The global illicit wildlife trade is threatening the survival of endangered species (Rosen and Smith 2010; Lenzen et al. 2012; Chan et al. 2015; Symes et al. 2018). Chelonians have been commodified around the world for a wide range of purposes, including as medicine, delicacies, and collector's items (Zhou and Jiang 2008; Chen et al. 2009; Barrios-Garrido et al. 2017), and are a heavily exploited taxon in the global pet trade (Gong et al. 2009; Lyons et al. 2013). The exploitation of chelonians in trade across Southeast and East Asia has caused sharp declines in the populations of species in what has become known as the Asian Turtle Crisis (Van Dijk 2000; Chen et al. 2009; Nijman and Shepherd 2015).

As with illegal wildlife products from countless other taxa, criminals supplying chelonians in trade are increasingly turning to the easily accessible and low-risk environment of the Internet to make such transactions (Derraik and Phillips 2010; Shirey et al. 2013; Gao and Clark 2014; International Fund for Animal Welfare [IFAW] 2014; Lavorgna 2014). Internet auction sites that facilitate international e-commerce, including global giants like eBay, have long been identified as notable channels for such trade (Derraik and Phillips 2010). Social media platforms, including popular worldwide services like Facebook, have also been exploited to facilitate trade in protected and trade-regulated species in recent years (IFAW 2014; Yu and Jia 2015; Iqbal 2015; Gunawan and Noske 2017; Sy 2018).

Leading e-commerce corporations are beginning to adapt to these challenges, and many have vowed to institutionalize anti-illegal wildlife trade practices (Traffic 2017). These corporations, however, represent only a handful of domains under which illegal activities occur. Platforms operating on a more geographically localized scale, such as local Internet discussion forums, are similarly exploited to facilitate local trade. A recent study tracked advertisements for the sale of ploughshare tortoises (Astrochelys yniphora) online in Indonesia from 2010 to 2015, during which period observed advertisements posted on Indonesian retail sites Kaskus and Ceriwis were as voluminous as those recorded on global social media platforms (Morgan and Chng 2018).

It is clear that web sites that cater to specific geographical locales are no less significant in the illegal wildlife trade network than major global platforms, yet they are often unheard of, overlooked, and subjected to less scrutiny and pressure to prevent violations of local wildlife protection laws. Further investigation into the scope and characteristics of illegal wildlife trade on such locally scaled websites can provide greater insight into how this problem can be addressed. In this study, we investigated an example of one such web site: Pet Trade HK (http://petrade.hk/forum.php), a Hong Kong–based Internet forum where pet advertising was openly observable. We identified the specific features that propagated illegal activities on this platform and the advertising strategies employed by sellers, and assessed the dynamics in the local illegal trade of chelonians. Drawing on these specific characteristics, we provide policy recommendations that can improve the enforcement of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) regulations against the illegal online trade of endangered wildlife.

PET TRADE HK — A LOCAL ONLINE PET MARKET IN HONG KONG

Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, where the use of turtles and tortoises is historical and varied in purpose, including as currency, carvings, and medicine. Culturally, these animals are symbols of longevity in Buddhist circles, and of wealth, particularly the Chinese three-striped box turtle (Cuora trifasciata; known colloquially as the “golden coin turtle” ) (Zhou and Jiang 2008). As a party to CITES, Hong Kong enforces its regulations under the Protection of Endangered Species of Animal and Plants Ordinance, Cap. 586 (Cap 586), through the Agriculture, Fisheries, and Conservation Department, the local CITES Management Authority.

The law and regulation of CITES-listed species are stated in Cap 586. Possession or control of species listed in CITES Appendix I requires a possession permit (Section 9[1]), and any person in breach of this requirement is liable to a fine up to 10,000,000 Hong Kong dollars (HKD; approximately 1,275,000 US dollars [USD]) and imprisonment for up to 10 yrs (Section 9 [2][b]). However, the requirement of a possession permit is waived if the owner can prove the species is a pre-CITES specimen (Section 20). Further, Appendix I–listed species are treated as Appendix II–listed if the animal was bred in captivity for commercial purpose in a registered captive breeding site (Section 2). Therefore, possession or control of CITES Appendix I species can be legal under such circumstances.

The law on the possession or control of CITES-listed Appendix II species was changed following the amendments in 2006, and the possession or control of a specimen of a species listed in CITES Appendix II requires a possession permit (Section 15[1]) and any person in breach of this requirement is liable to a fine up to HKD 1,000,000 (approximately USD 127,500) and imprisonment for up to 7 yrs (Section 15 [2][b]). Similar to CITES-listed Appendix I specimens, this requirement is waived if the owner can prove the specimen is of pre-CITES origin (Section 20), or is not a live animal or plant of wild origin (Section 21).

Pet Trade HK (http://petrade.hk) was the largest web site devoted entirely to issues related to pet keeping in Hong Kong until its domain became suspended in July 2017 for reasons unknown; its former moderators cannot be contacted for clarification. The platform was available only in Traditional Chinese characters; this form of the Chinese dialect is different from that of Simplified Chinese (used in Mainland China). There were no signs that the web site facilitated trade beyond Hong Kong. As an Internet forum, the activities on Pet Trade HK were driven by member communications in the form of message boards. The content of the web site was organized into 4 subforums, separating discussions as follows:

1. Forum affairs, a platform for the moderators to post notices, regulations, and updated announcements about the forum. Posts regarding the trading of animals were required to include photos or videos of the animal. In addition, there was a chatroom-style platform for members to socialize, and members could also report any wrongdoing here.

2. Pet trading, exchanging, adoption, and giveaway of pets or equipment (each taxon with their own separate page under its respective category), which allowed the users to trade their pets under specific subcategories (i.e., birds, mammals, arthropods, amphibians, reptiles, fish and aquatic creatures, including chelonians). The types of animals sold on this subforum varied from non–CITES-listed species to CITES-listed species. Some sellers would sell the animals together with tools, utensils, or food as a bundle.

3. General care advice for pets (organized by taxa). Members could share the photos and daily life of their pets within this subforum. Furthermore, members would seek veterinary advice by consulting other members whose pets had experienced similar situations. Methods and ideas of keeping pets of specific species were also exchanged between members.

4. Exclusive discussion board of reputable sellers or other service providers related to the caring for and keeping of animals. Here, each reputable seller was given a subforum for posting their goods. They indicated an address and a brief introduction so members could look for particular services. Newly arrived pets would be posted on their own forum to seek potential buyers.

Each subforum was monitored by at least one moderator with authority to access all posts and members' information under the subforum. Moderators could delete or hide posts if the posts did not follow the set forum guidelines. Members could also be penalized for violating community guidelines.

THE ONLINE TRADE OF CITES-LISTED CHELONIANS

We collected posts listing chelonians for sale in the subforum dedicated to pet trading from March 2016 to March 2017. All posts were analyzed to identify the species being traded, their CITES statuses, and the quantities offered.

A total of 120 users were observed advertising chelonians over the 13-mo period, 80% of which (n = 97) advertised the sale of CITES-listed species (Table 1). On average, there were 1.13 postings per day offering chelonians for sale, without distinguishing between CITES- or non–CITES-listed species. The majority of these users exclusively advertised CITES-listed species (64%, n = 78).

Table 1 Summary of the online chelonian trade on Pet Trade HK from March 2016 to March 2017.

View Fullscreen

Over the survey period, 50 taxa and hybrids of CITES-listed chelonians were found being advertised on this forum. CITES Appendix I–listed species represented 6.3% (n = 3) of all CITES-listed species recorded (Astrochelys radiata, Geoclemys hamiltonii, and Platysternon megacephalum), while Appendix II–listed species represented 73% (n = 35) and Appendix III–listed species represented 21% (n = 10) (Table 2). Chelonians were frequently advertised under written variations of their local common names, often listed in abbreviated forms or under pseudonyms carrying phonetic similarities (for example, using an incorrect Chinese character that has the same intonation to describe the species, which is comprehensible to those with native Traditional Chinese ability). In all, 145 nominal variations were found representing the 50 different species. Nonetheless, the level of scientific accuracy and the general reliability of the posts are questionable. Some posts included photos of the chelonians, though species identification would be difficult to the untrained eye. People who use the forum and have not been trained in species identification would not be able to notice whether the identification specified by the seller is accurate or not. In fact, the difficulties in distinguishing between species is a reported phenomenon in the study of wildlife trade (Chow et al. 2014; Wong 2017). On the other hand, other posts simply included the name and on occasion, the age and size of the chelonians, and required interested parties to send the seller a private message for more details.

Table 2 The 10 most heavily traded CITES-listed chelonians listed in descending order of actual quantities in trade. Observed quantities represent the sum of chelonians advertised, and do not account for repeated advertisement of the same specimens. Actual quantities account for repeated postings to prevent overestimation.

View Fullscreen

Repeated postings, where the same specimens were recurrently advertised by the same users, were noted to prevent double counting and overestimation; this eliminated an otherwise 48.5% overestimation of actual quantities. Based on observed posts alone, 661 chelonians were advertised, but this number reduces to 445 when accounting for such repeated postings. We also excluded posts of the same species by the same users during the study period; each listing was reviewed separately to ensure there were no repetitions. Some posts did not list the value of the chelonians; we included them in our number of total posts (447) but not in the overall value.

From our data, we identified the following characteristics of the trade:

• 1)

  The average duration (the time frame of when a post is overtaken and no longer on the first page regardless of advertising for CITES- or non–CITES-listed chelonians) was 7 d. Since the forum was arranged in the order of descending dates, older posts would be automatically overtaken and replaced on the front pages with more recent posts. There were around 18–22 posts on the first page of the subforum.

• 2)

  In some of the posts, purchases could be delivered in person, and buyers could enjoy a 10% rebate if the pickup was made at a place and time nominated by the seller.

• 3)

  Some of the users posted photos of the advertised specimens with detailed descriptions of their length, weight, and eating habits (including CITES- and non–CITES-listed chelonians).

RECOMMENDATIONS TO COMBAT ONLINE TRADE OF CITES-LISTED SPECIES

The growth of the Internet has indirectly facilitated the trade in CITES- and non–CITES-listed animal and plant species (Sajeva et al. 2013; Hinsley et al. 2016). However, the accessibility and anonymity provided by the Internet also remove the need for actors to fit into conventional and hierarchical criminal network structures, effectively lowering traditional barriers to entry into criminal markets and allowing for more transient and opportunistic illegal wildlife trade (Lavorgna 2014; Harrison et al. 2016; Morgan and Chng 2018).

In our case study, all that prospective buyers and sellers had to do was sign up for an account, a process that would have taken mere minutes and required no identity verification, Reflecting on our data, we conclude with 3 recommendations for the online trade of specimens of CITES-listed species:

CONCLUSIONS

The use of online platforms to conduct trade in CITES-listed chelonians extends beyond dedicated pet trading discussion forums as investigated in our case study. The recommendations posed in this study are not specific to Hong Kong, but can be applied generally to web sites that facilitate pet trading. It is inevitable that the Internet will continue to be exploited as a platform for the active trading of wildlife, making this channel for trade deserving of far greater priority from law enforcement agencies. Deterrence against the trade of species listed in CITES Appendix I cannot be achieved and sustained in the long run if not coupled with efforts to raise awareness, ensure consistent enforcement, and administer sufficient repercussions.