrative offenses or smuggling offenses; on the other, those apprehended by a final judicial sentence. All these data, according to Royal Decree 1333/2006, would be in the possession of the General Directorate of Commercial Policy from November 21, 2006.

"We always try to give as much information as possible, but it cannot always be given," anticipated in a conversation one of the heads of the Ministry of Commerce who did not want to facilitate the requested registration.

.

After the initial request made through the Transparency Portal of the General State Administration, they denied the concession, claiming that it contained data on the locations of the animals seized by centers. As the preservation of the species was endangered - the official response pointed out - they did not share the registry. A second request was followed by a new inadmissibility. This time they were also unable to send the record at least with an annual breakdown of the data because it was incurring a reworking process.

protested the official by phone.

It is a public record, according to the Royal Decree, but the Administration alleged otherwise due to the need to "preserve the confidentiality and protection of certain data." They watched over non-existent information. In this way he recognized it after resorting to the Council of Transparency and Good Governance, a decision-making body when the first channels are exhausted through the Transparency Portal.

,

writes the General Directorate of Trade Policy in the Resolution.

He explains that in 2004, two years before announcing the creation of the aforementioned registry in the BOE, they tried to put into operation an application for the apprehending authorities and CITES centers.

However, there was no judicial information and the establishments that housed their animals added data on species that were neither CITES nor seized.

In 2018 they made progress in the development of a database or "more reliable list", as they say, and thus define the information they have.

A listing of CITES specimens.

The administration has not created the registry with the information that by law it should include.

Instead, this is the listing they own.

There are 1,703 CITES species seized.

The cost of maintaining these species is not always borne by the State, the owner of the seized protected animals.

The money is insufficient.

In addition, three of the 25 rescue centers continue to receive specimens without having an economic allocation.

They are still waiting for state aid.

"It is the State's obligation to contribute with their adequate accommodation and maintenance," they acknowledge from the Main CITES Administrative Authority.

However, in three of the 25 designated centers they continue to take state animals and do not have an economic allowance.

Lacking money to support species that they do not own, they resort to private investment, either from their own savings or from the sale of tickets to the public. Neither the El Bosque Zoo, in Vigo, nor the Castellar de la Frontera Zoo in Cádiz, understand why they make this distinction with them. "Luckily we have a fund for feeding animals," says Javier Morales, the head of the Castellar Zoo, with concern. After seven months closed due to the pandemic, they have had to withdraw money from the establishment's reserve. His center is still waiting for a response that has not come from the CITES Authority: "We have submitted invoices with all the investment, but we do not know if they will help us or not." He doesn't have much hope.

"I'm making the panoli."

Ramos has bought a 100,000 euro plot to house state animals and spends 3,000 a month on food.

The one who has already made a decision due to the lack of aid has been Gonzalo Rubio, the director of the El Bosque Zoo.

He refuses to take in certain animals that the State offers him.

acknowledges.

He does not know why there is no state economic allocation for them.

Like the centers that have one, yours also houses seized CITES species.

The owner of the third center, Indalexotic de Almería, is a sea of ​​doubts. It is still pending designation and does not receive any type of grant. "When I talk about it, I think I'm making the panoli," he complains. Antonio Jesús Ramos has spent 100,000 euros in acquiring a plot to house the confiscated animals of the State and now that he has 25 copies and a monthly expense of 3,000 euros in feeding them, the CITES Authority does not inform him: "He does not finish telling me how it all works ".

Ramos's unease turns into illusion when he talks about "how beautiful" it would be to educate and raise awareness through those confiscated species that he receives. But what began "as an exchange of favors" has turned into a "big" effort for him and his family. For this reason, upon learning that the Main Authority gives money to other centers, he cannot avoid exclaiming: "

, it will not be fat for some and small for others!"

In response to requests for aid,

.

"There are several centers that for years have lent their collaboration in a totally altruistic and economically disinterested way," the organization responds.

Those responsible for some of these establishments do not agree with the official version.

Every two years, more than half a million euros, specifically 578,452 euros, goes out of the State coffers, destined for 24 establishments.

The CITES Authority claims to calculate the quantity using "a scale" that relates the number of specimens, the type of species and the approximate annual consumption, but some of the centers that receive this money explain the circumstances behind these data.

"They prefer that we do not make a real breakdown of specimens or what they consume because they would be ashamed of it," says

director of the Canarian center Cocodrilo Parc. He is sure that "there is practically no one who wants to collaborate with CITES "because the aid is insufficient.

From another center in the Canary Islands, Neotrópico, its director,

assures that he does not know what they are based on to designate financial aid, but he believes that they take into account the annual records that are sent to them with the registrations and cancellations of the animals.

The disparity between centers is shown in the economic allocation.

According to the information analysis of the 24 agreements published in the BOE, the amounts are different for the establishments.

Like the agreements, which are valid biannual and extendable for 12 more months, the money is for the same period.

Now, in 2021, the establishments have the same amount allocated in 2018 due to the extension of the agreements.

Sometimes the amount is accompanied by regional or local subsidies, in other cases not.

The state one is not enough to cover the expenses of its own animals, according to the 24 CITES centers that have economic allowances.

for their maintenance and care.

At the reopening of Rainfer there were visitors, partners and godparents helping with a periodic symbolic contribution for a specific animal.Belén García-Pozuelo.

They are people linked to the CITES centers or their workers.

People who suffer every time an animal dies, like when Francesco died, the sacrificed Iberian goshawk.

The circumstances of the outcome are unknown to its owner, the Main CITES Management Authority Spain.

He does not know that when maintaining his nails and beak, the caretakers realized that he was blind in both eyes and that a tumor in his throat prevented him from feeding.

The State does not have an inventory that the person who cared for him made the decision to euthanize him after 17 years of living together.

They did not know Francesco, nor was he on their ghost record.

NOTE AND METHODOLOGY

Esta es la última pieza de las tres entregas. Al igual que las dos anteriores, se presentó como trabajo final en el Máster de Periodismo de Investigación, Datos y Visualización de EL MUNDO. Durante más de seis meses, los periodistas MARCOS GARCÍA REY y PABLO HERRÁIZ CARBONARO ejercieron de tutores, editores y verificadores del contenido de todas las piezas. También fueron ese apoyo tan necesario que requiere todo profesional para mejorar y seguir aprendiendo.

La labor de informar con rigor a la opinión pública se vio entorpecida por la falta de transparencia de la Autoridad Administrativa Principal CITES, dependiente del Ministerio de Industria, Comercio y Turismo. Es el organismo al que, por ley, pertenecen las especies CITES incautadas.

La citada autoridad no reconoció durante seis meses que en España se hayan realizado eutanasias a animales CITES decomisados. Sin embargo, desvelamos mediante los testimonios recabados que esos sacrificios sí se efectuaron y presentamos el motivo: razones médicas.

Obtener las respuestas de la Administración Principal CITES de España fue complejo por la escasa disposición a explicar aspectos de su gestión. En seis meses, no concedieron ninguna reunión presencial o telemática ni se prestaron a mantener conversación telefónica alguna. Hubo más de 15 llamadas para pedir a la Secretaría de Estado de Comercio, de quien depende esa autoridad, que fijara una fecha para una entrevista. Durante los dos primeros meses del año, no declinó concederla, pero en ese período requirió un cuestionario previo antes de tramitar la entrevista. Sin respetar lo acordado, respondieron a las preguntas por escrito.

Las repreguntas y sus ulteriores contestaciones no fueron satisfactorias para resolver las dudas periodísticas sobre asuntos como los sacrificios de los animales protegidos o la financiación pública de los centros de rescate CITES. A pesar de trasladarlo, no accedieron a atender a las reporteras ni en persona ni de viva voz.

Esta falta de transparencia y de colaboración también complicó la obligación de obtener un registro de especies CITES intervenidas, una base de datos que oficialmente debería existir. Supuestamente, esa documentación obraba en poder de la Autoridad Administrativa Principal CITES España. El contenido del mismo no podemos ofrecerlo porque en realidad no existe.

La creación del registro se anunció en el Boletín Oficial del Estado hace casi 15 años y mediante el Real Decreto 1333/2006, pero a pesar de no disponer del mismo, la citada Autoridad se negó a compartirlo por otras razones. Argumentaba que contenía información que podría hacer peligrar la preservación de los ejemplares, que había que reelaborar y que no se podía "paralizar" así el trabajo de la Administración. Hubo dos denegaciones a través del Portal de la Transparencia y cinco conversaciones telefónicas con la unidad correspondiente para intentar negociar el envío. Ocultaron siempre que no habían desarrollado tal registro. Tras las reiteradas negativas, se interpuso una reclamación ante el Consejo de Transparencia y Buen Gobierno y la Autoridad reconoció finalmente que el registro no existe.

En la investigación se ha consultado a las autoridades nacionales CITES de Reino Unido, Alemania e Italia. Nos trasladaron con transparencia el trabajo que realizan con estos animales de los que son propietarios por ley.

Para conocer la realidad de la gestión de la administración española se contactó con los 28 centros CITES validados. Todos accedieron a conversar, salvo Selwo Aventura, en Málaga.

La mayoría de las entrevistas a los responsables de estos establecimientos se llevaron a cabo telefónicamente, pero también hubo una labor de trabajo de campo. Sus ubicaciones están repartidas por 16 provincias españolas y visitamos seis centros: Karpin Fauna de Vizcaya, Safari Aitana y Río Safari Elche de Alicante, y en Madrid el Centro de Rescate de Primates Rainfer, Safari Madrid y El Rincón de las Aves.

Conforme a los criterios deThe Trust Project

Know more

• Spain

• Euthanasia

• Covid 19

• Graphics

Health How many vaccines have been given in Spain?

This is how vaccination against Covid-19 advances in each community

Society "Emigration for economic reasons" causes an exodus of foreigners from Spain

Illegal animal trafficking (II) Trip to the confiscated animal warehouse in Barajas: "There are things that have been here for 15 years"

See links of interest

• Last News

• What

• 2022 business calendar

• Check Christmas Lottery

• Covid passport

• Loteria del Niño 2022

• Check Child's Lottery

• How to make seafood

• Arsenal - Manchester City