Prior to the 20th meeting of the Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, held last year in Uzbekistan from November 24 to December 5, researchers from the University of Adelaide’s Wildlife Crime Research Hub held an online presentation to highlight the serious threats to Australia’s native flora and fauna from illegal habitat clearance, illegal fishing and logging practices, and the illegal wildlife trade.
The Hub’s Director of Wildlife Crime, Phill Cassey said the Institute of Criminology recently estimated the cost to Australia from environmental and wildlife crime exceeds $1billion, while globally wildlife crime is ranked fourth in value among illegal transnational activities, behind human trafficking and the smuggling of drugs and arms.
“Wildlife crime is illegal because the activity goes against both national and international laws and frameworks. The international governance that oversees the wildlife trade is CITES, which has been in force since 1975. It’s the legally recognised framework covering the wildlife trade, but of the birds, mammals, reptiles and fish listed in the CITES Appendices less than 10 per cent of them are protected,” he explained.
Globally, reptiles are among the most heavily harvested and trafficked species for the exotic pet trade, and Australia’s reptiles are highly sought after, so the proposal to list two species of leaf-tailed geckos on CITES Appendix 2 this year would be a significant addition. If accepted it will require countries to have permits to import the species.
“We see a large number of species leaving Australia due to a porous border, and there’s no protection for them once outside the country. A successful listing for these two geckos will hopefully close a number of important gaps so we’re excited to see the outcome of the decision,” Cassey said.
Katie Smith, Research Program Manager at the WCRH said the demand for wildlife species was often determined by their rarity, which was also an important factor in their risk of extinction, given wildlife crime was generally considered a low risk, high reward activity compared to other types of organised crime, and it carried less severe penalties.
“The trade has heavy costs economically and environmentally, not just in loss of species but also the spread of diseases. There’s also a loss in government revenue from legitimate industries due to species’ decline. We have species that aren’t found anywhere else in the world and this rarity means increased demand overseas. We need a national and coordinated approach to wildlife crime legislation and penalties,” Smith said.
Although it is the body parts of large iconic mammals like elephants and tigers that most people think about in the context of illegally traded wildlife, either for their ivory, their use in traditional Asian medicines, or in the exotic pet trade, Sebastian Chekunov, the WCRH’s Research Lead, said that in addition to Australia’s reptiles, birds’ eggs were also a major target for the illegal wildlife trade.
“Like most traded wildlife, eggs become even more valuable when a species is in decline so there’s added incentive to keep poaching from the wild. Last year a Tasmanian man, who was involved in a global smuggling ring throughout Europe and North America, was found with more than 3000 eggs. They included some from rare and endangered species such as the forty-spotted pardalote – one of Australia’s rarest birds – that he was alleged to have taken from the wild. It’s hard for numbers to bounce back if eggs from threatened species are constantly harvested for an illegal trade,” Chekunov explained.
A University of Melbourne study, also published during November in the journal Current Biology reinforced the threats highlighted by WCRH research to Australia’s biodiversity and biosecurity, and the survival of many species.
Led by Alice Hughes, a professor at UM’s School of Biosciences, the study explored two decades worth of global wildlife trade networks into the US, focusing on where species came from, in what quantities and the trade route patterns. Results showed clear issues of data misinformation and blatant laundering or trafficking.
“We think the number of animal species in trade is likely over 70,000, but we can’t be sure due to the lack of monitoring, and that’s an enormous problem in itself. Data is incredibly difficult to find and what does exist is rife with discrepancies. It means the true scope of the impact of wildlife trade on wild populations remains largely unknown. Understanding what animals are being traded, in what volumes and where they’re coming from are the first steps to being able to gauge if that trade is sustainable, and to enable focused efforts on species where trade may be threatening their survival,” she said.
A previous study found that more than 21,000 animal species have been traded in the US alone since 2000.
The study also identified significant biosecurity risks, such as importing pests and pathogens, and species that could become invasive. Hughes said an example of this was the international trade of the Xenopus, or African clawed frog considered a culprit in the spread of the deadly chytrid fungus disease that has contributed to the extinction of multiple frog species globally, including at least seven in Australia.
“We clearly need to do more to ensure that we better monitor trade, and that starts with better data and collaboration between scientists, government agencies, businesses that sell wildlife, and consumers who drive demand. With no way to say what animals are in trade, and if this trade is sustainable, we’re potentially driving many species towards extinction in plain sight,” Hughes said.
Anne Layton-Bennett
