Wildlife Law Enforcement Activities
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Wildlife from Forests to Cages: An Analysis of Wildlife Seizures in the Philippines Emerson Y. Sy Author Prepared for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Biodiversity Management Bureau by the United States Agency for International Development ABSTRACT The illegal wildlife trade is one of the most lucrative transnational crimes in the world. Numerous wildlife are threatened with extinction due to overexploitation for food, medicine, and as pets. Although it is difficult to quantify the illegal wildlife trade due to its mostly clandestine nature, analyzing seizure data can indicate its magnitude. Wildlife seizure records from the DENR, PCSDS, and other sources for the period 2010–2019 were collated and analyzed to identify species threatened by the illegal wildlife trade, hotspots, and trafficking routes. The 10-year seizure dataset involved 511 incidents, 283 taxa, and 44,647 wildlife individuals. Reptiles (n = 16,237 individuals) and birds (n = 6,042) were the top seized live wildlife, while pangolin scales (>2,100 kg) had the most quantity and seizure frequency among derivatives. Intervention policies on the key source, transit, and destination locations were proposed to address illegal wildlife trade in the country. Keywords: Illegal wildlife trade, smuggling, laundering, corruption, pangolin, turtle INTRODUCTION The Philippine Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2015–2028 identified habitat loss, overexploitation, climate change, pollution, and invasive alien species as the five main causes of biodiversity loss in the country (BMB-DENR, 2016). Overexploitation of biodiversity includes over-harvesting of forest and mineral resources, illegal fishing and overfishing, and the illegal wildlife trade. Various wildlife species are utilized for sustenance, medicinal, clothing, status symbol, cultural, ornamental, and pet purposes. The demand for wildlife all over the world is high (TRAFFIC, 2008) and in some cases, persistent and increasing (Sy and Krishnasamy, 2020). The illegal wildlife trade also has serious repercussions on the global economy and human health. For instance, the ongoing pandemic due to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes COVID-19 disease has been linked to the wildlife trade (Lu et al., 2020). The spread of the disease resulted in massive global economic shrinkage, infected almost 40 million, and caused the death of more than 1.1 million people as of 18 October 2020 (WHO, 2020). The Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act of 2001 or Republic Act No. 9147 prohibits the killing, inflicting injury, introduction, trading, collecting, hunting, possessing, gathering, maltreating, and transporting of wildlife without permits. Violators may face a fine of up to PHP1,000,000 and imprisonment of up to 12 years (Annex I). Corruption in the public and private sectors plays a crucial role in facilitating the illegal wildlife trade (Duffy, 2014; Milliken and Shaw, 2012), which could lead to the weakening of social and cultural structures (i.e. break down of rule of law, institutionalized corruption). Corrupt public officials have been documented to monetize the permitting system by issuing licenses even with incomplete requirements, facilitate smuggling or the issuance of transport and import/export permits of wildlife with dubious origins, delay or drop cases against suspected wildlife traffickers, and make evidence disappear for prosecutions (Abotsi et al., 2016; Atuelan, 2016; Krishnasamy and Zavagli, 2020; UNODC, n.d.; Visaya, 2020). Wildlife trafficking has been linked to other serious crimes such as human trafficking (i.e. use of people as illicit wildlife couriers) and money laundering. Wildlife traffickers may take advantage of weaknesses in the financial sector to move, hide, and launder money, which can be damaging to financial integrity (FATF, 2020). The monetary value of the worldwide illegal wildlife trade, excluding fisheries and timber, was previously estimated between USD 10 billion and USD 15 billion annually. The former estimate was mistakenly attributed to INTERPOL, which did not conduct a valuation study (Van Uhm, 2016), while the latter was an estimate of the international legal wildlife trade by TRAFFIC in the early 1990s (Broad et al., 2003). In the Philippines, the estimated loss due to illegal wildlife trade was valued at PHP 50 billion (ca. USD 1 billion) annually, but no valuation study was published to indicate data sources and research methodologies. Estimates based on unreliable sources and unknown valuation methodologies have limited usefulness and credibility (‘t Sas-Rolfes et al., 2019). Due diligence should be exercised when citing sources since valuation estimates are often cited and popularized without a critical review on the assumption that figures were determined after rigorous studies by experts (Andreas, 2010). Although it is difficult to accurately estimate the Wildlife from Forests to Cages: An Analysis of Wildlife Seizures in the Philippines 1 value of illegal wildlife trade due to its mostly clandestine nature (Wyatt, 2013), it is generally accepted that it is one of the most lucrative transnational crimes (Duffy, 2016). One of the ways to better understand the dynamics and to estimate the magnitude of the illegal wildlife trade is by analyzing seizure data accumulated over some time. Seizure analyses have been conducted on charismatic and critically endangered species such as the tiger (Verheij et al., 2010), elephant (Krishnasamy, 2016), and pangolin (Heinrich et al., 2017). Only a few wildlife seizure studies have been conducted on indigenous Philippine species such as the Philippine pangolin Manis culionensis (Gomez and Sy, 2018; Sy and Krishnasamy, 2020), Tokay Gecko Gekko gecko (Sy and Shepherd, 2020), and Philippine Forest Turtle Siebenrockiella leytensis (Sy et al., 2020). This study was undertaken to provide an overview of illegal wildlife trade, based on seizure data, by identifying species threatened by the illegal wildlife trade, hotspots, and wildlife trafficking routes in the Philippines. Results from the study may be utilized by authorities to reassess current protocols and strategies and to formulate appropriate intervention policies to address shifting trends in wildlife poaching, trafficking, and smuggling. 2 Wildlife from Forests to Cages: An Analysis of Wildlife Seizures in the Philippines METHODOLOGY Data Sources Wildlife seizure data from 2010–2019 were officially requested from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources–Biodiversity Management Bureau (DENR–BMB) and the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development Staff (PCSDS). Supplementary data were requested from all 17 DENR regional offices, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), Bureau of Customs–Environmental Protection and Compliance Division (BOC–EPCD; formerly Enforcement and Security Service–Environmental Protection Unit), Philippine Coast Guard, Philippine National Police–Maritime Group (PNP–MG), and National Bureau of Investigation–Environmental Crime Division (NBI–EnCD) between July and November 2019. A follow-up request was sent to DENR regional offices that had not provided seizure data as of January 2020. Additional data were also collated from published scientific literature, open-source news and social media, gray literature (e.g. newsletters, magazines, websites, unpublished reports), and non-governmental organizations. All collated data were combined into one dataset. Data Validation The wildlife species in official seizure reports were inconsistently recorded in scientific, English, and/or vernacular names. Species were validated or identified to the lowest taxonomic level by cross-referencing data from various sources, reviewing photos, interviewing enforcement personnel who were knowledgeable on specific seizure incidents, and using taxonomic keys and references (del Hoyo et al., 2020; Frost, 2020; Jensen et al., 2019; Heaney et al., 2020; Uetz et al., 2020; World Spider Catalog, 2020). Relevant data of each incident such as date, location, transport method, trade route, and quantity were documented. Reported seized quantities were validated by comparing data from multiple sources when available. The researcher used the lower number when two or more official sources reported the same incident, but with different figures. Data Analyses The seizures of live or whole dead wildlife were categorized into faunal groups of amphibian, reptile, bird, mammal, and invertebrate. When a seizure incident involved processed wildlife and their parts (e.g. five descaled pangolins and 2 kg of pangolin scales), it was presumed that the derivatives were from the same animals to avoid inflating the total quantity. For this study, an incident was considered a seizure when wildlife or derivatives were seized from suspects or were abandoned by poachers or traffickers. Wildlife parts and by-products were analyzed separately due to the involvement of different body parts and units of measurement (i.e. by piece, weight, container). Due to the high economic value of sea turtle eggs as a commodity, eggs were categorized separately to highlight the level of trafficking based on seizure records. The equivalent number of individual animals representing the derivatives was estimated conservatively. In the absence of robust data on the Philippine Pangolin, a dry scale weight of 0.2945 kg per individual animal was used. The weight was based on the average of 0.228 kg of scales from an estimated 3-kg Philippine Pangolin (Sy