What is it about?
Wildlife trade is known to be a major threat to the survival of many species; yet for most species traded legally, little information is collated and made available for analysis. We collate 22 years of data on wildlife trade into the United States and show that almost 30,000 species were traded, and billions of individuals. Furthermore, for most taxa at least half individuals came from the wild.
Featured Image
Photo by SHAKIL CHOWDHURY on Unsplash
Why is it important?
Whilst we often hear about the threat of illegal trade, legal trade is worth at least 10 times more, and understanding the impacts is challenging as the data needed to monitor trade is rarely collated. Whilst the threat of wildlife trade is well recognised as a primary threat to the survival of many species, trade is only monitored for a tiny fraction of species (through the auspices of CITES). For species which do not fall under this framework we have virtually no data on what is in trade, and if they are from captivity or the wild. As we rarely know what is in trade, in what volume, or trends in wild populations; we cannot gauge the sustainability, or when that trade may pose a risk to species survival. Furthermore, though the remit of CITES is to protect species from unsustainable trade, often listing species is challenging as there may be "insufficient proof" that trade poses a risk because of this lack of monitoring. Wildlife trade poses an indisputable threat to species survival. Whilst sustainable trade is often discussed, we often seem to overlook that sustainability is something that should be demonstrated rather than assumed. Gauging sustainability requires data; what is in trade, where is it from, and what is happening to source populations? From studies that have been conducted traded populations showed an average decline of 62%- and yet we only have such data for a tiny fraction of what is in trade. We need to do better, and the first step towards that is by more countries collating data with consistent standards and making that data available for assessments. The fact that IPBES stated that at least 50,000 species were in trade, and that we know that it is an underestimate is in trade further highlights the urgent need for better data; yet at present almost no countries collate and share such data. Of the analysis here, only 0.01% was illegal, we need to shift our focus to better understand legal trade, to understand what is in trade, and if it is, or is not sustainable. If we do not then we can expect to see more almost invisible extinctions of species, and the loss of wild populations. We also need to understand that trade has changed, and that the demand for exotic pets, and framed insects and bats, puts huge pressure on wild populations; and better data is essential to enable management and conservation of species potentially at risk. We should also remind ourselves that trade of animals from the wild includes inherent risk, not only is mortality high along the supply-chain (potentially requiring vastly more animals that end up being sold to be collected), but they can spread diseases that may impact both domestic and wild animals. In addition invasive species as well as species known to spread pathogens, which can impact native species are frequently imported; posing a risk to local wildlife. The analysis here focuses on import into a single country, but underscores the vast levels of trade which happens legally, with the sustainability of most of it unknown. Moving towards systems that rely more on captive breeding can overcome some of these risks- both reducing the risk of disease, and parasite spread, and reducing impacts on source populations; and this requires both regulation, and education to better promote. Promoting higher responsibility in consumers, and better standards to enable better captive breeding facilities also reduces the potential risks and pressures, and also mirrors what has already been seen with the implementation of former legislation (such as the EU bird directive, and the US wild bird conservation act) which were implemented to reduce risks of disease spread to native species; and had the additional bonus of reducing pressure on native species in origin countries.
Perspectives
Legal wildlife trade remains an overlooked threat to the survival of many species. We have to do better, collate better data of what is in trade, promote better standards that ensure we can manage trade sustainably, and transition away from wild collection for many species. At present despite the importance of this data, the magnitude of trade, and the tens of thousands of species traded, is frequently forgotten. Sadly at present very few countries collate data, and share it in the way needed to understand what is in trade, and where risks may be, and we can only hope that more countries start to collate data using the same standards, and to share that data so that we can finally start to truely understand what is in trade, as a first step towards genuinely sustainable management.
Alice Hughes
University of Hong Kong
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: The magnitude of legal wildlife trade and implications for species survival, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, January 2025, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2410774121.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page