International trade and trafficking in pangolins, 1900–2019

C H A P T E R

16 International trade and trafficking in pangolins, 1900 2019 Daniel W.S. Challender1,2, Sarah Heinrich2,3,4, Chris R. Shepherd2,4 and Lydia K.D. Katsis2 1

Department of Zoology and Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom 2 IUCN SSC Pangolin Specialist Group, N Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London, United Kingdom 3School of Biological Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia 4 Monitor Conservation Research Society, Big Lake Ranch, BC, Canada O U T L I N E

Introduction

259

Impact of international trade and trafficking

Early-mid 20th century trade, 1900 1970s

260

270

Late 20th century trade, 1975 2000

261

Drivers of contemporary international trafficking

Trade and trafficking, 2000 19 Trade reported to CITES (2001 16) Illegal international trade (2000 19)

271

265 265 266

Addressing international pangolin trafficking

273

References

274

Introduction Pangolins and their derivatives have long been in commercial, international trade. This can be traced back to at least the early 20th century, but likely took place earlier, and has

Pangolins DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815507-3.00016-2

continued in one form or another since, both legally and illegally, culminating in high volumes of pangolins and their parts being trafficked since the turn of the 21st century. This chapter examines international trade and trafficking in pangolins from 1900 to July 2019.

259

© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

260

16. International trade and trafficking in pangolins, 1900 2019

It discusses historic trade and presents updated analyses of trade data from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and illegal trade data based on seizure records. It discusses spatial and temporal international trade and trafficking dynamics, its impact on populations, and contemporary drivers. CITES trade data were downloaded from the CITES website (https://trade.cites.org/) for analysis on September 13, 2018, in the form of a comparative tabulation report for Manis spp. from 1975 to 2016 (the latest year for which complete data were available), including all parties, sources, purposes and trade terms. Data for Manis spp. were downloaded because the CITES taxonomic nomenclature reference for mammals (Wilson and Reeder, 2005) includes all pangolins in this genus. Results and discussion follow the taxonomy presented in Chapter 2, i.e., pangolins reside in three genera: Manis, Phataginus and Smutsia (see also Gaudin et al., 2009; Gaubert et al., 2018). An updated version of the dataset presented in Challender et al. (2015), including African and Asian pangolins, was analyzed to characterize illegal international trade between 2000 and July 2019, and was chosen because it enabled analyses from as far back as 2000 and up to 2019. The conversion parameters used to estimate the number of animals in trade (e.g., from quantities of scales) are presented in Table 16.1. Estimating the number of each species of pangolin in illegal trade is difficult because most data sources do not record this information, rather only “pangolin” (i.e., Manidae spp.). Where this was the case conversion parameters for the Sunda pangolin (Manis javanica) were used (see Table 16.1). This is because accurate conversion parameters exist for this species, which is larger than the arboreal and semi-arboreal African pangolins, and smaller than the terrestrial African pangolins,

the smallest and largest species of the Manidae respectively. However, this may under- or over-estimate the number of pangolins in any given seizure, and overall, depending on the species involved (Challender and Waterman, 2017). The same parameters were used to estimate the number of pangolins in historic trade (i.e., 1900 1970s) and trade reported to CITES where it involved quantities of scales.

Early-mid 20th century trade, 1900 1970s Records indicate that commercial harvesting and international trade in pangolins took place throughout the early to mid-20th century. Dammerman (1929) reports that several tonnes of Sunda pangolin scales were exported from Java, Indonesia to China between 1925 and 1929, involving up to 10,000 animals annually, despite the species being legally protected (Nijman, 2015). Harrisson and Loh (1965) report that between 1958 and 1964 over 60 tonnes of scales were exported from Indonesian Borneo, via Sarawak in Malaysia, to Singapore and Hong Kong, now Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (hereafter “Hong Kong”), reportedly for re-export to China for use in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) (Allen, 1938). Assuming the figures reported by Harrisson and Loh are accurate, and using contemporary conversion parameters (see Table 16.1), this trade from Indonesian Borneo likely involved more than 166,000 Sunda pangolins. Around the same time, Chinese pangolin (M. pentadactyla) populations in Taiwan, were in decline due to extensive hunting for the domestic leather industry, which involved a minimum estimate of 60,000 animals annually between the 1950s and 1970s (Anon, 1992). Consequently, and due to resulting population declines, Taiwan increasingly relied upon imports of pangolins from Southeast Asia for supply. An estimated

II. Cultural Significance, Use and Trade

261

Late 20th century trade, 1975 2000

TABLE 16.1 Conversion parameters used to estimate number of pangolins in illegal trade. Parameters used presented only. Derivative Species

Individual (kg)

Scales (g)

Meat (kg)

573.47a

Chinese pangolin Sunda pangolin

4.96b

360.51a

4.59c

Philippine pangolin

4.96b

360.51a

4.59c

Indian pangolin

3400d

White-bellied pangolin

301e

Giant pangolin

3600f

Manis spp.

4.96b

360.51a

Phataginus spp.

301

Phataginus/Smutsia spp.

360.51a

Manidae spp.

4.96b

4.59c

g

360.51a

4.59c

a

From Zhou, Z.-M., Zhao, H., Zhang, Z.-X., Wang, Z.-H., Wang, H., 2012., Allometry of scales in Chinese pangolins (Manis pentadactyla) and Malayan pangolins (Manis javanica) and application in judicial expertise. Zool. Res. 33 (3), 271 275. Trimmed mean. Taken from Pantel, S., Anak, N.A., 2010. A preliminary assessment of Sunda pangolin trade in Sabah. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. c From Challender, D.W.S., Harrop, S.R., MacMillan, D.C., 2015. Understanding markets to conserve trade-threatened species in CITES. Biol. Conserv. 187, 249 259. d From Mohapatra, R.K., Panda, S., Nair, M.V., Acharjyo, L.N., Challender, D.W.S., 2015. A note on the illegal trade and use of pangolin body parts in India. TRAFFIC Bull. 27 (1), 33 40. e Calculated from parameters in Table 9.1 (Chapter 9). f Data from the Tikki Hywood Foundation. g As e. b

50,000 60,000 skins, most of which likely comprised Sunda pangolins, were imported annually throughout the 1970s from Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Vietnam and the Philippines, thereby also including the Philippine pangolin (M. culionensis; Anon, 1992). Although not recognized as a distinct species until 2005 (Gaubert and Antunes, 2005; see Chapter 7), trade in the Sunda pangolin originating from the Philippines must have involved the Philippine pangolin. Due to a hunting ban, combined with increasing labor costs and reported issues with international supply, the domestic pangolin leather industry in Taiwan closed in the

1980s (Anon, 1992). In addition to population declines in Taiwan, this trade likely contributed to declines in Sunda pangolin populations in Southeast Asia (see next section).

Late 20th century trade, 1975 2000 Global monitoring of international wildlife trade improved with the advent of CITES in 1975. At its inception, the Asian pangolin species recognized at the time, the Sunda, Chinese and Indian pangolin (M. crassicaudata) were included in Appendix II. Temminck’s pangolin (Smutsia temminckii) was included in Appendix

II. Cultural Significance, Use and Trade

262

16. International trade and trafficking in pangolins, 1900 2019

I and the three remaining African species were included in Appendix III by Ghana in 1976. In 1995, all species of pangolin were included in Appendix II (see Chapter 19). Trade reported to CITES between 1975 and 2000 involved an estimated 776,000 pangolins (Heinrich et al., 2016). This primarily comprised skins, an estimated 509,564 of which reportedly originated in, or were exported from, 11 of the 19 Asian pangolin range states (Fig. 16.1A). The majority of this trade involved the Sunda pangolin (87%; 442,966 of 509,564 skins), encompassing trade in the Philippine species, with much less trade involving the Chinese (11%; 53,874 skins) or Indian pangolin (2%; 10,555 skins; see Fig. 16.1B). However, it is known that pangolin skins in trade were misidentified and it is possible that this trade did not involve the Indian pangolin (Anon, 1999a,c; Broad et al., 1988). These data indicate that a mean of 21,232 skins/year were traded internationally between 1977 and 2000 peaking at almost 60,000 skins in 1981 and notably in the year 2000, with nearly 74,000 skins traded (Fig. 16.1A and B). The latter peak is potentially due to a proposal to include Asian pangolins in CITES Appendix I at the 11th Conference of the Parties (CoP) meeting in the year 2000 (see Chapter 19). CITES listing proposals have been shown to stimulate trade (Rivalan et al., 2007). There was negligible reported trade in 1989 and declining volumes in the two preceding years, which has been attributed, in part, to the establishment of an import ban on pangolin skins from Thailand and Indonesia in the United States in 1987 (Anon, 1992; Nooren and Claridge, 2001). Although many range states were involved in this trade, the source shifted over time, reportedly due to dwindling availability of pangolins (Anon, 1992, 1999a), but also perhaps to avoid new prohibitions on imports to the United States, the foremost market for skins at the time (Heinrich et al., 2016; Nooren and Claridge, 2001). The main

exporters were Indonesia and Thailand in the late 1970s and 1980s, Lao PDR in the 1990s, and Malaysia in the late 1990s (Fig. 16.1A). Most of this trade was for commercial purposes despite pangolins being protected species in key exporting states including Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. The vast majority of this trade was ultimately destined to the United States and Mexico, but with substantial re-exports from Japan and Singapore. Once in North America the skins were manufactured into leather goods including handbags, belts, wallets and boots for wholesale and retail (Fig. 16.2). Scales and an array of other Asian pangolin derivatives were also traded internationally between 1975 and 2000 according to CITES trade data. This included nearly 17,000 kg of scales between 1994 and 2000, equivalent to an estimated 47,000 Sunda pangolins, which were exported from Malaysia and destined for use in TCM in China and Hong Kong. To a far lesser extent trade involved the Chinese pangolin and unidentified “Manis spp.” It also involved comparably low volumes of live animals, meat, and other derivatives (Challender and Waterman, 2017; Heinrich et al., 2016). By comparison, there was little international trade in African pangolins reported to CITES. It mainly involved live white-bellied (Phataginus tricuspis) and black-bellied (P. tetradactyla) pangolins, nearly 150 of which were imported to Japan and the United States for captive breeding and commercial purposes. It also involved small quantities of bodies and carvings among other derivatives (Challender and Waterman, 2017). Although trade in Asian pangolins reported to CITES in this period was substantial, it was dwarfed by unreported and therefore seemingly illegal trade. Extracting data from the CITES Review of Significant Trade (RST) reports on pangolins (see Anon, 1992, 1999a,b, c), Challender et al. (2015) estimated that this trade involved, at minimum, an additional

II. Cultural Significance, Use and Trade

FIGURE 16.1

(A) Estimated number of whole Asian pangolin skins in international trade between 1977 and 2014 as reported by importers, by country of origin (or exporters if origin not reported). This includes trade reported as Manis spp. where it originated in or was exported from Asian pangolin range states. The last year for which trade in whole Asian pangolin skins was reported is 2014. Trade originated in or was exported from 11 Asian pangolin range states: China (CN), Indonesia (ID), India (IN), Lao PDR (LA), Myanmar (MM), Malaysia (MY), Philippines (PH), Singapore (SG), Thailand (TH), Taiwan (TW) and Vietnam (VN). JP=Japan, XX=Unknown. (B) Estimated number of whole Asian pangolin skins in international trade between 1977 and 2014 as reported by importers, by species. This includes trade in Manis spp. originating in or exported from Asian pangolin range states. Source: CITES trade data.

264

16. International trade and trafficking in pangolins, 1900 2019

FIGURE 16.2

Pangolin leather products. Photo credit: United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

500,000 935,000 Asian pangolins. It took the form of imports of several tonnes or tens of tonnes of scales annually by Taiwan and South Korea in the 1980s and 1990s, and of similar volumes by China in the 1990s; China also imported tens of thousands of live pangolins mainly from Southeast Asia, most of which likely comprised the Chinese and Sunda species (Anon, 1992, 1999a,b,c; Broad et al., 1988; Li and Li, 1998; Wu et al., 2004; Wu and Ma, 2007). This trade was not formally reported to CITES, but its inclusion in the RST process meant it formed part of the evidence base that informed policy decisions during the 1990s (see Chapter 19). A lack of knowledge of pangolin populations and how they behave (e.g., mortality and recruitment rates) has meant that determining the impact of international trade on populations, and disentangling it from local and domestic use, has proven challenging (Anon, 1992, 1999a,b). However, evidence indicates that international trade, legal and illegal, has played a major role in the decline and in some

cases the commercial depletion of Asian pangolin populations. Through the CITES RST process between 1988 and 1999 there was increasing recognition that trade-driven harvesting had contributed to severe declines in populations of Chinese and Sunda pangolins, mainly in Southeast Asia (Anon, 1999a,b; Broad et al., 1988). Although anecdotal, this included estimates by villagers in different parts of Lao PDR in the 1990s that populations of the Sunda pangolin had declined in places by up to 99% of levels in the 1960s because of overexploitation (Duckworth et al., 1999). There is similar evidence from other parts of Southeast Asia. In various parts of Peninsular Malaysia, the indigenous “Orang Asli” reported that Sunda pangolins were abundant in the 1970s and 1980s, but populations declined severely up to the 2000s because of overharvesting (D. Challender, unpubl. data). One trading operation in Peninsular Malaysia reportedly harvested 100 tonnes of pangolins a month (equivalent to about 20,000 Sunda pangolins) for export during the 1990s, but ceased trading because populations had been all but commercially depleted (Anon, unpubl. data). In Vietnam, interviews conducted with hunters in three different provinces in northern and central parts of the country in 2007 revealed that populations of Chinese and Sunda pangolins declined in the 1990s and 2000s, predominantly due to overexploitation (Newton et al., 2008; P. Newton, pers. comm.). Similarly, in Cambodia, hunters have indicated that the Sunda pangolin has been extirpated from some areas entirely due to overharvesting, and the same scenario is apparent in parts of Myanmar and Thailand (see Chapter 6). Pangolin populations also declined in East Asia in the late 20th century, and though not due to international trade, it is critical to understanding contemporary trade and trafficking dynamics. Between the 1960s and 1980s, an estimated 150,000 160,000 pangolins, were harvested annually in China (Zhang, 2009), predominantly or exclusively involving

II. Cultural Significance, Use and Trade

Trade and trafficking, 2000 19

the Chinese pangolin (see Chapter 6 for discussion on the occurrence of the Sunda pangolin in China). This was for the consumption of meat, favored in southern China, with assumed health benefits (see Chapter 14), and the use of scales in TCM (Zhang, 2009). Such was the magnitude of this exploitation that it apparently led to the commercial extinction of pangolins in China by the mid-1990s (Anon, 1999b; Zhang, 2009). Wu et al. (2004) estimated that pangolin populations in China declined by up to 94% between the 1960s and early 2000s. Prior to the 1990s, China had essentially been self-sufficient in pangolins and their derivatives. However, due to shortages of domestic supply, by the early 1990s, it was importing large quantities of both live animals and scales from neighboring countries including Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam (Anon, 1999b). Virtually all of this trade went unreported and was apparently illegal. Yet, international supplies reportedly collapsed in 1995 which led to the price of scales in southern China more than doubling between 1995 and 1996 (SATCM, 1996). As a consequence, reports suggest that there remained severe shortages of scales in China in the mid-late 1990s, which led to some TCM companies publically offering to purchase substantial quantities of scales (Anon, 1999b). This apparent shortage of scales, combined with persistent demand for pangolin meat, scales and products containing scales, means China plays a major role in contemporary pangolin trafficking.

Trade and trafficking, 2000 19 Trade reported to CITES (2001 16) At CITES CoP11 in the year 2000, zero export quotas were established for commercial, international trade in wild-caught Asian pangolins based on concerns about the sustainability of trade and its impact on populations (see Chapter 19). Due to ongoing illegal trade in the

265

interim period, at CoP17 in 2016, all eight species of pangolin were transferred from Appendix II to I, establishing an international ban on commercial trade in wild-caught pangolins globally, which entered into force on January 2, 2017. Between 2001 and 2016, there were low levels of reported trade in Asian pangolins compared to pre-2000 (Fig. 16.1A,B). This mainly involved skins, with approximately 6000 Sunda pangolin skins traded between 2001 and 2003, and it appears that the introduction of zero export quotas caused the decline of this trade with little reported or illegal trade in skins since (Fig. 16.1A,B; Challender et al., 2015; Challender and Waterman, 2017; Heinrich et al., 2016). An exception is 1000 Chinese pangolin skins that were exported from Lao PDR to Mexico in 2010 that were reportedly ranched (see Challender and Waterman, 2017). Trade otherwise involved 3200 kg of scales that were exported from Malaysia to China and Hong Kong, and quantities of medicines, shoes and among other items, leather products (Challender and Waterman, 2017; Heinrich et al., 2016). Quantities of African pangolins in international trade reported to CITES increased noticeably in the period 2001 2016. This mainly involved scales and live animals, and primarily the white-bellied and giant pangolin (S. gigantea). Accurately estimating trade volumes is problematic because reported quantities differ between importers and exporters. Based on importer records, trade involved an estimated 2510 kg of white-bellied pangolin scales (equivalent to an estimated B8000 animals) between 2013 and 2016. These scales were exported from Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Congo primarily, and Togo, the vast majority of which, by weight (97%), were imported to China. Based on a combination of data from importers and exporters, trade also involved an estimated 11.3 tonnes of giant pangolin scales (equivalent to an estimated ~3100 animals). More than

II. Cultural Significance, Use and Trade

266

16. International trade and trafficking in pangolins, 1900 2019

90% of this trade was exported from Burundi to Hong Kong (57%, ~6500 kg) and from Uganda to China (36%, ~4000 kg) between 2014 and 2016. There is no evidence for the presence of the giant pangolin in Burundi (see Chapter 10) which suggests that these scales were harvested in another range country or were misidentified. A further 750 kg of unidentified African pangolin scales were exported from DRC to China in 2015. Assuming trade reported to CITES represents actual trade volumes (as opposed to permits issued), trade post-2000 also involved ~1340 live African pangolins, most of which were exported to Asia. This included 650 white-bellied pangolins exported from Nigeria and Togo to China, Lao PDR and Vietnam between 2012 and 2015; 200 black-bellied pangolins exported from Nigeria to China in 2015; and 150 giant pangolins exported from Nigeria and Togo to China and Lao PDR between 2012 and 2015, all for captive breeding or commercial purposes. This trade is apparently associated with attempts to commercially captive breed or farm pangolins (see Chapter 32). Other trade in live African pangolins involved the white-bellied species, an estimated 287 of which were traded mainly for commercial purposes between 2001 and 2016; the majority (83%) of animals were exported from Togo, but also Benin and Cameroon. The United States imported 132 individuals and smaller numbers were imported by, among others, the Czech Republic, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea and the United Kingdom. Small numbers of black-bellied, giant and Temminck’s pangolins were traded for the same purpose in this period. Other trade in African pangolins involved small quantities of skulls, skins and other derivatives (see Challender and Waterman, 2017).

Illegal international trade (2000 19) Illegal wildlife trade is difficult to monitor, in part because it may be clandestine.

Quantifying it is typically dependent on government or open source data (e.g., seizures reported in the media) or the use of innovative methods (e.g., Hinsley et al., 2017). Here, an updated dataset from Challender et al. (2015) was analyzed to characterize international pangolin trafficking, including selected government, non-governmental organization (NGO) and open source data. This dataset was chosen because it enabled an evaluation of pangolin trafficking across a near 20-year period (August 2000 July 2019). Species of pangolin in illegal trade were inferred where possible based on reported country or continent of origin (e.g., Africa) and species distribution. However, it was not possible to infer numbers of specific species involved in each seizure because reports (e.g., in the media) rarely record the species of pangolin involved (see Challender et al., 2015). Despite the utility of seizure data, inherent detection and reporting biases (see Underwood et al., 2013) mean that the results should not be interpreted as temporal trends or absolute trade volumes (Milliken et al., 2012). In addition, data on trafficking routes is only available for a subset of these data, and the results should be treated with caution due to potential inaccuracies (see Challender and Waterman, 2017; Heinrich et al., 2017). International trafficking in pangolins and their derivatives between August 2000 and July 2019 involved an estimated equivalent of 895,000 animals (Fig. 16.3A). This is based on 1474 seizures and other records of illegal trade (e.g., trading syndicate logbooks; see Pantel and Anak, 2010). The actual number of pangolins trafficked likely exceeds this figure as only a portion of illegal trade is intercepted, but accounting for undetected and unreported illegal trade is challenging (Phelps and Webb, 2015) and beyond the scope of this chapter. It is possible that this figure over-estimates the equivalent number of pangolins seized, which may be the case if trafficking of African pangolin scales in particular mainly involved the

II. Cultural Significance, Use and Trade

FIGURE 16.3

(A) Estimated number of pangolins illegally traded and number of seizures between August 2000 and July 2019. (B) Estimated number of pangolins illegally traded between August 2000 and July 2019 by species, genera, or presented as Manidae spp., inferred from available seizures data. (A and B) Source: open source and pangolin range state government data. Trade volumes based on seizures and illegal trade records. For full methods see Challender, D.W.S., Harrop, S.R., MacMillan, D.C., 2015. Understanding markets to conserve trade-threatened species in CITES. Biol. Conserv. 187, 249 259. Orange bars=estimated no. of pangolins; blue line=no. of seizures. *Seizures from August December 2000 only. **Seizures from January July 2019 only.

268

16. International trade and trafficking in pangolins, 1900 2019

terrestrial species (e.g., giant pangolin) because family-level conversion parameters were used (see Table 16.1). However, it seems likely based on what is known about the abundance of the tropical African pangolins (see Chapters 9 11), that seizures involve a higher proportion of white-bellied pangolins the than other species, especially considering the indiscriminate nature of pangolin harvesting. More accurate recording and reporting of pangolins in illegal trade would enable more robust analyses (see Chapter 34). International trafficking involved all eight species of pangolin (Fig. 16.3B). Historically, recorded illegal international trade has predominantly involved Asian pangolins, but alarmingly most trade in this period in which it was possible to infer the genus or species in trade comprised African pangolins, and primarily took place between 2016 and 2019 (Fig. 16.3B). This involved an estimated 585,000 African pangolins, 65% of overall trade by number of pangolins. It primarily involved trade in Phataginus/ Smutsia spp. (93%, 544,000 of 585,000 animals), i.e., African pangolins or their derivatives that were not identified to species level. It involved an additional estimated equivalent of 39,000 Phataginus spp. (7%, 39,000 of 585,000; see Fig. 16.3B). There was little reported trade in specific species, which was limited to an estimated 1997 white-bellied, 118 giant, and 144 Temminck’s pangolins (Fig. 16.3B). However, illegal trade in each of these species almost certainly involved higher numbers of animals, accounting for trade recorded at the genus and/ or family level. Trafficking of the black-bellied pangolin was not recorded specifically (Fig. 16.3B), but is reflected in illegal trade inferred as involving Phataginus/Smutsia spp. and Phataginus spp. The presence of this species in intercontinental trafficking to Asia has been confirmed through both forensic means (Mwale et al., 2017) and visual inspection of seized scales (e.g., in Abidjan, M. Shirley, pers. comm.). Illegal trade in Asian pangolins involved an estimated 275,000 animals (31% of overall

trade), most of which (73%; 202,000 of 275,000) involved Manis spp. (i.e., it was not possible to infer the species involved). It did include an estimated 65,000 Sunda pangolins (7% of overall illegal trade), but much lower quantities of the Chinese (B3500), Indian (B3700) and Philippine (B700) pangolins. However, like for African pangolins, illegal trade in each species almost certainly involved higher numbers of individuals, reflected in trade in Manis spp. and/or Manidae spp. (Fig. 16.3B). Trade in Manidae spp. involved an estimated 35,000 pangolins. International trafficking involved whole pangolins (i.e., live or dead) and meat, scales and skins, and involved more than 50 countries (see Fig. 16.4). Seizures took place in 40 countries, but 55 countries are implicated as a country of origin, export, transit and/or destination (Fig. 16.4). This broadly corresponds with previous analyses of contemporary trafficking between 2010 and 2015 in which 67 countries were implicated (Heinrich et al., 2017). The 55 countries included 17 of the 19 Asian, and 25 of the 36 African, range states (Fig. 16.4). The vast majority of illegal trade by estimated number of animals (83%) involved scales, equivalent to an estimated 745,000 pangolins. Most of this trade (80%, 592,000 of 745,000 estimated pangolins) took place between 2016 and July 2019 (Fig. 16.3B), and by sea, with pangolin scales concealed in boxes or sacks in shipping containers and declared as, among other cargo, fish (Fig. 16.5). Virtually all trade in African pangolins involved scales. Assuming reported countries of origin or export are accurate, and based on available data, African pangolin scales were primarily exported from Nigeria (226,000 pangolins), DRC (44,000), Cameroon (34,000), Uganda (15,000; without reported destination), Congo (11,000) and Ghana (10,000). Coˆte d’Ivoire, Burkino Faso and Liberia were reported as the origin of scales from an estimated .8300 pangolins. Based on

II. Cultural Significance, Use and Trade

Trade and trafficking, 2000 19

269

FIGURE 16.4 Pangolin range states in which trafficking is known to occur (shaded dark gray) and major trafficking routes between August 2000 and July 2019. Arrows indicate major trafficking routes based on available data for individual (i.e., live and dead) pangolins and meat (blue) and scales (green). Between 2000 and 2019 trafficking implicated the following countries: Angola, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Burkino Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central Africa Republic, China (including Hong Kong), Congo, Coˆte d’Ivoire, DRC, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Lao PDR, Liberia, Malawi, Malaysia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, North Korea, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uganda, United States, Vietnam, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Map prepared by Helen O’Neill.

available data this trade primarily transited through Central African Republic, Kenya, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam. Malaysia is notable as a well-known transit point for pangolin scales trafficked in Asia (Fig. 16.5; Krishnasamy and Shepherd, 2017). Malaysia was also reported as a destination, but it is unclear whether it actually comprises a destination or exists as a thoroughfare to East Asia. Assuming reported destinations are accurate, trafficked scales were primarily destined to China, as well as Vietnam and Lao PDR.

Trade in scales from Asian pangolins involved an estimated 128,000 animals, including all four species. For most of it (82%; 105,000 of 128,000 animals), it was not possible to infer the actual species involved. Where it was possible, most trade involved the Sunda pangolin (13%; 17,000 of 128,000 animals). Most of the trade in Asian pangolins originated in, or was exported from, Indonesia and Myanmar and destined for China, Hong Kong and Vietnam. However, countries of origin and export were diverse and included India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines,

II. Cultural Significance, Use and Trade

270

16. International trade and trafficking in pangolins, 1900 2019

from Thailand, Lao PDR and Cambodia, Singapore and Vietnam. Key transit countries comprised Hong Kong and Vietnam, but also Malaysia, Thailand and Lao PDR. Large quantities of frozen pangolins (i.e., several tonnes at a time) were typically trafficked by sea from Indonesia to Vietnam and China, while smaller quantities of live animals were traded over land along routes comprising MalaysiaThailand-Lao PDR-Vietnam-China. The main destination markets were China, followed by Vietnam. Other trade involved an estimated 4450 skins, mainly involving the Sunda pangolin (3900 skins), but it is unclear whether this represents trade in skins only or trade in skins with the scales attached (i.e., skins being trafficked for the scales).

Impact of international trade and trafficking

FIGURE 16.5

Pangolin scales seized in Malaysia en route from Africa to East Asia. Photo credit: TRAFFIC.

Singapore, Sri Lanka and Vietnam. Trade in scales in Manidae spp. involved an estimated equivalent of 31,000 pangolins and followed similar routes, both in terms of reported countries of origin and export, and destination. Live and dead pangolins and meat accounted for a further 16% of trafficking by volume. It included an estimated 146,000 pangolins, primarily involving Manis spp. (66%; 97,000 of 146,000 animals) and the Sunda pangolin (30%; 44,000 of 146,000 animals). Trafficking in other species occurred at much lower volumes, but are likely included in the trafficking of Manis spp. Most of the trafficking either originated in or was exported from Indonesia and Malaysia, and to a lesser degree

Exploitation for international trade and trafficking has been a major cause of population decline in Asian pangolins, in particular for the Sunda and Chinese species. Although the Sunda pangolin has been in international commercial trade since at least the early 20th century, high volumes of both legal and illegal international trade in the 1950s to 1970s likely contributed to population declines: steep declines are documented for both species in parts of Southeast Asia from the 1980s to 2000s (see earlier discussion). In addition, Indigenous peoples groups in the Philippines report steep declines in populations of the Philippine pangolin between the 1980s and 2010s (Acosta and Schoppe, 2018). Due in part to international trade and trafficking, pangolins are increasingly rare, commercially extinct or apparently absent altogether at some sites in Southeast Asia (see Newton et al., 2008; Willcox et al., 2019). Where Asian pangolins do persist, they remain subject to exploitation,

II. Cultural Significance, Use and Trade

Drivers of contemporary international trafficking

and it is likely that Singapore, Taiwan and smaller islands within the species ranges are the only locations where overexploitation is not a major threat. International trafficking appears to be increasingly pervasive in Asia. Between 2000 and 2008, it largely involved Asian pangolins from Southeast Asia, typically trafficked to China and Vietnam (Challender et al., 2015; Pantel and Chin, 2009). However, between 2009 and 2019, 17 out of the 19 Asian pangolin range states were implicated in this trade (the exceptions were Bhutan and Brunei Darussalam). This included countries not prominent in illegal international pangolin trade historically, e.g., India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (Fig. 16.4). Evidence indicates that this is having a negative impact on populations in places. For example, population densities of the Indian pangolin in the Potohar Plateau region of Pakistan reportedly declined by 80% between 2010 and 2012 due to the killing of the animals and harvest of their scales for trafficking to China (Irshad et al., 2015; Mahmood et al., 2012; see Chapter 5). Crucially, there remains a need for the development of population monitoring methods to more rigorously quantify the impact of exploitation (see Chapters 34 35). The most significant trend in international trade and trafficking of pangolins in the early 21st century has been the advent of intercontinental trade, both legal and illegal, from Africa to Asian markets since around 2008 (Challender and Hywood, 2012). This was not apparent in the early 2000s but it was suspected that there would be a shift in source to Africa following declines in Asian pangolins (Bra¨utigam et al., 1994). This shift is reflected in both the CITES trade data (see earlier discussion; Heinrich et al., 2016) and high levels of contemporary trafficking (Fig. 16.3B), which involves all four African species and at least 25 range countries (Fig. 16.4), and primarily scales destined to China.

271

Determining the impact of contemporary illegal international trade on populations of African pangolins is problematic because it is difficult to extricate it from local use. Pangolins have been consumed as bushmeat in West and Central Africa throughout human history and their body parts, including scales, are used in traditional medicines among other applications (see Chapter 15; Boakye et al., 2015; Soewu and Adekanola, 2011). Ingram et al. (2018) estimated that 0.4 2.7 million pangolins (most likely 0.4 million) are hunted annually for local use in Central Africa. However, evidence is starting to emerge which indicates that intercontinental trafficking is placing an additive pressure on populations and African pangolins are being targeted specifically for their scales for illicit export, and the meat consumed, sold as a by-product, or even discarded (CITES, 2019; S. Jones, pers. comm.). This appears to be the case in Cameroon and neighboring countries (O. Drori, pers. comm.), in Coˆte d’Ivoire (M. Shirley, pers. comm.) and Gabon, where trafficking routes appear distinct from the bushmeat trade (Mambeya et al., 2018). Elucidating these dynamics and how they vary both within and between range countries and temporally, is critical to understanding the impact of international trafficking, and overall exploitation, on African pangolin populations (Ingram et al., 2019).

Drivers of contemporary international trafficking Overexploitation is the foremost threat to pangolins, and for most species international trafficking is the main threat (Chapters 4 11), the drivers of which are complex. Available evidence indicates that most pangolin products trafficked internationally are destined to China and Vietnam, where there is substantial demand for pangolin meat and scales and which, in part, is driving illegal trade

II. Cultural Significance, Use and Trade

272

16. International trade and trafficking in pangolins, 1900 2019

(Challender et al., 2019; see Chapters 14 and 22). This also applies to areas close to China e.g., the Myanmar-China border region (Nijman et al., 2016). Seizure data do indicate that other markets also exist (see Chaber et al., 2010; Heinrich et al., 2017). Regarding China, its position as a destination country can be traced back to the overexploitation of its own pangolin populations throughout the 1960s 1990s. Its size, combined with substantial demand, means that it plays a major role in contemporary international pangolin trafficking globally. However, an in-depth understanding of demand for pangolin products in both China and Vietnam is lacking (see Chapter 22). Available evidence indicates that demand for pangolin meat is characterized by conspicuous consumption and the desire for consumers to reinforce social status, while perceived rarity, illegality and high price are also important (Shairp et al., 2016). For instance, pangolin meat was offered for sale in restaurants in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC), Vietnam, in 2018 for USD 300/kg (D. Challender, unpubl. data). Pangolin scales are in demand as an ingredient in TCM and traditional Vietnamese Medicine (TVM) to treat a range of ailments and prices are also high. In China the retail price of scales in 2016 was USD 800/kg, though scales are typically sold in much smaller quantities (e.g., 10 g). Supply of pangolins and their parts trafficked internationally comes from rural parts of Asia and Africa. Historically, up to around 2008, supply to Asian markets was limited to Asia. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s (Anon, 1992; Anon 1999a,b), 2000s (Newton et al., 2008; Sopyan, 2009) and 2010s (e.g., Azhar et al., 2013; D’Cruze et al., 2018) pangolins have been collected, hunted or poached, and the animals and/or their parts entered into international trade, because there has been, and remains, a strong financial incentive to do so. The people who hunt and poach pangolins include poor and marginalized rural people

living in absolute poverty in some cases (e.g., in parts of Malaysia and Indonesia), for which finding and selling one pangolin can equate to several months’ income (D. Challender, unpubl. data). They also include those living in relative poverty, and hunting and trafficking of pangolins is used to earn extra income (Pantel and Chin, 2009) or support their livelihood aspirations (Challender and MacMillan, 2014). In 2004, one report indicated that individuals from one rural community in Vietnam were poaching and trafficking pangolins so that they could afford to buy a television (Anon, 2004). Rural dwellers (e.g., farmers in Indonesia) poach pangolins opportunistically (Sopyan, 2009), and plantation workers on monoculture plantations (e.g., in Malaysia and Indonesia) collect the animals for illegal trade (Azhar et al., 2013). In the 1980s and 1990s pangolins may have been kept and consumed locally, but evidence indicates that this is now typically foregone and the default response to finding a pangolin in most of Southeast Asia is to sell it illegally (MacMillan and Nguyen, 2014; Nuwer and Bell, 2014; G. Semiadi, pers. comm.). There is some variation to this dynamic with research in northeast India indicating that only pangolin scales are sold into illegal trade while the meat is consumed locally, but even selling the scales alone can equate to several months’ income (D’Cruze et al., 2018). The supply of pangolins for intercontinental trafficking from Africa are less well documented but there are parallels to Asia e.g., a high financial incentive to catch and sell the animals and/or their parts into trade. In West and Central Africa, pangolins are widely and openly traded in bushmeat markets in many places (e.g., Boakye et al., 2016). However, evidence suggests that in Gabon (Mambeya et al., 2018), Coˆte d’Ivoire (M. Shirley, pers. comm.) and Cameroon (O. Drori, pers. comm.) trafficking does not follow bushmeat supply routes. Rather, it is linked to the trafficking of other

II. Cultural Significance, Use and Trade

Addressing international pangolin trafficking

high value wildlife including elephant (Elephantidae) ivory (Mambeya et al., 2018), gorillas (Gorilla spp.), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and leopard (Panthera pardus) skins, among other species (Ingram et al., 2019), and constitutes organized crime (UNODC, 2016). Pangolin trafficking is known to be carried out by organized criminal groups in pursuit of financial profits. In Asia and Africa rural communities hunt or poach pangolins and store the animals and/or their scales at the household or village level, which are collected periodically by middlemen, and the animals and their derivatives may pass through various levels of traders or middlemen prior to export, and during transit to consumer markets (Pantel and Chin, 2009; Sopyan, 2009). Various criminal syndicates have been identified operating pangolin trafficking networks in Asia, and similar entities are likely responsible for intercontinental trafficking from Africa. Syndicates have been identified in Lao PDR (see Rademeyer, 2012), while Sopyan (2009) details that a syndicate operating in Palembang, Sumatra, in the mid-2000s exported 11 tonnes of Sunda pangolins (~2200 animals) a month to China and Vietnam. In Sabah, Malaysia, a syndicate operating between 2007 and 2009 poached ~22,000 Sunda pangolins for illegal export (Pantel and Anak, 2010). Evidence indicates that these groups operate by using legal businesses as a front for trafficking, by bribing officials to “look the other way” (Sopyan, 2009) and in some cases by using new trafficking routes and processing products to change their appearance (e.g., powdering scales; Heinrich et al., 2019; D. Challender, unpubl. data). Heinrich et al. (2017) identified a mean of 29 new pangolin trafficking routes a year between 2010 and 2015. Although seizures take place, available data suggest that arrests, prosecutions and conviction rates are low (Challender and Waterman, 2017). When traffickers are apprehended, they may also possess the means to secure their release. For example, in 2012, an individual caught trafficking pangolins was

273

arrested in Thailand and charged and fined, and paid the USD 75,000 fine in full, in cash, within hours of arrest (see Challender and MacMillan, 2014). Zimbabwe is perhaps an exception, where pangolin seizures are increasing and perpetrators are often given the maximum jail sentence of nine years (Shepherd et al., 2017).

Addressing international pangolin trafficking Pangolins have long been in international commercial trade, especially in Asia, but hunting and poaching for international trafficking now comprises a major threat to the continued survival of the species, perhaps with the exception of Temminck’s pangolin (see Chapter 11). Historically, the pre-dominant approach to controlling international trade has been regulation of harvest and trade institutionalized through legislation. Pangolins are protected species in most range states, and have a long history in CITES (see Chapter 19), but measures adopted to date have been inadequate to prevent overexploitation. Pangolin trafficking is complex, involving various actors and incentives, and takes place on a large geographic scale, and the problem is seemingly intractable. However, a range of conservation solutions exist which need to be implemented urgently to safeguard the species at the site level, to combat trafficking, and to address consumer demand. At the site level, there is a need for locally appropriate interventions to protect pangolins. In most cases, this will comprise a combination of law enforcement, which needs to be well resourced and effective, and local community engagement, for which partnerships should be built around mutually agreed theories of change (see Chapters 24 and 25). In addition, pangolin populations should be monitored in order to evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions (Chapter 35). Other interventions may

II. Cultural Significance, Use and Trade

274

16. International trade and trafficking in pangolins, 1900 2019

also be needed to support site-based protection, such as innovative financing mechanisms (see Chapter 37) or pangolin tourism (see Chapter 38). Within, but also beyond, the sitelevel, and along international trafficking routes, capacitated and effective law enforcement based on good intelligence is needed in order to identify, disrupt and dismantle organized criminal networks smuggling pangolins and their parts, with efficient processing through judicial systems (see Chapters 17 and 18). Where countries are facing serious challenges implementing CITES, support is available from CITES and its parties (see Chapter 19). Finally, in key consumer markets, there is a need to reduce consumer demand for pangolin products, for example, by changing consumer behavior (see Chapter 22) in order to alleviate exploitation for international trafficking. These interventions are discussed in more detail in Section Three of this Volume.

References Acosta, D., Schoppe, S., 2018. Proceedings of the stakeholder workshop on the Palawan Pangolin Balintong, Bulwagang Princesa Tourist Inn, Puerto Princesa City, 17 February 2018. Katala Foundation Inc, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Philippines, pp. 1 10. Allen, J.A., 1938. Chinese medicine and the pangolin. Nature 141, 72. Anon, 1992. Review of Significant Trade in Animal Species included in CITES Appendix II, Detailed Review of 24 priority species, Indian, Malayan and Chinese pangolin. CITES, Geneva, Switzerland. Anon, 1999a. Review of Significant Trade in Animal Species Included in CITES Appendix II, Detailed Review of 37 Species. Manis javanica. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, IUCN Species Survival Commission and TRAFFIC, Cambridge, UK. Anon, 1999b. Review of Significant Trade in Animal Species Included in CITES Appendix II, Detailed Review of 37 Species. Manis pentadactyla. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, IUCN Species Survival Commission and TRAFFIC, Cambridge, UK.

Anon, 1999c. Review of Significant Trade in Animal Species Included in CITES Appendix II, Detailed Review of 37 Species. Manis crassicaudata. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, IUCN Species Survival Commission and TRAFFIC, Cambridge, UK. Anon, 2004. Pangolins for televisions. Unpublished report. Hanoi, Vietnam. Azhar, B., Lindenmayer, D., Wood, J., Fischer, J., Manning, A., McElhinny, C., et al., 2013. Contribution of illegal hunting, culling of pest species, road accidents and feral dogs to biodiversity loss in established oil-palm landscapes. Wildlife Res. 40 (1), 1 9. Boakye, M.K., Pietersen, D.W., Kotze´, A., Dalton, D.-L., Jansen, R., 2015. Knowledge and uses of African pangolins as a source of traditional medicine in Ghana. PLoS One 10 (1), e0117199. Boakye, M.K., Kotze´, A., Dalton, D.L., Jansen, R., 2016. Unravelling the pangolin bushmeat commodity chain and the extent of trade in Ghana. Hum. Ecol. 44 (2), 257 264. Bra¨utigam, A., Howes, J., Humphreys, T., Hutton, J., 1994. Recent information on the status and utilization of African pangolins. TRAFFIC Bull. 15 (1), 15 22. Broad, S., Luxmoore, R., Jenkins, M., 1988. Significant Trade in Wildlife, A Review of Selected Species in CITES Appendix II. IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK. Chaber, A.S., Allebone-Webb, S., Lignereux, Y., Cunningham, A.A., Rowcliffe, J.M., 2010. The scale of illegal meat importation from Africa to Europe via Paris. Conserv. Lett. 3 (5), 317 323. Challender, D.W.S., Hywood, L., 2012. African pangolins under increased pressure from poaching and intercontinental trade. TRAFFIC Bull. 24 (3), 53 55. Challender, D.W.S., MacMillan, D.C., 2014. Poaching is more than an enforcement problem. Conserv. Lett. 7 (5), 484 494. Challender, D.W.S., Harrop, S.R., MacMillan, D.C., 2015. Understanding markets to conserve trade-threatened species in CITES. Biol. Conserv. 187, 249 259. Challender, D., Waterman, C., 2017. Implementation of CITES Decisions 17.239 b) and 17.240 on Pangolins (Manis spp.), CITES SC69 Doc. 57 Annex. Available from: ,https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/com/ sc/69/E-SC69-57-A.pdf.. [August 2, 2018]. Challender, D.W.S., t Sas-Rolfes, M., Ades, G., Chin, J.S.C., Sun, N.C.M., Chong, J.L., et al., 2019. Evaluating the feasibility of pangolin farming and its potential conservation impact. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 20, e00714. CITES, 2019. Wildlife Crime Enforcement Support in West and Central Africa. CITES CoP18 Doc. 34. Available

II. Cultural Significance, Use and Trade

References

from: https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/ 18/doc/E-CoP18-034.pdf. [November 16, 2019]. Dammerman, K.W., 1929. Preservation of Wild Life and Nature Reserves in the Netherlands Indies. Proceedings of the 4th Pacific Science Congress, Java. Emmink, pp. 1 91. D’Cruze, N., Singh, B., Mookerjee, A., Harrington, L.A., Macdonald, D.W., 2018. A socio-economic survey of pangolin hunting in Assam, Northeast India. Nat. Conserv. 30, 83 105. Duckworth, J.W., Salter, R.E., Khounboline, K., 1999. Wildlife in Lao PDR: 1999 Status Report. IUCN, Wildlife Conservation Society, Centre for Protected Areas and Watershed Management, Vientiane, Lao PDR. Gaubert, P., Antunes, A., 2005. Assessing the taxonomic status of the Palawan pangolin Manis culionensis (Pholidota) using discrete morphological characters. J. Mammal. 86 (6), 1068 1074. Gaubert, P., Antunes, A., Meng, H., Miao, L., Peigne´, S., Justy, F., et al., 2018. The complete phylogeny of pangolins: scaling up resources for the molecular tracing of the most trafficked mammals on Earth. J. Hered. 109 (4), 347 359. Gaudin, T., Emry, R., Wible, J., 2009. The phylogeny of living and extinct pangolins (Mammalia, Pholidota) and associated taxa: a morphology based analysis. J. Mammal. Evol. 16 (4), 235 305. Harrisson, T., Loh, C.Y., 1965. To scale a pangolin. Sarawak Museum J. 12, 415 418. Heinrich, S., Wittmann, T.A., Prowse, T.A.A., Ross, J.V., Delean, S., Shepherd, C.R., et al., 2016. Where did all the pangolins go? International CITES trade in pangolin species. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 8, 241 253. Heinrich, S., Wittman, T.A., Rosse, J.V., Shepherd, C.R., Challender, D.W.S., Cassey, P., 2017. The Global Trafficking of Pangolins: A Comprehensive Summary of Seizures and Trafficking Routes From 2010 2015. TRAFFIC, Southeast Asia Regional Office, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. Heinrich, S., Koehncke, A., Shepherd, C.R., 2019. The role of Germany in the illegal global pangolin trade. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 20, e00736. Hinsley, A., Nuno, A., Ridout, M., John St., F.A.V., Roberts, D.L., 2017. Estimating the extent of CITES noncompliance among traders and end-consumers: lessons from the global orchid trade. Conserv. Lett. 10 (5), 602 609. Ingram, D.J., Coad, L., Abernethy, K.A., Maisels, F., Stokes, E.J., Bobo, K.S., et al., 2018. Assessing Africa-wide pangolin exploitation by scaling local data. Conserv. Lett. 11 (2), e12389. Ingram, D.J., Cronin, D.T., Challender, D.W.S., Venditti, D. M., Gonder, M.K., 2019. Characterizing trafficking and

275

trade of pangolins in the Gulf of Guinea. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 17, e00576. Irshad, N., Mahmood, T., Hussain, R., Nadeem, M.S., 2015. Distribution, abundance and diet of the Indian pangolin (Manis crassicaudata). Anim. Biol. 65 (1), 57 71. Li, Y., Li, D., 1998. The dynamics of trade in live wildlife across the Guangxi border between China and Vietnam during 1993-1996 and its control strategies. Biodivers. Conserv. 7 (7), 895 914. Krishnasamy, K., Shepherd, C.R., 2017. Seizures of African pangolin scales in Malaysia in 2017. TRAFFIC Bull. 29 (2), 53 55. MacMillan, D.C., Nguyen, Q.A., 2014. Factors influencing the illegal harvest of wildlife by trapping and snaring among the Katu ethnic group in Vietnam. Oryx 48 (2), 304 312. Mahmood, T., Hussain, R., Irshad, N., Akrim, F., Nadeem, M.S., 2012. Illegal mass killing of Indian Pangolin (Manis crassicaudata) in Potohar Region, Pakistan. Pak. J. Zool. 44 (5), 1457 1461. Mambeya, M.M., Baker, F., Momboua, B.R., Pambo, A.F.K., Hega, M., Okouyi, V.J.O., et al., 2018. The emergence of a commercial trade in pangolins from Gabon. J. Afr. Ecol. 56 (3), 601 609. Milliken, T., Burn, R.W., Underwood, F.M., Sangalakula, L., 2012. The Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) and the Illicit Trade in Ivory: A report to the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK. Mwale, M., Dalton, D.-L., Jansen, R., De Bruyn, M., Pietersen, D., Mokgokong, P.S., et al., 2017. Forensic application of DNA barcoding for identification of illegally traded African pangolin scales. Genome 60 (3), 272 284. Newton, P., Nguyen, T.V., Roberton, S., Bell, D., 2008. Pangolins in peril: using local hunters’ knowledge to conserve elusive species in Vietnam. Endanger. Sp. Res. 6, 41 53. Nijman, V., 2015. Pangolin seizures data reported in the Indonesian media. TRAFFIC Bull. 27 (2), 44 46. Nijman, V., Zhang, M.X., Shepherd, C.R., 2016. Pangolin trade in the Mong La wildlife market and the role of Myanmar in the smuggling of pangolins into China. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 5, 118 126. Nooren, H., Claridge, G., 2001. Wildlife Trade in Laos: The End of the Game. Netherlands Committee for IUCN, Amsterdam. Nuwer, R., Bell, D., 2014. Identifying and quantifying the threats to biodiversity in the U Minh peat swamp forests of the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Oryx 48 (1), 88 94. Pantel, S., Chin, S.-Y., 2009. Pangolin capture and trade in Malaysia. In: Pantel, S., Chin, S.-Y. (Eds.), 2009. Proceedings of the Workshop on Trade and

II. Cultural Significance, Use and Trade

276

16. International trade and trafficking in pangolins, 1900 2019

Conservation of Pangolins Native to South and Southeast Asia, 30 June 2 July 2008, Singapore Zoo, Singapore. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia, pp. 143 160. Pantel, S., Anak, N.A., 2010. A preliminary assessment of Sunda pangolin trade in Sabah. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. Phelps, J., Webb, E.L., 2015. “Invisible” wildlife trades: Southeast Asia’s undocumented illegal trade in wild ornamental plants. Biol. Conserv. 186, 296 305. Rademeyer, J., 2012. Killing for Profit. Zebra Press, Cape Town. Rivalan, P., Delmas, V., Angulo, E., Bull, L.S., Hall, R.J., Courchamp, F., et al., 2007. Can bans stimulate wildlife trade? Nature 447, 529 530. SATCM, 1996. Guangxi Province: cross-border trade prices for pangolins rise further. Zhongyaocai (State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine) 19, 4. Shairp, R., Verı´ssimo, D., Fraser, I., Challender, D.W.S., MacMillan, D.C., 2016. Understanding urban demand for wild meat in Vietnam: implications for conservation actions. PLoS One 11 (1), e0134787. Shepherd, C.R., Connelly, E., Hywood, L., Cassey, P., 2017. Taking a stand against illegal wildlife trade: the Zimbabwean approach to pangolin conservation. Oryx 51 (2), 280 285. Soewu, D.A., Adekanola, T.A., 2011. Traditional-medical knowledge and perceptions of pangolins (Manis sps [sic]) among the Awori people, Southwestern Nigeria. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 7 (1), 25. Sopyan, E., 2009. Malayan Pangolin Manis javanica Trade in Sumatra, Indonesia. In: Pantel, S., Chin, S.-Y. (Eds.),

2009. Proceedings of the Workshop on Trade and Conservation of Pangolins Native to South and Southeast Asia, 30 June 2 July 2008, Singapore Zoo, Singapore. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia, pp. 134 142. Underwood, F.M., Burn, R.W., Milliken, T., 2013. Dissecting the illegal ivory trade: an analysis of ivory seizures data. PLoS One 8 (10), e76539. UNODC, 2016. World Wildlife Crime Report: Trafficking in Protected Species. UNODC, Vienna, Austria. Willcox, D., Nash, H., Trageser, S., Kim, H.-J., Hywood, L., Connelly, E., et al., 2019. Evaluating methods for detecting and monitoring pangolin (Pholidata: Manidae) populations. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 17, e00539. Wilson, D.E., Reeder, M., 2005. Mammal Species of the World, A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, third ed. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Wu, S.B., Liu, N., Zhang, Y., Ma, G.Z., 2004. Assessment of threatened status of Chinese Pangolin (Manis pentadactyla). Chin. J. Appl. Environ. Biol. 10, 456 461. [In Chinese]. Wu, S.B., Ma, G.Z., 2007. The status and conservation of pangolins in China. TRAFFIC East Asia Newsl. 4, 1 5. [In Chinese]. Zhang, Y., 2009. Conservation and trade control of pangolins in China. In: Pantel, S., Chin, S.-Y. (Eds.), 2009. Proceedings of the Workshop on Trade and Conservation of Pangolins Native to South and Southeast Asia, 30 June 2 July 2008, Singapore Zoo, Singapore. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia, pp. 66 74.

II. Cultural Significance, Use and Trade