Saman Ranasinghe

USAID WILDLIFE ASIA
COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST:
SOUTHEAST ASIA AND CHINA, 2020
Issue IV, May 2021

This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared by RTI
International for the USAID Wildlife Asia Activity, AID-468-I-16-0001, TO AID-486-TO-16-0003. The contents of this study/report are the sole
responsibility of RTI International and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States government.

USAID WILDLIFE ASIA
Counter Wildlife Trafficking Digest:
Southeast Asia and China, 2020
Issue IV, May 2021

Contract Number:
Activity Start and End Date:
COR Name:
Submitted by:

Cover Photo: African Elephant © Saman Ranasingh

AID-468-I-16-00001, TO AID-486-To-16-00003
August 31, 2016 to August 30, 2021
Craig KirkpatrickPeter Collier, USAID Wildlife Asia Chief of Party
208 Wireless Road, Unit 406 Lumpini, Pathumwan,
Bangkok 10330 Thailand

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... V
BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... VI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... VII
1

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1
1.1
1.2
1.3

2

COVID-19 .................................................................................................................................................... 2
LEGAL AND POLITICAL SUCCESSES ................................................................................................. 3
SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOR CHANGE RESEARCH AND TRENDS ............................................... 4

PANGOLINS .........................................................................................................................7
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4

3

SITUATION UPDATE .............................................................................................................................. 7
SIGNIFICANT ACTIONS IN THE USAID WILDLIFE ASIA FOCAL COUNTRIES ................. 10
SEIZURES AND PROSECUTION ........................................................................................................ 11
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. 17

TIGERS ............................................................................................................................... 19
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

4

SITUATION UPDATE ............................................................................................................................ 19
SIGNIFICANT ACTIONS IN THE USAID WILDLIFE ASIA FOCAL COUNTRIES ................. 20
SEIZURES AND PROSECUTION ........................................................................................................ 22
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. 27

ELEPHANTS ...................................................................................................................... 29
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4

5

SITUATION UPDATE ............................................................................................................................ 29
SIGNIFICANT ACTIONS IN THE USAID WILDLIFE ASIA FOCAL COUNTRIES ................. 33
SEIZURES AND PROSECUTIONS ...................................................................................................... 35
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. 41

RHINOS .............................................................................................................................. 43
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4

SITUATION UPDATE ............................................................................................................................ 43
SIGNIFICANT ACTIONS IN THE USAID WILDLIFE ASIA FOCAL COUNTRIES ................. 46
SEIZURES AND PROSECUTIONS ...................................................................................................... 47
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. 54

DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 55

6

6.1

RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 56

ANNEX CAMPAIGNS AND COMMUNICATIONS IMPLEMENTED DURING 2020 ..... 60
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 63

iv|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOVLIST OF ABBREVIATIONSACRFASEAN Comprehensive Recovery Framework

ASEAN

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

ASOF

ASEAN Senior Officials Meeting on Forestry

CITES

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora

CoP

Conference of the Parties

COVID-19

Coronavirus Disease 2019

CWTCounter Wildlife Trafficking

DNP

Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Thailand

ECF

Elephant Crisis Fund

EIA

Environmental Investigation Agency

ENV

Education for Nature Vietnam

EU

European Union

FFI

Fauna & Flora International

FMTFree Malaysia Today

HCMC

Ho Chi Minh City

IUCNInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature

KNP

Kruger National Park

MYR

Malaysian Ringgit

NGO

Non-Governmental Organization

SAR

Special Administrative Region

SBCC

Social and Behavior Change Communication

UNODC

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

USAID

United States Agency for International Development

WiTIS

Wildlife Trade Information System

WHO

World Health Organization

WFFT

Wildlife Friends Foundation Thailand

WJC

Wildlife Justice Commission

WRRT

Wildlife Rapid Rescue TeamWWF

World Wide Fund for Nature (World Wildlife Fund in Canada and the USA)

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|v

BACKGROUND
USAID Wildlife Asia is a five-year, $24.5 million, regional counter wildlife trafficking (CWT)
initiative addressing the illegal trade in pangolins, tigers, elephants, and rhinos in Southeast
Asia (Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic (PDR), Thailand, and Vietnam) and China.
The project aims to reduce consumer demand for wildlife parts and products, strengthen
law enforcement, enhance legal and political commitment, and support regional collaboration
to reduce wildlife crime.
This report is the fourth in a series of USAID Counter Wildlife Trafficking Digests (20172020). This issue covers the period from January 1 to December 31, 2020 and focuses on
pangolins, tigers, elephants, and rhinos. It highlights major developments in conservation
legislation, outlines some of the innovative social and behavior change communication(SBCC) research projects and campaigns, and explores enforcement efforts and seizures
made in 2020. It is intended that this analysis will provide a helpful summary for individuals
interested in recent developments in the illegal wildlife trade, and more importantly, catalyze
further actions to counter the illegal and unsustainable wildlife trade.
USAID regularly collects and updates documentation on the current state of wildlife
trafficking through a compilation of direct observations, published material and secondary
data sources. This data is then evaluated and publicized in order to keep stakeholders andthe general public informed. This information also provides an evidence base to support
policy reformation, enforcement actions, consumer behavior changes, and conservationinterventions.
The information used to create this issue of the Digest was compiled from documents, news
articles, and reports that are readily available in the English language. The presented data are
not exhaustive, and the reader must be aware that this Digest is not intended as acomprehensive analysis of all relevant seizures in this study’s focal countries. The
recommendations provided in this Digest are not only for USAID Wildlife Asia, but also forthe broader counter wildlife trafficking community, and include a focus on social behavior
change, improved law enforcement, increased government commitment, political will, andeffective regional coordination. This Digest is intended to provide an overview of the current
situation, to inform conservation actions, to support efforts to counter illegal wildlife trade,and ultimately to prevent the extinction of pangolins, tigers, elephants and rhinos.

vi|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOVEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Illegal and unsustainable wildlife trade poses serious threats to an increasingly long list of
species around the globe. Pangolins, tigers, elephants and rhinos are among the most heavily
affected animals, with poaching and trapping for trade continuing to drive them closer to thebrink of extinction. The USAID Wildlife Asia initiative aims to counter the trade in theseanimals across the following Asian countries: Cambodia, China, Lao People’s Democratic
Republic, Thailand and Vietnam. This Digest highlights the most important developments inelephant, pangolin, rhino and tiger counter wildlife trafficking (CWT) efforts in these countries
in 2020 using data compiled from English language open-source media reports, as well as fromTRAFFIC’s Wildlife Trade Information System (WiTIS) and from several non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs).
The emergence and spread of COVID-19 made 2020 a year unlike any other in recent history.
The effects of the pandemic were felt around the world and were reflected in the gathered
wildlife trade data as well. Far fewer wildlife seizures were reported in 2020 than 2019.
National lockdowns, travel restrictions and trade suspensions all contributed to the fall inwildlife trade records, although decreased media attention and record keeping due to thepandemic must be factored in as well.
In February 2020, China announced a ban on food-related wildlife consumption in responseto the reported transmission of the COVID-19 pathogen from animals to humans. Aroundthe world, other countries, including Vietnam, announced similar bans. The impacts of thisapproach on wildlife consumption remains unclear, but high-level and industrial-scale wildlife
trafficking is unlikely to have been affected.
2020 saw the continuation of an increasing focus on demand reduction in conservation efforts.
Several social and behavior change communication (SBCC) approaches, which seek to reduce
consumers’ desire for specific wildlife products, were implemented. An SBCC campaign todiscourage the practice of gifting with elephant, pangolin, rhino and tiger products in China
was launched. Four multi-media SBCC campaigns were implemented to reduce demand forivory and tiger products in Thailand between December 2019 and June 2020. The impact ofthese campaigns was measured during a rapid online survey among ivory and tiger productconsumers, which found a significantly increased acknowledgement of the social
unacceptability of using these products and a decreased desire to do so in the future.
2020 reports released by C4ADS and the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) highlightthe importance of Central and West African countries as key export hubs in the international
pangolin trade, catering predominantly to the Chinese market. The large volumes of trafficked
scales suggest that the illegal trade in African pangolins is reaching critical proportions. South
Asia and the Philippines also have seen an increase in pangolin poaching and trade.
A total of 48 reported pangolin seizures, accounting for close to 10,000 kg of scales, 54 live
animals, 12 dead animals and one skin, were reported across the focal countries in 2020, much
lower than recorded in 2019. A total of 104 suspects were arrested across 33 of the 48

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|vii

recorded incidents, with only three cases leading to confirmed prosecutions, with the highest
sentence being 10 years imprisonment.
A total of 17 tiger seizures were reported for the focal countries in 2020, most involving
bones, representing a 50 percent decline in reported seizures compared to 2019, but a slightincrease in comparison to 2018. A total of 25 suspects were arrested across 11 of the 17
recorded incidents, but no prosecutions could be confirmed.
China continues to be the largest ivory consumer country in the world, despite having installeda domestic ivory trade ban in 2018. Two 2020 reports by the EIA and the Wildlife JusticeCommission (WJC) respectively, noted that after the ban, trade levels in neighboring
Cambodia, Japan, Thailand, and Vietnam increased. Markets in these surrounding countries
continue to cater to a predominantly Chinese clientele. The WJC found that, COVID-19
travel restrictions, compounded by increased enforcement efforts in China, have resulted inivory stockpiling in Vietnam. Although Japan continues to play an important role in theinternational ivory trade, the country’s domestic market may be shrinking. In July, TRAFFIC
published a report on the availability of ivory on social media in Indonesia, Thailand andVietnam, showing that platforms such as Facebook and Instagram facilitate illegal ivory trade.
Like pangolin products, ivory is now predominantly trafficked from West and Central Africancountries. Transnational wildlife crime syndicates have reportedly shifted their focus on thesecountries due to lax enforcement and weak governance there. Findings by the Elephant Crisis
Fund that poaching has decreased in East and Southern Africa correspond with this observed
shift to West and Central African countries.
To protect remaining populations, the Cambodian Government, in collaboration with Fauna& Flora International (FFI), have launched a ten-year Asian Elephant Conservation Action Plan
for Cambodia in 2020.
A total of 121 ivory seizures were reported in the focal countries in 2020, accounting for 506
kg and 234 pieces of ivory, representing a 68 percent decline from the number of seizures
recorded in 2019. The large majority (93 percent) of the 2020 seizures took place in China.
The country was also found to be the main destination of seized ivory shipments, with Japan
being the most important exporting country. A total of 32 individuals were arrested across
15 of the 121 recorded incidents. Only one confirmation of prosecution was found, in a caseinvolving two Vietnamese nationals who received fines of $29,000 and $18,530, respectively.
A notable conviction occurred in Congo, where a notorious wildlife poacher was sentenced
to 30 years of hard labor for elephant poaching and trafficking, the first ever wildlife trafficking
conviction in the country’s Criminal Court.
Poaching to supply predominantly East Asian demand for rhino horns, which are believed tohave medicinal qualities, remains an immense threat. In South Africa, where most of theAfrican rhinos survive today, poaching numbers decreased by 34 percent in 2020. Although a
gradual decline in poaching has been observed for the past years, the steep decline recorded
in 2020 can in large part be attributed to COVID-19-related travel bans and lockdowns. As

viii

|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOVsoon as COVID-19 restrictions were eased, poaching activity in Kruger’s National Park
increased.
A total of 14 reported rhino horn seizures were recorded for the focal countries in 2020,accounting for 222 kg and six pieces. This represents a 56 percent decline from the numberof recorded seizures in 2019. China accounted for the highest number of seizures. A total of
41 suspects were arrested across 12 of the 14 recorded incidents. Four convictions wereconfirmed, with the most severe being a 12.5-year prison sentence for a Vietnamese national
who was caught smuggling 30 kg of rhino horn into Vietnam from Mozambique.
Although the gathered seizure records show a clear decline in incident numbers across thisDigest’s focal species, this can largely be explained by worldwide COVID-19 measures.
Demand for pangolins, tigers, elephants and rhinos remains high and poaching continues topose a severe threat. The Digest provides a list of recommendations to support further
research and counter wildlife trafficking efforts.

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|ix

1 INTRODUCTION
The illegal and unsustainable trade in wildlife is a leading cause of population declines andincreased extinction risk in commercially valuable species around the world (Broad et al.
2003, Eaton et al. 2015, Symes et al. 2018). Trade is driven by the demand for trophies,
ornaments, pets, food, entertainment and traditional medicines (Nijman 2010, Scheffers etal. 2019). However, due to the clandestine nature of illegal trade and the lack of overarchingstudies of legal trade, our understanding of international trade networks is often incomplete(Symes et al. 2018). In addition to directly impacting species, wildlife trade contributes tooverall loss of biodiversity, habitat degradation, introduction and spread of non-native
species, and genetic pollution of wild populations (Scheffers et al. 2019). It is also an
impediment to effective economic development including the prosperity of local
communities and their essential health needs, an international security risk that undermines
the rule of law, and, in the wake of the current pandemic, as a critical public health issue as
it poses a high risk of disease outbreaks for humans (Wingard et al. 2020). The list of speciesclassified as “threatened” on the IUCN Red List is growing rapidly. Threatened species arelisted in any of the three categories: Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable, withillegal and unsustainable trade being a major driver. As of 2020, globally, there are 35,765
species assessed as threatened.
This Digest focuses on the trade in pangolins, tigers, elephants and rhinos in the following
countries: Cambodia, China, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Thailand and Vietnam. The
number of threatened species in these countries is rapidly increasing. This Digest’s focus on
pangolins, tigers, elephants and rhinos is not only intended to aid efforts to counter illegal
trade in these species and their parts and derivatives but is also meant to provide arepresentative picture of the broader issue of wildlife trafficking that is resulting in the decline
and extinction of thousands of species across the world.
In addition to what was collected from open-source platforms, data was also contributed tothis report from several NGOs. TRAFFIC’s Wildlife Trade Information System (WiTIS) was
extremely useful in the compilation for seizure data, as was information from Robin De Bois
newsletters and Monitor’s own database. Other NGOs, most notably EIA, provided
information directly, or had information on their websites. Wildlife seizures, when combinedin large numbers, can provide insight into illegal wildlife trade networks and provide useful
information regarding trade trends and emerging risks (UNODC 2016). Seizure data are often
listed in terms of weight, and all amounts in “tonnes” throughout this Digest is equal to 1,000
kilograms.
Seizure data require careful interpretation because they are a mixed indicator, demonstrating
both the presence of a problem and the initiative of the relevant authorities in addressing it.
For example, a high number of seizures in a particular location may reflect a greater law
enforcement capacity or data collection effort by an NGO, rather than a greater volume ofillicit trade.

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|1

Many important counter wildlife trafficking (CWT) developments took place in 2020,
including efforts to strengthen wildlife legislation, reduce demand for illegally andunsustainably sourced animals, and to gain a better understanding of illegal trade flows andrelated dynamics and enforcement actions. Research efforts also included assessments of the
impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) on poaching and wildlife trade aroundthe globe. The WJC has published information that clearly illustrates the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on wildlife trafficking networks in the focal countries of this Digest andthis is referenced throughout this Digest for context.
According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), COVID-19 has
played a significant role in reducing illegal wildlife trade activity and consumption – at least
temporarily – in border regions and trade hubs in Myanmar, southern China, Lao PDR,
Thailand and Vietnam in 2020. This is primarily due to international border closures,
restrictions on travel, tourism and movement of people, increased surveillance and security
at international borders and the severe economic effects of national lockdowns and reduced
consumer confidence.
Findings also indicate an increase in the extraction of wildlife and natural resources fromprotected areas for subsistence hunting and local trade due to the economic downturn the
pandemic has created. As unemployment increases and local economic opportunities collapse,
many local communities in rural and marginalized areas have turned to wildlife and forest
resources for subsistence and small-scale trade opportunities at local markets to create
income. This increase was reported in Thailand but may also be experienced more broadly inthe region.

1.1

COVID-19

The outbreak of the recent respiratory disease COVID-19 began in November 2019 and hassince emerged as an ongoing global pandemic that has infected and claimed millions of lives
worldwide. While the origins of the virus are still unclear, it is generally considered to havebegun by human contact with wildlife such as bats. The emergence and spread of COVID-19,
as with zoonotic diseases in general, is most often a direct result of humanity’s exploitation ofand improper contact with wildlife – including through the global wildlife trade (Broad 2020,
WJC 2020a). In the TRAFFIC report “Wildlife Trade, COVID-19, and Zoonotic Disease
Risks,” Steven Broad, the Executive Director of TRAFFIC, states that wild animal tradepresents particular risks in this context, because it involves movement of individuals away fromtheir natural range, where historical human exposure might have led to some build-up of
immunity (Broad 2020). Such trade, by definition, brings live animals and animal products into
close proximity with people engaged in commerce and consumption/use, whether as food,pets, medicinal ingredients, luxury goods or for other purposes. It also characteristically leads
to species of different origin, captive-bred or wild-caught, being in close proximity alongtransport routes and in markets. Transmission from animal to animal, species to species andwildlife to human is therefore greatly facilitated by such trade (Broad 2020). According to
Broad (2020), the World Health Organization (WHO) website lists over 30 major zoonotic

2|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOVdiseases (and disease groups) of concern and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
has reported that three out of every four new or emerging infectious diseases in people comefrom wild and/or domesticated animals that act as sources, reservoirs and/or vectors oftransmission. The current COVID-19 pandemic is thought to have been transmitted tohumans in a wet market in Wuhan, China, and it has been linked to bats as potential reservoirs,
perhaps with other species involved in the transmission. Other sources suggest the virus may
have been transmitted through pangolins and there is emerging information suggesting strainsof the virus have been transmitted to humans from commercial mink (fur) farms. Regardless,
COVID-19 is not the first pandemic affecting humanity—the Spanish flu (1918 H1N1
influenza), the deadliest pandemic of the 20th century, infected an estimated 500 million people
and killed 50 million, and several epidemics and pandemics have followed in recent times
including HIV/AIDS (35 million killed since 1981); H1N1 swine flu (1.4 billion infected and
151,000 to 575,000 killed); West Africa Ebola virus of 2014-16 (286,000 thousand cases and
113,000 thousand deaths); and Zika virus, SARS and MERS emerging in between (Wingard etal. 2020).

1.2

LEGAL AND POLITICAL SUCCESSESIn response to COVID-19, China adopted a decision in February 2020 to ban the breeding
and trading of terrestrial wildlife for food (WJC 2020a). While this was generally seen as apositive step towards curbing the spread of zoonotic diseases and the conservation of
wildlife, the ban has some weaknesses. Most importantly, it disregards the issue of harvestingof wildlife for non-food purposes such as traditional medicine, pets, furs and skins,
ornamental purposes, or entertainment (White 2020, Yang 2021). In fact, China has beenpromoting the use of bear bile from farmed bears as a traditional remedy for COVID-19.
Other countries have also announced plans for additional regulation of wildlife consumption,
including trade bans between Vietnam and China as well as Lao PDR and China (WJC 2020a).
In July 2020, Vietnam announced a suspension on the import of wildlife products and theirgoal to eliminate markets and sites that illegally trade in wildlife (BBC 2020).
In February 2020, China also announced revision plans for its Wildlife Protection Law, which
included the addition of over 500 new species to the protection list as well as upgraded
protection levels for 65 species, including pangolins, which involves harsher penalties andstricter regulation with regards to their utilization (Baiyu 2020, You 2021). However,loopholes present themselves in the form of a permitting system for breeding and specialized
utilization of species even if they are afforded Class I protection (Yang 2021). For example,
pangolins are now afforded higher protection under China’s revised wildlife laws and yetpatented medicines containing pangolin scales are still approved for commercial use bypharmaceutical companies (C4ADS 2020, EIA 2020a). According to Yang (2021), once
permission is granted for farming of wildlife, species are re-categorized as “livestock” andapproved for commercial use, provided it is not for the purpose of food. Further, according
to EIA, in April 2020, China published a document directed at provincial-level departments
to support facilities breeding wildlife for food in converting their permits to other legal nonfood uses like scientific research, medicinal use or exhibition. There are concerns this will

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|3

undermine efforts to reduce the risk of zoonotic diseases (White 2020). In the same month,
the Chinese Government also issued a draft guide on the use of wildlife in patented
traditional medicines which specifically stated that patents should not be issued for products
containing tiger bone and rhino horn (White 2020).
In light of COVID-19, ASEAN Member States have recognized the need to strengthen
cooperation and collaboration in tackling the illegal wildlife trade. On October 7, 2020, the23rd ASEAN Senior Officials Meeting on Forestry (ASOF) approved the Plan of Action on
ASEAN Cooperation on CITES and Wildlife Enforcement 2021-2025. As part of theimplementation of the Plan of Action, the development of an updated ASEAN Handbook on
Legal Cooperation to Combat Illegal Wildlife Trade will be a key deliverable for endorsement by
ASOF in 2021. In November 2020, the ASEAN Comprehensive Recovery Framework(ACRF) was adopted at the 37th ASEAN Summit, which is one of the region’s main initiatives
to overcome the pandemic (ASEAN 2020). Under the broad strategy of “advancing towards
a more sustainable and resilient future”, they include a goal to implement the ASEAN
Guidelines for Detecting and Preventing Wildlife Trafficking, which encompasses promoting
awareness and formulating recommendations/policy briefs on and to reduce the risks ofzoonotic diseases being spread through the illegal wildlife trade (ASEAN 2020).
Some notable outputs supporting enhanced enforcement in the region included a Pocket
Guide for frontline border officers in Myanmar, Laos and Thailand (February 2020) by
TRAFFIC, and a talk on illegal wildlife trade for key staff from AirAsia in India, Indonesia,
Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand, also carried out by TRAFFIC. A report, Making
Traffickers Finance Counter-Trafficking: The Case for Conservation Restitution Funds from Asset
Forfeitures and Seizures available in English, Vietnamese, Thai, Lao, and Khmer was also
produced by the Analytical Centre of Excellence on Trafficking. The year saw the release of
USAID Wildlife Asia’s Counter Transnational Organized Crime training package in English,
Khmer, Lao, Thai, and Vietnamese, and the launch of the revised Rapid Reference Guide on
Applicable Offences to Trafficking of Critically Endangered Species in Thailand, which is a tool tohelp investigators and prosecutors more effectively prosecute cases against wildlife criminals.

1.3

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOR CHANGE RESEARCH AND
TRENDSIn response to illegal wildlife trade, conservationists have largely pushed for supply-side
interventions, such as anti-poaching patrols and strengthened enforcement efforts. However,such interventions on their own will not always stem the tide of wildlife trafficking. As
legislation and law enforcement have been insufficient to protect many wildlife species in many
countries, especially in countries where capacity in these areas is weak and corruption rife,
conservationists are increasingly focusing on campaigns to help reduce the demand for wildlife
products. There is now increasing interest in developing and implementing behavior changedemand-side interventions, notably using the social and behavior change communication(SBCC) approach, which seeks to lower poaching pressure on sought-after species, including

4|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOVpangolins, tigers, elephants and rhinos, by reducing consumer's desire for, and purchase of,specific wildlife products.
Developments in 2020 included a study on ivory demand among Chinese tourists traveling toother Asian countries and a groundbreaking survey that demonstrated the positive impact of
SBCC campaigns in changing attitudes, social norms and behavior.
In October 2020, WWF and GlobeScan disseminated data on the purchase of ivory among
Chinese travelling abroad from the Mainland to Cambodia, Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region (SAR), Japan, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam after China implemented its
domestic ivory ban implemented in 2018. This updates information from similar studies doneby WWF and GlobeScan in 2018 and 2019. Results from the 2020 survey showed that among
3,011 travelers surveyed, 24 percent visited ivory shops and 6.8 percent actually made anivory purchase. Countries where incidence of ivory purchases was highest included Thailand(13.5 percent), Japan (12.0 percent) and Hong Kong SAR (11.3 percent).
In addition, one of the greatest successes achieved in 2020 was USAID Wildlife Asia’s SBCC
demand reduction campaigns in Thailand implemented from December 2019 to June 2020 tocounter the two main drivers of Thai wildlife consumption (revealed by the project’s abovecited 2018 consumer research study): (1) spiritual beliefs in the power of ivory and tiger
products to bring good luck and protect from harm, and (2) the perceived beauty of ivory,
mainly jewelry and accessories. To evaluate the impact of these campaigns, USAID Wildlife
Asia conducted a rapid online survey among randomly selected ivory and tiger productowners and intenders in Bangkok (N=421) in July 2020. This groundbreaking survey was thefirst of its kind in the CWT sector to gather research data on the impact of demand reduction
campaigns on individual attitudes, behaviors and social norms among target audiences. Findings
from this 2020 survey revealed that exposure to these SBCC campaigns during their media
dissemination period significantly improved desired attitudes about using ivory and tiger
products. When compared to the sub-sample of ivory and tiger product owners and intenders(N=550) from the USAID Wildlife Asia 2018 consumer study, target audiences in 2020
reported an increased social unacceptability of the use of these products, as well as adecreased intention to use them in the future. Another milestone was the production anddissemination by USAID Wildlife Asia of the Social and Behavior Change Communication Demand
Reduction Guidebook in November 2020 to serve as a reference for governments and partners
implementing demand reduction activities (USAID Wildlife Asia 2020a).
1.3.1 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOR CHANGE CAMPAIGNSDespite the COVID-19 pandemic, there were a number of other behavior change andawareness raising actions carried out or initiated in 2020 in the focal countries to reducedemand for parts and derivatives of elephant, pangolin, rhino and tiger parts. Numerous
government agencies, NGOs, and private sector partners implemented over 30 campaigns
and communications in focal countries (see list in Annex). These initiatives have ranged fromtargeted single-day events to national campaigns garnering hundreds of millions of views. Manyof the campaigns listed were implemented in partnership, illustrating the growing recognition

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|5

that more can be achieved by working together to reduce demand for illegal wildlife products.
Demand is built on strong traditions, beliefs, and preferences, and research is demonstratingthat SBCC campaigns in particular are showing encouraging results in tackling the issue. As
the COVID-19 pandemic continued throughout 2020, campaigns also began to address thelinks between wildlife consumption and use, and the dangers to human health due to zoonotic
diseases. This message has captured the public’s attention, and there is now significant
opportunity for governments, NGOs, and other partners to reinforce this with consumers tofurther reduce demand.

6|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOV2

PANGOLINS

Temminck’s Pangolin © Chris R. Shepherd

2.1

SITUATION UPDATEThe planet is home to eight species of pangolin found exclusively in Africa (four species) andAsia (four species). The four African pangolin species are the black-bellied pangolin Phataginus
tetradactyla, Temminck's pangolin S. temminckii, white-bellied pangolin P. tricuspis and giant
pangolin Smutsia gigantea, the former two of which are listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red
List while the latter two were updated to Endangered status based on reassessments done in2019 (Ingram et al. 2019, Nixon et al. 2019, Pietersen et al. 2019a,b). The four Asian species
are the Indian pangolin Manis crassicaudata, Philippine pangolin M. culionensis, Chinese pangolin
M. pentadactyla and Sunda pangolin M. javanica. In the recent IUCN Red list reassessments
published in 2019, the threat status of three remained the same (the Indian pangolin as
Endangered, the Chinese and Sunda pangolins as Critically Endangered), while the status of
the Philippine pangolin was updated from Endangered to Critically Endangered due tooverexploitation from hunting and poaching for illicit international and domestic trade(Challender et al. 2019a, Challender et al. 2019b, Mahmood et al. 2019, Schoppe et al. 2019).
Popular for their purported medicinal qualities, they are a much sought-after commodity.
Pangolin products include scales, meat, skins/leather, trophies and charms. Demand for theseproducts find pangolins among the most heavily illegally traded mammals in the world with all

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|7

eight species currently facing the threat of extinction. Pangolins have been listed in CITES
Appendix II since 1995 to regulate international trade in the species. Concerning trade levelsin the four Asian pangolin species resulted in the establishment of a zero annual export quota
for commercial trade for these species in 2000 effectively prohibiting any trade. In spite ofthis, at the 17th CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP) in 2016, in response to the continued
decline in pangolin populations, all Asian and African pangolin species were transferred fromCITES Appendix II to I, prohibiting international commercial trade in all pangolin species,
unless permitted in exceptional circumstances. However, black market demand for pangolins
persists and now large-scale poaching for illegal international trade involving organizedcriminal networks is the key threat to remaining populations (EIA 2020a, UNODC 2020).
In September 2020, C4ADS released a report quantifying the growth and scale of the tradeover the past five years. They highlight Central and West Africa as key trade hotspots andexport hubs (linked to 72 percent of African seizures from 2015-2019) in the illicit traffickingof pangolin scales to China. They report traffickers in these regions use the bushmeat trade
to collect scales in bulk and so-called pangolin breeding programs to traffic illegally obtained
scales to China (C4ADS 2020). In December 2020, the Environmental Investigation Agency(EIA) report similar findings in their Out of Africa - How West and Central Africa Have Become
the Epicenter of Ivory And Pangolin Scale Trafficking to Asia, which documents the shifting
operations of wildlife smuggling syndicates in Africa to Nigeria, Cameroon and the Democratic
Republic of Congo due to weak governance, widespread corruption and poor institutionalframeworks (EIA 2020b). These pangolin trafficking networks operate across China, Vietnam,
Nigeria, Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire and Democratic Republic of Congo sourcing and transportinga high volume of scales. For example, in June 2019 and August 2020, traffickers werereportedly in possession of 116 tonnes of scales, which was comparable to the amount of
pangolin scales seized globally in 2019 (C4ADS 2020, EIA 2020b). The volume of scales being
trafficked clearly indicates that the illegal trade in the African species is growing. Further, bothC4ADS and EIA highlight the concerning and continued use of pangolin scales in traditional
Chinese medicine as this drives demand and undermines law enforcement and conservation
efforts to shut down the trade in all pangolin species. C4ADS even connects pangolin breeding
programs in Africa to pharmaceutical companies in China (C4ADS 2020) while EIA documents
the use of pangolin scales by 56 pharmaceutical companies to produce at least 64 commerciallyavailable medicines (EIA 2020a).
Similarly, there has been a surge in the poaching of pangolins in South Asia reportedly destined
to China (Choudhary et al. 2018, The Sentinel 2021). A search of open-source media revealed
at least 44 incidents where pangolins were confiscated from trafficking busts conducted overthe course of the year (2020) in India, the majority of which constituted live pangolins (64percent) amounting to 29 animals followed by scales (36 percent) amounting to about 63 kg(Monitor, unpublished data). Of further significance, in June 2020, the Myanmar government
approved a permitting process allowing private zoos to breed 90 species, including pangolins
and tigers (Free Malaysia Today (FMT) 2020). This is concerning as Myanmar is a known transit
route in the trafficking of wildlife into China, and the laundering of wildlife under the guise of
captive-breeding is widespread throughout the region.

8|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOV

Trade of the Philippine pangolin has risen over the decades with a nine-fold increase of
seizures recorded in just 2018–2019, compared to the previous 18 years. Between 2001 and2017, there were 39 seizure incidents reported in the Philippines with a total trafficked volume
estimated at 3,537 pangolins (Gomez and Sy 2018). In August 2020, TRAFFIC reported a totalof 10 seizures that occurred from 2018 to 2019, which was estimated to amount to over
6,800 pangolins (Sy and Krishnasamy 2020). The Philippines is home to one species of pangolin,
the Philippine or Palawan pangolin so named due to its restricted range on Palawan andadjacent islands. Considering its threatened status, the Philippine pangolin may be facing
considerable pressure if such trafficking trends continue.
Tons Vs Tonnes
A recent study carried by the Oxford Brookes University and Monitor found that due to awidespread misunderstanding of the difference in weight between a ton and a tonne,
estimates of seized pangolins (and likely other wildlife products) have been vastly
underestimated (Nijman and Shepherd, 2021). In the United States of America, a ton equals
2,000 US pounds or 907.2 kg. In the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries
using the Imperial system, a ton equals 1016.0 kg or 160 stone. In most of the rest of theworld that uses the metric system a ton is written as a tonne, which equals 1,000 kg. A ton
or a tonne is not related to American and British spelling. The study found thatmiscalculations resulting from not comprehending the actual weight difference between a
ton and a tonne, came to an underestimate of 25,000 pangolins trafficked over a two-anda-half-year period. All amounts in “tonnes” throughout this Digest is equal to 1,000
kilograms.

Sacks of confiscated pangolin scales © National Parks Boards, Singapore

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

|

9

2.2

SIGNIFICANT ACTIONS IN THE USAID WILDLIFE ASIA
FOCAL COUNTRIESCAMBODIA
Only one seizure record of pangolin scales amounting to over one kg was obtained in 2020.
The incident was a result of the investigation into Cambodia’s illegal ivory trade. Along withpangolin scales, the incident also involved the confiscation of ivory (6.58 kg), tiger parts (onetooth, 5.5 kg bones) and seahorse (103 dead). The seizure was made after the Wildlife JusticeCommission (WJC) informed Wildlife Alliance of a carving factory suspected of dealing inillegal wildlife trade at which point a raid of the factory was undertaken in March, the wildlife
products seized and a Chinese national was arrested. The case is still under investigation.
CHINA
China remains one of the most significant end destinations in the illegal international trade ofpangolins. In 2020, there were 15 pangolin seizures in China mostly involving scales amounting
to 3,598 kg. Mainland China was also the most reported destination of seized shipments (in 9of 11 seizures that had data on international trafficking routes); while Hong Kong SAR was
the reported transit route in the smuggling of 1,000 kg of scales from Indonesia to mainland
China.
In June 2020, China announced plans to revise its list of protected species under the Wildlife
Protection Law (which has yet to be released). This includes upgrading the national protection
status of its native pangolin species to Class I, the highest form of protection under national
legislation which essentially means harsher penalties for illegal traders, poachers, etc. (C4ADS
2020, TRAFFIC 2020a). In conjunction with this, the National Forestry and Grassland
Administration committed to improved monitoring and tougher enforcement to curtail illegal
trade, smuggling and consumption of pangolins as well as restore pangolin habitats. Pursuant
to this, pangolin scales were removed as a raw material from the official Chinese
Pharmacopoeia 2020 (a compendium of approved traditional and Western medicines) in aneffort to lower consumption and demand for drugs that continue to threaten pangolin
populations (C4ADS 2020, EIA 2020a). However, patented medicines containing pangolinscale as an ingredient, of which there are eight listed in the Pharmacopoeia, is still allowed,
thereby permitting pharmaceutical companies and hospitals to commercially produce and selltraditional medicinal products containing pangolin scales. There are concerns this will continue
to present a loophole that can be exploited to launder illegally obtained pangolin scales andundermine conservation efforts to eradicate the illicit trade in pangolin products in China.
As recently as January 2021, two pangolin smugglers were sentenced to 14 and 13 years inprison and fined $618,000 for trafficking in African pangolins to Asia (Xie 2021). Fifteen others
have also been sentenced to between 15 months and 12 years in connection with the case.
The gang was apprehended in 2019 for importing 23 tonnes of pangolin scales worth
approximately $17.6 million from Nigeria in 2018 and 2019 (Xie 2021).

10|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOVLAO PDR
There was one seizure of two live pangolins in the Lao Province of Xieng Khouang in August2020. Additionally, Lao PDR was also implicated as a source country in two other seizuresthat took place in China (involving 66.3 grams of scales) and Vietnam (involving five live Sunda
pangolins) respectively.
THAILAND
Thailand made four pangolin seizures in 2020 of two dead pangolins, one live pangolin, 258
pieces of scales and one skin. At least three Thai nationals were arrested in conjunction withthese incidents.
VIETNAMThe highest number of seizures in 2020 was reported in Vietnam with 22 incidents. This
mostly encompassed the confiscation of live animals with 18 incidents amounting to 51
pangolins. Eighteen locals have been arrested in connection with these incidents and at least
two have been prosecuted to date with one receiving a one-year prison sentence and fine of$13,600 for possession of one live pangolin and one receiving a 10-year prison sentence fortransporting nine dead pangolins in Vinh City.
Vietnam was also implicated as a source country of 14.58 kg of scales that were seized inmainland China and as destination country in the trafficking of 6,160 kg of scales from Nigeriathat was seized in Malaysia. While there were few seizures of scales, the Wildlife JusticeCommission reports being offered more than 22 tonnes of pangolin scales in Vietnam between
January and March 2020 and infer that large quantities of pangolin scales are available as well
as being stockpiled within the country (WJC 2020).

2.3

SEIZURES AND PROSECUTION

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic which resulted in border closures and travel restrictions
globally in 2020, there were 48 reported pangolin seizures in, or linked to, USAID Wildlife
Asia’s focal countries. The commodities seized included a total of 9,765 kg and 267 pieces of
pangolin scales, 55 live animals, 12 dead animals and one skin. The largest shipments of scales
were concealed or mis-declared as cashew nuts (one incident) and frozen fish (one incident).
The species of pangolin seized was only identified in 10 seizures with the Sunda pangolinreported in 10 incidents and the Chinese pangolin in two incidents. Information on the top
15 seizures by volume can be found in Table 1.
China and Vietnam were the most significant players in the pangolin trade having reported
the greatest number of seizures (14 and 22 respectively; 75 percent of all seizures) and were
implicated as the main destinations of seized shipments. There were an equal number of
seizures involving live animals and pangolin scales with 22 seizures each, the former
predominantly involving Vietnam and the latter China. However, in terms of quantity, thelargest seizure recorded in 2020 took place in Malaysia involving over 6,160 kg of scales which
was reported to have originated in Nigeria and was en route to Vietnam.

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|11

Of the 48 seizure incidents, 33 incidents included arrests made amounting to 104 individuals.
Only three cases have led to prosecution to date, the most significant being a 10-year prison
sentence handed down to a Vietnamese national who was caught for transporting nine deadSunda pangolins in Vinh City, Vietnam.
Table 1. Top 15 pangolin seizures and prosecutions in 2020, ranked by weight of seizure

12

No.
1

Date
March 31

Location
Malaysia2

May 14MainlandChina

3

September 24

HongKong SAR

4March 9MainlandChina

5April 11Mainland
China|

Summary
Customs authorities in Malaysia
seized a shipment of African
pangolin scales, recovering over six
tons of the contraband in acontainer at Port Klang. The scales
were concealed among sacks ofcashew nuts. The shipment
originated out of Nigeria and washeaded to Vietnam.
Authorities arrested 16 individuals
for possession of pangolin scales
estimated to be worth $56 million
in the province of Guangdong.
Hong Kong Customs seized atonne of pangolin scales along with
13 kg of dried snake gall bladders
in a shipping container arrivingfrom Indonesia and believed to bebound for mainland China. The
shipment was declared as frozen
fish.
Chinese Customs arrested nine
alleged pangolin smugglers in South
China's Guangxi Zhuang
Autonomous Region and East
China's Anhui Province. A suspectin the case reported ordering abatch of pangolin scales fromoverseas (specific location notreported) to supply medicine
markets in the provinces of Anhuiand Henan.
Chinese Customs busted asmuggling syndicate trafficking
pangolin scales and arrested 12
suspects. One of the suspects
reported purchasing the scales
from overseas (specific location

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

Seized items
Scales – 6,160
kg

Scales – 1,300
kg

Scales – 1,000
kg

Scales – 820 kg

Scales – 441 kg

USAID.GOV

No.

Date

Location6

December 23

MainlandChina

7

January 10

Vietnam8

May 8

Vietnam9

December 6

Vietnam

10

August 31

Vietnam

11

January 12

Vietnam

USAID.GOV

Summary
not reported) and entrusted thescales to a smuggling ring totransport them into Guangxi.
20 kg of pangolin scales wereseized by a border patrol team in
Guangxi. The scales were stored in
the trunk of a vehicle. Three
individuals were arrested.
Traffic Police found live pangolins,
weighing 71 kg, after they stopped
a four-seater car on National
Highway 1A in the north central
province of Thanh Hoa forviolating traffic rules. The pangolins
were en route to be sold in Hanoi.
A man was caught transporting
nine dead Sunda pangolins weighing
a total of 30.2 kg in Vinh City,
Nghe An on October 12, 2020. He
was sentenced to ten years inprison.
Ninh Binh Province authorities
discovered a passenger bus with
six live pangolins and styrofoam
boxes containing meat on its way
from Dak Lak to Hanoi.
Acting on a tip-off, theEnvironmental Police and Nam Dan
District Police in Nghe An
Province arrested a mantransporting six pangolins. The
pangolins, weighing 23.8 kg, were
hidden in three white foam boxesin the trunk of the car. The suspect
arrested reported buying the
pangolins in Huong Son District,
Ha Tinh Province for $1,300.
Huong Hoa District Police inQuang Tri Province seizedpangolins smuggled from Lao PDR
from a passenger bus heading to
Hue City with Lao registration
tags. Five Sunda pangolins weighing
19 kg were confiscated and later

Seized items

Scales – 20 kg

Live – 16
individuals

Dead – 9
individuals

Live – 6
individuals

Live – 6
individuals

Live – 5
individuals

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

|

13

14

No.

Date

Location

12

November25

Vietnam

13

January 21

Nepal

14

March 1

Cambodia

15

June 25

Vietnam|

Summarytransferred to a rescue center at
Cuc Phuong National Park.
18 kg of ivory, 3 kg of pangolinscales and other wildlife was seizedfrom a shop in Binh Duong. The
owner was arrested.
Three arrested at a bus station fortrying to smuggle scales and otherwildlife products into China via
Tibet.
Wildlife Alliance’s Wildlife Rapid
Rescue Team (WRRT) raided acarving factory in Phnom Penh
after receiving a tip-off. A Chinese
national was arrested and foundwith 6.58 kg of ivory, 5.5 kg oftiger bones, one tiger tooth, 1.03
kg of pangolin scales, and 103 deadseahorses. A Chinese national wasarrested and has been put on pretrial detention.
Vinh Environment-Economic Police
stopped a motorbike with a fakeregistration number and seized aChinese pangolin and two Sunda
pangolins weighing a total of 17 kg.
The pangolins were transferred to
Pu Mat National Park. Two
subjects were arrested.

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

Seized items

Scales – 3 kg

Scales – 2.9 kg

Scales – 1.03
kg

Live – 3(2 Sunda
pangolins and1 Chinese
pangolin)

USAID.GOVUSAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|15

2.3.1 TRADE ROUTES/HOTSPOTS
Information on trafficking routes was obtained from 11 of the 48 seizures incidents reported.
This involved at least 11 countries and territories in Asia and Africa with the key destinations
reportedly being mainland China (reported in 9 incidents) and Vietnam (reported in 2
incidents) (Figure 1).
Reported origin

Reported destination

Reported frequency

Reportedtransit/destination

Transit route
Unconfirmed route1
2

CN
Seizure (#)
NP
IN

HK

LA
KH
NG

UG

VN
MY

ID

Figure 1. Seizure locations and trade routes involving pangolins in 2020. Country codes: CN=mainland China,
HK=Hong Kong SAR, ID=Indonesia, IN=India, KH=Cambodia, LA=Lao PDR, MY=Malaysia, NG=Nigeria,
NP=Nepal, UG=Uganda, VN=Vietnam.

Although there were few seizures with trafficking routes, these incidents reveal the ongoingand persistent threat to pangolins from illicit international trade in 2020 as with previous
reports (USAID 2017, 2018, and 2019). Nigeria continues to be a key port of export ofpangolin scale shipments out of Africa corresponding with reports by EIA (2020b) and Gomez
et al. (2015). There was one seizure in Uganda of 0.5 kg of pangolin scales, six tortoises and10 pieces of dried elephant penis which was confiscated from 14 Chinese nationals, and it isassumed these products would be trafficked to China though this remains unconfirmed. In
Asia, Hong Kong SAR, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia and Nepal continue to play a role asimportant source or transit countries/territories in the illegal supply of pangolin products,
while Vietnam continues to be a transit and destination country.

16|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOV

2.4

SUMMARY

Based on the previous USAID Digest reports, there were fewer seizures of pangolins linked
to the focal countries in 2020 (48 incidents) in comparison to 2019 (82 incidents), including asignificant drop in the volume of products seized i.e. 155,795 kg of pangolin products seizedin 2019 (USAID 2020b) which in 2020, dropped to 9,765 kg plus 267 pieces of pangolin scales,
55 live animals, 12 dead animals and one skin. In 2018, there were fewer seizures (n=25) but
greater volume of products seized i.e. 26,000 kg of scales, 13,000 kg of descaled/disemboweled
pangolins and 378 live pangolins (USAID 2019). China and Vietnam remain the major end
consumers of pangolin products which are being smuggled from Africa and through Asia; andthe African region remains the largest source, in terms of volume of pangolin scales, to thesemarkets. The reduced number of seizures in 2020 could be due to many reasons, not the leastof which is the global COVID-19 pandemic that has interrupted supply chains and trafficking
routes (WJC 2020). Nevertheless, investigations by organizations such as EIA and WJC reveal
much larger quantities of pangolin products in trade than are being seized, the stockpiling ofscales in Vietnam, and the change in modus operandi of traders from face to face to onlinetransactions in adaptation to travel restrictions and border lockdowns. While no new trade
trends or dynamics have been observed, the data indicates that both African and Asian
pangolin species are still very much under threat from trade and more needs to be done tosecure their future.

Pangolin scales seized in Singapore © National Parks Board, Singapore
USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|

17

CASE STUDY
Nigeria – Vietnam Connection
On March 31, 2020, Malaysian Customs authorities seized the largest shipment of pangolinscales in the country at one of its busiest ports, Port Klang. Over 6,100 kg of scales were
found in a shipping container that was declared as cashew nuts. The scales were packed in
140 bags weighing 44 kg each and hidden amongst sacks of cashew nuts. The reported use of“cashew nuts” aroused suspicion as it has been previously used on numerous occasions toconceal the smuggling of pangolin scales. The Department of Wildlife and National Parks
Peninsular Malaysia confirmed that the shipment originated out of Nigeria and was destinedfor Vietnam and estimated to be worth close to $19.5 million. However, no other details of
the case were available such as suspects arrested or any other aspects of the investigation.
Nigeria has emerged as the key export country in the trafficking of African pangolins to Asia
– implicated in more than 167 tonnes of scales seized globally in the past five years (EIA
2020b). Similarly, Malaysia is a known transit route in the smuggling of wildlife products in theSoutheast Asian region. In particular, its role in the trafficking of pangolin scales from Africa
surfaced when several large seizures were made of over 17,000 kg of pangolin scales within
the space of seven months in 2017. In 2019, about 29.8 tonnes of frozen pangolins wereconfiscated from two pangolin processing facilities in Sabah. According to investigations by
EIA, shipping agents in Nigeria prefer sending shipments containing illicit wildlife products
directly to Malaysia for transshipment or repacking before heading to destinations such as
Hong Kong SAR, Singapore and Vietnam with shipments of ivory and/or pangolin scales often
concealed with timber, cashew nuts and ginger (EIA 2020b). As recently as January 21, 2021,
8,800 kg pangolin scales were seized in Apapa, Nigeria that was being exported to Hai Phong,Vietnam in a container declared as furniture, which held timber, as well as ivory, horns, lionbones and other wildlife contraband. In 2018 and 2019, shipments of pangolin scales
originating from Nigeria were seized in Hong Kong SAR (22 tonnes), Vietnam (22 tonnes) andSingapore (25.6 tonnes).

18|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOV3

TIGERS©T.K. Bok

3.1

SITUATION UPDATEThe world is losing its tigers. Today there are only about 3,900 wild tigers left, down from
100,000 individuals a century ago (Goodrich et al. 2015), though some experts estimate thisnumber to be even lower. Of nine subspecies, four are already extinct, with the surviving subspecies under threat of vast habitat loss and degradation, poaching and illegal trade. Tigers
once ranged widely across Asia, from Turkey in the west to the eastern coast of Russia(Nowell and Jackson 1996). Over the past 100 years tigers have disappeared from Southwest
and Central Asia, from two Indonesian islands (Java and Bali, each once home to endemic
subspecies of tigers) and from large areas of Southeast and Eastern Asia. Tigers now inhabit
less than six percent of their historic range, with a 42 percent decline since 2006 (Walston etal. 2010, Goodrich et al. 2015). Tigers are classified as Endangered on the IUCN Red List, but
two subspecies Malayan P. t. jacksoni and Sumatran P. t. sumatrae are classified as CriticallyEndangered (Goodrich et al. 2015). Recent tiger survey numbers indicate a small increase
within some tiger range countries such as India, Russia, Nepal, Thailand and Bhutan, but tiger

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|19

numbers overall in Southeast Asia are at a critical level and continue to decline (Dinerstein etal. 2007, Goodrich et al. 2015, Bangkok Post 2020).
While there are numerous threats to the continued survival of tigers, including habitat loss,
loss of prey species due to illegal and unsustainable hunting, the greatest immediate threat ispoaching to supply the illegal trade (Wong 2020). The most serious threat to tigers is poachingfor their skin and bones due to their high commercial value and status symbol, particularly in
Asia. Tiger parts and derivatives are used in Asian medicines, trophies and consumed as exotic
meat (Mills and Jackson 1994, Dinerstein et al. 2007). Tiger bone, in particular, has been used
as a treatment for rheumatism and related ailments for thousands of years in traditional Asian
medicine (Nowell 2000). In the early 1990s, it became evident that medicinal trade in tiger
bone threatened to drive the already endangered tiger to extinction in the wild (Nowell 2000).
In 1993-1994, shutting down medicinal markets for tiger bone shot to the top of the global
environmental agenda (Nowell 2000). That said, virtually all parts of tigers are in demand.
Regardless of their high profile, and of the legal protection afforded tigers in all range states,
and their listing in Appendix I of CITES (all tiger subspecies have been listed in Appendix I of
CITES since 1975, except for P. t. altaica, which was added to Appendix I in 1987), poachingfor trade continues, as does their decline in the wild.
Further exacerbating the threats to tigers is captive breeding of these animals for commercial
trade as it stimulates demand for and illicit trade in a highly threatened species and undermines
conservation efforts to ensure their survival (EIA 2019). Tiger farms or parks are frequently
exposed for fraudulent trade of tiger parts from captive-bred specimens and also fromlaundered wild animals (EIA 2020c, Four Paws 2020, Musings 2020, TRAFFIC 2020b). The
need to regulate the captive breeding of big cats, including tigers has been raised at multiple
CITES meetings. At CITES CoP15 in 2010, Parties adopted a decision (Resolution Conf. 12.5
(Rev. CoP15) that breeding tigers for parts or derivatives should not be permitted. However,at CITES CoP18 in 2019, countries with Asian big cat breeding facilities were instructed toreview their national management practices, and those with commercial tiger breeding
facilities were to restrict captive tiger populations to levels which support wild populations(Resolution Conf. 12.5 (Rev. CoP18) (USAID 2020b). Recent reporting in 2020 continues toreveal the deficiency of CITES Parties to curb the illegal trade in captive-bred tigers in Asiaand globally (see Case Study below).

3.2

SIGNIFICANT ACTIONS IN THE USAID WILDLIFE ASIA
FOCAL COUNTRIESCAMBODIA
Only one case involving the seizure of tiger parts was found for 2020 involving Cambodia. In
a raid carried out in a carving factory in Phnom Penh by Wildlife Alliance’s WRRT, acting on
a tip-off from the WJC investigating the ivory trade in Cambodia, seized 5.5 kg of tiger bones,
one tiger tooth, 6.58 kg of elephant ivory, 1.03 kg of pangolin scales, and 103 dead seahorses.
A Chinese national was arrested and put on pre-trial detention, the outcome of which is not
yet known.

20|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOVCHINAIn 2020, more seizures were reported as taking place in China than any other of the USAID
Wildlife Asia focal countries, with 10 seizures involving teeth (n=3), bones (n=211 + 5.5kg),
claws (n=2), skins (n=2), other parts (unknown), skeletons, (n=3), and skulls (n=2). A total of
29 people were arrested in conjunction with these seizures, though no resulting prosecutions
were yet reported. One of the largest in China in 2020 involved 207 tiger bones, further
illustrating the persistent demand for these bones for use in traditional medicines.
China is a key consumer of tiger parts and derivatives. There are an estimated 6,000 captive
tigers in China. In December 2020, news broke of the killing of tigers at the Qinhuangdao
Wildlife Rescue Centre in the province of Hebei renewing discussion around the use of
captive-bred tigers for commercial trade considering it stimulates demand for and illicit trade
in a highly threatened species and undermines conservation efforts to ensure their survival.
According to EIA, this same facility and the adjacent Qinhuangdao Wild Animal Park were
found making tiger skin rugs and selling tiger bone wine since at least 2012 with government
approval, revealing China’s disregard for a 2007 CITES Decision to phase out the use of
captive-bred tigers for commercial trade (EIA 2020c).
LAO PDR
No seizures of tigers, their parts and derivatives, were reported to have taken place in Lao
PDR in 2020. However, in January 2020, three Vietnamese nationals were arrested in Nghe
An Province, Vietnam, transporting a tiger skeleton on a passenger bus that had purportedly
originated from Lao PDR.
THAILAND
There were two tiger seizures in Thailand in 2020. The first took place early December at
the notorious Mukda Tiger Park and Farm where a severed tiger head (n=1), carcass (n=1),
body parts (quantity not reported) and live tiger cubs (n=5) were confiscated by the
Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP). DNA testing on the
cubs revealed that at least three of the cubs had been smuggled into the zoo from elsewhere.
The second incident occurred on December 23 when local authorities raided a hotel in
Bangkok and found two tiger skins on display as well as shells from marine turtles.
VIETNAMAt least four tiger seizures were reported in Vietnam for 2020 consisting of wine (n=2),
taxidermy head (n=1), skeleton (n=1) and in one incident teeth, skins and claws were seized
but quantities were not reported. Of these seizures, one involved the smuggling of tiger
skeletons from Lao PDR on a passenger bus. Vietnam was also implicated as the point oforigin/transit in at least three seizures that occurred in mainland China.

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

|

21

3.3

SEIZURES AND PROSECUTION

A total of 17 tiger seizures in USAID Wildlife Asia’s focal countries were reported in 2020
including China (10 incidents), Vietnam (four incidents), Thailand (two incidents) andCambodia (one incident). There were no reported seizures in Lao PDR.
Tiger bones were the most frequent commodity seized in at least eight incidents amounting
to 213 pieces and 5.5 kg followed by skins (four seizures, four whole skins) and teeth (fourseizures, 22 teeth). Other body parts were also seized including carcass (n=1), head (n=1),
skeletons (n=3), skulls (n=2), wine (n=2 bottles, two whole carcasses soaked in wine), andclaws (though quantities were not specified). There was one seizure of five live cubs inThailand that was part of a larger seizure of tiger body parts, carcass, severed head, etc. All
tiger seizures are listed in Table 2.
Of the 17 seizures, 11 incidents included arrests made of 25 individuals though the outcomeof these arrests are not as yet known.
Table 2. Tiger seizures reported in Cambodia, China, Thailand and Vietnam in 2020
No. Date
Location
Summary
Seized items
1
January 9
VietnamA Vietnamese passenger on a bus
Skeleton – 1
from Lao PDR was found withillegal wildlife products including atiger skeleton, macaque bones,
two dead Asian golden cats andfour bear paws. Three werearrested including the bus driver.
2
March 1
Cambodia
Wildlife Alliance’s WRRT raided a Bones – 5.5 kg,
carving factory in Phnom Penh
Tooth – 1
after receiving a tip-off from the
WJC. A Chinese national was
found with 6.58 kg of ivory, 5.5 kgof tiger bones, one tiger tooth,1.03 kg of pangolin scales, and 103
dead seahorses. He was arrested
and put on pre-trial detention.
3
March 17
Mainland
Chinese Customs seized around 4 Bones –China
kg of wildlife products including
quantitysuspected rhino horn, tiger bone,unknownsaiga horn, dried seahorses andbear bile entering the country,
though point of origin was not
mentioned. One person wasarrested.
4
March 23
Mainland
Zhanjiang Customs and City Police Skeleton - 1
Chinaarrested one person suspected of

22|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOV

No.

Date

Location5

May 26MainlandChina

6

June 3MainlandChina

7

June 24

MainlandChina

8

July 7

MainlandChina

9August 1

MainlandChina

USAID.GOV

Summarysmuggling rhino horn and otherillegal wildlife products. A total of
33.13 kg of wildlife products wereseized including saiga horn, bear
bile and tiger bones. The suspect
reportedly smuggled the products
via informal crossing on the ChinaVietnam border, and then sent
them to Leizhou via domestic
express mail.
Suifenhe Border Management
Brigade and the Suifenhe Customs
Anti-Smuggling Bureau arrested
one person in the smuggling of 200
suspected saiga horns and 207
suspected tiger bones (including
two complete skulls) into thecountry though point of origin was
not reported.
The Pingxiang Office of theNanning Customs Anti-Smuggling
Bureau seized ivory bangles (334g)
and two suspected tiger bones at astore in Puzhai which were
believed to have been smuggled
into the country.
Chinese authorities confiscatedtiger products hidden in the bootof a car in Zhenjiang. Two suspects
were arrested.
Chinese authorities seized 25
boxes of bird’s nests, twosuspected tiger bones, and twosuspected bear gallbladders fromthe boot of a vehicle in Guangxi.
Two suspects were arrested.
Chinese authorities seized
hundreds of wildlife products after
stopping and searching a van at theborder checkpoint with Vietnam.
Wildlife products seized included
six bags of pangolin scales (14.58kg), two pieces of tiger bones, 19
tiger teeth, seven gall bladders, six

Seized items

Bones – 207
Skulls – 2

Bones – 2

Skeleton – 1
Skin – 1

Bones – 2

Bones – 2
Teeth – 19
Wine – 2bottles

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

|

23

24

No.

Date

Location

10

August 26

MainlandChina

11

September
1

China

12

September
22

Vietnam13

October 27

MainlandChina

14

November
25

Vietnam|

Summaryrhino products, 171 ivory
products, two bottles of tiger
penis wine and 20 bezoars. Threesuspects were arrested.
Chinese authorities seized dried
tiger bone, tendon and tiger bonepieces at a farmer’s market in
Zhongshan village in Yunnan (onthe Myanmar border).
Chinese authorities seized one
tiger skin and 6.15 kg leopard
bones in Lhasa, Tibet.
Police in HCMC arrested aVietnamese man for buying an
Indochinese tiger carcass soaked inwine and was later linked to a
wildlife trafficking network. A
search of his house revealed atiger carcass, along with a stuffed
tiger head and a stuffed bear head.
Chinese authorities seized 1.6 kgof animal products including
suspected tiger claws and tiger
bones which was reportedlybought in Vietnam. One Chinese
national was arrested.
Vietnamese authorities seized 20
kg of ivory, 3 kg of pangolin scales
and other wildlife from a shop in
Binh Duong Province. The owner
was arrested along with two othersuspects.

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

Seized items

Bones, bodyparts –
quantity
unknown
Skin – 1

Head(taxidermy) – 1
Carcass inwine – 1

Teeth – 2
Bones, claws –unknownquantity

Teeth, skin,claws –
unknownquantity

USAID.GOV

No.
15

Date
Location
December 1 Thailand

16

December 7 Vietnam

17

December
23

ThailandSummary
DNP raided the Mukda Tiger Parkand Farm and found several bodyparts and live cubs. The cubs weresuspectedof
being
illegallysmuggled into the zoo - DNA tests
showed that three of them - onefemale and two males - were notrelated to any tigers in the park.
Authorities removed the two othercubs for further forensics testing
and are conducting DNA tests on afurther 20 tigers at the park.
Vietnamese authorities busted agambling syndicated and seized atiger soaked in wine.
Thai authorities raided a hotel in
Bangkok and found two tiger skins
on display as well as shells frommarine turtles.

Seized items
Live – 5
Carcass – 1
Head – 1
Body parts –unknownquantity

Carcass inwine – 1
Skins – 2

* Entries for this table are shown chronologically because data for seizure weights was not available.

Seized tiger parts © Photo: Bussara Tirakalyanapan

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

|

25

26

|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOV3.3.1 TRADE ROUTES/HOTSPOTS
Information on trafficking routes was extracted from only five of the 17 seizures reported fortigers involving four of the focal countries (Figure 2). Of these five incidents, mainland China
was reported as the end destination in four, three of which were from Vietnam while
Cambodia was potentially implicated in one (while the seizure occurred in Cambodia and aChinese national was arrested, it is unconfirmed whether the products would be trafficked toChina). Vietnam was also linked to the trafficking of tigers from Lao PDR in one incident.

Figure 2. Seizure locations and trade routes involving tigers in 2020. Information on trade routes
were extracted from 5 of the 17 seizure incidents obtained. Country codes: CN=mainland China,
KH=Cambodia, LA=Lao PDR, VN=Vietnam.

3.4

SUMMARY

There were fewer tiger seizures and reduced quantity of commodities seized in 2020 incomparison to 2019 (34 seizures involving 552 kg of products and 98 bottles of tiger wine)
but higher than in 2018 (nine seizures involving 11 skins and five dead cubs). In any event, thisdata shows that the killing and trade of tigers persists even with global lockdowns and travel
restrictions in place. China and Vietnam continue to be key consumers of tiger parts andderivatives. Vietnam remains an important trafficking route for tiger parts to China. In
addition, further exacerbating the threat to wild tigers is the commercial trade in captive tigers

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|27

(see case study below), despite a 2007 CITES Decision to phase out the use of tiger farms forthis purpose.

CASE STUDY
Exploitation of captive tigers for commercial use
There are thousands of tigers in captivity worldwide in commercial farms, privately run zoos,
sanctuaries and other similar facilities (Coals et al. 2020, Four Paws 2020, Musings 2020) and
its uncertain to what extent these institutions are used to breed tigers for commercial gainor launder wild tigers for illicit trade. There were several incidents in 2020 of captive tigers
killed for trade renewing discussion around the use of captive-bred tigers for commercial
trade considering it stimulates demand for and illicit trade in a highly threatened species andundermines conservation efforts to ensure their survival. The most prominent case was theseizure of five live tiger cubs and body parts including a severed head at the Mukda Tiger Zoo
and Farm in Thailand that occurred in December 2020. This farm is located in the Thai
province of Mukhdahan which borders the Savannakhet Province in Lao PDR and has been
under government watch due to previous transgressions relating to illegal sourcing, trade andlaundering of wildlife (TRAFFIC 2020b). According to Wildlife Friends Foundation Thailand(WFFT), the zoo was being used as a holding facility for wildlife being smuggled into Lao PDR
and Vietnam (WFFT 2020). At least three of the five tiger cubs seized were DNA tested foundto have been smuggled into the zoo.
Recently, Lao PDR and Thailand were once more flagged for their role in the farming of tigers
for trade in their parts which are being trafficked to Vietnam (Smallman 2020, Anh and Chien
2021). As previously mentioned, in December 2020, EIA also revealed the ongoing andclandestine trade of tigers in China out of the Qinhuangdao Wildlife Rescue Centre in theHebei Province with government approval (EIA 2020c). Four Paws released a report
documenting similar dubious trade in EU’s captive tigers – showcasing the fact that the
majority of European countries fail to keep adequate records of tigers in captivity which isenabling illicit traders to operate without constraint (Four Paws 2020). TRAFFIC’s analysis of
CITES Trade Data highlighted much the same in their Falling Through the System: The role of theEuropean Union Captive Tiger Population in the Trade in Tigers published in March 2020. The
report revealed that live tigers were the largest quantities imported into and (re-)exportedout of the EU, with Thailand and Vietnam the main importers (Musing 2020). It is important
to mention here that in June 2020, the Myanmar government approved a permitting process
allowing private zoos to breed 90 species, including tigers (FMT 2020). This is concerning as
the laundering of wildlife under the guise of captive-breeding is widespread throughout theregion and it is highly plausible that, much like Lao PDR and Thailand, these private zoos will
facilitate and fuel further trafficking of wild tigers.

28|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOV4

ELEPHANTS© L. Gomez

4.1

SITUATION UPDATE

Elephants are one of the most poached mammals on the planet, primarily for their tusks, butalso for their skin, meat and hair resulting in large population declines in many Asian and
African range states. For centuries people have regarded various forms of ivory, especiallyelephant ivory, as a luxury commodity, often associated with status and wealth. This is
prominent in many Asian cultures and as such, Asia continues to be the main market
destination for elephant ivory. African elephants Loxodanta africana (except for populations in
Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe), and all Asian elephants Elephas maximus arelisted in Appendix I of CITES, which prohibits all international trade in these species. While
trade in wildlife in 2020 may have decreased since the previous years due to the global
COVID-19 pandemic, it is clear that the trade in elephant products persists.
China is considered to be the greatest center of demand for ivory in the world. China banned
its domestic ivory trade in 2018 which has since displaced ivory markets into neighboring

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|29

countries such as Cambodia, Japan, Thailand and Vietnam (EIA 2020b, WJC 2020). While
China’s efforts to shut down its domestic ivory trade seems to be bearing fruit, outside of its
borders, growing ivory markets are primarily being driven by Chinese traders and consumers.
In 2020, the WJC released several reports on the evolving trade dynamics regarding ivory. In
their “Rapid assessment of the impact of COVID-19 on wildlife trafficking”, they find that the
COVID-19 restrictions, i.e., border closures, increased border security, and travel restrictions
along with increased law enforcement efforts in China, has resulted in increased stockpilingof raw ivory in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam (WJC 2020a). They also released a report“Operation Jeopardy: The Growing Relevance of Cambodia in the Global Ivory Trade” further
highlighting the shift in the trade and production, from countries with stronger law
enforcement and policy developments, e.g., China, to countries that lack the capacity toeffectively tackle transnational organized crime (WJC 2020b). Cambodia, in particular, wasfound to have a substantial open illegal ivory market driven by Chinese clientele.
Similar findings were noted in EIA’s latest report (released in December 2020) Out of Africa:
How West and Central Africa Have Become the Epicenter of Ivory and Pangolin Scale Trafficking toAsia, where multinational criminal groups in Africa have shifted operations to Nigeria,
Cameroon and the Democratic Republic of Congo due to weak governance, widespread
corruption and poor institutional frameworks; and have hijacked transportation networks totraffic high-volume shipments of ivory and pangolin scales to Asia, end destinations
predominantly being China and Vietnam (EIA 2020b). West and Central Africa have become
the export hubs for wildlife poached from across the region's tropical rainforests and savannaspresenting a significant threat to the region’s last strongholds of African elephants.
Japan still features heavily in the trafficking of ivory to China. That said, with regards to its
domestic market, TRAFFIC launched a report, Teetering on the Brink: Japan’s Online Ivory Tradein December 2020, which found that trade in ivory dropped by as much as 100 percent in2020 on Japan’s largest online ivory trading platform, Yahoo Japan (Nishino and Kitade 2020).
The significant reduction in the nation’s ivory market is highly welcome. Although online tradein ivory and illegal exports have reduced, they are still ongoing, including into China despite
its domestic ivory ban introduced at the start of 2018.
In July 2020, TRAFFIC released a report on Trading Faces: A Snapshot of the Online Ivory Tradein Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam in 2016 with an update in 2019, which found thousands ofivory products for sale in all three countries with the highest number of traders found inIndonesia and the greatest quantity of products in Vietnam (Indraswari et al. 2020). It highlights
the integral need to monitor online platforms in all countries with potential domestic ivory
markets.
Malaysia has seen a steady rise in elephant deaths recently particularly in Borneo which havebeen attributed to the ivory trade and human conflict (Sabah Wildlife Department 2020). The
most recent incident occurred in January 2021 when a pygmy elephant was found with sevenbullet wounds in its skull, dismembered and its trunk missing along with half its body’s skin.
The motive for the killing remains uncertain as to whether it is due to retaliatory killing orwhether those involved were targeting its skin for illegal trade considering only half was

30|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOVremoved and the tusks were not taken. In response to the increased killings of elephants, theSabah government, in 2020, approved an updated version of its state action plan for elephantconservation (2020-2029) which includes stepping up protection and stopping the killing ofelephants; enhancing habitat connectivity and permeability; ensuring best practices in the
management and ex situ conservation of elephants; and researching, monitoring and predicting
elephant population trends. A budget of approximately $4.9 million has been allocated toachieving this ten-year plan including the establishment of a special enforcement unit under
the Sabah Wildlife Department to focus on protection of wildlife and forest reserves.
The number of wild elephants in Cambodia has decreased dramatically, and there are now
estimated to be only 400-600 remaining, found in small, fragmented remnant populations(Maltby and Bourchier 2011, Gray et al. 2014). In an effort to protect remaining populations,
the Asian Elephant Conservation Action Plan for Cambodia (2020-2029) was launched in 2020
by the General Directorate of Administration for Nature Conservation and Protection,
Ministry of Environment (Sinovas et al. 2020). The action plan details seven strategic objectives
including reducing habitat loss, conserving and improving habitat connectivity, improving law
enforcement, preventing wild capture, mitigating human-elephant conflict, improving
awareness, and undertaking research.
On 12 August 2020, the National Parks Board, Singapore (NParks) crushed nine tonnes ofivory, worth $13,559,900, to commemorate World Elephant Day. This ivory crushing event,the largest globally in recent years, demonstrated Singapore’s strong determination andcommitment to combat the illegal trade in wildlife. The destruction of the ivory seized fromvarious shipments in past years will prevent it from re-entering the market and will disrupt
the global supply chain of illegally traded ivory.
The Elephant Crisis Fund (ECF) Report (2020) finds that the poaching of elephants has
reduced in much of East and Southern Africa and that local and international travel restrictions
has reduced the international trafficking of ivory in 2020 evident by the lack of large-scaleivory shipments. In August 2020, a notorious wildlife poacher in Congo, responsible for thedeaths of hundreds of elephants was arrested and sentenced to 30 years of hard labor for
attempted murder, ivory trafficking and possession of military weapons. This landmark casewas the first ever wildlife trafficking conviction in the Criminal Court in the Republic of Congo.

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|31

Ivory was crushed to commemorate World Elephant Day © National Parks Board, Singapore

African elephants
Based on the IUCN Red List, two species of African elephants, are recognized, the savanna
elephant Loxodonta africana and the forest elephant L. cyclotis and are currently assessed as
Vulnerable as a whole, though regional assessments lists populations in Central Africa as
Endangered (Blanc 2008). One of the main threats to African elephants is high levels ofpoaching for the ivory trade (Zhou et al. 2018, Schenning 2019, EIA 2020b, WJC 2020).
According to recent reports by EIA (2020b), populations in West and Central Africa have
32|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOVbeen significantly affected by ivory poaching. At least two populations are recorded as lost in
Democratic Republic of Congo and Chad, while elephant populations in Cameroon, theRepublic of Congo, and Gabon are especially at risk having been found to be major sourcesof ivory destined to Asian markets. In one of the last strongholds in Gabon for forest
elephants, recent estimates conclude populations to be 40-80 percent smaller than previously
suggested, i.e. ranging from 754 to 1,502 individuals, or 0.47 to 0.8 elephants per km2 (Brand
et al. 2020).
Asian elephants
Asian elephants are threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation, human–elephant conflict,and poaching and illegal trade of live elephants and their parts, including ivory and as such areassessed as Endangered in the IUCN Red List (Williams et al. 2020). Populations in the focal
countries of this Digest are all in serious decline and in some on the brink of extirpation. In
Sumatra, Indonesia, and Sabah, Malaysia, elephant populations are estimated to be less than
1,500 individuals (Mongabay Indonesia 2020, Sabah Wildlife Department 2020). However, it
has been argued that current knowledge of the populations of Asian elephants are in manycases based on crude guesses (Blake and Hedges 2004) and in reality, there is still much work
to be done to determine where elephants persist, what true populations are and if some
populations remain extant at all (Williams et al. 2020).
Elephant population estimates in focal countries (Williams et al. 2020):
Cambodia
China
Lao PDR
Thailand
Vietnam

4.2

400-600300
500-600
3,126-3,341
104-132

SIGNIFICANT ACTIONS IN THE USAID WILDLIFE ASIA
FOCAL COUNTRIESCAMBODIA
There were two ivory seizures in Phnom Penh, Cambodia in 2020 where 0.76 kg and 6.58 kg
of ivory products were confiscated from a sculpture shop and carving factory, respectively.
The latter incident involved the arrest of a Chinese national. The raid was conducted by
Wildlife Alliance’s WRRT after receiving a tip-off from the WJC. Based on WJC intel, thefactory was found to be processing raw ivory on a commercial scale and was involved insupplying local retail outlets selling worked ivory products. During the raid, they also found
5.5 kg of tiger bones, one tiger tooth, 1.03 kg of pangolin scales and 103 dead seahorses.
While there were only two ivory seizures in 2020, the WJC’s investigation into the ivory
trade in Cambodia reveals the availability of raw ivory tusks for sale in 2020 and how thecountry is fast becoming the new illegal ivory trade hub. In their latest investigations, they
USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|33

document the shifting illicit trade in ivory from China, Vietnam and Lao PDR due to stronger
law enforcement and policy developments, to Cambodia, a country perceived as lacking thecapacity to effectively tackle transnational organized crime (WJC 2020). They also note thatthe open trade of ivory in Cambodia is driven predominantly by Chinese traders andconsumers.
CHINA
Despite the domestic ivory trade ban in China that came into effect in 2018, local demand still
plays a significant role in the poaching and illicit trafficking of ivory and is seen to be driving
the expansion of ivory markets in neighboring countries in the region (EIA 2020b, GlobeScan
2020). A recent survey (2020) of ivory consumption by Chinese tourists, showed that 1 in 10
Chinese travelers to Asian destinations (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Japan, Hong Kong SAR,
Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam) planned to purchase ivory as a gift for a family member,friend or business relation (GlobeScan 2020).
The majority of elephant seizures obtained in 2020 occurred in China (n=113, 93.4 percent).
This predominantly involved ivory totaling 252.66 kg and 228 pieces. Aside from this, there
was one incident that resulted in the confiscation of skins (four pieces) and one incident ofleather weighing 196 grams. The seizures occurred in mainland China with the province ofGuangdong the most frequent seizure location (n=27 incidents, 24 percent) followed by
Zhejiang (n=12 incidents) and Shandong (n=11 incidents).
In December 2020, a court in Guangzhou sentenced 17 people, apprehended for smuggling
over 20 tons of ivory, to long prison sentences ranging from two to 15 years and life
imprisonment for two of the ring leaders. It is the toughest sentence ever handed down tocriminals involved in illegal wildlife trade in China. Described as the biggest ivory smuggling
racket ever busted, the group were moving huge quantities of ivory valued in the millions ofdollars from Nigeria and other unnamed African countries into mainland China throughSingapore and South Korea (ABS-CBN News 2021).
LAO PDR
There were no reported elephant ivory seizures for Lao PDR in 2020. The WJC reports thatthe ivory trade in Lao PDR has become more discreet and that traders have shifted awayfrom Vientiane, its capital (WJC 2020). Further, due to COVID-19 measures, there has beena noticeable downturn in business and absence of Chinese clientele in Lao PDR.
THAILAND
There was only one seizure of six ivory pieces reported in Thailand in 2020, which occurredat an ashram and included various other products from multiple protected species such as
pangolins, leopards, bears, serow, otters, deer, and freshwater turtles. This aside, Thailand
was also implicated as a point of export of ivory products into China in six incidents involving
Chinese passengers entering China.
A report on the online ivory trade in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, recently published by
TRAFFIC, revealed that Thailand had the greatest number of advertisements offering over

34|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOV

2,500 ivory products for sale which predominantly consisted of religious items in 2016
(Indraswari et al. 2020). In 2019, this increased by 273 percent for the quantity of items offeredand by 178 percent for posts warranting further scrutiny of the domestic ivory market.
VIETNAM
There were three ivory seizures that occurred in Vietnam in 2020 which amounted to 246.3
kg of ivory. The largest of these involved 225.5 kg (63 pieces of ivory hidden in 10 jute bags)
that was confiscated from a truck in the province of Nghe An. Four suspects were arrested
in these incidents and to date two have been prosecuted for illegally selling ivory jewelry
amounting to 2.8 kg (151 bangles, 20 pendants, two bracelets, and four crafted fangs) though
they only received fines of approximately $29,000 and $18,530 respectively. Vietnam was also
implicated as a point of export in two cases of seized ivory in mainland China.
The WJC reports of at least 10 tonnes of ivory being stockpiled in Hanoi since 2019 due toincreased law enforcement efforts in China (WJC 2020). Additionally, in their most recent
report, TRAFFIC found close to 5,000 ivory products for sale online in Vietnam in 2016, which
decreased by 81.5 percent in the number of items for sale and by 81.8 percent in the numberof posts in 2019 as 50 percent of the online platforms previously surveyed in 2016 had
shutdown (Indraswari et al. 2020).
According to ECF (2020), in July 2020, Nguyen Van Nam, Vietnam’s most notorious wildlife
trafficker, and two of his associates were sentenced to a total of 32 years in prison for
trafficking ivory. This was achieved through three years of uncover investigations by the WJC
that was supported by the ECF.

4.3

SEIZURES AND PROSECUTIONSIn 2020, there were a total of 121 reported ivory seizures in, or linked to, USAID Wildlife
Asia’s focal countries with the exception of Lao PDR which had no reported seizures, nor
was it implicated in the trafficking of ivory with the other focal countries. China was the mostsignificant consumer country in the ivory trade with the greatest number of seizures reported(93.4 percent) as well as implicated as the main destination of seized shipments (n=64incidents).
The main commodity seized was ivory (both raw and worked), encompassing 97.5 percent ofincidents which amounted to a total of 506.5 kg and 234 pieces. The largest shipment of seizedivory by weight occurred in Vietnam involving 225.5 kg of ivory; while by individual pieces,
China confiscated 183 at a border checkpoint between Vietnam and China along with pangolinscales, tiger bones, teeth and wine, bear gall bladders, rhino horns and bezoars (unknown
species). Information on the top 15 seizures by volume can be found in Table 3.
Of the 121 seizures reported, at least 15 incidents included arrests amounting to 32
individuals. One case has led to prosecution to date, involving two Vietnamese nationals who
were fined approximately $29,000 and $18,530 respectively for selling jewelry made fromivory.

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|35

Table 3. Top 15 ivory seizures and prosecutions in 2020, ranked by weight of seizure
No. Date
Location
Summary
Seized items
1
March 20
VietnamDien Chau Traffic Police stopped a
Ivory - 225.5
truck and discovered 63 pieces ofkgelephant ivory weighing over 200 kg
hidden in 10 jute bags. One subject
was arrested.
2
Early August China
Chinese authorities seized hundreds
Ivory - 183
of wildlife products after stopping and pieces
searching a van at a bordercheckpoint with Vietnam. Wildlife
products seized included six bags ofpangolin scales (14.58 kg), two piecesof tiger bones, 19 tiger teeth, sevenbear bile, six rhino products, twobottles of tiger penis wine and 20
bezoars. Three suspects werearrested.
3
April 23
China
Jiangmen Customs busted a syndicate Ivory – 173.92
trafficking ivory and rhino horn fromkg
South Africa into China by sea. One
suspect was arrested.
4
April 17
China
Jiangmen Customs busted a syndicate Ivory – 38.7 kg
trafficking ivory and rhino horn fromSouth Africa into China by sea. Nine
suspects were arrested.
5
February 12
China
Forest Police in southwest China's
Ivory – 31
Yunnan Province arrested anpiecesindividual for trading in rare andendangered wildlife including 31 ivory
products, two pangolin scales andhelmeted hornbill.
6
NovemberVietnamVietnamese authorities arrested the
Ivory – 18 kg
25
owner of a shop selling illegal wildlife
products including ivory and pangolinscales in Binh Duong.
7
February 27
China
Beijing Airport Customs seized over 8 Ivory – 8.08 kg
kg of worked ivory from a passenger.
Suspects were detained for further
investigation, but no other details
were reported.
8
March 1
Cambodia Wildlife Alliance’s Wildlife Rapid
Ivory – 6.58 kg
Rescue Team (WRRT) raided acarving factory in Phnom Penh after

36|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOV

No.

Date

Location

9

July 16China

10April 16

Thailand11

February 27

China

12

April 9China

13

May 25

Vietnam

14

January 7

China

15

January 19

China

USAID.GOV

Summary
receiving a tip-off from the WJC. A
Chinese national was arrested andfound with 6.58 kg of ivory, 5.5 kg oftiger bones, one tiger tooth, 1.03 kgof pangolin scales, and 103 deadseahorses. He was arrested and has
been put on pre-trial detention.
Pingxiang Customs seized three ivory
bangles in a parcel that contained
banana chips and other snacks at the
Puzhai courier office, acting on a tipoff regarding ivory smuggled acrossthe border and then distributed
within the country using the courier
service. One suspect was arrested,
and more ivory products (bangle,
bracelet and necklace) were found in
his home.
Thai authorities arrested one person
and after searching his house andashram and found 27 illegal wildlife
products from multiple protected
species including elephant, pangolins,
leopards, bears, serow, otters, deer,and freshwater turtles.
Beijing Airport Customs seized over 5
kg of worked ivory from a passenger.
Suspects have been detained. Further
investigation is ongoing.
Hailar Customs seized ivory mailed
from Japan. No further details
provided.
Kien Giang Environmental Police
confiscated 151 ivory-suspectedbangles, 20 pendants, two bracelets,four crafted fangs from two jewelry
shops. Two suspects were arrested.
Nanning Customs, intercepted aVietnamese passenger found with a
total of 70 pieces of ivory products
attached to his waist, abdomen andlegs.
Chengdu Airport Customs seized 110
ivory items including beads, pendants,

Seized items

Ivory – 6
piecesIvory – 6
piecesIvory – 5.42 kg

Ivory – 5
piecesIvory – 2.8 kg

Ivory –1.83 kg

Ivory – 1.3 kg

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

|

37

No.

38

|

Date

Location

Summary
carved tiles, and bracelets hidden indifferent parts of a checked-in luggageof a male Chinese national arrivingfrom Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

Seized items

USAID.GOVUSAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|

39

4.3.1 TRADE ROUTES / HOTSPOTS
Information on trafficking routes were obtained from 65 of the 121 seizures incidents
reported. This involved at least 19 countries/territories with the key destination being
mainland China, implicated in 64 incidents (Figure 3). The remaining one incident involved aChinese national travelling from China to South Korea with an ivory bangle. Of the 65
incidents, African countries, as a point of origin/export, accounted for the largest quantity of
seized ivory with approximately 218.6 kg followed by Europe (3.38 kg), Southeast Asia (3.17kg), East Asia (2.5 kg) and the U.S. (0.56 kg).
Japan was the most frequent route of ivory products into China (21.5 percent of incidents)
predominantly by post and remains consistent with previous reporting of Japan’s role as asource of ivory into China (Nishino and Kitade 2020, USAID 2020).

Reported origin
Reportedtransit/destination

GB

Reported destination
Unconfirmed route

Reported frequency
1
3
6
12

NL
FR

DE

US
IT
TR

KP

CN

JP

EG

Seizure (#)
HK
TH

XF

ET

KH

VN

UG
KE

ZA

Figure 3. Seizure locations and trade routes involving ivory in 2020. Lines are weighted by frequencyof trade route implicated in seizures. Country codes: CN=mainland China, DE=Germany, EG=Egypt,
ET=Ethiopia, FR=France, GB=United Kingdom, HK=Hong Kong SAR, IT=Italy, JP=Japan, KE=Kenya,
KH=Cambodia, KP=South Korea, NL= Netherlands, TH=Thailand, TR=Turkey, UG=Uganda,
US=United States, VN=Vietnam, ZA=South Africa and XF=Africa (specific location not reported). An
additional incident not featured in the map is of one seizure in mainland China, where the point ofexport was just reported as Southeast Asia.

Of the African countries, Ethiopia was the most frequent point of export reported (sixincidents), with shipments seized at the Guangzhou-Baiyun International Airport inGuangdong Province and the Chengdu Shuangliu International Airport in Sichuan Province.
40|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOVThe ivory products were found in the luggage of passengers. An investigative report by EIA in2020 revealed that West and Central Africa have become the key source and export points
for ivory and pangolin scales to Asia, with Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo the
top two countries associated with large scale seizures out of Africa (EIA 2020b).
European countries continue to play a transit or re-exporter region in the trade of ivory
products to mainland China.
The most frequent mode of transport, obtained from 104 incidents, was by air (51 incidents)
followed by post (43 incidents). There were only seven seized shipments reported by sea in
2020.

4.4

SUMMARY

Fewer records of seizures of elephant products were found for 2020 than were recorded in2019 Digest (USAID 2020b). In 2019 there were 380 reported seizures of elephant products
in, or linked to, the focal countries. These seizures involved a total of 48,217 kg of elephantproducts, demonstrating significant levels of trade linked to Asian market destinations. In
contrast, 2020 saw a dramatic reduction in the number of reported seizures with only 121
amounting to 506.5 kg and 234 pieces of ivory. In 2018 there were far fewer seizures (n=24)
but the total amount of ivory seized was 11,000 kg, equivalent to 230 elephants killed (USAID2019).
Despite fewer seizures and the absence of large-scale seizures, the data still shows that theillegal trade in ivory persists in spite of restrictions in place disrupting movement of shipments.
China remains a key consumer and driver in the illicit trafficking of ivory. Further, it appears
that Chinese travelers are also sustaining ivory markets in neighboring countries such as Japan,
Thailand and Cambodia. Aside from seizures, investigations by EIA and WJC also confirm thecontinued trafficking of ivory products at a reduced level though this is thought to be
temporary due to border closures, warranting continued vigilance and monitoring to keep
abreast of changing trade dynamics.

CASE STUDY
China’s growing footprint in Africa: Chinese nationals arrested for possession ofillegal wildlife products and illegal presence in Uganda
With growing investment from China in Africa, this case highlights the concerns overincreased trafficking of Uganda’s wildlife to China, and the efforts within Uganda to disrupt
these wildlife trafficking networks operating within and through its borders. On March 18,
2020 seven Chinese nationals were found in possession of 10 pieces of dried elephant penises,at the Kireka Kamuli Lubowa Zone in Kira municipality, Uganda. They were also in possessionof six tortoises and half a kilogram of pangolin scales. This was part of a larger investigation
into the expiration of entry passes of 37 Chinese nationals in the country working without

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|

41

valid permits. They were embedded in private business including food processing and scrap
dealing firms, and in possession of hundreds of illegal SIM cards. Uganda has been a countryof concern in the illicit trafficking of ivory out of Africa since the mid-2000s. This is due to theincreasing presence of Chinese traders in Uganda under the pretense of legitimate business
but who are exporting ivory to China (Titeca 2018). Improved law enforcement efforts within
the country has since displaced ivory and pangolin trafficking networks to West and Central
Africa (EIA 2020b). Given this expanded trade, there is mounting concern over increasing
volumes of wildlife trafficked from African nations to China, and a growing number of incidentsof Chinese nationals involved in poaching and trafficking within Africa. This case also highlights
the need for sustained monitoring of rapidly changing ivory trade dynamics between Africa
and Asia.

42|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOV5

RHINOS©T.K. Bok

5.1

SITUATION UPDATEThere are five species of rhino, with two occurring in Africa and three in Asia. Rhino poachinggoes back centuries but has been particularly intense over the past 60 years, resulting indramatic population declines. Three of the five rhino species are now listed as CriticallyEndangered on the IUCN Red List (Ellis and Talukdar 2020a,b, Emslie 2020b), meaning they
face “an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild” (IUCN 2012). Rhinos are poached fortheir highly valuable horns, which are used in traditional medicine, predominantly in China andVietnam (Milliken and Shaw 2012, Milliken 2014, Olmedo et al. 2018). Rhino horns are also
used as art and antique products (Gao et al. 2016) and, as rhinos have become scarcer andmore valuable, rhino horns have increasingly become symbols of wealth and social status(Hübschle 2016, International Rhino Foundation 2021a). In 1975, the three Asian rhino
species, as well the northern white rhino Ceratotherium simum cottoni, a subspecies of Africa’s
white rhino C. simum, were listed in Appendix I of CITES following a strong surge in poaching
and trade in the 1960s (Milliken 2014) to meet Asian and Middle Eastern demand. Their listing

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|43

in CITES Appendix I rendered any commercial international trade in these (sub-)species illegal.
Two years later, the black rhino Diceros bicornis (which initially had been listed in Appendix II)
and white rhino (which had not been listed at all) were also included in Appendix I. Despite
these listings, illegal international trade continued largely unchecked until the early 1990s due
to lax enforcement (Milliken 2014). By 1992, black rhino populations had decreased by asmuch as 96 percent, to approximately 2,400 individuals (International Rhino Foundation
2021b). As a result of international pressure for better regulation and enforcement in both
source and consumer countries, rhino poaching significantly dropped in the early 1990s andstayed low until the late 2000s. During this period, African rhino populations were able toslowly recover. However, in 2008, rhino poaching once again intensified, catering to a rapidly
developing Vietnamese market (Milliken 2014) and culminating in an annual peak of 1,349
killed African rhinos in 2015. Since then, poaching has declined. However, strong regulatory,
institutional and military measures (Hübschle 2016) notwithstanding, poaching, in combination
with habitat loss in many rhino range states, continues to pose a threat to the planet’s
remaining rhinos.
African rhinos
Africa accounts for approximately 86 percent of the world’s remaining rhinos. It is home totwo species: black rhino and white rhino. Black rhinos are currently assessed as CriticallyEndangered on the IUCN Red List. Of the four subspecies, the western black rhino Diceros
bicornis longipes was declared extinct in 2011 (International Rhino Foundation 2021b). Despite
this, black rhino populations were found to have increased slightly in the past year, from 5,500
in 2019 to 5,630 in 2020 (International Rhino Foundation 2021b). White rhinos have thelargest remaining populations of all five rhino species. With an approximate 18,000 whiterhinos left, populations are nevertheless decreasing, leading the species to be listed as “nearthreatened” on the IUCN Red List (Emslie 2020a). The northern subspecies is all but extinct,
with only two female individuals currently surviving in the wild (International Rhino
Foundation 2021c).
The large majority of the remaining African rhinos occur in South Africa (International Rhino
Foundation 2021d). Spilling over from Zimbabwe, where political and socio-economic turmoil
facilitated the rise of rhino poaching in 2008, poaching in South Africa saw an enormous
upsurge between 2009 and 2014. In 2014, no less than 1,215 of the country’s rhinos were
killed for their horns. Since then, poaching levels have steadily declined. 2020 was the sixth
consecutive year in which South African poaching numbers were found to have dropped(International Rhino Foundation 2021d). More specifically, the South African Department ofEnvironment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF) reported a 34 percent decrease in the numberof poached rhinos, which is a significantly larger drop than those observed in previous years(25 percent in 2018 and 23 percent in 2019). In total, 394 South African rhinos were killed in
2020, while this number stood at 594 in 2019. The steeper fall in poaching numbers in 2020
can be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. Local lockdowns, as well as international travel
restrictions and closed borders have hindered poachers in their movements. South Africa
recorded a total of 1,573 poacher activities in Kruger National Park (KNP) (the country’s
largest national reserve, home to most South African rhinos) in 2020, representing a 22
percent decrease compared to 2019 (n=2,014) (DEFF 2021). In Kenya, even more impressive

44|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOV

numbers were recorded, with zero rhinos poached in 2020, which was the first time since1999 (Corbley 2021).
However, poaching numbers in South Africa’s KNP reportedly spiked as soon as lockdown
measures eased in the final months of 2020. DEFF also reports a significant number of rhino
poacher arrests in 2020, with 66 poachers arrested in KNP and another 90 outside thenational park. Out of 45 verdict cases, 44 led to convictions, involving a total of 69 convictedpersons. Notable convictions included prison sentences of 24 and 25 years for two rhino
poachers (DEFF 2021). Although 2020 has seen a decrease in poaching and a slight increasein black rhino populations, the poaching spike in December suggests that poachers, and theorganized crime syndicates behind them, are eager to continue supplying the strong demandin Asian consumer countries.
Asian rhinos
There are three Asian rhino species: the greater one-horned rhino Rhinoceros unicornis, Javanrhino Rhinoceros sondaicus and Sumatran rhino Dicerorhinus sumatrensis. The latter two wereonce found in the focal countries of this Digest; the Javan rhino’s range included Cambodia,
China, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam, and the Sumatran rhino was found in Cambodia, Lao
PDR, Thailand and Vietnam (Ellis and Talukdar 2020a,b). While it is not clear when rhinos
went extinct in the focal countries of this Digest, the last known record was of a Javan rhino
killed in Vietnam in 2010 (Ellis and Talukdar 2020a,b).
Both species are now classified as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List and only survive
in Indonesia. The Javan rhino is found exclusively in the Ujung Kulon National Park in West
Java, where its population has seen a small increase from 72 in 2019 to 74 in 2020. Although
its population is considered to be stable, and births have occurred each year since 2012 (Ellis
and Talukdar 2020a), the extremely low number of surviving individuals continues to put the
species at high risk of extinction. Its small population increases the risks of inbreeding(International Rhino Foundation 2021) and leaves the species highly vulnerable to habitat
destruction, natural disaster, disease, and any future poaching if the intensity of current
patrolling efforts were to be reduced. The Sumatran rhino, which occurs in Sumatra andIndonesian Borneo, is faring far worse. Its population, which consists of less than 80 animals
and, by some estimations, even as little as 30 individuals (Ellis and Talukdar 2020b), is scatteredacross fragmented pockets of forest, decreasing the probability of breeding-age animals
encountering one another (Talukdar 2020b). The remaining animals are threatened by habitat
loss due to oil palm cultivation and coal mining, as well as poaching. In 2017, the Indonesian
Government initiated an Emergency Action Plan for Rhinos, which includes habitat protection,
population surveys and captive-breeding efforts (Ellis and Talukdar 2020a). Several planned
activities under the program, including the development of a new sanctuary (Hanafiah 2020),
the capture of a wild female rhino in East Kalimantan (Yovanda 2020), the creation of an
overview of the current state of the Sumatran rhino, and a global training seminar planned forJune 2020, had to be postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the three Asian rhino
species, the greater one-horned rhino is the most abundant today. Now surviving in India and
Nepal, the species has come back from near extinction in the early 20th century and iscurrently classified as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. In August 2018, the species’

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|45

population size was estimated at 3,588 individuals, with 82 percent of them living in India (Ellis
and Talukdar 2019). A country-wide rhino census, scheduled to take place this year in Nepal,
was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Mandal 2020). This was the third
postponement of the census, after failure to secure funds in 2018 and 2019 forced the countto be pushed to 2020. In India, rhino populations are on the rise. The India Rhino Vision 2020
(IRV 2020) program was supposed to be concluded this year but saw round-up meetingspushed back because of COVID-19 (International Rhino Foundation 2021f). This program waslaunched in 2005 by the Assam Forest Department in collaboration with WWF-India, theInternational Rhino Foundation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services to increase the number
and range of rhinos in Assam state (WWF India 2016). Wild-to-wild translocations,predominantly out of Kaziranga National Park, were an important part of the project. In 2020,
several translocations had to be postponed. Although not all the initial goals of the program
have been met, the project can be considered an overall success, with rhino populations on
the increase and poaching numbers going down (International Rhino Foundation 2021e).

5.2

SIGNIFICANT ACTIONS IN THE USAID WILDLIFE ASIA
FOCAL COUNTRIESCAMBODIA
No rhino reported seizures were found for Cambodia.
CHINA
Together with Vietnam, China is the country where rhino horn demand remains the strongest
and this is reflected in the data. Most of the recorded seizures (n=8) took place in China andthe country was named as a destination in one additional seizure record. The incidents inwhich China was implicated accounted for a total of 67.7 kg and six pieces of rhino horn. Oneof the reported seizure incidents resulted in a conviction of the suspect. On 13 October, A
Chinese citizen was sentenced to nine months in prison and a fine of $775 for possession ofa rhino horn cup and other wildlife products at his residence in Beijing.
LAO PDR
No reported rhino seizures were found for Lao PDR.
THAILANDNo reported rhino seizures were found for Thailand.
VIETNAM
Together with China, Vietnam continues to be the most important consumer of rhino horn,despite the strict illegality of the trade. Booming demand in the country, largely as a result of
increased wealth, has been the main catalyzer of the current levels of poaching in Africa,
which started in 2008. Despite the many awareness campaigns targeting this species inVietnam, the demand for rhino horn continues (Olmedo et al. 2018). This is an indication of
the need for continued work to implement evidence-based targeted campaigns to addressthese strongly held, traditional beliefs. Preliminary results from USAID Wildlife Asia’s

46|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOVresearch shows that people exposed to an SBCC campaign to reduce rhino horn
consumption in Vietnam are less likely to purchase rhino horn in the future, less likely torecommend purchasing or using rhino products, and less likely to find buying and using rhino
products acceptable (USAID Wildlife Asia 2021).
Four rhino horn seizures were recorded to have taken place in Vietnam, and the country was
implicated in an additional five recorded seizures, be it as the indicated destination (n=2) ortransit country (n=3). In total, the seizures relating to Vietnam accounted for 195.2 kg and six
pieces of rhino horn. These numbers and volumes confirm Vietnam’s status as one of themost important rhino horn consumer countries, as well as its function as an important transit
hub to China. South Africa and Mozambique were found to be the most important
provenances of shipments to and through Vietnam (see trade route section). Two of theVietnamese seizures led to strong prosecutions, with sentences of 12.5 years and six years
imprisonment, respectively. These high sentences reflect an increasing acknowledgement of
the severity of wildlife crime by Vietnamese courts. Vietnam’s tougher stance on wildlife crime
has resulted in – and been further facilitated by – the country’s revised Penal law, which cameinto effect in 2018. Along with increased penalties, it also closes some previous loopholes, forexample by rendering the possession of protected species such as tigers and rhinos a criminal
offence. A 2020 Education for Nature Vietnam (ENV) report, found that the number of wildlife
trafficking cases resulting in prosecution had risen from 86.7 percent between 2015 and 2019,
to 97.2 percent in the first six months of 2020. The number of arrests resulting in prison
sentences also increased, from 48 percent in 2018 and 2019 to 68 percent in 2020, as well as
the length of these sentences (ENV 2020).

5.3

SEIZURES AND PROSECUTIONSReduced poaching activities, as well as restricted international travel due to COVID-19,
appear to be reflected in the seizure data for 2020. A total of 14 reported rhino horn seizures
involving at least one of the focal countries were found, accounting for a total of 222 kg of
the product, and six pieces of unknown weight (Table 4). Based on the average weight ofAfrican rhino horns (Vigne and Martin 2016), confiscated volumes represent between 44 and74 poached rhinos. These seizure numbers are significantly lower (by 56 percent) than thosefrom 2019, when 34 seizures, totaling 519 kg of rhino horn, were reported. The largest
reported seizure of 2020 involved the confiscation of 93 kg of rhino horn from a Vietnamese
warehouse near Ho Chi Minh City’s Tan Son Nhat International Airport. The shipment had
reportedly entered Vietnam from the Philippines and was intended to be shipped onward toother countries. Most 2020 seizures took place in China (n=8), followed by Vietnam (n=4).
“Africa” and Mozambique were most often quoted as the provenance of seized shipments(n=3 for both).
The recorded seizures accounted for a total of 41 arrested suspects and four confirmed
convictions. This low number of convictions may be due to underreporting and not
representative of actual conviction rates. The highest recorded sentence was cast in Vietnam

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|47

and constituted 12.5 years imprisonment for a Vietnamese citizen who was found guilty ofsmuggling close to 30 kg of rhino horn from Mozambique (see case study below).
Table 4. Reported rhino seizures and prosecutions in relation to focal countries in 2020, ranked byweight of seizure.

48

No.
1

Date
December
22

Location
Vietnam2

March 15

China

3*

March 2

Vietnam

4

April 17China

5January 5

Singapore|

Summary
Vietnamese Police seized 12
packages of rhino horn, totaling
93 kg, from a warehouse justoutside HCMC’s Tan Son Nhat
International Airport. The horns
had reportedly entered Vietnam
from the Philippines and were
supposed to be sent on to otherunspecified locations.
Chinese Customs seized 16 rhino
horns, totaling 36.6 kg from 2 carsin Guangzhou, Guangdong
Province. The horns werereportedly smuggled in via
Vietnam and were in transit to
Fujian Province, China.
Eleven rhino horns, totaling 28.7
kg were seized from a Vietnamese
traveler at Can Tho Airport. The
man had travelled from
Mozambique, through South
Korea, and was later (September2020) sentenced to 12.5 years
prison.
Jiangmen Customs, incollaboration with Guangdong andJiangmen Police, arrested ninepeople and confiscated 25 kg ofrhino horns alongside 39 kg ofivory. The contraband hadreportedly been smuggled fromSouth Africa to China by sea
freight.
A 45-year-old South African man
was arrested at ChangiInternational Airport for
attempting to smuggle 11 piecesof rhino horn, totaling 22.1 kg,from South Africa to Vietnam, via

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

Seized items
Horns – 93 kg

Horns – 36.6 kg

Horns – 28.7 kg

Horns – 25 kg

Horns – 22.1 kg

USAID.GOV

No.

Date

Location

6

March 6

Vietnam7

August 1

China

8

November
10

Mozambique

9

March 23

Vietnam

10

April 27

China

11

March 23

China

USAID.GOV

Summary
Singapore. The man was later
sentenced to one year and fivemonths in prison.
A 49-year-old Vietnamese man
was arrested at HCMC’s Tan Son
Nhat International Airport for
attempting to smuggle six rhino
horns, totaling 6.2 kg, from
Mozambique to Vietnam. The man
was later sentenced to 6 years inprison.
Chinese Customs seized hundredsof wildlife products from a van ata border checkpoint with Vietnam
in Chongzou. Among thecontraband were pangolin scales,
ivory, bear bile, tiger products,
and six pieces of rhino horn.
A 30-year-old Vietnamese woman
was arrested at Maputo
International Airport with 4.3 kg
of rhino horn and lion products.
She was about to board a plane toVietnam.
Dan Tien Wharf Customs, incollaboration with Mong Cai City
Police, seized 3.1 kg of African
rhino from a Vietnamese man inMong Cai. The man was travelingto Mong Cai by bus, reportedly tomeet with a Chinese buyer towhom he would sell thecontraband for $87.
Nanchang Customs arrested a
Chinese man at an industrial parkin Ji’an, Jiangxi Province. The man
was about to sign for a parcel
containing dozens of small piecesof rhino horn, totaling 1.75 kg.
Zhanjiang Customs, incollaboration with Zhanjiang City
Police, arrested 15 people in
Leizhou City, Guangdong
Province, and confiscated 1.2 kg of

Seized items

Horns – 6.2 kg

Horns – 6 kg

Horns – 4.3 kg

Horns – 3.1 kg

Horns – 1.75 kg

Horns – 1.2 kg

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

|

49

No.

Date

Location12

May 26China

13April 1China

14March 17

China

Summaryrhino horn, as well as otherwildlife products. The products
were reportedly smuggled in from
Vietnam and then sent to Leizhou
via express mail.
In Beijing, a rhino horn cup wasseized from a man’s house,
following the suspect’s attempt tosell the cup to a second suspect,for $2,786. The man was
sentenced to 9 months in prison
and a fine of $774.
Between March 27 and April 1,
Shijiazhuang Customs reported
two wildlife seizures, involving
ivory, saiga horn, dried seahorses
and dried sea dragons andhawksbill turtle. At least one of
the seizures included anunspecified number of rhino horncups. The goods had beensmuggled into China over land, viaroutes without border controls.
Shijiazhuang Customs seized 4 kgof wildlife products, including
rhino horn, tiger bone, saiga horn,
dried seahorses and bear bile.
One suspect was arrested.

Seized items

Horns – 0.04 kg

Horns unspecified

Horns unspecified*See Case Study

50|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOV93 kg of rhino horn confiscated near Tan Son Nhat International Airport © Ho Chi Minh City Police

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

|

51

52

|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOV5.3.1 TRADE ROUTES
Trade route information was included in, or could be derived from, 10 of the 14 seizure
records (Figure 4). Three records mentioned “Africa” as the provenance of the seized rhino
horns, without specifying the country. Among those records that did specify the country oforigin, Mozambique (n=3) and South Africa (n=2) were the most frequently mentioned. Even
though Mozambique is an important exporting country in the international rhino trade chain,most of the horns shipped from there are likely to have been sourced from South Africa,seeing how Mozambique’s rhino populations have largely been poached out (Emslie 2020a,b).
China (n=9) and Vietnam (n=4) were the only two recorded destination countries. It is
possible that some of the rhino horns that were seized in Vietnam were destined for China,
but when this was not explicitly mentioned, Vietnam was taken as the destination country. In
four Chinese cases, shipments were reported to have been brought in from Vietnam, signifyingthat trade routes from Africa, through Vietnam to China remain highly common. Routes fromAfrica to Vietnam included transits in Qatar (n=2), the Philippines (n=1), Singapore (n=1) andSouth Korea (n=1).

Figure 4. Seizure locations and trade routes involving rhinos in 2020. Country codes: CN=mainland
China, KP=South Korea, MZ=Mozambique, PH=Philippines, QA=Qatar, SG=Singapore, VN=Vietnam,
XF=’Africa’ (unspecified), ZA=South Africa.

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

|

53

5.4

SUMMARY

Rhino horn seizures were found to have decreased by 56 percent in 2020. Although it isdifficult to determine trade trends based on potentially imperfect and non-exhaustive seizure
data, it is likely that the decrease in seizures indeed represents lower trade levels in 2020.
COVID-19 measures and travel restrictions have disrupted poaching efforts and international
trade chains. In South Africa, the international rhino trade’s most important source country,
poaching levels reportedly fell throughout most of the year. Although diminished poaching
and trade in 2020 have been positive developments, they were brought about by
extraordinary circumstances. As COVID-19 measures relaxed towards the end of the year,
South Africa saw its poaching levels increase again. There are few indications that demand forrhino horn in China and Vietnam is decreasing, and therefore rhino populations, even thosethat are currently stable or increasing, remain under threat of current and future poachingactivity. However, sustained efforts from governments and other partners to address the
personal motivations for buying or using rhino horn is showing potential in helping to reducedemand.

CASE STUDY
Record conviction of Vietnamese rhino horn smuggler
On December 29, 2020, a 38-year-old Vietnamese man was sentenced to a record 12.5 years
in prison for his attempt to smuggle 28.7 kg of White rhino horn into Vietnam on March 2.
He was found guilty of “violating regulations on the management and protection ofendangered, precious and rare animals” (Nguyen 2020). The convicted had traveled from
Mozambique, where he reportedly worked as a driver. According to his statement, he had
accepted a proposal from his employer to transport rhino horns to Ho Chi Minh City
(HCMC). When his flight schedule, which included a transit in South Korea, was changed due
to COVID-19 measures, he ended up landing in Can Tho, where his contraband was detected.
The man’s story resembled a case that happened just a few days after his smuggling attempt:
on March 6, 2020, a 49-year-old Vietnamese man traveling from Mozambique was arrested at
HCMC’s Tan Son Nhat International Airport with 6.2 kg of rhino horn in his suitcase. The
man had reportedly been asked by an “acquaintance” to transport “rare goods” to Vietnam,
without knowing what those goods were (Hoang 2020). The suspect was sentenced to six
years in prison on November 20, 2020. Not only do these cases illustrate the trade link
between Mozambique and Vietnam, but they are also exemplary of the modus operandi ofinternational crime syndicates. In both cases, the men, who resided in Mozambique, were
contacted by someone in their social surroundings to transport contraband back to theirhome country. The compensations both men received for their illegal activities were low($1,000 plus travel expenses and $345 respectively). Through the engagement of men such as
the convicted, organized crime groups are able to conduct highly profitable business while
minimizing costs and risks. The high sentences that were carried out are indicative of arecognition of the severity of rhino smuggling by the Vietnamese courts.

54|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOV6

DISCUSSION

Far fewer seizures of wildlife parts and products were reported in 2020 than 2019. There are
numerous reasons that may have contributed to the decline in reported seizures, with theobvious being the global COVID-19 pandemic that swept the globe in 2020 resulting in border
lockdowns, travel restrictions, and trade suspensions. These disruptions may have caused adecrease in illegal trade, or a decline in enforcement responses to counter illegal trade during
the pandemic, or a combination of the two. It may also be that the media is reporting on
fewer instances of wildlife trade related enforcement action due to pandemic-related media
priorities, and/or a reduction of effort or delayed effort made by organizations that collect,compile and analyze seizure and prosecution data. While there are already some pieces ofdata supporting some of these possibilities, such as a reported 33 percent drop in rhino
poaching in Kruger National Park in South Africa due to the pandemic-related lockdowns(Smith 2020) and the reported significant drop in both elephant and rhino poaching in Namibia
in 2020 (Ndjavera 2020), there are reports of increased poaching in Asian countries (Godbole
2020, Ghosal and Casey 2020). For example, between April and May 2020, India, Nepal andPakistan reported a sharp rise in poaching incidents driven by economic loss imposed bylockdowns and focused enforcements efforts on imposing lockdown restrictions (Godbole2020). Clearly, much more research is needed to fully understand the impact of the COVID19 pandemic on the global wildlife trade, and the reasons for far fewer seizures andprosecutions being reported in the media in 2020.
That said, in spite of the pandemic, seizures were recorded for all focus species in 2020,
indicating that illicit international trade in these species persists and continues to present asignificant threat to wild populations. In addition, ongoing investigations by organizations such
as EIA and WJC show greater quantities in trade than are recorded as being seized, including
the stock piling of wildlife products such as pangolin scales and elephant ivory in countries like
Cambodia and Vietnam; and the change in modus operandi of traders from face-to-faceinteractions to online transactions in adaptation to travel restrictions and border shutdowns.
The captive-breeding of tigers for commercial and illegal trade was exposed in several reportsthat came out in 2020 reinforcing the lack of conservation value of such practices as theystimulate demand for an illicit trade in highly threatened species and undermine conservation
efforts to ensure their survival.
The continuing demand for, and trade in, pangolins, tigers, elephants and rhinos show thatwildlife trade is not driven by subsistence needs but the economic value of wildlife
commodities. COVID-19 in turn has drawn attention to the incredible threat such trade poses
to human health, the global economy, and biodiversity and reveals the inadequacies of wildlife
legislation, policies and enforcement on a global scale in regulating and controlling both thelegal and illegal trade of wildlife. For example, China’s planned revisions of its wildlife laws andregulations to prevent future pandemics still has significant loopholes that permit the
exploitation of threatened species for “traditional medicine”, a billion-dollar industry
considered a key driver of species declines.

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|

55

The exploitation of wildlife as commercial commodities is pushing species to extinction, as
evident by the focus species in this Digest, and such exploitation is linked to emerging zoonotic
diseases. It is therefore necessary that concerted efforts and resources be spent on ending
unsustainable and illegal global wildlife trade, and to ensure public safety, and to reduce overexploitation of wildlife, immediate proactive changes on multiple levels should be considered.

6.1

RECOMMENDATIONSDEMAND REDUCTION
1. Continue to work with partners to develop and implement evidence-based targetedbehavior change campaigns to reduce demand for pangolins, tigers, elephants and rhinos.
- Although efforts have been made to reduce demand for these animals in consumer
countries, governments and NGOs must continue to explore ways to highlight,
replicate and build upon approaches that address the personal motivations that drive
the desire for these products.
2. Explore opportunities to integrate COVID-19 messaging into behavior change campaigns
to reinforce impact and outcomes.
- The effects of the pandemic were felt around the world and there is a strong case forlooking into how the integration of COVID-19 messaging can effectively resonate
with governments, the general public and target consumer groups to precipitate
demand reduction.
3. Continue producing and refining tools such as the Social Behavior Change Communication
Demand Reduction Guidebook released in November 2020 as key references forgovernments and partners implementing demand reduction activities.
4. Allocate more resources to more effectively evaluate the effectiveness of SBCC campaigns
to reduce demand and use these findings to refine and deliver more impactful campaigns.
5. Expand efforts to leverage the private sector such as the tourism industry, to actively
support demand reduction campaigns in order to enhance the reach and impact of thesecampaigns.
LAW ENFORCEMENT
1. Work with law enforcement agencies to improve anti-trafficking efforts in Asian source
and transit countries. Enforcement efforts in Asian source and transit countries should be
strengthened to stem the illegal trade in Endangered species including, but not limited to,pangolins, tigers, elephants and rhinos.
- Recent years have seen an upsurge in pangolin trade from India and the Philippines toEast Asia. Meanwhile, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Nepal and Vietnam

56|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOVcontinue to function as important source and transit hubs in the international pangolintrade. There have been increasing reports of shifts to source and transit countries
with more lax policies and enforcement, such as Cambodia.
2. Support relevant governments in the region develop strategies and approaches toimplement the 2007 CITES Decision to phase out commercial tiger breeding.
- Despite this Decision, commercial tiger breeding continues, and urgent actions need
to be taken to better regulate or close these facilities as commercial captive breedingof tigers stimulates demand, facilitates laundering practices, and impedes demand
reduction.
3. Help develop platforms and/or organize fora that support capacity building and facilitatestronger counter wildlife trafficking collaboration efforts between law enforcement
agencies in source/transit countries in Africa and transit/consumer countries in Asia.
- While evidence suggests that coordinated enforcement efforts between Africa andAsia are beginning, it needs to be strengthened and sustained in order to effectively
disrupt transnational organized crime groups.
4. Work with partners to assist law enforcement agencies to increase emphasis on movingfrom seizures and arrests to prosecutions and convictions by promoting the importanceof specialized responses and disciplines, such as financial intelligence, anti-corruption,
criminal intelligence, cybercrime, and forensics, coupled with sound investigative work,
evidence gathering and robust case preparation and prosecution.
LAW AND POLICIES
1. Support ongoing efforts to prohibit the use of medicines containing pangolin scales in
China.
- Although China has announced plans to update the protection status of pangolins toClass I, some patented medicines containing pangolin scales can still legally be traded.
In order to halt the illegal international pangolin trade and prevent the laundering ofwild caught animals, China should prohibit the use of all pangolin products andmedicines that contain them.
2. Assist countries in the region to realize stronger legislation and more effective prosecution
and sentencing.
- In order to deter trade actors on both the supply and the demand side of the pangolin,
tiger, elephant and rhino trade chains, strong legislation, high penalties, and effective
prosecution and sentencing is needed. In order to stem the illegal trade in these
endangered animals, stronger legal measures must be taken in countries across theinternational trade network. There should be more focus on building institutional
capacity at judicial level, including development of environmental rules of procedure,sentencing guidelines and integrated training program.
3. Help mobilize technical and financial support, where appropriate, to support theimplementation of the Plan of Action on ASEAN Cooperation on CITES and Wildlife

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|57

Enforcement 2021-2025.
- This ambitious Plan was endorsed on October 7, 2020, at the 23rd ASEAN Senior
Officials Meeting on Forestry (ASOF) and will require substantial support to realize
the counter wildlife trafficking elements of this important regional document.
4. Coordinate research into the current levels of protection and enforcement efficiency
across ASEAN to support relevant Member States develop national plans of action, makerecommendations for policy interventions and guide future conservation actions.
5. Continue advocating for and working with countries to update legislation to include all
CITES-listed species in national protection lists and ensure penalties are commensuratewith the crime and act as a deterrent, and where needed provide training and support forthe courts to help facilitate appropriate sentencing.
REGIONAL COORDINATION
1. Increase and improve cooperation between China and surrounding countries in the fightagainst illegal wildlife trade.
- China’s trade bans on products such as ivory, have driven trade to surrounding
countries, where markets now increasingly cater to Chinese tourists. In order tocombat this trade shift and disrupt international trade flows, China and surrounding
countries such as Cambodia, Japan, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam, as well as
the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, must collaborate through intelligencesharing, joint regulations and aligned enforcement and prosecution efforts.
- While there have been strong efforts in Southeast Asian destination countries suchas Thailand and Vietnam to reduce demand for ivory products among Chinese
travelers, these efforts need to be coordinated with similar activities undertaken in
China (source country) to enhance effectiveness,
2. Coordinate further research into the trade of pangolins, tigers, elephants and rhinos anddocument outcomes in follow-up Digest or related reports.
- Although trade levels were found to have decreased in 2020, continuing demand, as
well as reports of stockpiling of wildlife products, suggest that trade will continue
unabated in the post-COVID-19 era. Furthermore, traders’ modus operandi ischanging, as shown by an increasing online trade, and need to be understood.
- In order to monitor trade trends, understand ever-evolving online and physicalmarkets, and determine effective conservation strategies, further in-depth research
into the domestic and international trade of pangolins, tigers, elephants and rhinos bygovernment agencies, research institutes and NGOs is of crucial importance.
3. Work with partners to undertake more detailed research to better understand thepotential reasons behind the declines in reported seizures in 2020.
- While it is extremely likely that COVID-19 is the general cause, understanding theexact reasons and the true scale of the declines, as well as the nature of changing
trade flows and the immediate and long-term responses of traffickers, is essential.

58|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOVUSAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|

59

ANNEXCAMPAIGNS AND COMMUNICATIONSIMPLEMENTED DURING 2020

Country

Campaigns/communications

Organizations

Cambodia#STOPEATINGWILDLIFE (Aug 2020)

Wildlife Alliance#StandByWildlife

Wildlife Alliance

PROTECT THE CARDAMOMS

Wildlife Alliance

Comic billboard campaign

WildAid, China Wildlife
Conservation Associationand the Pangolin Crisis
Fund#EndTheTrade Conservation Journey to Stop the
Wildlife Trade (Nov 2020)

Wild Aid

Wildlife Free Ecommerce Campaign against
online trade (Mar 2020)

China Biodiversity
Conservation and Green
Development Foundation

Wildlife Protection Law Campaign

IFAW and USAID Wildlife
Asia

Wildlife-Free Gifting Campaign Phases 1 and 2

IFAW and USAID Wildlife
Asia

Digital Deterrence component of Wildlife-Free
Gifting Campaign

IFAW and USAID Wildlife
Asia

Beijing, China, July 30, 2020—nine industry
associations, agreed to establish an alliance tocounter illegal wildlife trade.

China Wildlife
Conservation Association(CWCA), China Wild
Plant Conservation
Association (CWPCA),
and the Association ofChina’s Traditional
Chinese Medicine(ACTCM)

Tiger Talk for Global Tiger Day (July 29, 2020)

Department of National
Park, Wildlife and Plant
Conservation(DNP) and NGOs

EndPandemics.Earth (March 2020 campaign
video)

Freeland

Digital Deterrence Campaign Phase 2

USAID Wildlife Asia and
DNP
USAID Wildlife Asia,
WildAid and DNP
USAID Wildlife Asia and
DNP

China

ThailandA Good Life is Free of Killing Campaign
No Ivory, No Tiger Amulets Campaign

60|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOVCountry

VietnamCampaigns/communications

Organizations

Mobilizing spiritual leaders to reduce demand
for wildlife products

USAID Wildlife Asia,
International Network ofEngaged Buddhists (INEB),
DNP

Beautiful Without Ivory Campaign

USAID Wildlife Asia and
DNP

No to Ivory Souvenirs and Gifts Campaign

USAID Wildlife Asia, DNP
and Minor Group of
HotelsSocial and Behavior Change Communication
Demand Reduction Guidebook

USAID Wildlife Asia,
DNP, UNDP GEF
TRAFFICChi III Initiative – Rhino Horn (Aug 2020)

TRAFFIC and USAID

Chi III Initiative – Illegal wildlife consumption in
Da Nang (Aug 2020)

TRAFFIC and USAID

Never Again Public Service Announcement onlife in during the COVID-19 shutdown

ENV

Superstitious Public Service Announcement tocommemorate International Tiger Day

ENV

Stop Bushmeat, Prevent Risk / The Host (Sept2020)

WildAid, CHANGE andPangolin Crisis Fund

10 Years Lost – Javan Rhino (Oct 2020)

WildAid and CHANGE

Rhino Week celebrity social media campaign(Sep 2020)

CHANGE and WildAid

Commitment for Wild online pledge (May 2020)

CHANGE and WildAid

The Call Of The Wild video (May 2020)

WildAid and CHANGE"Completing the law to manage and protect
wildlife against the complicated evolution of
the epidemic COVID 19" seminar (March
2020)

CHANGE, WildAid,
Agriculture Vietnam
Newspaper and theVietnam Administration ofForestry

Project PEEK youth training

CHANGE and The
Biodiversity Group, The
American Ambassador and
Con Dao National Park

Three-year social marketing programme to
reduce demand for tiger products in Vietnam(Dec 2020)

TRAFFIC

TRAFFIC signed a memorandum of
TRAFFIC
understanding with the Hanoi UNESCO Travel
Club (HUTC), setting a partnership to reduce
wildlife crime in the country’s tourism sector.
The UHTC has agreed to work together with

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|61

Country62|

Campaigns/communications

Organizations

TRAFFIC to encourage its membership ofmore than 300 local tourist agencies to adopt
wildlife-focused corporate responsibility (CSR)
to combat the trade of illegal wildlife products,
which are often marketed to tourists in
Vietnam.
When I Grow Up Campaign –for rhino horn
(January 2021)

Humane SocietyInternational

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOVREFERENCES
ABS-CBN News (2021). Smugglers jailed as China's 'biggest ever' illegal ivory network
smashed. https://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/01/01/21/smugglers-jailed-as-chinas-biggestever-illegal-ivory-network-smashed. Accessed January 20, 2021.
Anh, L. and Chien, H. (2021). Infiltrating a tiger trafficking network: From Laos to South
Africa and Vietnam. https://southeastasiaglobe.com/tiger-trafficking-networkvietnam/?pico_new_user=true&pico_ui=verified. Accessed January 20, 2021.
ASEAN (2020). ASEAN comprehensive recovery framework: implementation plan.
https://asean.org/storage/ACRF-Implementation-Plan_Pub-2020.pdf. Accessed March 8,
2021.
Baiyu, G. (2020). China’s list of protected animals to be updated after 32 years. China
Dialogue, https://chinadialogue.net/en/nature/chinas-list-of-protected-animals-to-beupdated-after-32-years/. Accessed March 8, 2021.
Bangkok Post (2020). Wild tiger population growing fast.
https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1956471/wild-tiger-population-growingfast. Accessed March 9, 2021.
BBC (2020). Coronavirus: Vietnam bans wildlife trade over pandemic risk.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53525954. Accessed March 8, 2021.
Blake, S. and Hedges, S. (2004). Sinking the flagship: the case of forest elephants in Asia andAfrica. Conservation Biology 18: 1191–1202.
Blanc, J. (2008). Loxodonta africana. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008:
e.T12392A3339343.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T12392A3339343.en. Downloaded on
16 February 2021.
Brand, C. M., Johnson, M. B., Parker, L. D., Maldonado, J. E., Korte, L., Vanthomme, H., Ting,
N. (2020). Abundance, density, and social structure of African forest elephants(Loxodonta cyclotis) in a human-modified landscape in southwestern Gabon. PLOS
ONE, 15(4), e0231832. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0231832.
Broad, S. (2020). Wildlife trade, COVID-19 and zoonotic disease risks. TRAFFIC,
Cambridge, UK.
Broad, S., Mulliken, T., Roe, D. (2003). The nature and extent of legal and illegal trade inwildlife. In: Oldfield, S. (Ed.), The Trade in Wildlife: Regulation for Conservation.
Earthscan Publications, UK, pp. 3–22.
C4ADS (2020). Tipping the scales: exposing the growing trade of African pangolins into
China’s traditional medicine industry.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/566ef8b4d8af107232d5358a/t/5f63b35ea44ed5636
1a512c4/1600369515449/Tipping+the+Scales.pdf.
Challender, D., Willcox, D.H.A., Panjang, E., Lim, N., Nash, H., Heinrich, S. and Chong, J.
(2019a). Manis javanica. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019:e.T12763A123584856. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20193.RLTS.T12763A123584856.en. Downloaded January 20, 2021.
Challender, D., Wu, S., Kaspal, P., Khatiwada, A., Ghose, A., Ching-Min Sun, N., Mohapatra,
R.K. and Laxmi Suwal, T. (2019b). Manis pentadactyla (errata version published in 2020).
USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|

63

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T12764A168392151.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T12764A168392151.en. Downloaded
January 20, 2021.
Choudhary, A.N., Badola, S., Fernandes, M. and Chhabra, D.B. (2018). Pangolin Trade
Factsheet. TRAFFIC India.
Coals, P., Moorhouse, T.P., D’Cruze, N.C., MacDonald, D.W. and Loveridge, A.J. (2020).
Preferences for lion and tiger bone wines amongst the urban public in China andVietnam. Journal for Nature Conservation 57 (2020) 125874.
Corbley, A. (2021). Zero rhinos poached in Kenya last year – better policing in one of thekeys. 13 February. Good News Network. https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/zerorhinos-poached-in-kenya-during-2020/. Accessed March 10, 2021.
Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF) (2021). The department reportback on rhino poaching in South Africa in 2020. Accessed at:https://www.environment.gov.za/mediarelease/rhinopoaching_sa. Accessed February 5,
2021.
Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C., Wikramanayake, E., Ginsberg, J., Sanderson, E., Seidensticker, J.,
Forrest, J., Bryja, G., Heydlauff, A., Klenzendorf, Leimgruber, P., Mills, J., O’Brien, T.,
Shrestha, M., Simons, R. and Songer, M. (2007). The fate of wild tigers. BioScience, 57(6): 508-514.
Eaton, J.A., Shepherd, C.R., Rheindt, F.E., Harris, J.B.C., van Balen, S., Wilcove, D.S., &Collar, N.J. (2015). Trade-driven extinctions and near-extinctions of avian taxa in
Sundaic Indonesia. Forktail 31:1–12.
ECF (2020). Elephant Crisis Fund Report (2020). https://assets.takeshape.io/207c4ff8-bdf44529-970e-b992d4539152/dev/1dbc2313-4757-4f51-ae33-f756ec2bfe2a/ECF
percent202020 percent20report.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2021.
Education for Nature (ENV) (2020). Prosecution review: wildlife crime in Vietnam 20152020. Accessed at: ENV-REPORT-25.8 cam 1 trang nhe (env4wildlife.org). Downloaded
January 10, 2021.
EIA (2019). After over five years of Article XIII proceedings, the CITES Standing Committee
should consider finally suspending trade with Lao PDR. https://eia-international.org/wpcontent/uploads/EIA-document-Tiger-trade-in-Lao-PDR-and-call-for-trade-suspensionsat-CITES-SC71.pdf
EIA (2020a). Smoke and Mirrors: China’s complicity in the global illegal pangolin trade.
https://eia-international.org/wp-content/uploads/EIA-Smoke-and-Mirrors-2020FINAL.pdf.
EIA (2020b). Out of Africa: How West and Central Africa have become the epicentre ofivory and pangolin scale trafficking to Asia. https://eia-international.org/wpcontent/uploads/Out-of-Africa-FINAL.pdf.
EIA (2020c). Ongoing and clandestine tiger trade in China is no surprise to EIA – or thecountry’s Government. https://eia-international.org/blog/ongoing-and-clandestine-tigertrade-in-china-is-no-surprise-to-eia-or-the-countrys-government/. Accessed January 20,
2021.

64

|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOVEllis, S. and Talukdar, B. (2019). Rhinoceros unicornis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2019: e.T19496A18494149. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20193.RLTS.T19496A18494149.en. Downloaded February 13, 2021.
Ellis, S. and Talukdar, B. (2020a). Rhinoceros sondaicus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2020: e.T19495A18493900. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20202.RLTS.T19495A18493900.en. Downloaded January 10, 2021.
Ellis, S. and Talukdar, B. (2020b). Dicerorhinus sumatrensis. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2020: e.T6553A18493355.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T6553A18493355.en. Downloaded
January 10, 2021.
Emslie, R. (2020a). Ceratotherium simum. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020:
e.T4185A45813880. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20201.RLTS.T4185A45813880.en. Downloaded February 10, 2021.
Emslie, R. (2020b). Diceros bicornis ssp. minor. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2020: e.T39321A152729173. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20201.RLTS.T39321A152729173.en. Downloaded February 10, 2021.
FMT (2020). Tiger, pangolin farming in Myanmar risks ‘boosting demand’.
https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/world/2020/07/11/tiger-pangolin-farmingin-myanmar-risks-boosting-demand/. Accessed January 20, 2021.
Four Paws (2020). Europe’s second-class tigers: Revealing the out-of-control captive tiger
numbers and commercial trade. https://media.4paws.org/c/5/5/5/c555a6c3b7150e4bbcb672872796b28b7b2598d6/Report_Europessecond-class-tigers_EN_FP-2020.pdf.
Gao, Y., Stoner, J. K., Lee, A. T. L. and Clark, S. G. (2016). Rhino horn trade in China: ananalysis of the art and antiques market. Biological Conservation 201: 343-347.
Ghosal, A. and Casey, M. (2020). Coronavirus lockdowns increase poaching in Asia, Africa.
https://apnews.com/article/9df0cc21045578ad86696bc05721c706. Accessed March 12,2021.
GlobeScan (2020). Beyond the ivory ban: research on Chinese travelers while abroad.
https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/traveler___full_report_final.pdf.
Godbole, T. (2020). Coronavirus: South Asia sees rise in poaching during lockdowns.
https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-south-asia-sees-rise-in-poaching-duringlockdowns/a-54090081. Accessed March 12, 2021.
Goodrich, J., Lynam, A., Miquelle, D., Wibisono, H., Kawanishi, K., Pattanavibool, A., Htun,
S., Tempa, T., Karki, J., Jhala, Y. and Karanth, U. (2015). Panthera tigris. The IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species 2015:
e.T15955A50659951. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20152.RLTS.T15955A50659951.en. Downloaded February 17, 2021.
Gray T., Vidya T., Bharti S., and Sovanna P. (2014). Population size estimation of an Asianelephant population in eastern Cambodia through non-invasive mark-recapture
sampling. Conservation Genetics 15:803-810.
Hanafiah, J. (2020). A new sanctuary for the Sumatran rhino is delayed amid COVID-19
measures. 27 May 2020. Mongabay. https://news.mongabay.com/2020/05/sumatran-

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|

65

rhino-sanctuary-leuser-ecosystem-indonesia-aceh-COVID19/. Accessed February 10,
2021.
Hoang, P. (2020). Man gets 6 years for smuggling rhino horns from Mozambique. 21
November 2020. VN Express International. https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/mangets-6-years-for-smuggling-rhino-horns-from-mozambique-4195006.html. Accessed
February 13, 2021.
Hübschle, A. M. (2016). A game of horns: transnational flows of rhino horns. Dissertation.
IMPRS-SPCE, Cologne, Germany.
Ingram, D.J., Coad, L., Abernethy, K.A., Maisels, F., Stokes, E.J., et al. (2017). Assessing
Africa-wide pangolin exploitation by scaling local data. Conservation Letters,
March/April 2018, 11(2), 1–9.
Ingram, D.J., Shirley, M.H., Pietersen, D., Godwill Ichu, I., Sodeinde, O., Moumbolou, C.,
Hoffmann, M., Gudehus, M. and Challender, D. (2019). Phataginus tetradactyla. The
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T12766A123586126.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T12766A123586126.en. Downloaded
January 21, 2020.
International Rhino Foundation (2021a). Poaching Rhino horn.
https://www.savetherhino.org/rhino-info/threats/poaching-rhino-horn/. Accessed
February 7, 2021.
International Rhino Foundation (2021b). Black Rhino. https://www.savetherhino.org/rhinoinfo/rhino-species/black-rhinos/. Accessed February 7, 2021.
International Rhino Foundation (2021c). White Rhino. https://www.savetherhino.org/rhinoinfo/rhino-species/white-rhinos/. Accessed February 7, 2021.
International Rhino Foundation (2021d). Poaching statistics.
https://www.savetherhino.org/rhino-info/poaching-stats/. Accessed February 7, 2021.
International Rhino Foundation (2021e). State of the rhino. https://rhinos.org/aboutrhinos/state-of-the-rhino/. Accessed February 7, 2021.
International Rhino Foundation (2021f). Where we work – India. https://rhinos.org/ourwork/where-wework/india/#:~:text=The%20Indian%20Rhino%20Vision%202020,National%20Park%20in%20Assam%2C%20India.&text=The%20goal%20of%20IRV2020%20was,establishing%20p
opulations%20in%20new%20areas. Accessed February 7, 2021.
Kyne, P. (1999). Cambodia’s tiger population second highest in world. The Phnom Penh Post
(Cambodia). 13 April. http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/cambodias-tigerpopulation-second-highest-world. Accessed January 20, 2021.
Mahmood, T., Challender, D., Khatiwada, A., Andleeb, S., Perera, P., Trageser, S., Ghose, A.
and Mohapatra, R. (2019). Manis crassicaudata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2019: e.T12761A123583998. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20193.RLTS.T12761A123583998.en. Downloaded January 20, 2021.
Maltby M. and Bourchier G. (2011). Current status of Asian elephant in Cambodia. Gajah 35:
36-42.

66|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOVMandal, C. K. (2020). Nationwide rhino count postponed due to Covid-19 concerns. 21
March 2021. The Kathmandu Post.
https://kathmandupost.com/national/2020/03/21/nationwide-rhino-count-postponeddue-to-covid-19-concerns. Accessed February 10, 2021.
Milliken, T. (2014). Illegal trade in ivory and rhino horn: an assessment report to improve
law enforcement under the wildlife TRAPS Project. USAID and TRAFFIC.
Milliken, T. and Shaw, J. (2012). The South Africa – Viet Nam Rhino Horn Trade Nexus: adeadly combination of institutional lapses, corrupt wildlife industry professionals andAsian crime syndicates. TRAFFIC, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Mills, J.A. and Jackson, P. (1994). Killed for a Cure: A Review of the Worldwide Trade in
Tiger Bone. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK.
Musing, L. (2020). Falling through the system: The role of the European Union captive tiger
population in the trade in tigers. A TRAFFIC and WWF report. Cambridge, UK.
Ndjavera, M. (2020). Poaching cases down in 2020. https://neweralive.na/posts/poachingcases-down-in-2020. Accessed January 20, 2021
Nguyen, Q. (2020). Vietnam jails man for smuggling 29 kg rhino horns. 30 December 2020.
VN Express International. https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/vietnam-jails-man-forsmuggling-29-kg-rhino-horns-4213624.html. Accessed on February 13, 2021.
Nijman, V. (2010). An overview of international wildlife trade from Southeast Asia.
Biodiversity and conservation, 19, 1101-1114.
Nijman, V. and Shepherd, C.R. (2015). Trade in tigers and other wild cats in Mong La andTachilek, Myanmar – A tale of two border towns. Biological Conservation 182, pp: 1–7.
Nijman, V. and Shepherd, C.R. (2021). Underestimating the illegal wildlife trade: A ton or atonne of pangolins? Biological Conservation, 253,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108887.
Nishino, R. and Kitade, T. (2020). Teetering on the brink: Japan’s online ivory trade.
TRAFFIC, Japan Office, Tokyo, Japan.
Nixon, S., Pietersen, D., Challender, D., Hoffmann, M., Godwill Ichu, I., Bruce, T., Ingram,
D.J., Matthews, N. and Shirley, M.H. (2019). Smutsia gigantea. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2019: e.T12762A123584478.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T12762A123584478.en. Downloaded
21 January 2021.
Nowell, K. (2000). Far from a cure: the tiger trade revisited. TRAFFIC International,
Cambridge, UK.
Olmedo, A., Sharif, V. and Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2018). Evaluating the design of behavior
change interventions: a case study of rhino horn in Vietnam. Conservation Letters
11(1): 1-9.
Oswell, A H. (2010). The Big Cat Trade in Myanmar and Thailand. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia,
Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
Pietersen, D., Jansen, R. and Connelly, E. (2019a). Smutsia temminckii. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2019: e.T12765A123585768.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T12765A123585768.en. Downloaded
January 21, 2021.

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|

67

Pietersen, D., Moumbolou, C., Ingram, D.J., Soewu, D., Jansen, R., Sodeinde, O., Keboy Mov
Linkey Iflankoy, C., Challender, D. and Shirley, M.H. (2019b). Phataginus tricuspis. The
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T12767A123586469.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T12767A123586469.en. Downloaded
January 21, 2021.
Sabah Wildlife Department (2020). Bornean Elephant Action Plan for Sabah 2020-2029. Kota
Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.
Scheffers, B. R., Oliveira, B. F., Lamb, I. and Edwards, D. P. (2019). Global wildlife tradeacross the tree of life. Science, 366: 71–76.
Schoppe, S., Katsis, L. and Lagrada, L. (2019). Manis culionensis. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2019: e.T136497A123586862.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T136497A123586862.en.
Downloaded January 20, 2021.
The Sentinel (2021). After one-horned rhinos, smuggling of pangolins to China increasing inNortheast: WCCB. https://www.sentinelassam.com/topheadlines/smuggling-ofpangolins-to-china-increasing-in-northeast-519291?infinitescroll=1. Accessed February 2,
2021.
Shepherd, C. R., Gray, T. N. E. and Nijman, V. (2017). Rhinoceros horns in trade on the
Myanmar–China border. Oryx. doi:10.1017/S003060531600168X.
Shepherd, C. R. and Nijman, V. (2007). An assessment of wildlife trade at the Mong La
Market on the Myanmar-China Border. TRAFFIC Bulletin, Vol. 21 No. 2: 85-88.
Shepherd, C. R. and Nijman, V. (2008). The wild cat trade in Myanmar. TRAFFIC Southeast
Asia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
Sinovas, P., Kong, K. and Phoeun, C. (2020). Launch of national action plan to conserve
Cambodian elephants. Cambodian Journal of Natural History 2020 (2) 29–30.
Smallman, E. (2020). Tiger traffickers: How species on the brink of extinction is served up as
an ‘aphrodisiac’. https://inews.co.uk/news/tiger-traffickers-species-brink-of-extinctionstreet-value-products-aphrodisiac-403976. Accessed February 2, 2021.
Smith, G.L. (2020). Lockdown leads to 30% drop in rhino poaching in 2020.
https://ewn.co.za/2021/02/01/lockdown-leads-to-33-drop-in-rhino-poaching-in-2020dept. Accessed February 5, 2021.
Sy, E.Y. and Krishnasamy, K. (2020). Endangered by trade: the ongoing illegal pangolin tradein the Philippines. TRAFFIC, Southeast Asia Regional Office, Petaling Jaya, Selangor,
Malaysia.
Symes, W. S., McGratha, F. L., Rao, M and Carrascoa, L. R. (2018). The gravity of the wildlife
trade. Biological Conservation, 218: 268-276.
Talukdar, B. K. (2020). Asian Rhino Specialist Group Chair report. Pachyderm 61: 43-48.
Titeca, K. (2018). Understanding the illegal ivory trade and traders: evidence from Uganda.
International Affairs, 94(5), 1077–1099. doi:10.1093/ia/iiy115.
TRAFFIC (2020a). China moves to give full protection to native pangolins.
https://www.traffic.org/news/china-moves-to-give-full-protection-to-native-pangolins/.
Accessed February 2, 2021.

68|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOVTRAFFIC (2020b). Five live tigers and a tiger head seized from Thai Zoo.
https://www.traffic.org/news/five-live-tigers-and-a-tiger-head-seized-from-thai-zoo/.
Accessed February 2, 2021.
UNODC (2016). World Wildlife Crime Report: Trafficking in protected species. United
Nations, New York, USA.
USAID Wildlife Asia (2019). Counter Wildlife Trafficking Digest: Southeast Asia and China.
Issue II, March 2019.
https://www.usaidwildlifeasia.org/resources/reports/inbox/usaidwildlifeasia-cwtdigestii3march2019.pdf/@@download/file/USAIDWildlifeAsia.CWTDigestII.3March2019.pdf.
Accessed February 2, 2021.
USAID Wildlife Asia (2020a). Social and Behavior Change Communication (SBCC): Demand
reduction guidebook. https://www.usaidwildlifeasia.org/resources/tools/sbccguidebook/@@download/file/Wildlife_SBCC_Guidebook_V21.pdf. Accessed on
February 2, 2021.
USAID Wildlife Asia (2020b). Counter Wildlife Trafficking Digest: Southeast Asia and China,
2019. Issue III, September 2020.
https://www.usaidwildlifeasia.org/resources/reports/inbox/cwt-digestiii/@@download/file/CWT%20Digest%20III_Sep%203%202020.pdf. Accessed on
February 2, 2021.
USAID Wildlife Asia (2021). Chi III Initiative: Survey Report on Consumption of Wildlife
Products, Vietnam 2021.
Vigne, L. and Martin, E. (2016). High rhino horn prices drive poaching. Swara JulySeptember: 42-46.
Walston, J., Robinson, J.G., Bennett, E.L., Breitenmoser, U., da Fonseca G.A.B., Goodrich, J.,
Gumal, M., Hunter, L., Johnson, A., Karanth, K.U., Leader-Williams, N., MacKinnon, K.,
Miquelle, D., Pattanavibool, A., Poole, C., Rabinowitz, A., Smith, J.L.D., Stokes, E.J.,
Stuart, S.N., Vongkhamheng, C. and Wibisono, H. (2010). Bringing the Tiger Back fromthe Brink—The Six Percent Solution. PLoS Biology 8(9): e1000485.
WFFT (2020). The Thai ‘zoo’ where tigers were seized has been on the radar of authorities
for illegal wildlife trade. https://www.wfft.org/tigers/the-thai-zoo-where-tigers-wereseized-has-been-on-the-radar-of-authorities-for-illegal-wildlife-trade/. Accessed on
February 2, 2021.
White, A. (2020). China’s wildlife trade policy – where are we now and what might comenext. https://eia-international.org/blog/chinas-wildlife-trade-policy-where-are-we-nowand-what-might-come-next/. Accessed February 7, 2021.
Williams, C., Tiwari, S.K., Goswami, V.R., de Silva, S., Kumar, A., Baskaran, N., Yoganand, K.
and Menon, V. (2020). Elephas maximus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2020: e.T7140A45818198. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20203.RLTS.T7140A45818198.en. Downloaded January 9, 2021.
Wingard, J., S. Belajcic, M. Samal, K. Rock, M. L. Custodio, M. Heise, S. Fiennes, C.
Machalaba, A.A. Aguirre. (2020). Wildlife Trade, Pandemics and the Law: Fighting This
Year’s Virus with Last Year’s Law. Legal Atlas, LLC. January 2021. https://www.legalatlas.com/publications.

USAID.GOV

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020|

69

WJC (2020a). Rapid assessment of the impact of COVID-19 on wildlife trafficking.
https://wildlifejustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/WJC_Impact-of-COVID19-onwildlife-trafficking_April2020.pdf. Accessed February 2, 2021.
WJC (2020b). Operation jeopardy: the growing relevance of Cambodia in the global ivory
trade. https://wildlifejustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/WJC_TheGrowing_Relevance_Cambodia_Global_IvoryTrade_June2020_spreads.pdf. Accessed
February 2, 2021.
Wong, R.W.Y. (2020). Shadow operations in wildlife trade under China’s Belt and Road
Initiative. China Information, 0920203X2094868. doi:10.1177/0920203x20948680.
Accessed February 2, 2021.
WWF (2020). Reintroducing tigers to Cambodia.
https://www.wwf.org.kh/projects_and_reports2/copy_of_tiger_landscape_22122010_1
910/. Accessed on February 5, 2021.
WWF India (2016). Indian Rhino Vision 2020: Burachapori gets rhinos after 25 years.
https://www.wwfindia.org/?15301/Indian-Rhino-Vision-2020--Burachapori-gets-rhinosafter-25-years. Accessed February 5, 2021.
Xie, E. (2021). Chinese gang of pangolin smugglers jailed over $17.6 million haul of scales.
South China Morning Post.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3116556/chinese-gang-pangolinsmugglers-jailed-over-us176m-haul-scales. Accessed February 5, 2021.
Yang, W. (2021). Stop the Illegal Wildlife Trade: How loopholes in China’s animal protection
law risk new virus outbreaks. Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/stop-theillegal-wildlife-trade/wildlife-trade-law-china-virus-outbreaks-b1794500.html. Accessed
February 8, 2021.
You, L. (2021). After 30 Years, China Revises Its Protected Wild Animals List.
https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1006814/after-30-years%2C-china-revises-itsprotected-wild-animalslist#:~:text=China%20has%20published%20a%20new,catalog%20used%20for%20conserv
ation%20purposes.&text=Under%20the%20new%20list%2C%20235,listed%20under%20s
econd%2Dclass%20protection. Accessed February 5, 2021
Yovanda (2020). Sumatran rhino planned for capture is another female, Indonesian officialssay. 22 July 2020. Mongabay. https://news.mongabay.com/2020/07/sumatran-rhinoplanned-for-capture-is-another-female-indonesian-officials-say/. Accessed February 10,
2021.
Zhou, X., Wang, Q., Zhang, W., Jin, Y., Wang, Z., Chai, Z., Zhou, Z., Challender, D.W.S.,
Cui, X., MacMillan, D.C. (2018). Elephant poaching and the ivory trade: The impact ofdemand reduction and enforcement efforts by China from 2005 – 2017, Global Ecology
and Conservation (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00486.

70|

COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING DIGEST, 2020

USAID.GOV