Emerging illegal wildlife trade issues: A global horizon scan

Abstract

Illegal wildlife trade is gaining prominence as a threat to biodiversity, but addressing it remains challenging. To help inform proactive policy responses in the face of uncertainty, in 2018 we conducted a horizon scan of significant emerging issues. We built upon existing iterative horizon scanning methods, using an open and global participatory approach to evaluate and rank issues from a diverse range of sources. Prioritized issues related to three themes: developments in biological, information, and financial technologies; changing trends in demand and information; and socioeconomic, geopolitical shifts and influences. The issues covered areas ranging from changing demographic and economic factors to innovations in technology and communications that affect illegal wildlife trade markets globally; the top three issues related to China, illustrating its vital role in tackling emerging threats. This analysis can support national governments, international bodies, researchers, and nongovernmental organizations as they develop strategies for addressing the illegal wildlife trade.

Opportunistic or Non-Random Wildlife Crime? Attractiveness Rather Than Abundance in the Wild Leads to Selective Parrot Poaching

“…Wildlife trafficking is increasingly recognized as both a specialized area of organized crime and a significant threat to many plant and animal species [2,34,35]. However, due to its intrinsic illegal nature, it is difficult to fully know its actual extent and consequences for wildlife [12,36]. Here, we provide the first reliable and simultaneous large-scale estimation of poaching pressure and abundance in the wild of a community of parrot species, showing that poaching of this taxonomic group is not opportunistic, but largely focused on species with particular traits that make them more attractive to people.…”

“…The number of years each species was allowed to be legally trapped should reflect their abundance in the wild, assuming that scarcer species were allowed to be trapped for fewer years [8], although international markets, local economics, and political pressures could influence this. On the other hand, the use of seizures as a proxy of poaching pressure [11] may have affected the results, given that seizures usually represent <10% of poaching volumes and are often biased towards certain species [12]. In fact, the proportion of amazons and macaws among all parrots seized in Costa Rica (50%) is significantly higher than among those actually poached and kept as household pets (33%), showing that seizures are biased to the most valuable and threatened species (authors' data, in prep.).…”

Strengthening International Legal Cooperation to Combat the Illegal Wildlife Trade Between Southeast Asia and China

“…Tackling the SEA-China illegal wildlife trade undoubtedly necessitates a concerted effort among the major centers of supply, demand and trade involved in global wildlife trafficking (Esmail et al, 2020). Considering the scale, complexity, and severity of the IWT problem in Asia, a multifaceted response is required of the Chinese and SEA governments-individually and collectively.…”

Investigating the international and pan‐African trade in giraffe parts and derivatives

“…Moving forwards, as the 2018 CITES listing of the giraffe is monitored, it is important to recognize that implementing regulations across diverse and complex socioecological system can often result in unintended consequences ('t Sas-Rolfes, Challender, Hinsley, Veríssimo, & Milner-Gulland, 2019). Misinformation has also been identified as an emerging issue within wildlife trade and it has the potential to rapidly influence policy and practice (Esmail et al, 2020). With the complexities, misinformation and regional differences associated with the giraffe trade identified in this article, a robust assessment to ensure the effectiveness of the CITES Appendix II regulations is imperative, particularly concerning the specific need to disaggregate legal versus illegal, and domestic versus international use and trade.…”