The loss of biodiversity due to overexploitation is well known, but a review and regulation of sp... more The loss of biodiversity due to overexploitation is well known, but a review and regulation of species used in the frogs’ legs trade has yet to be accomplished. This problem relates to supply (the capture and trade of wild populations) and demand (the main consumer being the EU). The EU’s responsibility should not be ignored, since unsustainable imports of certain species drives population decline and increases risk of extinction. For most organisms, including frog species in the frogs’ legs trade, commercial international trade remains unregulated, includes species in extinction-threat categories on the IUCN Red List, and is not economically sustainable. With a tradition of frogs’ legs consumption anchored in western EU countries, demand for many species from the principal supplying countries (Indonesia, Vietnam, Turkey, Albania) has resulted in the overexploitation of the regional populations of many species. Unfortunately, legal trade takes place in the midst of numerous uncertai...
The commercial trade in frogs and their body parts is global, dynamic and occurs in extremely lar... more The commercial trade in frogs and their body parts is global, dynamic and occurs in extremely large volumes (in the thousands of tonnes/yr or billions of frogs/yr). The European Union (EU) remains the single largest importer of frogs' legs, with most frogs still caught from the wild. Amongst the many drivers of species extinction or population decline (e.g. due to habitat loss, climate change, disease etc.), overexploitation is becoming increasingly more prominent. Due to global declines and extinctions, new attention is being focused on these markets, in part to try to ensure sustainability. While the trade is plagued by daunting realities of data deficiency and uncertainty and the conflicts of commercial interests associated with these data, it is clear is that EU countries are most responsible for the largest portion of the international trade in frogs' legs of wild species. Over decades of exploitation, the EU imports have contributed to a decline in wild frog populations in an increasing number of supplying countries, such as India and Bangladesh, as well as Indonesia, Turkey and Albania more recently. However, there have been no concerted attempts by the EU and present export countries to ensure sustainability of this trade. Further work is needed to validate species identities, secure data on wild frog populations, establish reasonable monitored harvest/export quotas and disease surveillance and ensure data integrity, quality and security standards for frog farms. Herein, we call upon those countries and their representative governments to assume responsibility for the sustainability of the trade. The EU should take immediate action to channel all imports through a single centralised database and list sensitive species in the Annexes of the EU Wildlife
The loss of biodiversity due to overexploitation is well known, but a review and regulation of sp... more The loss of biodiversity due to overexploitation is well known, but a review and regulation of species used in the frogs’ legs trade has yet to be accomplished. This problem relates to supply (the capture and trade of wild populations) and demand (the main consumer being the EU). The EU’s responsibility should not be ignored, since unsustainable imports of certain species drives population decline and increases risk of extinction. For most organisms, including frog species in the frogs’ legs trade, commercial international trade remains unregulated, includes species in extinction-threat categories on the IUCN Red List, and is not economically sustainable. With a tradition of frogs’ legs consumption anchored in western EU countries, demand for many species from the principal supplying countries (Indonesia, Vietnam, Turkey, Albania) has resulted in the overexploitation of the regional populations of many species. Unfortunately, legal trade takes place in the midst of numerous uncertainties, including unresolved taxonomic status for many frogs, no database or regulation of trade-relevant species, unknown population status, and no health standards for the animals involved in the trade. In addition, regional overharvest may increase the use of pesticides, there is uncertain but likely spread of disease along the trade chain, and certification schemes for frog farming operations are both not standardised and can lead to exotic invasive species escaping into naïve ecosystems. Mechanisms to help make the international trade in frogs’ legs sustainable are essential, and require international agreement and targeted efforts, ideally financed by the trade sector itself.
The commercial trade in frogs and their body parts is global, dynamic, and occurs in extremely la... more The commercial trade in frogs and their body parts is global, dynamic, and occurs in extremely large volumes (in the thousands of tonnes/yr or billions of frogs/yr). The European Union remains the single largest importer of frogs’ legs, with most frogs still caught from the wild. Among the many drivers of species extinction or population decline (e.g., due to habitat loss, climate change, disease, etc.), overexploitation is becoming increasingly more prominent. Because ofglobal declines and extinctions, new attention is being focused on these markets, in part to try to ensure sustainability. While the trade is plagued by daunting realities of data deficiency and uncertainty, and the conflicts of commercial interests associated with these data, one of the only things that is clear is that EU countries are most responsible for the largest portion the international trade in frogs’ legs of wild species. Over decades of exploitation, the EU imports have contributed to a decline in wild f...
... Thomas Reinard, Stefanie Sprunck, Sandra Altherr and Hans-Jorg Jacobsen1 ... However, pectic ... more ... Thomas Reinard, Stefanie Sprunck, Sandra Altherr and Hans-Jorg Jacobsen1 ... However, pectic polysaccharides can be bound tightly to cellulose microfibrils in dicots (Seymore et al, 1990) or to arabinogalactans in monocots (Nishitani and Nevins, 1989). ...
A differential hybridoma screening was applied to select monoclonal antibodies directed against m... more A differential hybridoma screening was applied to select monoclonal antibodies directed against marker proteins for somatic embryogenesis in pea (Pisum sativum.
Angesichts des aktuellen chinesischen "Jahr des Tigers" ist es nicht verwunderlich, dass die Gefä... more Angesichts des aktuellen chinesischen "Jahr des Tigers" ist es nicht verwunderlich, dass die Gefährdung dieser Raubkatze in den Medien verstärkt auftaucht. Auch die Wilderei auf Nashörner in Südafrika für den asiatischen Markt sorgt derzeit für Schlagzeilen. Die Verfolgung dieser Tiere wird mit der anhaltenden und gar steigenden globalen Nachfrage nach TCM-Produkten in Verbindung gebracht. Während weder Tiger-noch Nashornprodukte in der TCM in Europa legal zu bekommen wären oder hierzulande eingesetzt werden, gibt es zahlreiche weitere-in der breiten Öffentlichkeit weniger wahrgenommene-Tiergruppen, an deren Gefährdung der globale Handel mit TCM-Produkten einen erheblichen Anteil hat. Hierzu zählen vornehmlich Schuppentiere, Schildkröten, Seepferdchen, Schlangen und Seegurken. Der vorliegende Artikel gibt einen Überblick über die Bedeutung dieser Wildtiere für TCM-Produkte, Auswirkungen für den Artenschutz und aktuelle Entwicklungen im internationalen Artenschutzrecht.
Zusammenfassung: Die Verwendung von Wildtieren in der Traditionellen Chinesischen Medizin gerät i... more Zusammenfassung: Die Verwendung von Wildtieren in der Traditionellen Chinesischen Medizin gerät immer wieder in die Kritik, insbesondere wenn hierdurch fortwährend neue Arten an den Rand der Ausrottung gebracht werden. Das Washingtoner Artenschutzübereinkommen (engl. Abkürzung CITES) kann zwar den internationalen Handel mit Wildtieren regeln, doch auf nationaler Ebene tragen die einzelnen Regierungen Verantwortung. Der vorliegende Artikel gibt einen Überblick über jüngste Entwicklungen im Artenschutz im Kontext der TCM, auch im Zusammenhang mit der Covid-19-Pandemie, sowie zu den Bemühungen der chinesischen Regierung, den boomenden TCM-Markt weiter auszubauen. Schlüsselwörter: Artenschutz • Wildtiere • TCM • CITES • Corona • Schuppentiere Ongoing challenges for species conservation in the context of Traditional Chinese Medicine.
Highlights • A new perspective on global reptile pet trade based on key expert testimony from aro... more Highlights • A new perspective on global reptile pet trade based on key expert testimony from around the world • Many reptile species controlled under current policies remain illegally/unsustainably traded to supply the international reptile pet market, with rare and endemic species most threatened. • Monitoring of species and populations in question and the provisioning of scientific knowledge to overcome uncertainties is crucial to prevent over-exploitation. • Nationally protected species not regulated within the CITES Appendices cannot be adequately protected from exploitation once illegally removed from their range state.
Of the 10,272 currently recognized reptile species, the trade of fewer than 8% are regulated by t... more Of the 10,272 currently recognized reptile species, the trade of fewer than 8% are regulated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the European Wildlife Trade Regulations (EWTR). However, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List has assessed 45% of the world's reptile species and determined that at least 1390 species are threatened by "biological resource use". Of these, 355 species are intentionally targeted by collectors, including 194 non-CITES-listed species. Herein we review the global reptile pet trade, its impacts, and its contribution to the over-harvesting of species and populations, in light of current international law. Findings are based on an examination of relevant professional observations, online sources, and literature (e.g., applicable policies, taxonomy [reptile database], trade statistics [EUROSTAT], and conservation status [IUCN Red List]). Case studies are presented from the following countries and regions: Australia,
In some regions of India, frogs are called “jumping chickens,” as their taste is similar to chick... more In some regions of India, frogs are called “jumping chickens,” as their taste is similar to chicken. Their palatability to humans is why billions of frogs are consumed annually. In many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America frogs are collected for subsistence or local consumption. Some of these same countries are engaged in the commercial trade of frogs and frog products—including frogs’ legs—supplying markets in the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA), where native frog populations have been seriously depleted. While frog farming plays an increasing role in meeting the global demand for frogs’ legs, in several countries millions of frogs are still taken from the wild to satisfy international demand. The exploitation of wild frogs to sustain this trade mainly focuses on larger-bodied species of the family Ranidae, such as the Asian brackish frog (Fejervarya cancrivora) and giant Javan frog (Limnonectes macrodon, formerly Rana macrodon). Some experts warn that even for common, fast-growing and fecund amphibian species, present levels of exploitation may be far from sustainable.
However, the international demand for frogs and their parts and products continues to exist. Now that Indonesia has assumed the role of leading supplier of frogs’ legs to the world market, it is feared that this country will suffer or may already be suffering a negative ecological impact similar to that of India and Bangladesh.
The loss of biodiversity due to overexploitation is well known, but a review and regulation of sp... more The loss of biodiversity due to overexploitation is well known, but a review and regulation of species used in the frogs’ legs trade has yet to be accomplished. This problem relates to supply (the capture and trade of wild populations) and demand (the main consumer being the EU). The EU’s responsibility should not be ignored, since unsustainable imports of certain species drives population decline and increases risk of extinction. For most organisms, including frog species in the frogs’ legs trade, commercial international trade remains unregulated, includes species in extinction-threat categories on the IUCN Red List, and is not economically sustainable. With a tradition of frogs’ legs consumption anchored in western EU countries, demand for many species from the principal supplying countries (Indonesia, Vietnam, Turkey, Albania) has resulted in the overexploitation of the regional populations of many species. Unfortunately, legal trade takes place in the midst of numerous uncertai...
The commercial trade in frogs and their body parts is global, dynamic and occurs in extremely lar... more The commercial trade in frogs and their body parts is global, dynamic and occurs in extremely large volumes (in the thousands of tonnes/yr or billions of frogs/yr). The European Union (EU) remains the single largest importer of frogs' legs, with most frogs still caught from the wild. Amongst the many drivers of species extinction or population decline (e.g. due to habitat loss, climate change, disease etc.), overexploitation is becoming increasingly more prominent. Due to global declines and extinctions, new attention is being focused on these markets, in part to try to ensure sustainability. While the trade is plagued by daunting realities of data deficiency and uncertainty and the conflicts of commercial interests associated with these data, it is clear is that EU countries are most responsible for the largest portion of the international trade in frogs' legs of wild species. Over decades of exploitation, the EU imports have contributed to a decline in wild frog populations in an increasing number of supplying countries, such as India and Bangladesh, as well as Indonesia, Turkey and Albania more recently. However, there have been no concerted attempts by the EU and present export countries to ensure sustainability of this trade. Further work is needed to validate species identities, secure data on wild frog populations, establish reasonable monitored harvest/export quotas and disease surveillance and ensure data integrity, quality and security standards for frog farms. Herein, we call upon those countries and their representative governments to assume responsibility for the sustainability of the trade. The EU should take immediate action to channel all imports through a single centralised database and list sensitive species in the Annexes of the EU Wildlife
The loss of biodiversity due to overexploitation is well known, but a review and regulation of sp... more The loss of biodiversity due to overexploitation is well known, but a review and regulation of species used in the frogs’ legs trade has yet to be accomplished. This problem relates to supply (the capture and trade of wild populations) and demand (the main consumer being the EU). The EU’s responsibility should not be ignored, since unsustainable imports of certain species drives population decline and increases risk of extinction. For most organisms, including frog species in the frogs’ legs trade, commercial international trade remains unregulated, includes species in extinction-threat categories on the IUCN Red List, and is not economically sustainable. With a tradition of frogs’ legs consumption anchored in western EU countries, demand for many species from the principal supplying countries (Indonesia, Vietnam, Turkey, Albania) has resulted in the overexploitation of the regional populations of many species. Unfortunately, legal trade takes place in the midst of numerous uncertainties, including unresolved taxonomic status for many frogs, no database or regulation of trade-relevant species, unknown population status, and no health standards for the animals involved in the trade. In addition, regional overharvest may increase the use of pesticides, there is uncertain but likely spread of disease along the trade chain, and certification schemes for frog farming operations are both not standardised and can lead to exotic invasive species escaping into naïve ecosystems. Mechanisms to help make the international trade in frogs’ legs sustainable are essential, and require international agreement and targeted efforts, ideally financed by the trade sector itself.
The commercial trade in frogs and their body parts is global, dynamic, and occurs in extremely la... more The commercial trade in frogs and their body parts is global, dynamic, and occurs in extremely large volumes (in the thousands of tonnes/yr or billions of frogs/yr). The European Union remains the single largest importer of frogs’ legs, with most frogs still caught from the wild. Among the many drivers of species extinction or population decline (e.g., due to habitat loss, climate change, disease, etc.), overexploitation is becoming increasingly more prominent. Because ofglobal declines and extinctions, new attention is being focused on these markets, in part to try to ensure sustainability. While the trade is plagued by daunting realities of data deficiency and uncertainty, and the conflicts of commercial interests associated with these data, one of the only things that is clear is that EU countries are most responsible for the largest portion the international trade in frogs’ legs of wild species. Over decades of exploitation, the EU imports have contributed to a decline in wild f...
... Thomas Reinard, Stefanie Sprunck, Sandra Altherr and Hans-Jorg Jacobsen1 ... However, pectic ... more ... Thomas Reinard, Stefanie Sprunck, Sandra Altherr and Hans-Jorg Jacobsen1 ... However, pectic polysaccharides can be bound tightly to cellulose microfibrils in dicots (Seymore et al, 1990) or to arabinogalactans in monocots (Nishitani and Nevins, 1989). ...
A differential hybridoma screening was applied to select monoclonal antibodies directed against m... more A differential hybridoma screening was applied to select monoclonal antibodies directed against marker proteins for somatic embryogenesis in pea (Pisum sativum.
Angesichts des aktuellen chinesischen "Jahr des Tigers" ist es nicht verwunderlich, dass die Gefä... more Angesichts des aktuellen chinesischen "Jahr des Tigers" ist es nicht verwunderlich, dass die Gefährdung dieser Raubkatze in den Medien verstärkt auftaucht. Auch die Wilderei auf Nashörner in Südafrika für den asiatischen Markt sorgt derzeit für Schlagzeilen. Die Verfolgung dieser Tiere wird mit der anhaltenden und gar steigenden globalen Nachfrage nach TCM-Produkten in Verbindung gebracht. Während weder Tiger-noch Nashornprodukte in der TCM in Europa legal zu bekommen wären oder hierzulande eingesetzt werden, gibt es zahlreiche weitere-in der breiten Öffentlichkeit weniger wahrgenommene-Tiergruppen, an deren Gefährdung der globale Handel mit TCM-Produkten einen erheblichen Anteil hat. Hierzu zählen vornehmlich Schuppentiere, Schildkröten, Seepferdchen, Schlangen und Seegurken. Der vorliegende Artikel gibt einen Überblick über die Bedeutung dieser Wildtiere für TCM-Produkte, Auswirkungen für den Artenschutz und aktuelle Entwicklungen im internationalen Artenschutzrecht.
Zusammenfassung: Die Verwendung von Wildtieren in der Traditionellen Chinesischen Medizin gerät i... more Zusammenfassung: Die Verwendung von Wildtieren in der Traditionellen Chinesischen Medizin gerät immer wieder in die Kritik, insbesondere wenn hierdurch fortwährend neue Arten an den Rand der Ausrottung gebracht werden. Das Washingtoner Artenschutzübereinkommen (engl. Abkürzung CITES) kann zwar den internationalen Handel mit Wildtieren regeln, doch auf nationaler Ebene tragen die einzelnen Regierungen Verantwortung. Der vorliegende Artikel gibt einen Überblick über jüngste Entwicklungen im Artenschutz im Kontext der TCM, auch im Zusammenhang mit der Covid-19-Pandemie, sowie zu den Bemühungen der chinesischen Regierung, den boomenden TCM-Markt weiter auszubauen. Schlüsselwörter: Artenschutz • Wildtiere • TCM • CITES • Corona • Schuppentiere Ongoing challenges for species conservation in the context of Traditional Chinese Medicine.
Highlights • A new perspective on global reptile pet trade based on key expert testimony from aro... more Highlights • A new perspective on global reptile pet trade based on key expert testimony from around the world • Many reptile species controlled under current policies remain illegally/unsustainably traded to supply the international reptile pet market, with rare and endemic species most threatened. • Monitoring of species and populations in question and the provisioning of scientific knowledge to overcome uncertainties is crucial to prevent over-exploitation. • Nationally protected species not regulated within the CITES Appendices cannot be adequately protected from exploitation once illegally removed from their range state.
Of the 10,272 currently recognized reptile species, the trade of fewer than 8% are regulated by t... more Of the 10,272 currently recognized reptile species, the trade of fewer than 8% are regulated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the European Wildlife Trade Regulations (EWTR). However, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List has assessed 45% of the world's reptile species and determined that at least 1390 species are threatened by "biological resource use". Of these, 355 species are intentionally targeted by collectors, including 194 non-CITES-listed species. Herein we review the global reptile pet trade, its impacts, and its contribution to the over-harvesting of species and populations, in light of current international law. Findings are based on an examination of relevant professional observations, online sources, and literature (e.g., applicable policies, taxonomy [reptile database], trade statistics [EUROSTAT], and conservation status [IUCN Red List]). Case studies are presented from the following countries and regions: Australia,
In some regions of India, frogs are called “jumping chickens,” as their taste is similar to chick... more In some regions of India, frogs are called “jumping chickens,” as their taste is similar to chicken. Their palatability to humans is why billions of frogs are consumed annually. In many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America frogs are collected for subsistence or local consumption. Some of these same countries are engaged in the commercial trade of frogs and frog products—including frogs’ legs—supplying markets in the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA), where native frog populations have been seriously depleted. While frog farming plays an increasing role in meeting the global demand for frogs’ legs, in several countries millions of frogs are still taken from the wild to satisfy international demand. The exploitation of wild frogs to sustain this trade mainly focuses on larger-bodied species of the family Ranidae, such as the Asian brackish frog (Fejervarya cancrivora) and giant Javan frog (Limnonectes macrodon, formerly Rana macrodon). Some experts warn that even for common, fast-growing and fecund amphibian species, present levels of exploitation may be far from sustainable.
However, the international demand for frogs and their parts and products continues to exist. Now that Indonesia has assumed the role of leading supplier of frogs’ legs to the world market, it is feared that this country will suffer or may already be suffering a negative ecological impact similar to that of India and Bangladesh.
Deadly Dish Role and responsibility of the European Union in the international frogs' legs trade, 2022
The USA and Europe are still importing enormous amounts of frogs’ legs. While frogs imported into... more The USA and Europe are still importing enormous amounts of frogs’ legs. While frogs imported into the USA are mostly farmed, the European Union’s imports until today mostly derive from wildcaught specimens from Indonesia. Accordingly, the EU’s demand for frogs’ legs makes it the largest global importer of wild-caught frogs, giving it a central responsibility to establish conservation measures to prevent decline of certain species and serious negative ecological impact.
According to EUROSTAT (the European statistics database) the EU has been importing about 40,700 tonnes of frogs’ legs within the period 2011-2020, which correlates with 814 million to 2 billion frogs. The main EU importers are Belgium (70 %), France (16.7 %), and the Netherlands (6.4 %). However, as EUROSTAT only records processed frogs’ legs as a commodity group, it cannot be excluded that in addition live frogs are imported for human consumption (DESTATIS 2022), as in the case of Switzerland (Bundesrat der Schweiz 2010).
With 74 % of the market Indonesia is still the main supplier to the EU, followed by Vietnam (21 %) and Turkey (4 %). Almost all frogs from Indonesia and a large portion of frogs from Turkey are caught from the wild – and recent field studies from Turkey have shown alarming decline of targeted frog populations: Çiçek et al. (2020) warn that native water frogs may go extinct until 2032 if current exploitation levels remain.
We summarize the level of exploitation in the EU’s most relevant supplier countries and its conservation impact. Even the import of farmed frogs, which aims to unburden wild frog populations, is not per se sustainable, having in mind the potentially severe ecological risks that those farms pose to the environment.
Our report highlights the EU’s ongoing central role as destination for billions of frogs, causing huge animal welfare problems and a negative impact on wild frog populations and their ecosystems. It also describes the tremendous challenges for enforcement, with large portions of imported products being mislabelled and taxonomic uncertainties remaining.
To cope with its Biodiversity Strategy 2030 and its ambitious Green Deal the European Union should therefore urgently:
1) Take the lead in developing CITES listing proposals for species, which are preferentially targeted for the international market and those species that may be collected because they look like the targeted species – a measure which would not only facilitate enforcement but also incorporate the precautionary principle.
2) Launch awareness campaigns in the main EU markets to reduce demand for frogs’ legs, highlighting the associated problems for biodiversity, ecology, and animal welfare.
The hunting of small cetaceans (i.e., all toothed whales, except the sperm whale) for food or fis... more The hunting of small cetaceans (i.e., all toothed whales, except the sperm whale) for food or fishing bait is far more widespread than most people realise. While in recent years public attention has focused on hunts in Japan (specifically in Taiji) and the Danish Faroe Islands, small cetaceans are deliberately killed at similar or even higher levels in several other regions. Overall, approximately 100,000 small whales, dolphins, and porpoises are intentionally killed each year worldwide. In most cases, these are unregulated, or even illegal, hunts. Typically, they are unsustainable and poorly documented and their impact on populations is unknown. Where legislation is in place, appropriate control and rigorous enforcement measures are often lacking. This report aims to give a global overview of the scale of small cetacean hunts, the number of individuals and species targeted, and their ecological impact.
Due to its large area, its wealthy clients and the absence of internal trade barriers and control... more Due to its large area, its wealthy clients and the absence of internal trade barriers and controls the European Union (EU) is a main destination for smuggled animals. Reptiles are an easy target for criminal groups as they often survive over long periods under bad conditions, they are silent goods in suitcases or parcels, and a variety of species is fetching prices of several thousand Euros per specimen. By far not all reptiles, which are sought-after in the international pet trade, are covered by the international trade regulations of CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, and the EU’s regulations on wildlife trade (Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97). However, many of these internationally unprotected species are fully protected in their country of origin, through prohibitions of capture and/or export. Many of these species are listed in the threatened categories of the IUCN global or National Red Lists and often illegal exploitation for the pet trade is estimated to be a serious or even the major threat to their survival. But once these species have been successfully smuggled out of their country of origin, trade within the EU is legal – contrary to the commitment of the European Union to the Rio de Janeiro Convention on Biological Diversity, including the recognition of sovereign rights of States over their own biological resources.
Reptiles are an easy target for smugglers: They are silent goods in suitcases and parcels, they o... more Reptiles are an easy target for smugglers: They are silent goods in suitcases and parcels, they often survive over long periods of confinement, and rare species may fetch thousands of Euros. Although amphibians have higher mortality rates during transport, their smuggling from distinct biodiversity hotspots may also be very lucrative.Traffickers often specifically target species, which are not covered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), as their importation in European countries is poorly regulated. However, many of these targeted species are endangered in the wild and afforded high levels of national protection in their countries of origin. The European pet market is a main destination for illegally caught reptiles, both CITES listed and non-CITES. In November 2014, Pro Wildlife published its report “Stolen Wildlife”, focusing on the trafficking in rare and threatened species, which are protected in their country of origin, but not on an international level. Once those species are smuggled out of their range state, they can be openly and legally sold in the European and other global markets – which mean high profits with low risk of prosecution. This report provides new case studies from different range states and a broad range of species affected by this special type of wildlife crime.
Almost three quarters of reptile species and more than 80 % of amphibian species in the European ... more Almost three quarters of reptile species and more than 80 % of amphibian species in the European exotic pet trade are not listed under CITES. Nonetheless, many of these species are threatened in the wild and are consequently afforded a high level of national protection in their countries of origin. Once those animals have been successfully smuggled out of their country of origin, traffickers face no legal consequences, while their profits are often very high.
To this day, the EU remains a major hub and consumer market for illegally exported wildlife, with European citizens regularly being involved in smuggling events and European trade shows serving as meeting points for smugglers and clients.
Uploads
Papers by Sandra Altherr
Within the last 20 years, Indonesia has become the world’s leading exporter of frogs’ legs, followed by China, Taiwan
Indian bullfrog
© Ajith
i
skinned frogs
© Midori
and Vietnam. Prior to this, India and Bangladesh had been the main suppliers to the international export market—that is, until their frog populations collapsed, resulting in the loss of a major natural control agent for agricultural pests and mosquitoes (Oza 1990, Abdulali 1985). As a consequence of this unsustainable exploitation, in 1985, two of the most sought after species in the frogs’ legs trade—the green pond frog (Euphlyctis hexadactylus, formerly Rana hexadactyla) and the Indian bullfrog (Hoplobatrachus tigerinus, formerly Rana tigrina)—were listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES). India banned export of frogs’ legs in 1987 and Bangladesh followed in 1989. The CITES listing and subsequent export bans helped local populations of these two species recover from over-exploitation. Today the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) describes populations of both species as stable
(see 2010 IUCN Red List).
However, the international demand for frogs and their parts and products continues to exist. Now that Indonesia has assumed the role of leading supplier of frogs’ legs to the world market, it is feared that this country will suffer or may already be suffering a negative ecological impact similar to that of India and Bangladesh.
Within the last 20 years, Indonesia has become the world’s leading exporter of frogs’ legs, followed by China, Taiwan
Indian bullfrog
© Ajith
i
skinned frogs
© Midori
and Vietnam. Prior to this, India and Bangladesh had been the main suppliers to the international export market—that is, until their frog populations collapsed, resulting in the loss of a major natural control agent for agricultural pests and mosquitoes (Oza 1990, Abdulali 1985). As a consequence of this unsustainable exploitation, in 1985, two of the most sought after species in the frogs’ legs trade—the green pond frog (Euphlyctis hexadactylus, formerly Rana hexadactyla) and the Indian bullfrog (Hoplobatrachus tigerinus, formerly Rana tigrina)—were listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES). India banned export of frogs’ legs in 1987 and Bangladesh followed in 1989. The CITES listing and subsequent export bans helped local populations of these two species recover from over-exploitation. Today the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) describes populations of both species as stable
(see 2010 IUCN Red List).
However, the international demand for frogs and their parts and products continues to exist. Now that Indonesia has assumed the role of leading supplier of frogs’ legs to the world market, it is feared that this country will suffer or may already be suffering a negative ecological impact similar to that of India and Bangladesh.
According to EUROSTAT (the European statistics database) the EU has been importing about 40,700 tonnes of frogs’ legs within the period 2011-2020, which correlates with 814 million to 2 billion frogs. The main EU importers are Belgium (70 %), France (16.7 %), and the Netherlands (6.4 %). However, as EUROSTAT only records processed frogs’ legs as a commodity group, it cannot be excluded that in addition live frogs are imported for human consumption (DESTATIS 2022), as in the case of Switzerland (Bundesrat der Schweiz 2010).
With 74 % of the market Indonesia is still the main supplier to the EU, followed by Vietnam (21 %) and Turkey (4 %). Almost all frogs from Indonesia and a large portion of frogs from Turkey are caught from the wild – and recent field studies from Turkey have shown alarming decline of targeted frog populations: Çiçek et al. (2020) warn that native water frogs may go extinct until 2032 if current exploitation levels remain.
We summarize the level of exploitation in the EU’s most relevant supplier countries and its conservation impact. Even the import of farmed frogs, which aims to unburden wild frog populations, is not per se sustainable,
having in mind the potentially severe ecological risks that those farms pose to the environment.
Our report highlights the EU’s ongoing central role as destination for billions of frogs, causing huge animal welfare problems and a negative impact on wild frog populations and their ecosystems. It also describes
the tremendous challenges for enforcement, with large portions of imported products being mislabelled and taxonomic uncertainties remaining.
To cope with its Biodiversity Strategy 2030 and its ambitious Green Deal the European Union should therefore urgently:
1) Take the lead in developing CITES listing proposals for species, which are preferentially targeted for the international market and those species that may be collected because they look like the targeted species – a measure which would not only facilitate enforcement but also incorporate the precautionary principle.
2) Launch awareness campaigns in the main EU markets to reduce demand for frogs’ legs, highlighting the associated problems for biodiversity, ecology, and animal welfare.
By far not all reptiles, which are sought-after in the international pet trade, are covered by the international trade regulations of CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, and the EU’s regulations on wildlife trade (Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97). However, many of these internationally unprotected species are fully protected in their country of origin, through prohibitions of capture and/or export. Many of these species are listed in the threatened categories of the IUCN global or
National Red Lists and often illegal exploitation for the pet trade is estimated to be a serious or even the major threat to their survival. But once these species have been successfully smuggled out of their country of origin, trade within the EU is legal – contrary to the commitment of the
European Union to the Rio de Janeiro Convention on Biological Diversity, including the recognition of sovereign rights of States over their own biological resources.
The European pet market is a main destination for illegally caught reptiles, both CITES listed and non-CITES. In November 2014, Pro Wildlife published its report “Stolen Wildlife”, focusing on the trafficking in rare and threatened species, which are protected in their country of origin, but not on an international level. Once those species are smuggled out of their range state, they can be openly and legally sold in the European and other global markets – which mean high profits with low risk of prosecution. This report provides new case studies from different range states and a broad range of species affected by this special type of wildlife crime.
To this day, the EU remains a major hub and consumer market for illegally exported wildlife, with European citizens regularly being involved in smuggling events and European trade shows serving as meeting points for smugglers and clients.