210 likes | 381 Views
A Comparative Analysis of Wildlife Trafficking in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Outline. Purpose Methodology Findings Australia NZ UK Discussion. Purpose.
E N D
A Comparative Analysis of Wildlife Trafficking in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom
Outline • Purpose • Methodology • Findings • Australia • NZ • UK • Discussion
Purpose • This study adopts a comparative approach incorporating illegal trade data obtained from the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) online trade database. • This will further understanding of the geographic differences, which can then inform efforts to improve policy intervention and prevention strategies.
Methodology • CITES-listed species • Incidents not totals (individual specimens or weight) • Reported to the Secretariat
Methodology • 1975-2010 • All 178 countries • The source ‘I’ for illegal • Whilst the illegal wildlife was probably confiscated or seized, the CITES data does not give this kind of information • The intention is to gain insight into the species targeted and geographic patterns as well as the type of products that are being smuggled
Discussion • Not possible to determine if the trends witnessed are due to increased or decreased enforcements efforts, an increase or decrease in illegal activity or some combination • It does highlight the following:
Discussion • Australia • Essentially no export of live wildlife • CITES permits for imports too • Harsh penalties • NZ • Controlled imports and exports • Relatively harsh penalties • UK • Controlled imports and exports • Moderate penalties
Further Studies • NZ has the highest imports • Because WEG detects more or if more is occurring? • Australia’s success • Convictions and the use of the range of penalties • Trade of marine species and corals • ‘Unknown’ importer and exporter • Overseas territories as a means of laundering or smuggling