# data[].attributes.body
https://www.sas.org.uk/plastic-pollution/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/plastic-pollution

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/03/230314155054.htm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The world’s plastic pollution crisis, explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Much of the planet is swimming in discarded plastic, which is harming animal and possibly human health. Can plastic pollution be cleaned up?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjQ9Ijq9-D_AhU0bWwGHTpDDfEQFnoECA4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Frainforestsaver.org%2Fwhat-it-is-all-about%2Fwhat-is-slash-and-burn-farming%2F&usg=AOvVaw0NZpQJ9Y_Ua178m5KfvZL-&opi=89978449

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/human-geography/agricultural-geography/slash-and-burn-agriculture/

Summary : Slash-and-burn agriculture, method of cultivation in which forests are burned and cleared for planting.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjii8Sz99__AhVPRmwGHXHlApoQFnoECA4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalgeographic.com%2Fenvironment%2Farticle%2Fplastic-pollution&usg=AOvVaw1Papqm11eu19GHpH6W_Tls&opi=89978449

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiqrPTK2sz_AhXVumMGHWHYBl4QFnoECBQQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eia.gov%2Fenergyexplained%2Fnuclear%2Fnuclear-power-and-the-environment.php%23%3A~%3Atext%3DNuclear%2520energy%2520produces%2520radioactive%2520waste%2Chealth%2520for%2520thousands%2520of%2520years.&usg=AOvVaw3HFOGgOuUsLUZbRZw9Rv8e&opi=89978449

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/09/why-the-death-of-coral-reefs-could-be-devastating-for-millions-of-humans/

If carbon dioxide emissions continue to fuel the planet’s rising temperature, the widespread loss of coral reefs by 2050 could have devastating consequences for tens of millions of people

Other countries that rely heavily on reefs, such as Fiji or Papua New Guinea, have relatively small carbon footprints. Still, Pendleton said, they can take other measures — including not overfishing and avoiding pollution — to prevent putting further pressure on already stressed reefs.

# data[].attributes.body
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/amazon-deforestation-and-climate-change/

if deforestation continues at current levels, we are headed for disaster. The Amazon region could become drier and drier, unable to support healthy habitats or croplands.

rainforest is not only home to an incredible diversity of species, it also has a critical cooling effect on the planet because its trees channel heat high into the atmosphere. In addition, forests absorb and store carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere—CO2 that is released back into the atmosphere when trees are cut and burned.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join Gisele Bundchen when she meets with one of Brazil’s top climate scientists to discuss the complexity of the Amazon rainforest and its connection to Earth’s atmosphere.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/environmental-costs-fast-fashion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New season, new styles, buy more, buy cheap, move on, throw away: the pollution, waste, and emissions of fast fashion are fueling the triple planetary crisis.

The annual Black Friday sales on 25 November are a reminder of the need to rethink what is bought, what is thrown away, and what it costs the planet.

Sustainable fashion and circularity in the textiles value chain are possible, yet this century the world's consumers are buying more clothes and wearing them for less time than ever before, discarding garments as fast as trends shift.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is spearheading an initiative towards a zero waste world. As part of this ambitious outlook, UNEP has partnered with Kenyan spoken word poet Beatrice Kariuki to shed light on high-impact sectors where consumers can make a real difference.

"We need circular industries where old looks are made new," Kariuki says in the video. "Less packaging, more reuse. Threads that last."

The Ellen Macarthur Foundation, a UNEP partner, has estimated that a truckload of abandoned textiles is dumped in landfill or incinerated every second. Meanwhile, it is estimated that people are buying 60 per cent more clothes and wearing them for half as long.

Plastic fibres are polluting the oceans, the wastewater, toxic dyes, and the exploitation of underpaid workers. Fast fashion is big business, and while the environmental costs are rising, experts say there is another way: a circular economy for textiles.

At this month's UN Climate Conference ( COP27) in Egypt, UNEP and the non-profit Global Fashion Agenda (GFA) held an event on ' Circular Systems for a Net Positive Fashion Industry ', which drew industry leaders to discuss routes towards a circular economy for the industry, with less waste, less pollution, more reuse, and more recycling.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new UNEP video captures how fast fashion is a growing problem, creating waste while fuelling carbon emissions, and how combatting it is everyone's responsibility.

# data[].attributes.body
https://reefresilience.org/stressors/local-stressors/overfishing-and-destructive-fishing-threats/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Unsustainable fishing has been identified as the most pervasive of all local threats to coral reefs. Over 55% of the world's reefs are threatened by overfishing and/or destructive fishing. Some regions, such as Southeast Asia, are particularly threatened, where nearly 95% of reefs are affected. In fact, many of the world's most remote coral reefs are heavily fished. Reef fisheries are an important source of food and livelihood for many coastal communities worldwide. In some cases, these fisheries are well managed and can be a sustainable resource. However, fish stocks are increasingly threatened due to numerous factors including increased demand for fish and seafood products; more efficient fishing methods; inadequate management and enforcement; and lack of alternative livelihood options. Overfishing (i.e., catching more fish than the system can support) leads to declines in fish populations, ecosystem-wide impacts, and impacts on dependent human communities. Destructive fishing methods include the use of explosives to kill or stun fish, which destroys corals. This method, called blast or dynamite fishing, shatters coral colonies and kills the coral tissues on adjacent colonies. Because blast fishing is limited to shallower parts of the reef, these vulnerable zones can be reduced to rubble by repeated blasts, making recovery difficult or impossible and destroying large sections of reef. Another destructive fishing method involves the use of cyanide to stun and capture fish alive for the live reef food fish or aquarium fish markets. Cyanide that is sprayed or dumped on reefs can damage and kill corals. In addition, fishers often break corals when attempting to extract the stunned fish, causing further damage to the coral reef ecosystem. Unfortunately, about one-third to one-half of fish collected using this method die soon after they are harvested, making this a particularly destructive method of harvest.

Some types of fishing gear, including gill nets and beach seines, can also damage reef ecosystems. These types of fishing gear drag along the ocean floor and capture or flatten non-targeted juvenile species and corals in their path. Abandoned fishing gear, such as lost traps or nets, can continue "ghost fishing," i.e., ensnaring prey and smothering corals for months or years after deployment. Abandoned nets can also entangle and dislodge corals due to wave action. Additionally, scuba and hookah diving have opened up deeper areas to fishers of sea cucumbers, pearl oysters, lobsters, octopus, fishes, seashells, and corals. Destructive fishing methods like dynamite, gill nets and beach seines are highly unsustainable because they typically do not target particular fish species and often result in juveniles being killed in the process. Damage to the coral reef structure further reduces the productivity of the area, thus adversely affecting both the reef-dependent fish populations and also the livelihoods of fishers and nearby communities.

Impacts of Overfishing and Destructive Fishing

Direct overexploitation of fish, invertebrates, and algae for food and the aquarium trade

Removal of a species or group of species impacting multiple trophic levels

By-catch and mortality of non-target species

Changes from coral to algal dominance due to reduction in herbivores

Physical impacts to reef environments associated with fishing techniques, fishing gear, and anchoring of fishing vessels

Such impacts are exacerbated when combined with other coral reef threats such as climate change, coral disease, and land-based sources of pollution. A number of management strategies to address overfishing and destructive fishing have been identified including the establishment of no-take areas within MPAs, seasonal closures to protect breeding sites, restrictions on number of people allowed to fish, types of fishing gear used, and the quantities or sizes of fish that can be harvested. Read more about reef fisheries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Overfishing and Destructive Fishing Threats

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unsustainable fishing has been identified as the most pervasive of all local threats to coral reefs. Over 55% of the world's reefs are threatened by overfishing and/or destructive fishing. Some regions, such as Southeast Asia, are particularly threatened, where nearly 95% of reefs are affected.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.epa.gov/coral-reefs/threats-coral-reefs

# data[].attributes.body
https://time.com/amazon-rainforest-disappearing/

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
How overfishing threatens the world’s oceans—and why it could end in catastrophe

# data[].attributes.body
Why overfishing occur ?
- Occured in the early 1800s
( When humans… )

seek blubber for lamp oil

decimated the whale population around Stellwegen Bank

off the coast of cape cod

- Favourable policies , loans , and subsides spawned a rapid rise of big industrial fishing operations .
- By 1989 , when about 90 million tonnes (metric tons) of fishes were taken from the oceans
- In 2003, a scientific report estimated that industrial fishing had reduced the number of large ocean fish .

How overfishing affects biodiversity?
- Plant-eating fish keep these ecosystems in balance by eating algae , keeping the coral clean and healthy so that it can grow .
- Fishing equipment and debris can also physically destroy the fragile corals that make up the reef foundations .

Efforts to prevent overfishing
- In 2006, all the world’s fisheries will collapse by 2048
- An increased use of the farming seafood , aquaculture

Can we stop fishing ?
- In 2018, nation spent $22 billion on so-called harmful subsides that fuel overfishing .
- harmful subsides are those that fund practices taht would not otherwise be profitable , such as for industrial trawlers fuel costs .
- United Nations to forge an agreement by 2020, that deadline has passed with no resolution .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How overfishing threatens the world’s oceans—and why it could end in catastrophe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Decades of harvesting the seas have disrupted the delicate balance of marine ecosystems—despite global efforts to mitigate the damage.

# data[].attributes.body
Poaching has devastating effects on wild life,most the species being poached are also threatened till extinction.

More than a thousand rhinos have also been slaughtered each year, for their horns. As of March 2020, for example, the Northern white rhino were the only two white rhinos left in the entire world. They are held in captivity under 24-hour surveillance at the Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Kenya.

Tigers are also at the edge of extinction due to illegal poaching. African pangolins are also now the targets by poachers as the Asian ones become harder to find and increasing the price of the pangolins.

https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-effects-solutions-poaching.php

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/poaching-animals#:~:text=Poaching%20poses%20a%20growing%20threat,the%20global%20trade%20in%20wildlife.

Poaching poses a growing threat to elephants, rhinos, and other charismatic animals, as well as to smaller and more obscure creatures, like certain lizards and monkeys. Poachers sometimes kill or capture animals to sell them locally or for the global trade in wildlife.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjvkZG0rPb-AhVjumMGHV3yDoYQFnoECFEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalgeographic.com%2Fenvironment%2Farticle%2Facid-rain&usg=AOvVaw3dI8_MW_bk21lGgjBCKsm2

# data[].attributes.body
https://earth.org/statistics-about-fast-fashion-waste/

Fast fashion is contributing to the overaccumulation and mass amount of textile waste. As mentioned previously, because these garments are being made of synthetic materials, there is no biodegrading process, meaning what is made within this industry never goes away.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Acid Rain - Definition, Causes, Effects, Examples, Prevention , FAQS and Videos of Acid Rain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Acid Rain, as the name suggests, can be said to be the precipitation of acid in the form of rain in the simplest manner. When atmospheric pollutants like oxides of nitrogen and sulphur react with rainwater and come down with the rain, then this results in Acid Rain.

Table of contents
Acid Rain Definition

Acid rain is made up of highly acidic water droplets due to air emissions, most specifically the disproportionate levels of sulphur and nitrogen emitted by vehicles and manufacturing processes. It is often called acid rain as this concept contains many types of acidic precipitation.

The acidic deposition takes place in two ways: wet, and dry. Wet deposition is any form of precipitation which removes acids from the atmosphere and places them on the surface of the earth. In the absence of precipitation, dry deposition of polluting particles and gases sticks to the ground through dust and smoke.

Recommended Videos Of Acid Rain

Causes of Acid Rain

The causes of acid rain are Sulphur and Nitrogen particles which get mixed with the wet components of rain. Sulphur and Nitrogen particles which get mixed with water are found in two ways either man-made i.e as the emissions are given out from industries or by natural causes like how a lightning strike in the atmosphere releases nitrogen ions and sulphur is released from volcanic eruptions.

According to the Royal Society of Chemistry, which considers him the "father of acid rain," the word acid rain was invented in 1852 by Scottish chemist Robert Angus Smith. Smith decided on the word while studying rainwater chemistry near industrial towns in England and Scotland.

The regular clean rain we experience, even though it is not clean i.e water and carbon dioxide react together to form weak carbonic acid which essentially by itself is not extremely harmful. The reaction occurring is :
H2O (l) + CO2 (g) ⇌ H2CO3 (aq)
The pH value of regular rainwater is around 5.7, giving it an acidic nature. The oxides of nitrogen and sulphur are blown away by the wind along with the dust particles. They settle on the earth's surface after coming down in the form of precipitation. Acid rain is essentially a by product of human activities which emit oxides of nitrogen and sulphur in the atmosphere. Example - the burning of fossil fuels, unethical waste emission disposal techniques.

Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide undergo oxidation, and then they react with water resulting in the formation of sulphuric acid and nitric acid, respectively. The following reaction will clarify the acid formation reaction:

Effects of Acid Rain

Acid rain is very harmful to agriculture, plants, and animals. It washes away all nutrients which are required for the growth and survival of plants. Acid rain affects agriculture by the way it alters the composition of the soil.

It causes respiratory issues in animals and humans.

When acid rain falls down and flows into the rivers and ponds it affects the aquatic ecosystem. It alters the chemical composition of the water, to a form which is actually harmful to the aquatic ecosystem to survive and causes water pollution.

Acid rain also causes the corrosion of water pipes, which further results in leaching of heavy metals such as iron, lead and copper into drinking water.

It damages the buildings and monuments made up of stones and metals.

Real-Life Examples

Taj Mahal, one of the 7 wonders of the world, is largely affected by acid rain. The city of Agra has many industries which emit the oxides of sulphur and nitrogen in the atmosphere. People continue to use low-quality coal and firewood as a domestic fuel, adding to this problem. Acid rain has the following reaction with the marble (calcium carbonate):
CaCO3 + H2SO4 → CaSO4 + H2O + CO2
The formation of calcium sulphate results in the corrosion of this beautiful monument.

Statue of Liberty which is made of copper has also been damaged by the cumulative action of acid rain and oxidation for over 30 years and is, therefore, becoming green.

Prevention of Acid Rain

The only precaution that we can take against acid rain is having a check at the emission of oxides of nitrogen and sulphur.

Acid rain is harmful to animals, plants and the monuments.

Being responsible citizens, one should be aware of the harmful effects they cause and of the industries which give out nitrogen and sulphur compound wastes unethically.

Frequently Asked Questions - FAQs

What is acid rain and how is it caused?

Acid rain is caused by a chemical reaction that begins when compounds such as sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen are released into the air. These substances can rise very high up into the atmosphere, where they mix and react with water, oxygen, and other chemicals to form more acidic pollutants called acid rain.

What are the effects of acid rain?

The ecological consequences of acid rain are seen most strongly in marine habitats, such as streams, lakes and marshes where fish and other wildlife can be toxic. Acidic rainwater can leach aluminium from soil clay particles as it flows through the soil and then floods into streams and lakes.

What will happen if we don't stop acid rain?

Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide are the principal chemicals for acid rain. It can also influence humans since the acid goes into fruits, vegetables and animals. In other words, we can get really sick if acid rain doesn't stop, and we eat those things. In general, the acid rain affects men, but not directly.

What is acid rain What are its harmful effects?

It has been shown that acid rain has detrimental effects on trees, freshwaters and soils, destroys insects and aquatic life-forms, causes paint to peel, corrosion of steel structures such as bridges, and weathering of stone buildings and sculptures, as well as impacts on human health.

What are three ways to reduce acid rain?

Alternative energy sources should be used, such as solar and wind power. Renewable sources of energy are helping to reduce acid rain, as they produce much fewer emissions. There are other electricity sources as well, such as nuclear power, hydropower, and geothermal energy. Among these, the most extensive use is among nuclear and hydropower.

Read more:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Acid Rain - Definition, Causes, Effects, Examples, Prevention , FAQS and Videos of Acid Rain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When atmospheric pollutants like oxides of nitrogen and sulphur react with rainwater and come down with the rain, then this results in Acid Rain. Acid rain is made up of highly acidic water droplets due to air emissions.To study the causes, effects of Acid rain, along with a few examples and understand the prevention measures, FAQs.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjb6-SKrPb-AhWc3jgGHTzMC9sQFnoECCIQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrc.gov%2Freading-rm%2Fdoc-collections%2Ffact-sheets%2Fradwaste.html%23%3A~%3Atext%3DRadioactive%2520(or%2520nuclear)%2520waste%2520is%2Clevel%2520or%2520low%252Dlevel%2520waste.&usg=AOvVaw0EH9TfdDLD-oF96z8NeaTk

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Plastic pollution | Definition, Sources, Effects, Solutions, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The problem of plastics

Plastic is a polymeric material-that is, a material whose molecules are very large, often resembling long chains made up of a seemingly endless series of interconnected links. Natural polymers such as rubber and silk exist in abundance, but nature's "plastics" have not been implicated in environmental pollution, because they do not persist in the environment. Today, however, the average consumer comes into daily contact with all kinds of plastic materials that have been developed specifically to defeat natural decay processes-materials derived mainly from petroleum that can be molded, cast, spun, or applied as a coating. Since synthetic plastics are largely nonbiodegradable, they tend to persist in natural environments. Moreover, many lightweight single-use plastic products and packaging materials, which account for approximately 50 percent of all plastics produced, are not deposited in containers for subsequent removal to landfills, recycling centres, or incinerators. Instead, they are improperly disposed of at or near the location where they end their usefulness to the consumer. Dropped on the ground, thrown out of a car window, heaped onto an already full trash bin, or inadvertently carried off by a gust of wind, they immediately begin to pollute the environment. Indeed, landscapes littered by plastic packaging have become common in many parts of the world. (Illegal dumping of plastic and overflowing of containment structures also play a role.) Studies from around the world have not shown any particular country or demographic group to be most responsible, though population centres generate the most litter. The causes and effects of plastic pollution are truly worldwide.

According to the trade association PlasticsEurope, worldwide plastic production grew from some 1.5 million metric tons (about 1.7 million short tons) per year in 1950 to an estimated 275 million metric tons (about 303 million short tons) by 2010 and 359 million metric tons (nearly 396 million short tons) by 2018; between 4.8 million and 12.7 million metric tons (5.3 million and 14 million short tons) are discarded into the oceans annually by countries with ocean coastlines.

Compared with materials in common use in the first half of the 20th century, such as glass, paper, iron, and aluminum, plastics have a low recovery rate. That is, they are relatively inefficient to reuse as recycled scrap in the manufacturing process, because of significant processing difficulties such as a low melting point, which prevents contaminants from being driven off during heating and reprocessing. Most recycled plastics are subsidized below the cost of raw materials by various deposit schemes, or their recycling is simply mandated by government regulations. Recycling rates vary dramatically from country to country, and only northern European countries obtain rates greater than 50 percent. In any case, recycling does not really address plastic pollution, since recycled plastic is "properly" disposed of, whereas plastic pollution comes from improper disposal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic pollution | Definition, Sources, Effects, Solutions, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic pollution, harmful accumulation of synthetic plastic products in the environment. Plastics are persistent large-scale pollutants, and plastic debris (such as bottles, straws, containers, and plastic wrap) and particulates have been found in many environmental niches, from Mount Everest to the bottom of the sea.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-62103336

Some 3,988 square kilometres (1,540 square miles) of land were cleared in the region between January and June.Last year, 3,088 square kilometres of the rainforest were destroyed during the same period.The Amazon plays an essential role in the planet's oxygen and carbon dioxide cycles, absorbing vast amounts of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

Environmentalists blame the increasing levels of deforestation on Brazil's right-wing president, Jair Bolsonaro, who has rolled back environmental protections.Brazil's environment ministry said it had been forceful in fighting environmental crimes, although in a statement it failed to mention the spike in deforestation.

The Amazon is the world's largest rainforest, but its trees are felled for their wood and to clear space for crops that in turn supply global food companies.The high level of deforestation is also feeding a higher than usual number of fires for this time of year.After trees are cut down, fires are often set in order to clear the land for agriculture, so more deforestation means more fires.As well as being rich in biodiversity, the area is home to communities who say they need to use the forest for mining and commercial farming in order to make a living.At the same time, indigenous communities living in the Amazon fight to protect the rainforest and their ways of life.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/plastic-pollution

Plastic pollution has become one of the most pressing environmental issues, as rapidly increasing production of disposable plastic products overwhelms the world’s ability to deal with them. Plastic pollution is most visible in developing Asian and African nations, where garbage collection systems are often inefficient or nonexistent. But the developed world, especially in countries with low recycling rates, also has trouble properly collecting discarded plastics. Plastic trash has become so ubiquitous it has prompted efforts to write a global treaty. negotiated by the United Nations.

The conveniences plastics offer, however, led to a throw-away culture that reveals the material’s dark side: today, single-use plastics account for 40 percent of the plastic produced every year. Many of these products, such as plastic bags and food wrappers, have a lifespan of mere minutes to hours, yet they may persist in the environment for hundreds of years.

# data[].attributes.body
https://youtu.be/uU3kLBo_ruo
Radioactive (or nuclear) waste is a byproduct from nuclear reactors, fuel processing plants, hospitals and research facilities. Radioactive waste is also generated while decommissioning and dismantling nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities. There are two broad classifications: high-level or low-level waste

# data[].attributes.body
https://youtu.be/3uzWUQlZvm0
Acid rain, or acid deposition, is a broad term that includes any form of precipitation with acidic components, such as sulfuric or nitric acid that fall to the ground from the atmosphere in wet or dry forms. This can include rain, snow, fog, hail or even dust that is acidic

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
What Is PLASTIC POLLUTION? | What Causes Plastic Pollution? | The Dr Binocs Show | Peekaboo Kidz

# data[].attributes.body
What is plastic pollution ?
- Is the accumulation of plastic objects and particles that adversely affects wildlife and humans
( plastic objects and particles = plastic bottle , bags , microbeads )

How does it affect the lives of humans and animals ?
animals ~
- million of animals are killed by plastic .  ( from birds to fish and to other aquatic organisms )
- plastic has been found in the stomach of many land-based animals ( inc . elephants , zebra, tiger , camels , cattle and other large mammals )
- they had found microplastics in marine species

( scientist results ) humans ~
- Almost one-third of these end up on our plates
- They’ve been found in a majority of the world’s tap water

Who is responsible for all this plastic mess around us ?
- humans themselves

Before Conclusion ,
- Not all plastic is terrible as they are handy .
( reason so… )
- Plastic revolutionized medicine with life-saving devices , mad space travel possible . lightened cars and jets . Saving fuel and pollution and saved lives with helmets , cair airbags , and equipment for clean drinking water )
( but the problem is… )
- most of us use and throw away more plastic than we need things like grocery bags , drinking bottle , straws , food wrappers and plastic packaging around toys ( this kind of plastic that’s used only once is called single-used plastic )

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is PLASTIC POLLUTION? | What Causes Plastic Pollution? | The Dr Binocs Show | Peekaboo Kidz

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cfr.org/amazon-deforestation/#/en/section3

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.biopak.com/sg/resources/plastic-problem

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.activesustainability.com/climate-change/what-is-acid-rain/?_adin=02021864894

Acid rain is one of the consequences of air pollution. It occurs when emissions from factories, cars or heating boilers contact with the water in the atmosphere. These emissions contain nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide, which when mixed with water become sulfurous acid, nitric acid and sulfuric acid. This process also occurs naturally through volcanic eruptions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Acid rain occurs when certain emissions come into contact with the water of the atmosphere. Learn everything about acid rain in this article and infographic.

How is acid rain formed?

Acid rain is one of the consequences of air pollution. It occurs when emissions from factories, cars or heating boilers contact with the water in the atmosphere. These emissions contain nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide, which when mixed with water become sulfurous acid, nitric acid and sulfuric acid. This process also occurs naturally through volcanic eruptions.

Acid rain effects

The resulting acids are precipitated to earth as rain or snow with very negative consequences: on the one hand the damage to nature in the form of acidification of soils, lakes and seas with consequent damage to terrestrial and marine flora and fauna. On the other hand, acid rain also causes corrosion of metallic elements -buildings, bridges, towers and other structures- and the destruction of human heritage made of limestone -buildings and historic structures, statues, sculptures... -

Is acid rain harmful to humans?

Acid rain itself is not harmful to humans, ie, the skin contact with contaminated water or snow does not pose a health risk. However, the gases that cause this rain (nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide), are harmful. These gases contain particles of sulfate and nitrate and are carried by the wind and inhaled by people causing respiratory diseases.

How to stop acid rain?

The only way to stop acid rain is to reduce emissions that cause it. This involves betting on renewable energy sources and reducing the use of fossil fuels in the industrial and automotive sector and in the daily life of every citizen.

The following infographic might help better understand what acid rain is and what are its effects:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Acid rain occurs when certain emissions come into contact with the water of the atmosphere. Learn everything about acid rain in this article and infographic. Acid rain is one of the consequences of air pollution. It occurs when emissions from factories, cars or heating boilers contact with the water in the atmosphere.

# data[].attributes.body
https://oceanliteracy.unesco.org/plastic-pollution-ocean/

Plastic is one of the many things that could actually outlive all of us. Even if it is degradable, research shows that it turns into something called microplastic. Plastics produced from fossil fuels are just over a century old, but they revolutionized our life completely. It allowed the invention of many life-saving devices and the implementation of new technologies that changed the course of history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic is one of the most enduring materials man has created. Nowadays, we all know that it can take hundreds of years for plastic to degrade, and research is showing that it is possible that it does not even fully degrade, but becomes what we call microplastic.

Microplastics are tiny particles of plastic that can be eaten by marine animals and end up in their bodies and tissues, entering the food chain and leading to disastrous consequences for the health of our planet and all its inhabitants.

Even if human beings are becoming more and more aware of the hazards this material poses to life, the presence of plastic in our ocean is continually increasing, and plastic pollution is still one of the main causes of marine species extinction, health problems for human beings and animals alike, and the destruction of our ecosystems.

In this article, we will look at ocean plastic pollution and lay out the data and statistics you need to understand the daunting issue we are facing. Most importantly, we will also look at what we can do as individuals and as part of our society to prevent plastic pollution and save our planet.

Let's start!

Plastic Pollution in the Ocean: Where does it come from?

It is clear that plastic pollution is one of the most pressing environmental issues we are currently facing, but how did it come to be? Moreover, where does all the plastic in the ocean come from?

Plastics produced from fossil fuels are just over a century old, but they revolutionized our life completely. It allowed the invention of many life-saving devices and the implementation of new technologies that changed the course of history.

However, the great advantages plastic offered led to a throwaway trend that made us discover plastic's dark side: the threat it poses to our environment and life.

The majority of plastic pollution in the ocean is caused by littering: we buy or use disposable plastic items (food wrappings, plastic bags, razors, bottles, etc.) and do not dispose of them properly, which cause them to end up in the waterways and eventually in the ocean.

Yet, not all-plastic waste in the ocean is an effect of littering: many plastics and microplastics are the product of improper manufacturing processes and about 20% of the ocean's plastic pollution comes from industrial fishing.

Plastic Pollution: Key Facts

Plastic waste makes up 80% of all marine pollution and around 8 to 10 million metric tons of plastic end up in the ocean each year.

Research states that, by 2050, plastic will likely outweigh all fish in the sea.

In the last ten years, we have produced more plastic products than in the previous century.

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has stated that basically 100% of all plastics human beings have ever created are still in existence.

Plastic generally takes between 500-1000 years to degrade. Even then, it becomes microplastics, without fully degrading.

Currently, there are about 50-75 trillion pieces of plastic and microplastics in the ocean.

This plastic either breaks down into microplastic particles (see below), or floats around and ends up forming garbage patches.

Garbage Patches in the Ocean

Most of the plastic we find in the ocean comes from land: it flows downstream through rivers all the way to the sea. At first, it may stay in coastal waters, but it can soon be picked up by rotating ocean currents, called gyres, and transported literally anywhere in the world.

According to National Geographic, scientists found plastic coming from Russia, the United States, Europe, South America, Japan, and China on Henderson Island, an uninhabited isolated atoll halfway between Chile and New Zealand.

Usually, marine plastic debris groups up in what we call garbage patches, plastic accumulation areas, in the center of the ocean's gyres. The biggest is the Great Pacific garbage patch, located between Hawaii and California.

Consequences

Today, plastic production and use is still at its highest, but the data on recycling are not at all promising: only about 10% of the plastic we produce is currently being recycled. The rest is either incinerated, causing air pollution, or it ends up in our oceans and environment.

Harm to Wildlife

Plastic pollution in the ocean has a devastating impact on marine life and ecosystems. The most obvious one being the damage plastic items cause to animals when they come into contact with or ingest them, which include suffocation, entanglement, laceration, infections and internal injuries.

17% of the species affected by the presence of plastic in the ocean are on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species.

Yet, there are more problems related to plastic: floating plastic items can help transport invasive species, which leads to threats for marine ecosystems, biodiversity and the food web.

Harm to Human Beings

As we explained above, microplastics have now become part of the food chain and have been found everywhere: in drinking water, salt, beer and in the soil where we grow our vegetables.

Plastic materials are carcinogenic and can affect the body's endocrine system, causing developmental, neurological, reproductive and immune disorders. Another health hazard is given by toxic contaminants that often accumulate on plastic's surface, and are then transferred to humans through the consumption of seafood.

Climate Change

Plastic pollution and climate change are two sides of the same coin: plastic production, as it is created from fossil fuels, highly contributes to the climate crisis.

Moreover, as we already mentioned, when plastic waste is incinerated, it releases carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere, increasing emissions and worsening global warming.

Economic effects

According to research, the yearly economic costs of plastic in the ocean are estimated to be between $6-19bn USD. These costs are given by its impact on tourism, fisheries and aquaculture, and (governmental) cleanups.

Images of Plastic Pollution in the Ocean

Here, we have decided to show you some recent images of plastic pollution in the ocean.

This will help you comprehend the magnitude of the threat that plastic pollution in the ocean poses to our planet and life, as we know it, and hopefully help you develop a deeper awareness of what is going on.

Why it is Vital to Prevent Plastic Pollution

Plastic pollution is undoubtedly an issue that requires worldwide cooperation. Its consequences affect the whole planet and its inhabitants: it threatens ocean health, the health of marine species, food safety and quality, human health, coastal tourism, and contributes to climate change.

Reducing the presence of plastic in our oceans will not only allow us to save marine species and ecosystems, but will improve our overall health and that of the environment in general, helping us fight climate change and working towards a more sustainable future.

How to Stop Plastic Pollution in the Ocean

It is quite hard to retrieve plastic from the ocean once it has entered it. New technologies allow us to catch larger marine debris, but small plastic items and microplastics are virtually impossible to reach, especially when they are deep in the ocean.

Therefore, many scientists and conservationists have declared that the best solution is to prevent plastic waste from entering rivers and seas in the first place.

This could be accomplished with the improvement of our waste management systems and the implementation of recycling. In addition, it is essential to reconsider the design and usage of disposable packaging, and the reduction in manufacturing of unnecessary single-use plastics.

What Can We Do

There are many ways to keep plastic out of the ocean! Here are some strategies you can adopt and share with your community:

Reduce plastic use
Think about all the plastic items you use in your daily life. Can you even count them all? Being more aware of the way you use plastic is a great starting point to reduce plastic waste.

We know, habits are hard to change, but even a small individual commitment can make a difference especially when talking about the single-use plastics we mentioned earlier which, according to data from the European Parliament, are responsible for 49% of all marine pollution.

Here are some new habits you can take inspiration from:

Swap plastic bags for reusable ones, made of cloth or fiber.

Reduce the use of disposable plastic cups, plates, cutlery and bottles. For example, bring your own reusable bottle to work and a reusable coffee cup for your morning take-away!)

Buy food and cleaning products in bulk to avoid useless plastic wrappings. Nowadays, there are plenty of options to choose from, and many supermarkets let you fill your own jars/bags.

Choose metal or glass food containers and storage options instead of plastic ones.

Avoid buying and using cosmetics that contain plastic microspheres or microbeads.

If you live by a sea or river, you can volunteer to pick up litter in your local community, thus remove plastics from the waterways and preventing them from getting to the ocean in the first place. There are many organizations you can join, or simply do it on the weekend with your friends and family. Every little helps!

Of course, it is essential to change our individual behaviors and habits, but unfortunately, this is not sufficient to prevent and stop ocean plastic pollution. It is also essential that you support legislation that aims at reducing the use and production of plastic, improve recycling facilities and better manage waste in general.

One of the main weapons we can use to stop ocean pollution is research. By deepening our knowledge of the effects of the issue, we can start implementing better policies for all.

There are many NGOs and non-profit that rely on donations to develop their projects and research for reducing and eliminating plastic from the ocean. Here are some examples:

Sylvia Earle, marine biologist, said: "It is the worst of times but it is the best of times because we still have a chance." So, let us make the best of this chance; we can all make choices to protect our planet, it is not too late!

References
https://www.itsafishthing.com/plastic-in-the-ocean/ https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/plastic-planet-how-tiny-plastic-particles-are-polluting-our-soil https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/plastic-pollution https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/marinedebris/plastics-in-the-ocean.html https://theoceancleanup.com/ https://www.iberdrola.com/sustainability/plastic-in-the-ocean https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/how-does-plastic-end-ocean https://www.oceanicsociety.org/resources/7-ways-to-reduce-ocean-plastic-pollution-today/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic pollution in the ocean: data, facts, consequences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic is one of the most enduring materials man has created. It can take hundreds of years for it to degrade. What are the consequences?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects-acid-rain

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2022/the-aftermath-of-fast-fashion-how-discarded-clothes-impact-public-health-and-the-environment/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.edf.org/oceans/overfishing-most-serious-threat-our-oceans#:~:text=What%20is%20overfishing%3F,animals%2C%20which%20are%20then%20discarded.

# data[].attributes.body
https://time.com/amazon-rainforest-disappearing/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/plastic-pollution

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/10/brazil-record-deforestation-amazon-rainforest-lula-bolsonaro

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
What are the negative effects of nuclear waste? | Sustainability from Japan - Zenbird

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nuclear waste refers to the byproducts of nuclear reactors. One of the biggest challenges of a nuclear power plant is how to manage this spent fuel after the power has been generated. Spent nuclear fuel is dangerously radioactive and has the potential to release a poisonous chemical element called plutonium into the environment.

In fact, exposure to radioactive waste can cause cancerous growths in humans and genetic damage or mutation to animals and plants. These changes, therefore, could prevent sustainable procreation. Additionally, radioactive waste of the leftover fuel from the reactor can remain active for hundreds of thousands of years.

Without proper and efficient waste management in place, nuclear waste would pose a devastating threat to human, animal and plant habitats.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are the negative effects of nuclear waste? | Sustainability from Japan - Zenbird

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Without proper and efficient waste management in place, nuclear waste would pose a devastating threat to human, animal and plant habitats.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
What would happen if there were no coral reefs? - The Reef-World Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You've marvelled at them on Blue Planet, you've seen Nemo find his way back home to one (phew!) and you may have even been lucky enough to witness one first-hand. Oh yes, coral reefs never fail to inspire and delight us. More importantly, though, they play an essential role in sustaining life both below and above the water.

But did you know that over half of coral reefs have already been lost and what remains of them is at risk of rapid extinction? In fact, scientists at 2020's Ocean Sciences Meeting estimated that more than 90% of all coral reefs are expected to die by 2050 ( The Guardian ). There's no getting around it; time is running out for our precious reefs.

But what would actually happen if there were no coral reefs left in the world? The answer is pretty grim. Read on to find out what a world without coral would look like and what we can all do to make sure this hypothetical scenario doesn't become a reality.

What exactly is a coral reef?

Coral reefs are found in over 100 countries around the world, often in shallow, tropical waters. They come in all sorts of shapes, colours and sizes. But what exactly is a coral reef ? Well, to put it simply, it's a living creature.

The reefs that we see in our seas are created by huge colonies of organisms called coral polyps. These little fellas - distant relatives of jellyfish and anemones - are crucial in forming both the hard and soft coral that we find in our reefs.

Hard coral is created when polyps take the calcium from the water and transform it into big skeletal, limestone structures. Think of these as the building blocks of coral reefs! Soft coral, on the other hand, is much more floaty, plant-like and, well, soft! This is the type of coral you'll see colourfully swaying with the ocean current. They don't have stony skeletons like the hard coral. Instead, they grow wood-like cores for support and they thrive in nutrient rich waters.

What threats do our coral reefs face?

Astonishingly, some of our planet's reefs have been growing for a whopping 50 million years. But that doesn't mean they'll go on forever. Despite the many wonderful benefits they bring us, coral reefs are extremely vulnerable to human activity and rapidly changing conditions. Stressors such as overfishing, pollution and unsustainable tourism practices are some of the threats that our coral reefs face today.

Compounding these is the growing threat of climate change and rising ocean temperatures. This can lead to coral bleaching, which is a very big problem (just look at the Great Barrier Reef ). Coral bleaching happens as a result of these changes in temperature, nutrient and mineral levels in the water. These conditions are bad news for the tiny algae that live within the coral. Incidentally, it's these algae that give the coral their amazing colour (as well as their main source of food). When stressed, they're forced to abandon their coral host, leaving the reef bleached white. Not so pretty. If the algae does not return to its coral host within a short period of time, the coral will be left without its main food source and, so, won't survive.

So, what would happen if there were no coral reefs?

By now, you might have guessed that this "what if" question isn't just some over-the-top scenario. The threats to our coral reefs are very real. This is what a world without them could look like:

25% of marine life would lose their habitat

There's a reason why coral reefs are known as the 'rainforests of the sea.' Despite covering less than 1% of the ocean, they provide essential habitat for 25% (yes, one quarter!) of all marine life. That's well over 1 million species that live in and depend upon coral reefs around the world. For these creatures, the reef provides essential food, shelter and the spawning grounds needed for their species' survival. If their homes disappeared, marine biodiversity would suffer immensely. And, like a domino effect, many fish, turtles and other creatures would disappear.

Coastal fishing industries would collapse

OK, so coral reefs support fish (no surprises there then). But if they support fish then they also support fishing industries and the people who consume fish too. According to the United Nations , around one billion people globally depend on coral reefs for their food and livelihoods. Let that sink in for a second. Their disappearance would be catastrophic; resulting in hundreds of millions of people around the world losing their main source of food and income. On top of this, the shortage of seafood in diets would inevitably put pressure on other land-based farming industries who would be required to make up for the shortfall.

Coastal tourism economies would shrink

From the Great Barrier Reef to the waters of Raja Ampat, coral reefs attract tourists to over 100 countries and territories worldwide. According to a , coral reef tourism generates an estimated $36 billion in revenue every single year. Without spectacular reefs to visit, these tourist numbers would fall sharply and the impact would hit local businesses very hard. And we don't just mean dive centres who rely on global travellers to visit their reefs. Restaurant owners, hoteliers, street vendors and tour guides would all suffer too.

Coastlines would take a battering

Coral reefs don't just work their magic underwater. It's a little-known fact that they have a pretty important job of protecting coastlines too by providing a natural buffer against powerful waves and extreme weather. Without them, shorelines would be vulnerable to erosion and rising sea levels would push coast-dwelling communities out of their homes.

Nearly 200 million people rely on coral reefs to safeguard them from storms. This means that reefs already play an important (and naturally cost-effective) role in protecting human lives. The cost of building sea walls for the same level of protection would be in the trillions!

Medical breakthroughs would grind to a halt

Did you know coral reefs are often referred to as the 'medicine chests of the sea'? That's because the plants and animals that live within the reef hold the key to new treatments for a whole bunch of diseases and ailments. By researching the corals' natural chemical defenses, scientists are able to develop medicines to treat all sorts: from cancer and arthritis, to Alzheimer's and heart disease. This means the health of our coral reefs is directly tied to our own health. When you put it like that, losing them all is a very scary prospect.

Diving would be a LOT less interesting

According to PADI, one million new scuba divers are certified each year and millions more go snorkelling on reefs around the world. There's a reason why corals draw such a huge fanbase in the diving community. Anyone who's been on a reef dive will tell you that it's a spectacular, visceral and, often, moving experience. The rainbow of colours and life that you find on a healthy reef are out of this world. Diving just wouldn't be the same without them.

The sea would be a whole lot slimier

When toying with this hypothetical (but, let's face it, not altogether unrealistic) scenario of a reef-less world, some scientists have suggested the ocean bed would eventually become dominated by algae. As the skeletal structures of the limestone reefs slowly break away, microbial life would soak up the sun's energy, producing slime. Lots of slime. Oh, and plenty of jellyfish to graze on the buffet of microbes. So, jellyfish and slime? Yay!

There'd be less oxygen

Everyone knows that trees play a major role in producing oxygen in our atmosphere. That's why the Amazon rainforest is known as the 'lungs of the Earth.' But did you know that around 50-80% of oxygen production on our planet comes from our oceans? Most of this oxygen is produced by plankton and other photosynthesising bacteria. In turn, this oxygen is consumed by marine life and by humans too in the air we breathe. The moral or the story? For a healthy atmosphere, we need a healthy ocean. And a healthy ocean needs healthy coral reefs.

All is not lost...yet

It's tough to predict exactly what the disturbance to the biodiversity of our oceans would lead to if coral reefs were to disappear forever. But one thing's for sure, it wouldn't be pretty. The truth is, this hypothetical scenario is getting all too real. We've already lost so much coral cover around the world. More must be done to prevent rapid damage to our remaining reefs.

At Reef World, we are supporting ICRI's Recommendation calling for global action to tackle this challenge. We're also dedicated to preserving our coral reefs through the coordination of UNEP's Green Fins initiative, on a global drive for environmentally-friendly snorkelling and diving practices.

The stats may be frightening, but don't lose hope. We all have the power in the choices we make to flip the script on coral reef damage. Whether it's arranging a beach cleanup , cutting down on your plastic consumption ,diving with a member or sharing your support for the ICRI Recommendation that coral reefs must be prioritised in the Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) . With a little awareness and conscious effort, we can all do our bit to help save our coral reefs from extinction and protect them for future generations to enjoy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What would happen if there were no coral reefs? - The Reef-World Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You've marvelled at them on Blue Planet, you've seen Nemo find his way back home to one (phew!) and you may have even been lucky enough to witness one first-hand. Oh yes, coral reefs never fail to inspire and delight us. More importantly, though, they play an essential role in sustaining life both below and above the water.

# data[].attributes.body
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_corals/coral09_humanthreats.html

Major causes of coral reef destruction are pollution, overfishing, destructive fishing practices using dynamite or cyanide, collecting live corals for the aquarium market, mining coral for building materials, and a warming climate are some of the many ways that people damage reefs all around the world every day.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/poaching-animals#:~:text=Poaching%20poses%20a%20growing%20threat,the%20global%20trade%20in%20wildlife.

Poaching has devastating consequences for wildlife. In some instances, it’s the primary reason why an animal faces a risk of extinction. This is the case with the African elephant, more than 100,000 of which were killed between 2014 and 2017 for ivory. Poaching has also had a catastrophic impact on rhinos, with more than a thousand slaughtered a year for their horns

# data[].attributes.body
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/amazon-deforestation-and-climate-change/

Nobre warns that if deforestation continues at current levels, we are headed for disaster. The Amazon region could become drier and drier, unable to support healthy habitats or croplands

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ecologic.org/our-impact/challenges/slash-and-burn-agriculture

Summary:
Slash-and-burn agriculture is a farming method that involves the cutting and burning of plants in a forest or woodland to create a field called a swidden. The method begins by cutting down the trees and woody plants in an area. The downed vegetation, or "slash", is then left to dry, usually right before the rainiest part of the year. Then, the biomass is burned, resulting in a nutrient-rich layer of ash which makes the soil fertile, as well as temporarily eliminating weed and pest species. After about three to five years, the plot's productivity decreases due to depletion of nutrients along with weed and pest invasion, causing the farmers to abandon the field and move to a new area. The time it takes for a swidden to recover depends on the location and can be as little as five years to more than twenty years, after which the plot can be slashed and burned again, repeating the cycle.Slash-and-burn causes temporary deforestation. Ashes from the burnt trees help farmers by providing nutrients for the soil. In low density of human population this approach is very sustainable but the technique is not scalable for large human populations

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Ozone Layer Depletion - Cause, Effects, And Solutions

# data[].attributes.body
Summary :

Ozone Depletion. When chlorine and bromine atoms come into contact with ozone in the stratosphere, they destroy ozone molecules. One chlorine atom can destroy over 100,000 ozone molecules before it is removed from the stratosphere. Therefore Ozone can be destroyed more quickly than it is naturally created.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ozone Layer Definition

"The ozone layer is a region in the earth's stratosphere that contains high concentrations of ozone and protects the earth from the harmful ultraviolet radiations of the sun."

What is Ozone Layer?

The ozone layer is found in the lower portion of the earth's atmosphere. It has the potential to absorb around 97-99% of the harmful ultraviolet radiations coming from the sun that can damage life on earth. If the ozone layer was absent, millions of people would develop skin diseases and may have weakened immune systems.

However, scientists have discovered a hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctica. This has focussed their concern on various environmental issues and steps to control them. The main reasons for the ozone hole are chlorofluorocarbons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl bromide and hydrochlorofluorocarbons.

Let us have a detailed look at the various causes and effects of ozone layer depletion.

Ozone Layer Depletion

"Ozone layer depletion is the gradual thinning of the earth's ozone layer in the upper atmosphere caused due to the release of chemical compounds containing gaseous bromine or chlorine from industries or other human activities."

What is Ozone Layer Depletion?

Ozone layer depletion is the thinning of the ozone layer present in the upper atmosphere. This happens when the chlorine and bromine atoms in the atmosphere come in contact with ozone and destroy the ozone molecules. One chlorine can destroy 100,000 molecules of ozone. It is destroyed more quickly than it is created.

Some compounds release chlorine and bromine on exposure to high ultraviolet light, which then contributes to the ozone layer depletion. Such compounds are known as Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS).

The ozone-depleting substances that contain chlorine include chlorofluorocarbon, carbon tetrachloride, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, and methyl chloroform. Whereas, the ozone-depleting substances that contain bromine are halons, methyl bromide, and hydro bromofluorocarbons.

Chlorofluorocarbons are the most abundant ozone-depleting substance. It is only when the chlorine atom reacts with some other molecule, it does not react with ozone.

Montreal Protocol was proposed in 1987 to stop the use, production and import of ozone-depleting substances and minimise their concentration in the atmosphere to protect the ozone layer of the earth.
Also Read: Environmental Issues
Causes of Ozone Layer Depletion

The ozone layer depletion is a major concern and is associated with a number of factors. The main causes responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer are listed below:

Chlorofluorocarbons

Chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs are the main cause of ozone layer depletion. These are released by solvents, spray aerosols, refrigerators, air-conditioners, etc.

The molecules of chlorofluorocarbons in the stratosphere are broken down by the ultraviolet radiations and release chlorine atoms. These atoms react with ozone and destroy it.

Unregulated Rocket Launches

Researches say that the unregulated launching of rockets result in much more depletion of ozone layer than the CFCs do. If not controlled, this might result in a huge loss of the ozone layer by the year 2050.

Nitrogenous Compounds

The nitrogenous compounds such as NO 2, NO, N 2 O are highly responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer.

Natural Causes

The ozone layer has been found to be depleted by certain natural processes such as Sun-spots and stratospheric winds. But it does not cause more than 1-2% of the ozone layer depletion.

The volcanic eruptions are also responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer.

Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS)

"Ozone depleting substances are the substances such as chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride, hydrofluorocarbons, etc. that are responsible for the depletion of ozone layer."
Also Read: Global Warming
Following is the list of some main ozone-depleting substances and the sources from where they are released:

Effects Of Ozone Layer Depletion

The depletion of the ozone layer has harmful effects on the environment. Let us see the major effects of ozone layer depletion on man and environment.

Effects on Human Health

The humans will be directly exposed to the harmful ultraviolet radiations of the sun due to the depletion of the ozone layer. This might result in serious health issues among humans, such as skin diseases, cancer, sunburns, cataract, quick ageing and weak immune system.

Effects on Animals

Direct exposure to ultraviolet radiations leads to skin and eye cancer in animals.

Effects on the Environment

Strong ultraviolet rays may lead to minimal growth, flowering and photosynthesis in plants. The forests also have to bear the harmful effects of the ultraviolet rays.

Effects on Marine Life

Planktons are greatly affected by the exposure to harmful ultraviolet rays. These are higher in the aquatic food chain. If the planktons are destroyed, the organisms present in the food chain are also affected.

Solutions to Ozone Layer Depletion

The depletion of the ozone layer is a serious issue and various programmes have been launched by the government of various countries to prevent it. However, steps should be taken at the individual level as well to prevent the depletion of the ozone layer.

Following are some points that would help in preventing this problem at a global level:

Avoid Using ODS

Reduce the use of ozone depleting substances. E.g. avoid the use of CFCs in refrigerators and air conditioners, replacing the halon based fire extinguishers, etc.

Minimise the Use of Vehicles

The vehicles emit a large amount of greenhouse gases that lead to global warming as well as ozone depletion. Therefore, the use of vehicles should be minimised as much as possible.

Use Eco-friendly Cleaning Products

Most of the cleaning products have chlorine and bromine releasing chemicals that find a way into the atmosphere and affect the ozone layer. These should be substituted with natural products to protect the environment.
Also Read: Our Environment
Use of Nitrous Oxide should be Prohibited

The government should take actions and prohibit the use of harmful nitrous oxide that is adversely affecting the ozone layer. People should be made aware of the harmful effects of nitrous oxide and the products emitting the gas so that its use is minimised at the individual level as well.

For more detailed information on the ozone layer, ozone layer depletion, causes, effects and solutions to ozone layer depletion, keep visiting BYJU'S website or download the BYJU'S app for further reference.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ozone Layer Depletion - Cause, Effects, And Solutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"The ozone layer is a region in the earth's stratosphere that contains high concentrations of ozone and protects the earth from the harmful ultraviolet radiations of the sun." The ozone layer is found in the lower portion of the earth's atmosphere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
10 Stunning Fast Fashion Waste Statistics | Earth.Org

# data[].attributes.body
Summary :

100 billion garments produced each year and 92 million tonnes end up in landfills as the amount of clothes being thrown out and discarded has increased due to social media fashion trends, etc. And another contributor to this is that fashion brands are increasing production of clothes and this has also caused an increase in both pre- and post-production textile waste.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The extremely -detrimental impact of fast fashion waste on the environment is no news. Besides being responsible for nearly 10% of global carbon emissions, the industry is also infamously known for the amount of resources it wastes and the millions of clothes ending up in landfills every day. Here are 10 highly concerning statistics about textile waste.
10 Statistics About Fast Fashion Waste

1. 92 million tonnes of textiles waste is produced every year

Of the 100 billion garments produced each year, 92 million tonnes end up in landfills. To put things in perspective, this means that the equivalent of a rubbish truck full of clothes ends up on landfill sites every second . If the trend continues, the number of fast fashion waste is expected to soar up to 134 million tonnes a year by the end of the decade.

2. The apparel industry's global emissions will increase by 50% by 2030

If a business-as-usual scenario prevails in the coming years - meaning that no action is taken to reduce fast fashion waste - the industry's global emissions will likely double by the end of the decade.

3. The average US consumer throws away 81.5lbs of clothes every year

In America alone, an estimated 11.3 million tons of textile waste - equivalent to 85% of all textiles - end up in landfills on a yearly basis. That's equivalent to approximately (37 kilograms) per person per year and around 2,150 pieces per second countrywide.

4. The number of times a garment is worn has declined by around 36% in 15 years

The throwaway culture has worsen progressively over the years. At present, many items are worn only seven to ten times before being tossed. That's a decline of more than 35% in just 15 years.

5. The fashion industry is responsible for 20% of global waste water

Dyeing and finishing - the processes by which colour and other chemicals are applied to fabrics - are responsible for 3% of global CO2 emissions as well as over 20% of global water pollution. Along with yarn preparation and fibre production, these two processes have the highest impacts on resource depletion , due to the energy-intensive processes based on fossil fuel energy.

6. It takes 20,000 litres of water to produce one kilogram of cotton

Besides being a huge source of water pollution, fast fashion also contributes to massive quantities of water being wasted every day. If this is difficult to picture, just think that about 2,700 litres of water are needed to make just one t-shirt, which would be enough for one person to drink for 900 days. Moreover, a single load of washing uses between 50 and 60 litres of water.
You might also like: Is Hong Kong's Avant-Garde Textile Recycling Facility a Real Solution to Fast Fashion Problems?
7. $500 billion is lost each year because of under-wearing and failure to recycle clothes

The worst aspect of our reckless thrown-away culture is that the vast majority of clothes being tossed each year is not recycled. Globally, just 12% of the material used for clothing ends up being recycled. Much of the problem comes down to the materials our clothes are made from and inadequate technologies to recycle them. "The fabrics we drape over our bodies are complex combinations of fibres, fixtures and accessories. They are made from problematic blends of natural yarns, man-made filaments, plastics and metals."

8. Nearly 10% of microplastics dispersed in the ocean each year come from textiles

Garments are a huge source of microplastics because so many are now made of nylon or polyester, both durable and cheap. Each wash and dry cycle, especially the latter, sheds microfilaments that move through our sewage systems and end up in waterways. It is estimated that half a million tons of these contaminants reach the ocean each year. That's the equivalent to the plastic pollution of more than 50 billion bottles.

9. 2.6 million tonnes of returned clothes ended up in landfills in 2020 in the US alone

Most of the items returned to retailers from consumers end up in landfill. This is mainly because it costs more to the company to put them back in circulation than to get rid of them. Reverse logistics company Optoro also estimates that in the same year, 16 million tonnes of CO2 emissions were created by online returns in the US in 2020 - the equivalent to the emissions of 3.5 million cars on the road for a year.

10. Fast fashion brands are producing twice the amount of clothes today than in 2000

This dramatic increase in production has also caused an increase in both pre- and post-production textile waste . Due to the number of cut outs for the clothing, a large number of materials get wasted as they cannot be used any further, with one study estimating that 15% of fabric used in garment manufacturing is wasted. Post-production, 60% of approximately 150 million garments produced globally in 2012 were discarded just a few years after production.

What Can I Do?

1. On A Personal Level

Ways to approach climate action within our personal lives (hint - it evolves personal action but is not focused on small behavioural changes, which whilst worthwhile will not get us there):

Joining a community can be one of the best ways to increase your impact.

First, it can enable you to make hundreds of connections in one go.

Second, a group of people working together can have more impact than individuals. If you are not already, take action by becoming an to support our mission to encourage a billion climate activists.

If you're a younger read ask your parents to take action by bringing your whole family on board as a Family Member.

Reflect on the concept of Effective Altruism , a project that aims to find the best ways to help others, and put them into practice.

Ways to approach climate action within the workplace:

Maintain your career path but consider donating a portion of your income to organisations that are focused on achieving meaningful & impactful goals and call out your boss if the company or organisation you work for does not have clear policies that will result in reduced harm to the environment and a pathway to Net Zero.

Ask your boss to support EO by bringing the whole team onboard with EO company membership - and take action together.

Reconsider your career path, with excellent advice .

Research for this article was conducted by Earth.Org research contributor Chloe Lam You might also like: Fast Fashion and Its Environmental Impact
3. On A Political Level

Ways to approach climate action as a voter or political actor (even if you can't vote):

Protest - make your feelings known - become a vocal and passionate advocate with friends and family (without being over pushy) of the need for climate action. We need a billion activists to turn this ship around.

Join organisations that are organising climate actions and protests locally, whether in your city, district, or even at school.

Vote (if you can) for politicians who will champion effective climate action by governments.

Vote for parties or organisations that espouse self-reform and the adoption of ' Ministers of the Future ' into government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Concerning Fast Fashion Waste Statistics | Earth.Org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Besides being responsible for nearly 10% of global carbon emissions, the fashion industry is also infamously known for the amount of resources it wastes and the trash it produces. Here are 10 highly concerning statistics about fast fashion waste.

# data[].attributes.body
Activities that produce or use radioactive material can generate radioactive waste. Radioactive waste is hazardous because it emits radioactive particles, which if not properly managed can be a risk to human health and the environment.
https://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiMr6rKw-7-AhWD4TgGHcjUARAQFnoECBAQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.epa.gov%2Fradtown%2Fradioactive-waste%23%3A~%3Atext%3DActivities%2520that%2520produce%2520or%2520use%2Chuman%2520health%2520and%2520the%2520environment.&usg=AOvVaw2KLAg3aYEiqYbGLh5_ZtMR

# data[].attributes.body
Much of it ends up in landfills, where it may take up to 1,000 years to degrade, leaching potentially toxic substances into the soil and water.https://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiIu9O5wu7-AhUiXmwGHa6dBFEQFnoECBwQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unep.org%2Fnews-and-stories%2Fstory%2Fplastic-planet-how-tiny-plastic-particles-are-polluting-our-soil%23%3A~%3Atext%3DVery%2520little%2520of%2520the%2520plastic%2Cinto%2520the%2520soil%2520and%2520water.&usg=AOvVaw1dt2lFnB9jrRSZwHbuIOOp

# data[].attributes.body
the nitric and sulfuric acid that acid rain have can land on  manmade structures, and damage their surfaces. It can also corrode metal and cause paint and stone to deteriorate more quickly

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7915825/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Clive J. C. Phillips, Academic Editor and Silvana Mattiello, Academic Editor

Abstract

Simple Summary

In response to the illegal wildlife trade, successful enforcement often involves the seizure, confiscation, and subsequent management of illegally traded wildlife. Unfortunately, confiscated live animals often experience substandard care. In this study, we investigate the barriers to the 'disposal' of confiscated live animals in Southeast Asia. 'Disposal' is the term used for what happens to illegally traded wildlife after confiscation. Guidelines for the 'disposal' of live specimens are provided by the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), although individual nations must enforce this within their own legislation. We interviewed 18 experts from seven countries in Southeast Asia revealing eight categories of barriers to the disposal of confiscated live animals. We then propose seven recommendations to help reform the disposal of confiscated live animals, which would support the efficient and humane management of illegally traded wildlife in Southeast Asia and globally.

Abstract

Increased focus on the illegal global wildlife trade has resulted in greater numbers of live animals confiscated by authorities, increasing the need to manage these animals responsibly. Most wildlife seizures take place in Southeast Asia, with global demand for live animals fuelling much of the trafficking. Guidelines for the 'disposal' of live specimens are provided by the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), although individual Parties must implement provisions through national laws and regulations. 'Disposal' is the term used for the management of illegally traded wildlife upon confiscation. Confiscated live animals can be euthanised (i.e., killed), repatriated to their native country and released, or kept in captivity. This study investigates barriers to proper care and disposal of confiscated live animals in Southeast Asia, where roughly one quarter of the global multibillion dollar illegal wildlife trade takes place. Interviews were conducted with 18 professionals working within conservation, wildlife crime, and confiscated live animal management. Eight limitations to the proper care and disposal of confiscated wildlife were identified: (1) political will, (2) policy, (3) funding, (4) capacity, (5) expertise (6) attitudes and behaviours, (7) exploitation, and (8) corruption. Based on interviews, we propose seven key reforms to support the efficient and humane management of illegally traded wildlife for national authorities and CITES parties. These are wildlife seizure management, legislative support, enhanced political will, demand reduction, global participation, registry of rescue centres, and terminology change. This research highlights major barriers to the proper care and disposal of live confiscated animals and proposes key reforms to improve the conservation of threatened species and the welfare of millions of illegally traded animals.

Keywords: CITES, wildlife disposal, animal welfare, conservation, wildlife confiscations, illegal wildlife trade

1. Introduction

The illegal wildlife trade has seen unprecedented rates of growth escalating the trade into an international crisis [ 1, 2]. In response, there has been a concerted international effort to stop the illegal wildlife trade, resulting in increased laws, regulations, enforcement, and interception [ 3, 4]. Wildlife seizures have become a globally recognised approach in disrupting illegal markets [ 2, 4]. These changes have resulted in an increase in the number of live wild animals that are confiscated by government agencies [ 4, 5] thereby elevating the need to manage and 'dispose' of these animals humanely and responsibly. 'Disposal' is the technical term used to describe the management of illegally traded and confiscated live animals. Alternative terms are being considered [ 6], however this study uses the term 'disposal' to be consistent with existing internationally recognised terminology and guidelines.

Live animals are an important component of the industry in both legal and illegal markets. Live animals are traded to meet consumer demand for pets, wild meat, working animals, entertainment, and as status symbols [ 7]. Hundreds of different species from dozens of taxonomic groups are trafficked live [ 8], however available seizure data shows that the most commonly trafficked live animals are overwhelmingly reptiles for use in the pet trade [ 8, 9]. Based on seizure data, Asia is the main destination for the illegal live reptile trade [ 2]. The trafficking of live animals threatens the welfare of individual animals, local populations, and the extinction of whole species [ 10] while degrading ecosystems [ 11]. The live animal trade is also a major channel of disease introduction worldwide threatening livestock, native wildlife, ecosystems, and also people [ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. The 'exotic' pet trade is a substantial part of the global trade in wildlife and has been identified as an important driving factor in the emergence of zoonotic diseases [ 13]. The global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic of 2020, for example, has been epidemiologically linked to a wet market in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, which sold both wild and domesticated live animals in close proximity [ 14]. Furthermore, the live animal trade also has particular significance due to the prolonged negative impacts on animal welfare [ 10, 13, 15].

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) is a multilateral treaty established to ensure international trade in wildlife does not threaten the survival of species [ 16]. The Parties adopted Resolution 17.8, 'Guidelines for the Disposal of Confiscated Live Specimens of Species included in the Appendices' [ 6], to provide guidance on the issue of disposal. This resolution includes three accepted disposal options for living specimens: return to the wild, captivity, and euthanasia.

Legislation, cultural practices, and economic circumstances influence decisions on appropriate disposal of confiscated animals [ 4, 17]. Parties are instructed to obtain advice from their own Scientific Authority when making the decision on the disposal of confiscated live specimens [ 18]. According to CITES, the ultimate decision must achieve three goals:

to maximize conservation value of the specimens without in any way endangering the health, behavioral repertoire, or conservation status of wild or captive populations of the species;

to discourage further illegal or irregular trade in the species; and

to provide a humane solution, whether this involves maintaining the animals in captivity, returning them to the wild, or employing euthanasia to destroy them [ 18].

It is important to note that there is a significant number of non-CITES listed species that are traded internationally and domestically [ 19]. For instance, fewer than 8% of the total number of reptile species are regulated by CITES [ 20]. However, a 2020 study found that 35% of the 10,272 currently recognised reptile species are traded in the pet market with 90% of species being captured from the wild, predominantly from hotspots within Asia [ 21]. Seventy-five percent of reptile species traded were not covered under international trade regulations [ 21], which means it is more difficult to intercept these species through confiscation. This creates opportunities for exploitation of species that are threatened but still legally traded domestically, or internationally without data to support the trade impacts to the species.

Authorities have a responsibility to dispose of confiscated live animals appropriately, however, data on outcomes is lacking [ 8]. This impedes efforts to effectively monitor and evaluate management outcomes. To address this, CITES investigated how parties are managing disposal of live specimens in 2016 [ 6]. The study found that over 86% of reported confiscated live animals were placed in captive facilities [ 22], but many of these facilities are not formally regulated at a standardised capacity creating avenues for exploitation and poor conditions [ 23, 24].

In the absence of appropriate legislation, well-defined enforcement protocols, and comprehensive records of illegal trade activity, it is not possible to judge a state's commitment to controlling the illegal wildlife trade or preventing animal welfare violations. Despite the potential for recovering illegally traded live animals through confiscation and replenishing endangered wild populations [ 25], providing proper management for confiscated live animals is an overlooked aspect in the global response to this trade [ 26]. Focusing attention on a region that serves as a source, transit, and destination for the wildlife trade may facilitate understanding of live animal confiscation cases around the world. This study aims to improve understanding of the management of confiscated live animals by qualitatively investigating the limitations impeding proper disposal methods in Southeast Asia.

1.1. Illegal Wildlife Trade

Wildlife crime is defined as 'the taking, trading, exploiting or possessing of the world's wild flora and fauna in contravention of national and international laws' [ 27]. Wildlife trafficking is one of the most profitable illicit industries but despite global attention and increased policy against illegal sales, scientists have yet to describe the scope and scale of the trade [ 28]. The elusiveness of the trade makes it nearly impossible to accurately estimate its monetary value, but the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) estimates it is worth at least USD 20 billion a year [ 27].

It is known that wildlife trafficking is a leading threat to biodiversity impacting one-third of the world's species [ 9, 29]. Some studies have suggested that the existence of legal international trade enables the illegal trade in wild-caught animals [ 30, 31]. For example, a legal quota system may facilitate illegal trade through deliberate or accidental misidentification of species and false permits [ 32, 33]. Despite the international crisis, designation, regulation, and enforcement efforts still remain insufficient to effectively control this illicit trade [ 34] (p. 1), and with a globalised market driving demand, it continues to rapidly increase [ 17] (p. 2).

1.2. The Wildlife Trade in Southeast Asia

Southeast Asia is a critical region of importance for the wildlife trade [ 35] ( Figure 1 ). The region is responsible for roughly a quarter of the global multibillion-dollar illegal wildlife trade [ 32] with the demand for rare and exotic pets fuelling much of the smuggling [ 36]. The United States alone imported over 1.48 billion live animals in less than a decade, mostly from wild populations in Southeast Asia [ 37]. To illustrate, more than 100,000 pig-nosed turtles ( Carettochelys insculpta) were seized in Indonesia alone from 2003-2019; and in just 10 incidents, more than 6000 Indian star tortoises ( Geochelone elegans) were seized before transport to either Malaysia, Thailand, or Singapore [ 35]. A significant amount of global wildlife seizures also occurs in Southeast Asia [ 9, 35]. This makes Southeast Asia particularly important when investigating live animal confiscations. Regional enforcement initiatives have been established in the region to respond to the growing issue [ 38]. As a result, wildlife traffickers have been intercepted at greater rates [ 39] (p. 5), creating unexpected management challenges of illegally traded and confiscated live animals [ 40]. Serious pressures have been placed on confiscating authorities, with many lacking the financial and human resources and the technical capacity to manage the situation adequately [ 5, 41] (p. 4).

Legislation and increased regulation add to the burden of management challenges and can be a disincentive to conduct a seizure if resources and training are lacking [ 40, 42]. Authorities have been reported to frequently release rescued animals to the wild without complying with proper procedures [ 42]. Documentation of the confiscation and essential details regarding the trade can be lost [ 43]. Animal laundering schemes and the legal sale of valuable confiscated specimens are also a concern [ 42]. There have been reports of confiscated animals sold to other countries and registered on annual reports as legal trades [ 44]. Selling confiscated animals can even comply with CITES guidelines through the justification that it can 'provide a means of disposal that helps offset the costs of confiscation' [ 18]. D'Cruze and MacDonald [ 8] have brought attention to the lack of comprehensive live animal confiscation records within the CITES Trade Database. They highlighted a knowledge gap and helped bring into question whether countries are properly handling live confiscations. Though the international efforts to stop the illegal wildlife trade have increased, with more live animals being successfully seized, in many cases, recovered individuals may face equally bad or even worse outcomes [ 24].

1.3. The 'Disposal' of Confiscated Wild Animals

Within a conservation context, there are three accepted options for proper disposal, with both conservation and welfare impacts to consider: (1) euthanasia, (2) return to the wild, and (3) captivity. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers euthanasia to be the preferred disposal option [ 40]. Arguably, however, the term 'euthanasia' does not apply to a large proportion of confiscated live animals. Euthanasia should be restricted to killing an animal for its own benefit rather than human convenience or need [ 45, 46]. Such instances might include animals infected with a harmful disease or when adverse conditions will seriously affect an animal's quality of life [ 4]. It is difficult to determine when true euthanasia has been implemented, therefore, this paper uses the broader term of 'killing' instead of 'euthanasia'. The IUCN report that killing is the least risky and least costly of the three disposal options [ 40]. However, killing wild confiscated animals is often controversial. Furthermore, killing is not considered an option in many Southeast Asian countries because of religious and cultural reasons [ 4].

Repatriating and releasing confiscated and rehabilitated wildlife back into their natural habitat, by way of reintroduction, translocation, or reinforcement, would in many cases generate the best conservation and animal welfare outcomes; however, it comes with a high probability of risk [ 4, 18]. Returning animals to the wild is actually the least recommended option in the handling of confiscated wildlife, and the IUCN have reported that it is not often done [ 18, 40]. Still, returning confiscated and rehabilitated wildlife back into their natural habitat has the potential to be a powerful conservation tool if implemented correctly [ 47] and could ultimately produce population-level benefits [ 48]. Retaining confiscated wild animals in captivity for the remainder of their natural lives is the third option [ 4]. Like returning to the wild, captivity comes with risks such as disease or escape and financial costs [ 18]. Minimising the risks associated with releasing to the wild and captivity would require improvements and revisions to confiscation management practices [ 40, 49], an investment that may be warranted.

At the 17th meeting of the CITES Conference of Parties, Decisions 17.118 and 17.119 directed an investigation of how Parties are disposing of illegally traded and confiscated specimens of CITES-listed species [ 6]. Results of the investigation were published as SC69 Document 34.1 [ 22]. Of the 183 countries party to CITES, 125 (68%) countries did not respond. From the 58 countries that did respond, over half (54%) indicated that they did not have an established plan of action for making decisions on a disposal method for confiscated live specimens [ 22, 50]. The survey found that the majority of confiscated live animals are reportedly placed in captivity (43.6% public zoos, safari parks, aquariums, or botanical gardens; 27.4% designated rescue centres; 6% research institutes, laboratories, and universities; and 9.4% were placed in approved private facilities) [ 22]. This correlates with research identifying overcrowding as the most significant problem in Southeast Asian zoos due to the large number of confiscated and abandoned animals [ 51]. Only 6.0% were reported as killed, and it was reported that 6% of animals confiscated were returned to the country of export for release to the wild [ 22].

Captivity is the most commonly reported method of disposal, yet there are no standardised, enforceable requirements for captive facilities at the international level and few nations have laws that regulate the treatment of captive wild animals [ 52, 53]. There are significant animal welfare impacts and violations associated with captivity that can negatively affect captive wild animals [ 54, 55]. Captivity generally means wild animals are confined in spaces that are far smaller than their normal ranges. Animals are often kept in conditions that are very different than they have evolved to live in. Such different conditions can lead to stress and poor physical and mental welfare through a range of mechanisms. Public facilities that have a visitor element can negatively impact animals [ 56, 57]. The mere presence of people has been shown to elevate levels of stress in captive animals [ 56, 58, 59]. This is particularly concerning with increasing numbers of wildlife tourists, such as those visiting rescue centres or viewing animals in the wild [ 60].

In areas where facilities are available, high intake numbers and a lack of funding make implementing a strategic conservation plan or gathering objective scientific data difficult [ 40, 61]. Frequently, minimal educational requirements for staff result in a lack of on-site ecological and ethological knowledge and record-keeping is often inadequate [ 62, 63, 64, 65]. With the CITES survey indicating that many countries transfer the majority of confiscated animals into captive environments, examining this disposal option is important with regard to understanding the impacts of captivity on wild animals, and also how it is affecting conservation objectives for threatened species. CITES Resolution 17.8, Article VIII.4.b states that live specimens shall be placed in a 'rescue centre or "such other place as the Management Authority deems appropriate and consistent with the purposes of the present Convention' [ 18]. The broad guidelines on facilities that qualify as acceptable for housing confiscated wildlife, oftentimes valuable animals, may put those animals at risk of exploitation. The lack of formal mechanisms coupled with other challenges increase the chance for confiscated animals to be exploited even after recovery [ 24]. Lopes et al. [ 44] highlighted that CITES is working toward improving records by revising their annual reports to include disposal data, but significant gaps remain.

2. Methods

This study investigates the following research questions:

What are the limitations impeding disposal of confiscated live animals and how are they related?

What are the consequences that arise from insufficient disposal methods?

What are the perceptions surrounding the disposal of confiscated live animals?

A qualitative methodology was used to explore the multidimensional nature of the research area. The research aim was to gain insights into the subject under investigation from individuals with good awareness and knowledge of the subject area, hence purposive sampling of participants was used [ 66]. Snowball sampling was also used whereby interviewees recommended potential candidates with the appropriate qualifications and experience.

2.1. Data Collection

A total of 18 participants were recruited based on expertise as professionals with knowledge of confiscated live animal management. In an effort to ensure confidentiality, participants were coded as C1-C18. Participants worked within seven countries in Southeast Asia: Thailand, Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Cambodia. The contributing participants represented a variety of expertise, position, geographic location, and professional agency. Each interviewee had 6-30 years of experience working in wildlife crime, conservation, and/or confiscated live animal management. They were drawn from six international non-governmental (NGO) or intergovernmental organizations, four local/national NGOs, two NGO rescue centres, two governmental rescue centres, one private rescue centre, two government agencies, and one university. Ten other individuals invited to take part in the study were unable to participate. Three of these individuals included employees who were otherwise represented through counterparts within the agency or organization. Four individuals were unreachable, and three individuals declined the request for participation; all seven representing commercial establishments. Hence, 64% (18/28) of invited individuals chose to participate.

Semi-structured interviews were used to gather data about the research area. Telephone interviews were used for 17 participants, owing to the international locations they were based in. The remaining interview (C3) was conducted in-person. Interviews were conducted from July to September 2018. Interviews lasted from 30 min to 79 min, with an average length of 39 min. A participant information sheet and consent form were provided to each participant via email. Interviews were audio-recorded using a hand-held Sony IC recorder and transcribed for analysis. To ensure accurate communication and to establish trustworthiness, participants were given the option to conduct a member check after the interview was conducted. Member checks afford participants the opportunity to review data for clarification. The interview guide included seven questions ( Table 1 ), which were followed up with further questions depending on the expertise of the participant and the subject under discussion.

Table 1

Seven Questions Used as a Guide for Interviews

1. What are the limitations impeding proper disposal of live animal confiscations in your region/country?

2. In your opinion, what can be done to improve the handling/disposal of live animal confiscations in your region/country?

3. In a recent CITES survey, more than 30% of participating CITES parties identified their country as having no legislation in place for the disposal of confiscated live animals. In your opinion, what are the barriers preventing countries from including disposal legislation?

4. In which ways are captive facilities impacting confiscated live animals?

5. Describe any cases you are familiar with where confiscated animals were not handled appropriately.

6. Describe how tourism and/or visitors impact captive care facilities in your region/country

7. To the best of your knowledge, what are the captive care facilities in the region/country approved to take confiscated animals and how would you describe their management structure/business model?

2.2. Data Analysis

Transcripts were coded by grouping sections into themes, or categories of similar meanings [ 67]. A thematic coding framework was designed based on the systematic classification process of identifying themes or patterns [ 68, 69]. The initial codes were deductively defined based on existing literature and empirical data. Relevant statements from interviews were also coded with keywords deduced from theoretical assumptions built on early interviews. Lastly, new topics were identified using inductive coding. The coded responses were manually grouped and entered into a Microsoft Excel file with designated tabs for each theme. Each tab was systematically analysed, generating a rich description of perceptions according to identified limitations to, and consequences of, the disposal of illegally traded and confiscated live animals. The defined set of codes and emergent themes were developed by the first author and agreed with the second and third authors. To ensure confidentiality, identifying markers including personally identifying phrases and professional agency were withheld when reporting results. At the request of several participants, country identifications were not assigned to quotations and specific locations were withheld.

3. Results

Eight prominent limitations impeding proper disposal of illegally traded and confiscated live animals were identified. These are (1) political will, (2) policy, (3) funding, (4) capacity, (5) expertise (6) attitudes and behaviours, (7) exploitation, and (8) corruption. The interview discourse that led to the categorization of these broad limitations is summarised in Table 2 . Exploitation and corruption were both recognised as limitations impeding proper disposal methods as well as consequences that come from improper management. Findings are illustrated with selected quotations from participants. The findings are reported in a logical order in relation to policy. For instance, political will and policy are considered before funding and capacity because political will and policy influence funding and capacity.

Table 2

Limitation

Examples of Discourse Used by Participants

Political Will

lack of inertia, political motivation; concerns related to government follow-through, commitment, inactivity, government perspective; will of enforcement

Policy

concerns related to legislation, procedures, plans of action, protocols, enforcement mechanisms, accreditation, legal requirements, guidelines, governance

Funding

costs related to disposal method, operations, seizures, expenses; budget; any constraint from financial limitations; acknowledgment of regional funding limitations/the need for economic resources

Capacity

inadequate space, insufficient staffing, lack of technical mechanisms, weak data collection, recordkeeping, spatial issues, and equipment; number of animals

Expertise

concerns related to staff education levels, limited knowledge, limited personnel training, improperly trained personnel, educational constraints, lack of learning/training opportunities; acknowledgment of the need for experts, training, educational improvements

Attitudes and Behaviours

detrimental perspectives and viewpoints from community, institutions, and individuals; harmful ego and ego-dominated behaviours; public and institutional perceptions; cultural views negatively affecting management; concerns related to harmful trends

Limitation and Consequence

Examples of discourse used by participants

Exploitation

the act of making use of and/or benefiting from confiscated animals; harmful for-profit schemes, purchasing animals, acquiring animals; illegitimate establishments

Corruption

dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those impacting the management of confiscated animals; bribery; illegal misconduct; crime

3.1. Political Will

It was recognised by 12 participants that several identified limitations, including lack of funding, lack of expertise, lack of capacity, corruption, and exploitation, could be ameliorated through increased political will. Environmental apathy within the region's political sector was a common theme recognised by participants. For example, C18 noted, 'I've sat-in-on who knows how many government budget planning meetings and they don't even consider [the disposal of confiscated animals] an issue. Even if it's brought up, they don't put any money into this and very few countries do.'

The lack of global political will (outside of Southeast Asia) has been perceived as a limiting factor because many animals confiscated in Southeast Asia are not native to the region. When discussing a case involving confiscated wallabies ( Macropus spp.), C9 explained, 'we wrote a letter to Australia, but they gave no intention of wanting the animals back and we cannot release them here, so they stay in captivity.'

3.2. Policy

Both the lack of policy and the presence of policy were be viewed as a limitation by 12 participants. It was identified that some states are still working to draft legislation on the disposal of live specimens showcasing a lack of policy. Alternatively, introducing excessively demanding regulations for management of confiscated wildlife was recognised as a disincentive. As C3 noted, 'there is also a disincentive for these regulations to be put in place. If [regulations were] enforced, the country is going to say, "we can't do that" and they're not going to want to confiscate anything. If they have these regulations in place for a top-of-the-line facility, the bar is set so high that nobody can approach it and there isn't even a point.'

Retaining live animals as evidence in criminal cases has been identified as a policy that impedes proper disposal of confiscated animals. C9 explains the barrier using the following example: 'All confiscated animals, especially if there is a pending case, we cannot release them back. We are still waiting for court clearance and it's very slow in [our country]. The fastest court clearance I've received was about two years. So, most of the time, the received animals were already dead before even getting clearance. Like last year I received a subpoena asking me for the status of birds that were confiscated way back in 2008.'

3.3. Funding

All 18 participants confirmed lack of funding and present economic constraints to be a considerable limitation that impedes the proper disposal of confiscated live animals. Substantial operating costs for facilities associated with managing confiscated animals in captivity include operational costs, medical care, the cost of land, and animal husbandry. Participants recognised that several other limitations, including expertise, capacity, and exploitation are mitigated through increased funding. Interviews brought attention to the direct relationship between the lack of political will and the lack of funding for management of confiscated live animals. Several participants identified a relationship between lack of funding and exploitation of confiscated live animals. C17 identified transparency issues associated with funding within their country by saying, 'the government has a budget for [management of confiscated animals], but in reality, we never get paid from the government.'

3.4. Capacity

Capacity limitations encompass the lack of personnel, technical mechanisms, limited space, equipment, and number of animals as identified by 17 participants. The lack of space was identified as being a capacity issue, but constraint was largely based on financial restrictions rather than the lack of physical space; it was also, therefore, recognised as a funding limitation. Inadequate record-keeping was identified as a significant capacity issue limiting proper management. Five participants working at captive facilities raised concerns about the sheer number of animals being confiscated, coupled with the lack of personnel and space. C4 presented this concern by saying, 'We get on average three animals every day and most of them are injured' (C9), whereas another participant shared, 'some days you will go in and [the rescue centre] will have 70 new animals.'

Five participants established that lack of capacity creates avenues for corruption. Furthermore, capacity constraints were identified as a deterrent for confiscation authorities to conduct further wildlife seizures. C3 noted, 'pretty soon the officers just want to go and work drug cases because there is a mechanism on how to handle those cases. How to administer this type of work is critical ... [but] logistically their hands are tied. What do they do? A lot of time they take money. They would like to confiscate, but there is no mechanism in place ... a lot of times what they take is more than the fine would have been anyway.'

Nine participants described multiple cases of confiscated animals being released to the wild, many without proper mechanisms and protocols. Such as with the following example: 'There are shipments of tons, literally tons of snakes per shipment that are just being released. Tons of live monitor lizards that are just being dumped out and now birds, they're releasing cockatoos and all kinds of stuff into [non-native region]. It's just ridiculous. The wrong species are getting dumped all over the place' (C18). Not all releases were reported as being erroneous; some facilities claim to be releasing rehabilitated confiscated animals back to their native habitat but are unable to publish data on their methods and practices due to lack of capacity and funding.

3.5. Lack of Expertise

Sixteen participants confirmed lack of expertise as impeding the proper disposal for confiscated live animals. Two participants clarified that expertise was not a limitation in the programs they were involved in but recognised that the lack of expertise is an overall limitation in their region. The expertise limitation was found to be alleviated for programs that accept experienced volunteers. Lack of taxonomic knowledge was perceived as an expertise limitation. C18 gave the example, 'taxonomy and the genetics work in [the region] still have a long way to go. I mean the Philippine pangolin was only described a few years back, so up until a few years ago, any pangolin seized in mainland Southeast Asia from the Philippines was released as Sunda pangolin, so the wrong species were being released in the wrong place.'

With regard to captive facilities, it was noted that levels of education of staff differ country by country. C6 shared, 'there are few, sort of, private rescue centres ... mostly run by enthusiastic amateurs who haven't gotten much, you know, professional ability to care for wildlife.'

Data showed expertise to be a more pressing limitation for programs impacted by economic constraints. As an example, an internationally funded program housing confiscated animals identified their facility as having 25 keepers, rotating volunteers, several researchers, and a resident veterinarian. A self-funded private facility in a neighbouring country with roughly the same number of animals described their management structure as a family that cares for the animals; one man with his children to help clean the facility and a veterinarian that visits every weekend to check on the animals. Expertise was perceived as a limiting factor amongst all confiscating authorities, government-run rescue centres, and privately-owned establishments. As highlighted by C6 who said, 'generally, the government will have one official employee, all of the other staff will be local hires, you know, just people who live in the local village and stuff like that. I don't know any ... centre with [veterinarians] on the staff.'

3.6. Attitudes and Behaviours

The presence of detrimental attitudes and behaviours was identified as a limitation by 13 participants. Attitude and behaviour limitations include ego, cultural views, public perceptions, and institutional perceptions. Ego was identified by seven participants as being a constraint in the management of confiscated live animals. Ego-dominated managerial traits and structures impact proper care of confiscated animals. An incident was described where ego-driven opposition led to hundreds of confiscated endangered animals dying. C4 recalled the event by sharing, 'one thing we tried to install was to just send animals, since specialist centres exist, to get them transferred to a specialist centre. We had a lot of opposition from the director because that's very much the admission of being unable to look after them. Most of the animals died.'

Seven participants highlighted that ego-dominated decision-making regarding reintroduction failures and other challenges are underreported because of the potential repercussions. C6 captured this by stating,

there are massive reintroductions going on ... [Those reintroducing] are a bit guarded on what they do because sometimes it goes wrong and they don't want people to know. But negative data is definitely valuable data, you know, it can stop people making the same mistakes. It is important to get that out there, but I think many people are worried about repercussions from that. Especially inside the [government] ... If a director makes a decision to do it and then there was a problem- that would affect [their] promotions and things like that.

Following rather than meeting needs was identified as often driving priorities for groups working with confiscated wildlife, at the cost to the animals. Trends included unnecessary and/or ineffective capacity building, the focus on charismatic species and, prioritizing volunteer programs focused on popular species. C10 shared, 'rescue centres are full of species [that are commonly seized] and they don't want anymore. You know, there's too many of them flooding the rescue centres. The ones that aren't flashy can't raise money to pay for themselves to stay in the rescue centres, so what happens to them?'

Cultural values, religious beliefs, and public perceptions were recognised as a factor impeding confiscation management. Cultural views were perceived as a hindrance to the consideration of killing confiscated animals. Five participants noted that decision makers will rarely allow euthanasia even if it means that animals will suffer. Two admitted that they may allow it under extreme circumstances but will not take the action themselves. Perceptions on the status of animals amongst keepers, authorities, and the public are also included in this limitation. C4 shared, 'there's a fundamental gap... there's only so much training you can do, like with so many of the [keepers]: an animal is seen as an object, a possession rather than a living thing.' C9 noted, 'most of [the police] don't even care...when they see a deer, they see food ... it's the culture.'

Unsound releases were related to improper protocols as well as apathetic attitudes. Releasing confiscated animals into the wild was described as 'throwing away' unwanted responsibilities. C18 described an incident, 'there was a recent seizure of 6000 birds in [Southeast Asian country]; 2000 died immediately and the other 4000-they were all just released in one spot. They don't even know what species they were or where they were from. There was no quarantine process. Well, they said they were in quarantine, but for like a day, so it's really a joke.'

Two participants claimed that negative attitudes towards specific species, such as snakes, restrict those species from being released back to the wild forcing them to remain in captivity or be euthanised when they are fit to be released. Perceptions within the conservation community were also identified as a limiting factor impeding proper disposal management.

3.7. Exploitation

Exploitation has been recognised as both a limitation to proper disposal and a consequence of improper disposal by 16 participants. For the purpose of this study, exploitation is considered the act of making use of and/or benefiting from confiscated animals. Acknowledgment of exploitation predominantly focused on the use of confiscated animals in 'for-profit' schemes. The lack of clarification within international guidelines opened doors for exploitation. C12 shared that their country 'sends confiscated animals to zoos, sanctuaries, and also tourist centres with personal owners ... CITES allows for confiscated animals to be commercial, exhibition, to be sold, etc. and [some people] abuse that.' Concerns were raised about facilities that housed 'less popular' common species receiving less funding and being in worse condition while facilities housing "popular" animals would keep them in captivity to maintain funding even when they had the potential to be released.

It has been identified that the demand for animal tourism has created a new market for confiscated wildlife. This demand is deterring possible rehabilitation and releases. C6 highlighted this by sharing, 'when the animals come into these centres, when the centres start generating money, they fall into a sort of a corner where they actually don't want to rehabilitate the animals ... they make no attempt to release them because know if they managed to rehabilitate and release them, they'd have nothing for the tourists to see.' C17 noted that 'the first choice is supposed to be the rescue centre, but in reality, usually the ones that come to the rescue centre are the species that the zoo that didn't want ... the zoo almost never does any release because [the animals] are assets for them.'

The demand for animal tourism is creating faux-rescue centres and increasing the number of unregulated captive facilities. C6 provided the example, 'the latest thing in [my country] is elephant rescue centres. There are no laws relating to them, so they are popping up all over the place ... Instead of rescuing elephants, they're buying elephants ... the [sellers] use the money to buy a new elephant, they buy a young one and put it into the trade.' C3 shared, 'there is a lot of back door sales. Individual employees can make [USD] 10 grand cash for a baby tiger, that's a 20-years salary. I can tell you that will happen in the United States too.'

Exploitation was not only recorded at public facilities; it was identified to occur within government agencies and reputable NGOs as well, as highlighted by an example from C14, 'in the [fisheries agency], I've seen [exploitation] in their office, they [had] piranhas that were confiscated, but then they just keep it in the office. So, I don't know their protocol on proper disposal.' Additionally, C6 said,

some NGOs have a lot of integrity and are doing the right thing, but a lot of them are doing exactly the opposite and just totally exploiting the animals in another way. [Exploitation] is a very serious problem and it's something that, many [NGOs] are aware of this problem but they don't want to draw attention to it because it might negatively affect their business.

3.8. Corruption

Corruption has been recognised as both a limitation to proper disposal and a consequence of improper disposal by 10 participants. Corruption can be considered as dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those involved in the management of confiscated animals. Corruption was identified to infiltrate all levels of confiscation management from the government and political sphere to captive facilities and international players. Corruption has been identified as sometimes being a result of the lack of funding, capacity, and expertise. C3 noted 'it's not so much that they are corrupt but if they are supposed to seize animals that need to be immediately returned or cared for and there is no help ... they don't have a mechanism ... so it ends up being corrupt. [Some] corruption is a result of trying to cut the best outcome out of a set of unpleasant circumstances.'

Findings uncovered that corruption and exploitation overlap, especially in the case of selling confiscated animals which is legal in many countries. C4 shared that 'the enforcement officers ... [may] auction the animals off, so they go back to the same sellers. People are telling me that it is happening. I've not witnessed it first-hand.' C9 provided another example of corruption by sharing that in their country 'the law in wildlife is so strong ... the problem is the will and the enforcement, even the police, they would just whisper "I want my cut" ... Corruption happens and then they always use ignorance, that they don't know any better; it's normal.'

The need to hold live animals as evidence was found to also create opportunities for corruption. C18 highlighted this by describing this experience:

I was part of a big seizure, the largest seizure ever for [a critically endangered animal] and the government's stance was that they had all died, but everybody knows that they just got sold out the back door and that happens a lot ... The government said they couldn't send the live animals back to [country of origin] because they needed them as evidence for the case. So, when they claimed that they had died, I said, 'well, surely you kept [them], you still need evidence for the case.' And they said, 'Well, no, no, of course not. We threw them all away.' Which throws the whole story of needing evidence at the window.

In Table 3 below, the responses of individual participants relating to limitations impeding the proper disposal of confiscated live animals are summarised.

Table 3

Affiliation

Participant

Funding

Capacity

Expertise

Exploitation

Attitudes

Policy

Political Will

Corruption

4. Discussion

The interviews revealed there to be eight categories of barriers to the proper care and disposal of confiscated live animals in Southeast Asia. These are (1) political will, (2) policy, (3) funding, (4) capacity, (5) expertise (6) attitudes and behaviours, (7) exploitation, and (8) corruption. The limitations are related and have the ability to impact each other. For instance, wildlife confiscation authorities are predominantly government institutions, meaning funding priorities are largely dictated by political will ( Figure 2 ).

Government has a key role in limiting the proper disposal and care of confiscated wildlife. A lack of political will is a major barrier preventing adequate funds from being included in disposal budgets. Lack of political will leads to a lack of effective legislation and policy with inadequate protocols and weak enforcement. Without adequate financial resources management is unable to provide sufficient capacity and expertise. These limitations create an avenue for wildlife exploitation in an attempt to make up for gaps in required resources.

The list of identified limitations has consequences for the 'disposed' live animals. For example, limited funding results in unsuitable, poorly managed captive facilities that do not meet the welfare needs of wild animals kept there. Exploitation and corruption were recognised as both a limitation to achieving suitable care for confiscated animals and as a consequence of improper management. Concerns have been raised that some captive facilities engage in exploitation and corrupt practices by abusing their legitimate status in order to traffic animals through the use of fraudulent paperwork and/or animal laundering. The lack of accountability allows for engagement in exploitative and corrupt activity by fraudulently using a legitimate business for economic gain. In the absence of adequate funding, even legitimate establishments have turned to morally questionable business models, many involving tourism, to support confiscated wildlife operations-they teeter on what constitutes justifiable subsidies and exploitation.

Interviews from this study supported CITES data listing zoos as the most common captivity option for confiscated live animals [ 22]. This opens pathways for exploitation considering zoos are not generally concerned with rehabilitating and releasing animals. As the first disposal choice for many confiscation authorities, zoos are in a position to select only popular species before the animals are taken to a sanctioned rescue centre. The hierarchy of perceived species importance impacts proper disposal management decisions. This research found that the disposal methods chosen for less popular and commonly traded animal species are more frequently animal killings and/or unsanctioned releases, and the disposal method chosen for popular animal species is more frequently captivity, even when that may not be the best disposal option for those animals.

With insufficient political will to increase funding for legitimate rescue centres, wildlife tourism is relied upon and has been described as a necessary evil. When looking at tourism's effect on captive wildlife, findings confirm past studies that found an increase in tourists seeking more ethical animal tourism activities [ 59, 70]. In response to the new 'ethical tourism' market, rescue centres are emerging across Southeast Asia [ 71, 72], many of which are illegitimate. They put legitimate centres under immense pressure to comply with the demand for animal interactions rather than operating in the animals' best interest. This trend is magnified in regions where animals have become totemic symbols of countries, for example, elephants and tigers in Thailand and orangutans in Indonesia and Malaysia. Direct interactions with wildlife are sought as part of the exotic cultural experience, but unfortunately, this trend has created a new exploitative market for wildlife. This is not to discount that wildlife tourism experiences have the potential to positively impact public awareness if executed properly [ 61, 73]. Presently, however, this new branch of tourism seems to have more opportunities for inflicting harm and raises the concern that confiscated live animals are being exploited for profit.

The high demand for confiscated animal care has led to governments allowing ad-hoc and illegitimate rescue centres to proliferate. Several participants explained how their country allows private rescue centres to house confiscated animals because the government is not committed to providing adequate resources to manage their own rescue centres. The costs of caring for captive animals are significant, however, one participant explained that faux-rescue centres are able to make a profit. This can be done by charging entry fees, using and/or charging volunteers instead of paying labour, buying substandard food, and not providing adequate veterinary care or environmental enrichment for animals. 'Back door sales' were also mentioned alluding to trafficking of animals as an additional revenue source. This unregulated and new form of exploitation takes advantage of naive tourists, and confiscated animals that should be provided with a legitimate, protective shelter.

The IUCN have reported that releasing confiscated animals back to the wild is not often done [ 40]. This may be accurate if it refers strictly to properly managed reintroductions, but it has been indicated that releases are happening more frequently than previous research suggests. One possible explanation for this variance between this study's findings and the CITES survey data is that the majority of Southeast Asian countries did not participate in the CITES survey. Accounts from interview participants indicated that releases done without proper protocols were fairly commonplace. Authorities, therefore, may be unaware of the actual number of releases or they may not want to concede that many releases are unwarranted.

Participants were aware of the extensive protocols involved in releasing rescued animals and speculated that, if funding was in place to support it, attempts at successful releases would be possible. Releasing confiscated animals to their native habitat has the potential to be a powerful conservation tool if implemented correctly [ 47, 74] and could ultimately produce population-level benefits [ 48]. Pre-release rehabilitation and post-release monitoring are essential components for this method to be successful [ 61]. At this time, the current system does not always allow for properly planned releases due to a number of limiting factors including ecological risks and significant resource barriers [ 25, 75] which are already limited as this study affirms. If proper release practices could be implemented, they create an opportunity to return a significant number of endangered animals to the wild that may have otherwise been killed, kept in captivity, or lost to the trade.

4.1. Recommendations

4.1.1. Wildlife Seizure Management

This study exposes the troubling reality of a key part of the illegal wildlife trade in Southeast Asia. Many problems stemming from the mismanagement of confiscated live animals were reported, indicating an urgent need for controls and supportive mechanisms. Developing a stronger chain of custody and recordkeeping techniques with advanced data collection methods will be critical in making sure protocols post-seizure are sanctioned and properly delivered. Also, the management of captive facilities need to be held accountable through licensing, permitting, regulations, and regular inspections. NGOs, government agencies, and the media can be supportive by focusing less attention on the seizure itself and by prioritizing awareness on demand reduction and stressing prosecutions from seizures. Seizures should remain a prioritised strategy for disrupting trade. There are only a limited number of authorities that can legitimately confiscate live traded wildlife. By establishing training and support that enables authorities to initiate the seizure in exporting countries, there will be a greater chance for the animals to be released in their native ranges. Current practices of short-term training, capacity building, and knowledge sharing need to be redefined with funding allocated toward transparent programs that involve local communities and promote long-term goals.

4.1.2. Legislative Support

Stronger legislation is fundamental to protecting illegally traded wildlife. Judicial support is important especially concerning live evidence requirements. Live evidence requirements are viewed as detrimental since they often prohibit the release of wild animals when suitable. The adoption of new evidentiary standards that do not involve the detainment of live animals, such as photographic, DNA and/or tissue evidence, should be considered. If live animal evidence remains a requirement, it is suggested that in cases involving a large number of confiscated specimens, a small proportion of the animals should be sufficient to meet this judicial requirement, which would allow remaining animals to be rehabilitated and released more swiftly. Because funding is a central limiting factor preventing well-managed disposal methods, it is recommended that states adopt or strengthen legislation to levy fines on convicted criminals to recoup costs associated with confiscation and disposal of live animals [ 8, 76].

4.1.3. Enhanced Political Will

Enhancing political will to facilitate progressive reforms is key to legislative support and appropriate funding. Decision-makers can consider the substantial value of wildlife considered as natural capital. Many Southeast Asian nations are heavily reliant on tourism, and controversies related to the illegal wildlife trade may affect this important income stream. Furthermore, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals include respect for life below water and life on land. Decision-makers play a key role in the future of the viability of threatened species. Biodiversity is a fundamental good with potential consequences for the environment and human health. Illegally traded wild animals are sentient beings with intrinsic value, which should be respected by enlightened nations in the twenty first century. All of these considerations suggest that wise decision-makers and governments would legislate and resource appropriately to regulate the illegal wildlife trade, including the proper care and disposal of confiscated live animals.

4.1.4. Demand Reduction

Another essential yet challenging component of the illegal wildlife trade is to reduce demand for live animals. Much of the trade is the result of harmful perceptions and a lack of knowledge surrounding the live animal trade. Consumers, including tourists, have limited understanding of the reality and impacts of the trade on individuals and species. Public awareness campaigns coupled with stronger government regulation can help decrease demand for exotic animals on an individual level. With respect to tourism practices, studies suggest meeting the needs of wildlife is better achieved when programs involve visitors as conservation partners by communicating the reasons behind constraints imposed on interactions with animals [ 77].

4.1.5. Global Participation

The frequency and intensity of confiscations from the illegal wildlife trade is much higher in some regions than in others; however, cost and responsibility should not be a disparate burden. Southeast Asia, for example, has the highest levels of reported confiscations [ 9], but significant economic constraints limit the ability of these nations to manage them well. The top need in the region for tackling the illegal wildlife trade is expanded international cooperation and commitments [ 78]. In this research, one participant made a profound comparison between displaced peoples due to war and conflicts and the displaced animals due to the wildlife trade. When human refugees arrive on the shores of other countries, there is an expectation for the global community to abide by moral responsibility to provide aid. The same should be done for displaced live animals.

4.1.6. Registry of Rescue Centres

There is an urgent need for proper licensing, registration, and oversight of captive facilities. Mandatory basic standards (i.e., housing, nutritional and enrichment requirements, behavioural training when warranted, etc.), inspections, and appropriate training for staff and volunteers, often need to be introduced. It is also important to require an educational component for public facilities to present to visitors. A governing body to oversee efforts would promote transparency and oversight. It is important to acknowledge the differing capabilities across states and provinces and requirements would need to exist on a scale, without compromising principle. This would allow countries to create achievable benchmarks that would not disincentivise confiscating authorities. A critical step in ensuring that confiscated animals do not continue to be exploited will be to also close illegitimate facilities.

4.1.7. Terminology Change

The word 'disposal' is a technical term used by CITES and national governments for confiscation of live specimens. In common parlance, the term is defined as 'the act of getting rid of something, especially by throwing it away' [ 79]. The term 'disposal' generally refers to inanimate, i.e., non-sentient beings. The use of 'disposal' by CITES and the international conservation community, therefore, objectifies and degrades sentient wild animals. Given that language propagates oppressions [ 80], the term 'disposal' is unlikely to facilitate favourable treatment both at individual and species level in the wildlife trade.

We propose that CITES and the wider conservation community move to a more positive discourse when referring to illegally traded and confiscated live specimens. This could be a constructive step in enhancing perceptions surrounding this topic and encourage authorities to think differently about how they respond to live animal confiscations. 'Management of', 'treatment of', and 'custody of' illegally traded and confiscated live specimens are potential alternatives.

Similarly, the common misuse of 'euthanasia' can legitimise animal killing that does not meet the definition of euthanasia which requires the killing to be both humanely conducted and in the best interests of the animal [ 45, 46]. This may contribute to the overuse of killing as a management tool. Accordingly, animal killing should be accurately described as such, with 'euthanasia' reserved for killing that is genuinely in the best interests of the animals concerned.

5. Conclusions

This research adds to the limited knowledge regarding the 'disposal' of confiscated live animals, including associated limitations and the impacts of improper management on animals. It calls attention to the importance of human attitudes and behaviour, which play an influential role in the relations between barriers to the proper disposal, and their consequences for welfare and conservation. If one limitation is strained, it can cause a ripple effect, making resolutions more challenging. On the other hand, if one or more influences are mitigated, there is potential for improvement across the spectrum of limitations.

This research has raised questions in need of further investigation. The qualitative approach could be applied to systems in other regions and countries to gain more comprehensive insight on the topic. There is a notable lack of literature on the disposal of confiscated live animals, highlighting the need for academic research to provide verifiable detail with regard to exploitation, abuse, and corruption as well as mismanagement, at this stage in the wildlife trade chain. Successful improvement efforts will be largely dependent on societal shifts, political will, and the development of a framework for collaboration between regional and international agencies. It is clear that a 'one size fits all' approach to tackling proper management strategies for confiscated live animals is unlikely to be effective, and that individual, case-dependent solutions must be developed for long-term sustainable solutions for rescued animals.

The conversation on disposal of confiscated live animals is growing, but there is still a long way to go. The prohibitive limitations described in this study create severe consequences that threaten global conservation objectives and undermine the ethical treatment of wildlife. Because of its prominence within the illegal wildlife trade, Southeast Asia is a region where progress would produce substantial impacts across the globe. Reshaping mindsets and harmful perceptions are challenging, but these may be the most effective ways to ensure better outcomes for recovered animals. Confiscated live animals will have already beaten the odds by being intercepted by authorities and should not be met with further exploitation and harm. They deserve the best possible chance to survive the trade.

Acknowledgments

The execution of this study would not have been possible without the support from the individuals that took the time to contribute their unique and eye-opening insight into the world of wildlife trade and wildlife confiscations. I appreciate the attentive reviews provided by my colleagues and friends from the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, particularly Brooke Friswold and Nathaniel Wehr.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.N.R.; methodology, S.N.R. and S.P.M.; data analysis, S.N.R.; investigation, S.N.R.; writing-original draft, S.N.R.; drafting-revising and editing, S.N.R., A.K., and S.P.M.; project supervision, S.P.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

A University of Winchester Research Ethics Committee granted ethical approval for this research coded as SNR2018.

Data Availability Statement

Data may be available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to ethical and privacy restrictions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

3. United Nations . Tackling Illicit Trafficking in Wildlife. United Nations; New York, NY, USA: 2017. [(accessed on 4 March 2018)]. UN General Assembly A/71/L.88 Item 13. Available online: [ http://undocs.org/A/71/L.88 Google Scholar]

38. ASEAN-WEN The Association of Southeast Asian Nations Wildlife Enforcement Network. [(accessed on 10 September 2018)];ASEAN Online Publ. 2018 Available online: [ http://www.asean-wen.org Google Scholar]

Articles from Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Surviving the Wildlife Trade in Southeast Asia: Reforming the 'Disposal' of Confiscated Live Animals under CITES

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Clive J. C. Phillips, Academic Editor and Silvana Mattiello, Academic Editor In response to the illegal wildlife trade, successful enforcement often involves the seizure, confiscation, and subsequent management of illegally traded wildlife. Unfortunately, confiscated live animals often experience substandard care. In this study, we investigate the barriers to the 'disposal' of confiscated live animals in Southeast Asia.

# data[].attributes.body
Overfishing has impacted entire ecosystems. It can change the size of fish remaining, as well as how they reproduce and the speed at which they mature.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ERROR: The request could not be satisfied

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The Amazon Rain Forest Is Nearly Gone. We Went to the Front Lines to See If It Could Be Saved

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Amazon Rain Forest Is Nearly Gone. We Went to the Front Lines to See If It Could Be Saved

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Colonization and environmental vandalism created a crisis in the Amazon that could have alarming consequences for climate change.

# data[].attributes.body
A)

1.   Pick 2 topics and find relevant articles/journals/vlogs/blogs/videos
2.  Once you have found the information post them below the relevant topics.
3.  If your classmate has already posted some information, ensure that your post is on another aspect .
4. Do remember that the information you post must be suitable for your age group.

B) Make sure your NAME appears before the post.