An Overview of Pangolin Data: When Will The Over-Exploitation of the Pangolin End? (IV)
2018/9/15 18:29:00 本站

Shaanxi Forestry Administration published three notices relating to sale of pangolin scale stocks between November 2015 and April 2016: Linwei District Ziranren Zhengsanxing Weituo Shaanxi Chenghe Pharmaceuticals Company Limited sold 2,290 kilograms of pangolin scales to Beijing Huamiao Traditional Medicine Engineering and Technology Development Centre; Yangzhaokun Weituo Shaanxi Chenghe Company Limited sold 2,000 kilograms of pangolin scales in stock to Jiangyin Tianjiang Pharmaceutical Co. Limited and 500 kilograms of pangolin scales to the Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine First Affiliated Hospital respectively, and the company still has remaining stock of 1,100 kilograms of pangolin scales.

7. Imperfect disclosure of information relating to wildlife licences

In the process of collecting government data relating to utilisation of pangolins, we found that levels of disclosure of government information varies, which hinders public monitoring of pangolin conservation. Here we present a chapter on this issue.

Only two forestry administrations actively publish relatively comprehensive information relating to wildlife licences

The State Council published the “Regulations of the People's Republic of China on the Disclosure of Government Information” in 2007. This aims to protect the citizens, legal persons and other organizations which obtain government information in accordance with the law, to increase the transparency of the work of the government, and to enhance administration in accordance with the law. According to the 7th item under the 10th article (matters relating to administrative licences, evidence, requirements, numbers, processes, time limits and all materials required for application for an administrative licence and application processing status), matters relating to administrative permits and the processing status thereof fall within the scope of information to be actively published.

From the official websites of the forestry administrations of each province, autonomous region and municipality, it is obvious that the official websites of four forestry administrations, namely Xinjiang, Jiangxi, Hebei and Hainan, lack clear and open instructions for applications for disclosure of information. This is especially true for the official websites of Xinjiang and Jiangxi, on which there is no sign of the words “application for disclosure”. The forestry administrations of 10 provinces, namely Tianjin, Chongqing, Jilin, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Tibet, Zhejiang, Hunan, Jiangxi and Hainan, do not actively publish information about administrative permits. Although the forestry administrations of Beijing, Henan, Fujian and Hubei do publish information relating to administrative permits, this does not include permits relating to wildlife. The forestry administrations of Heilongjiang (the word document for which cannot be opened), Liaoning, Xinjiang, Hebei, Shanxi, Gansu, Guangdong, Guizhou, Sichuan, Yunnan, Guangxi, Qinghai, Jiangsu, Shaanxi, Shandong publish some information, and it is unclear. Throughout the entire country, only the forestry administrations of Shanghai and Anhui publish relatively comprehensive information, including the companies, animal species and numbers that are covered by the administrative permit.

Only 54.8% of forestry administrations responded to applications for disclosure in accordance with regulations

With regards to applications for disclosure of information, we applied to the 31 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities across China for information relating to government permits for utilisation of pangolins. 17 of the units in question responded substantively, meaning that only 54.8% gave formal replies. Of the remaining 14 units, five replied by phone, and thus did not respond legally in accordance with application requirements. The remaining nine units (29%) are the worst, and no communication has been received in relation to our application for disclosure of government information.

The specifics are as follows:

(1) Received written replies from these provinces: Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Chongqing, Jilin, Yunnan, Guangdong, Anhui, Heilongjiang, Shandong, Liaoning, Jiangsu, Shaanxi, Shanxi, Fujian, Hunan, Hebei;

(2) Received response by phone only from these provinces: Hainan, Ningxia, Guizhou, Qinghai, Inner Mongolia;

(3) Provinces that did not make contact: Guangxi, Jiangxi, Henan, Gansu, Tibet, Xinjiang, Zhejiang, Hubei, Sichuan.

Of the 17 provinces that gave written responses, six forestry administrations provided relatively comprehensive information: Jilin, Anhui, Jiangsu, Fujian, Hunan, and Shanghai. Nine forestry administrations gave only partial responses: Shandong, Yunnan, Guangdong, Heilongjiang, Liaoning, Chongqing, Beijing, and Tianjin. The Shaanxi Forestry Administration gave ‘business secrets’ as a reason for their refusal to provide information, while the Shanxi Forestry Administration of Shanxi said the information does not fall under the scope of information that is to be made public.


5.png

Chart 4: Responses of 31 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities regarding application for disclosure of government information


Pangolin data analysis

1. Too little government information is actively published, which makes it difficult to trace the use of pangolin scales

Information regarding administrative licenses relating to wildlife published by the SFA and the forestry administrations of each province, autonomous region and municipality is insufficient. It is impossible to find out even the most basic information on species, number, source and usage.

In June 2016, it was stated in Article 39 of the newly-revised Wildlife Protection Law that “information relating to the granting of permits, special markings and approval documents shall be made public in accordance with the law”. In that same month, the SFA included “rate of digitalisation” among its five-year targets when it announced the “13th Five-Year Plan for Forestry Development”.

Regardless of this good news, forestry administrations at all levels should establish mechanisms for public disclosure as soon as possible, and should openly publish information relating to administrative permits for wildlife, including pangolins. The utilisation of critically endangered wildlife in commercial activities is highly controversial. If monitoring and regulation of such utilisation continues to be lacking, and information remains inaccessible, this will create a huge threat to the survival of critically endangered wildlife. In practice, there are many cases of legal activities shielding illegal activities.

2. Relatively low response rates to applications for disclosure of government information, with obstacles set in some cases

The level of acceptance of public applications for disclosure of government information varies between forestry administrations at each level. The forestry administrations of certain provinces will call the applicant to find out more about the applicant’s circumstances and the purpose of the application, and some will even call into question the motive of the applicant. In some forestry administrations, nobody answers the inquiry hotline that is listed in the “Guidelines for Disclosure of Government Information”, as if the hotlines are set up for nothing. Moreover, some forestry administrations have different application forms and requirements; for instance, SFA application forms must be filled in by hand and may not be typed. The application forms of the Guangdong Forestry Administration require that applicants sign the “Commitment to Use Government Information Legally”; in other words, the applicant must promise that government information is only for personal use, and the applicant must not plagiarise or further disseminate the information disclosed.

Information relating to administrative licenses should be actively published, and yet certain forestry administrations give “business secrets” as reason for their refusal to publish information. The reason given by the Hainan Forestry Administration was even more ridiculous: it could not respond because it cannot certify requests from individuals with the official stamp.

3. Weak control of the special marking for sale and utilisation of pangolins, and inert enforcement

A trial system for use of special markings was introduced for musk in 2001. The special marking system for pangolin scales began 2007, almost 10 years ago. Although the relevant regulations state that products without the special marking may not enter the market, in reality there are many TCM products that contain pangolin on sale in pharmacies, and it is very often the case that no special marking can be seen. If the case is reported to the local forest police, there is rarely any quick response or consequence.

Most of the drugs that contain pangolin are produced in Jilin Province, which is also the province in which products without the special marking are most frequently seen on the market, and in which illegal sales are most common. In many pharmacies in Beijing, we found the product Shengru Zhi, produced by Hebei Wantong Jinniu Pharmaceutical Co. Limited, and Liyanling Pills, produced by Jilin Kekang Pharmaceutical Co. Limited., Jilin Zhenyuan Pharmaceutical Co. Limited, J, Diaoyutai Pharmaceutical Group Jilin Tianqiang Pharmaceutical Co. Limited, and Changchun Overseas Pharmaceutical Group Limited. These two drugs contain pangolin, yet they did follow the relevant regulations regarding special markings. At the same time, almost all of the 66 drugs which contain pangolins are sold online, and very few display the special marking for sale and utilisation of wildlife. These drugs all violate relevant regulations, and major doubts exist as to the legality of origin of the pangolin scales used.