Introduction
Wildlife trade involves the collection of live specimens or body parts of wild animals and their transport and distribution locally, nationally and internationally (Paudel et al., Reference Paudel, Acharya, Baral, Heinen and Jnawali2020a,Reference Paudel, Potter and Phelpsb). This trade is a major cause of the rapid decline of many wild species (McMurray, Reference McMurray2009), threatening global conservation efforts (Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Rajpoot and Rasaily2020). The illegal wildlife trade is of particular significance in Nepal, a region known as a transit hub for illegal wildlife products such as rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis horns, tiger Panthera tigris and leopard Panthera pardus pelts, red panda Ailurus fulgens skins and the scales of pangolins of various species (Shrestha-Acharya & Heinen, Reference Shrestha-Acharya and Heinen2009; PHG, 2017). Although Nepal has been a signatory of CITES since 1975, this trade has increased over time. Nepal has seen increased demand for wildlife products, supported by border connectivity to neighbouring countries that drive this demand (Awale, Reference Awale2019), resulting in an increasingly organized and sophisticated transport network.
The hunting and trade of pangolins have occurred since the 19th century, with no controls or monitoring in Nepal (Shakya et al., Reference Shakya, Pringle and Murgatroyd2000). Asian pangolins are hunted intensively in parts of their range (CITES, 1999) for their skins, scales and meat. Although open markets selling items such as coats made from leopard, tiger and snow leopard Panthera uncia skins, python Python molurus skin handbags, bangles made of carved Asian elephant Elephas maximus ivory and garlands of pangolin scales have been banned in Nepal, the illegal trade in such items persists. Live pangolins and their scales, skins and meat are sold for use in traditional medicine within and outside Nepal (Paudel et al., Reference Paudel, Potter and Phelps2020b). Pangolins are the most heavily trafficked mammals in the world, and they are threatened with extinction (Challender et al., Reference Challender, Heinrich, Shepherd and Katsis2020). Of the eight extant pangolin species, two occur in Nepal: the Chinese pangolin Manis pentadactyla and the Indian pangolin Manis crassicaudata. The Chinese pangolin is categorized as Critically Endangered and the Indian pangolin as Endangered on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Challender et al., Reference Challender, Wu, Kaspal, Khatiwada, Ghose, Ching-Min Sun, Mohapatra, Suwal and .2019; Mahmood et al., Reference Mahmood, Challender, Khatiwada, Andleeb, Perera and Trageser2019); both species are listed in CITES Appendix I (CITES, 2017) and are protected by the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973 (DNPWC & DOF, 2018). They are distributed widely, mostly in the human-dominated landscapes in the central and eastern parts of the country, outside protected areas (Suwal et al., Reference Suwal, Thapa, Gurung, Aryal, Basnet and Basnet2020), making their protection challenging.
In the period August 2000–July 2019, 895,000 pangolins and their derivatives were trafficked internationally, with most of this trade taking place during 2016–2019 (Challender et al., Reference Challender, Heinrich, Shepherd and Katsis2020). Global databases containing information on wildlife trade mostly focus on trade on a national scale, and often provide only limited practical application for law enforcement (Challender et al., Reference Challender, Harrop and MacMillan2015). Previous studies in Nepal have not examined the patterns of illegal pangolin trade by considering specific source or destination information, which also hampers conservation efforts (Nijman et al., Reference Nijman, Zhang and Shepherd2016). Because of the relatively lower trade volume (compared to other African and Asian countries) and the lack of reliable information on trade in transit countries such as Nepal, local trade is often neglected and understudied, limiting our understanding of such smaller-scale trade and its important links with global trade patterns. This information is needed to identify target areas for policy and enforcement efforts.
The Government of Nepal has developed a 5-year (2018–2022) National Pangolin Conservation Action Plan (DNPWC & DOF, 2018). However, the implementation of conservation interventions to reduce pangolin poaching and trade has been limited, partly because of the low priority assigned to this work. Thus, large numbers of pangolins may have been collected and traded, without these activities attracting the attention of the media and conservation stakeholders. To quantify the volume of pangolin trade in Nepal over the last decade, we collected data from pangolin seizures reported during 2010–2020. Based on our findings, we highlight hotspot areas and important periods of illegal pangolin trade in the country. This information could help us to identify patterns associated with this trade, prioritize conservation actions and develop an effective conservation strategy to curb illegal pangolin trade and related crime in Nepal.
Study area
Nepal lies between China to the north, bordered by the Himalayan Mountain ranges, and India to the south, east and west, with an open border (i.e. people can enter and leave the country easily without requiring permissions or visa). The country comprises seven federal provinces divided into 77 districts, with diverse topographies and human socio-demographic characteristics (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2021). Province 1 (not yet named) lies in the easternmost region, at altitudes of 70–8,848 m. This province borders China in the north and the flat plains of the Indian Terai in the south-east. The central Bagmati Province includes Kathmandu, the capital city, with a large, ethnically diverse population and many rural in-migrants. Madhesh Province is situated in the southern Terai. The remaining four provinces of Gandaki, Lumbini, Karnali and Sudurpashchim are in the west of the country (Fig. 1). Of the seven provinces, all but Karnali share a border with India. Human population density is lowest in the upper Himalayas.
The reported number of seizure cases of pangolin derivatives in the districts of Nepal during 2010–2020 (Table 1).
Methods
Prior to 2010, there were only limited official records of the illegal trade of pangolins in Nepal, primarily because pangolins were being considered as a lesser conservation priority compared to large mammals such as tigers and elephants. Thus, we considered data on the illegal trade of pangolins from 11 years, covering 1 January 2010–31 December 2020. We reviewed publicly available records such as national newspapers and media reports, official records at the Division/Sub-division Forest Offices and Central Investigation Bureau, and grey literature on seizures of pangolins and their body parts in Nepal. We communicated with forest officers, protected area staff, security personnel, journalists and local people to verify any doubtful reports. From this information we developed a database on these seizure records, which covered both arrest and confiscation cases. Arrest cases involved the arrest of people who were involved in the pangolin trade and the seizure of pangolin body parts. Confiscation cases represented those cases involving only the collection of pangolin body parts based on information provided by an informer. For each seizure incident we recorded the date of the seizure, the types of seized derivatives (scales, skins with scales, skins, meat, live or dead individuals) and the weight and quantity of the confiscated/seized items. Based on the quantities confiscated, we then estimated the number of individuals, assuming 0.5 kg of scales per individual (Cheng et al., Reference Cheng, Xing and Bonebrake2017). We also documented the origins and sources (locations from which the derivatives were transported and where they were seized) of the seizure cases and the destinations (where the derivatives were transported), to avoid duplication of the same cases collected from different sources and to map the trade network.
We analysed seizure cases by year, month, district and seized derivatives. We defined March–May as spring, June–August as summer, September–November as monsoon and December–February as winter (Dahal et al., Reference Dahal, Shrestha, Tuitui and Ojha2019), to determine seasonal patterns of illegal pangolin hunting and trade. We used R 4.0.3 (R Development Core Team, 2020) for statistical analyses. We prepared a map of seizure cases based on the sources, destinations and numbers of seizure cases using ArcGIS 10.6 (Esri, 2016).
We developed an adjacency matrix by district and number of seizure cases and performed network analyses using the igraph package in R (Csardi & Nepusz, Reference Csardi and Nepusz2006). The districts are represented as nodes and seizure events in different districts are represented as vertices. We calculated the eigenvector centrality of each network using igraph. Centrality measures are amongst the most used indices in network analysis (Marsden, Reference Marsden2005). Eigenvector centrality is a measure of the influence a node has on a network, evaluating both the number of connections to a node and the connectedness of its neighbours. It measures the relative importance of an individual item in a group, which is crucial to identifying which components have a wide-ranging influence within a given network. Each node is given a score, with higher scores denoting a greater level of influence within the network. We also analysed the network with respect to pangolins and pangolin derivatives confiscated in different districts. We used the igraph and circlize (Gu et al., Reference Gu, Gu, Eils, Schlesner and Brors2014) packages in R to construct plots of the trade networks.
Results
Pangolin seizures
A total of 122 pangolin seizure cases were reported in Nepal during 2010–2020, averaging 11.1 cases per year. The highest number of cases was in 2012 (n = 24, 19.7% of the total number of reported seizures) and the lowest were in 2019 (n = 3, 2.5%) and 2010 (n = 5, 4.1%). Pangolin scales were the most frequently seized derivative (n = 78, 63.9% of seizure cases; Table 1). The quantity of scales seized per year fluctuated; the highest quantity was in 2012 (275.1 kg, 26.3% of the total quantity seized), followed by 2019 (173.4 kg, 16.6%), which also included 162 kg of pangolin scales of African origin that were seized in Nepal. The illegal hunting of pangolins occurred throughout the year, with the highest number of seizures recorded during winter (n = 40, 32.8%), followed by summer (n = 32, 26.2%) and the monsoon season (n = 29, 23.8%), and the fewest cases occurring in spring (n = 21, 17.2%). During the study period, pangolin seizures consisted of 23 live animals, one dead individual, 18 whole-body skins with scales, one skin, 300 g of dry meat and 1,046.7 kg of scales overall (range 375 g–162 kg per seizure), resulting in an estimate of > 1,500 individuals having been illegally hunted locally in Nepal, excluding the scales of the African pangolins seized. During 2020 (the year of the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak; Table 1), the quantity of scales seized was lower, but the number of seizure cases increased compared to the previous 3 years.
Pangolin seizure cases reported in Nepal during 2010–2020 (Fig. 1), with seizure district and the location of origin, type of derivative, total number of such cases and total quantity of pangolin scales.
Illegal pangolin trade network
Seizures of illegally traded pangolins were reported in four provinces (27 districts) within Nepal (Figs 1 & 2). Most of the seizure cases were reported in Bagmati Province in central Nepal (n = 93, 76.2%), followed by Province 1 in the east (n = 22, 18.0%). Fewer cases were reported in Lumbini Province (n = 4, 3.3%) and Madhesh Province (n = 3, 2.5%) in the western and central southern Terai regions, respectively. These provinces represent two clusters connected extensively to the Chinese border in the north and, to a lesser extent, to the Indian border in the south (Fig. 1). We found the capital city, Kathmandu, to be the main destination for the illegal trade of pangolins, having the highest number of seizure cases (n = 26, 21.3%), followed by Sindhupalchok (n = 16, 13.1%) and Makwanpur (n = 11, 9.0%) situated in central Nepal. The largest quantities of scales were seized in Sindhupalchok (275.4 kg) and Kathmandu (272.0 kg; Fig. 2). Kathmandu showed high connectivity in terms of the pangolin trade with ten peripheral districts of the country: Dhading, Dolakha, Kavrepalanchok, Nuwakot, Ramechhap, Sindhupalchok, Makwanpur and Sindhuli in central Nepal, and Okhaldhunga and Sankhuwasabha in eastern Nepal (Fig. 3). The eigenvector centrality was highest for Kathmandu, with a value of 1, indicating that it is the major trade hub for pangolins; the city had the highest number of connections with other districts. The eigenvector centrality also showed that scales (value of 1) were the most traded pangolin derivative, followed by live pangolins (value of 0.45; Table 2).
Total quantity of pangolin scales seized in the districts of Nepal during 2010–2020 (Table 2).
Circular plot showing directional movement patterns of pangolins and their derivatives amongst various districts in Nepal during 2010–2020. The width of each band represents the number of seizure cases in that district. The arrows indicate the direction of trade flow amongst various districts, with the head of each arrow showing the destination district where the seizure occurred. The part of each band that does not include any arrows indicates illegal trade that originated and was seized within the same district.
Seizure cases of pangolin derivatives reported in various locations within Nepal (provinces and districts), with number of seizure cases and per cent and type of derivatives (Fig. 2).
Discussion
This is the first analysis of data on illegal pangolin seizures in Nepal during 2010–2020. Although seizure data have an inherent bias in that not all traded products are seized and not all seizures are reported (Cheng et al., Reference Cheng, Xing and Bonebrake2017), we gained important insights regarding trends in the illegal pangolin trade over time, and identified key areas and routes of this trade. There has been progress in the mitigation of the illegal rhinoceros and tiger trade in Nepal, but our findings highlight that this is not yet the case for the illegal pangolin trade. Seizures of live pangolins or pangolin body parts appear as of yet ineffective in reducing the illegal pangolin trade. The data gathered during this study could help with the development of strategies to control this trade through the identification of hotspot districts and important trade routes.
It was not clear whether the fluctuation in the annual number of seizure cases over the study period reflects variation in the intensity of the illegal trade or varying law enforcement efforts. Nevertheless, the number of pangolin seizure cases in Nepal decreased during 2016–2020 (total 46 cases) in comparison to 2011–2015 (total 71 cases; Table 1). In contrast, pangolin trafficking increased globally during 2016–2019 (Challender et al., Reference Challender, Heinrich, Shepherd and Katsis2020). The decrease in the number of seizure cases reported in Nepal could be because of ongoing, collaborative pangolin conservation actions and increased research activity by local and international NGOs, university students and researchers, along with conservation initiatives and support provided by the Government of Nepal from 2016 onwards, and the participation of local communities (SMCRF, 2021).
The numbers of recorded pangolin seizures were highest in the winter and summer seasons. This could reflect seasonal activity patterns of pangolins: young pangolins disperse from their mothers to establish their own home ranges during the summer, and adult males search for mates in winter (Sun et al., Reference Sun, Arora, Lin, Lin, Chi, Chen and Pei2019). Identification of peak seasons of animal movements and illegal activities is key to informing law enforcement agencies and local wildlife conservation stakeholders, so that they can increase their surveillance during these higher-risk months/seasons to reduce illegal activities in and around core pangolin habitats. We estimate that > 1,500 pangolins were poached locally for local use and trade during 2010–2020. Most of the seized derivatives were considered to be of Chinese pangolins based on the location of the seizures and the colour and size of the scales. In 2011, the estimated population of the Chinese pangolin in Nepal was c. 5,000 individuals (Jnawali et al., Reference Jnawali, Baral, Lee, Acharya, Upadhyay and Pandey2011). If illegal pangolin hunting and trade continue at the present rate, this species will probably become extinct in Nepal within the next few decades. Therefore, local, national, regional and international collaboration, support and campaigns are needed to save the Chinese pangolin from extinction in Nepal.
Pangolin seizures were reported mostly in eastern and central Nepal (Suwal et al., Reference Suwal, Thapa, Gurung, Aryal, Basnet and Basnet2020), which is the distribution range of the Chinese pangolin and also a major hotspot for illegal pangolin hunting and trade (Paudel et al., Reference Paudel, Acharya, Baral, Heinen and Jnawali2020a,Reference Paudel, Potter and Phelpsb). Conservation programmes aiming to curb this illegal trade need to increase the participation of local communities for habitat management, and provide support for sustainable livelihoods, to help with the long-term protection of pangolins and their habitat. We recorded most of the seizure cases from Bagmati Province, central Nepal, corroborating the findings of previous studies (Dangol, Reference Dangol2015; Awale, Reference Awale2019). This area contains the capital city, Kathmandu, which is the central hub for the illegal pangolin trade. Kathmandu contains the only international airport in Nepal (Tribhuvan International Airport), which provides opportunities for the international trade and transit of pangolins. Although there is better and quicker access to law enforcement in and around Kathmandu compared to other parts of the country, law enforcement for pangolin-related crimes has been weak because of the low priority assigned to the conservation of these species. Another reason for the role of Kathmandu as a trade hub is that many people from the surrounding villages have migrated to the capital city to access better education, employment, healthcare and business opportunities. Some of these rural in-migrants have become involved in illegal wildlife hunting and trade to supplement their income and meet basic household needs, and because of a lack of education and awareness of the ecological role and conservation status of pangolins (Paudel et al., Reference Paudel, Acharya, Baral, Heinen and Jnawali2020a,Reference Paudel, Potter and Phelpsb). Hence, future education and awareness campaigns, as well as capacity-building training for local communities and law enforcement agencies, should be focused particularly on central Nepal.
We reported seizures of pangolin scales trafficked internationally from Nigeria to Nepal, destined for China (Awale, Reference Awale2019). People from Nepal were also arrested in India, in connection with pangolin scales that had been imported from Bhutan and were destined for sale in Nepal (Big News Network, 2018). These cases highlight that Nepal is used as a transit hub for pangolin derivatives originating from Africa and destined for Asia, as well as within Asia, for international trade and local consumption, creating a complex network of illegal pangolin trade (Challender & Hywood, Reference Challender and Hywood2012). Kathmandu has previously been identified as a major hub in the international networks of illicit trade in tigers, red pandas and leopards from Nepal to China (Paudel et al., Reference Paudel, Acharya, Baral, Heinen and Jnawali2020a).
We identified several other districts (Makwanpur, Sindhupalchok, Bhaktapur, Dhading, Dolakha, Kavrepalanchok and Nuwakot in Bagmati Province, central Nepal, and Morang and Sankhuwasabha in Province 1, eastern Nepal) as major hotspots for illegal pangolin hunting and trade, corroborating findings from previous studies (Ghimire et al., Reference Ghimire, Raut, Khanal, Acharya and Upadhaya2020). Illegal pangolin hunting and trade have also been reported in other districts such as Morang, Lalitpur, Ilam, Taplejung and Dhankuta in central and eastern Nepal (Katuwal et al., Reference Katuwal, Neupane, Adhikari, Sharma and Thapa2015). These districts and trade routes appeared to serve the illegal wildlife trade for locally harvested pangolins from Nepal to India and China, through the Terai region and the upper mountain region (Himalayas) as well as the mid-hill region. This is facilitated by the open border that provides a direct connection with neighbouring countries and easy access for wildlife transportation (Shakya et al., Reference Shakya, Pringle and Murgatroyd2000).
Our findings suggest that rapid implementation of conservation interventions in the identified hotspot districts and regions could have a significant impact on the illegal pangolin trade network in Nepal. It is necessary to strengthen the capacity of law enforcement agencies at both local and national levels to curb illegal hunting and trade, with a particular focus on the identified hotspot areas and major illegal trade routes. Studies on the links between local and intercontinental illegal trade activities could identify the major factors driving the global illegal wildlife trade (Cheng et al., Reference Cheng, Xing and Bonebrake2017), which would facilitate the development of effective strategies to address these conservation challenges on a larger scale. In conclusion, we suggest that to stop the illegal pangolin trade worldwide, national-level workshops and awareness-raising programmes are required, involving trans-border customs, airports and security forces, in collaboration with neighbouring countries. Extensive, long-term campaigns are required to raise public awareness of and support for pangolin conservation. In addition, community-based conservation programmes need to be implemented to minimize hunting and illegal trade, and to develop local stewardship programmes for pangolin conservation. Similar conservation programmes have been successfully implemented for other flagship species in Nepal, leading, for example, to zero poaching of rhinoceroses and the doubling of the tiger population in and around protected areas (WWF, 2017; NTNC, 2018; Acharya et al., Reference Acharya, Thapa, Kuwar, Thapalia and Paudel2020).
Acknowledgements
We thank the security forces (Nepal Army, Nepal Police, Armed Police Force, Nepal), Division Forest Offices, protected areas, journalists of daily, national and online news media and reporters who supported us by providing the records and helping with the verification of data on the illegal pangolin trade; the Government of Nepal, conservation stakeholders, conservationists, local communities and researchers who are working to curb illegal pangolin poaching and trade in Nepal; Save Pangolins for financial support for this study (Project code: NP-TS-01-SP); and Marina Kenyon for language editing.
Author contributions
Study conceptualization: TLS, KJ-CP; data collection and management: TLS; data analysis: TLS, SG; writing: TLS; revision: SG, KJ-CP.
Conflicts of interest
None.
Ethics standards
This study abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards. The information was collected mostly from reports of wildlife crimes from Division Forest Offices, Central Bureau of Investigation, and local and international NGOs, as well as from newspaper and online sources. Verbal consent was obtained during data collection and verification from the respective authorities.
Data availability
Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Open access
