Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, School of Biosciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK; Department of Plant Sciences and Conservation Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3EA, UK.
Oxford Wildlife Trade Research Group, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, OX3 0BP, UK.
J Environ Manage. 2024 Mar;354:120240. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120240. Epub 2024 Feb 9.
Captive breeding is often seen as a solution to sustainably increasing the supply of individuals in the wildlife trade. To be an effective conservation measure this requires robust systems to verify the authenticity of captive-bred species. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) monitors the international trade in Listed species-which for many taxa is dominated by captive-bred individuals-using the Review of Captive Trade (RCT) process. A key question is how best to identify laundered or inauthentic captive-bred trade and how has this changed over time and space. We develop targeted assessments based on multiple RCT criteria to identify probable instances of laundering and misuse of source and purpose codes in international trade records, and apply this to 39,167 records of captive trade from 2000 to 2020 spanning 53,674,762 individuals. We find a very low proportion of trade volume (1.8%, 37,835 individuals) misreported as originating from non-existent, registered Appendix I-breeding facilities, and low instances of exporter-reported captive trade being recorded by importers as wild-sourced (<4%) or ranched (1%). We also find that <2% of species-year-exporter records have abrupt shifts from wild to captive sources, potentially indicating laundering. Conversely, we find high incidences of exporter- and importer-reported trade differing in whether the trade was commercial or not - a phenomenon we attribute to differing definitions, not illegal activity. Our results indicate a low incidence of concerning international trade being reported, but we suggest this likely stems from reporting requirements that limit our assessments. We highlight additional trade data that, if embedded into Party's annual reports, would vastly improve inferential potential, greatly increasing the number of records (Appendix II and III species) that could be verified with minimal effort for management authorities.
圈养繁殖通常被视为可持续增加野生物种贸易中个体数量的一种解决方案。为了成为一种有效的保护措施，这需要有强大的系统来验证圈养繁殖物种的真实性。《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》（CITES）通过审查圈养贸易（RCT）程序来监测列入名单的物种的国际贸易——对于许多分类群来说，这些物种的国际贸易主要由圈养繁殖的个体主导。一个关键问题是如何最好地识别洗钱或伪造的圈养繁殖贸易，以及随着时间和空间的变化，这种情况是如何变化的。我们根据多个 RCT 标准制定有针对性的评估，以识别国际贸易记录中来源和目的代码可能被洗钱和滥用的情况，并将其应用于 2000 年至 2020 年跨越 53674762 只个体的 39167 笔圈养贸易记录。我们发现，贸易量中非常低比例（1.8%，37835 只个体）被错误报告为来自不存在的、已注册的附录 I 繁殖设施，出口商报告的圈养贸易被进口商记录为野生来源（<4%）或牧场来源（1%）的情况很少。我们还发现，<2%的物种-年份-出口商记录出现了从野生来源到圈养来源的突然转变，这可能表明存在洗钱行为。相反，我们发现出口商和进口商报告的贸易在是否为商业贸易方面存在很大差异，我们认为这是由于定义不同，而不是非法活动。我们的结果表明，报告的令人担忧的国际贸易发生率较低，但我们认为这可能源于报告要求限制了我们的评估。我们强调了其他贸易数据，如果嵌入缔约方的年度报告中，将极大地提高推断潜力，大大增加可通过最小努力进行管理当局核实的记录数量（附录二和三的物种）。
