The Increase in Online Wildlife Trafficking.
Studies over the last decade have established that wildlife is increasingly being traded online.[1] In many countries, platforms such as Facebook and Instagram have replaced physical trade.[2] A study conducted by the Alliance to Counter Crime Online (‘ACCO’) indicated that Facebook’s algorithm is accelerating wildlife trafficking despite its pledge in 2018 to remove 80% of wildlife trafficking content by 2020.[3] Furthermore, researchers from the Oxford Brooks University published findings in November 2020 that indicated there was no evidence of decrease in online wildlife trade on Facebook amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.[4] Such findings may be concerning as other scientific research suggests that the disease is likely zoonotic, spilling-over from wildlife to humans.[5]
Wildlife is ranked fourth among illegally traded products globally,[6] and there is no shortage of online wildlife trade in Hong Kong.[7] As the city is a known hub for illegal trade in endangered and threatened species,[8] the increase in online wildlife trade raises concerns about the current regulations that are in place.
Facebook furthers online wildlife trade
Alongside other global ‘e-commerce, search and social media companies’, Facebook pledged in March 2018, to support the Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking Online’s approach to ‘reduce wildlife trafficking online on company platforms by 80% by 2020.’[9] Despite the Coalition’s 2020 progress report – which stated that :-
Facebook banned the trade in all live animals and all products from species listed on CITES Appendix I, a critical success given the prevalence of trade on the platform globally. To encourage user reporting, Facebook and Instagram launched an animal-specific reporting pathway for users to flag prohibited species listings in real-time.[10]
a study conducted by the ACCO nevertheless found that Facebook ‘failed to keep its promise’.[11]
Over a six-month period, ACCO researchers manually collected data by searching the platform for Pages or Groups in four languages – English, Vietnamese, Indonesian, and Arabic.[12] Researchers then used ‘Related Pages’ and ‘Suggested Groups’ to find recommended pages or groups.[13]
A total of 473 Pages and 281 public and private Groups trading wildlife were found; additionally, sales of products including live animals and elephant ivory were also found for sale in Facebook Shops.[14] A particularly concerning result from the ACCO’s study showed that 29% of Pages (137) were identified with the ‘Related Pages’ feature,[15] serving as a tool to amplify illicit wildlife trade. The ACCO’s report also states that in the six-months the study was conducted, only 31% of the Pages (146 of 473) were deactivated, ‘but those pages left up on the platform garnered 90% (1,203,281) of the total Page “likes”.’[16] It was also unclear whether the pages had been deactivated by Facebook administrators or the Page creators.
In sum, the ACCO’s study concluded that Facebook not only failed to enforce its pledge to the Coalition, but rather simplified the process to accessing online wildlife trade through its algorithms. The company also lacks disclosure for this particular area in its transparency reports, resulting in difficulty tracking the efficacy of Facebook’s pledge to the Coalition.
COVID-19: Not a deterrent to Facebook wildlife trade
Related to the ACCO’s study was a study conducted by researchers at the Oxford Brookes University, investigating the impact of COVID-19 on wildlife trade on Facebook.[17] It is noted that wild animals ‘may serve as the intermediate amplifying host’ of COVID-19.[18] Therefore, a total of 20,615 Facebook posts in 41 Facebook groups devoted to wild pet trade – both legal and illegal – in Brazil and Indonesia were analysed over a period of seven weeks between February and April 2020, to assess ‘whether, when and how COVID-19 was incorporated into the discourse of traders and consumers of wild animals’.[19]
The study found that only 0.44% of posts (90) mentioned COVID-19, and even where mentioned, it was to contextualise trading activities – such as delays in delivery – or highlighting personal health and hygiene. Despite COVID-19 being a zoonotic disease, of the 90 posts:
only three from Brazil mentioned the link between wildlife and COVID-19, with two ‘stating that animals could not be infected with or transmit COVID-19’;[20]
only one post from Indonesia mentioned the link between SARS and wildlife but prompted no discussion around COVID-19.[21]
Overall, there was ‘no clear evidence’ that the pandemic caused a decrease in online wildlife trade. Rather, certain posts encouraged trade of wild animals during the pandemic, advocating for their companionship during quarantine.[22]
No shortage of online trade in Hong Kong
As a known hub of wildlife trade, Hong Kong is also party to trades occurring online. A publication in Biological Conservation from 2018 investigated the sale of turtles on a Hong Kong-based internet forum over a period of 36 months to assess ‘the scale of the trade, identify potential illegal trade and investigate factors that influence prices.’[23]
As part of China, Hong Kong is party to the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (‘CITES’) – the international agreement regulating international trade of over 30,000 species of animals and plants. CITES is given effect in Hong Kong by The Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance, Cap. 586 (“Cap. 586”).[24]
The study recorded 14,360 individuals, comprising 136 species.[25] Among those results, 77 species sold were listed in CITES appendices – different appendices indicate different levels of restrictions – and 27 species were estimated to be illegally traded ‘since they were absent from CITES import records and/or the Hong Kong possession license species list’.[26]
While the study of one particular forum may not suggest that the practice is widespread, the availability of CITES-listed turtles ‘shows that illegal trade is occurring in plain view’.
Discussion
It is evident that online wildlife trade is easily accessible to all, facilitated by growth of platforms such as Facebook, its algorithms, and potential for anonymity.[27] The aforementioned studies also highlight the difficulty in monitoring online trade – especially as they are often labour intensive and time consuming. The overwhelming availability of wildlife trade, especially of illegal species, on different online platforms evidence that trade regulations are ineffective.
However, there have also been an increased number of wildlife watchdogs and groups dedicated to exposing illegal wildlife trade on social media. One such group is the Hounds of Actaeon, a group set up with a goal to archive and demonstrate the magnitude of the trade on social media platforms and to advocate for change. Their feed is a clear catalogue of the availability and accessibility to illegal wildlife on social media. Not only must we continue supporting groups such as the Hounds of Actaeon, but we must also find ways to ensure that the internet and social media do not facilitate this toxic illegal trade.
This is a particularly concern in Hong Kong, as the city’s import of wildlife is consistently seen as poorly regulated.[28] In part, Hong Kong’s failure extends also to the lenient sentencing Courts are imposing, which reportedly fall well below international standards, when dealing with offenders who traffic wildlife into the city.[29] While the Hong Kong government has taken legislative steps over the past five years to address the poor regulation of trade of endangered wild animals, it is clear that the recent 2018 amendments to Cap. 586 still remain insufficient,[30] and any recommendations to implement better regulations addressed to the Hong Kong Government should be properly considered, or else Hong Kong will continue its black mark as an illegal wildlife hub.
Courtesy of Audrey O’Young
References
[1] Florian Debève, Tackling Wildlife Cybercrime in the EU: How Technology Can Help (WWF, July 2020).
[2] Thais Q Morcatty et al, ‘Online Trade in Wildlife and the Lack of Response to COVID-19’ [2020] Environmental Research 110439.
[3] Katie A Paul, Kathleen Miles and Damien Huffer, Two Clicks Away: Wildlife Sales on Facebook (The Alliance to Counter Crime Online, October 2020) <https://www.counteringcrime.org/wildlife-sales-on-facebook>.
[4] Morcatty et al (n 2).
[5] Peng Zhou et al, ‘A Pneumonia Outbreak Associated with a New Coronavirus of Probable Bat Origin’ (2020) 579(7798) Nature 270.
[6] Amanda S Whitfort et al, A Comparative Evaluation of Hong Kong’s Legislative Powers to Regulate Trade in Endangered Wild Animals (The University of Hong Kong, October 2020) 99 <https://www.hku.hk/f/upload/21886/A%20Comparative%20Evaluation%20of%20HKs%20Legislative%20Powers%20to%20Regulate%20Trade%20in%20Endangered%20Wild%20Animals%20Oct%202020.pdf>.
[7] See, for example: Yik-Hei Sung and Jonathan J Fong, ‘Assessing Consumer Trends and Illegal Activity by Monitoring the Online Wildlife Trade’ (2018) 227 Biological Conservation 219.
[8] Whitfort et al (n 6).
[9] Offline and in the Wild: A Progress Report of The Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking Online (The Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking Online, 2020) <https://www.endwildlifetraffickingonline.org/our-progress>.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Paul, Miles and Huffer (n 3).
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Morcatty et al (n 2).
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Sung and Fong (n 7).
[24] The Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586).
[25] Sung and Fong (n 7).
[26] Ibid.
[27] Debève (n 1).
[28] Sung and Fong (n 7).
[29] Ibid.
[30] Whitfort et al (n 6).