Traded under the radar: poor documentation of trade in nationally-protected non-CITES species can cause fraudulent trade to go undetected

  • Jordi JanssenEmail author
  • Boyd T. C. Leupen
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biodiversity legal instruments and regulations


Documentation of international trade in non-CITES species is generally poor. As a result, illegal trade in nationally-protected non-CITES species is often hard to detect. To show that such illicit trade nevertheless occurs, this study has analysed import and export records of the Giant Blue-tongued Skink Tiliqua gigas for the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) between 1999 and 2015. EU trade data for T. gigas was obtained from the UNEP-WCMCM CITES Trade Database. Trade data for the US was extracted from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS). We observed a sudden shift in source codes (from wild-caught to captive-bred) coinciding with legislative changes, which has been indicative of laundering practices in the past. In the US, no less than 45% of all imported T. gigas was declared as wild-caught, constituting a direct violation of Indonesia’s national laws and the US Lacey Act. The keeping of trade records is subjected to the willingness of individual countries, yet unwillingness to collect such data can severely threaten species when over-exploitation or laundering practices remain undetected. A CITES Appendix III-listing, obligating participating countries to maintain trade records, would facilitate improved detection and monitoring of illegal trade in nationally-protected species.


Laundering Tiliqua gigas Nationally-protected Lacey Act 



The authors thank a donor that wishes to remain anonymous for its support of this project. Thanks also go to Chris Shepherd, Lalita Gomez and Phill Cassey for constructive and useful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.


  1. Altherr S (2014) Stolen wildlife: why the EU needs to tackle smuggling of nationally protected species. Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  2. Alves RNN, da Silva Viera WL, Santana GG (2008) Reptiles used in traditional folk medicine: conservation implications. Biodivers Conserv 17:2037–2049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auliya M, Altherr S, Ariano-Sanchez D, Baard EH, Brown C, Brown RM, Cantu JC, Gentile G, Gildenhuys P, Henningheim E, Hintzmann J (2016) Trade in live reptiles, its impact on wild populations, and the role of the European market. Biol Conserv 204:103–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin CC (2006) Checklist and comments on the terrestrial reptile fauna of Kau Wildlife area, Papua New Guinea. Herpetol Rev 37:167–170Google Scholar
  5. Barrios-Garrido H, Palmar J, Wildermann N, Rojas-Cañizales D, Diedrich A, Hamann M (2018) Marine turtle presence in the traditional pharmacopeoia, cosmovision, and beliefs of Wayúu indigenous people. Chel Conserv Biol 17:177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Challender DW, MacMillan DC (2014) Poaching is more than an enforcement problem. Conserv Lett 7:484–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chng SC, Eaton JA, Krishnasamy K, Shepherd CR, Nijman V (2015) In the market for extinction: an inventory of Jakarta’s bird markets. TRAFFIC, Petaling JayaGoogle Scholar
  8. Cushman SA (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biol Conserv 128:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harfoot M, Glaser SA, Tittensor DP, Britten GL, McLardy C, Malsch K, Burgess ND (2018) Unveiling the patterns and trends in 40 years of global trade in CITES-listed wildlife. Biol Conserv 223:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Janssen J, Chng SC (2018) Biological parameters used in setting captive-breeding quotas for Indonesia’s breeding facilities. Conserv Biol 32:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Janssen J, Indenbaum RA (2019) Endemic Vietnamese reptiles in commercial trade. J Asia Pac Biodivers 12(1):45–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Janssen J, Shepherd CR (2018) Challenges in documenting trade in non-CITES listed species: a case study on crocodile skinks (Tribolonotus spp.). J Asia Pac Biodivers. Google Scholar
  13. Janssen J, Shepherd CR (2019) Trade in endangered and critically endangered Japanese Herpetofauna endemic to the Nansei Islands warrants increased protection. Curr Herpetol 38(1):99–109Google Scholar
  14. Jensen TJ, Auliya M, Burgess ND, Aust PW, Pertoldi C, Strand J (2018) Exploring the international trade in African snakes not listed on CITES: highlighting the role of the internet and social media. Biodivers Conserv 1:1–19Google Scholar
  15. Jepson P, Ladle RJ (2009) Governing bird-keeping in Java and Bali: evidence from a household survey. Oryx 43:364–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klemens MW, Thorbjarnarson JB (1995) Reptiles as a food resource. Biodivers Conserv 4(3):281–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lyons JA, Natusch DJ (2011) Wildlife laundering through breeding farms: illegal harvest, population declines and a means of regulating the trade of green pythons (Morelia viridis) from Indonesia. Biol Conserv 144:3073–3081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meiri S et al (2018) Extinct, obscure or imaginary: the lizard species with the smallest ranges. Divers Distrib 24:262–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nijman V (2010) An overview of international wildlife trade from Southeast Asia. Biodivers Conserv 19:1101–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nijman V, Shepherd CR (2011) The role of Thailand in the International trade in CITES-listed live reptiles and amphibians. PLoS ONE 6:e17825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nijman V, Shepherd CR (2015a) Adding up the numbers: an investigation into commercial breeding of Tokay Geckos in Indonesia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling JayaGoogle Scholar
  22. Nijman V, Shepherd CR (2015b) Analysis of a decade of trade of tortoises and freshwater turtles in Bangkok, Thailand. Biodivers Conserv 24:309–318. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. O’Brien S, Emahalala ER, Beard V, Rakotondrainy RM, Reid A, Raharisoa V, Coulson T (2003) Decline of the Madagascar radiated tortoise Geochelone radiata due to overexploitation. Oryx 37:338–343Google Scholar
  24. Robinson JE, Sinovas P (2018) Challenges of analyzing the global trade in CITES-listed wildlife. Conserv Biol 32(5):1203–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Robinson JE, Griffiths RA, John FAS, Roberts DL (2015) Dynamics of the global trade in live reptiles: shifting trends in production and consequences for sustainability. Biol Conserv 184:42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosser AM, Mainka SA (2002) Overexploitation and species extinctions. Conserv Biol 16:584–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schlaepfer MA, Hoover C, Dodd CK (2005) Challenges in evaluating the impact of the trade in amphibians and reptiles on wild populations. Bioscience 55:256–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stuart BL, Rhodin AGJ, Grismer LL, Hansel T (2006) Scientific description can imperil species. Science 312:1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Suzuki D, Fuse K, Aizu M, Yoshizawa S, Tanaka W, Araya K, Praxaysombath B (2015) Reptile diversity in food markets in Laos. Curr Herpetol 34:112–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sy EY (2015) Checklist of exotic species in the Philippine pet trade, II. Reptiles. J Nat Stud 14:66–93Google Scholar
  31. Tensen L (2016) Under what circumstances can wildlife farming benefit species conservation? Glob Ecol Conserv 6:286–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vaglica V et al (2017) Monitoring internet trade to inform species conservation actions. Endanger Species Res 32:223–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Monitor Conservation Research SocietyBig Lake RanchCanada

Personalised recommendations