440 M. Bager Olsen et al.
the most parsimonious model the area of a country was the most important predictor of trade volume. However, the variance explained by these factors was very low for the legal trade, and relatively low for seizures (Table 5). Thus, these results suggest there is aweak link between large coun- tries having larger volumes of wildlife trade into the USA, perhaps generally reflecting larger volumes of overall trade, and that large biodiverse countries with many ende- mics may provide more source material that is ultimately seized. It may also reflect priorities in the USA on combat- ting illegal trade. Overall, we found an increase in legal wildlife trade as
well as seizures into theUSAover time, and there are a num- ber of possible reasons for this trend. Firstly, the ongoing addition of species to the CITES Appendices and increase in CITES parties may explain some of this increase, with more species and trading partners being recorded in trade. Secondly, the increase is associated with globalized markets and economic and human population growth (Nijman, 2010). Thirdly, international travel and transport of goods is becoming easier and more commonplace, also facilitating trade in wildlife and influencing what people desire and demand (Wyler&Sheikh, 2008). Fourthly, increasing access to online information and e-markets is a contributing factor to the increasing demand and market expansion for, at least, pets and ornamental plants, and is potentially a greater fac- tor in the illegal than in the legal trade (RBG Kew, 2016).
Conservation implications and applications
There are a number of ways in which our analysis can be ap- plied to wildlife trade policy. Firstly, it is clear that the USA remains amajor importer and consumer of both legally and illegally traded wildlife products. As a result, the USA has an important role to play in ensuring that legal and sustainable trade can continue to provide conservation incentives and support local livelihoods in species range countries, while also stepping up efforts against illegal trade to minimize the profitability of wildlife trafficking. Secondly, addressing illegal trade can be informed by an understanding of legal trade routes and the geography of wildlife trade; in addition, actions need to be tailored to region- and country-specific needs. Thirdly, as with legal trade, illegal trade often consists of wildlife re-exported from intermediary countries, high- lighting the importance of understanding key entrepôts that could benefit from enforcement or capacity support, in addition to countries of origin. Lastly, as the USA refines its list of focal countries as part of its Eliminate, Neutralize, Disrupt Wildlife Trafficking Act, these types of in-depth analyses that examine both legal trade and seizures and their potential interactions can help inform anti-trafficking activities and priorities. The lag in reporting data to the CITES Trade Database means that a number of years will
pass before it is clear if decisions taken at recent CITES Conferences of Parties, or changes in rules and regulations in the USA, have been effective in reducing legal trade in overexploited species or curbing illegal trade flows along established international wildlife trade routes.
Acknowledgements Wethank all the countries that have submitted their trade records to the CITES Secretariat for inclusion in the CITES Trade Database. MTBO thanks all the people in the Centre for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate in Denmark and UNEP- WCMC in Cambridge who assisted with data gathering, organization and analysis during her Master’s thesis. This work was supported by the Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF96), VILLUM FONDEN (VKR023371), the GCRF Trade Hub, and the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (H2020-MSCA-IF-2015-706784).
Author contributions Study design: MTBO, NDB; methods and statistical analysis: MTBO, JG, MH, NJS; data analysis and writing: MTBO, DPT, KN, NDB; dataset guidance: BP; theoretical feedback on the use of the database and structure of data: JG, DPT, BP, PS, KN.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards This research abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards.
References
BROAD, S., MULLIKEN,T. & ROE,D.(2003) The nature and extent of legal and illegal trade in wildlife. In The Trade inWildlife. Regulation for Conservation (ed. O. Sara), pp. 3–22. Earthscan Publications, London, UK.
BROOKS, T.M., AKÇAKAYA, H.R., BURGESS, N.D., BUTCHART, S.H.M., HILTON-TAYLOR, C., HOFFMANN, M. et al. (2016) Analysing biodiversity and conservation knowledge products to support regional environmental assessments. Scientific Data, 3, 160007.
CHAMBERLAIN,S.(2018) rredlist: ‘IUCN’ Red List Client. R package version 0.5.0.
Https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rredlist [accesssed March 2019].
CITES (2016a) CITES ‘Non-detriment findings’–Requirements of the Convention.
Https://cites.org/eng/prog/ndf/Requirements_Convention [accessed 23 September 2016].
CITES (2016b) How CITES Works.
Https://cites.org/eng/disc/how. php [accessed 22 September 2016].
CITES (2016c) What is CITES?
Https://cites.org/eng/disc/what.php [accessed 22 September 2016].
FUNSTON, P., HENSCHEL, P., HUNTER, L., LINDSEY, P., NOWAK, K., VALLIANOS,C.&WOOD,K.(2016) Beyond Cecil: Africa’s Lions in Crisis. Panthera, WildAid &WildCRU, San Francisco and New York, USA.
GARSHELIS, D.L., SCHEICK, B.K., DOAN-CRIDER, D.L., BEECHAM, J.J. &OBBARD, M.E. (2016) Ursus americanus (errata version published in 2017). In The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41687A114251609.
Http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3. RLTS.T41687A45034604.en [accessed 17 July 2019].
GROOMBRIDGE,B.&JENKINS, M.D. (2002) World Atlas of Biodiversity. United Nations Environment Programme–World Conservation Monitoring Centre. University of California Press, Berkley, USA.
HARFOOT, M., GLASER, S.A.M., TITTENSOR, D., BRITTEN, G.L., MCLARDY, C.,MALSCH,K. & BURGESS, N.D. (2018) Unveiling the
Oryx, 2021, 55(3), 432–441 © The Author(s), 2019. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319000541
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
