forbes.com
Online Marketplaces Fuel Illegal Wildlife Trade: Study Reveals 546 Endangered Species Listings
A 15-week study of 148 English-language online marketplaces found 546 listings for 83 endangered species, including 18 protected under CITES Appendix I, highlighting the significant scale of illegal wildlife trade online.
- What is the scale and impact of the online trade in endangered species, based on the study's findings?
- A 15-week study of 148 English-language online marketplaces revealed 546 listings for 83 endangered species, including 18 protected under CITES Appendix I. This highlights the significant scale of illegal wildlife trade facilitated online, even surpassing previous conservation assessments by identifying 13 previously unrecognized threatened species.
- How concentrated is the online trade in endangered species, and what are the implications for regulatory efforts?
- The research reveals a concentrated online trade, with four websites hosting over 95% of illegal listings. This suggests that focused regulatory efforts on key platforms could significantly impact the trade, though the global nature of the internet and adaptability of traffickers pose challenges.
- What are the key challenges and future directions for effectively monitoring and combating the online trade in endangered species?
- Future monitoring efforts must expand beyond English-language sites and utilize tools capable of adapting to evolving terminology and multiple languages to address the global scale of the problem. The use of encrypted messaging apps and code words further complicates detection and enforcement.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue as a serious and largely hidden problem, emphasizing the ease with which endangered species parts can be purchased online. The introduction immediately highlights the dark side of online shopping, setting a negative tone. The use of phrases such as "darker industry" and "quietly fueling" contributes to this framing. While the researchers' findings are presented factually, the overall narrative emphasizes the severity and widespread nature of the problem.
Language Bias
The article uses strong language to describe the wildlife trade, employing words like "darker industry," "tacky souvenir," and "carving up." These terms are not strictly neutral and contribute to the negative framing of the issue. While this strong language helps to emphasize the severity of the problem, more neutral alternatives such as "illegal trade," "unwanted items," and "selling" could be used to maintain objectivity without losing impact. The frequent use of emotionally charged words like "devastating" and "painful" also contribute to the article's strong stance against the trade.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the online trade of endangered species in English-language marketplaces, but it acknowledges that this represents only a fraction of the global trade. The omission of data on non-English language marketplaces and other platforms (e.g., private Facebook groups, messaging apps) limits the scope of the analysis and may underestimate the true scale of the problem. While the article notes these limitations, the overall impression is still skewed towards the English-speaking online marketplace.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the illegal online trade of endangered species, directly impacting their survival and threatening biodiversity. The sale of body parts, like shark jaws, from endangered species for decorative purposes exacerbates the problem of overexploitation and pushes these species closer to extinction. This directly undermines SDG 15, Life on Land, which aims to protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.