Illegal Wildlife Trade in China
By Anna McConkie
Published Fall 2021
Special thanks to Jamie LeSueur for editing and research contributions
Summary+
International wildlife trafficking has become a low-risk, high-return illegal trade. China is a top demand country for wildlife products, and the current level of demand is both detrimental and unsustainable. Demand for wildlife in traditional Chinese medicine and as status symbols and investments, high profitability for supplying parties, complex and corrupt trafficking structures, and ineffective government policies and enforcement all contribute to the problem of wildlife trafficking. In addition to biodiversity loss, illegal wildlife trafficking provides funding for militant groups and introduces zoonotic diseases. One way to reduce demand is through targeted consumer campaigns that educate the public on problems associated with illegal wildlife trade and inspire change.
Key Takeaways+
Key Terms+
CITES—Wildlife trade is regulated through the UN Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species (CITES) to which 183 countries are signatories, and Delegates deliberate on issues that have a major influence on the fate of many species impacted by trade.1
Wet market—A wet market is a market that sells perishable foods such as meat, fish, fruits, and vegetables. Wet markets can be found around the world but are especially common in China and Southeast Asia.2
Wildlife Protection Law (WPL)—A law in force since 1989 of the People’s Republic of China. It is the country’s most important piece of legislation covering wildlife conservation and trade.3
Zoonotic disease—An infectious disease that is transmitted between species from animals to humans (or humans to animals).4
Wildlife trade—The practice of exchanging or selling wild animals or plant resources. It can involve live animals and plants or all kinds of wild animal and plant products. Wildlife trade is easiest to track when it is from one country to another because the goods must be checked, and often recorded, at customs checkpoints.5
INTERPOL—The International Criminal Police Organization, commonly known as INTERPOL, is an international organization that facilitates worldwide police cooperation and crime control.6
Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA)—One of central Africa’s cruelest and most enduring armed groups over the past 30 years. Led by Joseph Kony, the LRA has abducted over 67,000 youth, including 30,000 children, for use as child soldiers, sex slaves, and porters.7
Bushmeat—Bushmeat accounts for all wild animals hunted for food, especially in Africa.8
Context
Wildlife trade is any sale or exchange of wild animal and plant resources by people.9 A wild animal or plant is defined as an organism free from human interference and only dependent on a relationship with the natural environment.10 Accordingly, illegal wildlife trade (IWT) is any unlawful sale or exchange of these same organisms. The IWT is the fourth most lucrative transnational crime industry, following illegal drug, human, and arms trafficking.11 As of 2017, the World Economic Forum estimated that the trade in illegal wildlife products was valued at $23 billion.12 Legally and illegally purchased wildlife and wildlife products may be used for food, medicine, pets, construction, home decor, investments, as ornamental plants, and more. Those involved in illegal wildlife trade do so both intentionally and unintentionally. Consumer demographic varies depending on the wildlife product, and buyers are not restricted to a certain age group or sex. In general, consumers are of higher socioeconomic status, though each wildlife product has more specific consumer profiles.
Not all wildlife trade is harmful, and the vast majority of people do not support IWT.13 When exchanged legally, responsibly, and sustainably, wildlife trade provides countless benefits to society. Considering the World Economic Forum found that over half of the world's GDP is highly- or moderately-dependent on nature,14 sustainable wildlife consumption forms the basis of many human activities and ways of life. However, a 2020 report warned that even trade currently considered legal may become unsustainable in the future if not carefully regulated.15
Wildlife trade is driven by the end-consumer, who has a need or desire for wildlife products or wildlife itself. Additionally, social factors such as pressure from family and friends and trying to improve or maintain social reputation can contribute to demand. Consumers may also be motivated by pleasure, novelty, curiosity, and spiritual needs such as performing religious rituals or enhancing spiritual well-being.16
While exact data is unavailable due to the illicit nature of illegal wildlife trafficking, China is widely recognized as one of the world’s largest markets for trafficked wildlife products.17 To cite an example, about 71% of seizures of whole pangolin equivalents recorded in World WISE from 2007 to 2018, where the destination was known, were destined for China.18 Wildlife consumption in China varies dramatically across different parts of the country. A 2014 study found that in Guangzhou, 83% of people interviewed had eaten wildlife in the previous year, compared to 14% in Shanghai, and just 5% in Beijing.19 Though China is a top demand country, many Chinese citizens do not support IWT, particularly the consumption of wild animals. According to a 2020 online survey performed soon after the COVID-19 pandemic drew worldwide attention to China, 96.6% of Chinese citizens are against eating wild animals, and 78.9% are against using wildlife products including fur and bones.20
In order to prevent and mitigate the consequences of trading wildlife irresponsibly, wildlife trade is regulated through the UN Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species (CITES).21 CITES was enacted in 1975 and 183 countries are signatories.22 Over 38,700 species—roughly 5,950 species of animals and 32,800 species of plants—are protected by CITES against over-exploitation.23 Under CITES, species are listed under Appendices I, II, III, or non-CITES, and accordingly afforded different levels or types of protection.
Though seemingly simple, the definition of “illegal” with regard to wildlife trade can be fluid. Due to variations in the definition, individual countries create and enforce different laws. Although CITES works globally to regulate wildlife trade, activities are seldom universally illegal.24 Thus, trade of a product may be legal within certain countries but not across international borders. Definitions of legality also vary in scale and type, from local bylaws, to national laws, to international treaties. Legal violations may similarly vary in nature and severity, from activity that is banned outright, to activity that is acceptable if certain norms and standards are met.25
Illegal wildlife products are concealed in a variety of ways when transported into consumer countries. For instance, false or invalid CITES permits are presented when passing through customs, or CITES-listed specimens are concealed among similar-looking non-CITES species. Customs officials have discovered live birds, eggs, and reptiles hidden inside ceramic garden gnomes, hollow books, computer hardware, a prosthetic leg, passengers’ clothing, and food products—to name a few examples.26
Contributing Factors
High Consumer Demand
Demand for Wildlife in Traditional Chinese Medicine
Demand for traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is a major contributing factor of wildlife trade around the world, both legal and illegal. Over 5,000 years old, TCM forms the foundation of the Chinese approach to health and vitality.27 TCM practitioners use wildlife products, among other methods, to address health problems.28 Some choose TCM as a lower-cost alternative to Western medicine when addressing mild illnesses, when modern medicine fails, or when they desire supplements to other treatments. It is also used regularly to prevent illness.29 To illustrate the size of TCM in China, in 2010, the output value of TCM was $43.7 billion. This figure is expected to grow to $114.1 billion by 2025.30
Examples of wildlife products used in TCM include bat skeletons used to treat kidney stones; tiger bone used to treat rheumatism; bear bile used to treat liver disease and gallstones; pangolins used for asthma and skin disorders;31 and rhino horn as a cardiotonic and antipyretic.32 According to a 2017 synthesis of 17 different consumer studies, 70% of surveyed Chinese citizens believed that the pangolin had medicinal value and 14% confessed that they consumed medicine containing pangolin. Similarly, 48% of rhino horn consumers were driven by medicinal beliefs.33 A conservation group identified the traditional Chinese medicine industry as accounting for more than three-quarters of the trade in endangered wildlife products in Hong Kong from 2014 to 2019.34 A study in 2008 also found that 43% of respondents had consumed some product alleged to contain tiger parts, and 88% knew it is illegal to buy or sell tiger products.35 Though most surveyed admitted they agreed it was important to protect wild tigers, this did not stop them from consuming, in large part due to the belief that TCM is more effective than other types of medicine.36
Despite the lack of scientific support and evidence for the effectiveness of TCM, and the fact many traditional Asian medicine practitioners condemn the use of tiger and other endangered species in the practice, TCM practices that use CITES protected species continue to be used.37 According to the China Health Statistics Yearbook, 32.3% of recorded visits to medical practitioners in 2017 were to TCM practitioners.38
The demand for wildlife products in medicine is not only spurred by consumers but at times supported by the Chinese government. The Chinese government has in some cases issued permits for medicine companies to legally use endangered and CITES protected animal products.39 The recent inclusion of traditional Chinese medicine in World Health Organization guidelines, its status as a growing cultural export, and its hope for treating the COVID-19 virus and potential future viruses all suggest that instead of decreasing, demand for wildlife in TCM will become more prevalent in China and worldwide.40
Demand for Wildlife as Status Symbols and Investments
The use of wildlife products as status symbols and as investments is one of the primary drivers behind the demand for wildlife trade in China. Known as conspicuous consumption, consumers inside and outside of China buy and sell high-value animal products such as ivory, rhino horn, tiger parts, and rosewood as a status symbol to display wealth and elite status.41 Worth more gram-for-gram than gold and diamonds,42 rhino horn can reach prices of $60,000 per kilogram and is used to boast wealth to friends, family, and business associates.43 Similarly, as of 2013, smuggled ivory was worth $1,800 per kilogram, $18,000 per elephant, wholesale.44 The retail price of carved ivory now runs about $6,000 per kilogram. In addition to their value as personal assets, wildlife products are also valued for gift-giving or bribes.45 Purchasing high-value illegal wildlife products to exhibit wealth is a leading driver that fuels demand for IWT.
Beyond their value as status symbols, the most endangered resources in China—ivory, rhino horn, and tiger parts—are not only bought to be used at the time of purchase but also bought for their potential to appreciate in value. Low-investment returns on savings accounts and some real estate markets have led savers to expand into artwork and carvings, including ivory carvings. Stocks of ivory and rhino horn are traded like speculative commodities and their values rise and fall based on financial events.46 Given the wholesale price of ivory tripled between 2006 and 2011, Chinese ivory sellers frequently describe products as a reliable store of value despite inflation.47
Profitability for Supplying Parties
Seen as a low-risk, high-return activity, IWT attracts many sellers eager to quickly earn high profits. The large potential rewards draw actors from virtually every country and social class. Depending on the role they fill, poachers can earn between $500 to $20,000 for one rhino horn.48 Interviewed poachers indicate economic factors are the primary reasons they participate in the rhino horn trade.49 Lucrative profits for traders provides a strong incentive for more people to join the trade, including people who are bribed into participation.The EIA reported that bribes can make up 4% to 10% of the final sales value of ivory in Asia. The overall bribes paid in one case amounted to $90,000–$210,000. In 2012, along the Vietnam-China border, there was an estimated $18,000 to $30,000 a day given to border officials to allow ivory to cross borders illicitly.50 Large, quick profits attract and retain actors involved in IWT along every stage, from poaching to final destination distribution.
Complex and Corrupt Trafficking Structures
Given the large potential rewards and illicit nature of IWT, corruption is understandably also a critical enabler of IWT, which involves public and private sector abuse of power and trust.51 The trafficking chain of IWT is a complex structure that often includes many key players in high places to help facilitate continued trade. Across a trafficking chain there may be more than 15 people involved.52 Some traffickers are wealthy and have political connections that facilitate the poaching and illegal trade. Those connections often include foreign development workers—individuals uniquely positioned to support trafficking given their connections in countries where high-value species are found, their access to remote areas, and their political clout to evade border controls.53
Corruption is involved in every stage of the IWT process. Beginning with poaching, examples of corruption include rangers poaching, stealing seized ivory, and purposefully under-reporting poaching to avoid investigations.54 During transportation, bribes may be given to avoid inspection, and live animal containers may be fraudulently labeled.55 During the processing and selling stages, ID cards and permits may falsify that the ivory is imitation, the dates may be changed back to pre-ban dates, ivory may be painted as wood, and products may be sold at unregulated markets.56 Along the whole chain, as wildlife trade is regulated by licenses, permits, certifications, and other forms of documentation, these documents can be forged, changed, and even bought from corrupt officials.57
Government Policies and Enforcement
Intentional and unintentional harmful government policies provide poachers and those involved in IWT continued access and income. As a top consumer market for wildlife products, China’s official policies regarding IWT are of critical importance.
China’s current Wildlife Protection Law (WPL) is one of the country’s laws established to protect wildlife. However, the WPL is insufficient in its scope. The October 2020 revision still allows for trade of certain endangered species with respect to “scientific research, captive breeding, public exhibition or performances, heritage conservation or other special purposes.”58 In addition, the law still allows commercial trade in the parts of products of captive-bred species, even species subject to the highest levels of protection such as pangolins and leopards.59 These exemptions provide a legal pathway for exploitation of already endangered species.60
The COVID-19 pandemic brought the conversation on biodiversity and public health problems to worldwide attention and prompted China to accelerate the pace of wildlife protection. Though China has taken impressive action, much remains to be done. In January 2020 when it came to light that the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan likely originated in a wet market, the government ordered a freeze on the sale and consumption of wild terrestrial animals, which was immediately enforced. In the first two weeks of February, 700 people were arrested,61 and China shut down some wildlife markets and some of its 20,000 wildlife farms—an industry worth around $18 billion annually that employed 6.3 million people.62 On February 24, 2020, the government initiated a permanent ban on the trade and consumption of wild terrestrial animals. The new ban does not include aquatic species, nor does it affect other uses of wildlife, such as medicine, clothing, decorations, or pet trade.63 This ban and other recent legislative changes suggest a positive direction for the future of IWT in China, though there is still a long journey ahead. Given the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing and these changes are recent, there is not yet accurate data on how IWT has changed in the last year, though it undoubtedly has.
In addition to ineffective government policies, a lack of government enforcement contributes to demand for wildlife. For example, despite a ban on commercial trade of rhinos and most tigers in 1975 by CITES, for decades China permitted domestic sales of products made from these animals. In 1993, US president Bill Clinton threatened China under a law called the Pelly Amendment with sanctions for undermining the CITES treaty. In response, China banned rhino horn and tiger bone, and poaching declined. Similarly, a perceived lack of government enforcement enables IWT in China. In general, as of 2016, users consider the risk of getting caught average to low. As a specific example, over 70% of surveyed rhino horn consumers knew purchasing rhino horn was illegal but perceived the risk of getting caught as low and were not deterred from purchasing based on government policies.64 Traffickers also have low chances of getting caught; usually the only individuals caught are the poachers on the ground, leaving the individuals behind the operation and their lucrative network safe and operational.65 For IWT in general, it is estimated that only 10% of those involved get caught and only 4% are convicted.66 Whether intentional or not, past policies as well as perceived and real lack of enforcement have contributed to the current IWT problem.
It is worth noting that only a minority of Chinese citizens support commercial use of threatened species. Many groups including Chinese academics, NGOs, medical experts, and members of the National People’s Congress have long argued for greater wildlife protection. Government policies however have not kept up, due in part to wealthy lobbyists and commercial interests.67
Consequences
Although this brief focuses on IWT in China, due to the global nature of IWT, the following consequences extend far beyond China. As a primary demand country, China drives consequences felt in supply countries and worldwide.
Biodiversity Loss
Wildlife trade (illegal and legal) leads to overexploitation of wildlife and increases the risk of species extinction. To illustrate the current state of species extinction, populations of species on earth declined by an average 68% between 1970 and 2016.68 According to scientists, this rate of loss would have taken thousands of years without human interference.69 Wildlife trade is the second-biggest direct threat to species survival after habitat destruction.70 As evidence that IWT contributes to this loss, a recent study found that 958 species listed as “at risk” are in danger of extinction because they are being traded across international boundaries.71 Concerning the effect of TCM in particular on species loss, as of 1995, it was estimated that if only 0.1% of China’s population used tiger bone products like those used in TCM, tigers would disappear within one year.72 With the an increase of 200 million in the Chinese population since 199573 and the tiger population being roughly the same,74 it can be inferred that today it would take an even smaller portion of China’s population using tiger bone to eliminate tigers.
As CITES-protected species are listed in the various apendices because they are already threatened with survival, IWT exacerbates an already existent problem because it directly causes overexploitation of endangered wildlife. Certain species have been particularly affected by IWT in recent decades, including pangolins, tigers, rhinos, sharks, and elephants. The pangolin is the most heavily trafficked wild mammal on the planet, as over 1 million pangolins have been killed and illegally traded in the past 10 years. Tiger numbers have decreased 96% from an estimated 100,000 individuals a century ago to less than 4,000 today.75 From 2007 to 2014, the number of rhinos poached in South Africa grew 9000%, with over 7,000 rhinos poached in this time.76 This hunting has also depleted some shark populations by as much as 90%.77 It is estimated that 100 million sharks are killed each year just for their fins for shark fin soup.78 The population of African forest elephants fell by more than 86% over the last 31 years, and the number of African savanna elephants decreased by at least 60% over the last 50 years.79
Increased Funding for Militant Groups
IWT is used, in part, to finance conflict and contribute to instability in countries that are already suffering as militant groups use profits from IWT to fund their activities. Demand from China is influential in upholding the current poaching and trafficking system. INTERPOL has acknowledged the involvement of organized crime syndicates in the ivory trade, and conservation experts believe about 70% of global ivory demand comes from China.80 US officials have cited credible reports of the infamous Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and Janjaweed Arab militia of Sudan being involved in both poaching and trafficking.81 There is also substantial evidence that incriminates other genocidal militias and terror groups as well, such as the Somali Al Shabaab and Sudan’s Janjaweed and Abu Tira organizations. Militant and terrorist groups derive a multitude of benefits from their profits while poaching and trafficking wildlife, including that they can hire more combatants, pay them better salaries, and equip them with better weapons.82 Militant and terrorist groups would not disappear without IWT because such groups fund themselves through several avenues, but IWT is a particularly attractive funding option due to the high profits and low risk of prosecution.83
It is important to mention that most poachers are not terrorists, and most militants and terrorists are not poachers. The intersection of militancy with wildlife trafficking is only a fraction of the global wildlife trade.84 Nonetheless, IWT provides funding for militants and terrorists to continually devastate communities and ecosystems they are near.
Introduction of Zoonotic Diseases
Poaching and wildlife trafficking pose serious threats to public health, as IWT is a gateway for the introduction of zoonotic pathogens, which can potentially cause global pandemics.85 Nearly 75% of emerging infectious diseases in humans are of animal origin, the majority of which originate in wildlife.86 Viral disease outbreaks initiated by wildlife trade include Ebola virus, HIV-1, monkeypox virus, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and COVID-19.87 Zoonotic diseases could be vector-borne, food-borne, or water-borne, or are transmitted from animals to humans through direct or indirect contact with animals and animal products. Pathogens can be passed to humans through arthropod vectors (such as ticks, fleas, mites, mosquitos, and lice) or by ingesting contaminated food and water that contain bacteria or protozoa.88 Direct contact would include coming into contact with saliva, blood, urine, mucous, feces, or other body fluids of an infected animal. Petting animals or receiving bites and scratches are examples of direct contact.89 Indirect contact includes being in areas where animals live and roam or touching objects or surfaces that have been contaminated with germs. Examples of indirect contact include aquarium tank water and barns.90
Wet markets (one location where IWT takes place) host unsanitary conditions, where a mix of bodily fluids and both alive and dead animals in close proximity create a fertile setting for viral transmission.91 The 2019 coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, thought to arise from wild bats sold in a wet market, recently highlighted the public health risks of China’s IWT.92 Another example is the 2003 SARS pandemic. SARS was also traced back to Chinese wet markets, where the virus jumped from bats, the reservoir host, to humans.93 Zoonotic diseases that lead to global pandemics can have disastrous impact, including loss of life and economic recession.94
While IWT is not the sole cause of zoonotic diseases, it is a contributor as illegally traded wildlife evades the veterinary checks and sanitary safety standard inspections that legally traded wildlife undergo. Thus the risk of zoonotic disease transmission is higher for IWT.95
Practices
Demand Reduction through Consumer Campaigns
Though the prospect of eliminating IWT altogether seems remote, a range of mitigation measures from both the supply and demand sides work together to reduce trade to more sustainable levels. As China is a leader in demand for IWT, reducing demand in China through targeted consumer campaigns is critical to solving the problem. Demand reduction campaigns are defined as “outreach interventions to get people to voluntarily change their current or potential behavior as consumers of wildlife products or their derivatives.”96
WildAid is one environmental organization based in San Francisco, California that focuses on demand reduction through consumer campaigns. Founded in 2000, WildAid’s motto is, “When the buying stops, the killing can too.”97 WildAid believes the root of the IWT problem is in public perception and the economic forces behind the trade. Using the same techniques as top advertisers, including high-profile spokespeople, massive billboards, and media campaigns, WildAid creates high-impact content to influence public awareness and perception of IWT.98 WildAid produces 30-second TV PSAs, mini-documentaries, video infographics, billboards, and print ads for distribution on platforms including TV broadcast networks, LCD screens in airports, subway and train stations, taxis, and social media. In 2013, WildAid reported their PSAs reached around 1 billion viewers on TV, around 700 million train passengers, and 400 million air travelers.99
More than 100 well-known ambassadors are currently working with WildAid to deliver campaigns that reach hundreds of millions of people each year. WildAid ambassadors include Yao Ming, HRH Prince William, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jackie Chan, and David Beckham. In addition, WildAid works with governments and partners to protect fragile marine reserves from illegal fishing and shark finning, to enhance public and political will for anti-poaching efforts, and to reduce climate change impacts.
In 2020, for the ninth consecutive year, WildAid received Charity Navigator’s highest four-star rating, which is reserved for the most accountable, transparent, and financially healthy nonprofits rated.100 WildAid reported more than 17 million views of their 2017 PSA with pop star Jay Chou warning of the potential health risks of consuming pangolin meat. As with the majority of interventions, it is difficult to infer the impact WildAid directly has on reducing consumer demand, as many factors play into demand; however, 97% of surveyed Chinese citizens said that the 2017 PSA made them less likely to buy pangolin products.101 Additionally, in 2019 WildAid reported shark fin prices in China had fallen by almost 80% since 2014 due to lower demand.102
Preferred Citation: Anna McConkie. “Illegal Wildlife Trade in China.” Ballard Brief. October 2021. www.ballardbrief.org.
Viewpoints published by Ballard Brief are not necessarily endorsed by BYU or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
