Thousands of reptile species threatened by under-regulated global trade

Abstract

Wildlife trade is a key driver of the biodiversity crisis. Unregulated, or under-regulated wildlife trade can lead to unsustainable exploitation of wild populations. International efforts to regulate wildlife mostly miss ‘lower-value’ species, such as those imported as pets, resulting in limited knowledge of trade in groups like reptiles. Here we generate a dataset on web-based private commercial trade of reptiles to highlight the scope of the global reptile trade. We find that over 35% of reptile species are traded online. Three quarters of this trade is in species that are not covered by international trade regulation. These species include numerous endangered or range-restricted species, especially hotspots within Asia. Approximately 90% of traded reptile species and half of traded individuals are captured from the wild. Exploitation can occur immediately after scientific description, leaving new endemic species especially vulnerable. Pronounced gaps in regulation imply trade is having unknown impacts on numerous threatened species. Gaps in monitoring demand a reconsideration of international reptile trade regulations. We suggest reversing the status-quo, requiring proof of sustainability before trade is permitted.

Turning Negatives into Positives for Pet Trading and Keeping: A Review of Positive Lists

“…The theoretical and practical benefits of positive lists for pet trading and keeping were acknowledged by civil servants during the interviews. There is support from within the academic community for positive lists as a means of aiding species conservation and protecting biodiversity [ 12 , 32 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 ], and from within the veterinary community for safeguarding animal welfare and preventing zoonoses and other infections [ 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 ].…”

“…It is difficult to quantify the volume of wild animals traded as pets largely because poor record-keeping appears to be commonplace [ 9 , 10 , 11 ]. For example, the vast majority of exotic species are not listed in the appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and data for non-CITES-listed species are sparse (i.e., not systematically recorded) [ 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. However, Auliya et al established that more than 20 million reptiles (CITES- and non-CITES-listed) were imported into European Union (EU) member states between 2004 and 2014 [ 10 ].…”

“…The uncontrolled commercialisation and demand for wild animals as pets is recognised as a significant and increasing driver of the global decline and extinction of species [ 10 , 12 , 100 , 101 , 102 ]. Collector demand is particularly high for rare species or those that have only recently been described [ 29 , 30 , 38 , 103 , 104 ].…”

Trading Tactics: Time to Rethink the Global Trade in Wildlife

“…Here, the implication or hope appears to be that commodification and commercialisation enables nature to pay for its continued existence, whilst bringing benefits—both financial and social—particularly to those living in close proximity to wild populations [ 44 ]. However, there are increasing concerns that this status quo as a default approach is not tenable, particularly given that the systemic lack of scientific data on the status of wild populations, and ineffective management and monitoring of trade, impairs current sustainability efforts [ 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ]. In particular, commonly applied “sustainable solutions”, such as commercial captive breeding and ranching of wild animals, are not always as sustainable as intended, given they may only be appropriate for a limited number of wild animal species that fit certain specific criteria [ 21 , 49 , 50 ].…”

“…Furthermore, national bans (on taking birds from nests for the international pet trade) are also considered to have significantly increased parrot nest success across diverse geographical locations and political-economic conditions (including in Africa, Asia, and Australia) [ 84 ]. Therefore, it is perhaps unsurprising that many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and academic researchers have also recommended commercial wildlife trade bans as a preferred conservation measure in relation to a range of taxa across a variety of trade scenarios (e.g., [ 48 , 85 , 86 , 87 ]). For example, Ferretti et al [ 88 ] projected that a blanket ban on shark fin trade in the US would have a considerable positive conservation impact, Marshall et al [ 48 ] proposed a ban on the international reptile trade to reduce the pressures on wild populations, and, more broadly, Frank and Wilcove [ 47 ] warned that the lack of bans on international wildlife trade poses a serious threat to species extinction.…”