Wildlife trade
Wildlife trade refers to the products that are derived from non-domesticated animals or plants usually extracted from their natural environment or raised under controlled conditions.
[4][5] Global initiative like the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 15 have a target to end the illegal supply of wildlife.
[8] However, the global trade of wildlife commodities is ineffectively monitored and accounted for due to the constraint of the HS Code System used by the customs worldwide.
The majority of international imports of wildlife are only recorded in extremely basic and general categories, such as 'plant' or 'animal products', with no further taxonomic detail.
[8] Many jurisdictions rely on the declared HS Code of the consignments for detection and prosecution of illegal wildlife import.
The lack of specificity of HS Code precludes effective monitoring and traceability of global wildlife trade.
There is an increasing call for a reform of the HS Code to strengthen monitoring and enforcement of global wildlife trade.
[3] Wildlife trade threatens the local ecosystem, and puts all species under additional pressure at a time when they are facing threats such as over-fishing, pollution, dredging, deforestation and other forms of habitat destruction.
Due to the very large amounts of species that are removed from the ecosystem, it is not inconceivable that environmental problems will result, similar to e.g. overfishing, which causes an overabundance of jellyfish blooms.
The head of the UN convention on biological diversity stated: "We have seen many diseases emerge over the years, such as Zika, Aids, Sars and Ebola, and they all originated from animal populations under conditions of severe environmental pressures.
[34][35] It is thought that the market environment provided optimal conditions for the coronaviruses of zoonotic origin that caused both outbreaks to mutate and subsequently spread to humans.
Due to the very low survival rate, it also means that far higher amounts of organisms (in this case chameleons) are taken away from the ecosystem, to make up for the losses.
Often reliant upon hunting for food, they are prevented from doing so, and are frequently illegally evicted from their lands following the creation of nature reserves aimed to protect animals.
[39] Tribal people are often falsely accused of contributing to the decline of species – in the case of India, for example, they bear the brunt of anti-tiger poaching measures,[40] despite the main reason for the tiger population crash in the 20th century being due to hunting by European colonists and Indian elites.
[41] In fact, contrary to popular belief, there is strong evidence to show that they effectively regulate and manage animal populations.
[44] There, trade linkages to key markets in China, the United States, and the European Union; lax law enforcement; weak border controls; and the perception of high profit and low risk contribute to large-scale commercial wildlife trafficking.
The Chatuchak weekend market in Bangkok is a known center of illicit wildlife trade, and the sale of lizards, primates, and other endangered species has been widely documented.
Large volumes of fresh water tortoises and turtles, snakes, pangolins and monitor lizards are consumed as meat in Asia, including in specialty restaurants that feature wildlife as gourmet dining.
[49][50] According to a report published by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) in 2004, India is the chief target for the traders of wildlife skin.
[51] Leopards, rhinoceros, reptiles, birds, insects, rare species of plants are being smuggled into the countries in Southeast Asia and the People's Republic of China.
[55][56] Following is a comparison of reported cases of tiger and leopard poaching from 1998 to 2003: Samir Sinha, head of TRAFFIC India, the wildlife trade monitoring arm of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN), told Reuters in an interview "The situation regarding the illegal trade in wildlife parts in India is very grim.
[60] Morocco has been identified as a transit country for wildlife moving from Africa to Europe due to its porous borders with Spain.
In recent studies, non-native species of amphibians and mammals were identified in Brazil, with frogs and rodents, respectively, posing the greatest invasion risks.
[71] The use of legal trade and quotas have allowed management of a species as well as economic incentive for sustaining habitat with greater ecological benefits.
