Robinson, Janine E, Roberts, David L. (2024) Determining the legality of newly described CITES‐listed species in the horticulture trade of tropical pitcher plants (Nepenthes ). Conservation Biology, 38 (5). Article Number e14361. ISSN 0888-8892. E-ISSN 1523-1739. (doi:10.1111/cobi.14361) (KAR id:107172)
PDF
Publisher pdf
Language: English
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
|
|
Download this file (PDF/340kB) |
Preview |
Request a format suitable for use with assistive technology e.g. a screenreader | |
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14361 |
Abstract
Due diligence is a fundamental component of ensuring a sustainable and legal wildlife trade that is also supportive of the livelihoods and businesses that depend on the trade. This is particularly true with species listed on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) that are considered threatened or may become threatened by trade. Undertaking due diligence exercises requires access to information on which to base such decisions; however, the extent to which information is available is unclear. We used the trade in tropical pitcher plants (Nepenthes) for horticultural purposes as a case study to determine the extent to which information is available. A systematic survey of online trade was conducted for species described from 1996 to 2016. For the species found in trade, these were cross‐referenced with the CITES trade database, and inquiries were made to the relevant CITES Management Authorities and National Focal Points Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS). Of 83 newly described species, 61% were offered for sale online in 2018. Despite all Nepenthes species being listed on CITES, only 23% (n = 19) of the species being sold online were reported in trade on the CITES Trade Database, and only 3 were from the countries of origin. Thirty‐two of these species had no international trade recorded according to the database. Management authorities of CITES for the countries of origin confirmed trade had been permitted for 5 of 32 species. Lack of CITES records may be explained by trade under “Nepenthes spp.” or as exempt parts and derivatives. However, permits to collect and commercialize are likely to be required as part of the Nagoya Protocol on ABS from the Convention on Biological Diversity. The ABS National Focal Points were contacted to determine whether collection or commercialization permits had been issued for the remaining species. Only 2 of 7 focal points replied, and both stated no permits had been issued. Lack of traceability information or response related to the issuance of collection and commercialization permits is concerning and hinders the due diligence of businesses and consumers wanting to ensure their trade is legal, sustainable, and ethical.
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
DOI/Identification number: | 10.1111/cobi.14361 |
Uncontrolled keywords: | CBD, acceso y participación en los beneficios, Nagoya Protocol, Access and Benefit Sharing, Protocolo de Nagoya, diligencia debida, mercado de vida silvestre, adquisición legal, wildlife trade, legal acquisition, due diligence |
Subjects: |
G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > GE Environmental Sciences |
Divisions: | Divisions > Division of Human and Social Sciences > School of Anthropology and Conservation |
Funders: | University of Kent (https://ror.org/00xkeyj56) |
SWORD Depositor: | JISC Publications Router |
Depositing User: | JISC Publications Router |
Date Deposited: | 11 Sep 2024 15:06 UTC |
Last Modified: | 16 Sep 2024 11:05 UTC |
Resource URI: | https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/107172 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes) |
- Link to SensusAccess
- Export to:
- RefWorks
- EPrints3 XML
- BibTeX
- CSV
- Depositors only (login required):