Written in 2016 before CITES upgraded all species of Pangolin to Annex 1. What is Annex 1? Well, this is explained if you carry on reading...
Abstract
Global trade in wildlife can have a detrimental effect species such as the four species of pangolin (Manis spp.) in South East Asia. They are highly sought after either dead or alive for their meat and scales for the Chinese medicine market or as a delicacy. All four species have been traded to the point of being listed in the IUCN ‘threatened’ category with the Sunda (Manis javanica) and the Chinese pangolin (Manis pentadactyla) being listed as Critically Endangered (CR). The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is set out to regulate the trade in species and impose bans to aid their survival. They have been criticised in the fact that influencing factors are disregarded when imposing a ban such as consumer supply and demand as well as time scales taken to act promptly to up listing proposals. CITES have also failed to acknowledge illegal trade figures and the changing of market dynamics. A review into the considerations to effectively manage trade in pangolins, improvements needed by CITES to aid in the survival of all four species, by adapting and moving with the current demands and economics.
Keywords: CITES, Wildlife trade, Asian pangolins, South East Asia
1. Introduction
Global trade in wildlife affects biodiversity conservation (Rosen and Smith, 2010; Sutherland et al., 2009; Broad et al., 2003), where species are threatened due to overexploitation (Li et al. 1996). Wildlife trade is regulated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) which is an international agreement between 183 member countries to ensure trade does not hinder the survival of flora and fauna (CITES, 2017a; Lemieux and Clarke, 2009). Wildlife trade includes an exhaustive list of either live animals or animal derivatives such as skins, feathers, organs, meat, horns and fluids (Zhang, et al. 2008). In 2010, wildlife trade had an estimated legal market value of US$21 billion (Rosen and Smith, 2010; Engler and Parry-Jones, 2007), but this figure does not take the illegal wildlife trade into account of which is impossible to place a near exact value on (CITES, 2007) but estimated at US$50 – US$150 billion per year (UNEP, 2013). This market is expanding rapidly (Nijman, 2009; Zhang, 2008) and has profits greater than illegal arms trade and is ranked second to the illegal narcotics trade (Sain-Ley-Berry, 2000; Rosen and Smith, 2010; Wyatt, 2009).
South East Asia's demand for animal products in the form of food, traditional medicine, and decoration has made the illegal wildlife trade responsible for approximately 25% of the global industry, per estimates made in 2005 (Lin, 2005). Research by Nijman (2009), states that economic development in China is growing rapidly with expansion of both population and cities and with this growth, the consumption markets for the use of wildlife for medicine and health care are increasing (Wang, 2001). Due to this highly profitable market expansion, there has been an interest from more people to trade in wildlife resulting in the illegal trade to expand (Zhang, 2008) and quotas set out by CITES not being adhered to (Nijman, 2009). Pangolins (Manidae family) are the most trafficked mammal in the world (Challendar, 2014a; Challendar et al., 2015) of which there are four extant species living in South East Asia (Soewu and Sodeinde, 2015). Having a slow reproduction rate of 1 young per year, mating once a year and maternal care of up to 2 years, pangolins are vulnerable to over-exploitation (Yang et al., 2007; Challender, 2011). Trade in Asiatic pangolins has a large consequence on their conservation status due to poaching for international trade purposes, mainly driven by the demand in China, and secondly, Vietnam (Nijman, 2015). Presented here is a critical review of the effectiveness of CITES on the four Asiatic pangolin species and whether law regulations and wildlife bans proposed have been effective. A detailed analysis of the timeline of when CITES was incepted to further recommendations that have been proposed by various experts in the field to effectively manage the trade on the highly threatened Asiatic pangolins.
2. Background of Asian Pangolin Species (Manis spp.)
The Asiatic species distribution is from Pakistan, through India to Eastern Asia (Xu et al, 2016) and it is these species that are more so threatened than the African (Nijman, 2015). The wealthy consume the pangolin meat as a social status (Zhang and Yin, 2014; Nijman, 2015) whilst the scales are used in the traditional Chinese medicine market to promote circulation, stimulate lactation, and expel pus (Xu, 2016). Due to this ongoing trade, two species of Asiatic pangolin, Sunda (Manis javanica) and the Chinese pangolin (Manis pentadactyla) are listed as Critically Endangered (CR) on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List (Challendar et al., 2014b). The Indian (Manis crassicaudata) and the Philippine pangolin (Manis Culionensis) are listed as Endangered (E) on the IUCN Red List (Lagrada et al., 2014). This demand is leading the four species towards extinction in Asia (Henrich et al., 2016). Due to the decreasing numbers of the Asiatic pangolins, there is an increased demand of the African species as a substitute. (Challendar and Hywood, 2011). Indonesia has been identified as one of the largest suppliers to the Chinese markets (Shepherd, 2009; Sopyan, 2009; Xu et al., 2016).
3. CITES – Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
Currently, all imports, exports and re-exports of 35,600 CITES listed species are regulated through a licensing system managed by the Parties of CITES and discussed every two to three years at CoP (Conference of the Parties) meetings (CITES, 2017b). CITES regulates trade in species that are in danger of extinction or threatened by placing them in three trade categories, each with a level of trade restrictions (Conrad, 2012; CITES, 2013a; Reeve, 2006), Appendix I lists 2.6% of species where commercial trade in these species is strictly prohibited. Appendix II lists 96.7% of species that are not threatened with extinction but controls are in place to secure the species survival. Appendix III lists 0.4% of species that are protected in one country and help from other member countries to control the trade. CITES has the power to place restrictive sanctions on countries who are not complying with the trade agreements (Reeve, 2006). The focus of CITES is the regulation of legal trade but they do not take illegal trade numbers into account unless they are iconic species such as elephant ivory or more recently, pangolins through immense pressure (Challender et al.,2015; Nijman, 2009; CITES, 2013). As from October 2016, all illegal trade highlighted by the Parties must also be included in the new illegal annual reporting system (CITES, 2016). Trade bans can have a detrimental effect on a species conservation status (Rivalan et al., 2007) and this is evident in a study by Challendar et al. (2015) where the trade in pangolins was not halted post the imposition in 2000 (Fig.1). There are criticisms that CITES fail to accurately monitor the supply – species abundance, production and trade volumes and the demand – consumer preferences, demand elasticity and the social habits around consumption and how these two behaviours interact and how they react to bans (Phillip et al., 2009).
4. Pangolin Trade - Legal and Illegal
Since the inception of CITES, the four-pangolin species were listed on Appendix II and in 1988 the Asiatic pangolins were also listed as a Phase II protected species in the Review of Significant Trade (RST) but in 1992, they were up listed to Phase I (CITES, 2017a; Challender, 2015). RST is a response mechanism where trade quotas and field studies are conducted when CITES regulations have been deemed unsuitable (Reeve, 2003). To improve management and enforcement of pangolin trade, China’s Wild Animal Protection Law class all eight species of pangolins as national second class protected species and this classification prohibits any selling and purchasing of the species (Xu, 2016).
In 1981, there was a peak in trade (Fig. 1.) due to China being accepted into CITES. In 2000, there was a proposal at CoP11 to uplist all four Asiatic pangolins from Appendix II to Appendix I but this was rejected and instead, a proxy zero export quota was established (CITES, 2000). Uplisting species, imposing zero quotas or joining CITES can lead to a spike in trade (Rivalan et al., 2007) as evident in Fig. 1 due to panic buying before a surge in prices due to the possibility of limited supply (Challendar et al., 2015). Legal trade figures reported to CITES from 1977 – 2000 (Fig. 1) were half a million individuals. With the fluctuating figures reported to CITES, the price remained almost stable in China at US$76.14/kg of scales until after 2000 where the price increased to US$759.15/kg which is an 897.04% increase. As seen in Fig. 1, there is some legal trade post 2000 and this is due to China allowing an annual domestic quota of 25,000kg of any pangolin derivatives stockpiled after 2007 for the medicinal market but the figures did not balance with an annual difference of ~2,600kg (Yin and Meng, 2013). This indicates an illegal source of pangolins (Xu et al., 2016). The price rise could indicate the decline of the commodity on the market making it difficult to source and a high risk to the retailer or a growing demand for the rare, wild products (Challendar et al, 2015).
Post 2000, trade became prominent on the black market and very few individuals were listed on CITES (Challendar et al., 2015). These figures were obtained by market surveys, internet searches, custom and police seizure records (Heinrich et al., 2016; Challendar et al., 2015). Not only are reports in some countries hard to obtain, it is difficult to get a true indication of the numbers of trafficked species and what is available may be a mere fraction of the true extent of illegal trade (Heinrich et al., 2016). Animal derivatives that are in high demand in wildlife trade have been substituted to keep up with the demand such as pig, goat or water buffalo bile traded instead of bear bile (Feng et al., 2009). Therefore, it is difficult to rely on the figures published by authorities and CITES as Asiatic pangolins could be substituted by the African species (Challender et al., 2015).
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
To effectively manage the trade of pangolins, CITES needs to act efficiently and promptly as it had taken them 16 years to request that all illegal trade should be reported to them since the zero quota in 2000 (Fig.1.) (Heinrich et al., 2016). This is a slow reaction and failure to keep in line with the market dynamics of consumer, price and supply (Rosen and Smith, 2010). Price changes are an indication of a changing market therefore the trade economics are essential to assessment as they could lead to extinctions as they have in the past (Challendar et al., 2015). A listing on Appendix I, means enforcement will be prioritised but training of officials will be required and developing training and education programs (Zhang et al., 2008) before bans are introduced as they can have an adverse effect if ineffectively managed (Rivalan et al., 2007). All four species of Asiatic pangolins were uplisted to Appendix I at CoP17 in hope for tighter monitoring (CITES, 2017c).
CITES does not consider the consumer demand for pangolins within their decision making (CITES, 2013) and studies by Xu et al. (2016), Nijman et al. (2015) and Challendar et al. (2015), where surveys were conducted to get a true perspective of the demand would highly benefit decision making. These surveys gain an indication of the prices and the true scale of the demand from source to consumer and an insight into the knowledge of consumers. Zhang et al.’s (2008) study proves the naivety towards the consumption of wildlife and a greater investment in education in the smaller towns is needed. An overall tighter control on all boarders in the global state ranges of pangolins is needed and a knowledge of corruption within authorities needs addressing (Santos et al., 2001; Rosen and Smith, 2010; Heinrich et al., 2016).
Due to the weak knowledge of the population size of pangolins (Challendar and Hywood, 2011) more research in this area would prove highly valuable by regular census and studies (Nijman et al., 2015; Heinrich et al., 2016, Xu et al., 2016) through capture mark-recapture methods and forensics to name a few (Underwood et al., 2013). Rivalan et al. (2007), mention that if a constant regulation of both illegal and legal trade is exhaustive, a possible tighter monitoring a year before and after a ban is introduced as this is where demand is at its highest.
Wildlife trade is prominent in countries who lack enforcement and a focus on the trade loopholes need tightening (Nijman, 2009). Effort is needed at the site of extraction (Santos et al., 2001) and liaison with hunters (Newton, 2007) could gain an insight into the population numbers and extraction therefore enabling control methods, if not, limiting methods.
6 References
Broad, S., Mulliken, T., Roe, D. (2003). The nature and extent of legal and illegal trade in wildlife. Oldfield. The Trade in Wildlife Regulation for Conservation. Earthscan. London, 3 – 22. Challender, D.W.S and Hywood, L. (2011). Asiatic pangolins: Increasing affluence driving hunting pressure. TRAFFIC Bulletin, 23, 92 – 93 Challendar, D.W.S, Waterman, C. Baillie, J. (2014a). Scaling up pangolin conservation. In: IUCN SSC Pangolin Specialist group Conservation Action Plan, Zoological Society of London,UK. Challender, D., Nguyen Van, T., Shepherd, C., Krishnasamy, K., Wang, A., Lee, B., Panjang, E., Fletcher, L., Heng, S., Seah Han Ming, J., Olsson, A., Nguyen The Truong, A., Nguyen Van, Q. & Chung, Y. (2014b). Manis javanica. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2014- 2.RLTS.T12763A45222303.en. Retrieved on 16 March 2017. Challender, D.W.S., Harrop, S.R., MacMillan, D.C. (2015). Understanding markets to conserve trade-threatened species in CITES. Biological Conservation 187, 249 – 259. CITES. (2000). Amendments to Appendices I and II of the Convention adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its 11th meeting in Gigiri, Kenya, from 10 to 20 April 2000. CITES, Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved 16 March, 2017, from https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/11/other/E-Amendments_App.pdf CITES. (2007). Press Release, EU Ban on wild bird imports disappointing. Retrieved 26 February, 2017, fromhttp://www.cites.org/eng/news/press/2007/070111_bird_ban.shtml. CITES. (2013). Decisions 16.41 and 16.42. Sixteenth Meeting of the Conference of Parties. Bangkok, Thailand. Retrieved 26 February, 2017, from https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/dec/valid16/E16-Dec.pdf CITES. (2016). Notification to the Parties No. 2016/007. New Annual Illegal Trade Report. Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved 27 February, 2017, from https://cites.org/sites/default/files/notif/E-Notif-2016-007.pdf CITES. (2017a). What is CITES? Retrieved 16 March, 2017, from http://cites.org/eng/disc/what.php. CITES. (2017b). How CITES Works? Retrieved 16 March, 2017, from https://cites.org/eng/disc/how.php. CITES. (2017c). Proposals for amendment of Appendices I and II. Seventeenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties Johannesburg (South Africa), 24 September – 5 October 2016. https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/17/Proposals_for_amendment_of_Appendices_I_II.pdf Conrad, K. (2012). Trade bans: a perfect storm for poaching? Tropical Conservation Science 5(3), 245 – 254. Engler, M., Parry-Jones, R. (2007). Opportunity or Threat: The role of the European Union in global wildlife trade. TRAFFIC Europe, Brussels Feng, Y., Siu, K., Wang, N., Ng, K.-M., Tsao, S.-W., Nagamatsu, T., & Tong, Y. (2009). Bear bile: Dilemma of traditional medicinal use and animal protection. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 5, 2. Heinrich, S., Wittmann, T., Prowse, T., Ross, J., Delean, S., Shepherd, C. and Cassey, P. (2016). Where did all the pangolins go? International CITES trade in pangolin species. Global Ecology and Conservation, 8, 241-253. Lagrada, L., Schoppe, S. & Challender, D. (2014). Manis culionensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Retrieved 16 March, 2017, from http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2014-2.RLTS.T136497A45223365.en. Lemieux, A. and Clarke, R. (2009). The International Ban on Ivory Sales and its Effects on Elephant Poaching in Africa. British Journal of Criminology, 49(4), 451-471. Li, W., Fuller, T., Wang, S. (1996). A survey on wildlife trade in Guangxi and Guangdong, China. TRAFFIC Bull 16, 9-16. 6
Natasha Woest @00280579 Wildlife and Practical Conservation Lin, J. (2005). Tackling Southeast Asia's Illegal Wildlife Trade. Retrieved 05 March, 2017, from http://www.commonlii.org/sg/journals/SGYrBkIntLaw/2005/14.pdf Newton, P. (2007). Potential applications of hunters’ knowledge for the conservation of pangolins in Vietnam. Applied ecology and Conservation. 2 – 53 Nijman, V. (2009). An overview of international wildlife trade from Southeast Asia. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(4), 1101-1114. Nijman, V., Zhang, M. and Shepherd, C. (2016). Pangolin trade in the Mong La wildlife market and the role of Myanmar in the smuggling of pangolins into China. Global Ecology and Conservation, 5, 118-126.
Pangolin Support Group (2021). Accessed at https://www.pangolinsg.org/pangolins/ in January 2021. Phillip, S., Dandy, N., Gill, R. and MacMillan, D. (2009). Is legislation a barrier to the sustainable management of game species? A case study of wild deer in Britain. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(8), 993-1012. Reeve, R. (2003). Policing International Trade in Endangered Species: The CITES Treaty and Compliance20034Policing International Trade in Endangered Species: The CITES Treaty and Compliance. 2002: Royal Institute of International Affairs. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 14(2), 310-310. Reeve, R. (2006). Wildlife Trade Sanctions and Compliance: Lessons from the CITES Regime. International Affairs, 82, 881 – 897. Rivalan, P., Delmas, V., Angulo, E., Bull, L., Courchamp, F. (2007). Can bans stimulate wildlife trade? Nature, 447, 529 -530. Rosen, G., and Smith, K. (2010). Summarising the evidence on the international trade in illegal wildlife. EcoHealth, 7(1), 24-32. Santos, A., Satchabut, T., Vigo Trauco, G. (2001). Do wildlife trade bans enhance or undermine conservation efforts? Applied Biodiversity Perspective Series, 1(3), 1-15. Shepherd, C.R. (2009). Overview of pangolin trade in Southeast Asia. Pp.6–9 in Pantel, S. and Chin, S.Y. (Eds). Proceedings of a Workshop on Trade and Conservation of Pangolins Native to South and Southeast Asia. TRAFFIC South East Asia, Petaling Jaya. 6 – 9. Retrieved 03 March, 2017 from http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pangolin_proceedings_final_print__2_.pdf Sian-Ley-Berry, C. (2000). New Campaign Launched to fight illegal wildlife trade. Earth Times News Service. Retrieved 26 February, 2017, from http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/no/20001217/sc/environment_tcm_dc_1.html. Soewu, D. and Sodeinde, O. (2015). Utilization of pangolins in Africa: Fuelling factors, diversity of uses and sustainability. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation, 7(1), 1-10. Sopyan, E. (2009). Malayan Pangolin (Manis javanica) Trade in Sumatra, Indonesia. Pp.134–142 in Pantel, S. and Chin, S.Y. (Eds). Proceedings of a Workshop on Trade and Conservation of Pangolins Native to South and Southeast Asia. TRAFFIC South East Asia, Petaling Jaya. Retrieved 03 March, 2017, from http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pangolin_proceedings_final_print__2_.pdf Sutherland, W.J., Adams, W.M., et al. (2009). One hundred questions of importance to the conservation of global biological diversity. Conservation Biology, 23(3), 557-567. Underwood, F., Burn, R., Milliken, T. (2013). Dissecting the illegal ivory trade. An analysis of ivory seizures data. PLoS One 8, 1 -12. UNEP. (2013). A Guide to Using the Trade Database. Version 8, October 2013. Retrieved 26 February, 2017, https://trade.cites.org/cites_trade_guidelines/en-CITES_Trade_Database_Guide.pdf 7
Natasha Woest @00280579 Wildlife and Practical Conservation Wang Z, Wu D, Chen H. (2001). Preliminary study of border trade in wildlife in Yunnan. Protect China’s Biodiversity, 2, 158–167 Wyatt, T. (2009). Exploring the organisation of Russia Far East’s illegal wildlife trade: Two case studies of the illegal fur and the illegal falcon trades. Global Crimes, 10(1). 144-154. Xu, L., Guan, J., Lau, W., Xiao, Y. (2016). An overview of pangolin trade in China. TRAFFIC Briefing September 2016. Retrieved 26 February, 2017, from http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/157301/27254615/1474377211627/Pangolin-trade-in-China-briefing- paper.pdf?token=M5KBFGwWkxTNgmLB2rCX4AxNYzs%3D Yang, C.W., Chen, S., Chang, C., Lin, M.F., Block, E., Lorentsen, R., Chin, J.S.C. and Dierenfeld, E.S. (2007). History and husbandry of pangolins in captivity. Zoo Biology 26, 223–230. Yin, F. and Meng, M. (2013). The sustainable use and conservation of medicinal endangered species. China Agriculture Press. 58 - 67 Zhang, L., Hua, N., Sun, S. (2008). Wildlife Trade, consumption and conservation awareness in Southwest China. Biodiversity Conservation 17, 1493 – 1516. Zhang, L., Yin., F. (2014). Wildlife consumption and conservation awareness in China; A long way to go. Biodiversity Conservation, 23, 2371 - 2381
Comments