Trading Tactics: Time to Rethink the Global Trade in Wildlife

Abstract

The Covid-19 outbreak has brought about fresh and intensified scrutiny of the wildlife trade, which substantively involves commerce in exotic pets. In response, major policy decisions involving trade bans have ensued, with calls for similar such action to be applied across the trade chain. Yet, these measures have been criticised, largely based on concerns that they risk exacerbating poverty, undermining human rights, damaging conservation incentives, and otherwise harming sustainable development and conservation efforts. Instead, many critics propose improved regulation of the status quo, with the intention of nurturing a legal, sustainable, safe, humane, and equitable wildlife trade. Herein, we provide a countering view that outlines how the risks presented by the wildlife trade are becoming increasingly recognised as being both manifold and severe; and raise concerns that the goal of a well-regulated wildlife trade is becoming increasingly exposed as a mirage. We conclude that while pursuing the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (with their focus on poverty alleviation, food security, public health, and conservation) is enduringly vital, a flourishing wildlife trade is not. Given that the exploitation of wildlife, including for the pet trade, has been identified as one of the dominant drivers of biodiversity loss, emergence of zoonotic infectious disease, animal suffering, and financial instability, perpetuating the concept of utilising a regulated wildlife trade as the default approach to protect people and planet is in urgent need of re-evaluation.

The Sustainability of Keeping Birds as Pets: Should Any Be Kept?

“…Most species of wild birds are not on a list of endangered species, and in many countries, there is nothing preventing them from being taken from the wild, with severe negative consequences for the welfare and survival of individuals, and for the population size of some species. Some of these issues are discussed by [ 4 , 91 ].…”

“…The sustainability of all human interactions with other animal species and the advisability and morality of taking animals from the wild is now being questioned [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. A system or procedure is sustainable if it is acceptable now and if its expected future effects are acceptable, in particular in relation to resource availability, consequences of functioning, and morality of action [ 5 ].…”

The illegal hunting and exploitation of porcupines for meat and medicine in Indonesia

“…Commercialisation of the meat and traditional medicine trade is a key driver of species decline on a global scale (Shairp et al 2016;Nijman and Bergin 2017;D'Cruze et al 2020;Stanford et al 2020;WAP 2020). In Indonesia, this has already resulted in the (near) depletion of several species encompassing tigers, pangolins, reptiles, freshwater turtles, etc (Lyons and Natusch 2011;Auliya et al 2016;Shepherd et al 2016;Janssen and Chng 2018;Morgan 2018;Wong and Krishnasamy 2019;Nijman et al 2019;Rheint et al 2019;Latinne et al 2020.…”

Envisioning a resilient future for biodiversity conservation in the wake of the COVID‐19 pandemic

“…Yet, the pandemic has also brought the need for particular research topics into focus. The importance of understanding the global wildlife trade and its links to zoonotic transmission and biodiversity loss has been highlighted since the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic (Booth et al, 2021;Borzée et al, 2020;D'Cruze et al, 2020). Calls for holistic approaches such as the One Health approach, that recognise the complex interactions between human and wildlife, how such interactions drive disease transmission and biodiversity loss, and better understanding of the public health consequences of biodi- (Kavousi et al, 2020).…”