Efforts to Combat Wild Animals Trafficking in Brazil

Wildlife trafficking, including the flora, fauna and their products and byproducts, is considered the third largest illegal activity in the world, after weapons and drugs trafficking. Considering only the wild animals trafficking in Brazil, it is estimated that about 38 million specimens are captured from nature annually and approximately four million of those are sold. Based on the data of animals seized and their prices, it is suggested that this Country deals with about two billion and five hundred million dollars a year [1].

According to the report of the National Network to Combating Wild Animal Trafficking [1], there are four methods that encourage the illegal trade in wild animal: (a) animals for zoos and private collectors, (b) for scientific use/ biopiracy, (c) for pet shops and (d) for products and byproducts.
However, it is known that identifying the site of capture isn't an easy task, because the locals where the animals are confiscated usually differs from where they were captured. Furthermore, the capture and the sale of wild animals and their byproducts are not concentrated in one only place and do not always follow the same destiny: the movement is intense, with many destinations. After being captured, the animals commonly pass through small and medium traffickers who make the connection with Brazilian and international large dealers, however, the animals can also be sold by internet, pet shops and illegal fairs [2].
Although the trafficking consequences are numerous, it is possible to group them into three main branches: (a) Sanitary, since illegal animals are sold without any sanitary control and can transmit serious diseases, including unknown ones, onto domestic breeding and people [1,2,6]; (b) economic/social, as the trafficking moves incalculable amounts of financial resources without bringing income to the public coffers [1]; and (c) Ecological, since the capture from nature done without discretion accelerate the process of extinction of species, causes damage to ecological interactions and loss of the genetic heritage. Moreover, the trafficking can also bring ecological damage arising from the introduction of exotic specimens, that, although acquired as pets, are being abandoned by their owners in various natural areas [1].
Illegal wildlife trafficking is an extremely lucrative crime with serious consequences yet relatively low penalties and few prosecutions [3]. Besides all the complicating factors inherent to the trafficking, the researchers of this subject are facing yet the lack of organized and systematized data and information [2]. In addition, the studies on trafficking and its impacts on biota are also scarce [7], what makes the task of systematization even more complex.
Thus, through this work, we presented a national view of the control and combat actions towards the wild animals trafficking in Brazil through the existing information at the corporative systems managed by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources -IBAMA. As specific goals, we aimed to:

The enforcement for conservation of wild animals in Brazil
For the preparation of this paper we used, primarily, historical information present in four information systems (Table 1) In Figure 1 we summarized data from the Wild Animals Rehabilitation Centers -CETAS, on all the confiscated wild animals placed there during eight years. The CETAS are responsible for receiving, identifying, marking, selecting, evaluating, recovering, rehabilitating and placing wild animals. Furthermore, they are important allies to the actions for the repression of trafficking because they provide relevant information about confiscated wild animals or from voluntary delivery.
As recommended by the Brazilian Environmental Policy and showed in Figure 1, the State supervision related to illegal wildlife, under the responsibility of the Environmental Military Police, has steadily increased in number and efficiency, thanks to ongoing efforts to decentralize responsibilities in the Country. Thus, IBAMA has been able to focus on major crimes, with significant results through the dissuasion of his actions. It is important to inform that in Brazil, the fines are applied per animal. So, due to that, Minas Gerais (which had the highest participation of environment military police) has the largest number of fines ( Figure 2), but it doesn't reflect the absolute value. This happens because of the type of inspection that fights against the final receptors of wild animal traffic.  We emphasize that the animals confiscated by Brazilian environmental agencies represent only a portion of the damage [8]. The task of estimating the amount of animals withdrawn from nature per year becomes even more difficult if we consider that the possession of a wild animal captured from nature in Brazil is a common practice, despite being prohibited by law. However, IBAMA's Department of Fish and Wildlife points out that the CETAS alone received in 2008 more than 60,000 animals and were destined more than 40,000 ( Figure 4). We noticed, yet, that this number is still small. It happens because most of the animals confiscated in actions of inspection are released into the wild, due to the fact that they are still in savage condition.

Number of specimens
Year Admission Destination The Figure 5 and the Table 2

The species of confiscated animals
We found that the destination given to confiscated animals in Brazil is directly linked to the taxonomic class of animal (Figure 7). For Birds, the main form of destination was release into the wild (greater than 55%), followed by placement in captivity and death. Release into the wild was also the main destination given to reptiles (~ 60%) and mammals (~ 45%). We also noticed that reptiles obtained a lower death rate, while the exotics animals remained in captivity (~ 60%).

Specimens number (%)
Release Captiv ity Death Escape The Table 3 presents the amount of admission and destination of animals from CETAS. Birds represented 81% of admitted specimens and 82% of released ones, between 2002 and 2009. The Birds was also the group that obtained the largest number of deaths registered (86%). In Australia and Asia, Reptilia was most targeted group of taxa for illegal trade,being also the most seized [4,9].    According to studies conducted by [8] in south Brazil, the most commonly confiscated species by enforcement, between 1998 and 2000, was the Cardinal (Paroaria coronata), followed by the Saffron Finch (Sicalis flaveola). And the Emberizidae family presented the largest number of seized specimens, compelling evidence that the great interests of the illegal trade are the songbirds.
The Emberizidae family also excelled in seizures conducted in southeastern and northeastern Brazil [7,10,11]. According to the authors, that fact can be explained, preliminarily, because that family has many species and specimens, for being abundant in the Neotropics, for having easy occurrence in the sampled region, for the high quality of its singing, due to its low market value and for being easy to maintain. Generally, the birds most wanted for trafficking are the songbirds or those able to become pets, confering them high values of trade [8].
Some species listed in Table 4 are exclusively Amazonian, as the Giant South American river turtle, Six-tubercled Amazon River turtle and Yellow-spotted Amazon River Turtle, all very popular in regional cuisine and found in nature in large populations. The domestic chicken (Gallus gallus) and domestic cattle (Bos taurus) obtained national prominence in seizures, because the first is often used in arenas, being the target of actions against animal abuse, and the second is the subject of crime in embargoed areas due to deforestation, mainly in the Amazon region.
We also observed an intrinsic relationship between the passerines authorized breeding and the wild animals trafficking: the five species more seized are also the taxa of greatest interest for commercial and amateur breeders of passerines (Table 5). All other passerines listed in Table 4 are species authorized for commercial and amateur activity. For [1], one of the ways to reduce the pressure on the populations for trafficking would be the encouragement of captive breeding programs to meet commercial demand. However, this strategy can be of great concern, since those animals cannot achieve the low prices offered by the trafficking [7].

The trafficking routes
In Figure 9 we grouped the main trafficking routes of wild animals in Brazil, including major airports, trade and source areas. We observed that, in general, the Brazilian fauna has been removed from the North, Northeast and Midwest of the Country and it is being sent to the Southeast, South and other regions of Northeast, by land or river, fuelling the national trade. In relation to the international illegal trade, we emphasize cities located in border regions in the North, Midwest and South of Brazil, as well as in ports and airports located in the Northern, Northeastern, Southern and Southeastern Brazilian regions.
F o r [ 1 ] , b e y o n d t h e S t a t e s o f P a r a ( P A) and Amazonas (AM), which had national prominence in the amount of fines, other Amazonian frontiers must be of particular concern, Efforts to Combat Wild Animals Trafficking in Brazil 433 such as the borders with the Guianas, Venezuela and Colombia, and the route of the Madeira River. The situation at the tri-border area (Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina) is also a matter of worry. According to [2], many animals are taken from the Iguaçu National Park and illegally sold during daylight or taken by peddlers to other Brazilian regions. Also in southern Brazil, the authors highlight as important areas for capturing and trading wild animals the towns of Laranjeiras do Sul (PR) and Santana do Livramento (RS), close to the border with Uruguay.
In [10], also emphasized the trafficking in the Southwest Bahia (BA) region, and they say that it is a socio-environmental problem with serious consequences to the local avifauna. According to them, the main trade in this region occurs along the BR-116 road, as well as in fairs and small shops roadside.
Specialists point the absence of alternative income for people who use the trafficking as a means of livelihood. The report elaborated by the Brazilian National Congress in 2001 [12] recommends that the Union, States and Municipalities, in an articulated manner, must develop and implement programs to generate alternative income for poor communities involved in the illegal trade of wild animals.
However, the impact of trafficking in society needs to be further studied and its actors mapped. The capture of animals in nature is part of the culture and popular tradition, being one of the main livelihoods of the poor in some regions of Brazil [10]. However, in [11] found that in many regions people are using the illegal trade of animals only as an additional source of income. Thus, mechanism for control of wildlife use and trade should be formulated that take into consideration the special ethnic conditions of each region [13].
In global scale, it is recommended a multi-pronged approach including community-scale education and empowering local people to value wildlife, coordinated international regulation, and a greater allocation of national resources to on-the-ground enforcement for effective control of trafficking and illegal trade [9]. In Brazil, we noticed that the actions against illicit related to wildlife, although increasingly more organized and efficient, still require specific structural measures, among which we may highlight:  Improving the number and the practice of IBAMA's agents and of Environmental Military Policeman through public competition and specific and continuous training;  Increase the volume of public resources towards the activities of control and environmental monitoring;  Increasing the incentive for the creation, implementation and maintenance of CETAS (Wild Animals Rehabilitation Centers);  Reviewing the penal types of Law number 9.605/1998 due to provide harsher penalties for those who engage in wild animals trafficking such as large-scale commercial activity or international and interstate trafficking;  Increasing responsibilities and sharing information among different agencies responsible for controlling and monitoring, through formal terms and shared systems;  Maintening permanent negotiation between the federal government and neighboring countries through bilateral agreements, so that policies or environmental standards more flexible than the Brazilian ones are not used to support the illegal activities;  Increasing the control over the sale of wild animals by internet and their exit to abroad through joint action among different government agencies such as IBAMA, the Federal Revenue Secretariat, Ministry of Health, Federal Police, etc..;  Promoting Specific Environmental Education Campaigns aimed at minimizing the wild animals trafficking, as well as joint efforts among the various ministries involved, including the ones of Transport, Environment, Health and Tourism.
Lastly, we hope that this paper provides important and necessary subsidies for the decisionmaking to combat the animal trafficking in Brazil and abroad, helping the effective protection and conservation of the nature.