Wildlife laundering through breeding farms: Illegal harvest, population declines and a means of regulating the trade of green pythons (Morelia viridis) from Indonesia

Abstract

Wildlife breeding farms have been promoted to aid biodiversity conservation by alleviating the pressure of harvest on wild populations. There is, however, growing concern that many breeding farms are being used to launder illegally caught wildlife. Surveys of wildlife traders in the Indonesian provinces of Maluku, West Papua and Papua were conducted between August 2009 and April 2011 to assess the trade of the green python (Morelia viridis), the species currently exported in the largest numbers from Indonesia declared as captive-bred. In total, 4227 illegally collected wild green pythons were recorded during surveys and high levels of harvest were found to have depleted and skewed the demographics of some island populations. Snakes were traced from their point of capture to breeding farms in Jakarta where they are to be exported for the pet trade, confirming the reports of wildlife laundering. Extrapolation of monthly collection estimates provided by traders revealed that at least 5337 green pythons are collected each year, suggesting that at least 80% of the green pythons exported from Indonesia annually are illegally wild-caught. The results of examination of 139 eggshells from five python species suggest that reptilian eggshells may be used as proof of provenance for each individual reptile exported. This method, in addition to the evidence that breeding farms play a significant role in the illegal exploitation of wildlife, allows conservation managers to begin to adequately monitor, regulate and determine the role of breeding farms in the conservation of wild populations.

Introduction

The trade in wildlife is a major contributor to biodiversity loss and has been recognised as a major conservation concern (Grieser-Johns and Thomson, 2005, Sutherland et al., 2009). Driven mainly by economics, wildlife is traded for medicines, luxury goods, food and pets and operates on local, national and international levels (Nijman, 2010). When wildlife is traded illegally, conservation efforts and sustainable harvests are seriously undermined (Schoppe, 2009, Zhou and Jiang, 2005). Few studies have attempted, or been able, to determine the scale of illegal trade (Gavin et al., 2009), the effects of illegal harvest (Schoppe, 2009, Smith et al., 2011) or the mechanisms by which it operates (but see Wutty and Simms, 2005). As the demand for wildlife increases, additional strain is placed on wild populations, and unsustainable harvesting practices can result in extensive biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation (Broad et al., 2003, Roe, 2008). In response, the establishment of commercial breeding farms has been promoted as a means of alleviating pressure on wild populations (Jori et al., 1995, Nogueira and Nogueira-Filho, 2011, Siswomartono, 1998).

The trade of wildlife for pets, both legal and illegal, is a multi-million dollar industry, yet it has received little attention from conservation scientists (but see Auliya, 2003, Natusch and Lyons, in press, Nijman and Shepherd, 2007, Shepherd, 2006, Yuwono, 1998). South East Asian economies, particularly Indonesia, export large numbers of species as pets that are sourced from the wild each year (Nijman and Shepherd, 2009, Pernetta, 2009, Shepherd, 2006). Reptiles in particular, are heavily exploited and Indonesia exports more than 160 live reptile species destined for the pet trade (Anon., 2010a, Anon., 2010b). Indonesia’s wildlife trade is internationally regulated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Indonesia became a Party to CITES in 1979 and trade is monitored by the CITES Management Authority, the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHKA). For CITES Appendix II listed species, quotas are set annually with the guidance of the CITES Scientific Authority, the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) (Siswomartono, 1998). A small number of reptile species are protected under Indonesian legislation and these may be traded legally only if bred in captivity. In the early 1990s, in response to recommendations from the CITES Secretariat and high demands from consumer nations, the Indonesian government encouraged captive breeding of selected species for export (Siswomartono, 1998). This was intended to aid conservation: (1) by breeding foundation stocks for re-release into the wild, and (2) to protect species seriously threatened by commercialisation (Siswomartono, 1998).

While farming has resulted in reduced pressure on some wildlife populations (Revol, 1995), it is feared that commercial breeding may result in increased demand for wild founder stock and be used to launder illegally wild-caught animals (Bulte and Damania, 2005, Mockrin et al., 2005). For example, in Indonesia, nationally protected wildlife can be traded under permit if captive-bred, promoting the mis-declaration of animals that are in fact wild-caught (Engler and Parry-Jones, 2007). Globally, there are an increasing number of reports suggesting that for many species, this may very well be the case (Auliya, 2003, Brooks et al., 2010, Engler and Parry-Jones, 2007, Nijman and Shepherd, 2009, Vinke and Vinke, 2010).

Nijman and Shepherd (2009) found large discrepancies between the number of reptiles exported annually from Indonesia and the number of reptiles capable of being produced by Indonesian breeding farms. Their study provided strong evidence for spurious captive breeding in Indonesia (Nijman and Shepherd, 2009). The CITES-listed species exported in largest numbers from Indonesia as captive-bred is the green python (Morelia viridis) (CITES Trade Database, 2011). Green pythons are listed in Appendix II of CITES, which regulates international trade, and in 1999 became a fully protected species under national legislation in Indonesia (Dilindungi PP 7/1999). Green pythons are keenly sought after by reptile keepers, mainly due to their distinctive and unique colouration. Juveniles are born either yellow or red and change to green at approximately 65 cm in length. Restricted to tropical rainforests in Australia, Papua New Guinea (PNG) and the Indonesian provinces of Maluku, West Papua, and Papua (Natusch and Natusch, in press, O’Shea, 1996). Indonesia is the only range state that allows export of captive-bred green pythons for commercial purposes, but restricts such exports to the progeny of captive breeding. Reptile enthusiasts have recognised subtle differences in adult and juvenile colouration of green pythons and as such, have designated each colour morph as a specific locality type (Kivit and Wiseman, 2005, Maxwell, 2005). This has resulted in the search for new morphs and localities. There are numerous reports suggesting that illegal harvesting of green pythons is occurring and that some populations are in decline (Auliya et al., 2009). There is however, no direct evidence of the existence of an illegal trade in wild-caught specimens. A recent report submitted by LIPI for the CITES Asian Snake Trade Workshop (2011) stated that the illegal trade of snakes in Indonesia was non-existent. Most importantly, there is currently no easy method for differentiating between wild-caught or captive-bred reptiles destined for export (Auliya, 2003).

It is the aim of the present paper to quantify the scale of illegal trade in green pythons and evaluate the effects of current harvest levels on wild populations. The evidence for laundering of green pythons through breeding farms is examined and the role that commercial breeding plays in the conservation of wild animals is discussed. The mechanisms by which the illegal trade operates are identified and ways in which it can be reduced are suggested. Finally, a novel method for regulating the export of reptiles is proposed and it is suggested that it be trialled using green pythons.