Disentangling the Legal and Illegal Wildlife Trade-Insights from Indonesian Wildlife Market Surveys.

It is challenging to disentangle the legal and illegal aspects of wild-caught animals that are traded in wildlife markets or online, and this may diminish the value of conducting wildlife trade surveys. We present empirical studies on the trade in birds (ducks, owls, songbirds, non-passerines) in Indonesia (2005 to 2021). Based on visits to wildlife markets, wholesale traders, and monitoring of an Instagram account, we examine if five specific pieces of legislation (domestic and international) are adhered to: (1) protected species, (2) harvest quota, (3) welfare, (4) provincial transport restrictions, and (5) illegal import of CITES-listed species. Our five distinctly different case studies showed that in each case, certain rules and regulations were adhered to, whilst others were violated to varying degrees. When trade involved non-protected species, there was frequently a lack of harvest quotas or trade occurred above these allocated quotas. Basic welfare provisions were regularly and habitually violated. Visiting wildlife markets and recording first-hand what is openly offered for sale is a highly reliable, verifiable, and valuable method of data collection that can give insight in numerous aspects of the animal trade. Our research provides support for recognising the urgency for the government to take appropriate action to curb all the illegal aspects of the bird trade in Indonesia.

Online trade in wildlife and the lack of response to COVID-19.

Wildlife trade has been widely discussed as a likely origin of the COVID-19 pandemic. It remains unclear how the main actors in the wildlife trade chain responded to these discussions and to the campaigns advocating wildlife trade bans. We analyzed the content of ~20,000 posts on 41 Facebook groups devoted to wild pet trade and ran a breakpoint and a content analysis to assess when and how the COVID-19 pandemic was incorporated into the discourse within trade communities. Only 0.44% of advertisements mentioned COVID-19, mostly after WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic. No traders discussed the role of trade in spreading diseases; instead, posts stimulated the trade in wild species during lockdown. COVID-19 potentially offers persuasive arguments for reducing wildlife trade and consumption. This effect was not demonstrated by on-the-ground actors involved in this market. Bans in wildlife trade will not be sufficient and additional strategies are clearly needed.