TRAFFIC Bulletin - Volume 21, No.2. July 2007. (PDF, 2.25 MB)

JULY

20

07

VO

L.21

NO

.2

SOUTH AFRICA’SDEMERSAL SHARK

FISHERY

WILDLIFE ON SALE INMYANMAR

CHINESE-LANGUAGEINTERNET TRADE IN

WILDLIFE

B U L L E T I N

The journal of the TRAFFIC network disseminates information on the trade in wild animal and plant resources

T R A F F I C2

The TRAFFIC Bulletin is a publication of TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network,which works to ensure that trade in wild plants and animals is not a threat to the conservation of nature.TRAFFIC is a joint programme of

The TRAFFIC Bulletin publishes information and original papers on the subject of trade in wild animals and plants, and strives to be a source ofaccurate and objective information.

The TRAFFIC Bulletin is available free of charge.Quotation of information appearing in the newssections is welcomed without permission, but citationmust be given. Reproduction of all other materialappearing in the TRAFFIC Bulletin requires writtenpermission from the publisher.

Managing Editor Steven Broad Editor and Compiler Kim LochenSubscriptions Susan Vivian

E-mail: [email protected]

The designations of geographical entities in this publication, and the presentation of the material, do notimply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on thepart of TRAFFIC or its supporting organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, orarea, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitationof its frontiers or boundaries.

Any opinions expressed are those of the writers and donot necessarily reflect those of TRAFFIC, WWF orIUCN-The World Conservation Union.

Published by TRAFFIC International,219a Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, Cambs.CB3 0DL, UK.

© TRAFFIC International 2007ISSN 0267-4297UK Registered Charity No. 1076722

Cover illustration:Carcharhinus limbatus and C. perezi(© Doug Perrine / SeaPics.com)

This page, from top:Shark processing factory, Cape Town, South Africa(© M. Bürgener)Website imagePrionodon pardicolor skin, Mong La Market, Myanmar(© C.R. Shepherd)

Funding for the printing and distribution of this issueof the TRAFFIC Bulletin is generously provided byThe Rufford Maurice Laing Foundation.

Printed on recycled paper by Cambridge University Press,Printing House, Cambridge CB2 2BS, UK.

T R A F F I CB U L L E T I N

VOL. 21 NO. 2

Editorial 47M. Bürgener

News 48-54

South Africa’s 55-66Demersal Shark Meat Harvest

C. Da Silva and M. Bürgener

Seizures and Prosecutions 67-74

World Without Borders: Wildlife Trade 75-84on the Chinese-language Internet

J. Wu

An Assessment of Wildlife Trade at 85-88Mong La Market

on the Myanmar-China BorderC.R. Shepherd and V. Nijman

July 2007

75

85

55

TRAFFIC Bulletin Vol. 21 No. 2 (2007) 47

increase in the use of trade-related measures over the lastdecade. Apart from the Catch Documentation Scheme used bythe Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic MarineLiving Resources (CCAMLR) for tracking trade in PatagonianToothfish Dissostichus eleginoides, other trade measures havebeen introduced through what are known collectively as the‘Tuna RFMOs’ and are currently limited to tuna and tuna-likespecies. Thus, while it is encouraging that trade measures areconsidered as effective tools for fisheries management,RFMOs do not currently provide trade mechanisms for manycommercially important marine species in trade, such as Spiny

Dogfish and Porbeagle. Further, RFMOs wouldbenefit from CITES as a complementary man-agement measure as it has an almostglobal membership, comprehensive uniformpermitting and administrative procedures, andcomparatively strict and effective compliancemeasures.

A good example of this complementary relationship wasthe plea at CoP14 by CCAMLR for CITES Parties to co-oper-ate with its conservation measures and its highlighting of anumber of CITES Parties involved in illegal, unreported andunregulated (IUU) fishing.

While all eyes were on the CoP14 listing proposals,progress on other marine-related issues such as positive CITESDecisions related to sea cucumbers and sharks, as well as theinter-sessional listing by South Africa of its endemic abalonespecies Haliotis midae in CITES Appendix III, went almostcompletely unnoticed. The South African commercial abalonefishery is in a state of crisis, primarily due to illegal harvestingand trade. Driven by Asian demand for the culinary delicacy, afailure to reduce the illegal trade significantly could result in thespecies being declared commercially extinct, leading to closureof the legal fishery and the loss of many hundreds of jobs.While the species would almost certainly meet Appendix II-list-ing criteria, South Africa opted for an Appendix III listing, pos-sibly mindful of the challenge in securing sufficient support at aCoP for inclusion in Appendix II.

The global abalone trade is of significant commercial valueand while poaching levels in other parts of the world are not ashigh, almost all other abalone range States are faced with prob-lems of illegal harvest and trade. It will accordingly be inter-esting to see how these other countries react to the Appendix IIIlisting.

While it is of concern that timber and marine species ofcommercial importance have to reach critical levels of over-exploitation and unsustainable trade before sufficient numbersof CITES Member States will support their inclusion in theAppendices, of possibly greater concern were the very publicdisagreements between the FAO and CITES Secretariats.Despite the successful conclusion of the MoU between CITESand FAO, what emerged at CoP14 was almost an ideologicaldebate between the two institutions on the application and inter-pretation of CITES listing criteria. Such a situation serves onlyto fuel the divide between fisheries managers and CITES offi-cials, which still appears to exist at a national level in manycountries.

The meeting closed with the Secretariat being tasked with ini-tiating discussions with FAO on enhancing co-operation betweenthe two organizations. If we are to see CITES playing a positiverole in the future in the management of unsustainable large-scalecommercial fisheries, it is essential that these discussions lead toa relationship of trust, collaboration and mutual respect.

E D I T O R I A L

Markus Bürgener Senior Programme Officer TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa

In November 2002, the editorial of this journal focused onCITES and marine species, highlighting related topics upfor discussion at the 12th meeting of the Conference of the

Parties (CoP) to CITES, but also noting the tension betweenthose supportive of the Convention’s engagement in marinefisheries and others who feel that CITES trade controls have noplace in fisheries management. Five years on and with CoP14having just finished, has there been any progress?

Certainly this meeting had the potential to take previousdevelopments a step further, with more listing proposals sub-mitted for commercially important marine species than at any

previous CoP. They included three shark and ray proposals—Spiny Dogfish Squalus acanthias, Porbeagle Lamna nasus andsawfish (all species of the family Pristidae)—the BanggaiCardinalfish Pterapogon kauderni, all coral species in thegenus Corallium, the European Eel Anguilla anguilla, and theBrazilian populations of two spiny lobsters—Panulirus argusand Panulirus laevicauda. All of these proposals were forinclusion of the species in CITES Appendix II apart from saw-fish which were proposed for inclusion in Appendix I.

A solid platform had been laid at the previous two CoPs,with a number of marine species being listed in Appendix II,including the Whale Shark Rhincodon typus, Basking SharkCetorhinus maximus, all seahorses Hippocampus spp.,Humphead Wrasse Cheilinus undulatus and Great White SharkCarcharodon carcharias. This was a notable recognition ofmarine species threatened by unsustainable harvest and trade,but none of those listed could be classified as large-scale com-mercial fisheries. The CoP14 line-up presented a number ofopportunities, in particular through the Spiny Dogfish andPorbeagle proposals, to make the major advance in establish-ing a role for CITES for marine fisheries that the Appendix IIBig-leaf Mahogany Swietenia macrophylla listing in 2002 haddone for timber species.

As it turned out, those supportive of the listing proposalswere to be disappointed, with only sawfish and the EuropeanEel being listed. The Banggai Cardinalfish and spiny lobsterproposals were withdrawn before they went to a vote. Coralsquite easily obtained a two-thirds majority in Committee I, yetwhen voting was re-opened in plenary, the proposal was reject-ed after heavy lobbying by those opposing the listing.

The most intense debate, however, reflected in both inter-ventions from the floor as well as the formal documents submit-ted by CITES Parties, the CITES Secretariat and the ad hocExpert Advisory Panel of the Food and AgriculturalOrganization of the United Nations (FAO), centred on the pro-posals for Spiny Dogfish and Porbeagle. Both of these are valu-able commercial species, which have suffered from stockdeclines as a result of long-term harvesting for internationaltrade through both directed and incidental catch. The FAOExpert Advisory Panel did not support either of the proposalsand the ensuing debate lay primarily in differences of opinionover the application and interpretation of CITES listing criteria.

While neither proposal was adopted, Spiny Dogfishreceived more than 60% support and the Porbeagle only slight-ly less. This demonstrates that a majority of CITES membersare not, in principal, against the use of trade controls in thefisheries sector. This is borne out by the action of CITESParties in other fora such as Regional Fisheries ManagementOrganisations (RFMOs), where there has been a notable

E D I T O R I A L

N E W S

48 TRAFFIC Bulletin Vol. 21 No. 2 (2007)

T R

A F

F I

C T

R A

F F

I C

T R

A F

F I

C T

R A

F F

I C

T R

A F

F I

C T

R A

F F

I C

T R

A F

F f

i c

t r

a f

f i

c TIMOTHY FUNG NGAI LAM has been appointed TRAFFIC’s newSenior Programme Officer in the East Asia regional office. Timothy willlead TRAFFIC’s work in Hong Kong, in particular concentrating onmonitoring of trade flows in Hong Kong, a key regional trade hub.Timothy has worked the past several years with Hong Kong’sAgriculture, Fisheries, and Conservation Department.

ROLAND MELISCH,TRAFFIC’s national representative in Germanysince 1996, while acting as WWF Germany’s Head of SpeciesProgramme and, in recent years, simultaneously acting as WWFGermany’s Deputy Director of Conservation Programme, has taken upthe post, on secondment, of Global Programme Co-ordinator forTRAFFIC International as of 1 March 2007. This is a critical new rolewithin TRAFFIC’s global team, aimed at boosting guidance and supportto TRAFFIC’s programme implementation. The role will also focus onproviding scientific guidance and leadership to TRAFFIC’s programmeand policy work. Roland will remain based in Frankfurt at the WWFGermany office.

CAROLINE RAYMAKERS has left TRAFFIC after almost a decadeleading some of TRAFFIC’s most prominent projects in the Europeanregion and beyond, most notably her work on trade in sturgeon, a sub-ject in which she is among a handful of leading experts in the world.In recent years Caroline combined her technical expertise with thechallenging task of maximizing the impact of TRAFFIC’s European teamand partnerships as regional Director of TRAFFIC Europe.

SAMIR SINHA has been appointed Head of TRAFFIC India, whichwas re-established in August 2006. Mr Sinha, an officer of the IndianForest Service, has a post-graduate diploma in wildlife managementand has worked on projects for the governments of Uttar Pradesh andUttaranchal, and most recently as Director of the NandadeviBiosphere Reserve.

RICHARD THOMAS has been appointed TRAFFIC’s GlobalCommunications Co-ordinator. Richard joins TRAFFIC after eightyears as Communications Manager at BirdLife International. He willbe based in the Cambridge office. Richard takes over from MAIJASIROLA, Communications Co-ordinator, who left in September 2006after almost eight years with TRAFFIC.

ANNA WILLOCK left her position as TRAFFIC’s Senior FisheriesAdvisor, based in Sydney, in November 2006, after almost eight yearsleading TRAFFIC’s work on marine trade issues. She joins theAustralian Fisheries Management Authority in a policy role. GLENNSANT, formerly Director of TRAFFIC Oceania, has taken on the roleof TRAFFIC’s Global Marine Programme Leader, based at the TRAFFICoffice in Australia.

bul le t in board

ANDREA GASKI

It is with deep regret that

TRAFFIC reports the death,

on 7 January 2007, of our

friend and colleague Andrea

Gaski, following a severe

bout of bronchitis. A biologist by training,Andrea worked

for TRAFFIC North America from 1986 to 1999 and had

an enormous influence on TRAFFIC’s development during

those years. She led much of our early work on fisheries

trade issues and was a great champion of methodical

research and its importance as a foundation for effective

policy advocacy throughout our programme. Andrea was

much missed when she left TRAFFIC to work for the US

Fish & Wildlife Service in the Division of Management

Authority, International Affairs. She adapted quickly to a

role within government and earned strong international

recognition for her expertise and wisdom. Her promotion

to Chief of that Division was to be announced the week of

8 January.

It is very clear that TRAFFIC and its role in addressing

wildlife trade issues would not be what they are today

without the immense contribution Andrea made over so

many years.

Steven Broad, Executive Director,

TRAFFIC International

TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa Award

TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa has been acknowl-edged at an awards ceremony as one of SouthAfrica’s top conservation organizations for thework they are doing to monitor wildlife trade. Theceremony took place at Dikololo Game Reserve inSouth Africa’s North West Province. TRAFFICEast/Southern Africa, which was awarded a MazdaWildlife Fund trophy, was accorded this honour inthe company of four other conservation organiza-tions who were recognized for their work onspecies conservation and programmes involvingcommunity-based environmental awareness.

t r a f f i c w e b s i t e s

www.traffic.org (English)www.trafficindo.org (English)www.wwf.ru/traffic (Russian)www.wwf.org.mx/traffic.asp (Spanish)www.wwfchina.org/traffic (Chinese)www.wow.org.tw (Chinese)www.trafficj.org (Japanese)

This issue of the TRAFFIC Bulletin is available on www.traffic.org


N E W S

••

••

••

The EU has placed a permanent ban on the importation ofwild-caught birds. The ban will come into effect on 1 July2007, the date the temporary ban, introduced in October2005 after birds at a quarantine centre in the UK werefound to have avian influenza, expires. The ban was madepermanent on disease prevention grounds following anassessment by the European Food Standards Agency thatimports of wild-caught birds risked the introduction of dis-eases such as avian influenza and Newcastle disease. Thenew regulation contains exemptions that allow, for example,the importation of wild birds for zoos and scientific researchand for approved conservation projects subject to certainquarantine restrictions. Only captive-bred birds fromcertain approved breeding centres in a limited number ofcertified countries will be allowed in.

Legal Eagle (RSPB newsletter), No. 52,April 2007

••

The New UK National Wildlife Crime Unit

Aspecialist Unit was offi-cially launched on 18October 2006 to assist in

the prevention and detection ofwildlife crime across Scotland,England, Wales and NorthernIreland, as well as at a regional andinternational level. Initially basedat the National Criminal Intelli-

gence Service in London, the National Wildlife Crime Unit(NWCU) is now a standalone Unit based in North Berwick,within the Lothian and Borders Police Force area in Scotland.It is a police-led, multi-agency Unit with the direct involve-ment of key government departments across the UK. TheNWCU aims to gather, analyse and co-ordinate intelligence onnational wildlife crime and additionally supports the enforce-ment activities of police and Customs officers in the UK. TheNWCU has investigative support officers who are available toassist officers investigating wildlife crimes across the UK.Having a national Unit ensures that law enforcement personnelcan liaise closely and share intelligence, improving crime-fighting techniques and making the best use of availableresources.

The NWCU maintains a UK-wide remit and the skills andexpertise of the staff are available to any law enforcement officerrequiring assistance to tackle wildlife crime up to the highest lev-els. It focuses on nationally agreed priorities as part of a strategyoverseen by the Association of Chief Police Officers representingthe whole of the UK, the Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs, Animal Health, the Scottish Executive, HMRevenue and Customs and the Home Office.

Chris Kerr, head of the Unit, leads a team of fifteen, withthe core of the intelligence Unit housed in North Berwick. Therest of the team are based throughout the UK and include indi-viduals from the police, HMRC, Animal Health and TRAFFICInternational, as well as dedicated project officers runningOperation ARTEMIS (a national police strategy aimed at tar-geting those involved in Hen Harrier persecution) andOperation BAT (a police initiative aimed at tackling crimeagainst bats in the UK).

The NWCU acts as a conduit between all agencies, domes-tically and internationally, that have a legal obligation or inter-est in dealing with wildlife crime. Since its establishment inOctober 2006, the NWCU has provided assistance with intelli-gence interviews, intelligence reports, search warrants, opera-tion debriefs and covert operations in 16 different police forceareas in the UK, along with assisting with a variety of interna-tionally generated enquiries. Many of these operations areongoing and, as well as those aimed at preventing damage toHen Harriers and bats, are concerned with, for example, theillegal use of poisons and offences against other native speciesof birds and mammals as well as their habitat, illegal trade infreshwater pearl mussels, firearms offences associated withwildlife offences, the illegal import/export and sale of CITESspecies and internet wildlife crime.

Anyone who has information about wildlife crime isencouraged to contact the officers in the NWCU at [email protected] or telephone +44 (0)1620 893607.Incidents of UK wildlife crime should always be reported tothe local police force or Customs in the first instance. A dedi-cated website is at www.nwcu.police.uk.

Stephanie Pendry, UK Enforcement Support Officer, TRAFFIC International

briefly

South Africa’s supermarket chain Pick ‘n Pay has become thefirst major South African retailer to engage with the SouthernAfrican Sustainable Seafood Initiative (SASSI) set up last yearto improve the sustainability of seafood businesses. As a result,the most endangered species will be kept off its shelves and itwill promote those that are best managed, like hake, calamari,butterfish, mussels, dorado, gurnard, snoek, yellow-fin tuna andyellowtail. TRAFFIC is an implementing partner in SASSI andWWF South Africa one of its primary founding partners.

Pretoria News (South Africa): www.pretorianews.co.za, 19 April 2007; TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa

TRAFFIC East Asia has produced a ‘Buyer Beware’ leaflet anda 60-second film related to illegal wildlife trade, with the sup-port of the Council of Agriculture, Taiwan. Some 1000 CDs willbe distributed to schools together with 100 000 copies of theleaflet. Talks are also under way with Taiwanese airline EVAAir, with a view to the film being broadcast on flights arriving inand leaving Taiwan, to alert those travelling overseas to theregulations governing trade in wildlife and identifying thespecies and related products that should not be purchased assouvenirs. Other airlines will be approached in due course asmore funding becomes available.

TRAFFIC East Asia

The Chinese pharmaceuticals company Chi-Med, whichfocuses on traditional Chinese medicine, has signed a dealwith the German pharmaceuticals firm Merck that will seeboth companies collaborate on research into new anti-cancerdrugs derived from natural products. The Chinese companyhas a large research facility in Shanghai as well as a library ofbotanical compounds which Merck will use. At a time whenthere is a dearth of new medicines coming onto the market,placing the global drugs industry under pressure to come upwith winning compounds, Merck joins a growing list of phar-maceutical firms rushing to tap into Chinese traditional med-icine, which they believe has a huge, under-exploited potentialfor new drugs.

The Guardian (UK), 20 November 2006

N E W S


One of the main difficulties associated with theenforcement of wildlife trade regulations is thecorrect identification of the species involved.

Although a great deal of money and effort has been putinto the production of taxonomic guides for Customs andother enforcement personnel, these visual guides are fre-quently inadequate to deal with circumstances where themorphology is lost or altered, such as the trade in animaland plant parts and derivatives.

Secondary identification techniques, where scientificlaboratories are employed to provide the correct identifi-cation, have received relatively little in the way ofresources or support. This is unfortunate as scientifictechniques are particularly applicable to answering spe-cific questions relevant to the illegal wildlife trade andalso, conversely, suitable for monitoring and substantiat-ing the legal trade. Forensic techniques, such as theanalysis of DNA and stable isotopes, are available fordefinitively identifying the presence of a species and itsgeographical origins. This is possible even from cooked,ground or processed products such as traditional medi-cines and other parts and derivatives.

Despite their potential, wildlife forensic techniquesare seldom used and to date have been relatively ineffec-tive in enforcement and prosecution. The reasons forthis are likely due to the lack of general informationavailable as to what tests are possible and for whichspecies such tests are currently available. In addition,the development of scientific tests and the capacity tocarry out such tests has typically been lacking in biodi-versity-rich developing countries. It is often difficult forresearchers to secure funding to develop wildlife foren-sic tests as these tests are often applied in nature andtherefore fall outside the funding requirements of aca-demic funding sources. As research can be expensive

and time consuming, it may also not have had the profilegenerally necessary for charitable or NGO funding.

To redress this situation, a new non-profit organiza-tion, TRACE–the wildlife forensics network, has beenestablished. TRACE (Technologies and Resources forApplied Conservation and Enforcement) is dedicated tothe promotion of forensic science in wildlife conserva-tion and law enforcement. Its principle aim is to reduceillegal trafficking of fauna and flora through the co-ordi-nated application of scientific techniques in support ofwildlife crime investigation. To carry out this aim,TRACE has three main goals. The first is to form aworldwide network of people involved in wildlife foren-sics and link their expertise to Customs and enforcementagencies requiring their services. To enable this, the UKGovernment’s Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs (Defra) has funded the development of awebsite and portal where stakeholders can register forup-to-date information and directly request help for spe-cific problems. The second goal is to develop wildlifeforensic capacity in countries where it is currentlyabsent. As well as offering assistance via the TRACEportal, support is also offered in the form of bespokeforensic training courses where expertise on procedures, >

TRA

CE

wildlife forensicsA NEW APPROACH

DEVELOPING WILDLIFE FORENSIC TESTS.

TRACE training course

During March 2007 the Veterinary Genetics Laboratory of the Faculty of Veterinary Science,University of Pretoria, South Africa, hosted the first TRACE Wildlife DNA Forensics course.The intensive seven-day course was presented by Dr Jon Wetton of the UK’s ForensicScience Service and Drs Rob Ogden and Ross McEwing of TRACE-the wildlife forensics net-

work. It covered a range of subjects from biological sample collection through DNA extraction, species, geographical and indi-vidual identification, as well as the presentation of forensic evidence in court. The course was a mixture of formal presenta-tions, laboratory practical demonstrations and fieldwork. Fifteen delegates were present from a variety of universities, veteri-nary agencies and biological conservation agencies of South Africa.

The training course was also used as an opportunity to gather key stakeholders together from the main South African gov-ernment, wildlife, police, veterinary and forensic agencies to meet and discuss matters relevant to wildlife forensics in SouthAfrica. The meeting ended with the formation of the Environmental Forensics Working Group of South Africa. This group,chaired by Jonathan Evans (TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa: South Africa) has the support of South Africa’s Department ofEnvironmental Affairs and Tourism Director of Enforcement, and will operate in full co-operation with existing bodies such asDEAT’s recently formed National Environmental Crime Forum.

For information on this group or its objectives, please contact Jonathan Evans: [email protected]


N E W S

> techniques and protocols can be passed directly to gov-ernment or university laboratory staff, thus increasingthe ability to test in-country. For example, a week-longcourse on the application of wildlife DNA forensics wasrecently presented by TRACE in South Africa. The last,and of course most difficult, objective for TRACE is tolobby support from governments, agencies and charitiesto fund novel techniques and approaches to investigatewildlife crime and to direct this funding and support tothe countries where the forensic capacity is required.Only by supporting the development of wildlife forensiccapacity within biodiversity-rich developing countriescan the tool of wildlife forensics truly be realised.

TRAFFIC has entered into a collaborative agreementwith TRACE to promote the use of forensic science inbiodiversity conservation and the investigation ofwildlife crime.

Ross McEwing, TRACE-the wildlife forensics networkE-mail: [email protected] wildlife forensics network: www.tracenetwork.org

Detecting ivory poaching . . .

Sensors that will pick up the presence of poachers areto be installed in a national park in the DemocraticRepublic of Congo as part of a pilot study being

funded by the Wildlife Conservation Society. The devicesare small seismic detectors called TrailGuards which arebased on military technology designed to detect enemytroop movements. They have been adapted by WildlandSecurity, a company based in New York City that special-izes in sensors to detect wildlife crime.

The devices are buried along forest pathways to pickup the footfalls of people as they pass. To distinguishhunters from other passers-by, the devices also containmagnetometers that can detect iron in guns severalmetres away. Once triggered, the TrailGuards transmit aradio signal to an antenna at the top of the forest canopy,which relays it to a hub to be sent to forest rangers overa satellite phone link. Ten TrailGuards will be laid outalong the park boundary on major access trails used bypoachers. The devices are also being used in the OsaPeninsula on the Pacific coast of Costa Rica wherepoaching is a threat to the region’s jaguars and peccaries,as well as in the Altai Republic in southern Russia wherepoachers arrive by helicopter each winter to hunt SnowLeopards illegally.

Another device being used in the DRC park along-side TrailGuards to alert rangers to poaching activitieswill provide an additional line of defence. Acoustic sen-sors developed by Cornell University, New York, tomonitor elephants communicating with each other usespecialized low-frequency microphones hidden in treesto record the elephants’ signals onto computer.Engineers are developing the software to pick out thesound of gunfire from the data stream which can auto-matically notify rangers as soon as shots are heard.

New Scientist, 9 December 2006

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/ R

OG

ER

LE

GU

EN

. . . and origin of poached ivory

Policing the illegal ivory trade has been hamperedby the inability to determine reliably the geograph-ic origin of contraband ivory. Ivory can be smug-

gled across international boundaries and along numeroustrade routes, making poaching hotspots and potentialtrade routes difficult to identify. Knowing the origin ofivory in seizures enhances understanding of where ele-phants are being killed illegally and routes by which theivory is smuggled. An innovative DNA extractionmethod was recently employed on sample elephant tusksfrom a large seizure of ivory in an effort to determine thegeographic origin of the consignment.

The seizure was made in June 2002, after a containerarriving in Singapore via South Africa and Malawi, wasfound to contain 532 tusks of diverse size and weights, aswell as 42 120 “hankos” (small ivory cylinders used tomake personal name seals) (see also TRAFFIC Bulletin19(2):78). Investigations revealed that part of the ivoryhad been carried from Zambia into Malawi in small lotsbefore shipping. DNA extracted from a selection of thetusks and compared against a reference database of DNAsamples of known geographic origin showed that theivory samples were entirely from savanna elephants, andmost probably originating from a narrow band extendingfrom Angola across to Mozambique and centred onZambia.

While the paper provides a useful and credibleassessment of the origins of the tusks in the Singaporeivory seizure, it should be noted that some of the infor-mation contained therein, for example data relating to theseizures provided as background to the research findings,and the number of elephants estimated to have beenpoached to supply the ivory seized in Singapore, hasbeen questioned.

The full report is published in the Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica and can be downloaded from: www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/10/4228?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=elephant+tusk&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT.

POACHERS CARRYING ELEPHANT TUSKS,

SOUTH LUANGWA NATIONAL PARK, ZAMBIA.

N E W S

S P O T L I G H T O N E L E P H A N TIn 2006, at the request of the Belgian Government,TRAFFIC conducted market surveys in Belgium, acountry which has historically played an important

role in the international ivory trade. The project alsoinvolved analysis of Belgian seizures data for elephantivory and other specimens of CITES-listed species withthe aim of assisting Belgian enforcement authorities intargeting their controls effectively.

Ivory for sale in Belgian cities

In order to evaluate the quantity of ivory objects cur-rently for sale in Belgium, 56 shops and markets in threemain cities of the country (Brussels, Antwerp andGhent) were visited over a five-day period. In total,around 350 objects of elephant ivory were recorded, ofwhich almost 80% were found in Brussels. In additionto elephant ivory, a very limited number of productsmade of ivory from hippopotamus and mammoth, nar-whal tusks and some objects made of horn or bone werenoted. A great diversity of elephant ivory objects werefound on sale, but jewellery and statuettes representedmore than half of the objects recorded during the sur-veys. Nearly all those products were declared by shop-keepers as being antiques1.

By way of comparison, according to the results ofinvestigations undertaken in 2004 by Martin and Stilesin other European Union (EU) countries2, the quantity ofivory objects for sale in Belgium reached a level close tothat in Italy (461) but substantially lower than inGermany (16 444), the UK (8325), France (1303) orSpain (621). It is worth noting, however, that Martin andStiles spent more time and visited more locations andtherefore the results cannot be directly compared.

Nearly 50 000 CITES-listed specimens seized inBelgium

TRAFFIC also analysed data of seizures of CITES-listed specimens that had taken place in Belgium, withthe aim of informing the Belgian authorities about thecharacteristics of the illegal trade in CITES-listedspecies. Data were derived from the EU-TWIX(European Union–Trade in Wildlife InformationeXchange) database, in which information on seizuresmade in the EU is being collected.

TRAFFIC conducted both an historical analysis cov-ering over 20 years-worth of seizures data, as well as amore detailed strategic analysis of seizures made inBelgium from 2000 to 2005. The strategic analysis alsolooked at information such as which CITES-listedspecies were seized most frequently, the commonly usedcommercial trade routes, the method of transport, thetype of offence, the methods of concealment and ofdetection of specimens, and the nationality of the per-sons involved in the illegal activities.

According to EU-TWIX data, approximately 1500seizures, involving nearly 50 000 specimens of CITES-listed species, were made in Belgium from 1984 to 2006.Over this period, 47% of these seizures took place at the

time of importation, 51% were made in transit or duringinternal trade within the country, and only 2% were madeduring export or re-export.

From 2000 to 2005, the country of origin of over aquarter of the seizures was the Democratic Republic ofCongo (DRC). Specimens seized in Belgium over thatperiod were most commonly concealed in personal lug-gage or in mail and, to a lesser extent, in freight.Concealment in freight or mail seemed to indicate theexistence of illegal activities with a probable commercialgoal. On the other hand, specimens seized in personalluggage were likely to belong to tourists returning fromholiday and probably unaware of the regulations onwildlife trade.

Both the historical data and the strategic analysis(2000–2005) revealed that ivory was the CITES productseized by far the most frequently in Belgium, both withrespect to the number of seizures (71 out of 405 for2000–2005) or the number of specimens seized (2691out of 6475). The other species seized in significantquantities between 2000 and 2005 involved mostly rep-tiles. Of these, the Nile Crocodile Crocodylus niloticusand African Savanna Monitor Varanus exanthematicuswere the most frequently seized.

Analysis of reported seizures involving elephant ivoryproducts

This project also provided the opportunity to com-pare, for the first time, ivory seizures data recorded inEU-TWIX and in ETIS, the Elephant Trade Information

A. A

FFR

E /

TR

AFF

IC

ELEPHANT IVORY PRODUCTS FOR SALE INA SHOP IN BRUSSELS, AUGUST 2006.



N E W S

1European Community legislation on wildlife trade defines an antique as aworked specimen that was acquired before 1 June 1947; trade and sale ofthese objects is less strictly regulated.2Martin, E. and Stiles, D. (2005). The Ivory Markets of Europe.Save the Elephants, London, UK.

I V O R Y S A L E S I N B E L G I U MSystem which CITES Parties approved to track illegal tradein ivory. Although the ETIS and EU-TWIX databases do notcontain exactly the same data on elephant products, there isclose parity between the two datasets. Both show that thevolume of ivory seized and the number of seizures of ivoryin Belgium has steadily declined since 1990, when all ele-phant populations were listed in Appendix I of CITES.

Illegal trade in elephant ivory between Belgium and itsformer African colonies and protectorates is still significant.Between 1989 and 2005, about half of all ivory seizures inBelgium involved the DRC, and ivory trade from the DRCto, and through, Belgium persisted throughout the period.

Based on data of seizures involving Belgium as a desti-nation market, it appears that most of the seizures involvedsmall worked ivory products that most likely representtourist curios and other small ‘personal effects’. In sharpcontrast, a significant number of the seizures that involvedivory transiting through Belgium comprised commercial vol-umes of raw or semi-worked ivory moving through Belgiumto ivory manufacturers in other locations, mainly in Asia.Such trade is most likely transiting Belgium because ofadvantageous air routes linking African ivory-producingcountries with Asian ivory manufacturing and consumingmarkets.

Next steps

Based on the findings of the study, the authors make anumber of recommendations to improve implementation andenforcement of wildlife trade controls in Belgium. Theseinclude the need for enforcement officers to increase controlsof mail and freight, and to pay particular attention to trav-ellers, personal luggage and shipments which are entering ortransiting through Belgium from the DRC. Specifically, withregard to the trade in ivory, the report recommends: that thefeasibility of forensic analysis of ivory be explored in orderto verify the age of ivory objects for sale, in view of the dif-ficulty of verifying claims that an object is antique and indetermining its age; organizing a training course on the iden-tification of ivory in order to reinforce the capacity ofenforcement authorities in Belgium; and, monitoring twoshops, for which the surveyors had reasons to doubt thelegality of the ivory for sale.

The full TRAFFIC report, available in French, with anEnglish Executive Summary, can be downloaded fromwww.traffic.org: Le commerce illegal et la vente d’espècesCITES en Belgique : ivoire d’éléphant et autres spécimens(Illegal trade and the sale of CITES-listed specimens inBelgium : elephant ivory and other specimens).

Amélie Knapp and Alexandre Affre, TRAFFIC Europe

PH

OTO

CR

ED

ITS

(L. T

O R

.): W

WF-

CA

NO

N /

MA

RTI

N H

AR

VE

Y; K

IM L

OC

HE

N /

TRA

FFIC

; WW

F C

AN

ON

/ E

DW

AR

D P

AR

KE

R; B

IRD

LIFE

INTE

RN

ATIO

NA

L

In 2003, the European Commission contracted

TRAFFIC Europe to launch the first website

dedicated to wildlife trade in the European

Union (EU). The site—www.eu-wildlifetrade.org—

provides up-to-date and tailor-made information

for the commercial wildlife trade sector and gener-

al public in the EU, and in non-EU countries, on var-

ious aspects relating to wildlife trade in the Union.

To make it accessible to as many people as possi-

ble, the website was developed with information

available in the 10 official languages of the 15 EU

Member States.

The website contains information about impor-

tant aspects of CITES and the European

Community (EC) Wildlife Trade Regulations which

implement CITES in the EU. In addition, it provides

details of the national CITES-related legislation of

the EU Member States, and clearly outlines the

legal obligations with regard to trade in species of

wild fauna and flora for aspects such as permit

requirements, marking of specimens, captive-breed-

ing and artificial propagation, trade in personal

effects and holiday souvenirs. The website also

contains information about provisions in place in

the EU which may be stricter than CITES, such as

existing import restrictions.

Since the website was launched, the EU has

almost doubled in size. In May 2004, 10 new coun-

tries joined the EU and in January 2007, Bulgaria

and Romania followed suit, bringing the total num-

ber of Member States to 27. TRAFFIC Europe

updated the website last year and expanded it to

include the official languages of the 10 Member

States which joined the EU in 2004. The website

also contains new features including detailed infor-

mation on the new caviar-labelling legislation in the

EU and a list of Frequently Asked Questions.

To become an informed and responsible

wildlife trader, or to find answers to your questions

about wildlife trade, visit www.eu-wildlifetrade.org.

Amélie Knapp, TRAFFIC Europe

What’s New in the EU?

N E W S


MEXICO REGULATES SHARK FISHING

Mexico has one of the largest shark fisheries in the worldand the sustainability of this fishery has been seriouslyquestioned owing to declines in stock abundance.Following more than 10 years of efforts to establish quo-tas and a management plan for sharks and rays, new leg-islation to regulate the fishery, including a ban on sharkfinning, was introduced earlier this year.

NORM 029 was officially published on 14 February2007, and includes provisions for the sustainable use ofsharks and rays, in addition to that of various marinemammals and marine turtles. Among the many elementscontained in the regulation, the following can be high-lighted:

• a ban on shark finning;

• protection of certain sharks and rays whose statusis of conservation concern (such as the GreatWhite Shark Carcharodon carcharias, WhaleShark Rhincodon typus, Basking SharkCetorhinus maximus, and Giant Manta Mantabirostris);

• control of fishing effort and specifications forfishing gears, including a fishing ban in the fol-lowing areas:- around coral reefs; - during closed seasons; - in waters facing marine turtle nesting beaches;- around sea lion colonies; - in zones declared as sanctuaries so as to

protect breeding sharks and rays;

• a ban on the use of gill nets in ships, driftnets andtrawls;

• procedures have been set up to establish regional,temporary or seasonal closed periods;

• establish an information system based on fishinglog books, landings, on board observers and iden-tification guides for rays and sharks;

• set up a National Action Plan for shark and rayconservation within the framework of the UNFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO)’sInternational Plan of Action; and,

• establish a restricted coastal zone for shark fish-eries (10, 15, 20 or 50 nautical miles), dependingon the type of ship.

La Jornada Ecológica: www.jornada.unam.mx/2007/03/26/eco-d.html, from an article written by Raul VillasenorTalavera, Technical Secretary of the Consultative Committee ofResponsible Fisheries Standardization; TRAFFIC NorthAmerica: www.traffic.org/news/TNAM_Spring_2006_Newsletter.pdf.

There has been a marked increase in recent years in thenumber of retail outlets in South Africa stocking CapePorcupine Hystrix africaeaustralis quills and quill prod-ucts, according to a study by the International Fund forAnimal Welfare (IFAW). The quills are used to makejewellery, lampshades, picture frames, table mats andcoasters, for example, and can range in price frombetween R2.00 (USD0.28) per quill in a retail outlet, toaround R6.00 (USD0.85) for a bundle of 12 quillsthrough dealers, who usually sell them in large quanti-ties, ranging from 15 000 to 20 000 quills.

In South Africa, it is generally thought that the porcu-pine is relatively common and the core population is sta-ble. There is no enforced permitting structure in place toregulate the hunting of, or trade in, porcupines.However, the IFAW report states that no studies appearto have been conducted to determine the impact ofunregulated hunting on porcupine populations over thelast few years. Nevertheless, many farmers regard themas problem animals or vermin because they eat crops, digup irrigation piping and bite through fencing, helpingpredators to prey on livestock. As a consequence theyare regularly trapped and shot, or killed with a singleblow to the head. Once the porcupine has been killed,the farm labourers eat the meat and the quills are eitherburned or discarded or cleaned and sorted into bundles tobe collected by quill dealers. Owing to the growing aes-thetic appreciation of quills, the dealers are reported tobe encouraging farm labourers to hunt porcupines specif-ically for the trade by offering them money or commodi-ties and thereby providing an incentive to hunt them.

IFAW strongly urges the relevant conservationauthorities to initiate a study of porcupines within a des-ignated study area to determine the impact and effectslocalized hunting practices are having on these animals,as well as provide a regional estimate for the species.

The results of the IFAW study were published inAfrica Geographic (April 2007). Details available from:www.africa-geographic.com/magazines/africa-geo-graphic/index.asp?date=2007/04/01. The ExecutiveSummary of the report can be downloaded from:www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dimages/custom/think%20Twice/porcupineQuills.pdf.

www.ifaw.org/i faw/dimages/custom/think%20Twice/porcupineQuills.pdf; The Mail & Guardian (South Africa), 23October 2006

CALL FOR SOUTH AFRICAN PORCUPINESTUDY


Anumber of demersal shark species are processedin South Africa for export to Australia, wherethere is high consumer demand for shark fillets

that cannot be met by Australia’s shark fishing industry.Most of these sharks are caught as by-catch but some aretargeted in a number of South African fisheries. Thispaper examines the harvest of demersal sharks in SouthAfrica, and the processing of demersal shark meat des-tined for export to Australia. Trade statistics for demer-sal shark products traded between the two countries dur-ing the period 1998 to 2005 were reviewed. The studyshows that there is limited management and monitoringof the catch and trade in these species and related prod-ucts; these inadequate regulatory controls, coupled withthe increased targeting of demersal sharks in the SouthAfrican traditional linefishery, could make certainspecies vulnerable to over-harvesting. Further, there arediscrepancies in the import and export datasets for thetwo countries, and both the catch figures and trade datalack the necessary detail for effective monitoring andregulation of the catch and trade. Capacity building ofcompliance officers to improve identification of demer-sal shark products in trade is required and trade datadiscrepancies should be resolved. A review of trade cat-egories used by Australia and South Africa for sharkproducts in trade would assist in monitoring the trade.

INTRODUCTION

Historically, the shark fishery in South Africa has beeninadequately managed. This lack of control also affectssharks caught as by-catch in a number of other SouthAfrican fisheries. While there is a paucity of accuratebiological and fisheries knowledge, recent preliminarystock assessments of two demersal shark species (i.e.sharks living or occurring in deep water or on the bottomof the sea) indicate that these species are overexploited.

S O U T H A F R I C A’ S D E M E R S A L S H A R K M E AT H A R V E S T

Demersal sharks are primarily caught as by-catch inSouth African waters, with the bottom-trawl hake-direct-ed fisheries posing potentially the greatest threat tosharks and other chondrichthyans.1 Although catch dataare available, there is doubt as to the validity of some ofthese figures, and there is inadequate monitoring ofcatches and landings. Furthermore, the pre-processingpreparation of shark carcasses (headed and gutted)occurring on vessels at sea severely inhibits accuratespecies identification at the point of landing. Customsdata in both South Africa and Australia, the majorimporting country, are inconsistent with knownprocessed volumes. These aspects, coupled with anec-dotal evidence of increased demand in shark fillets fromAustralia, make certain demersal shark species harvestedin South Africa susceptible to overexploitation.

The first review of the trade in sharks and shark prod-ucts in South Africa was conducted in 1996 (Smale,1996). This was followed by an economic and sectoralstudy of the South African shark fishing industry (Saueret al., 2003). Unfortunately neither study paid particularattention to the trade in demersal shark products, and, inparticular, the trade in demersal shark fillets to Australia.There is very little consumption of shark meat in SouthAfrica, and Australia is the principal market for productsderived from demersal shark landings in South Africa.Spiny Dogfish Squalus acanthias and Shortnose SpurdogSqualus megalops—two demersal shark species forwhich there is a market in Europe—are caught in SouthAfrican trawl and Shallow-water Cape Hake Merlucciuscapensis longline fisheries, but are almost all discarded.

Although other products are derived from demersalsharks, the trade in the meat to Australia is perceived asthe principal driver of harvest and trade within certainSouth African fisheries. This paper focuses on the tradein demersal shark meat, and specifically on trade inspecies destined for the Australian market.

1Chondrichthyans or cartilaginous fishes are divided into two sub-classes: Elasmobranchii (elasmobranches: sharks, rays and skates)and Holocephali (chimaera, sometimes called ghost sharks).


LIN

E D

RAW

ING

S C

OU

RTE

SY

OF

FAO



Despite the continued interest in shark fishing, thisfishing sector had a low profile, competing in SouthAfrica with an abundance of other marine resources, par-ticularly the large commercial trawl operations thatfocused on the whitefish market for both local and exportmarkets. Over the past decade, however, shark exportsfrom South Africa have started to increase. A new direct-ed shark fishery has since expanded into the fin trade andrecently into the shark fillet industry for Australia (DaSilva, in prep.).

The demersal shark trade in southern Africa is prima-rily concentrated on five species. In order of commercialimportance they are: Smooth-hound Mustelus mustelus,Tope Shark Galeorhinus galeus, Copper SharkCarcharhinus brachyurus, Dusky Shark Carcharhinusobscurus and Whitespotted Smooth-hound Musteluspalumbes. Copper Shark, Smooth-hound, Dusky Sharkand Tope Shark are cosmopolitan species. WhitespottedSmooth-hound is endemic between Namibia andKwaZulu-Natal (Compagno et al., 1984). The SpottedGully Shark Triakis megalopterus, Blacktip SharkCarcharhinus limbatus, Smooth Hammerhead SharkSphyrna zygaena and Broadnose Sevengill SharkNotorynchus cepedianus are also used in the demersalshark trade to a limited degree. Table 1 lists the commonand scientific names of all shark species mentioned inthis report.

The 1991 collapse in the Australian Tope Sharkindustry (McGregor, 1991) led to increased importationfrom New Zealand to sustain high Australian consumerdemand for shark fillets. According to Brand (pers.comm., 2005), the New Zealand shark fisheries wereunable to sustain the Australian demand. As a result,demand for fillets of demersal sharks from South Africahas increased. This has led to larger catches of TopeShark, both smooth-hound species, Copper Shark,Dusky Shark and to some degree Spotted Gully Sharks.As there is limited consumption of shark meat in SouthAfrica, the vast majority of processed demersal sharkmeat is exported to Australia principally for consumptionin the fish-and-chips trade.

METHODS

In the period between April and July 2006, interviewswere conducted with fishermen, traders and processorsin areas of the Western Cape, Eastern Cape andKwaZulu-Natal provinces of South Africa. The purposeof the interviews was to obtain information on the tradein teleosts (fish with bony skeletons) and demersalsharks. Three South African demersal shark processingfactories were visited between October 2005 andSeptember 2006: the factory in Port Elizabeth was visit-ed bi-monthly and the factories in Cape Town were vis-ited quarterly over this period. All animals processedduring a particular sampling day were identified, sexed,measured, and maturity assessed. Catch data for variousSouth African fisheries were sourced from the SouthAfrican Department of Environmental Affairs andTourism: Branch Marine and Coastal Management

BACKGROUND

Since the arrival of the early European settlers inSouth Africa in the mid-seventeenth century, there hasbeen interest in shark fishing. The first documentedaccount of gill net shark fishing is from the 1930s off theKwa-Zulu Natal coastline (Sauer et al., 2003). Annuallandings in 1931 were 136 t rising to over 1000 t by 1940as the demand for shark liver oil as a source of vitaminA led to an increase in shark catches during World WarII. In 1941, a directed shark fishery was initiated prima-rily targeting the Tope Shark Galeorhinus galeus.

Figure 1. Principal fishery operations, landing and processingsites in South Africa for demersal sharks.

DO

UG

PE

RR

INE

/ S

EA

PIC

S.C

OM

Smooth-hound Mustelus mustelus—the most commercially important demersal shark speciesin South Africa.

South Africa’s Demersal Shark Meat Harvest


REGULATION AND MANAGEMENT

All fisheries in South Africa, as well as the process-ing, sale in and trade of almost all marine resources, areregulated under the Marine Living Resources Act 18 of1998 (MLRA). Under the terms of the regulations,sharks may not be landed, transported, transshipped ordisposed of with their fins removed2, without the author-ity of a permit. There are no commercial catch restric-tions in place with regards to any demersal shark speciescaught in South African waters.

The Act also states that no person may operate a fishprocessing establishment unless authorized.3 Fish pro-cessing establishments are defined in the MLRA as fol-lows: “ ‘fish processing establishment’: means any vehi-cle, vessel, premises or place where any substance orarticle is produced from fish by any method includingthe work of cutting up, dismembering, separating partsof, cleaning, sorting, lining [i.e. the lining of packagingand/or the interleaving of plastic sheets between fishproducts] and preserving of fish, or where fish arecanned, packed, dried, gutted, salted, iced, chilled,frozen or otherwise processed for sale in or outside theterritory of the Republic’ ”.3 A holder of a commercialfishing permit may not deliver any fish or any part there-of to any person for processing purposes without author-ization.4 The MLRA also prohibits a commercial rightsholder from marketing any fish or any part thereof,unless it has been packed in accordance with the pre-scribed specifications of the South African Bureau ofStandards.5

Landings are monitored in the Eastern, Western andNorthern Cape provinces by MCM (Marine and CoastalManagement) Fisheries Control Officers as well as mon-itors under contract to MCM. The latter have noenforcement powers. In KwaZulu-Natal Province,implementation of the MLRA is carried out by theprovincial conservation authority, Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife. The majority of officials in all provinces

(MCM) and from annual volumes of the Fishing IndustryHandbook for South Africa, Namibia and Mozambique,and analysed. Catch records reflect only fish landed anddo not include fish discarded at sea. International tradedata between South Africa and Australia were obtainedfrom annual volumes of the Fishing Industry Handbookfor South Africa, Namibia and Mozambique, and fromthe Australian Bureau of Statistics, respectively, andanalysed. Some of the information presented in thispaper by Da Silva is developed in more detail in Da Silva(in prep.).

Little research has been conducted on investigatingthe status of demersal sharks exploited in southernAfrica. Preliminary results suggest that the populationsof Smooth-hounds and Tope Sharks are overexploitedand threatened (Da Silva, in prep.; McCord, in prep.). Todate, no stock assessment has been completed for CopperShark, Dusky Shark or Whitespotted Smooth-hound. Arapid assessment indicator table (RAIT) was modified byMcCord (in prep.) from Walker (2004). This method isa simple scoring system that rates biological, fisheriesand stock assessment data, by assigning an arbitraryscoring system regarding data quality and certainty ofbiological and fisheries parameters, based on a scale ofzero to three. A total score of 66 is possible. Thismethod enables easy prioritization of species with regardto establishing the research and management required.

The RAIT method was initially used for an assess-ment of Tope Sharks (McCord, in prep.) and a score of20 was obtained. The method was then used for Smooth-hounds, Whitespotted Smooth-hounds, Copper Sharksand Dusky Sharks, where respective scores of 16, 7, 27and 27 were obtained. Scores of 0 to 30 indicate animmediate necessity for scientific and managementintervention within the fishery (McCord, in prep.).

Common Common name Scientific nameEnglish name used in South Africa

Cape Elephantfish St Joseph Callorhinchus capensis Copper Shark Bronze Whaler Carcharhinus brachyurusDusky Shark Dusky Shark Carcharhinus obscurusBlacktip Shark Blacktip Shark Carcharhinus limbatusTope Shark Soupfin Shark Galeorhinus galeusShortfin Mako Shark Shortfinned Mako Shark Isurus oxyrinchusSmooth-hound Smooth-hound Mustelus mustelusWhitespotted Smooth-hound Smooth-hound Mustelus palumbesBroadnose Sevengill Shark Spotted Sevengill Shark Notorhynchus cepedianus Blue Shark Blue Shark Prionace glaucaLesser Sandshark Sandshark Rhinobatos annulatusSmooth Hammerhead Shark Smooth Hammerhead Shark Sphyrna zygaenaSpiny Dogfish Spiny Dogfish Squalus acanthiasShortnose Spurdog Shortnose Spiny Dogfish Squalus megalopsSpotted Gully Shark Spotted Gully Shark Triakis megalopterus

Table 1. A list of all shark species referred to in this study, including their common names in English (used in this report) and South Africa.

2Reg. 30(3)(b); 3Section 1; 4Regulation 74(d); 5Regulation 74(g)



Activity Area Nature

Offshore trawl West Coast, Agulhas Bank to shelf edge (600 m depth) By-catch only

Prawn trawl Natal East Coast to 600 m By-catch onlyInshore trawl South and East Coast to 200 m By-catch onlyHake longline West and South Coast to 500 m By-catch onlyShark longline West and South Coast TargetDomestic tuna longline Offshore to EEZ By-catchForeign tuna longline Offshore to beyond EEZ Target/by-catchRecreational line Inshore to 200 m By-catchCommercial handline Inshore to 200 m By-catch/targetGill net West Coast TargetBeach seine West and South Coast Target/by-catch

Table 2. Activities impacting sharks in South African waters. Source: Sauer et al., 2003

Year Tope Shark Smooth-hounds Copper Shark Shortnose Spurdog TotalGaleorhinus galeus Mustelus mustelus Carcharhinus Squalus megalops

Mustelus palumbes brachyurus

2001 17 865 4 723 1 771 0 24 3592002 8 230 1 503 1 870 42 11 6452003 5 497 0 1 700 0 7 1972004 9 922 5 210 3 007 0 18 1392005 2 306 0 3 103 0 5 409Total 43 820 11 436 11 451 42 66 749

Table 3. Catches (kg) of demersal sharks in the South African shark longline fishery, 2000 to 2005. These figures reflect the weight of the sharksafter being headed and gutted.

Source: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Branch Marine and Coastal Management

lack the species identification skills to identify correctlydemersal sharks to the species level. Species identifica-tion is especially difficult for demersal sharks as they arenormally landed having been headed and gutted at sea.Da Silva (2006) has developed a species identificationtool for demersal sharks in trade that have been headedand finned.

RESULTS

Harvest

Demersal sharks in South Africa are either targeteddirectly or caught as by-catch. Most are caught in thetraditional linefishery, the inshore trawl fisheries, and thedemersal shark longline fishery. While demersal sharksare at times targeted in the traditional linefishery, theyare taken only as by-catch in the inshore trawl fishery.The main landing sites for demersal sharks are PortElizabeth, Mosselbaai, Vleesbaai, Stilbaai, Struisbaaiand Gansbaai, the principal species landed being theSmooth-hound and Tope Shark.

All known forms of exploitation of all shark speciesin South African waters are presented in Table 2.

A small shark longline fishery operates betweenCape Agulhas in the Western Cape Province to PortElizabeth in the Eastern Cape Province, with landing andprocessing sites based in Port Elizabeth and Mosselbaai;the primary species targeted are the Smooth-hound andTope Shark. Longline permits for the directed catching

of sharks were first issued in 1991 (Crawford et al.,1993). Prior to permitting, sharks were mainly caught asby-catch in other fisheries.

Vessels use two fishing methods to catch sharks. Thefirst employs a drift longline and targets oceanic speciessuch as Blue Shark Prionace glauca and Shortfin MakoShark Isurus oxyrinchus. The second uses a bottom-setlongline and targets Tope Sharks. Smooth-hounds arealso caught. Crawford et al., (1993) suggests that theincentive to gain shark longline fishery permits was toexploit loopholes in the regulations to catch Shallow-water Cape Hake Merluccius capensis by longline,which had been banned in 1990. After large quantitiesexceeding the 1991 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) forhake (using other catch methods, e.g., trawling) had beencaught by this method, boats in possession of shark long-line permits were given hake and Kingklip Genypteruscapensis catch limits. A number of the vessels in posses-sion of shark longline permits have tuna permits andwill, whenever possible, target fish associated with thatfishery as they have a higher commercial value. Theshark longline fishery was restructured in 2006 with thedecision being made to regulate the catch of pelagicshark species (those living or occurring in the upperwaters of open sea) within the existing large pelagic tunaand swordfish fisheries. Demersal shark catches are reg-ulated separately and there are currently six rights-hold-ers licensed to operate within this fishery. This is aneffort-controlled fishery (i.e. regulation of fishing effortis used as a mechanism to limit catches. This is done

Dusky Shark Carcharhinus obscurus

Copper Shark Carcharhinus brachyurus

Tope Shark Galeorhinus galeus

Smooth-hound Mustelus mustelus

Tope Shark Galeorhinus galeusFound in temperate waters of the southern hemisphere, eastern North Atlanticand eastern North Pacific benthic species occurring from shore to 500 m.Feeds on a variety of fish, cephalopods and crustaceans. Females mature at1.3 m (8–10 years); males at approximately 1.2 m. Ovoviparous. Between 6and 52 pups per litter. Gestation period approximately 12 months. Femalesgive birth during summer, producing only one litter every three years.

Copper Shark Carcharhinus brachyurusFound in warm temperate waters of all oceans. Common from Namibia toKwaZulu-Natal Province of South Africa. Coastal species usually near bottomfrom shore to 100 m. Feeds on benthic and pelagic fish as well as cephalopods.Females mature at 2.4 m; males and 2.0 m. Viviparous. Gestation periodapproximately 12 months. Between 13 and 20 pups per litter.

Dusky Shark Carcharhinus obscurusFound along continental coasts in warm temperate and tropical waters of alloceans; in Southern Africa: Western Cape Province of South Africa toMozambique and Madagascar. Predator/scavenger feeding on a variety of fish(including sharks and rays), crustaceans, molluscs and dead marine mammals.Females mature at 2.6–3.0 m; males at approximately 2.8 m. Viviparous.Gestation period between 8 and 16 months. Between 6 and 14 pups per litter.

Broadnose Sevengill Shark Notorynchus cepedianusFound in temperate waters of all oceans. In southern Africa, from Namibia toEast London, South Africa. Not found in the Mediterranean or North Atlantic.Benthic species found from shore to 136 m. Generally cruises slowly near bot-tom, but occasionally seen near the surface of the water. Feeds on elasmo-branchs, bony fish, crustaceans, cephalopods, marine mammals and carrion.Females mature at approximately 2 m (11 years); males at 1.5–1.8 m (4–5years). Ovoviparous. Between 60 and 82 pups per litter.

Blacktip Shark Carcharhinus limbatusFound in tropical and subtropical waters of all oceans. Found in both inshoreand offshore waters, but tends to stay close to the coasts at depths of 30 m orless. Often seen near river mouths, bays, and mangroves, although it does notpenetrate far into fresh water. Feeds on elasmobranchs, bony fish, crustaceansand cephalopods. Females mature at approximately 1.2–1.9 m (6–7 years);malesat 1.35–1.80 m (4–5 years). Viviparous. Between 1 and 10 pups per litter.

Ovoviparous: Where embryos develop in membranous egg cases and are retained in the oviducts; the pups (between 10 and 300 per litter) subsist on their own yolk until birth.Viviparous: Where embryos develop in paired oviducts and receive additional nutrients from the mother; pups are born at a relatively large size and litters are small (between two and 20 pups per litter). Sources: Smith and Heemstra (1991); Heemstra and Heemstra (2004); Anon., (2007). Line drawings courtesy of FAO.

Broadnose Sevengill Shark Notorynchus cepedianus

Blacktip Shark Carcharhinus limbatus

Smooth-hound Mustelus mustelusFound in Mediterranean and West Africa to Namibia, and as far east as Durban,South Africa. Benthic species occurring from shore to 350 m, usually over sandybottom. Feeds mainly on crabs, lobsters, prawns, mantis shrimp, cephalopodsand bony fish. Females mature at 1.3–1.4 m (12–15 years); males at 95 cm to1.3 m (6–9 years). Viviparous. Between 4 and 23 pups per litter.

Demersal Shark Species Harvested in South Africa




through limiting the number of vessels that can fish inthe sector) and there are no Total Allowable Catch lim-its, bag limits or seasonal restrictions applicable to thefishery.

Total shark catches in the shark longline fishery forthe period 2000 to 2005 amounted to 2.7 million tonnes,with the total figure for the demersal shark species being66 t (Table 3). A decline in catches is evident with totalcatches of demersal sharks dropping from just under24.5 t in 2000 to 5.4 t in 2005. Catches for all sharkspecies in this fishery declined over the same period.The drop in catch is attributed to the decrease in effortrather than stock depletion.

Trawl fisheries

The inshore and offshore trawl fisheries off the coast-line of the Eastern and Western Cape provinces targetDeep-water Cape Hake Merluccius paradoxus andShallow-water Cape Hake, Mud Sole Austroglossus pec-toralis and Horse Mackerel Trachurus trachurus.Bottom-trawl hake-directed fisheries are potentially thegreatest threat to chondrichthyans (Sauer et al., 2003).Sharks are caught as by-catch in these fisheries andinclude Tope Shark and both smooth-hound species, aswell as other chondrichthyan species such as BiscuitSkate Raja straeleni and Cape Elephantfish. The mostcommon shark caught in trawl fisheries on the AgulhasBank is the Shortnose Spurdog. This species is general-ly considered to have a relatively high biomass but is toosmall for processing and has a high mercury6 content(Da Silva, in prep.).

The actual number of chondrichthyans caught in thetrawl fisheries is difficult to assess due to the high levelof discard. Generally, the annual shark by-catch inwaters off the coast of KwaZulu-Natal, for all fisheriesincluding the Tugela banks prawn trawl fishery, isinsignificant compared to the shark by-catch from thelarger hake-directed trawl fisheries of the Eastern andWestern Cape (Sauer et al., 2003).

The trawl catch of sharks landed is a small proportionof the actual total caught in trawls which are then dis-carded (Sauer et al., 2003). Although elasmobranchs1

are of little importance to the demersal trawl industry,they contribute a considerable proportion of the sharksprocessed in factories (Da Silva, in prep.). Overall sharkcatches within the inshore trawl fisheries were estimatedat 606 t in 1990. The Department of Environmental

Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), in a draft 2005 policy onthe inshore trawl fishery, noted its concerns over the vol-ume of by-catch in the inshore trawl fishery but made nospecific reference to sharks, limiting only the by-catch ofKingklip Genypterus capensis and Cape Monk Lophiusvomerinus (Anon., 2005b).

Shark catches in the South African inshore trawl fish-ery are reflected in Table 4. Data captured for the years1996 to 2002 reflect catch of all shark species under theterm ‘sharks’, while Tope Sharks are separated fromsharks in 2003, and, in 2004, separate figures are alsoprovided for Mustelus spp. and Shortnose Spurdog.

The traditional linefishery

The commercial traditional linefishery is a boat-based activity and currently consists of 3450 crew oper-ating from about 450 commercial vessels. The crew usehand line or rod-and-reel to target approximately 200species of marine fish along the full 3000 km coastline,of which 50 species may be regarded as economicallyimportant.

Stock assessments conducted since the mid-1980shave revealed that with the exception of fast-growingspecies, most commercially exploited fish harvested inthis fishery have been depleted to dangerously low lev-els. Responding to the poor status of most traditionallinefish resources, an environmental emergency in thetraditional linefishery was declared in South Africa inDecember 2000 (Anon., 2005c).

The decline in the South African linefish has led toincreased exploitation of demersal shark species (Huttonet al., 2001; Griffiths, 1997) and there has been a steadyincrease in catches since 1991 (Sauer et al., 2003).

6Mercury is a naturally occurring heavy metal. At ambient temperature andpressure, mercury is a silver-white liquid that readily vaporizes and may stay inthe atmosphere for up to a year. When released into the air, mercury is transport-ed and deposited globally. Mercury ultimately accumulates in lake bottom sedi-ments, where it is transformed into its more toxic organic form, methyl mercury,which accumulates in fish tissue. Mercury is highly toxic, especially whenmetabolized into methyl mercury. Methyl mercury is avidly accumulated by fishand marine mammals and attains its highest concentrations in large predatoryspecies at the top of the aquatic food-chain. By this means, it enters the humandiet. Sources: World Health Organization Policy Paper: Mercury in Health CareAugust 2005: www.who.int/ifcs/documents/forums/forum5/mercurypolpaper. pdf.Air Quality Guidelines–Second Edition. Chapter 9 Mercury: WHO RegionalOffice for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2000: www.euro.who.int/document/aiq/6_9mercury.pdf.

Year Description Nominal mass (t)1

1996 Sharks 1061997 Sharks 1661998 Sharks 2141999 Sharks 1172000 Sharks 1432001 Sharks 1322002 Sharks 219


2003 Tope shark 2432003 Sharks 2802003 Total nominal 523


2004 Shortnose Spurdog 92004 Mustelus 152004 Tope shark 180 2004 Sharks 1332004 Total nominal 337

Table 4. Shark catches (t) in the South African inshore trawl fishery, 1996 to 2004.

Sources: Stuttaford, 1999; Anon., 2001, 2005; Department of Environ-mental Affairs and Tourism: Branch Marine and Coastal Management.1Nominal mass figures are developed from the landed (dressed), weightfigure, using a conversion factor of 2.59 except for 2000 where the fac-tor is 2,452. The term ‘nominal mass’ refers to round weight.



Species targeted include Tope Sharks, Smooth-hounds,Dusky Sharks, Copper Sharks, Spotted Gully Sharks,Smooth Hammerhead Sharks and the BroadnoseSevengill Shark (Da Silva, in prep.).

Traditional linefish crews generally target sharkswhen they are unable to catch sufficient linefish. Arights holder in the traditional linefishery noted thatfrom October to December large quantities of CopperSharks are caught in Mosselbaai as the south-east windssteer the sharks inshore. Sharks larger than 12 kg arediscarded as they have little trade value owing to highmercury content and/or poor quality flesh (ArthurRiordan, pers. comm. to M. Bürgener, June 2006). Thispractice appears to support other anecdotal reports thatshark meat, rather than the shark fin trade, is the keydriver of the harvest of and trade in demersal sharks. Itappears that the demersal shark catches would be insuf-ficient to support a distinct handline fishery and thatfishers in this sector require catches of both teleosts aswell as sharks to make participation in the fishery a com-mercial viability.

It is not known how many sharks are caught in therecreational linefishery. While there is a significant bodyof anecdotal evidence of the illegal trade in teleosts caughtin the recreational linefishery, the same is not true forchondrichthyans. There is no evidence of demersalsharks caught in the subsistence linefishery entering trade.

M. B

ÜR

GE

NE

R

Year Reported catch (kg)2000 328 8282001 182 7622002 174 3482003 184 8542004 301 0542005 230 747

Table 5. Reported shark catches (kg) in the South African commercial traditional linefishery, 2000 to 2005. These data aretreated as reflecting the weight of the sharks after being headed andgutted. There are no established conversion factors.

Source: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: BranchMarine and Coastal Management

Shark catches (both demersal and pelagic species) inthe South African commercial traditional linefishery forthe period 2000 to 2005 are reflected in Table 5. Pelagicspecies comprise a small proportion of the shark catchfor this fishery. Catch data were obtained from catchreports submitted by fishers to MCM and there is broadconsensus that these data are inaccurate due to misreport-ing; the data are accorded some value for broad trendanalysis, however.

Gill and beach-seine net fisheries

Gill and beach-seine net fisheries have operated tra-ditionally on the South African west coast since 1652 anda directed gill net fishery for Cape Elephantfish was ini-tiated in 1980. Other elasmobranchs caught in gill netsinclude Tope Sharks, both smooth-hound species andLesser Sandsharks Rhinobatos annulatus. While beach-seine net fisheries target mostly bony fish species, signif-icant quantities of elasmobranchs are frequently caught,comprising on average 70% skates and rays. These areusually not retained (Sauer et al., 2003).

Recent studies of the in-shore net fisheries of theWestern Cape have shown catch returns to be inaccurate,with up to 90% of the catch and effort, particularly of by-catch species, not reported (Hutchings and Lamberth,2002). Estimates based on observed catch rates in mon-itored landings and the effort levels claimed by net fish-ers in a telephone survey show annual estimated catchesof approximately 3500 over the period 1998 to 2000(Hutchings and Lamberth, 2002). Hutchings andLamberth (2002) note that gill net fishers in the WesternCape land approximately 130 t of by-catch annually,whereas illegal gill net fishers catch approximately 100 tof Smooth-hounds per year between 1978 and 2000.

Hutchings et al. (2002) note that other larger fishprocessors in St Helena Bay, Saldanha and Langebaanalso deal in net-caught fish, producing dried or frozenCape Elephantfish and Smooth-hound fillets for export.

Sourcing of demersal sharks for trade

Sharks processed primarily for the export of frozenfillets are sourced from the trawl, shark longline and tra-ditional linefisheries. There are currently three compa-nies in South Africa that process the vast majority ofdemersal sharks for export to Australia (another compa-ny, in St Helena Bay, was identified that processes andexports very small quantities—less than 12 t perannum—to Australia). Two of the companies are locat-ed in Cape Town and the third operates out of PortElizabeth. The percentage of demersal sharks sourcedfrom the various fisheries differs between the three fac-tories. One of the two Cape Town-based companiesnoted that almost all of the demersal sharks purchased bythis company are obtained from the traditional linefish-ery, as the crew on these vessels are generally aware ofthe storage and handling requirements that ensure goodquality shark flesh.

Tope Sharks caught in the traditional linefishery.



Most fish buyers, traders and processors on thesouth-eastern Cape coast act as holding facilities fordemersal sharks in trade and buy sharks from fishermenat a reduced cost to defray fishing costs not met by primevalue teleosts. Such establishments process and trade inother commodities such as teleosts, abalone Haliotismidae and West Coast Rock Lobster Jasus lalandii. Thesharks are purchased by these companies from the fish-ing vessels and are then sent to, or are collected by thecompanies that process and export the sharks.

Prices paid on landing (known colloquially as ‘beachprices’) for demersal sharks in Mosselbaai are higher(ZAR3.00–ZAR19.50 (USD0.45–USD2.8) per kg) thanthose received in St Francis Bay (ZAR3.00–ZAR8.00(USD0.45–USD1.14) per kg) and Gansbaai (ZAR3–ZAR6.00 (USD0.45–USD0.85) per kg). The main rea-son for the difference in price is that the purchasing com-pany in Mosselbaai is owned by one of the two CapeTown-based exporting companies and the sharks neednot go through a third party (Da Silva, in prep.).

Grading

Sharks purchased from the various South African fish-eries fall into three general trade categories with the follow-ing colloquial terms being used: ‘good’, ‘bad’ and ‘big’.

‘Good’ sharks include the two smooth-houndspecies, Copper Sharks and Tope Sharks (the latter alsoreferred to in the trade as gummy sharks) due to theirhigh value flesh. ‘Bad’ sharks are those whose flesh hasa lower value and include larger Spotted Gully Sharks,Smooth Hammerhead Sharks, and Blue Sharks. Theterm ‘bad shark’ is also used to reflect quality, in respectof which three different grades are given: 1, 2 and 3.Many factors influence the quality of the meat but aremainly concerned with on-board processing and storageof the animals. In order to obtain high quality sharkflesh, sharks must be headed, gutted and bled immedi-ately after capture. Following this they should be frozenor stored on ice; small sharks should be refrigeratedwhole (Da Silva, in prep.).

The term ‘big sharks’ in the demersal shark traderefers mainly to the mercury content of different speciesof sharks, rather than the physical size of the animals.

Some shark species have a relatively low mercury con-tent and would be of greater value than similar-sizedsharks of other species with a high mercury content.Tope Sharks and Copper Sharks have trade value from1.5 kg to 12 kg (Da Silva, in prep.), but specimens above12 kg contain mercury that exceeds permissible limits.A higher price is paid for both smooth-hound speciesweighing below 12 kg, although animals above 12 kg arealso bought but at lower prices. The pricing structure forsmooth-hounds is not directly linked to mercury levelsin different-sized animals but is affected, rather, by fleshquality. The flesh from large smooth-hounds shrinkswhen filleted and portioned, and flakes when defrosted.This lowers the quality of such specimens to grades 2 or3. Anecdotal accounts note that the gall bladders ofsmooth-hounds caught over rocky areas may burst,spoiling the flesh. This problem has not been observedfor Smooth-hounds caught over sandy areas (Da Silva,in prep.).

Storage and Processing

Processed small Spotted Gully Sharks, both thesmooth-hound species, and Tope Sharks, are referred toas gummy or hound sharks. Copper Sharks, DuskySharks and Blacktip Sharks are processed and sold underthe name Bronze Whalers. Blue Sharks and Short-finMako Sharks, both pelagic species, make up a small per-centage of sharks processed (Da Silva, in prep.).

Care in handling the shark carcass subsequent to cap-ture is of primary importance. Sharks should not bepicked up by their tails as such handling tears the lateralmusculature and lowers the quality of the flesh (Da Silva,in prep.). Both smooth-hound shark species are moresusceptible to such damage as their flesh is described byprocessors as being almost as delicate as hake, and incor-rect handling causes the flesh to become flaky.

Sharks generally arrive at processing facilities head-ed and gutted but with their fins still attached. One ofthe holding facilities trims the fins, which are subse-quently dried and exported to Hong Kong. This practicedoes not appear to be commonplace, however, and is dueto trade contacts in Asia associated with other seafoodtraded by this specific holding facility (Andries

Sharks generally arrive at process-

ing facilities headed and gutted but

with their fins still attached (1); the

fins are removed (2), following

which the sharks are filleted (3);

the cartilage (4) removed during

filleting is sold to a buyer and used

in the traditional medicine sector;

the fillets are packed in boxes (5)

which are kept in cold storage

before being exported to Australia

for consumption in the fish-and-

chips industry.1 2



Nouwers, pers. comm. to M. Bürgener, May 2006).Another holding facility noted that sharks not processedfor the frozen fillet trade are used for fish meal (GeorgeHuishamen, pers. comm. to M. Bürgener, May 2006).

During processing, the fins are removed, followingwhich the sharks are filleted, skinned and the filletspacked in boxes. Processors and exporters estimate thefilleted weight to be approximately 50% of live weight.This estimate does not seem to be based on any specificmethod or calculation comparing live and filleted weightand should be treated cautiously, particularly as proces-sors receive sharks that have already been headed andgutted and therefore do not have figures on the liveweight of sharks. The boxes are kept in cold storageuntil there are sufficient to fill a container (approximate-ly 10 to 12 t) and are then exported to Australia. Unlikethe export of seafood products to the European Union,there is no requirement for the shark fillets to be checkedby the South African Bureau of Standards.

The fins are sold to a South African buyer and areexported to Australia in frozen or dried form (JohnnyFouche pers. comm. to M. Bürgener, September 2006).An analysis of South African export data confirms theexistence of such trade. The cartilage that is removedfrom the shark during filleting is sold to a buyer for usein the complementary medicine sector in South Africaand overseas.

All three companies processing and exporting dem-ersal sharks are involved in the processing and trade inother seafood products. Inconsistency in supply andquality appear to preclude the commercial viability of anoperation based exclusively on the processing and tradein demersal shark products. One of the trading compa-nies noted that the demand for demersal shark fillets inAustralia is high and is not being met by supply fromSouth Africa and other countries. This company isaccordingly exploring the possibility of exporting dem-ersal shark fillets from Mauritania to Australia.

Year Harmonized Commodity Description Mass Value USDand Coding System (HS) (kg) (USD) (per kg)

2001 Dogfish, shark, other 37 133 44 868 1.22002 Dogfish, shark, other 79 741 460 872 5.782003 Dogfish, shark, other 97 307 932 948 9.592004 Dogfish, shark, other 79 552 405 449 5.12005 Dogfish, shark, other 50 217 145 015 2.89

Table 6. Exports of shark products from South Africa to Australia, 2001 to 2005.Sources: Stuttaford, 1999; Anon., 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005a

Year Harmonized Commodity Descriptions Mass Value AUDand Coding System (HS) (kg) (AUD’000) (per kg)

2001 Dogfish and other sharks, fresh or chilled 23 265 207.25 7.021998 Dogfish and other sharks, frozen 514 1.33 2.051999 Dogfish and other sharks, frozen 21 282 75.66 2.842000 Dogfish and other sharks, frozen 92 875 408.18 3.472001 Dogfish and other sharks, frozen 124 523 698.21 4.422002 Dogfish and other sharks, frozen 9 203 32.20 2.762003 Dogfish and other sharks, frozen 0 0 02004 Dogfish and other sharks, frozen 0 0 02005 Dogfish and other sharks, frozen 0 0 0

Table 7. Australian imports of shark products from South Africa, 1998 to 2005.Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics

PH

OTO

GR

AP

HS

: M. B

ÜR

GE

NE

R

4 53



A breakdown of sharks processed in 2005 by a CapeTown-based facility is summarized in Figure 2.

International trade

The export of shark products from South Africa toAustralia for the period 2001 to 2005 and Australian importsof shark products from South Africa for the period 1998 to2005 are shown in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. There isonly one descriptive category for sharks within the SouthAfrican Customs system: ‘dogfish, shark, other’. It is notclear whether ‘other’ in this description refers to other chon-drichthyans or only other elasmobranchs. Despite anecdotalevidence that exports of demersal shark fillets to Australiaare increasing, South African trade data reflect a decrease intrade from 2003 to 2005.

While the figures for the shark processing facility inFigure 2 reflect an amount of approximately 300 t processedin 2005, the total export of ‘dogfish, shark, other’ (Table 6) isjust more than 50 t for the same period. Given that there aretwo other facilities processing and exporting sharks, the dis-crepancies in the data are of concern. It is possible that otherHS codes were used for exports of demersal shark and is a

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec2006

(kg)

Bronze whaler Smoothhound shark ( 1.5 - 8 kg )Smoothhound shark ( 8 - 12 kg ) Smoothhound shark ( 12 + kg )

Soupfin shark " Bad shark "

2005

Figure 2. Processed shark from single shark processing facility for 2005for the categories: Bronze whalers (Carcharhinus limbatus, C. obscurusand C. brachyurus); Smooth-hounds (Mustelus mustelus and M.palumbes); Tope Shark (Galeorhinus galeus); and, ‘bad’ sharks (Sphyrnaspp., Isurus oxyrinchus and Prionace glauca).

more likely reason than data entry error since exportfigures for other years are not substantially different.There is almost no domestic demand for demersalshark meat, which could otherwise have explainedthe discrepancies. Further research is required todetermine the reasons for this disparity.

The value per kg of ‘dogfish, shark, other’ isinconsistent, ranging from USD1.2 per kg toUSD9.59 per kg, with no clear trend.

A comparative analysis with Australian importdata reveals significant anomalies. In 2001, SouthAfrican exports to Australia were 37 133 kg where-as Australia shows imports of 23 265 kg of ‘dogfishand other sharks, fresh or chilled’ and 124 523 kg of‘dogfish and other sharks, frozen’, totalling 147 788kg. These discrepancies highlight a difference involume between South African and Australian dataof more than 100 t. In addition, South African datareflect exports of ‘dogfish, shark, other’ to Australiain the years 2001 to 2005 yet there is no reflectionin Australian data of the importation of any sharkproducts from South Africa during 2003 to 2005.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

While demersal shark species are caught in awide variety of South African fisheries, there is lit-tle knowledge of their stock status, and there is norecent research on the impact of current harvest lev-els. The lack of knowledge of biology, populationstructures and movement patterns severely restrictsthe implementation of a successful shark manage-ment strategy.

Whether caught as by-catch or as targetedspecies, few controls are in place to limit the harvestlevels of all sharks, including demersal shark species.It is unclear whether the current levels of extractionare sustainable for all, or certain, demersal sharkspecies. The only controls that currently exist areeffort controls in the various fisheries in whichsharks are caught. The slow growth, late maturityand low fecundity of most elasmobranchs make themvulnerable to over-exploitation and research shouldbe conducted into the stock status of the targetedcommercial demersal shark species as well as thoseof limited commercial value, yet exhibiting highcatch levels.

Trawl catch data do not provide sufficient detailof shark species caught in this fishery; many sharkspecies are reported under the generic description‘sharks’, rather than to a species or family levelwhich would assist in catch analysis and subsequentcomparative analysis with stock levels.Encouragingly, catch reports for the 2003 and 2004inshore trawl fishery demonstrate increased groupallocations for sharks caught in this fishery.

Far more detailed data capture are evident in thecommercial traditional linefishery where more than10 species or descriptive names are used for allocat-ing shark catches. However, the veracity of this

REMOVING SHARK FINS AT A PROCESSING FACTORY IN CAPE TOWN

M. B

ÜR

GE

NE

R



dataset is questionable allowing limited use for analyticalpurposes. Improved data capture at the point of landing byfisheries monitors and fisheries control officers is requiredto improve the quality of these data.

The decrease in catches of high value teleosts withinthe traditional linefishery will only increase the emphasison fishing for sharks to defray costs. High beach pricesand the spread of knowledge on the preparation of a sharkcarcass on board vessels are both likely to result inincreased shark catches in future. There is therefore aneed for demersal shark catch trends to be carefully mon-itored by MCM.

A comparative analysis of trade data for South Africaand Australia reflects significant discrepancies betweenthe two datasets. As there are currently no catch limitsrelated to any of the sharks used for the demersal shark fil-let trade to Australia, there are no apparent reasons whyexporters would choose to export consignments under adifferent Customs export category. It also remains unclearwhy Australian import data for the years 2003 to 2005 donot reflect the importation of shark meat from SouthAfrica when it is clear from both South African exportdata, as well as significant anecdotal evidence, that suchtrade exists. Problems with these datasets preclude the useof the data as an indicator of minimum catch levels ofdemersal sharks. Given the poor quality and level ofdetail in much of the South African catch data, as it per-tains to demersal sharks, accurate trade data could prove auseful proxy indicator of minimum catch.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Research should be undertaken into the stock statusof demersal sharks exploited in South African fish-eries.

• Capacity building of fisheries control officers,monitors and other relevant compliance officialsshould be undertaken to improve their identifica-tion skills for demersal sharks.

• The processing and export of demersal sharksshould be more closely monitored to improveknowledge in this sector, such that government isbetter able to identify associated trade trends andthe extent to which trade is a driver for the target-ing of certain demersal shark species.

• The demersal shark species identification toolkitdeveloped by Da Silva should be distributed to allrelevant compliance officials in South Africa.Where appropriate, the toolkit should also be dis-tributed to compliance officials in other countrieswhere the same demersal shark species are beingexploited.

• Further research should be undertaken in bothSouth Africa and Australia to resolve the data dis-crepancies between the import and export datasetsfor these two countries.

FILLETING SHARK TRUNKS (TOP) AND PACKING THE FILLETS IN

BOXES (BELOW), PROCESSING COMPANY, CAPE TOWN. DEMAND FOR

DEMERSAL SHARK FILLETS IN AUSTRALIA FOR THE TRADE IN FISH

AND CHIPS IS HIGH BUT IS REPORTEDLY NOT BEING MET BY SUPPLY

FROM SOUTH AFRICA AND OTHER COUNTRIES.

PHOTOGRAPHS: M. BÜRGENER



Da Silva, C. (in prep.). The smoothhound shark (M. mustelus)fishery: status and prognosis. MSc thesis. Department ofIchthyology and Fisheries Science, Rhodes University,South Africa.

Griffiths, M.H. (1997). The application of per-recruit models toArgyrosomus inodorus, an important South African sci-aenid fish, Fisheries Research.

Heemstra, P. and Heemstra, E. (2004). Coastal Fishes ofSouthern Africa. The National Inquiry Service Centre andthe South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity(SAIAB). Grahamstown, South Africa. 488 pp.

Hutchings, K. and Lamberth, S. (2002). Catch-and-effort esti-mates for the gillnet and beach-seine fisheries in theWestern Cape, South Africa. South African Journal ofMarine Science 24:205–225.

Hutchings, K., Lamberth, S. and Turpie, J.K. (2002). Socio-economic characteristics of gillnet and beach-seine fishersin the Western Cape, South Africa. South African Journalof Marine Science 24:243–262.

Hutton, T., Griffiths, M.J. and Sumaila, T.J. (2001).Cooperative versus non-cooperative management of sharedlinefish stocks in South Africa: an assessment of alternativemanagement strategies for geelbek (Atractoscionaequidens). Fisheries Research.

McCord, M.E. (in prep.). Aspects of ecology and managementof the soupfin shark (Galeorhinus galeus) in South Africa.MSc thesis. Department of Ichthyology and FisheriesScience. Rhodes University, South Africa.

McGregor, C. (1991). Sharks in Crisis. Australian Fisheries.Pp.10–16.

Sauer, W.J.J., Hecht, T., Brits, P.J. and Mather, D. (2003). TheShark Longline Fishery. An Economic and Sectoral Studyof the South African Fishing Industry. Volume 2: Fisheryprofiles. Report prepared for Marine and CoastalManagement by Rhodes University.

Smale, M.J. (1996). Trade in sharks and shark products inSouth Africa. In: The Trade in Sharks and Shark Productsin the Western Indian and South-East Atlantic Oceans.Marshall, N.T. and Barnett, R. (Eds). TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Nairobi, Kenya.

Smith, M.M. and Heemstra, P.C. (Eds) (1991). Smiths’ SeaFishes. Southern Book Publishers, Johannesburg, SouthAfrica. 1048 pp, 144 plates.

Stuttaford, M. (Ed.) (1999). Fishing Industry Handbook: SouthAfrica, Namibia and Mozambique. 27th Edition. GeorgeWarman Publications, Cape Town, South Africa.

Charlene Da Silva MSc Student, Rhodes University,Department of Ichthyology and Fisheries Science,Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa.E-mail: [email protected] Bürgener Senior Programme Officer, TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa. E-mail: [email protected]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to express their gratitude to the fol-lowing, who provided valuable information and supportfor this study: Dr A.J. Booth of the University of Rhodes,Chris Wilke and Craig Smith of the South AfricanDepartment of Environmental Affairs and Tourism:Branch Marine and Coastal Management (MCM), fortheir thorough and helpful critiques of an earlier draft;Glenn Sant for his helpful comments and assistance inobtaining Australian import data; Liesl Jansen of MCMfor assisting with sourcing shark longline catch data; andRobert Cooper and Steve Lamberth of MCM for usefulinformation on trawl catch data and gill net fisheriesrespectively. Michel Lamboeuf, Fishery ResourcesOfficer at FAO, kindly provided permission to use FAOcopyrighted images.

Funding for this research was kindly provided byMCM and the British High Commission in Pretoria.

REFERENCES

Anon. (2001). Fishing Industry Handbook: South Africa,Namibia and Mozambique. 29th Edition. George WarmanPublications, Cape Town, South Africa.

Anon. (2002). Fishing Industry Handbook: South Africa,Namibia and Mozambique. 30th Edition. George WarmanPublications, Cape Town, South Africa.

Anon. (2003). Fishing Industry Handbook: South Africa,Namibia and Mozambique. 31st Edition. George WarmanPublications, Cape Town, South Africa.

Anon. (2005a). Fishing Industry Handbook: South Africa,Namibia and Mozambique. 33rd Edition. George WarmanPublications, Cape Town, South Africa.

Anon. (2005b). Allocation and management of commercialfishing rights in the inshore trawl fishery. Department ofEnvironmental Affairs and Tourism: Branch Marine andCoastal Management. Draft Policy Report 2005.

Anon. (2005c). Policy for the allocation and management ofcommercial fishing rights in the traditional linefishery:2005. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism:Branch Marine and Coastal Management.

Anon. (2007). http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=494.Viewed 2 April 2007.

Compagno, L.J.V. (1984). Sharks of the world. FAO speciescatalogue. FAO Fisheries Synopsis 125(4): part 2(Carcharhiniformes): Pp.251–655.

Crawford, R.J.M., Wilkinson, I.S., David, J.H.M., Leslie,R.W., Stander, G.H., Oosthuizen, W.H. and Schulein, F.H.(1993). Progress towards the development of an integratedmanagement approach to fisheries for sharks and otherchondrichthyans in South African waters. Report to theDirector of Sea Fisheries Research Institute by SeaFisheries Research Institute Shark Task Group.

S E I Z U R E S A N D P R O S E C U T I O N S


The cases reported below represent a selection ofrecent seizures and prosecutions that have takenplace around the world. The sources of this informa-tion are cited at the end of each country section. TheCITES Appendix-listing for each species is placed inparentheses, where appropriate.

E U R O P E

CROATIA

On 11 November 2006, Croatian Customsservice at Batina (Croatian–Serbian bordercrossing) seized nine parrots: Red-frontedParakeet Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae (CITESI) (5 live specimens, 2 dead); Red-rumpedParrot Psephotus haematonotus (CITES II) (1live specimen); and Australian King-ParrotAlisterus scapularis (CITES II) (1 live specimen).The birds had been wrapped in clothing andplaced in luggage concealed in the car of aSerbian citizen arriving from Serbia. NatureProtection Inspectors confiscated the birdsand placed them in the country’s official rescuecentre. The suspect was charged with violatingthe country’s Customs Law and NatureProtection Law and fined HRK7000 (€930/USD1252).

On 1 April 2007, at Zagreb Airport, Customsofficers stopped a Croatian citizen returningfrom Bangkok,Thailand, via Budapest, Hungary,after he was found to be carrying in his luggage10 tortoises and 175 chameleons. The animalswere confiscated and placed in quarantine. Thespecies have been identified as: RadiatedTortoise Geochelone radiata (CITES I), Flat-casqued Chameleon Calumma globifer (CITESII) and Parson’s Giant Chameleon Calumma

parsonii (CITES II). All specimens originatedfrom Madagascar. Seven chameleons died dur-ing transport owing to inadequate conditionsin the cargo hold, and more specimens diedfollowing their arrival. Owing to the failure ofthe perpetrator to declare the goods and pres-ent the requisite veterinary and CITES docu-ments, a court hearing is pending.

On 30 May it was confirmed that the sur-viving specimens had been returned toAntananarivo. Fourteen of the chameleonsperished on the two-day journey, leaving aliveonly about half the original number. All thetortoises survived.

Ministry of Culture, Nature Protection Directorate, Zagreb

CZECH REPUBLIC

On 3 November 2006, a Czech citizen arrivingat Rozyne International Airport, Prague, fromTunis, Tunisia, was found with geckosHemidactylus sp. and Tarentola sp., beetle larvaeand 11 Spur-thighed Tortoises Testudo graeca(CITES II/EU(B)) concealed in his luggage. Thetortoises had been restrained by adhesive tapeand were unable to move. The requisite cer-

tificates were not available. Customs officersand inspectors of the Czech EnvironmentalInspectorate also carried out a house search atthe suspect’s address and found six Hermann’sTortoises Testudo hermanni (CITES II/EU(A)),three Caucasian Sand Boas Eryx jaculus (CITESII/EU(A)) and one Bell’s Dabb Lizard Uromastyxacanthinura (CITES II/EU(B)), also without doc-uments. All animals were seized and a prose-cution is pending.

CITES News 17, 2006, Czech Environmental Inspect-orate, Rozyne International Airport, Prague

ESTONIA

On 6 March 2007, an Estonian citizen travellingby car from Russia was caught in Narva at theNarva Road border point with 12.5 kg ofRussian caviar (CITES II/EU(B)) (sturgeonspecies unidentified). The suspect claimed tohave received the caviar in exchange for moneyfrom an unknown person in Ivangorod, RussianFederation. The goods, which were hidden in aloudspeaker, were seized and the suspect wasfined EEK6000 (€380/USD510); the caviar wasconfiscated. The Environmental Inspectoratehas also charged the individual with causingharm to nature and an additional fine is pending.

Estonian Tax and Customs Board, CITES Info 3, 2007;Tax and Customs Board, in litt., 16 April 2007

GERMANY

On 25 January 2007, Customs officials atCologne Airport seized a consignment con-taining 24 kg of caviar after detecting it bychance. The shipment, which had been sent bypost from Marbella, Spain, did not adhere tothe labelling requirements for caviar whichhave been compulsory in the EU since July2006. Analysis of the caviar revealed it to be ofRussian origin (sturgeon species unidentified).

It is the first time that caviar has been seizedon this transit route into the EU. One Germannational was identified as being involved in thecase, which is under investigation.

Press release Zollfahndungsamt Essen, 6 January 2007;TRAFFIC Europe

THE TRAFFIC BULLETIN SEIZURES AND

PROSECUTIONS SECTION IS SPON-

SORED BY THE FORESTRY BUREAU,

COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE,TAIWAN:

COMMITTED TO SUPPORTING CITES

ENFORCEMENT

CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) estab-lishes international controls over trade in wild plants and animals, or related products, of species that havebeen, or may be, threatened due to excessive commercial exploitation. Parties have their own legislativevehicle by which to meet their obligations under CITES. The species covered by CITES are listed in threeAppendices, according to the degree of protection they need:

APPENDIX I includes species threatened with extinction which are or may be threatened by trade. Tradein specimens of these species is permitted only in exceptional circumstances. An export permit from thecountry of origin (or a re-export certificate from other exporting countries) and an import permit from thecountry of importation are required.

APPENDIX II includes species not necessarily yet threatened, but which could become so if trade is notstrictly controlled. Species are also included in Appendix II if they are difficult to distinguish from otherspecies in Appendix II, in order to make it more difficult for illegal trade to take place through misidentifi-cation or mislabelling. An export permit from the country of origin (or a re-export certificate from otherexporting countries) is required, but not an import permit.

APPENDIX III includes species that any Party identifies as being subject to regulation within its jurisdic-tion for the purpose of preventing or restricting exploitation and as needing the co-operation of other Partiesin the control of trade. Imports require a certificate of origin and, if the importation is from the State thathas included the species in Appendix III, an export permit is required.

A CONSIGNMENT OF MORE THAN 24 KG OF CAVIAR WASSEIZED AT COLOGNE AIRPORT IN JANUARY 2007

ZOLL

FAH

ND

UN

GS

AM

TE

SS

EN



HUNGARY

On 17 July 2006, officials at Röszke on theHungarian–Serbian border, seized 48 RadiatedTortoises Geochelone radiata (CITES I), 68Leopard Tortoises G. pardalis (CITES II) and 55Pancake Tortoises Malacochersus tornieri(CITES II) from a lorry arriving from Serbia.The driver was transporting the shipment toRotterdam, where it was to be collected.

CITES Management Authority, Hungary

ROMANIA

On 7 December 2006, Otopeni Customs offi-cers seized a parcel from Botswana containingtwo pieces of African Elephant Loxodontaafricana (CITES I) ivory and two pieces of ele-phant leg skin. The addressee was a Moldaviancitizen living in Bucharest. Although the recip-ient was in receipt of a CITES export permit,an import permit had not been issued. TheCITES Management Authority was conse-quently asked to issue an import permit with-in 30 days. A permit was issued in 2007 follow-ing the entering into force of Regulation No.338/97 which states that an import permit maybe granted in exceptional cases once thegoods in question have been declared. TheNational Customs Authority of Romania, how-ever, declared the shipment to be in breach ofMinisterial Order No. 647/2001, which was inforce at the time of the seizure and which pro-hibited the entry into the country of CITES-listed specimens without a CITES import per-mit. The ivory items were confiscated.

National Customs Authority, Anti Fraud Directorate,Bucharest

RUSSIA

On 18 January 2007, at the Kharol settlementin Primorsky Kray, police stopped a car andseized an amount of animal derivatives pre-pared for illegal transportation through theRussian–Chinese border. These included: 531horns of Saiga Antelope Saiga tatarica (CITES

II); 8 skinned Tiger Panthera tigris (CITES I)paws; 3 Tiger skins; 332 Tiger bones; 2 Tigerskulls; and, 283 bear paws. The case was pros-ecuted and all commodities and the car wereconfiscated.

TRAFFIC Europe

UK

On 24 October 2006, at WestminsterMagistrates’ Court, a leading London gentle-man’s barber was fined GBP10 000 (US19 460)after 24 grooming accessories made fromivory were found for sale on his premises dur-ing a raid by officers from the MetropolitanPolice Wildlife Crime Unit, acting on informa-tion received from TRAFFIC. This is the maxi-mum penalty available to the court for offeringfor sale items derived from EU Annex Aspecies as per the Control of Trade in EndangeredSpecies (Enforcement) Regulations 1997(COTES) as amended 2005. The items, at threeshops in Mayfair, included shaving brushes—bearing the stamp “real ivory”—as well asivory hairbrushes, glove stretchers and an ele-phant’s tusk. All items were forfeited by thecourt.

It is illegal to sell ivory in the UK unless itis a worked item and an antique (i.e. pre-1947).Lawyers representing the firm, Geo. F. TrumperLtd, pleaded guilty to keeping items from anendangered species for sale.

www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=NL2430391F&news_headline=barber_fin, 24 October 2006; TRAFFICInternational

A F R I C A

SOUTH AFRICA

On 8 February 2007, 12 people were arrestedand an undisclosed amount of abalone Haliotis(known in South Africa as perlemoen) was

confiscated in Bronkhorstspruit following anoperation carried out by Pretoria police’sorganized crime unit and the Bronkhorstspruitpolice. Six Chinese and six Mozambicannationals were arrested and the abalone wasconfiscated.

The arrests were made on two plots inBronkhorstspruit where the molluscs wereallegedly processed. Other assets includingcars were also confiscated.

On 11 April 2007, between five and six tonnesof abalone Haliotis was seized at Camperdown,KwaZulu-Natal, the largest amount to beseized in the province. Teams from the SouthAfrican Police Service, the South AfricanRevenue Service, the Directorate of SpecialOperations, Maritime and Coastal Manage-ment and the Department of EnvironmentalAffairs and Tourism raided a farm and arrestedsix people, among them individuals from SouthAfrica, China and Mexico. Wet, or shucked,abalone was found in the garage. Fans werebeing used to dry the molluscs.

The case continues.

www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&click_id=14&art_id=iol1170912053890B265, 8 February 2007; TheMercury (South Africa): www.themercury.co.za, 12 April2007

A S I A

EAST ASIACHINA

On 19 November 2006, police from theGuangxi Qinlian forestry centre acting oninformation stopped a car at the border ofGuangxi Province with Guangdong Provinceand seized 53 pangolins Manis (CITES II)packed in the trunk of the car; 14 specimenswere dead. The people in the car evaded cap-ture. The surviving pangolins have been sent tothe Guangxi Endangered Wild Animals AidCenter.

Xinhua Net, www.cwca.org.cn/Article/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleID=2242, 20 November 2006;TRAFFIC East Asia

A large number of elephant ivory seizures havetaken place in China over the past year.Examples include, most recently, on 13February 2007, 67.5 kg by Customs officers atBeijing Capital International Airport. The ivory,representing approximately seven elephants,was found in the luggage of a female passengerfrom the Democratic Republic of Congo, arriv-ing from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, who was stand-ing in the nothing-to-declare Customs area.Items found included half-finished mahjongsets, bracelets, necklaces and other ornaments.

On 7 August 2006, Nanjing (JiangsuProvince) Customs Bureau confiscated 145pieces of African ivory products (chopsticksand bracelets) (2730 kg) at Nanjing Airport, ona flight arriving from Hong Kong.

NE

VE

N V

RB

AN

IC

A PARSON’S GIANT CHAMELEON FROM MADAGASCARSEIZED WITH OTHER REPTILES IN CROATIA IN APRIL 2007



On the same day at Hangzhou Airport,Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou Customs Bureauseized 122 ivory products (bracelets, chop-sticks and name seals) from a passenger’s lug-gage (route not reported). Officials suspectthe items were purchased in Africa. Thismarked the 30th ivory seizure by HangzhouCustoms between January and August, twicethe amount seized the previous year over thesame period of time.

During January to June 2006, ShanghaiCustoms uncovered 13 cases of ivory smug-gling involving 16 ivory tusks and 229 ivoryproducts. There is reported to be concernthat with the routing of flights betweenShanghai and West Asia, passengers are travel-ling from Africa to Shanghai via Dubai or Doha.Shanghai Customs uncovered seven ivorysmuggling cases from inward passengers fromDubai to Shanghai and seized 12 ivory tusksduring this period. Among the 13 cases, somesuspects attempted to smuggle ivory intoChina to sell by using fake documentation, orby concealing the items. Others brought themback for personal use or as gifts, claiming thatthey had been purchased legally and in somecases were in possession of licences issued bylocal government.

A Yemeni businessman, who had attempt-ed to smuggle over 60 kg of ivory into thecountry in June 2006 went on trial on 9 April2007 at Guangzhou Intermediate People’sCourt, Guangdong Province, on charges ofsmuggling ivory. Customs officials discovered60.73 kg in the defendant’s luggage at BaiyunAirport, Guangzhou, on 7 June 2006. He stat-ed that he had tried to tell Customs officials hewas carrying the ivory but because he couldn’tspeak Chinese or English, couldn’t make him-self understood and he failed to declare the 14pieces of ivory. He claimed the ivory had beenpurchased from a businessman in Yemen andthat he intended to sell it in China. A verdictis expected later this year.

In early 2007, at the People’s Court ofLongfeng District, Daqing, HeilongjiangProvince, Wang Yuying, of Daqing, was sen-tenced to 10 years in gaol and fined JPY20 000(USD2588), after being convicted of illegallypurchasing a Tiger skin. Wang had purchasedthe skin from an antique market in Sa’ertuDistrict of Daqing in 2004 and had hidden it ina factory warehouse in Longfeng District. Hedecided to sell it but was charged lastSeptember by forestry police acting on infor-mation.

Laboratory work conducted by theWildlife and Plant Testing Center with theState Forestry Bureau showed that the skinbelonged to that of a South China Tiger (orAmoy Tiger) Panthera tigris amoyensis (CITES Iand fully protected nationally).

Xinhua Net, Shanghai, 21 July 2006, reported by Yu Wuand Xuan Guan;TRAFFIC East Asia; IFAW press release,19 February 2007: www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=208268; China Broadcast Net, 8 August 2006;www.cnr.cn/2004news/internal/200608/t20060808_504265682.html (Chinese only); http://news.cctv.com/law/20060812/100771.shtml (in Chinese only); http://eng-lish.people.com.cn/200704/10/eng20070410_365063.html, 10 April 2007; http://english.people.com.cn/200704/12/eng 20070412_366041.html, 12 April 2007

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

On 9 January 2007, at Tsuen Wan Magistrates’Court, a Chinese male was fined HKD16 000(USD2000) and sentenced to six months’imprisonment, suspended for two years, fol-lowing his attempt the previous day to importan illegal shipment of animals from Thailand,destined for China, through Hong KongInternational Airport. The Agriculture,Fisheries and Conservation Department(AFCD) and Customs officials arrested theman following the detection of the followingspecimens in his luggage: a Fish-eatingCrocodile (Gharial) Gavialis gangeticus (CITESI), six snakes Bodiae/Pythonidae spp. (CITES II),46 turtles/tortoises (Three-keeled LandTortoise Melanochelys tricarinata, Black PondTurtle Geoclemys hamiltonii, Radiated TortoiseGeochelone radiata (all CITES 1 species) andtrue tortoises Testudinidae spp. (CITES II), and11 flying squirrels Petaurista spp. (non-CITES).The requisite permit and health certificateswere missing. The man was charged under theProtection of Endangered Species of Animals andPlants Ordinance, Cap 586, and the RabiesOrdinance, Cap 421.

Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, HongKong, press release, 9 January 2007; TRAFFIC East Asia

JAPAN

On 7 February 2007, at Tokyo District Court,Shi Guo Qi was sentenced to six-months’imprisonment, suspended for three years, andWe Sheng received a one-year gaol sentence,suspended for three years, and finedJPY300 000 (USD2460), for their part in theillegal sale of Asian slipper orchidsPaphiopedilum spp.

The pair—students from China—were ini-tially arrested on 11 October 2006, togetherwith one other student, by officers of theMetropolitan Police Department (MPD), andincluding the involvement of the Oi Police

Station and 16 other police stations, for theirpart in the illegal sale of slipper orchidsPaphiopedilum spp. in violation of the Law for theConservation of Endangered Species of Wild Faunaand Flora (LCES). A Japanese company employ-ee who conspired with them was arrested thefollowing day. All Paphiopedilum species are list-ed in CITES Appendix I and the LCES prohibitstheir domestic trade.

Shi Guo Qi had been suspected of listingnine orchids Paphiopedilum spp. on an internetauction site as wild Paphiopedilum malipoensecollected in Yunnan Province, China, and tohave sold two of these specimens. The othertwo individuals were suspected to have listedseven orchids on an auction site as wild speci-mens collected in Guangxi Province, China, andto have sold one specimen. They were sus-pected of selling the orchids via the emailaddress of the Japanese co-conspirator and ofsmuggling the specimens by internationalmail—according to the MPD, from YunnanProvince through a company in Shanghai.

On 1 November 2006, Shi Guo Qi and WeSheng were rearrested. Shi Guo Qi was sus-pected of selling two Paphiopedilum specimensduring April to July 2006 and We Sheng wasunder suspicion of selling 33 slipper orchidsPaphiopedilum spp. to 11 people on 25 occa-sions during April to September 2006.

On 30 November 2006, officers of theMPD with assistance from three police sta-tions, rearrested the latter individual [it is notknown whether or when this person had beenreleased] for his part in smuggling slipperorchids in violation of the Foreign Exchange andForeign Trade Law. Eight orchids had beenimported from China in May 2006 via anexpress mail service without the approval ofthe Ministry of Economy,Trade and Industry. Afurther 27 orchids were imported on twooccasions using the same method. A companyemployee in Wakayama Prefecture who boughtfour orchids from We Sheng during June toAugust 2006 was also arrested for violating theLCES.

On 7 February 2007, Osaka Prefectural Policeand Osaka Customs officials arrested twobrothers who attempted to import 2.8 t ofAfrican Elephant Loxodonta africana (CITES I)ivory. The ivory shipment left Malaysia on 6August, was transferred to another ship inSouth Korea, and arrived in Osaka Nanko Porton 21 August. Customs officials confiscatedthe ivory after screening the ship’s cargo; it hadbeen disguised to look like marble and wasdescribed as such in false import permits. Theconsignment consisted of 608 pieces of cutivory and 17 928 smaller cut pieces for hanko(signature stamps) and represents a recordamount of ivory seized in the country sincethe international ivory trade ban went intoeffect in 1989.

One of the men was indicted on chargesof violating the Customs Law, while indictmentof the other has been shelved.

On 2 May 2007, at Narita InternationalAirport, Customs officials foiled an attempt bya Japanese national to smuggle some 40 slowlorises Nycticebus sp. (CITES II) into the coun-

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/ G

ER

ALD

S. C

UB

ITT

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/ W

OLF

GA

NG

VO

N S

CH

MIE

DE

R

Gharial Gavialis gangeticus

Alexandra’s Birdwing Ornithoptera alexandrae



try from Bangkok, Thailand. It is the largestnumber of this species brought into Japan atone time, according to the Finance Ministry’sCustoms and Tariff Bureau. All of the animals,contained in small boxes, were alive whenseized but about a dozen were reported tohave later died (see also under Thailand).

The Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 11/12 October/1 November2006; The Nikkei Sankei Shimbun, 11/12 October/1November 2006/8 February 2007;The Sankei Shimbun,8 February/10 February/1 March 2007; The MainichiNewspapers, 11 October/1/2 November 2006; www.france24.com/france24Public/en/administration/afp-news.html?id=070207114347.ndz9clly&cat=null; TRAF-FIC East Asia; http://home.kyodo.co.jp/>; http://home.kyodo.co.jp/, 25 May 2007

TAIWAN

In April 2007, police officers posing as buyersseized the skin of a Leopard Panthera pardus(CITES I) and arrested a Taiwanese national.The suspect had purchased the item fromSouth Africa some years earlier and had adver-tised its sale via the internet in late 2006. Hewas charged with illegal possession of a pro-tected species and a trial date is to beannounced.

In April 2007, Customs officials at Keelung portseized 680 Saiga Antelope Saiga tatarica (CITESII) horns and dried skins of 302 Hundred-paceVipers Deinagkistrodon acutus. The specimenshad been concealed in a container of tradition-al Chinese medicines on a vessel arriving bysea from China via Hong Kong. One of thehorns was embedded with a bullet.

Taiwan Council of Agriculture pers. comm., April 2007;Liberty Times (Taiwan), 18 April 2007; United EveningNews (Taiwan), 17 April 2007; www.libertytimes.com.tw/2007/new/may/2/today-so2.htm; TRAFFIC East Asia

SOUTH ASIAINDIA

On 4 October 2006, police arrested twoBangladeshi nationals as they carried two Tigerskins near Ghaziabad border in East Delhi. Theaccused told police that they were smugglingthe skins to Bangladesh. They revealed thatthey used to hunt Tigers in Rajaji National Parkin Rishikesh or nearby parks in Uttaranchalhills whenever they could gain entry into theareas. They would also buy skins from localhunters and supply them to a contact inBangladesh for profit. According to a seniorpolice official, they were paid on a commissionbasis.

The following cases are just some examples ofseizures of Indian Star Tortoises Geochelone ele-gans (CITES II) that have taken place in India inrecent months and reflect the extent of tradein this species from India, export of which isbanned under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.Two key suspects in this trade were recentlyarrested.

In October 2006, Customs officials atBangalore (HAL) Airport, Karnataka, in associ-ation with the Central Industrial SecurityForce (CISF), seized 447 Indian Star Tortoises.

One person was detained. The tortoisesweighed between 10 g and 350 g and some hadperished. Preliminary investigation revealedthat they had been procured in Chennai,TamilNadu, and were being smuggled to KualaLumpur, via Sri Lanka. The specimens wereseized under the provisions of the Customs Act1962 and handed over to the ForestDepartment; they were later taken to theBannerghatta National Park.

On 23 November 2006, a flight to KualaLumpur was recalled moments before take-offfollowing information received by the CustomsAir Intelligence Unit that a narcotics consign-ment was being carried on board. The consign-ment turned out to contain, rather, 430 liveIndian Star Tortoises that had not been detect-ed during screening. The suspect involved inthe smuggling comes from the Ramnad area ofTamil Nadu, which is the natural habitat of thisspecies. According to an official, Kuala Lumpurwas a transit point and it is believed that thetortoises were going to Europe where they arein demand as pets. The turtles were taken toSanjay Gandhi National Park.

Two key figures involved in this trade werearrested in October and November 2006,respectively. On 29 October 2006, wildlifeauthorities in Koyambedu, Chennai, acting oninformation, arrested a key figure in the co-ordination of the collection of this speciesfrom the wild in Karnataka. Suspect A of Kolardistrict in Karnataka was remanded in custody.Following interrogation, it was revealed that hehad been involved in the work for over threeyears, hiring tribals and sending them into theBadravathi forest areas to collect the tortois-es. The specimens were then stacked at a par-ticular location and once a sizeable numberhad been collected, prospective buyers werecontacted. According to a senior official, this isthe first time that a co-ordinator who wasdirectly involved in collecting the live speci-mens from the wild has been arrested. Onalmost all previous occasions, only the carriershad been arrested.

On 28 November 2006, wildlife officials inGeorge Town, Chennai, arrested a key personallegedly involved in the collection of IndianStar Tortoises from the wild, for smuggling toSouth-east Asia. Suspect B is reported to havehired tribals to collect the tortoises from theforests of Palmaner and Chittoor in AndhraPradesh, and areas in Karnataka. A week earli-er, anti-poaching authorities of the MumbaiMetro railway system seized a consignment ofIndian Star Tortoises at Mumbai Airport whichhad been supplied by Suspect B. In 2005, a pas-senger who was apprehended boarding aMalaysia-bound flight with 989 Indian StarTortoises revealed that Suspect B had handedthe tortoises to him. Similarly this year anoth-er consignment of Indian Star Tortoises wasseized at the airport, which again had been col-lected and given to a ‘carrier’ by Suspect B.

Both suspects have been remanded in cus-tody.

On 5 February 2007, the Delhi Police CrimeBranch, acting on information, seized nineshahtoosh shawls (made from the wool of theTibetan Antelope Pantholops hodgsonii, CITES I),from a trader in Delhi. Police sought the assis-

tance of TRAFFIC India in the prima facie iden-tification of the items. The arrested trader isbeing held in custody and the shawls were sentto the Wildlife Institute of India for forensictests.

TRAFFIC India;The Hindu (India) 1 December/31 October2006: www.hinduonnet.com; Hindustan Times (India), 24November 2006: http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/ArticleText.aspx?article=24_11_2006_003_00; WWFNepal

NEPAL

On 12 February 2007, in the area of Dhangadi,three persons were arrested after being foundin possession of five Leopard Panthera pardus(CITES I) skins and 11 kg of bones includingfive skulls (Leopard/Tiger Panthera tigris(CITES I). This seizure marks the beginning ofa collaborative initiative between TRAFFICIndia,WWF Nepal, and Nepalese enforcementagencies, to halt illegal wildlife trade along theIndo–Nepal border.

Prompted by information received fromTRAFFIC/WWF India, a mission headed by theChief Warden of Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve,Mr Puran Bhakta Shrestha, and supported bythe Buffer Zone Management CouncilChairman, Mr Labha Bista, the traders wereapprehended. The mission was co-ordinatedand supported by WWF Nepal as well as bythe police and the District Forest Office inKailali.

All those arrested are reported to havebeen long engaged in the cross-border illegalwildlife trade between Nepal and India. Theyare in the custody of Suklaphanta WildlifeReserve and an investigation is under way.

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/ U

RS

WO

YW

WF-

CA

NO

N /

HE

LMU

TD

ILLE

R

Radiated Tortoise Geochelone radiata

South China Tiger Panthera tigris amoyensis



On 5 June 2007, the Kathmandu MetropolitanPolice Crime Division (MPCD) arrested threepersons involved in selling shahtoosh shawls(made from the fur of Tibetan AntelopePantholops hodgsonii (CITES I)). “OperationHeritage”, led by Superintendent of PoliceDevendra Subedi, took more than a month’spreparation. Those arrested were Indiannationals of Kashmiri origin; 19 pieces of shah-toosh shawls were seized. According to SPSubedi, investigations show that Nepal is beingused as a transit point for smuggling shahtooshshawls and other illegal wildlife parts. FromIndia, the shahtoosh travels to China via Nepaland to markets in Europe and beyond. Theshawls are also sold locally to tourists. Hementioned that this was the first case in whichfully woven shahtoosh ready for sale wasseized in such quantities in Kathmandu.

TRAFFIC India; WWF Nepal; http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/asia_pacific/our_programmes/areas/news/index.cfm?uNewsID=106140

SOUTH-EAST ASIALAO PDR

On 29 August 2006, the Lao embassy andforestry police confiscated 1664 high-gradelogs believed to belong to a transnational ille-gal logging network preparing to export thetimber to China. The wood, which was kept in11 containers at a Lat Krabang warehouse, wasidentified as the rare Payoong or ThailandRosewood Dalbergia cochinchinensis timber,which is one of the most expensive hard-woods. In Southeast Asia, it is found inCambodia, Laos,Thailand and Viet Nam.

The Customs invoice showed that the logshad been transported to the depot by a Thaifreight company and destined for export toChina by a Lao firm but no export permit hadbeen issued. It is possible that the seized tim-ber had been smuggled in from a neighbouringcountry and may have been illegally felled froma Thai forest. Police were to summon the com-panies’ operators for questioning. They couldbe charged with smuggling timber into thecountry and being in possession of a protectedspecies.

www.bangkokpost.com/News/30Aug2006_news13.php;TRAFFIC Southeast Asia

MALAYSIA

On 19 October 2006, Eastern region marinepolice acting on information seized 5000Water Monitors Varanus salvator (CITES II) at ajetty in Batu Tiga, Jalan Gambang. The animals,contained in 448 boxes, were being unloadedfrom a trailer to a waiting vessel. A number ofpeople eluded capture but five Chinese nation-als and one local person were arrested. Thelizards are protected by law and no licenceshad been issued to hunt or catch the animals.The suspects were to be investigated underthe Wildlife Protection Act 1972. Once investiga-tions were completed, it was reported that theforeign suspects were to be handed over tothe Immigration Department and the lizardsreleased in Tasik Cini,Tasik Bera National Parkand Kuala Krau forest reserve.

On 13 November 2006, thousands of cobrasNaja, pythons Python and Malayan PangolinsManis javanica (CITES I) were seized from fish-ermen’s jetties at Losong Pasir and LosongPaloh near Kuala Terengganu after being foundby villagers in some 650 boxes. Some of ani-mals were believed to have been smuggled infrom Indonesia and Thailand. TerengganuWildlife and National Park assistant directorNurullza Wagiman believed the animals hadbeen left there before they were to be sent toother destinations.

On 2 December 2006, Customs officers actingon information raided a shrimp paste factorynear the Sungai Kapal beach in KampungSungai Kepal, Penggerang, Johor State, andseized a large consignment of reptiles. Severalmen escaped but the driver and co-driver of alorry were arrested. Inside the vehicle, officersfound 50 crates containing 444 snakes, mainlycobras, 191 boxes containing 2488 BengalMonitors Varanus bengalensis (CITES I), andmore crates with 1889 tortoises (species notreported). More tortoises were found in 11crates stacked under some trees. The animalswere believed to be destined for the restau-rant trade in a neighbouring country. A manthought to be the owner of the factory, and theemployer of the lorry drivers, were laterarrested near Penggerang. The owner facescharges of possessing prohibited goods andtrying to avoid payment of export duties. Theanimals were handed over to wildlife depart-ment officials and were due to be released intothe wild.

On 30 January 2007, a man was caught withnearly 300 Malayan Pangolins Manis javanica(CITES II) which were about to be smuggledinto Thailand. State Wildlife and National ParksDepartment officials, acting on information,inspected a lorry parked outside a house inBekelam, Backok and found 36 plastic cratescontaining 288 pangolins. The suspect was heldfor possession of the pangolins, which are fullyprotected under the Wildlife Protection Act1972. The specimens weighed between threeand five kilogrammes each, and had reportedlybeen brought from other States such as Johorand Negri Sembilan.

On 6 March 2007, wildlife officers acting oninformation conducted a raid at the Second AirCargo Complex in Batu Maung. Inside 86crates they found 2400 Common Rat SnakesPtyas mucosus (CITES II), bound for Hong Kong.

The species, protected under the WildlifeProtection Act 1972, is only common in thenorthern part of the country, and could alsohave been brought in from Thailand.

On 14 March 2007, a tannery owner wascharged with concealing illegal activities relat-ing to the processing of skins at his tannery inJalan Gambang. His assistant faces threecharges for illegal possession of wildlife.

The tannery was authorized to deal onlyin python skin but when State Wildlife and

National Parks Department officers raided thepremises, they found 748 Clouded MonitorLizards Varanus nebulosus (CITES I), 231Oriental Rat Snakes Ptyas mucosus and fourKing Cobras Ophiophagus hannah (both CITESII and protected under the Wildlife ProtectionAct 1972), as well as 800 g of pangolin Manisjavanica (CITES II) bones and scales.

A trial hearing was set for 18 September2007.

On 11 April 2007, at Kota KinabaluMagistrates’ Court, the skipper and crew of aChinese trawler that was apprehended on 29March with 274 marine turtles on board, werefined more than RM1.88 m (USD55 000). Thesame court also fined nine VietnameseRM720 000 for illegally fishing in Malaysianwaters on 3 April. The fishermen were unableto pay their fines and were each gaoled forbetween six and 18 months in default.

The Chinese nationals, from Hainan Island,were accused of fishing illegally in Malaysianwaters 17.5 nautical miles off Pulau Mengalumon 28 March and of poaching 185 GreenTurtles Chelonia mydas (CITES I) and 89Hawksbill Turtles Eretmochelys imbricata(CITES I). The Vietnamese had been appre-hended 80 nautical miles off Kota Kinabalu.

The Star (Malaysia), 21 October/14 November 2006/7March 2007: www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/3/7/nation/17065647; http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/10/21/nation/20061021161145;http://archives.thestar.com.my/search/default.aspx?query=illegally+fishing; New Straits Times (Malaysia), 5 Dec-ember 2006: www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Tuesday/National/20061205080416/Article/index_html;http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Malaysian_police_save_5_000_smuggle_12042006.html; www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Wednesday/NewsBreak/20070131183625/Article/index_html; www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Thursday/National/20070315083140/Article/index_html; New Straits Times (Malaysia), 15 March2007

THAILAND

On 11 October 2006, authorities seized over200 live Siamese Crocodiles Crocodylus siamen-sis (CITES I) being transported by lorry fromthe Thai/Cambodia border to a private croco-dile farm. Acting on information,Customs offi-cials followed the vehicle as it crossed intoThailand at Aranyaprathet District, SakeawProvince. Officials detained the driver andseized the crocodiles together with one freez-er box of crocodile skins.

The source of the crocodiles has not beenconfirmed. Crocodiles are protected inThailand. Although they can be found in manycaptive-breeding facilities in the country, theyare almost extinct in the wild. An official fromthe Fisheries Department of Thailand hasalready confirmed that no permit was issuedrecently for the import of these crocodiles.The confiscation and arrest was reported tobe as a result of the increased awareness in therole of Customs officials in helping to stop ille-gal wildlife trade and Thailand’s role as principallead in the ASEAN-Wildlife EnforcementNetwork (ASEAN-WEN). ASEAN-WEN is amulti-lateral initiative designed to protect



Asia’s wildlife by facilitating cross-border inter-agencies co-operation and the exchange ofvital information.

The lorry driver, a Thai national, wascharged under the Customs Act and the WildlifeLaw Act. The crocodiles were to be transport-ed to a wildlife holding facility outside Bangkok.

On 19 November 2006, anti-wildlife traffickingofficials at the Thai–Laos border seized 260Malayan Pangolins Manis javanica (CITES II)which were about to be shipped to Laos,thence to China, where they were to be soldas food.

The seizure came after authorities raideda lorry parked near the Mekong River borderwith Laos. The driver and another personwere charged with illegal animal trafficking andwere detained under police custody.

During January and February 2007, there werefour separate attempts by Japanese nationalsto smuggle Slow Lorises Nycticebus coucang(CITES II) out of Suvarnabhumi Airport,Bangkok, to Japan. Three people were arrest-ed last year for smuggling this species.

The most recent attempt took place on 24February 2007, when 23, mostly new-bornSlow Lorises, were checked onto a flight boundfor Narita Airport. The suspect, who neverboarded the plane and eluded arrest, is nowbeing sought by police in Bangkok. Airportauthorities were alerted by noises comingfrom the suspect’s luggage and upon investiga-tion found the 23 specimens inside tiny cages.One of the animals died from suffocation butthe remainder were placed under the care of agovernment-run wildlife sanctuary.

The airport authorities are reported to bein talks with wildlife crime police and Customsofficials with regard to conducting an investiga-tion into this illegal trade between Thailand andJapan (see also under Japan).

In early 2007, some 1000 Indian Star TortoisesGeochelone elegans (CITES II) being smuggledinto Thailand were found by Customs officersduring a routine inspection of luggage. Theconsignment, which also contained Snake-necked Turtles Chelodina siebenrocki and otheraquatic animals, was confiscated.

Kampuchea Thmey Daily (Cambodia), No. 1163, year 5th,13 October 2006; Raksmey Kampuchea Daily (Cambo-dia), No. 4105, year 14th, 13 October 2006; WildAidFoundation (Thailand) release of 28 February 2007 post-ed at www.tatnews.org/special_interest?Wildlife/3324.asp (Tourism Authority of Thailand); www.playfuls.com/news_10_16713-Slow-Lorises-Smuggler-Eludes-Arrest-In-Thailand.html; http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nws/p/ap_small.gif, 19 November 2006; The Times, 1February 2007: www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,2576995, 00.html

VIET NAM

On 23 October 2006, police in Quang NamProvince seized over 344 kg of snakes, turtlesand Monitor Lizards Varanus salvator (CITES II)being transported in bags and cages from HoChi Minh City to China by bus. The animalswere destined for sale to restaurants. Theowner of the bus was detained. Most of the

animals were healthy, and it is reported thatthey were likely to be sent to a rescue centreat Cuc Phuong National Park.

www.voanews.com/english/2006-10-24-voa20.cfm, 24October 2006

O C E A N I A

AUSTRALIA

On 19 January 2007, at Downing CentreDistrict Court, French national Pascal ReneDella Zuana was fined AUD10 000 (USD8294)and sentenced to two years in gaol after beingconvicted of attempting to smuggle 23 exoticbird eggs into Australia from Bangkok,Thailand,in contravention of the CommonwealthEnvironment Protection and Biodiversity Act,CITES, the Customs Act 1901 and theQuarantine Act 1908. Della Zuana was stoppedby Customs officers at Sydney InternationalAirport on 2 August 2006 after he arrived ona flight from Bangkok. He was found to bewearing a specially constructed singlet under-neath his clothing which held bird eggs includ-ing macaws (species not reported), GreyParrots Psittacus erithacus, Eclectus ParrotsEclectus roratus (both CITES II) and oneMoluccan Cockatoo Cacatua moluccensis(CITES I). Della Zuana was subsequentlycharged by Customs investigators and hadbeen on remand since his arrest in August.Due to the quarantine risk the eggs had to bedestroyed by irradiation. Identification of thebirds was possible through DNA analysis.

On 8 February 2007, at Ceduna Magistrates’Court, Nicholas Karagiannis, of Coorabie,South Australia, was sentenced to 18 monthsin gaol with a 12-month non-parole period forabalone Haliotis poaching and fined AUD30 000(USD24 883)—the maximum fine allowableunder existing fisheries laws—making this arecord sentence imposed by South Australiafor such an offence. A vehicle, boat, diving gearand camping equipment belonging toKaragiannis were also forfeited. Karagiannishad been gaoled twice before for abalonepoaching offences.

This case follows a joint Fisheries andpolice operation in June 2005. As a result ofthat operation, Karagiannis and two otherswere caught with almost 2000 abalones:Robert Hedley Miller, of Croydon, pleadedguilty to possessing a commercial quantity ofabalone for the purpose of sale and was placedon a two-year good behaviour bond. The thirdperson is still before the court.

On 15 February 2007, at Geelong CountyCourt, three abalone poachers had gaol sen-tences re-imposed after losing their appeal forthe sentence to be revoked. Hung Quoc Doanof Lalor, Peter Phung of Sunshine West andLung Van Luu of Lalor, pleaded guilty inGeelong Magistrates’ Court in November2006 to trafficking in a commercial quantity ofabalone and other charges relating to illegalfishing. All were convicted and given custodial

sentences but were later bailed after lodgingappeals against their sentences.

On 4 May 2006, the three men travelledon Phung’s boat from Werribee South to PointWilson where Doan and Luu dived forabalone. The abalones were then shucked andplaced inside bags which were later hidden onthe river bank at Werribee. A vehicle carryingthe three collected the abalones and drove off.Fisheries officers followed but when theyattempted to pull the car over, it acceleratedaway with Doan and Luu throwing the bagscontaining 517 abalones out the windows.

The judge ruled that there had been novalid reason given for the men taking morethan five times the commercial quantity ofabalone and rejected any suggestion they werefor their own use. Doan was sentenced tonine months’ imprisonment with a non-paroleperiod of three months, the remainder sus-pended for 12 months. He was also finedAUD1250 (USD1036). Phung was convictedand sentenced to nine months in gaol with anon-parole period of three months and theremainder suspended for 12 months. He wasalso fined AUD400 (USD330). Luu was con-victed and sentenced to 12 months’ imprison-ment with a non-parole period of six monthsand the remainder suspended for 12 months.He was also fined AUD750 (US622).

Personal items (boat, car and mobilephone) were forfeited to the Crown and eachwas ordered to pay AUD1550 (USD1285) incompensation and costs.

On 26 February 2007, at Perth Magistrates’Court, three people were each fined up toAUD3500 (USD2795) after pleading guilty totrying to take large numbers of abalone out ofthe country. The two women and a man werecaught at Perth International Airport inNovember and December 2006 during a jointoperation involving Customs and WesternAustralian Department of Fisheries officers.Each person had more than four times thelegal limit of 20 Roe’s Abalones Haliotis roei intheir hand luggage. The court was told allthree had misunderstood Western Australia’sfisheries laws and were intending to give theshellfish to family in Asia.

Australian Customs media release, 20 January 2007:www.customs.gov.au/site/page.cfm?c=8431; www.geelon-gadvertiser.com.au/article/2007/02/15/1434_news.html,15 February 2007; Western Australian Department ofFisheries media release, 25 February 2007; ABCNewsonline, 26 February 2007: www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1857591.htm; www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21203831-2682,00.html?from=public_rss, 11 February 2007

A M E R I C A S

CANADA

Thousands of diet pill shipments ordered byCanadians are arriving at Canada’s borders andbeing detained by federal wildlife and Customsofficials because they contain the plant HoodiaHoodia (listed in CITES II since 12 January2005).



Hoodia is used as an appetite suppressant.Foreign marketers, based predominantly in theUSA, are advertising to Canadians who placeorders, often unaware that the seller is outsideCanada. Since May 2006, these shipments havebeen intercepted daily at international mailcentres, courier facilities and airports inMontreal, Quebec City, Mississauga, Calgaryand Vancouver because importers do not havethe proper permits. In excess of 2000 ship-ments had been detained by August 2006. Nocharges have been laid, but federal wildlife offi-cers may charge importers who have notobtained the proper permits.

Hoodia is a cactus native to Namibia,Botswana and South Africa.

Environment Canada has laid 14 chargesagainst Wing Quon Enterprises Ltd for alleged-ly importing specimens of CITES-listed specieswithout the required permits and for unlawful-ly possessing and distributing medicines con-taining Tiger Panthera tigris, bear Ursus, pangolinManis, musk deer Moschus and rhinocerosderivatives.

The company has been charged with threecounts of importing CITES-listed plant specieswithout a permit in contravention of Section6(2) of the Wild Animal and Plant Protection andRegulation of International and InterprovincialTrade Act (WAPPRIITA), the legislative vehicleby which Canada meets its obligations underCITES. The company has also been chargedwith nine counts under Section 8(a) of the Actfor unlawful possession of medicines contain-ing bear, pangolin, musk deer and rhinocerosderivatives and two counts under Section 8(c)of the Act related to the distribution of medi-cines containing Tiger and rhinoceros. Thecharges follow an investigation by the WildlifeEnforcement Division.

On 14 November 2006, in the Ontario Courtof Justice Criminal Division, Caviar Centre Inc.was convicted of unlawfully importing sturgeoncaviar into Canada from Turkey without a per-mit. The company, one of Canada’s premiercaviar import and wholesale operations, wasfined CAD3000 (USD2640) and ordered toforfeit the 126 kg of seized caviar. It is allegedthat the caviar in question originated in theCaspian Sea region.

The conviction concluded an investigationundertaken by Environment Canada in late2004 and early 2005. The investigation includ-ed the detection and detention of large quan-tities of caviar entering Canada at PearsonInternational Airport, Toronto, and a searchwarrant executed at the Toronto address ofCaviar Centre Inc.

All species of sturgeon are listed in CITESas well as being protected under WAPPRIITA.The convicted company attempted to importcaviar using falsified CITES permits.

The forfeited caviar was to be destroyedowing to its age, as its human consumption inany manner would likely constitute a healthhazard.

On 18 April 2007, in Prince Rupert, BritishColumbia, three people received the heaviestpenalties that have ever been imposed for

abalone poaching in BC. The men had beencaught with 11 000 Northern or Pinto AbaloneHaliotis kamtschatkana in February 2006 (seeTRAFFIC Bulletin 21(1):40), the largest consign-ment of illegally caught abalones ever made inthe province. The species was assigned aThreatened status in 1999.

Each poacher received a conditional sen-tence which includes house arrest, a new formof punishment for abalone poaching in BC.Michael McNeill was given a 12-month condi-tional sentence with six months house arrest, afive-year scuba-diving prohibition and was finedCAD20 000 (USD17 850). His lorry, boat andequipment used during the crime were forfeit-ed. Daniel McNeill and Randall Graff eachreceived four-month conditional sentences,with three months of house arrest, two-yeardiving bans, CAD10 000 (USD8926) in fines,and 80 hours of community work involving pre-sentations on abalone conservation. They alsohad to forfeit CAD4000 worth of equipment.

The men were apprehended leaving PortEdward, near Prince Rupert, on their way toVancouver to sell the abalone. They are thefirst abalone poachers convicted under thefour-year old Species at Risk Act (SARA).

Environment Canada, Press Releases, 28/29 August, 14November 2006: www.ec.gc.ca/press/2006/060828_n_e.htm; Globe and Mail (Canada), 20 April 2007: www.the-globeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070420.BCA-BALONE20/TPStory/TPNational/BritishColumbia;TRAFFICBulletin 21(1):40

COLOMBIA

On 11 April 2007, marine troops seized 1030Spectacled Caiman Caiman crocodylus fuscus(CITES II) skins which reportedly were to betraded in the municipality of Magangué. Theskins had been concealed on board a woodenvessel manned by four crew members who werehanded over to the custody of the authorities.

www.armada.mil.co/index.php?idcategoria=274336

USA

On 13 November 2006 it was announced thatAntonio Vidal Pego of Rebeira, Spain, andFadilur, S.A., a Uruguayan corporation, hadbeen found guilty of charges related to anattempt to import and sell illegally possessedPatagonian Toothfish Dissostichus eleginoides, inwhat is the first successful federal felony pros-ecution in the USA for activities involving ille-gal importation and sale of toothfish.Sentencing included a fine of USD400 000 andUSD100 000 for Vidal and Fadilur, S.A., respec-tively.

Fadilur was convicted on its plea to falselabelling, importation of illegally possessed fish,and attempted sale of that fish. Additionally,both Fadilur and defendant Vidal were convict-ed of obstructing justice. In May 2004, Vidaland Fadilur, S.A., knowingly attempted toimport approximately 24 000 kg of toothfishfrom Singapore into Miami, for sale in the USA,knowing that the fish were taken and trans-ported in violation of CCAMLR (Commissionfor the Conservation of Antarctic MarineLiving Resources) and US law. The defendantsmade and submitted a false record and accountfor fish intended to be imported into the USAfrom Singapore. Finally, in July 2004, the defen-

dants knowingly altered and made a false entryin a survey report purporting to reflect atoothfish cargo off-loaded at Singapore fromthe F/V CARRAN with the intent to obstructand influence the investigation and properadministration of a matter within the jurisdic-tion of NOAA (National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration).

According to records in the case, the gov-ernment seized the toothfish which arrived inthe USA in a total of 11 cargo containers onthree separate vessels, all of which werederived from the F/V CARRAN catch. NOAAand ICE agents in Miami, Los Angeles, and NewYork seized all the containers. The plea agree-ments in this case include provisions requiringthe forfeiture of all the fish, or the proceeds ofthe government’s sale of the fish, to the USA.Vidal, as a result of co-operation provided tothe US Government in the investigation orprosecution of others, was placed on proba-tion for a period of four years, and is requiredas a condition of that probation to cease allinvolvement in the toothfish industry. TheCourt’s Probation Office and the USGovernment are empowered to enforce thisprovision by examining the books and recordsof any business activities of Vidal and to requirehis appearance in the USA as necessary.Further, Vidal has been required to provide awaiver of extradition for use in the event of aviolation of the terms of the sentence. TheUSD400 000 fine imposed against Vidal will bepaid into the Magnuson–Stevens FisheryConservation and Management Act Fund. Fadilur,S.A. was also placed on probation for a periodof four years and fined USD100 000, payable tothe Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation andManagement Act Fund, and is required by theterms of its plea and the sentence to cease allcorporate activities and dissolve as a businessentity within 45 days.

The harvest and trade of PatagonianToothfish is regulated under CCAMLR, imple-mented in the USA through the AntarcticMarine Living Resources Act.

On 14 November 2006, NOAA announcedthat it had issued a USD68 000 civil penaltyand a 100-day permit sanction to the ownerand operator of the fishing vessel Sea Angel formultiple violations of the Magnuson–StevensFishery Conservation and Management Act, whichincluded shark finning, possession of largecoastal sharks during a closure, possession ofprohibited sharks, and possession of under-sized swordfish.

On 18 May 2006, Florida Fish and WildlifeConservation Commission officers, operatingunder a Cooperative Enforcement Agreementwith NOAA Fisheries Service Office for LawEnforcement, conducted a dockside inspectionof the fishing vessel in Port Canaveral, Florida,and discovered fins of large coastal sharks onboard. The fishing season for large coastalsharks had already ended. Accordingly, theFWC officers contacted NOAA special agents,who initiated an investigation. Subsequently,the agents seized 41 kg of shark fins and anundersized Swordfish Xiphias gladius carcass.

Identification by a shark fin expert andDNA analysis indicated that some of the finsseized were from protected shark species,including Dusky Sharks Carcharhinus obscurus.



On 22 January 2007, Kevin Thompson, pastorof the Bay Area Family Church, Holy SpiritAssociation for the Unification of WorldChristianity in San Leandro, California, and fiveother individuals, were found guilty of beinginvolved in the illegal catching of thousands ofundersized juvenile Leopard Sharks Triakissemifasciata from San Francisco Bay and sellingthem to aquarium dealers throughout thecountry, the UK and the Netherlands.Thompson pleaded guilty and was sentencedto one year and one day in prison and orderedto pay USD100 000 in fines. The five otherscharged in connection with the case, and whowere sentenced on separate occasions, were:Ira Gass of Azusa, California (finedUSD100 000 and sentenced to eight months’imprisonment and three years of supervisedrelease); John Newberry of Hayward,California (fined USD50 000 and sentenced tosix months’ imprisonment and six months ofcommunity confinement); Hiroshi Ishikawa ofSan Leandro, California (fined USD40 000 andsentenced to three years’ probation); and, SionLim, a citizen of Singapore (fined USD25 000and sentenced to one year probation). Thesemonies have been designated for rehabilitatingand restoring marine wildlife habitat in SanFrancisco Bay.

From 1992 to 2003, Thompson led ascheme whereby members of his church ille-gally harvested undersized Leopard Sharksfrom San Francisco Bay and sold themthroughout the USA and overseas. JohnNewberry admitted that from 1992 to 2004,he and other church members fished forundersized Leopard Sharks using church ves-

sels and stored the sharks at a facility locatedin San Leandro, owned by a business associat-ed with the church. They then shipped thesharks out of Oakland and San Francisco air-ports for sale to dealers throughout the coun-try and abroad. Thompson came under suspi-cion when a pet trade distributor in Miami wascaught with 18 juvenile Leopard Sharks fromCalifornia and given an 18-month gaol sen-tence. The case eventually led investigatorsback to the Bay Area where the principal sup-pliers were based. Some 465 juvenile LeopardSharks were sold.

Leopard Sharks are commonly found inocean waters along the Oregon, California andBaja Mexico coasts. The sharks gained extraprotection in 1994 when the StateDepartment of Fish and Game placed a mini-mum size catch limit of 36 inches (91.5 cm) onthe species. This size limit was implementedbecause the Leopard Shark is a slow-growingspecies that does not reach sexual maturityuntil it is between 7 and 13 years of age. Thespecies may live as long as 30 years. Becauseof these factors and others, including increasedcommercial and sport fishing, California Statewildlife authorities have established these man-agement measures to ensure the species’ abil-ity to maintain healthy stocks in the wild.

Both the Monterey Bay Aquarium inMonterey, California, the John G. SheddAquarium in Chicago, Illinois, and the CabrilloAquarium in San Pedro, California, assisted fed-eral wildlife investigators and IllinoisConservation officers in the transport andcare of 19 juvenile Leopard Sharks confiscatedduring the course of the investigation. Nine of

the sharks were ultimately returned to thewild in Monterey Bay, four remain on exhibit atMonterey Bay Aquarium and seven died.

The case is the result of an investigationconducted by agencies across borders, includ-ing NOAA, Fisheries Service’s Office of LawEnforcement, US Fish and Wildlife Service, theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game, theUK’s Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs and the Fish Health Inspectorate,and the Netherlands’ General InspectionService. TRAFFIC North America assistedwith the investigation.

On 26 January 2007, Alvin G. Keel was sen-tenced in the Southern District of Florida to60 months’ imprisonment and three years’supervised release.

Keel was convicted on 30 October 2006of the unlawful possession of LoggerheadCaretta caretta (CITES I) eggs, in violation of theEndangered Species Act, and the unlawful trans-portation of sea turtle eggs, in violation of theLacey Act. Keel was reportedly seen digging upfour separate nests of freshly laid Loggerheadeggs on 4 June 2004. The next day, law enforce-ment officers discovered a large bag containingtwo pillow cases filled with 481 sea turtle eggsnear to where Keel had been caught.

Keel has three prior federal convictions inthe Southern District of Florida for crimesinvolving the illegal taking of protected sea tur-tle eggs, as well as four other state convictionsinvolving the taking of sea turtle eggs.

On 16 April 2007, at Los Angeles federal court,Hisayoshi Kojima, of Kyoto, Japan, was sen-tenced to 21 months’ imprisonment and fineda total of USD38 831 for trafficking in protect-ed butterfly species. US Fish and Wildlife spe-cial agents began investigating Kojima in 2003after an insect dealer told agents of Kojima’sreputation within the trade as the world’s topsmuggler of protected butterflies. He wasindicted by a grand jury and arrested in July2006. He pleaded guilty in January 2007 to 17criminal charges related to the sale and smug-gling of butterfly species, including the CITES-Ilisted Homerus Swallowtail Papilio homerus.Forty-three butterflies were sold to undercov-er agents, including two Alexandra’s BirdwingsOrnithoptera alexandrae (CITES I), two LuzonPeacock Swallowtails Papilio chikae (CITES I),six Corsican Swallowtails Papilio hospiton(CITES I), three Paradise BirdwingsOrnithoptera paradisia (CITES II), twoOrnithoptera meridionalis (CITES II) and threeBhutan Glory butterflies Bhutanitis lidderdalii(CITES II), as well as 23 other species.

Department of Justice press releases, www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/061113-01.html; www.usdoj.gov/usao/can/press/2007/2007_01_23_Thompson.sentencing.press.html, 23 January; 12 February 2007: www.usdoj.gov/usao/can/press/2007/2007_02_12_leopardsharks.sentencing.press.html; www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/070126-04.html; NOAA Fisheries Service pressrelease, 14 November 2006: www.nmfs. noaa.gov; US Fish& Wildlife Service News Release, 16 April 2007:w w w . f w s . g o v / n e w s / N e w s R e l e a s e s / s h o wNews.cfm?newsId=FCD050C1-E3EE-5FF3-85B01AEA2953D8 52

LEOPARD SHARKS AMONG 19 SPECIMENS CONFISCATED IN THE USA AND DELIVERED TO MONTEREY

BAY AQUARIUM FOR CARE PRIOR TO THEIR RELEASE. FOUR SPECIMENS REMAIN AT THE AQUARIUM

WHERE THEY WILL STAY AS THEY CONTINUE TO GROW. WHEN THEY REACH A SIZE WHERE THEY CAN

NO LONGER BE ACCOMMODATED AT THE AQUARIUM, THEY WILL BE RELEASED INTO MONTEREY BAY.

MO

NTE

RE

YB

AYA

QU

AR

IUM

/ R

AN

DY

WIL

DE

R


S H O R T C O M M U N I C A T I O N

World Without Borders: Wildlife Trade onthe Chinese-language Internet

J. Wu

INTRODUCTION

THE INTERNET holds both challenges andopportunities for wildlife trade. Virtual marketsnow allow buyers and sellers to connect with an

ease and speed never before possible. Particularlyimportant is the Chinese-language internet, which servesover 120 million users. Between 2000 and 2005, inter-net use increased by 450% in mainland China—overtwice the global rate—and internet users in Hong Kongand Taiwan are among the most connected in the world,each user with over 40 hours on-line each month.

Illegal wildlife trade is gaining ground on theChinese-language internet. Products from threatenedwildlife—including elephants, rhinoceroses, Tigers andmarine turtles—are openly advertised on popular web-sites in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.While wildlife law enforcement has made gains in polic-ing physical markets for wildlife, the internet presentsnew challenges. Virtual markets have yet to be properlyregulated, and this puts new pressures on wild popula-tions of threatened species.

The current study documents the state of wildlifetrade on Chinese-language websites, with the aim of aid-ing future efforts to keep this trade both legal and sus-tainable. Over eight months during 2005 and 2006, thisstudy found over 4200 unique advertisements offered byalmost 2000 sellers on the Chinese-language internet.Wildlife trade is common on both auction sites andwildlife-specific “thematic” sites targeting the Chinese-language markets of mainland China, Hong Kong, andTaiwan. These three markets share similar cultures andtastes, and categories of wildlife trade are generally sim-ilar among them, although they differ in detail. Live ani-mals are commonly offered on auction sites in mainlandChina, for example, while live animals are commonlyoffered on thematic sites in Hong Kong and Taiwan.Even accounting for the likelihood that a proportion ofthe offers made are duplicative or fraudulent, the extentof wildlife being offered for sale over the internet inapparent contravention of international and nationallaws is alarming.

BACKGROUND

By 2006, over one billion people worldwide hadaccess to the internet, an increase of almost 200%between 2000 and 2005 (Anon., 2006a). Chinese-lan-guage markets are at the forefront of this change.Internet use in mainland China grew from 22 millionusers in 2000 to 111 million users in 2005, an increase ofalmost 450% (Anon., 2006a). China’s market of inter-net users is now second in size only to that of the USA(Anon., 2006a). While growth between 2000 and 2005in Hong Kong and Taiwan has been lower (115% and

120%, respectively), Hong Kong and Taiwan are alreadyamong the most connected markets in the world. Internetusers in Hong Kong and Taiwan are connected for over40 hours per month, placing these two markets in the“top ten” for internet use worldwide.

The internet provides quick and extensive informationto this vast, connected audience. Much of this informationis about commerce, including wildlife in trade. Internetmarkets are flourishing; the auction websites Yahoo andeBay are the third and fourth top websites visited by usersworldwide (Anon., 2006b). In addition, internet chatrooms allow wildlife traders to find customers and makedeals for almost any animal, plant, or wildlife product.

While the internet is a growing platform for illegalwildlife trade, and previous reviews of English-languageinternet sites have found substantial illegal trade inwildlife (Williamson, 2004; IFAW, 2005), it is also a keyvenue for efforts to combat wildlife crime. Monitoringthe internet can produce immediate and effectiveenforcement action. A previous TRAFFIC report onivory in the USA, for example, detailed the role of inter-net auctions in illegal ivory trade, with some of theseauctions based in mainland China (Williamson, 2004).Chinese authorities quickly intervened with internetservice providers and internet auctions in Shanghai andGuangzhou, and the advertisements for ivory were sub-sequently removed from the auction sites (H.F. Xu, pers.comm.).

The current report is based on broad-scale surveys ofChinese-language websites for species protected underCITES. The goal is to provide enforcement officers andother interested parties with a better understanding ofwildlife trade on the Chinese-language internet andthereby ensure that internet markets are brought into theexisting regulatory structures of three Chinese-languagejurisdictions, namely mainland China, Hong Kong, andTaiwan. The study aims both to assist authorities in stop-ping illegal wildlife trade on the internet and in develop-ing comprehensive strategies for the regulation ofwildlife trade in both physical and virtual markets.

METHODS

The current study reviews wildlife trade on Chinese-language websites based in three jurisdictions: mainlandChina, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. (Singapore was initial-ly investigated but had neither active Chinese-languageauctions nor “thematic” websites on wildlife trade.)

The world’s two most popular auction websites,Yahoo and eBay, were surveyed through their webaddresses in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.Yahoo in Hong Kong is an independent auction website,while in mainland China it operates under Taobao (andformerly 1Pai) and under Kimo in Taiwan. For simplici-ty of comparison, this report refers to “Yahoo” in all threejurisdictions. Several independent websites with wildlifetrade themes (“thematic sites”) were also surveyed; theseincluded virtual pet shops and internet chat rooms. Thesewere located through keyword searches on several inter-net search engines designed for Chinese markets.



Agarwood Leopard SeahorseAir plant Live plant Shark finAsian Arowana Lizard SnakeBear Musk SpecimenBekko Orchid Succulent plantCibotium Parrot TigerCrocodile Rhino TortoiseDendrobium Saiga horn TurtleGinseng SandalwoodIvory Sea cucumber

Table 1. Keywords used for finding wildlife trade websitesand advertisements through internet search engines.

Data point DetailDate of survey Record date website was visited and sale was found.Website address List the web address where a particular item was found. Search terms List search terms used to locate the item found (e.g., ivory, tusk, tortoise shell, sea turtle, caviar, eggs, etc.).Commodity This will not always be applicable, but should be the most general of terms, such as ivory, turtle shell, or caviar.Category of item Categories within a commodity type can vary greatly. As an example, under the commodity of ivory, categories

include “Jewellery/Charms” (necklaces, brooches, rings, pendants, etc.); “Figurines”; “Tusks”; “Knives/Letteropeners” (including grips); “Ornaments” (ashtrays, napkin rings, chess sets, boxes, toothpicks/cocktail sticks,piano keys, etc.); and “Pieces” (random ivory pieces being offered in lots). For many commodities, the category “Miscellaneous” may be needed; where possible, however, greater specificity should be used.

Advertised species The ability to document a species is limited by the information provided. If it is possible to obtain this information, however, it should be recorded (scientific name if available, trade or common name if not).

Unit/Quantity Record how many and of what unit (e.g., 4 tonnes, 3000 individuals, etc.).Price A value, if listed, should be recorded. Include the advertised price (i.e., in the currency listed) as well as a

conversion to a standard comparison, such as US dollars.Reference to legality It is useful to record the number of items specifically advertised as being legal, mentioning the proper permits

(e.g., CITES), etc. This information is not conclusive—e.g., claims of pre-CITES ivory, for example, may befalse—yet is nonetheless important.

Country of origin If the item offered lists a country of origin, it should be recorded. Location of seller If the sale mentions the location of the seller, this information should be included, in as specific detail as

possible. The location of the seller obviously has a bearing on the legality of the sale/trade.Shipping range Record whether the item is offered for shipment domestically or internationally.Store/Individual Note whether the seller is representing an “Individual” (only one or a few items for sale) or advertising as a

“Store” (with a physical location and many items available). Any name given should be listed as well.

Table 2. Guidelines for data collection for wildlife trade surveys on the internet.

Websites in mainland China were accessed fromBeijing, and websites in Hong Kong and Taiwan wereaccessed from Taipei. In mainland China, auction web-sites were surveyed weekly for eight months, giving atotal of 32 “surveys.” Auction websites in Hong Kongand Taiwan were surveyed weekly for the first threemonths of the study (July to September 2005). Due tohigh repetition of advertisements in Hong Kong andTaiwan, however, this was reduced to twice a month forthe remaining five months (October 2005 to February2006), giving a total of 21 surveys in Hong Kong and 22in Taiwan. Thematic sites were surveyed monthly.

Keywords (Table 1) were used to find advertisementsfor wildlife commodities. Species chosen were a broad,but selective list of species in CITES Appendix I and II,known to be of interest to Chinese consumers. Recordswere made of relevant advertisements of live animalsand plants (e.g., parrots, orchids) as well as productsderived from threatened species (e.g. ivory carvings,agarwood incense). Authenticity of products could notbe tested because the objects were not physically pres-ent; this report is therefore based on the claims of sellers.Advertisements appearing in different surveys with thesame headline and by the same seller were considered as“repeats”. These were recorded in every survey to doc-ument accurately the availability but were adjusted indata analysis to avoid overestimating scope. Data pointsrecorded in the surveys are listed in Table 2.

The monitoring of internet markets is still in its ini-tial stages. The current study’s data collection protocolwas therefore developed as a guide for standardizingmethodology employed in future studies.Standardization of data collection in future will allowcomparison of research of different topics under theoverarching theme of “internet markets”. Standard-ization of methods also allows comparison of studies

done at different times as well as at different scales.Flexibility is needed for studies of varying scope andscale, of course; the guidelines (Table 2) provide thisflexibility.

Legal trade in CITES-listed species (and deriva-tives) is possible, particularly for those listed inAppendix II, and illegality of trade typically cannot bedetermined simply from availability on the internet. Forexample, pre-Convention and captive-bred specimens,such as Asian Arowana Scleropages formosus markedby microchip transponders, may be legally traded inter-nationally as well as domestically. For Appendix Ispecies, the potential for products offered on the internetto represent a violation of legal restrictions is relativelyhigh. Rhinoceros horn products (including antiques),for example, can only be traded legally with CITESimport and export permits in very limited circumstancesand cannot be legally sold in any of the three markets(i.e., mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan).Equally, all elephant ivory (including antiques) requirescertification for legal trade, as do all captive-bred ani-mals of CITES Appendix I species. There are no captivebreeding facilities in Hong Kong or Taiwan to provide



Com

mon

Eng

lish

nam

eSc

ient

ific

nam

eIU

CN

Red

O

n au

ctio

n O

n th

emat

ic

In m

ainl

and

In H

ong

Kon

gIn

Tai

wan

Lis

t sta

tus

site

site

Chi

na

Tige

rPa

nthe

ra ti

gris

ENx

xx

Leop

ard

Pant

hera

par

dus

LCx

xA

siat

ic B

lack

Bea

rU

rsus

thib

etan

usV

Ux

xEl

epha

nt*

Elep

hant

idae

spp

.EN

/VU

xx

xx

xR

hino

cero

s*R

hino

cero

tidae

spp

.EN

/CR

/NT

xx

xx

Lila

c-cr

owne

d A

maz

onAm

azon

a fin

schi

V

Ux

xYe

llow

-nap

ed P

arro

tAm

azon

a oc

hroc

epha

la a

urop

allia

taLC

xx

Yello

w H

eade

d Pa

rrot

Amaz

ona

ochr

ocep

hala

ora

trix

ENx

xx

Tucu

man

Par

rot

Amaz

ona

tucu

man

aN

Tx

xV

inac

eous

Am

azon

Amaz

ona

vina

cea

VU

xx

Gre

en-c

heek

ed A

maz

onAm

azon

a vi

ridi

gena

lisEN

xx

Hya

cint

h M

acaw

Anod

orhy

nchu

s hya

cint

hinu

sEN

xx

Scar

let M

acaw

Ara

mac

aoLC

xx

Mili

tary

Mac

awAr

a m

ilita

ris

VU

xx

Red

-fro

nted

Mac

awAr

a ru

brog

enys

ENx

xB

lue

Hea

ded

Mac

awPr

opyr

rhur

a co

ulon

i-

xx

Gof

fin’s

Coc

kato

oC

acat

ua g

offin

iN

Tx

xM

oluc

can

Coc

kato

oC

acat

ua m

oluc

cens

isV

Ux

xYe

llow

-cre

sted

Coc

kato

oC

acat

ua su

lphu

rea

CR

xx

xR

ed-f

ront

ed P

arak

eet

Cya

nora

mph

us n

ovae

zela

ndia

eV

Ux

xPa

lm C

ocka

too

Prob

osci

ger a

terr

imus

LCx

xM

adag

asca

r Gro

und

Boa

Acra

ntop

his d

umer

iliV

Ux

xR

adia

ted

Torto

ise

Geo

chel

one

radi

ata

VU

xx

xx

Ang

onok

a To

rtois

eG

eoch

elon

e yn

ipho

raEN

xx

Spid

er T

orto

ise

Pyxi

s ara

chno

ides

VU

xx

Flat

-bac

ked

Spid

er T

orto

ise

Pyxi

s pla

nica

uda

ENx

xH

awks

bill

Turtl

eEr

etm

oche

lys i

mbr

icat

aC

Rx

xx

xB

lack

Pon

d Tu

rtle

Geo

clem

ys h

amilt

onii

VU

xx

Bur

mes

e Ey

ed T

urtle

Mor

enia

oce

llata

VU

xx

Thre

e-K

eele

d La

nd T

orto

ise

Mel

anoc

hely

s tri

cari

nata

VU

xx

Spec

tacl

ed C

aim

an*

Cai

man

cro

codi

lus

LR/L

Cx

xR

hino

cero

s Ig

uana

Cyc

lura

cor

nuta

VU

xx

Gra

nd C

aym

an B

lue

Igua

naC

yclu

ra le

wis

iV

Ux

xA

sian

Aro

wan

aSc

lero

page

s for

mos

usEN

xx

xx

Tabl

e 3.

Spe

cies

list

ed in

CIT

ES

App

endi

x I a

nd o

ffere

d fo

rsa

le o

n th

e C

hine

se-la

ngua

ge in

tern

et.

*Due

to sp

lit-li

stin

g, so

me

subs

peci

es/g

eogr

aphi

c po

pula

tions

are

list

ed in

CIT

ES A

ppen

dix

II.



and Hong Kong (Figure 1). Accounting for repeats,Taiwan had the highest number of unique advertise-ments. During the course of the study, Taiwan had 2204unique advertisements, mainland China had 1602, andHong Kong 485.

For auction sites, 1983 wildlife traders (“sellers”)were identified in the current study. Taiwan had thehighest total number of sellers, and the highest numberrelative to its total internet population. There were 1097,563, and 323 sellers identified for Taiwan, mainlandChina, and Hong Kong, respectively. Comparing indi-vidual sellers to unique advertisements in each of thesethree jurisdictions, sellers offered on average 2.0, 2.8,and 1.5 wildlife products in Taiwan, mainland China, andHong Kong, respectively. This is an indication that, ineach of the three jurisdictions, most sellers on auctionsites are individuals and not professional wildlife traders.

Products offered on auction websites included thosederived from numerous “high profile” species, such aselephant, rhinoceros, Tiger, and marine turtle (Table 7).All advertisements offering rhinoceros products onmainland China auction websites were for horn carvings(not, as might be expected, for traditional medicines).Sixteen of the 32 Tiger products seen, or 50%, wereTiger bone wine; one seller offered 5000 bottles. Manyof the rhinoceros horn and non-wine Tiger products wereclaimed as historical artefacts, with some sellers claim-ing documentation, although the veracity of such docu-ments could not be confirmed.

Given the nature of restrictions on trade in CITES-listed species, it is highly likely that many, if not most, ofthe CITES species offered on the Chinese-languageinternet are illegal. This is particularly clear for CITESAppendix I species, such as those listed in Table 7. Otherexamples of clearly questionable legality include:

• a “thematic” website in Hong Kong, claiming tobe a commercial breeding centre and offering 12species of CITES Appendix I-listed parrots.However, no captive breeding facility is regis-tered in Hong Kong according to Hong Kong’sgoverning authority (AFCD in litt., to TRAFFICEast Asia).

• a “thematic” website in Taiwan, offeringAngonoka Geochelone yniphora, a CITESAppendix I species with a wild population of onlyseveral hundred, all in Madagascar. Trade in theAngonoka (and all other CITES Appendix I spec-imens) is illegal under Taiwanese law, and further,relevant authorities in Taiwan have no record ofCITES import permits for this species.

• an auction website in mainland China offeringVeiled Chameleon Chamaeleo calyptratus.According to CITES annual report data fromUNEP, nine species of Chamaeleo were importedto mainland China from 2000 to 2005.Chamaeleo calyptratus was not included.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

mainland China Hong Kong Taiwan

unique advertisements

advertisements persurveyall advertisements

Figure 1. Number of advertisements and sellers on auction websites in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan during the survey period.

domestic stock of these species, just as there are no cap-tive breeding facilities for parrots and reptiles (with theexception of crocodiles) registered in mainland China.Such considerations allow the identification of trade onthe internet that is highly likely to be illegal, though thiscan only be officially determined by appropriate author-ities checking the required documentation.

RESULTS

A wide range of species is available on theChinese-language internet (Tables 3 and 4). Species aresold as live or whole, although numerous productsderived from these species are also available (Table 5).

Products are sourced from numerous countries (Table6) and represent a significant international trade. In sur-vey results, information on the source country was high-ly variable. Advertisements on auction websites inmainland China, for example, identified the source coun-try in 97% of cases (n = 1602), while auction websites inTaiwan identified the source country in fewer than 40%of cases (n = 2204). Further, when the source countrywas listed, it was often identified as the country in whichthe auction website or thematic site was based; this washighly questionable in numerous cases (e.g., marine tur-tles, freshwater turtles, live parrots). The biases againstaccurate reporting will be consistent however, and thelevels of international trade estimated through the cur-rent study should therefore represent minimum esti-mates. For example, of 143 bekko (marine turtle) prod-ucts offered by 47 sellers on auction websites in main-land China, 25% were claimed as sourced from VietNam. Another example comes from the 208 ivory prod-ucts offered on the auction websites in Taiwan: 18% ofthem were claimed to be from countries in Africa andAsia. Although minimum estimates, this nonethelessshows significant and almost certainly illegal interna-tional trade—in these two examples, of marine turtle andof ivory— promoted by the Chinese-language internet.

During the course of the study, 4291 unique adver-tisements were identified on auction sites. Auction sitesfrom mainland China had the highest number of adver-tisements (including duplicates), followed by Taiwan

num

ber o

f adv

ertis

emen

ts



Com

mon

Eng

lish

nam

eSc

ient

ific

nam

eIU

CN

Red

On

auct

ion

On

them

atic

In

mai

nlan

dIn

Hon

g K

ong

In T

aiw

anL

ist s

tatu

ssi

tesi

teC

hina

Cre

sted

Gos

haw

kAc

cipi

ter t

rivi

rgat

usLC

xx

Love

bird

*Ag

apor

niss

pp.

VU

/LC

/NT

xx

xx

Blu

e-fr

onte

d Pa

rrot

Amaz

ona

aest

iva

LCx

xW

hite

-cap

ped

Parr

otAm

azon

a al

bifro

nsLC

xx

xO

rang

e W

inge

d Pa

rrot

Amaz

ona

amaz

onic

aLC

xx

xR

ed-lo

red

Parr

otAm

azon

a au

tum

nalis

LCx

xx

Mea

ly P

arro

tAm

azon

a fa

rino

saLC

xx

Yello

w-lo

red

Parr

otAm

azon

a xa

ntho

lora

LCx

xB

lue-

and-

gold

Mac

awAr

a ar

arau

naLC

xx

xB

uffo

n’s

Mac

awAr

a au

rico

llis

-x

xx

Red

and

Gre

en M

acaw

Ara

chlo

ropt

era

LCx

xx

Red

-bel

lied

Mac

awAr

a m

anila

taLC

xx

Che

stnu

t-fro

nted

Mac

awAr

a se

vera

LCx

xx

Red

-sho

ulde

red

Mac

awD

iops

ittac

a no

bilis

LCx

xx

Whi

te C

ocka

too

Cac

atua

alb

aV

Ux

xD

ucor

ps’s

Coc

kato

oC

acat

ua d

ucor

psii

LCx

xx

Sulp

hur-c

rest

ed C

ocka

too

Cac

atua

gal

erita

LCx

xx

xM

ajor

Mitc

hell’

s C

ocka

too

Cac

atua

lead

beat

eri

LCx

xx

Blu

e-ey

ed C

ocka

too

Cac

atua

oph

thal

mic

aLC

xx

xR

ed-b

reas

ted

Para

keet

Psitt

acul

a al

exan

dri

LRx

xPl

um-h

eade

d Pa

rake

etPs

ittac

ula

cyan

ocep

hala

LCx

xD

erby

an P

arak

eet

Psitt

acul

a de

rbia

naLC

xx

xA

fric

an G

rey

Parr

otPs

ittac

ula

erith

acus

-x

xA

lexa

ndrin

e Pa

rake

etPs

ittac

ula

eupa

tria

LCx

xR

ing-

neck

ed P

arak

eet

Psitt

acul

a kr

amer

iLC

xx

East

ern

Ros

ella

Plat

ycer

cus e

xim

ius

LRx

xx

Hill

Myn

a G

racu

la re

ligio

saLR

xx

xR

ed-f

oote

d To

rtois

eG

eoch

elon

e ca

rbon

aria

-x

xx

xx

Arg

entin

e To

rtois

eG

eoch

elon

e ch

ilens

isV

Ux

xYe

llow

-foo

ted

Torto

ise

Geo

chel

one

dent

icul

ata

VU

xx

Indi

an S

tar T

orto

ise

Geo

chel

one

eleg

ans

LR/L

Cx

xx

xx

Ald

abra

Gia

nt T

orto

ise

Geo

chel

one

giga

ntea

VU

xx

Leop

ard

Torto

ise

Geo

chel

one

pard

alis

-x

xx

xB

urm

ese

Star

Tor

tois

eG

eoch

elon

e pl

atyn

ota

CR

xx

Afr

ican

Spu

rred

Tor

tois

eG

eoch

elon

e su

lcat

aV

Ux

xx

xEl

onga

ted

Torto

ise

Indo

test

udo

elon

gata

ENx

xx

xC

eleb

es T

orto

ise

Indo

test

udo

fors

teni

ENx

xB

ell’s

Hin

ged

Torto

ise

Kin

ixys

bel

liana

-x

xH

ome’

s H

inge

d-ba

cked

Tor

tois

eK

inix

ys h

omea

naV

Ux

xx

Tabl

e 4.

Liv

e an

imal

s lis

ted

in C

ITE

S A

ppen

dix

II a

nd o

ffere

d fo

rsa

le o

n th

e C

hine

se-la

ngua

ge in

tern

et.

*Aga

porn

is ro

seic

ollis

was

del

eted

from

App

endi

x II

on

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

05.



Com

mon

Eng

lish

nam

eSc

ient

ific

nam

eIU

CN

Red

On

auct

ion

On

them

atic

In

mai

nlan

dIn

Hon

g K

ong

In T

aiw

anL

ist s

tatu

ssi

tesi

teC

hina

Nat

al H

inge

-bac

ked

Torto

ise

Kin

ixys

nat

alen

sis

LR/N

Tx

xPa

ncak

e To

rtois

eM

alac

oche

rsus

torn

ieri

VU

xx

xB

urm

ese

Mou

ntai

n To

rtois

eM

anou

ria

emys

ENx

xSp

ur-th

ighe

d To

rtois

eTe

stud

o gr

aeca

VU

xx

xx

xH

erm

ann’

s Tor

tois

eTe

stud

o he

rman

niLR

/NT

xx

xH

orsf

ield

’s T

orto

ise

Test

udo

hors

field

iiV

Ux

xM

argi

nate

d To

rtois

eTe

stud

o m

argi

nata

LR/L

Cx

xPi

g-no

sed

Turtl

eC

aret

toch

elys

insc

ulpt

aV

Ux

xx

xSo

uth

Asi

an B

ox T

urtle

Cuo

ra a

mbo

inen

sis

VU

xx

xG

olde

n-he

aded

Box

Tur

tleC

uora

aur

ocap

itata

CR

xx

Yello

w-m

argi

ned

Box

Tur

tleC

uora

flav

omar

gina

taEN

xx

xIn

doch

ines

e B

ox T

urtle

Cuo

ra g

albi

nifro

nsC

Rx

xC

hine

se T

hree

-stri

ped

Box

Tur

tleC

uora

trifa

scia

taC

Rx

xYe

llow

Pon

d Tu

rtle

Mau

rem

ys m

utic

aEN

xx

xx

Big

Hea

ded

Turtl

ePl

atys

tern

on m

egac

epha

lum

ENx

xYe

llow

-spo

tted

Side

neck

Tur

tlePo

docn

emis

uni

filis

VU

xx

xK

eele

d B

ox T

urtle

Pyxi

dea

mou

hotii

ENx

xC

omm

on B

ox T

urtle

Terr

apen

e ca

rolin

aLR

/NT

xx

Orn

ate

Box

Tur

tleTe

rrap

ene

orna

taLR

/NT

xx

Stra

wbe

rry

Pois

on F

rog

Den

drob

ates

pum

ilio

LCx

xG

olde

n M

ante

llaM

ante

lla a

uran

tiaca

CR

xx

Bro

wn

Man

tella

Man

tella

bet

sile

oLC

xx

Yello

w M

ante

llaM

ante

lla c

roce

aEN

xx

Arb

orea

l Man

tella

Man

tella

laev

igat

aN

Tx

xM

adag

asca

n M

ante

llaM

ante

lla m

adag

asca

rien

sis

VU

xx

Park

er’s

Man

tella

Man

tella

pul

chra

VU

xx

Gre

en M

ante

llaM

ante

lla v

irid

isC

Rx

xR

ainb

ow B

oaEp

icra

tes c

ench

ria

-x

xK

enya

San

d B

oaG

ongy

loph

is c

olub

rinu

s -

xx

Ros

y B

oaLi

chan

ura

triv

irgat

a -

xx

Gre

en A

naco

nda

Eune

ctes

mur

inus

-x

xB

urm

ese

Pyth

onPy

thon

mol

urus

LR

xx

Bal

l Pyt

hon

Pyth

on re

gius

-x

xx

xM

inut

e Le

af C

ham

eleo

nBr

ooke

sia

min

ima

-x

xPy

gmy

Cha

mel

eon

Broo

kesi

a sp

ectr

um-

xx

Veile

d C

ham

eleo

nC

ham

aele

o ca

lypt

ratu

s-

xx

Pant

her C

ham

eleo

nFu

rcife

r par

dalis

-x

xG

reen

Igua

naIg

uana

igua

na-

xx

Mon

itor l

izar

dsVa

ranu

sspp

. (14

spp

.)-

xx

Seah

orse

sH

ippo

cam

puss

pp.

DD

/VU

xx

Tabl

e 4

(ctd

). L

ive

anim

als l

iste

d in

CIT

ES

App

endi

x II

and

offe

red

for

sale

on

the

Chi

nese

-lang

uage

inte

rnet

.



A Hong Kong website offering reptiles Rhino horn antiques sold on a Chinese auction website

The companies providing auction websites seemgenerally aware of wildlife regulations. In all the threejurisdictions, eBay prohibits the trade of live animals(excluding live seafood for human consumption and liveinsects as food for pets), as does Yahoo in Taiwan. Interms of wildlife products, eBay is more consistent in itsgeneral wildlife trade policies in all three markets,although it does refer to the different laws and regula-tions in the three jurisdictions. The policies on wildlifetrade are not so obvious on Yahoo, with references sim-ply to proclamations and legislation in Hong Kong andTaiwan. In mainland China, Yahoo prohibits trade innationally protected species, including all ivory andbekko products.

Most of the thematic websites in the current studywere business websites. Some of these were completelyvirtual, while others also had bricks-and-mortar shops.A total of 35 thematic websites were located (16, 15, andfour in mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong,respectively). Most of these (27) were engaged in thelive pet trade. A wider range of live animals was foundon thematic websites than on auction websites, especial-ly for Hong Kong and Taiwan. A total of 139 species oflive birds, 279 species of reptiles, and 27 species ofamphibians were found on thematic websites in main-land China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. In each of thesetaxonomic groups, over 50% of the species in trade onthe Chinese-language internet were listed in the CITESAppendices (ranging from 37% of the amphibians to94% of the birds).

In terms of shipment, sellers typically offered deliv-ery through the post office or other parcel delivery serv-ice. Face-to-face delivery, often for live animals, wasmost common in Hong Kong, and rare in Taiwan. Somesellers, representing bricks-and-mortar shops, askedbuyers to pick up their purchases from the shops. Twowebsites of fish shops in north-east China used the postto ship their fish, which included Asian Arowana.

Looking at the differences between the three markets(i.e., mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong), live animals(e.g., tortoises, parrots) were most commonly availableon auction websites in mainland China, while live plants(e.g., Dendrobium orchids, various succulents) were

most commonly available on auction websites in HongKong and Taiwan. Traditional medicines purported tobe made from Tiger bone, bear bile, musk, SaigaAntelope Saiga tatarica horn, seahorse, andDendrobium orchids were found on auction websites ofmainland China, but not of Hong Kong or Taiwan.

DISCUSSION

Web hosts—both of auction and thematic sites—need to accept responsibility and take a greater role instopping illegal trade. This can be done by improvingthe sensitivity of screening systems and providing moreinformation about wildlife trade regulations to theirclients. Further, government authorities must ensureregulation of wildlife trade in virtual as well as physicalmarkets. Progress is being made in this difficult task;during the course of the current study, wildlife tradeauthorities in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwanwere informed about suspected illegal trades. In eachcase, the authorities acted quickly to investigate theseapparent breaches in the law.

Previous studies have documented the challenges forwildlife trade presented by the English-language internet(Williamson, 2004; IFAW, 2005). The current studyextends this to the Chinese-language internet. Virtualmarkets targeting Chinese-speaking customers representsignificant international trade in terms of the number ofcountries involved, the diversity of products on offer,and the sheer number of participants.

Like other commodities, a proportion of the wildlifeand related products identified for sale on the internet inthe current study could represent fraudulent offers. Arecent study claimed over 15% non-delivery and/or pay-ment fraud for the internet sales in the USA (Anon.,2006d) and there is evidence that non-delivery fraud iscommon in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan fora wide range of consumer products (2006f, 2006g). Theextent to which such fraud permeates the wildlife tradesector is unknown, but it is a factor that should at leastbe taken into account by researchers in estimating signif-icance of occurrence of on-line offers and by consumersconsidering purchase.



Species CITES listing Products

Tiger Panthera tigris I Traditional medicines (bone); traditional tonics (bone) (e.g., wines); skin (whole); religious relics (made with bone and skin); carvings (bone) (e.g., smoking pipes, rings, bracelets)

Leopard Panthera pardus I Whole trophies; skin products

Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata I Whole trophies; snuff bottles, from shell; jewellery, from shell (e.g., rings, bracelets, necklaces, hair pins); decorativeitems, from shell (e.g. statues, pen holders, jewellery boxes); glasses and combs, from shell; musical instrument picks, fromshell; chopsticks, from shell

Arowana Scleropages formosus I Live specimens

Bear Ursidae spp. I/II Traditional medicines, from bile; whole skins

Elephant Elephantidae spp. I/II Decorative carvings, from tusk; name seals, from ivory; jewellery, from ivory; (e.g. rings, bracelets, necklaces); chopsticks, of ivory; smoking pipes, of ivory; knife handles, of ivory; billiard cues, ornamented with ivory

Rhinoceros Rhinocerotidae spp. I/II Cups (horn); name seals (horn); jewellery (horn) (e.g. bracelets, charms); pen holders (horn); tobacco boxes and smoking pipes (horn); snuff bottles (horn); medicines(horn); bags, (skin)

Musk Deer Moschus spp. I/II Traditional medicine, with musk

Asian Crested Goshawk Accipiter trivirgatus I/II Live specimens; stuffed specimenPsittacidae spp.

Freshwater turtles Emydidae spp. I/II Live specimens; meat and gelatines; traditional tonics

Tortoise Testudinidae spp. I/II Live specimens

Crocodile Crocodylia spp. I/II Clothing (skin) (e.g. shoes, belts); bags (skin); wine bottle holders (skin)

Lizard Varanus spp., Iguana spp. I/II Live specimens; skin products

Chameleon II Live specimens

Frog Dendrobates spp., Mantella spp. II Live specimens

Saiga Antelope Saiga tatarica II Traditional medicine, with horn

Seahorse Hippocampus spp. II Live specimens; traditional medicines

Cactus Cactaceae spp. II Live specimens and seeds; foods and extracts; skin care products

Orchid Orchidaceae spp. II Live specimens; traditional medicine

Agarwood Aquilaria spp. II Statues; jewellery; religious relics (e.g. rosaries, charms); oils, flakes, powders; tea

Table 5. CITES Appendix I and Appendix II species and selected products found on the Chinese-language internet.



There are at least 120 million internet users in theChinese-speaking markets covered by this study, andonly 4291 unique advertisements for CITES-listedspecies were found over the course of this eight-monthstudy. This may indicate that virtual markets for wildlifetrade do not yet have wide penetration. Illegal wildlifetrade on the internet needs to be viewed with alarmnonetheless, given the efficiency with which the internetbrings together buyers and sellers, the diversity of thetrade, the clearly illegal nature of much of the trade, andthe vast size of the potential market.

Elephant ivory, for example, was among the mosthighly-available products on the Chinese-language inter-net (Table 7). Ivory continues to be one of the mostattractive wildlife products for Chinese consumers, aswitnessed by the large seizures of illegal ivory in EastAsia in 2006. The current study demonstrates how thesale and distribution of ivory now extends to the internetbeyond the limited number of bricks-and-mortar shopsauthorized to sell certified ivory products.

Internet service providers and individual websitespoorly address these issues of legality. Although botheBay and Yahoo have prohibited the live animal trade,the provision of information on laws, regulations, andlinks to relevant authorities is insufficient. And,although eBay in mainland China and Hong Kong, aswell as Yahoo in Taiwan, prohibit the selling of ivory, forexample, ivory sellers still use the sites to advertise prod-ucts. Although the internet is an excellent vehicle forsharing information, consumers are not receiving theinformation they need with regard to wildlife trade.

The relative newness of internet markets, coupledwith the diversity of products on offer, make enforce-ment difficult. This difficulty is compounded by vari-ability among Chinese-language internet sites. Auctionsites and thematic sites represent different aspects of thetrade, for example, with auction sites offering morehigh-profile species, such as elephant ivory and marineturtle shell, and with thematic websites offering agreater range of species (particularly live animals, suchas parrots or Asian freshwater turtles). Further, the web-sites of mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan,though sharing similarities, have significant differencesas well. Such differences must be acknowledged in tai-loring strategies to combat illegal wildlife trade in thedifferent jurisdictions.

Notwithstanding differences between auction sitesand thematic sites, or differences in trade within the var-

Australia (marine turtle)Congo (ivory)Egypt (ivory)France (ivory, marine turtle)Germany (bekko)India (ivory, musk)Indonesia (ivory, agarwood, marine turtle, rhinoceros horn)Italy (marine turtle)Japan (ivory)Lao PDR (agarwood)Malaysia (agarwood)Nepal (ivory, rhinoceros horn)Palau (marine turtle)Russia (bear bile)Saudi Arabia (chameleon)South Africa (ivory, rhinoceros bone) Thailand (ivory, marine turtle, Tiger skin)UK (ivory)USA (ivory, marine turtle)Viet Nam (marine turtle, agarwood)

Table 6. Selected countries (other than the three Chinese-language markets) listed as sources for the selected wildlifefor sale on Chinese-language websites.

Elephant Rhinoceros Hawksbill Turtle Tiger Total

China 332 193 143 32 700Hong Kong 98 (96) ** 3 17 6 124 (122)Taiwan 615 (208)** 13 181 0 809 (402)Total 1045 (636) 209 341 38 1633 (1224)

Table 7. Numbers of unique advertisements on auction websites offering selected CITES Appendix I species. ** Two and 407 of the ivory products offered in Hong Kong and Taiwan, respectively, were purportedly made of mammoth ivory (2% and 66%, respectively).The numbers in parentheses are the number of different advertisements without the reputed mammoth ivory.

ious jurisdictions which host Chinese-language websites,wildlife trade on the internet must conform to the sameregulations and standards as wildlife in physical markets.Sellers on the internet should be regulated, as are retail-ers in physical markets, and must be required to providegenuine information for the products they offer for sale.

Government authorities are still developing strategiesto respond to these new, virtual markets. This lag inenforcement unfortunately allows trade to proceedunregulated. Government authorities are clearly con-cerned, however. As this study was conducted, govern-ment authorities were informed of advertisements forhigh-profile species in all three markets. China’s CITESManagement Authority was informed of rhinoceros hornadvertisements on auction websites, for example; theinformation was passed to the internet monitoring bureaufor investigation (ongoing as of June 2007). Similarly,Hong Kong’s Agriculture, Fisheries and ConservationDepartment and Taiwan’s Council of Agriculture havebeen informed of apparent violations of the law. Thesehave resulted in ongoing government investigations.The investigation in Hong Kong resulted in a convictionin February 2005 and a fine of HKD15 000 (USD1913).This is clear evidence that authorities view seriously theextension of illegal wildlife markets onto the internet.



Based on the results of the current study, the followingrecommendations can be made:

• Internet service providers and individual websitesshould be encouraged to take greater responsibility tokeep the trade on their sites legal, providing clear andeasily accessible information on wildlife trade regula-tions to sellers and buyers.

• Wildlife law enforcement authorities should beencouraged to develop specific strategies to police virtu-al markets and to bring virtual markets under the sameregulatory structures used for physical markets (e.g.,requiring information on source country, access to certifi-cates of legality, etc.). New regulations may be required,such as the prohibition of sale of CITES Appendix Ispecies over the internet, to account for unique difficul-ties in policing of the internet.

• Internet shoppers should be alerted to the growing useof the internet for illegal wildlife trade, and their role inkeeping their purchases legal. Since these consumersspend many hours on the internet, a global awarenesscampaign using the internet should be an effectiveavenue to reach those who may be involved in buyingand trading wildlife in this way.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was made possible through support from The RuffordMaurice Laing Foundation. The author thanks Leigh Henry, VolkerHolmes, Crawford Allan, Glenn Sant, and Hongfa Xu for assistancewith methods development and review of previous versions of thisreport, and Shasha Wang and Renee Huang for data collection. Manythanks also to Craig Kirkpatrick for guidance and support.

REFERENCES

Anon. (2006a). Internet World Stats: www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm. Viewed August 2006.

Anon. (2006b). Top 15 Countries by Web Usage and Properties. March2006. www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3606281. ViewedAugust 2006.

Anon. (2006c). www.oanda.com/convert/classic. Viewed September2006.

Anon. (2006d). IC3 2005 Internet Crime Report. Internet CrimeCompliant Center, USA. www.ic3.gov/media/annualreport/2005_IC3Report.pdf. Viewed March 20007.

Anon. (2006e). 165 Weekly Newsletter, 9 February 2006. www.cib.gov.tw/crime/crime02_2.aspx?no=181. Viewed March 2007.

Anon. (2006f). www.libertytimes.com.tw/2006/new/jul/29/today-south1.htm. Viewed April 2007.

Anon. (2006g). big5.southcn.com/gate/big5/www.southcn.com/law/fzjctj/200608300163.htm. Viewed April 2007.

IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare) (2005). Caught in theWeb: Wildlife Trade on the Internet. London: IFAW.

Williamson, D.F. (2004). Tackling the Ivories: The Status of the USTrade in Elephant and Hippo Ivory. TRAFFIC North America.Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund.

Joyce Wu, Programme Officer, TRAFFIC East Asia

A Hong Kong website claiming to be acommercial breeding centre for parrots.

Front and back of Tiger skin as religiousrelic (Hong Kong auction website).

Japanese sword with ivory handle for sale (Taiwanese website).

STOP PRESS • STOP PRESS • STOPPRESS

On 5 June 2007, the international online commerce site eBay said that it willannounce a ban on the international tradeof elephant ivory on all of its sites aroundthe globe, creating the first-ever onlineinternational trade ban of elephant ivory.In addition to the ban on internationaltrade, eBay stated that clearer and stricterpolicies would be implemented on a national level for in-country trade.

www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=214542



An Assessment of Wildlife Trade at Mong LaMarket on the Myanmar-China Border

C.R. Shepherd and V. Nijman

INTRODUCTION

M YANMAR is the largest country in main-land South-east Asia. Bordering fivenations, including India, Thailand and the

People’s Republic of China, it is strategically located asa land bridge between South and East Asia. The countryis endowed with rich natural resources and is home tosome of Asia’s prime conservation flagship species, suchas the Tiger Panthera tigris, the Asian Elephant Elephasmaximus, and the Gaur Bos gaurus. Besides habitat loss,wildlife in Myanmar is threatened by illegal and unregu-lated hunting for domestic and international trade(Martin and Redford, 2000; Shepherd, 2001; Rao et al.,2005), and these practices continue to flourish largelybecause of lack of commitment to protect wildlife(Martin, 1997). Insufficient capacity among enforce-ment agencies is a major impediment to conservation.

Although little is known about the extent of wildlifetrade within and from Myanmar, it is well known thatChina is a major consumer of wildlife from neighbour-ing countries (Yiming and Dianmo, 1998; Yiming andWilcove, 2005), including Myanmar (Yiming et al.,2000). With that in mind, the Mong La market on theborder with China was visited to assess the trade so as tofurther TRAFFIC’s understanding of Myanmar’swildlife trade dynamics, especially pertaining to inter-national trade.

With a poverty incidence of 27%, Myanmar is amongthe poorest countries in South-east Asia (ADB, 2006),especially in remote and border areas. As part of anoverall plan to reduce poverty, raise the standard of liv-ing, and narrow the gap between urban and rural areas,24 Special Development Zones in designated States anddivisions were established in 2001. Several of these aresituated near international borders, in order to promoteinternational trade.

Mong La is situated in one of the SpecialDevelopment Zones, immediately adjacent to the borderwith China’s Yunnan Province. The town was largelydeveloped with money from a Chinese opium war lord,after reaching a peace agreement with the Myanmarjunta, and until 2005 operated largely independentlyfrom Myanmar law. Nightclubs, brothels, hotels, and24-hour casinos attracted large numbers of Chinese toindulge in activities largely banned inside China (Oswelland Davies, 2002; Davies, 2005). In the past, the regionwas off limits to non-Chinese foreign visitors, but morerecently, foreigners from further abroad have begun tovisit the area intermittently, regardless of the seven-hourland journey from the Thai/Myanmar border. Alongwith Burmese and other local languages, Chinese iscommonly used. All signs in Mong La, for example, are

written in Chinese characters, and the Chinese Yuan, andnot the Myanmar Kyat, is the currency of daily use. Atthe time of the authors’ visit, many of the casinos wereclosed down, hotels were empty, and prostitutesappeared to be less in evidence.

WILDLIFE LEGISLATION

Myanmar has committed to protecting its wildlifethrough the Protection of Wildlife and Wild Plants andConservation of Natural Areas Law of 1994, and to man-aging its international trade under CITES, to whichMyanmar became a Party in 1997. Chapter XI of theaforementioned 1994 law states that anyone “killing,hunting or wounding a normally protected wild life orseasonally protected wild life without permission or pos-sessing, selling, transporting or transferring such wildlife or any part thereof without permission” shall, on con-viction, be punished with imprisonment for a term whichmay extend to three years, or fined up to Kyats 10 000(USD1490), or both. Penalties relating to violationsinvolving fully protected species may extend to impris-onment for seven years or a fine of up to Kyats 50 000(USD7451), or both.

METHODS

The Mong La market was surveyed on 7 February2006 and all species and their parts observed wererecorded. All specimens were openly displayed, andthere was no need to resort to undercover techniques toobtain the relevant data. An obligatory guide from MongLa provided the necessary translations. The surveyorsdid not purchase any wildlife parts or derivatives.Species that could not be readily identified were pho-tographed for further reference. Any species that couldnot be identified at least to genus level is not included inthis report. Such specimens included the carapace of aturtle, scutes from a tortoise and canines and claws fromsmall cats.

The official exchange rate during this period wasUSD1=6.71110 Myanmar Kyat.

OBSERVATIONS

A total of 14 vendors were selling wildlife products inMong La market on the day of the survey. A combina-tion of freshly killed animals and dried or durable parts(horns, antlers, etc.) were observed. In all, a minimum of179 animals, representing 32 species were offered forsale, i.e. four species of birds, 21 species of mammalsand seven reptile species. At an adjacent hotel a Tigerskin was openly displayed for sale in the lobby. Themost numerous species on the market were the TokayGecko Gekko gecko, Red Muntjak Muntiacus muntjakand Asiatic Black Bear Ursus thibetanus, with a mini-mum number of 72, 23 and 13 individuals observedrespectively (see Table 1). Ten species (32%) observedin the Mong La market are included in the list of



Spec

ies

CIT

ES

Nat

iona

lL

ive

Car

cass

Who

leSk

ulls

/H

orns

/Fe

et/

Mis

c. p

arts

Min

. no.

of

prot

ectio

nsk

ins

head

san

tlers

**pa

ws

indi

vidu

als

stat

usM

AM

MA

LS

Slow

Lor

is N

yctic

ebus

cou

cang

IIP

2-

5-

-4

2 sk

elet

ons

7M

acaq

ue M

acac

a sp

.II

P-

--

1-

-1

tail

1Pa

ngol

in M

anis

II

TP3

-1

1-

-c.

260

sca

les

4Fl

ying

Squ

irrel

Pet

auri

sta

cf. p

etau

rist

a-

--

-1

--

--

1Ea

st A

sian

Por

cupi

neH

ystr

ix b

rach

yura

--

-1

--

--

c. 6

00 q

uills

2A

siat

ic B

lack

Bea

r Urs

us th

ibet

anus

IP

-1

-12

-9

19 c

law

s13

Sibe

rian

Wea

sel M

uste

la si

biri

ca-

--

-2

--

-1

skel

eton

2O

tter L

utra

, Lut

roga

le o

r Aon

yx sp

.I/I

ITP

--

2-

--

1 ta

il2

Smal

l Ind

ian

Civ

et V

iver

ricu

la in

dica

III

P-

-1

--

--

1Sp

otte

d Li

nsan

g Pr

iono

don

pard

icol

orI

TP-

-1

--

--

1Ju

ngle

Cat

Fel

is c

haus

II-

1-

--

--

-1

Fish

ing

Cat

Prio

nailu

rus v

iver

rinu

sII

--

-1

--

--

1Le

opar

d C

at P

rion

ailu

rus b

enga

lens

isII

--

-4

--

--

4C

loud

ed L

eopa

rd N

eofe

lis n

ebul

osa

ITP

--

1-

--

1 sk

elet

on1

Tige

r Pan

ther

a tig

ris*

*I

--

1-

--

-1

Asi

an E

leph

ant E

leph

as m

axim

usI

TP-

-4

piec

es-

--

-1

Eura

sian

Wild

Pig

Sus

scro

fa-

--

--

--

-1

toot

h1

Red

Mun

tjak

Mun

tiacu

s mun

tjak

-SP

-13

3 pi

eces

-8,

1 s

et-

10 ta

ils23

Sam

bar D

eer C

ervu

s uni

colo

r-

P-

--

-12

, 2 s

ets

--

8G

aur B

os g

auru

sI

TP-

--

-2

--

1M

ainl

and

Sero

w N

aem

orhe

dus s

umat

raen

sis

ITP

--

--

8, 1

set

-1

tail

5G

oral

Nae

mor

hedu

s sp.

ITP

--

--

1 se

t-

-1

BIR

DS

Phea

sant

Lop

hura

sp.

I/III

TP-

--

--

6-

3O

wl B

ubo

sp.

IITP

--

--

-2

1 w

ing

1B

lack

-col

lare

d St

arlin

g St

urnu

s nig

rico

llis

-P

2-

--

--

-2

Hw

amei

Gar

rula

x ca

noru

sII

P2

--

--

--

2

RE

PTIL

ES

Bur

mes

e Py

thon

Pyt

hon

mol

urus

I/II

P-

-1

--

-5

piec

es1

Cob

ra N

aja

sp.

II-

6-

1-

--

-7

Toka

y G

ecko

Gek

ko g

ecko

--

-72

--

--

-72

Wat

er M

onito

r Var

anus

salv

ator

IIP

--

11

--

-1

Big

-hea

ded

Turtl

e Pl

atys

tern

on m

egac

epha

lum

IITP

1-

--

--

5 ca

rapa

ces

6R

ed-e

ared

Slid

er T

rach

emys

scri

pta

eleg

ans

-*

1-

--

--

-1

Chi

nese

Sof

tshe

ll Tu

rtle

Pelo

disc

us si

nens

is-

*2

--

--

--

2

TOTA

L-

--

--

--

--

180

Tabl

e 1.

Wild

life

obse

rved

in M

ong

La

mar

ket,

Mya

nmar

, 7 F

ebru

ary

2006

.TP

= To

tally

Pro

tect

ed, P

= Pr

otec

ted,

SP

= Se

ason

ally

Pro

tect

ed, *

= E

xotic

spe

cies

**

= fo

r sal

e at

a n

earb

y ho

tel



Seasonally Protected or Protected species, possession ortrade in which requires a permit under Myanmar law.However, it is highly unlikely that any of the dealers inthis market had the required permits, as they were awarethat their activities were illegal and were very wary whenquestioned or when photos were taken.

Eleven species (34%) observed are included inMyanmar’s list of Totally Protected species and thereforeshould not be traded. The remaining 11 (34%) speciesare not included in the Totally Protected, Protected orSeasonally Protected lists of Myanmar, including twoexotic species: the Red-eared Slider Trachemys scriptaelegans and the Chinese Softshell Turtle Pelodiscussinensis. Seven species observed were listed in CITESAppendix I, 10 in Appendix II and one in Appendix III.A further three species were listed in CITES, but couldonly be identified to genus level. Only 10 of the 32species observed were not listed in the CITESAppendices. Legal trade of CITES-listed animals fromMyanmar to China in the period 1997 to 2005 involvedan average of 64 individuals per year and was largelyrestricted to live snakes and crocodiles (300 and 210individuals of each species group respectively), RhesusMacaques Macaca mulatta (50 individuals) and AsianElephants (15 individuals) over a nine-year period(UNEP-WCMC, 2006).

It is clear that the trade is carried out on a daily basis,at least in the case of the trade in animal carcasses: manyof the specimens being offered for sale had been recent-ly killed as they were still bleeding and in the process ofbeing gutted, and gall bladders were being removed, forexample. There were no refrigeration units.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Although carried out over only one day, this is thefirst complete inventory of wildlife trade in Mong La.

Oswell and Davies (2002) recorded more than 17 animalspecies at the Mong La market and a nearby shop inJanuary to February 2002, but did not conduct a fullinventory. Only three of the species they recorded(unknown species of eagle(s), Oriental Pied HornbillAnthracoceros albirostris and Marbled Cat Pardofelismarmorata) were not recorded during the survey underdiscussion. Felbab-Brown (2006) noted turtles, mon-keys, rodents, and birds being offered for sale at theMong La markets, as were bear claws, dried genitalsfrom civets, and deer antlers. However, no specificdetails were provided with these observations. In the1980s and 1990s Martin and Redford (2000; Martin,1997) surveyed nine towns in Myanmar’s interior or atthe border with Thailand. In all they observed some 26species offered for sale, nine of which were not observedin Mong La. The greater number of species (>18) wererecorded at Tachilek market, at the border with Thailand;at the other eight markets considerably fewer specieswere found to be present. Whether or not the high num-ber of species (33) offered for sale in Mong La repre-sents a difference between Mong La and the other mar-kets, or whether or not the number of species offered forsale at markets has increased in time is not clear at pres-ent. On the other side of the border in Yunnan, Yiminget al. (2000) reported on 26 species that were confiscat-ed by Chinese forestry officials in the Sino-Myanmarborder area that originated or could have originated fromMyanmar. Eight of these (six of which were birds) werenot recorded in Mong La. Combined, these data showthat Mong La, despite its relatively small size, is animportant trade hub for the export of wildlife fromMyanmar to China.

Hunting has always played an important role in locallivelihoods in rural north-eastern Myanmar (Rao et al.,2005), but with the opening up of the country, it is high-ly likely that an increasing percentage of the trade is for

FISHING CAT SKIN (LEFT) AND SPOTTED LINSANG SKIN (RIGHT) SURROUNDED BY ANIMAL PARTS INCLUDING ELEPHANT SKIN, BONES, SIBERIAN

WEASEL SKINS, GALL BLADDERS (SPECIES NOT KNOWN) AND A VARIETY OF UNIDENTIFIED ANIMAL PARTS AND FAKE TEETH.

PH

OTO

GR

AP

HS

: C.R

. SH

EP

HE

RD



buyers from outside the immediate area. With increasingglobalization and improving transport infrastructure,even some of the most remote areas in one of Asia’s mostreclusive countries are being exploited for short-termgains. Without effective monitoring and regulation, andincreased efficiency of law enforcement, Myanmar’swildlife will continue to be depleted. The authors’ obser-vations and those of Oswell and Davies (2002) indicatethat the primary purpose of much of this trade is to sup-ply the demand from China, and indeed that wildlife isbeing imported into China. This suggests clear viola-tions of international commitments under CITES.

The quantity of CITES-listed species being offeredfor sale on one day at Mong La equals the official annu-al trade in wildlife exported from Myanmar to China. Ifthese observations are a true reflection of the magnitudeof trade from Myanmar to China, this suggests that theillegal trade between these countries is of a much highermagnitude, and consists of more species, than the report-ed levels of CITES-permitted trade indicate.

The fact that all specimens observed in the Mong Lamarket were openly displayed demonstrates the blatantdisregard for national legislation—or at least a lack ofawareness of a law that is inadequately enforced.

Additional monitoring and research on the trade inanimals and plants from Myanmar is needed, in combi-nation with increased law enforcement co-ordinationbetween Myanmar authorities and their counterparts inChina. Information should be provided to the nationalauthorities and/or the international conservation commu-nity whenever possible. The Myanmar Government rec-ognizes that increased co-operation and communicationwith China, and with all neighbouring countries, isessential in controlling the cross-border trade and ineffectively implementing CITES (Compton, 2003). InDecember 2005, the 10 member countries of theAssociation of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN),

which includes Myanmar, formed the ASEAN-WildlifeEnforcement Network, the world’s most extensivewildlife law enforcement network. The network isdesigned to protect Asia’s wildlife by facilitating theexchange of intelligence among enforcement authoritiesin the region. Co-operation and vigilance on the part ofthe border authorities in both Myanmar and China shouldbe increased and Myanmar’s existing domestic regula-tions and controls need to be enforced more stringentlyby the responsible authorities in order to end these illegalactivities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank James Compton andJohn Parr for comments on earlier drafts of this paper,and Wim Bergmans for help with species identification.Their local guide in Mong La, who remains anonymous,should also be thanked.

REFERENCES

ADB (Asian Development Bank) (2006). A fact sheet,Myanmar and ADB. www.adb.org/Documents/Fact_Sheets/MYA.asp. Viewed 9 June 2006.

Compton, J. (2003). Myanmar CITES needs assessment—areport to the CITES Secretariat. 25 October. Unpublishedreport.

Davies, B. (2005). Black Market: Inside the EndangeredSpecies Trade in Asia, Earth Aware Editions. USA.

Felbab-Brown, V. (2006). Asia’s role in the illicit trade ofwildlife. The Boston Globe, 20 March.

Martin E.B. (1997). Wildlife products for sale in Myanmar.TRAFFIC Bulletin 17(1):33–44.

Martin, E. and Redford, T. (2000). Wildlife for sale. Biologist47:27–30.

Oswell, A. and Davies, B. (2002). Black market media report.Wildlife trade survey in Shan State Myanmar. Unpublishedreport.

Rao, M., Myint, T., Zaw, T. and Htun, S. (2005). Hunting pat-terns in tropical forests adjoining the Hkakaborazi NationalPark, north Myanmar. Oryx 39(3):292–300.

Shepherd, C.R. (2001). Observations on wildlife trade atGolden Rock, Myanmar. TRAFFIC Bulletin 19(1):7–10.

UNEP-WCMC (2006). CITES trade data (comparative tabula-tions). UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre,Cambridge, UK.

Yiming L., Zenxiang G., Xinhai L., Sung W., and Niemalä, J.(2000). Illegal wildlife trade in the Himalayan region ofChina. Biodiversity and Conservation 9:901–918.

Yiming L. and Dianmo, L. (1998). The dynamics of trade inlive wildlife across the Guangxi border between China andVietnam during 1993–1996 and its control strategies.Biodiversity and Conservation 7:895–914.

Yiming L. and Wilcove, D.S. (2005). Threats to vertebratespecies in China and the United States. BioScience55(2):147–155.

Chris R. Shepherd TRAFFIC Southeast Asia; Zoological Museum, Amsterdam Vincent Nijman Zoological Museum, Amsterdam

A DEAD ADULT AND JUVENILE RED MUNTJAC MUNTIACUS MUNTJAK

AWAITING SALE AT MONG LA MARKET.

C.R

. SH

EP

HE

RD

T R A F F I C M A I L I N G D A T A B A S E F O R M

Title (Dr/Mr/Mrs/Ms/Other) _______________________________ Reference No. ______________________________________(Please refer to envelope label)

Organization _______________________________________________________________________________________________(Please spell out acronyms in full)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Name _________________________________________ Position ___________________________________________________

Address ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Post/Zip code __________________________________ Country ___________________________________________________

Website _______________________________________ E-mail ___________________________________________________

Tel. Number ___________________________________ Fax Number ________________________________________________

[ ] Please type ‘X’ if your contact details have changed.[ ] Please type ‘X’ if you wish to CANCEL your subscription to the TRAFFIC Bulletin.

Nature of business (type ‘X’ in square brackets, where appropriate):

[ ] education [ ] media/communications[ ] enforcement agency [ ] commercial[ ] government authority [ ] individual[ ] CITES Management Authority [ ] conservation organization[ ] CITES Scientific Authority [ ] other (Please specify) _____________________________________

Please specify areas of interest (type ‘X’ in square brackets):

[ ] animal species threatened by trade [ ] medicinal plant trade[ ] plant species threatened by trade [ ] traditional medicine[ ] fisheries trade [ ] wildlife trade impacts on priority ecoregions[ ] timber and wood products trade [ ] international treaties and wildlife trade[ ] other (Please specify) _____________________________________________________________________________________

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I would like to contribute towards the production of the TRAFFIC Bulletin or other important activities of TRAFFIC.

I enclose a cheque/international money order for ___________________________ made payable to TRAFFIC International.

DATA PROTECTION: Personal data is gathered in accordance with the UK Data Protection Act 1998. Any information you have given us will beused only to provide the service you have requested and will not be disclosed to organizations or people outside the TRAFFIC network.

GIFT AID DECLARATION

Please type ‘X’ in box below if you wish TRAFFIC to reclaim the tax on your gift (if you are a UK taxpayer).

I would like TRAFFIC to reclaim the tax on this donation, and any further donations I make from thedate of this declaration until I notify you otherwise.

Signature: ___________________________________________ Date: _____________________________

TR

A

F

F

I

C

N

E

TW

O

R

K TRAFFIC International

219a Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL, UKTel: (44) 1223 277427; Fax: (44) 1223 277237; E-mail: [email protected]

TRAFFIC East AsiaRegional Office Room 2001, Double Building, 22 Stanley Street, Central, Hong KongTel: (852) 2 530 0587; Fax: (852) 2 530 0864; E-mail: [email protected]

China Office c/o WWF China Programme Office, Room 1609, Wen Hua Gong, (Laodong RenminWenhuagong Dongmen), Beijing Working People’s Culture Palace, Beijing 100006, People’s Republic of ChinaTel: (86) 10 65227100 (Ext 3213); Fax: (86) 10 65227300; E-mail: [email protected]

Japan Office 6th Floor, Nihonseimei Akabanebashi Bldg, 3-1-14, Shiba, Minato-ku, 105-0014, Tokyo, JapanTel: (81) 3 3769 1716; Fax: (81) 3 3769 1304; E-mail: [email protected]

Taipei Office PO Box 7-476, Taipei 106, TaiwanTel: (886) 2 2362 9787; Fax: (886) 2 2362 9799; E-mail: [email protected]

TRAFFIC East/Southern AfricaRegional Office c/o WWF Southern Africa Regional Programme OfficePO Box CY 1409, Causeway, Harare, ZimbabweTel: (263) 4 252533/252534; Fax: (263) 4 703902; E-mail: [email protected]

South Africa Office c/o Endangered Wildlife Trust, Private Bag x11, Parkview 2122, Johannesburg, South AfricaTel: (27) 11 486 1102; Fax: (27) 11 486 1506; E-mail: [email protected]

Tanzania Office c/o WWF Programme Office, PO Box 106060, Dar es Salaam, TanzaniaTel: (255) 22 2701676; Fax: (255) 22 2701676; E-mail: [email protected]

TRAFFIC EuropeRegional Office Bd Emile Jacqmain 90, B-1000 Brussels, BelgiumTel: (32) 2 343 8258; Fax: (32) 2 343 2565; E-mail: [email protected]

Central Eastern Project Office c/o WWF-Hungary, Németvölgyi út 78/b, 1124 Budapest, HungaryTel: (36) 1 214 5554 (Ext 132); Fax: (36) 1 212 9353; E-mail: [email protected]

France Office c/o WWF-France, 1 Carrefour de Longchamp, 75016 Paris, FranceTel: (33) 1 55 25 84 84; Fax: (33) 1 55 25 84 74; E-mail: [email protected]

Germany Office c/o WWF-Germany, Rebstöcker Str. 55, D 60326 Frankfurt, GermanyTel: (49) 69 79144 183; Fax: (49) 69 617221; E-mail: [email protected]

Italy Office c/o WWF-Italy, Via Po 25/c, 00198 Rome, ItalyTel: (39) 06 84497357; Fax (39) 06 84497356; E-mail: [email protected]

Russia Office c/o WWF Russia Programme Office, Nikoloyamskaya str. 19, Building 3, 109240 Moscow, Russia. Tel: (007) 4957270939; Fax: (7) 4957270938; E-mail: [email protected]

Sweden Office c/o WWF-Sweden, Ulriksdals Slott, S-17081 Solna, SwedenTel: (46) 8 624 7400; (46) 226 70050; Fax: (46) 8 85 1329; (46) 226 70022E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

TRAFFIC Indiac/o WWF India Secretariat, 172-B Lodi Estate, New Delhi-110 003, IndiaTel: (91) 11 41504786; Fax: (91) 11 43516200; E-mail: [email protected]

TRAFFIC North AmericaRegional Office c/o WWF-US, 1250 24th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037, USATel: (1) 202 293 4800; Fax: (1) 202 775 8287; E-mail: [email protected]

Canada Office c/o WWF-Canada, Suite 512B, 409 Granville Street, Vancouver, BC, V6C 1T2, CanadaTel: (1) 604 678 5152; Fax: (1) 604 678 5155; E-mail: [email protected]

Mexico Office c/o WWF-Mexico Programme OfficeAve. México 51, Col. Hipódromo Condesa, C.P. 06100 México, D.F., MexicoTel: (52) 55 5286 5631/5634 (Ext 216); Fax: (52) 55 5286 5637; E-mail: [email protected]

TRAFFIC South AmericaAve. de los Shyris 2680 y Gaspar de Villaroel, Edificio Mita Cobadelsa, PH, Quito, EcuadorTel: (593) 2 2261075 (Ext 400); Fax: (593) 2 2261075 (Ext 230); E-mail: [email protected]

TRAFFIC OceaniaGPO Box 528, Sydney NSW 2001, Australia. Tel: (61) 2 9280 1671; Fax: (61) 2 9212 1794; E-mail: [email protected]

TRAFFIC Southeast AsiaRegional Office Unit 9-3A, 3rd Floor, Jalan SS23/11, Taman SEA, 47400 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, MalaysiaTel: (603) 7880 3940; Fax: (603) 7882 0171; E-mail: [email protected]

Greater Mekong Programme c/o WWF Vietnam, 39 Xuan Dieu Street, Tay Ho District, Ha Noi, Viet NamTel: (84) 4 719 3115; Fax: (84) 4 719 3093; E-mail: [email protected]

Cambodia c/o WWF Indochina Programme - Cambodia, #28 Street 9, Tonle Basac, PO Box 2467,Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Tel: (855) 23 218 034; Fax: (855) 23 211 909; E-mail: [email protected]

TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, works to ensure that trade in wild plants and animals is not a threat to the conservation of nature.It has offices covering most parts of the world and works in close co-operationwith the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

For further information contact:The Executive DirectorTRAFFIC International219a Huntingdon RoadCambridge CB3 0DLUK

Telephone: (44) 1223 277427Fax: (44) 1223 277237Email: [email protected]: www.traffic.org

is a joint programme of