Abstract
AbstractThe international legal trade in wildlife can provide economic and other benefits, but when unsustainable can be a driver of population declines. This impact is magnified by the additional burden of illegal trade, yet how it covaries with legal trade remains little explored. We combined law‐enforcement time‐series of seizures of wildlife goods imported into the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) with data on reported legal trade to evaluate the evidence for any relationships. Our analysis examined 28 US and 20 EU products derived from CITES‐listed species with high volume and frequency of both reported trade and seizures. On average, seizures added 28% and 9% to US and EU reported legal trade levels respectively, and in several cases exceeded legal imports. We detected a significant but weak overall positive relationship between seizure volumes and reported trade into the US over time, but not into the EU. These results highlight the importance of maintaining long‐term records of border seizures and enforcement effort, and accounting for illegal trade where possible in non‐detriment findings. Our findings suggest a complex and nuanced temporal association between the illegal and legal wildlife trades.
Highlights
The international trade in wildlife is a long-standing activity (Jenkins & Broad 1994) with the potential for substantial economic benefits
Importer-reported wildlife trade data from three sources were combined for this analysis: the CITES Trade Database for the reported legal trade, and the Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS) and European Union (EU) Trade in Wildlife Information Exchange (EUTWIX) databases for United States (US) and EU seizures respectively
Relationship between seizure volumes and reported legal trade volumes The ratios of reported legal trade volumes to seizure volumes summed over the period of analysis are shown in Figures 2 (US) and 3 (EU)
Summary
The international trade in wildlife is a long-standing activity (Jenkins & Broad 1994) with the potential for substantial economic benefits. Knowledge of the illegal wildlife trade remains much more limited due to its covert nature and the necessity for detection and interdiction. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime identified distinct markets for the trafficking of specific wildlife products and product groups (UNODC 2016), and facets of illegal trade have been examined through conducting in-depth studies (Beastall et al 2016). The broader relationship between the relative volumes of legal and illegal wildlife trade remains ill-defined. Analyses of seizures across multiple taxa remain rare (but see Mundy-Taylor 2013), as do comparisons to legal trade flows
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
