Content uploaded by Rosie Cooney
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rosie Cooney on Mar 21, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
A FRAMEWORK TO IMpROvE
BIODIvERSITY AND LIvELIHOOD OUTCOMES
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
A FRAMEWORK TO IMPROVE
BIODIVERSITY AND LIVELIHOOD OUTCOMES
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
ii SC-15-311.E
Abstract for trade information services
ID=43146 2015 SITC-941 CON
International Trade Centre (ITC)
The Trade in Wildlife: A Framework to Improve Biodiversity and Livelihood Outcomes
Geneva: ITC, 2015. xii, 29 pages (Technical paper)
Doc. No.: SC-15-311.E
This paper provides an analytical framework for assessing the impact of international trade in wildlife and
wildlife products on conservation and local livelihoods. It also explores the role of factors related to
particular species and their habitat, governance settings, the supply-chain structure, and the nature of the
end market. The framework is relevant for importers and exporters, regulators, policymakers, non-
governmental organizations, community representatives and researchers seeking to improve the
sustainability of international wildlife supply chains.
Descriptors: Endangered Species, Biodiversity, Sustainable Development, Economic Development.
For further information on this technical paper, contact Mr. Alexander Kasterine (kasterine@intracen.org)
English, French, Spanish, Mandarin (separate editions)
The International Trade Centre (ITC) is the joint agency of the World Trade Organization and the United
Nations.
ITC, Palais des Nations, 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland (www.intracen.org)
Suggested citation: Cooney, R., Kasterine, A., MacMillan, D., Milledge, S., Nossal, K., Roe, D. and
S.,’t Sas-Rolfes, M. (2015). The trade in wildlife: a framework to improve biodiversity and livelihood
outcomes, International Trade Centre, Geneva, Switzerland.
Views expressed in this paper are those of consultants and do not necessarily coincide with those of
ITC, UN or WTO. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this paper do not
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the International Trade Centre
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
Mention of firms, products and product brands does not imply the endorsement of ITC.
This technical paper has not been formally edited by the International Trade Centre.
Digital images on the cover: © Shutterstock © Alessandro Caproni © Erik (HASH) Hersman © Petr & Bara
Ruzicka
© International Trade Centre 2015
ITC encourages the reprinting and translation of its publications to achieve wider dissemination. Short
extracts of this technical paper may be freely reproduced, with due acknowledgement of the source.
Permission should be requested for more extensive reproduction or translation. A copy of the reprinted or
translated material should be sent to ITC.
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E iii
Contents
Contents iii
Acknowledgements v
Foreword from A. González, ITC vi
Foreword from I. Andersen, IUCN vii
Abbreviations viii
Executive summary ix
Chapter 1Impact of wildlife trade 1
Chapter 2International wildlife trade, conservation and livelihoods 2
1.Background and key concepts 2
2.Conservation impacts of wildlife trade 3
2.1.Negative impacts 3
2.2.Positive impacts 3
3.Local livelihood impacts of trade 4
3.1.Positive impacts 4
3.2.Negative impacts 5
Chapter 3Analytical framework 6
1.Species factors 7
1.1.Resilience to harvest 8
1.2.Accessibility 9
2.Goverance factors 11
2.1.Property rights 11
2.1.1.Strengthening private/communal property rights 12
2.2.Policy settings 13
2.3.Broader governance context 15
3.Supply-chain factors 15
3.1.Cost and scale of production 16
3.2.Stockpiling 16
3.3.Participation of poor communities in supply chains 16
3.4.Concentration of market power 17
4.End-market factors 18
4.1.Market size 18
4.2.Demand elasticity 19
4.3.Consumer preferences 19
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
iv SC-15-311.E
4.3.1.Natural vs synthetic 19
4.3.2.Wild sourced vs intensively managed 20
4.3.3.Abundant vs rare/regulated 20
4.3.4.Legal vs illegal products 20
4.3.5.Shifting consumer preferences 21
Chapter 4Challenges ahead 22
References 23
Tables, Figures and Boxes
Table 1. Examples of the scale of trade in different wildlife products 2
Table 2. Ecological characteristics of wildlife affecting resilience to harvest 9
Table 3. Property-rights regimes and their implications for sustainable harvest 12
Figure 1. Interactions between conservation and livelihood outcomes 6
Box 1. Key points 7
Box 2. Factors affecting resilience to harvest 8
Box 3. Moving from wild to intensive management systems 10
Box 4. Key points 11
Box 5. Legal framework for international wildlife trade 14
Box 6. Key points 16
Box 7. Key points 18
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E v
Acknowledgements
The paper was co-authored by Rosie Cooney, Alexander Kasterine, Douglas MacMillan, Simon Milledge,
Katarina Nossal, Dilys Roe and Michael ’t Sas-Rolfes.
Feedback and editorial comments were kindly received from Anders Aeroe, Brian Belcher, Duan Biggs,
Martina Bozzola, Dan Challender, Sarah Doornbos, Sarah Ferguson, Gabriela Lichtenstein, Dan Natusch,
Kate Schreckenburg, Rob Skidmore, Grazia Piras and Jon Paul Rodriguez and Ann-Kathrin Zotz. We also
thank Serge Adeagbo (ITC) and Franco Iacovino (ITC) for providing graphic and printing support and
Natalie Domeisen, Jennifer Freedman, Hyesu Cho and Maximillian Thompson (all ITC) for editorial and
production support. Katarina Nossal (ITC) managed the research project and edited the paper. The
research was directed by Alexander Kasterine, Head, Trade and Environment Programme at ITC.
This publication represents the collective effort of many members of the IUCN Sustainable Use and
Livelihood Specialist Group (SULi) of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) pertaining to the
Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) and the International Trade Centre
(ITC). However, the views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN, SULi, ITC
or other organizations affiliated to the authors.
The financial contributions of Denmark, Germany and Norway are gratefully acknowledged.
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
vi SC-15-311.E
Foreword
The world’s biological resources are under threat from climate change,
urbanization, invasive species and the increasing demand from mankind for
food and fibre.
Biodiversity provides vital goods and services for mankind and, in particular, for
rural communities that depend on natural resources for shelter, food and cash
income. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) report
describes nature as the ‘GDP of the poor’ given the strong contribution of
forests and other ecosystems to the livelihoods of poor rural households.
In response to rising consumer incomes and a growing population, the demand
for natural resources is steadily increasing. Hence, concerns are arising that
many aspects of this trade are not sustainable. There is a need for
policymakers, project designers, communities and the private sector to
understand how trade has an impact on the world’s wildlife and how these
impacts can be mitigated.
This study provides a framework to enhance the understanding of the factors determining sustainable use
of natural resources. It outlines the role of policies, property rights, supply-chain governance and
consumers in fostering a more sustainable use of the world’s biodiversity and greater income streams to
the communities involved in its management.
ITC carried out this analysis as part of its commitment to mainstream sustainability into Aid for Trade
programming. Notably, ITC designs Aid for Trade projects that enable poor communities to derive income
from the sustainable management of their biodiversity resources. In Zambia, for example, ITC has
supported women’s collector associations to strengthen the sustainability of the collection of devil’s claw. In
Madagascar, ITC supports women’s associations of raffia producers to improve climate-adaptation
measures, product quality and business capacity. Furthermore, ITC is working with the International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the private sector to strengthen sustainable sourcing of python and
crocodile skins for the luxury fashion industry.
In closing, I gratefully acknowledge the fruitful collaboration with the IUCN’s Sustainable Use and
Livelihoods Specialist Group (SULi). We look forward to continuing the partnership that combines ITC’s
knowledge of markets with IUCN’s scientific and conservation expertise.
Arancha González
Executive Director, ITC
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E vii
Foreword
Sustainable, legal and equitable wildlife trade can be a powerful nature-based
solution for meeting the twin challenges of enhancing rural livelihoods and
conserving biological diversity. At best, wildlife trade can link consumers in the
more developed parts of the planet with rural indigenous and local communities
for which natural resources constitute their main wealth. It can support the
survival of traditional knowledge and culture, return equitable benefits from
nature conservation to local communities, and help finance basic needs, such
as healthcare and education. For communities empowered by effective and
equitable governance systems, the benefits derived from trading wildlife
products can catalyse community investments in nature conservation, law
enforcement and stewardship of wildlife. Wildlife trade can enhance the way
societies and communities value nature, tipping the balance in favour of
protecting it and against converting it for ‘economically productive’ uses.
On the other hand, trading wild species and their products internationally can
pose serious threats. The ever-escalating prices of wildlife products in
international markets can drive a vicious vortex of illicit harvesting and trafficking, species decline, and the
impoverishment both of ecosystems and of local livelihoods. Poor governance and weak stewardship
rights of indigenous peoples and communities can undermine local support for conservation and render
ineffective attempts to counter increasingly organized and well-armed poaching. Efforts to tighten
enforcement can, in turn, drive prices up and heighten demand. Currently, elephants, rhinos, tigers,
pangolins, several valuable timber species and a host of lower-profile species of plants and animals face
serious threats due to uncontrolled trafficking.
Given this complex backdrop, the global community must seek solutions that protect and conserve nature
while respecting human needs. We must understand where and how to support legal and sustainable
wildlife trade, and where trade should be simply closed down. This report, ‘The Trade in Wildlife: A
Framework to Improve Biodiversity and Livelihood Outcomes’ seeks to help address this challenge. The
report is the result of a partnership between the International Trade Centre and IUCN’s Sustainable Use
and Livelihoods Specialist Group (SULi) – a joint initiative of IUCN’s Commission on Environmental,
Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) and Species Survival Commission (SSC). It provides a structure that
will help us understand the opportunites and threats posed by specific wildlife trade value chains, which
vary enormously in their potential to make positive contributions to conservation and local livelihoods.
This framework draws attention to ecological, economic and social factors within an integrated
methodological approach to wildlife trade. Wildlife trade interventions cannot be based on conservation
biology, on the analysis of markets, or on meeting human needs alone. As for so many of today’s global
problems of sustainability, it is necessary to draw together diverse sources of expertise both to understand
the problem and to craft solutions. This understanding shapes all of IUCN’s work.
I am pleased to introduce this framework and to recommend it to all those seeking to understand the
impacts of wildlife trade on conservation and local livelihoods locally and globally – from researchers to
government decision-makers, and from community organizations to multilateral conventions. I hope it will
become a useful and inspiring tool that will help achieve IUCN’s vision of ‘a just world that values and
conserves nature’.
Inger Andersen
Director General, IUCN
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
viii SC-15-311.E
Abbreviations
Unless otherwise specified, all references to dollars ($) are to United States dollars, and all references to
tons are to metric tons.
The following abbreviations are used:
CAMPFIRE Community Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
EU European Union
ITC International Trade Centre
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
NGO Non-governmental organization
NTFP Non-timber forest products
RONAP Organisation of Organic Brazil Nut Gatherers of Peru
SANParks South Africa National Parks
TRAFFIC Trade Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
USA United States of America
WTO World Trade Organization
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E ix
Executive summary
Biodiversity conservation risks
The international trade in wildlife has complex interactions with people and the environment which are
often poorly understood. Plant, animal and fungi resources support millions of people in both developing
and developed countries. In particular, the harvest and trade of wildlife products is a major component of
the livelihood strategies for many poor communities in rural and remote areas. However, many wildlife
species are vulnerable to harvest and trade, which means trade can pose a significant risk to
biodiversity conservation.
Global concern about biodiversity loss and widespread illegal trade in several threatened species has
raised the potential for further restrictions on international wildlife trade. However, a range of policy options
could support a move towards legal and sustainable trade that supports both conservation and livelihoods.
For most species, there is a need to increase understanding of the risks and opportunities presented by
trade in order to improve the management of its impacts on conservation and livelihoods. This report
provides a framework to strengthen the understanding and assessment of the impact of trade in wildlife
products on conservation and local livelihoods. It explores the role of interrelated factors related to
particular species and their habitat, governance settings, the supply-chain structure and the nature of the
end market. Combined, these factors strongly influence the incentives for conservation and the livelihood
outcomes of trade.
Trade, conservation and livelihoods
International commercial trade in wildlife and its parts and derivatives is estimated to be expanding, in both
volume and value terms. For each species, trade may have positive and negative consequences for
conservation and the long-term survival of species and biological diversity. For example, benefits from
trade can provide incentives for sustainable use and management of species, but can lead to overharvest
and broader negative impacts on the ecosystem.
Similarly, trade may have positive or negative consequences for the local livelihoods of the poor,
specifically their income source, assets and wellbeing. International demand for wildlife products and
services has provided numerous livelihood opportunities for poor communities, because many wildlife
resources are in developing countries. However, high-value trade may marginalize poor communities or
create dependence on an unsustainable level of harvest. For some species, widespread illegal trade also
poses a security threat.
Joint consideration of factors
In effect, trade in wildlife may have positive outcomes for conservation and livelihoods, negative outcomes
for conservation and livelihoods, or both positive and negative outcomes.
This paper develops an analytical framework for practitioners to use in exploring these impacts. The
framework comprises four groups of factors, each addressing one aspect of the trade with implications for
conservation and livelihoods:
x Species-level factors
x Governance factors
x Supply-chain factors
x End-market factors
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
x SC-15-311.E
These factors interact, and therefore require joint consideration to assess likely outcomes of trade in a
particularly species. Such analysis can provide insights into the opportunities to improve conservation and
livelihood outcomes, and potential risks for conservation and livelihoods associated with policy or
managerial changes along the value chain.
Species-level factors
Species-level factors consider whether a species is suitable for harvest and trade, and under what
conditions. Both the resilience of a species to harvest and its accessibility have particular relevance for
conservation and livelihoods. Specifically:
x Trade in wildlife is more likely to benefit conservation and livelihoods when species have high
resilience to harvest.
x Both biological factors (such as species distribution and reproductive rate) and non-biological factors
(such as whether harvest is lethal or non-lethal) affect species resilience.
x Readily accessible species – those that are easily visible, slow to move, abundant within close
proximity to human habitation and/or with low harvest costs – may provide greater prospects for
local livelihoods and sustainable use, but can increase the vulnerability of overharvest among
some species.
Governance factors
Governance of wildlife resources includes two broad groups of factors: property rights and policy settings.
However, the outcomes of governance on conservation and livelihoods are also strongly influenced by
institutional arrangements, corruption, transparency and illegality, among other factors.
Well-defined and secure property rights governing the use of wildlife resources and trade are generally
critical for sustainable use and for local livelihoods to benefit from trade. However, the type of property
rights and their enforcement influence these outcomes.
Regulatory and market-based policies can also shift conservation and livelihood outcomes from trade. This
includes the use of CITES-listings, trade bans, permits and quotas settings, as well as particular policies
for species stewardship or habitat management. Governance shortfalls are a major constraint to achieving
legal, sustainable trade that supports conservation and livelihoods. Increasingly, governance is influenced
by a wide range of stakeholders including local communities, local, regional and national governments,
NGOs and international organizations.
Supply-chain factors
The organization and operation of the supply chain for trade in a species is also relevant for both
conservation and livelihoods. The structure of the supply chain has strong bearing on the incentives for
conservation and the opportunities for poor people to participate and benefit from the trade. For example:
x costs of production may be a barrier to entry for the poor;
x longer supply chains may mean that benefits are more widely distributed, with fewer returns to
communities involved in the early stages of harvest and processing;
x concentrated market power may favour or hamper community livelihoods, depending on which stage
of the supply chain is monopolized.
Stockpiling products can serve to reduce conservation risks by smoothing prices and reducing incentives
for overharvest. However, this practice may create challenges for effective monitoring of supply-chain
impacts at the species level.
Developing locally managed wildlife enterprises, producer cooperatives and associations has been
effective for some species in integrating poorer communities and improving conservation incentives.
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E xi
End-market factors
The end market, including the returns from trade and the type of products demanded, influences the
incentives for market entry and sustainable use.
Market size (or potential market size) will affect the number of harvesters and the extent of harvest for a
particular species. Larger markets typically create greater incentives for harvest, and potentially greater
livelihood opportunities as well. Large markets do not pose an inherent risk to conservation unless other
factors – such as species, governance or supply chain – create incentives for overharvest. Small markets
(or no markets) for wildlife may be a conservation risk, such as when there are inadequate incentives for a
species to be sustainably managed or protected.
Demand elasticity – that is, the responsiveness of demand to changes in other factors, such as price – can
also influence trade outcomes. Products with inelastic prices are typically more highly valued, as they have
fewer substitutes. A sustainable supply of these products can bring about major benefits, but may pose a
risk to conservation if demand creates incentives for poaching or illegal harvest.
Consumer preferences can influence harvest quantity and methods, including preferences for natural or
synthetic, wild sourced or intensively managed, abundant or rare, and legally or illegally sourced.
Preferences may vary significantly between countries and socioeconomic groups and be influenced by
education, branding, marketing or other strategies.
The way forward
The analytical framework presented in this paper provides a reference for the taxon-specific assessment of
conservation and livelihood outcomes associated with trade. It is intended to benefit policymakers,
businesses and practitioners in the wildlife trade sector seeking an impartial approach to evaluating
trade impacts.
The framework reveals that trade in a species or its products and derivatives may generate significant
benefits for local livelihoods and strong incentives for conservation. However, it may also create
disincentives and risks. A host of interdependent factors related to the species itself, governance, the
supply chain and the end market for wildlife products affect these outcomes. A combined review of these
factors can be used to increase understanding of the outcomes of wildlife trade and the potential for these
to be improved.
While a comprehensive application of this framework is likely to require significant data and resources, it
would provide the information necessary to improve decision-making on wildlife trade and strengthen
international wildlife value chains. More importantly, it can support informed discussion to mitigate
unforeseen consequences of trade, improve the Aid for Trade programme design and strengthen natural-
resource management and the outcomes for biodiversity and the poor.
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
xii SC-15-311.E
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E 1
Chapter 1 Impact of wildlife trade
Wildlife resources support millions of people in developing countries across Asia, Africa, Latin America,
Oceania and the Caribbean, as well as many people (particularly, but not only, indigenous peoples and
local communities) within developed regions. Harvest and trade in wildlife products is a major element of
the livelihood strategies of many communities. For others, wildlife products provide a safety net in times of
need or a supplementary or seasonal source of income. Trade in such resources can help reduce
vulnerability and improve resilience among the poor, particularly in rural and remote areas.
However, many species of wildlife are threatened by unsustainable harvest and trade. The unsustainable
use of wildlife creates a risk both for biodiversity conservation and for local livelihoods. Over time, depletion
of wildlife resources may compromise economic and livelihood opportunities associated with them.
Conservation and livelihood outcomes from wildlife trade are interdependent. Economic and livelihood
benefits from trade can provide an incentive for conservation, and this, in turn, can ensure that livelihood
benefits associated with trade are maintained through a sustainable supply of wildlife. However, these
outcomes depend on a host of interconnected factors related to the species and its habitat, the local
governance regime and institutional settings, the supply-chain structure, and the nature of the end market.
Global concern about biodiversity loss and the recent surge of poaching and illegal trade in several
threatened species has shifted the international policy focus towards additional trade restrictions, stronger
enforcement measures and innovative demand-reduction strategies (see, for example, the Declaration
from the 2014 London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade).
While these may be the most effective policy options for a number of species, the potential for adverse
effects on conservation and community livelihoods needs to be better understood. For many species, there
may be alternative opportunities to move towards models of legal, sustainable trade that promote
biodiversity conservation and generate economic returns for local communities. Given the potential
benefits, it is critical these opportunities are further investigated.
This report provides an analytical framework for exploring and better understanding the impact of
international trade in wildlife products on conservation and local livelihoods. The framework is relevant for
importers and exporters, regulators, policymakers, non-governmental organizations, community
representatives and researchers seeking to improve the sustainability of international wildlife supply chains.
The framework provides a practical tool for species-specific evaluation and can be used to:
x explore likely implications of international trade for conservation and livelihoods;
x examine prospects for sustainable use and trade in a species;
x evaluate options for improving conservation and livelihoods outcomes associated with trade;
x better understand and predict the likely impacts of international wildlife trade policy reform; and
x develop responsible and sustainable sourcing policies.
Ultimately, the framework will support the International Trade Centre and other practitioners to minimize
adverse consequences and improve the positive contribution of international wildlife trade to local
community livelihoods and biodiversity conservation.
The report provides an overview of the international wildlife trade context and the conservation and
livelihood impacts associated with trade. Four sets of factors are then outlined to provide a framework for
species-specific analysis, drawing on recent examples, published literature and expert experience in
sustainable use. Together, these factors can be used to reveal the likely opportunities and challenges for
conservation and livelihoods associated with international trade in wildlife products.
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
2 SC-15-311.E
Chapter 2 International wildlife trade, conservation and livelihoods
1. Background and key concepts
International commercial trade in wild resources – plants (including algae), animals and fungi – and the
products derived from them takes place from or to virtually all regions of the globe. The products traded are
diverse, ranging from live organisms to specific parts and derivatives such as bones, feathers, skins,
leaves, fruits, seeds and oils. Similarly, the demand for these products spans several industries including
food, healthcare, cosmetics, fibre, construction, luxury goods, pets and ornaments (Broad et al., 2003).
Domestic trade makes up a large (if uncertain) proportion of trade in wildlife. In line with the mandate of
ITC, this report has been developed with a specific focus on international trade in wild resources. However,
its findings are also likely to be relevant to and useful for the analysis of domestic trade.
Both the volume and value of international wildlife trade are expanding (Roe, 2008). While quantity and
value are substantial (see Table 1), they are difficult to estimate. Customs data often exclude species type
or numbers exported, and many species are exported as transformed goods. Further, wildlife is often
traded illegally. TRAFFIC has estimated legal international trade, including timber and fisheries products,
at US$ 323 billion in 2009 (TRAFFIC, 2014). Illegal trade has been estimated at up to US$ 20 billion
(Wyler and Sheikh, 2013), although its value remains very uncertain.
Growing international wildlife trade has major
conservation and livelihood repercussions. In
this report, conservation impacts refer to
impacts on both biodiversity and habitat
conservation. Livelihood impacts include
effects on people, specifically their capabilities,
means of living, income, assets and wellbeing
(Chambers and Conway, 1991). In this report,
the livelihoods at the centre of discussion are
those of the rural communities, particularly in
developing countries, that live alongside wildlife
and are most dependent on wildlife resources.
Table 1. Examples of the scale of trade in different wildlife products
Product Details
Coral In 2005, well over a million colonies of hard corals were traded internationally, with exports
mainly to the European Union and the United States of America (Jones, 2008).
Marine
ornamental fish
In just one year (2004–2005), over 11 million marine ornamental fish were imported into
the USA alone for the aquarium trade (Rhyne et al., 2012), while a global analysis
estimated around 27 million tropical ornamental marine fish are traded each year
(Townsend, 2011).
Amphibians Almost 15 million wild-caught amphibians entered the USA legally in 1998–2002
(Schlaepfer et al., 2005).
Reptiles
An average of 1.3 million crocodilian (alligator, crocodile, caiman) skins were exported
globally per year in 2000–2009 (Caldwell, 2011). Lyons and Natusch (2011) suggest
around 5,337 green pythons are illegally wild-caught for export from Indonesia each year
(most ‘laundered’ as captive-bred; all crocodilians and green pythons are CITES listed).
Various CITES-
listed species
For the period 1998–2007, some 30 million CITES-listed wild-caught butterflies, seahorses,
other fish, reptiles, mammals and birds were exported from South-East Asia alone, along
with 18 million pieces and 2 million kg of live corals (Nijman, 2010).
Timber trade (© Sreejith P Chakkatu)
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E 3
2. Conservation impacts of wildlife trade
The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) defines conservation as the ‘protection, care,
management and maintenance of ecosystems, habitats, wildlife species and populations, within or outside
of their natural environments, in order to safeguard the natural conditions for their long-term
permanence (IUCN, n.d.).
Harvesting of wildlife for international trade can have positive and negative impacts on conservation. These
largely depend on whether harvest is consistent with ‘sustainable use’, that is ‘the use of components of
biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity’,
and thereby maintains their contribution to present and future generations (CBD, 1993).
2.1. Negative impacts
Many species harvested for international trade are extracted unsustainably (at rates faster than biological
recovery). Overexploitation (including for trade) is a major driver of global biodiversity decline, although
habitat loss and invasive alien species generally pose much more significant threats (see e.g. Kirkpatrick
and Emerton, 2010). Those species valued on local or international markets for consumptive use may be
at greater risk of overexploitation (e.g. for marine species, see Purcell et al., 2014; Darwall et al., 2009).
While there do not appear to be any documented examples of species extinction driven by international
trade, harvest for international trade (legal or illegal) has clearly led to the overexploitation of some species.
For example, there are many documented cases of trade in non-timber forest products (NTFP) leading to
resource depletion (Neumann and Hirsch, 2000; Belcher et al., 2005).
Beyond the direct threat to species survival, overexploitation can indirectly affect ecological processes
such as nutrient flows, pollination or seed dispersal. For example, harvest of mammals and birds for
bushmeat depletes critical seed dispersers in forests in Asia and Africa, affecting future forest composition
(Effiom et al., 2013; Harrison et al., 2013).
Furthermore, techniques and processes used in the harvest and management of wildlife species (such as
strategies to intensify production) can contribute to habitat loss and degradation. Examples include the use
of cyanide or dynamite to capture ornamental or food fish (Mous et al., 2000), or conversion of natural
habitats to monoculture or other simplified farming systems. For instance, increased international demand
for açai palm (Euterpe oleracea) in the Amazon has led to intensified production through enrichment of
forests and, in some cases, thinning of competitors to plantation-like conditions (Weinstein and
Moegenburg, 2004).
2.2. Positive impacts
Wildlife harvest for trade can be
maintained at sustainable levels,
consistent with biodiversity conservation.
Beyond this, however, wildlife trade can
have positive conservation impacts where
it creates incentives for sustainable use
and management of target species and
their habitats. For example, developing a
well-managed international trade in vicuña
(Vicugna vicugna) fibre has led many local
communities to view vicuña as a valued
resource rather than – as previously – a
pest and competitor for grazing land.
Consequently, poaching has declined
and populations have recovered in many areas (McAllister et al., 2009; Lichtenstein, 2011). Legal and
sustainable trade has successfully replaced illegal trade in the crocodile industry (Hutton and Webb, 2003).
Similarly, for certain ornamental fish traded from Barcelos in the Brazilian Amazon, the benefits from trade
Vicuña is a valued resource for Andean communities (© Alessandro Caproni)
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
4 SC-15-311.E
have encouraged proper floodplain management and prevented destructive land-use change
(Tlusty et al., 2014). In such cases, species and habitat conservation outcomes are more favourable with
trade than without it. A recent analysis found that utilized species are actually faring better than non-utilized
species (e.g. food and raw materials) overall (Tierney et al., 2014), providing some support for the
widespread operation of these dynamics.
Bans on trade can be useful in some cases, such as to enable species to recover when stocks are
depleted. But in other cases they can create adverse conservation incentives. For example, species may
become undervalued and habitat converted to more productive uses, such as agriculture or plantation
forestry. Alternatively, where species retain their market value, trade bans may stimulate illegal trade and
excess harvesting.
3. Local livelihood impacts of trade
A significant share of global
wildlife resources is in
developing countries, in areas
where rural and remote
communities live and work.
These communities have the
potential to benefit from
international demand for wildlife
products. For example, Peru
exports more than US$ 300
million of biodiversity-based
products a year, and this
employs more than 10,000
people, mainly in rural areas
(UNEP 2013). In Burkina Faso,
wild-sourced shea butter (from
the shea tree Vitellaria
paradoxa) is the fourth-largest
export product after gold,
cotton and livestock
(Konaté, 2012).
3.1. Positive impacts
Trade has positive benefits for livelihoods when it builds the ability of people to cope with and recover from
stresses; maintain or enhance their capabilities and assets; and provide opportunities for the next
generation (Chambers and Conway, 1991). This includes the opportunities provided by natural assets such
as wildlife.
Major livelihood benefits from wildlife trade stem from associated income and employment opportunities. In
some cases, wildlife trade contributes the majority of household income, as in the cases of collection of
devil’s claw (Harpagophytum spp.) in Namibia, Botswana and South Africa, and of mushrooms and jipi
japa (Carludovica palmata) in Mexico (Wynberg, 2004; Marshall et al., 2006). In recent years, the harvest
and sale of caterpillar fungus (Ophiocordyceps), traded to meet rising demand in traditional Chinese
medicine, has been the major source of income for a large number of people in the Tibetan Plateau and
Bhutan (Finkel, 2012; Mukhia and Rai, 2012).
In other cases, wildlife trade supports livelihoods by providing a supplementary income source during
certain times of the year (alongside other agricultural or seasonal activities), enabling poorer households to
meet the financial costs of schooling, medicine, books and so on (Neumann and Hirsch, 2000; Ros-Tonen
and Wiersum, 2003; Roe, 2008).
Wild shea nuts obtained from shea trees
(
©
Erik
(
HASH
)
Hersman
)
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E 5
Trade in biodiversity benefits local communities (© Scott Darbey)
Beyond economic benefits, wildlife trade
can contribute to broader livelihood and
development outcomes, including building
community networks, skills and capacities,
and strengthening land tenure, resource
access, natural-resource management and
local enterprise development (see e.g.
Dalal-Clayton and Child, 2003; Lichtenstein,
2010; Lichtenstein and Carmanchahi, 2012).
Commercial trade in wildlife is often
attractive to poor communities (and women
in particular) due to the low entry
requirements (no need for high levels of
education or skills or for expensive
harvesting technology), the year-round
availability of some products, and ease of
combining with other income-generating
activities (Marshall et al., 2006).
3.2. Negative impacts
Wildlife trade can also have negative impacts on local livelihoods. Trade in high-value species or products
can marginalize poor communities where international corporations or large businesses monopolize
harvest, production and trade. In these cases, those at the bottom of the value chain (local harvesters,
hunters or collectors) tend to receive a very small share of the overall value of the products in trade, or
communities may be entirely excluded (Roe, 2008).
Where trade contributes to overexploitation, as described above, there are also negative impacts on local
livelihoods. The costs associated with harvest and trade increase as rare or fragmented wildlife become
more difficult to source. As a result, the benefits for local communities from trade participation diminish. In
some cases, harvest for trade may no longer present a viable livelihood activity.
Illegal trade in wildlife products may have positive or negative consequences on livelihoods. In the short
term, communities or individuals may benefit from illicit income-earning opportunities associated with
harvest and trade. These can make a significant contribution to local livelihoods where few alternatives are
available. For example, indigenous people in Kalimantan, Indonesia, are highly dependent on forest
resources – some of which are illegally harvested – to meet income and other livelihood needs
(TRAFFIC, 2008). However, these benefits are likely to be short-lived where vulnerable species are
overexploited, which is often the case when harvesters have no legal long-term stake in the resource.
Illegal trade can also be associated with armed conflict – both in terms of armed gangs participating in
trade and posing a security threat to local people, and in terms of the growing militarization of responses to
illegal trade that can unfairly target local people. South Africa National Parks (SANParks), for example, has
increased the military presence in parks such as Kruger in response to rising threats to black and white
rhino (Ceratotherium simus and Diceros bicornis) from well-equipped and well-organized poaching gangs
(Duffy, 2014). Tanzania’s 2013 military response to rhino and elephant (Loxodonta africana) poaching led
to claims of extortion, rape, murder and torture of innocent local people, and a parliamentary inquiry found
13 people were murdered and thousands of livestock (the livelihoods of many people) were maimed or
killed (Makoye, 2014; Roe et al., 2014).
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
6 SC-15-311.E
Chapter 3 Analytical framework
The impacts described in the previous section begin to reveal a complex relationship between wildlife trade,
conservation and livelihood outcomes. These relationships can be viewed graphically (see Figure 1). In
practice, trade may have positive consequences for conservation and livelihoods (zone a); negative
outcomes for conservation and livelihoods (zone c); or some level of tradeoff between the two (zones b, d).
For example, trade in NTFPs may lead to a win-lose scenario, where livelihood opportunities are
generated but primary forest is converted to near monocultures, degrading ecosystems (outcome d)
(Belcher and Schreckenberg, 2007). Alternatively, trade may be positive for conservation by generating
incentives to maintain wild populations and effectively protect them from illegal use, but the land tenure
situation or cost of licensing may exclude the poor (outcome b).
Figure 1. Interactions between conservation and livelihood outcomes
Trade may have positive outcomes for conservation and livelihoods (a); negative outcomes for conservation and livelihoods (c); or
some level of tradeoff between the two (b, d)
This section sets out an analytical framework to guide assessments of the conservation and livelihood
outcomes of international wildlife trade. An assessment based on this analytic framework can help
practitioners to evaluate, for an internationally traded wild-sourced species, in an integrated and
objective way:
x likely outcomes of trade for conservation and livelihoods;
x opportunities to improve outcomes of trade for conservation and livelihoods; and/or
x potential risks for conservation and livelihoods associated with policy or managerial changes along
the value chain.
It is made up of four components, each addressing one set of factors that will impact the conservation and
livelihood outcomes of any specific trade chain:
x Species-level factors: Is a species suitable for sustainable harvest and trade?
x Governance factors: Do the governance and institutional regimes support and provide incentives
for conservation and benefit-sharing?
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E 7
x Supply-chain factors: Does the supply-chain structure provide incentives for conservation and
opportunities for local communities to participate in and benefit from trade?
x End-market factors: Do the returns from trade, and the type of products demanded, create
sufficient incentives for market entry and sustainable use?
Within each component, the following chapters explain the relevance of each factor to conservation and
livelihoods, illustrating the relevant dynamics by reference to examples of specific trades.
Understanding the likely conservation and livelihood outcomes (including any tradeoffs) of a specific trade
chain – that is, in which zone of figure 1 a species sits – requires integration across these four components.
For example, while a species may be vulnerable to overharvest due to its location or habitat (species-level
factors), appropriate governance and supply-chain structures may be in place, ensuring that use remains
sustainable. Similarly, the structure of the supply chain may not guarantee significant benefits to local
people involved in wildlife harvest, yet certain policy measures may be in place to compensate those
communities and generate positive livelihood outcomes (and thereby local incentives for sustainable use).
As such, conservation and livelihood implications of trade cannot be fully determined without considering
and integrating the information from assessments across the four components.
Note that, in practice, addressing the risks and challenges identified in one component may necessitate a
change in business or policy decision-making, unless the outcomes generated from other components are
sufficiently strong to compensate. In addition, while this framework may serve to identify likely areas where
challenges, risks or opportunities may be found, every trade chain will vary, and additional factors not
highlighted here may be critical in some cases.
1. Species factors
Examination of species-level factors can be used to assess whether a species is suitable for trade, and to
better understand the impacts of production and harvesting systems on conservation and livelihoods. This
component guides assessment of the broad question ‘Is a species suitable for sustainable harvest and
trade?’ including:
x Is the species resilient to harvest?
x What level of harvest for trade is sustainable?
x What harvest methods are sustainable?
x Is trade likely to create livelihood opportunities for rural communities?
x Is wild harvest or intensive management likely to have better outcomes for conservation and
livelihoods?
Box 1. Key points
x Trade in wildlife is more likely to generate conservation and livelihood benefits when species have a high
resilience to harvest. A number of biological (such as reproductive rate) and non-biological factors (such as
harvest methods) affect species resilience.
x Easily accessible species provide greater prospects for local livelihoods and sustainable use, but may make
species vulnerable to overharvest.
x Moving from wild to intensive management and production may create opportunities or risks for
conservation and livelihoods.
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
8 SC-15-311.E
1.1. Resilience to harvest
Many wildlife species and parts traded internationally are collected or harvested from the wild. In general,
wildlife resources are renewable and consequently can withstand some level of harvest. However, some
species are less resilient than others, affecting their potential for sustainable use in trade. Both biological
and non-biological factors can influence species resilience (see Box 2). A species’ capacity to recover from
harvest, however, will also be dependent on the scale of harvest itself. For example, having broad
distribution and habitat specificity may only confer higher resilience if the harvesting process does not span
the entire range and habitats of the species.
Trade in species with higher
resilience is (other factors being
equal) more likely to be sustainable.
Resilience to harvest may further be
affected by other ecological or
biological factors dynamics more
complex than those listed in box 1.
For example, reduction of density of
older saltwater crocodiles through
harvesting leads to a compensatory
increase in survivorship of some
juvenile age classes, likely due to
reduced cannibalism (Webb and
Manolis, 1991). Similarly, harvest of
palm hearts (palmito) from one stem
of açai enhances the plant’s
production of another valuable
product, the açai fruit, from another stem (Weinstein and Moegenburg, 2004). In both cases, these
dynamics enhance these species’ suitability for harvesting.
In comparison, trade in species with low resilience can be a threat to conservation outcomes. For example,
because of a slow reproductive rate, larger parrots are more vulnerable to overexploitation than small
finches, despite relatively fewer parrots being captured for the pet trade (Sodhi et al., 2009).
Livelihood benefits are also likely to be more secure for species with higher resilience, as the productivity
of the species, and thereby the income stream it provides, is expected to be more stable. Where wildlife
cannot readily recover from regular or ongoing harvest, species stocks will decline and harvest is likely to
become costly or unviable for local business and communities.
In some cases, there may be livelihood benefits from harvesting wildlife with low resilience. For example, if
the value of the species in question is high then the returns from harvesting can be extraordinarily high.
However, these gains may be short term, if overharvest contributes to species decline and thereby reduces
Box 2. Factors affecting resilience to harvest
x Biological factors
Biological factors that affect resilience to harvest are summarized in table 2 and include distribution,
reproductive output and time to maturation, among other factors. For example, species with a broad distribution
and high reproductive output are more likely to sustain a higher harvest.
x Non-biological factors
A species’ resilience to harvest can also be affected by non-biological factors. For example, one study found
wildlife species exposed or susceptible to other threats, such as habitat loss, pollution or human disturbance,
were more likely to be threatened by trade (IUCN, 2007). In addition, harvest practices can have a bearing on
species resilience. The same study found that species subject to non-lethal harvest practices, such as extracting
fibre (through shearing), fruits, nuts, seeds, leaves and other derivatives were less likely to be threatened by
trade than those harvested by means that extracted the whole plant or animal from the population (IUCN, 2007).
Açai fruit (© Center for International Forestry Research)
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E 9
supply and income viability in the long term. In the majority of cases, if the species is endangered, then
harvesting for trade is likely to be illegal and the livelihood of the harvester in jeopardy, if caught.
Table 2. Ecological characteristics of wildlife affecting resilience to harvest
Characteristic Likely resilience to harvest
higher lower
Distribution broad narrow
Habitat specificity broad narrow
Dietary specificity generalist specialist
Reproductive output high low
Growth rate high low
Reproductive rate high low
Time until maturation short long
Abundance high low
Population connectivity high low
Dispersal ability high low
Genetic variability high low
Source: Adapted from Kasterine et al., (2012), Erdelen (1998) and Primack (2010)
1.2. Accessibility
Accessibility of wildlife populations to local people can have positive or negative implications for
conservation outcomes. Accessible species – those that are easily visible, slow to move, abundant within
close proximity to human habitation and/or with low harvest costs (including skills or equipment
requirements) – are more likely to be overharvested than those that are difficult or expensive to locate and
access. Nevertheless, easily accessible populations are expected to be more readily managed, and it may
be more straightforward to establish a system for sustainable use.
In some cases, species may be easy to capture or harvest, but remain difficult to monitor, including many
marine, nocturnal, forest or migratory species. For example, several fish species can be readily harvested,
but understanding population dynamics and sustainable harvest levels can be prohibitively expensive,
especially for communities in developing countries. Similarly, pangolins may frequently be found and
captured in human settlements, but reliable population estimates are almost impossible to obtain given
their secretive and nocturnal nature (Platt, 2013). As such, sustainable use is difficult to establish and the
impact of their trade on conservation outcomes can go undetected.
Accessibility, in general, has
positive benefits for those
involved in trade. Trade in species
located close to poor communities
can create valuable livelihood
opportunities. Generally, there are
fewer skills and equipment
requirements for harvesting
accessible species. Notably, the
cost of managing immobile
species (such as trees) is typically
lower than ‘fugitive’ species that
move between jurisdictional
boundaries, such as guanaco
(Lama guanicoe) and migratory
fish species (Lichtenstein, 2013). Pangolins are frequently found and captured in human settlements (© David Brossard)
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
10 SC-15-311.E
Given these benefits, businesses or individuals often improve accessibility of species and reduce harvest
costs by switching to intensive management systems – such as farming, ranching and captive breeding –
which also may have other benefits such as more reliable supply and improved quality. This may create
tradeoffs between conservation and livelihood outcomes (see Box 3). On one hand, it may reduce
pressure on wild populations and provide an opportunity to engage local people in a viable production
activity. On the other, it may create incentives for converting natural habitats, depleting wild populations to
secure breeding stock and reducing incentives for in situ management and conservation. These outcomes
are likely to depend on the governance and management systems established for intensively managed
species (see Section 2.2).
Box 3. Moving from wild to intensive management systems
Moving from wild harvest to intensive management systems, including captive breeding for animals and
cultivation, plantations and/or artificial propagation for plants, fungi and algae, can create benefits for or risks to
conservation and livelihoods.
In some cases, intensive management can be used to reduce pressure on wild populations. For example,
commercial artificial propagation and trade of the rare and newly discovered Wollemi pine (Wollemi nobilis) in
Australia enabled demand from horticulture to be met while removing any incentive for poaching from the wild
(Australian Government and DECC, 2007). Small-scale farming of pythons and other reptiles in Viet Nam has
also provided a sustainable income stream for hundreds of households, while mitigating pressure on wild
populations (Lyons and Natusch, 2011).
However, adverse consequences may include the following:
x Loss or degradation of natural habitat
Demand for particular products can see natural habitat converted to intensive production system for a particular
species, posing a biodiversity cost. For example, demand for Amazonian açai palm has led some land
managers to move towards plantation-like conditions (Weinstein and Moegenburg, 2004).
x Pressure on wild populations to supply feed
Intensive production systems can have adverse conservation impacts where captive animals are fed from wild
sources. For example, Cambodian ranching of the Siamese crocodile (Crocodylus siamensis), primarily for the
international skin trade, requires an annual harvest of 3–12 million snakes from wild populations as feed
(Brooks et al., 2010).
x Fewer incentives and/or resources for in situ conservation
Ex situ management can reduce incentives and revenue for monitoring and conservation of species and their
habitat. For example, sustainable wild harvest and trade of the blue-fronted parrot (Amazona aestiva) from
Argentina to Europe returned substantive local conservation incentives for habitat retention, and returns to
government that were invested into enforcement and protected area management (Rabinovich, 2005; Cooney
and Jepson, 2006). Due to EU import restrictions, this trade has been largely replaced by trade from European
captive bred sources, with consequent collapse of the conservation benefits (Caldwell and Courouble, 2008).
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E 11
2. Goverance factors
Relevant governance and institutional arrangements include processes, laws, rules and policies that
collectively guide use of wildlife (Decker et al., 2012). This component of the framework addresses the
broad question ‘Do the governance and institutional regimes support and provide incentives for
conservation and benefit-sharing?’ as well as the following questions:
x Are property rights over land and resources well-defined and secure?
x Are policy settings supportive of sustainable trade?
x Does the broader governance context enable legal, sustainable trade and livelihood opportunities?
2.1. Property rights
Sustainable harvest of wildlife will generally rely on secure property rights. Property rights govern who can
access, utilize and benefit from the use (including conservation, extraction, transfer, lease and sale) of land
and resources, such as wildlife and water. Well-defined, secure and transferable property rights help to
establish and capture the value of resources, thereby providing an incentive for owners to efficiently use
and maintain resources (Demsetz, 1967). For wildlife, property rights encourage owners to consider long-
term implications of harvest, thereby increasing the likelihood of sustainable management.
Four broad property-rights regimes can be identified (Bulte et al., 2003): private property; state property;
communal (or common) property and open access (no property rights) (see Table 3). Each has different
implications for sustainable harvest and wildlife trade outcomes.
Unless property rights are clearly stated and effectively protected, poor enforcement or conflicts between
community, state and other (often powerful) actors may lead to an open access outcome. In this case,
wildlife harvesters have no motivation to take into the account the cost of harvest on future resource
availability, typically resulting in overharvest (Bulte et al., 2003). For example, poor capacity for
enforcement of the state’s property rights over abalone (Haliotis midae) in South Africa has led to
overharvesting by poachers, despite legal harvest restrictions (Hauck and Gallardo-Fernandez, 2013).
Similarly, despite state ownership of elephants, organized criminal poachers exert control over elephant
stocks (UNEP, 2013). Insecure property rights can pose a risk for sustainable harvest and increase the
likelihood of overexploitation, dissipation of rents and conflicts between local groups and more powerful
actors, particularly for highly valued resources (Belcher et al., 2003; Roe, 2008).
Box 4. Key points
x Property rights governing the use of land and wildlife resources have significant implications for the
commercial viability of trade, the incentives for sustainable use and associated livelihood benefits.
x Well-defined and secure property rights are generally critical for sustainable use, but may not be sufficient
to generate conservation and livelihood benefits.
x State-held property rights for wild resources, even where well-defined and secure, will often require strong
enforcement capacity to avoid open access conditions and consequent overharvest.
x Strong private or communal property rights can provide livelihood and conservation benefits under certain
conditions.
x Conservation policy settings establishing whether trade is legal and under what conditions affect the
benefits of trade and the incentives for sustainable use.
x Conservation and livelihood outcomes will be critically affected by the quality of broader governance.
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
12 SC-15-311.E
Wildlife conservation area in northern Zimbabwe
(
©
Vince O'Sullivan
)
Table 3. Property-rights regimes and their implications for sustainable harvest
Characteristics Implications for sustainable harvest
Private property Private owner has exclusive right to use and
benefit from wildlife use and conservation
(generally some state restrictions). Can generate incentives for
sustainable harvest
State property State owns wildlife. Individuals may be able
to use wildlife under state authority
regulations.
Can generate incentives for
sustainable harvest; relies on
effective enforcement
Communal
property
A group owns and manages wildlife and has
rights to use and benefit from use and
conservation. Non-members are excluded.
Can generate incentives for
sustainable harvest; relies on
effective cooperation
Open access No property rights assigned. Open or free
access results. Little incentive for sustainable harvest
Source: Adapted from Bulte et al., 2003
2.1.1. Strengthening private/communal property rights
Stronger tenure over land and wildlife resources for private individuals and/or communities is often
advocated as a means of shifting towards sustainable use and improving conservation incentives and
livelihood outcomes. Weak tenure of users over land or wildlife resources can undermine sustainability. For
instance, Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) farmers in Bolivia do not have legal certification of land
ownership and are at risk from competing demands for land from colonized groups and indigenous
communities (COPLA, 2009).
A growing number of examples show that strengthening private or communal rights over wild resources
has enhanced conservation and livelihood outcomes. In South Africa, the 1990 Theft of Game Act fortified
property rights over various large game species, leading to improved market values and growth in
populations under free-ranging conditions, a notable example being the white rhino (’t Sas-Rolfes, 1990).
Similarly, communal rights to the use of vicuña under a sustainable harvest programme created incentives
for sustainable harvest in Peru, Chile, Argentina and Bolivia (Bulte et al., 2003). Lessons also emerge from
the forest sector in Africa, Asia, Mexico and Bolivia, where more secure communal tenure has correlated
with improved sustainability of trade in non-timber forest products (Kusters and Belcher, 2004; Sunderland
and Ndoye, 2004; Marshall et al., 2006).
Where wildlife is valued for trade, secure property rights for users can provide groups with an incentive for
sustainable management. However, without market value (or other cultural or social incentives for
sustainable management) overexploitation may occur. For example, communal management has not been
effective for woodlands in Zimbabwe,
which may be due to the poor
returns gained from woodlands
because of poor soil, limited rainfall
and consequent low productivity.
These returns may not be enough to
justify investments in building
effective management institutions
(Campbell et al., 2001). This is in
contrast to Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE
wildlife-management programme,
where returns for safari hunting of
elephant have provided strong
incentives for sustainable resource
management (Child et al., 1997;
Campbell et al., 1999).
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E 13
Strengthened local property rights can also have other adverse consequences for conservation. Private
(or communal) owners will have incentives to utilize land and wildlife for their most profitable use. As such,
there may be incentives (and with strengthened property rights, the legal right) to convert land from wild
habitat to intensive cultivation or domestication (Belcher et al., 2005; Marshall et al., 2006).
In many cases, a combination of management approaches has proven effective in leading to livelihood and
conservation benefits. For example, Brazil nut harvesters in Peru do not have legal ownership of the land,
but secure collecting rights through the granting of government concessions or leases. These may be long
– members of the cooperative Organisation of Organic Brazil Nut Gatherers of Peru (RONAP) have
secured such rights for a period of 40 years (RONAP, 2014), so have strong incentives for sustainability. In
addition, holders of these rights are required to comply with a forestry-management plan designed to
ensure sustainable production and harvest.
Finally, the process of land or resource tenure reform itself can have adverse consequences for poor and
marginalized people. For example, some communities may rely on natural resources under open access,
but have low bargaining power in securing legal rights of use. For instance, pastoralists in West and East
Africa have lost tenure rights during processes of land tenure formalization (Binot et al., 2009).
2.2. Policy settings
Policy at national and international level can have a major influence on conservation and livelihoods,
particularly through determining whether legal trade can occur and under what conditions
(Cooney and Abensperg-Traun, 2013).
Bans on wildlife trade are often advocated as a means of improving conservation outcomes. At an
international level, bans and permitting systems are the main means of regulating international trade (Box
5). In some cases, such as for severely depleted or vulnerable species, zero harvest and trade may be the
only option to facilitate resource recovery and avoid extinction.
Yet, the merits of trade bans are subject to much debate.
Some argue that CITES Appendix I listings (Box 5) are an
effective way to protect species threatened by trade. For
example, there has been a steady decline in wild cat skin
trade since all species were listed in Appendix I in 1975, and
today only the Chinese leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis
bengalensis) and the tiger (Panthera tigris) are believed to be
threatened by illegal trade in skins (IUCN, 2000).
However, the effectiveness of trade restrictions in achieving
conservation outcomes depends on several factors,
particularly the capacity of countries to monitor and enforce
them (IUCN, 2001; Cooney and Jepson, 2006; Conrad,
2012). The economic cost of enforcement can be high,
particularly when species are distributed across a large area
or when demand is high or inelastic (such as products
without acceptable substitutes). These factors can increase
the susceptibility of species to corruption and illegal trade
and add costs to effective enforcement, which is particularly
burdensome for lower-income countries (Cooney and Jepson,
2006; ’t Sas-Rolfes, 2000; Biggs et al., 2013).
Chinese leopard (© Cloudtail)
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
14 SC-15-311.E
Crocodile eggs collected by the local communities
Depending on species characteristics (Section 2.1), various policy measures can be used to create
positive conservation incentives and outcomes. This may include the issuance of permits, licensing or
tradable quotas to facilitate trade at a level consistent with sustainable use, as well as requirements or
payments for tagging, monitoring, reporting, labelling, species stewardship and/or habitat management.
For example, under Argentine legislation, landowners are compensated for the number of broad-snouted
caiman (Caiman latirostris and C. yacare) nests found on their property, providing a strong incentive for
landowners to conserve nest sites and natural wetlands. Supplemented with community managed captive-
rearing programmes – whereby wild eggs are collected and moved to facilities (mostly for the skin trade
and the remainder for subsequent release) – there is a strong incentive for locals to protect live resources
in situ. This approach has seen a steady annual increase in caiman populations, which were previously
under threat, while similarly creating viable business opportunities (Larriera, forthcoming; US Fish and
Wildlife Service, 2013).
Shifts in local and international
policy can have significant impact
on the local livelihoods dependant
on wildlife trade. Policies often add
to the cost of trade participation,
for example the imposition of
conservation taxes, licensing or
traceability requirements. While
these may be necessary for other
social objectives, they can be
costly for poorer communities and
lead to trade exclusion.
On the other hand, governance
strategies can also shift the power
balance to improve the benefits of
trade participation for the livelihood
of communities. Policy measures
may specifically target the
distribution of benefits between trade participants and can support engagement and participation by local
communities. In many cases, specific measures may be required to ensure local communities gain from
Box 5. Legal framework for international wildlife trade
At the international level, trade in wildlife species is regulated under the Convention on the International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES subjects trade in species listed in three
appendices to mandatory licensing, through permits and certificates, to ensure that trade does not threaten their
survival. Around 35,000 species are listed in these appendices, of which about 30,000 are plants.
The Convention regulates trade in species based on their conservation status and the risk posed by trade.
x Appendix I contains species threatened with extinction that are or may be affected by trade. Commercial
trade is prohibited. Species such as great apes, leopards, tigers, most rhinoceros populations, several
parrots and many orchids are in Appendix I. In exceptional cases (such as for scientific research), trade
may take place if authorized by an import permit and an export permit.
x Appendix II contains species that are not now threatened with extinction, but that could become so unless
trade is strictly regulated. Trade is permitted only with an expert permit issued under specific conditions
including a ‘non-detriment’ finding (NDF) by the scientific authority. The NDF must demonstrate that trade is
not detrimental to the species’ survival. Appendix II contains the majority of CITES-listed species.
x Appendix III contains species that are protected in at least one country. CITES parties have enlisted the
cooperation of other parties in controlling trade in a species under their jurisdiction. Trade requires an
export permit or a certificate or origin if it has been sourced from a country that has not listed the species.
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E 15
wildlife trade where they are disadvantaged by lack of information, poor understanding of their rights or
inadequate skills and resources to engage in business and policy decision-making.
Where a species can sustain a level of harvest, trade based on supportive conservation and livelihood-
oriented policy can have positive outcomes for conservation and livelihoods by creating economic
incentives for sustainable management while ensuring some benefits return to local communities
(Challender and MacMillan, 2014; Foreign Affairs, 2014). For example:
x Legalizing trade in vicuña fibre and establishing mechanisms for local community management of
conservation, shearing and marketing has enabled populations to recover from 5,000 animals in
1994 to over 200,000 in 2010 (McAllister et al., 2009; Lichtenstein, 2011).
x Legalizing trade in yellow anaconda (Eunectes notaeus) in 2003 alongside a regional community
management scheme in Argentina, including restrictions on minimum size, limited harvest sizes and
traceability requirements, has improved wetland management and population sustainability and
provided supplementary income to around 300 local people from La Estrella Marsh
(Waller et al., 2011).
2.3. Broader governance context
The broader governance and institutional context also affects the value of harvested wildlife and, therefore,
the conservation and livelihood outcomes associated with wildlife trade. This includes, notably, the quality
of governance as evidenced by factors such as legitimacy, strategic direction, management effectiveness,
accountability and fairness (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013).
Governance shortfalls are often a major constraint to legal, sustainable trade and generating livelihood
opportunities (Binot et al., 2009; Roe et al., 2009). This is particularly evident for valuable resources where
vested interests and local elites (including political leaders, the well-educated and the wealthy) obstruct
market operation and equitable benefit sharing (Ribot, 2003; Binot et al., 2009). For example, in
Zimbabwe, the main beneficiaries of game ranching (as a sustainable alternative to the bush-meat trade)
are wealthy individuals and patronage networks, despite the establishment of community-based
management systems (CBD, 2011). Poor governance and management structures for wildlife can deplete
livelihood benefits from trade even for highly valued species. As a result, poor communities can become
disenfranchized by wildlife, particularly where it destroys their crops and livestock (Roe, 2008).
Increasingly for wildlife, a wide number of stakeholders including local, regional, national and international
governments and institutions influence governance arrangements and their effective implementation. This
sharpens the role for cooperative arrangements and partnerships in the management of wildlife trade.
Further, given the globalized nature of wildlife trade, transparency, accountability and independent
verification systems can play an important role in improving conservation and livelihoods.
3. Supply-chain factors
The supply chain encompasses the processes associated with wildlife trade from harvest and production,
through to processing, marketing, sale and consumption. Each stage can influence conservation and
livelihood outcomes. This component of the framework addresses the broad question ‘Does the supply-
chain structure provide incentives for conservation and opportunities for local communities to participate in
and benefit from trade?’ including:
x Is sustainable harvest and trade in this species cost-effective?
x Is wildlife trade the most cost-effective use of wildlife and land resources?
x Are there opportunities for poor communities to participate in the value chain?
x Is the supply-chain structure impeding conservation outcomes?
x Is the supply-chain structure a constraint to livelihood benefits?
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
16 SC-15-311.E
This component focuses on the costs and benefits of trade relative to other potential uses (including in
situ uses) for wildlife.
3.1. Cost and scale of production
The cost and scale of wildlife harvest and trade affect its economic viability and, in turn, likely outcomes for
sustainable use. Where wildlife trade presents the most profitable use of wildlife resources, it is likely to be
pursued over agricultural, tourism or non-consumptive activities. Alternatively, wild resource harvesting and
trade may be part of a diversified land-use strategy. For example, caiman and capybara harvesting
combined with cattle ranching and ecotourism provide simultaneous income streams for ranchers in
Venezuela (Velasco et al., 2003; Mistry, 2014).
The costs associated with harvest and trade include equipment, transport and processing costs. Higher
costs relative to market returns can be a deterrent to the harvest of some species. However, one
advantage for people in developing countries has been the low cost associated with market entry for many
wildlife products (Neumann and Hirsch, 2000). For example, harvest of non-timber forest products such as
seeds and fruits often does not require any technical skills or equipment.
Production methods can be a major driver of costs. For some species, such as parrots and crocodiles,
intensive management systems may lower the cost of production as large quantities of wildlife products
can be produced in a localized area, improving economies of scale. Further, market requirements in terms
of quality and timing of production can often be better controlled (Roe et al., 2002). As discussed in section
2 (species factors), production methods can influence both conservation and livelihood benefits associated
with trade.
3.2. Stockpiling
The ability to store a product has implications for conservation of wildlife resources. For example,
stockpiling by harvesters or harvester associations can reduce conservation risks as demand peaks are
more readily met and prices are smoothed over time. Without a stockpile, an increase in prices could
create a strong incentive for poaching and overharvest, and threaten species conservation. However, there
may also be conservation risks associated with stockpiling. For example, in the Southeast Asian python
skin trade, stockpiling by processors masks the price signal to harvesters, which could lead to harvest
rates being maintained at high and possibly unsustainable levels. The stockpiling reduces supply-chain
transparency, meaning actual harvest rates are difficult to monitor (Kasterine et al., 2012).
3.3. Participation of poor communities in supply chains
The livelihood benefits associated with wildlife trade largely depend on the opportunities for participation in
the supply chain, for example, in land management, wildlife management, collection, harvest and post-
harvest activities. These opportunities vary widely between species and locations. Most commonly, poor
and marginalized communities participate in labour-intensive collection and harvest activities. In some
Box 6. Key points
x Cost of production can be a barrier to entry into wildlife trade, particularly for poorer communities. Where
high costs reduce trade viability, incentives for sustainable use may fall.
x Stockpiling can improve conservation benefits by smoothing prices and reducing incentives for overharvest.
x Livelihood benefits largely depend on opportunities for participation in the supply chain, particularly in
upstream (‘value-adding’) activities. Where participation is low, there can be inadequate conservation
incentives for communities located close to wildlife resources.
x Developing locally managed wildlife enterprises, producer cooperatives and associations can be effective in
integrating poorer communities and improving conservation incentives.
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E 17
Local communities benefit from harvestin
g
devil’s claw
(
© Alan Har
p
e
r
)
.
cases, employment in value-add activities, such as processing and other upstream activities, also provides
livelihood opportunities.
The benefits often vary with the number of
stages in the supply chain. Longer supply
chains frequently mean the benefits of trade
are more widely distributed, potentially
reducing livelihood benefits for poorer
communities (Sunderland and NDoye, 2004;
Lichtenstein, 2010). Where supply chains are
long, the harvest of raw materials attracts
only a small share of final sales revenue. For
example, communities involved in harvesting
devil’s claw in Namibia receive 0.4% of sales
revenue, while locals producing vicuña fibre
in Andean countries receive less than 5%
(Wynberg, 2004; Lichtenstein, 2010).
Although this is low, it often is significant
relative to alternative livelihood opportunities
in rural and regional areas, and may still
serve to provide adequate incentives for
species conservation among communities
and resource managers.
Strengthening integration of poorer communities into the supply chain can be highly effective in improving
livelihood outcomes, particularly when there are opportunities to participate in upstream activities and
business decision-making. There are several examples of success in developing locally managed
enterprises or integrating local communities through partnerships, cooperatives and producer associations.
These have helped to support social and cultural dynamics, improve resource and income management,
disseminate business and technical skills, and mitigate unwillingness to adapt to market demands, among
other benefits (Molnar et al., 2007). For example:
x Locally managed enterprises: Local capacity can be strengthened through corporate investment into
locally managed enterprises – such as for Phytotrade Africa (baobab (Adansonia digitata) powder
processing in Southern Africa), CentroTerra Viva (bamboo in Mozambique) and the Novella
partnership (production of Allanblackia oil in Ghana, Tanzania and Nigeria) (Elson, 2012).
x Producer cooperatives and associations: Integrating local communities through producer
cooperatives and associations can strengthen bargaining power, improve social capital, improve
wealth accrual and lead to greater environmental accountability (Belcher and Schreckenburg, 2007;
Macqueen, 2008; Cooney et al., 2009). Establishing a harvesters’ union in Cameroon has improved
livelihoods and sustainable management of African cherry (Prunus africana), traded internationally
for medicinal products (Ndam and Marcelin, 2004).
3.4. Concentration of market power
Concentrated market power, characterized as only one or few market suppliers, is prevalent in many
wildlife supply chains. In general, monopoly power over sourcing is likely to favour conservation and
community livelihoods, as harvesters have incentive for sustainable harvest and are able to capture
associated benefits. For example, the Hudson’s Bay Company monopolized the fur trade in eastern
Canada for more than 200 years, with apparently positive effects for sustainability of beaver harvests
(Abbott and van Kooten, 2011).
However, monopolistic power further up the supply chain may compromise the benefits to local
communities typically involved in harvest. For example, only two companies buy Andean exports of vicuña
fibre, limiting the bargaining power of local communities involved in harvesting (Lichtenstein, 2010).
Similarly, conservation can be compromised, such as when a monopolistic supplier restricts supply onto
the market, thereby artificially raising prices. In the case of ivory, the 2008 one-off sale created an
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
18 SC-15-311.E
intermediary monopoly that slowly released ivory onto the market at inflated prices. This practice did not
create effective competition with illegal suppliers (’t Sas-Rolfes and Fitzgerald, 2013).
Greater market power is typically gained when there are few market participants in the supply chain
(Baumol, 1982) and can be influenced by market entry costs, including barriers posed by governance
settings (such as special licences to operate).
4. End-market factors
This component of the framework addresses the broad question ‘Do the returns from trade, and the type of
products demanded, create sufficient incentives for market entry and sustainable use?’ including:
x Is there a market to warrant sustainable harvest of this species?
x Is market value sufficiently high to generate livelihood benefits and conservation incentives?
x Does the nature of demand create risks for overharvest or illegal trade?
x Do consumer preferences create an opportunity or a risk for conservation and sustainable
livelihoods?
4.1. Market size
Market size refers to the total value of product sales. A large market may exist even with relatively low
quantities of product sales if prices are high. Market size (or potential market size) affects economic
viability and income potential associated with trade.
Wildlife species with a large market are more likely to be harvested for trade than those with a smaller
market. This is because trade is likely to present the most valuable use for the wildlife resource. A large
market improves the potential for business and livelihood benefits associated with trade. Whether larger
market size is a blessing or a curse for conservation depends on species and governance factors
(Sections 2.1 and 2.2), but a large market is not inherently a risk to biodiversity.
Small markets or no market for a wildlife product can also be a conservation risk. Where wildlife has no
market value, incentives may be inadequate for sustainable wildlife management. For many species,
cultural, spiritual or other non-use values (i.e. not harvested) ensure their conservation. However, for
others, insufficient markets can contribute to biodiversity loss as habitat is converted to more productive
uses (such as forestry monocultures or agriculture). Moreover, without a sufficient market, the potential
contribution of wildlife resources to improving livelihoods and development outcomes may not be realized.
Box 7. Key points
x Market size determines economic viability and income potential associated with wildlife trade.
x Large markets can offer significant livelihood opportunities, but these depend on sustainable, well-managed
harvest.
x Price-inelastic wildlife products are typically more highly valued, creating both opportunities and risks.
Restricting supply for these products, such as through trade bans, can increase incentives for poaching and
illegal trade.
x Consumer preferences vary between countries and socio-economic groups and can affect harvest level and
mode of production.
x If consumer demand is low, prices for wildlife can fall, potentially reducing incentives for conservation and
livelihood benefits of trade participation.
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E 19
Traditional Chinese medicinal herbs and remedies in jars (© Shutterstock)
4.2. Demand elasticity
The elasticity of demand measures the responsiveness of demand to changes in price and income.
Demand elasticity for wildlife is largely determined by the availability of substitute goods. Products that are
price elastic typically have a number of substitutes. For example, according to one study, bush meat and
fish are substitutes in Gabon, meaning that demand for bush meat falls in response to any increase in
price as consumers shift to fish consumption (Wilkie et al., 2005). Harvesters and producers benefit from
developing a sustainable and consistent supply of these products, as consumers are unwilling to pay
higher prices if supply is reduced.
Demand for price-inelastic
products is less responsive to
price changes, in that a
significant increase in price does
little to discourage consumption.
Inelastic demand can create
incentives for sustainable use, as
products are highly valued, but
can also create conservation
risks. To elaborate, restricting
supply to a sustainable level
(such as through trade
restrictions or quotas) will raise
the price, but do little to lower
demand. Such price increases
may also exacerbate illegal trade
(IUCN, 2001, ’t-Sas-Rolfes, 2000).
For example, tiger bones remain
heavily poached to meet demand
for traditional medicine, despite
their listing in Appendix I
(Verheij et al., 2010). Also, there is anecdotal evidence that demand for rhino horn is price inelastic, which
could explain why additional restrictions on trade have been met with increases in poaching and illegal
trade (Brown and Layton, 1998; ’t Sas-Rolfes and Fitzgerald, 2013). Enforcement costs are typically higher
when regulating wildlife products with inelastic demand.
Income-elastic products are those for which demand increases as incomes rise. Many wildlife products are
luxury goods characterized by high income elasticity. For example, rising consumer income is frequently
cited as a primary driver of increased demand for wildlife products in South-East Asia (TRAFFIC, 2008).
Higher demand resulting from a rise in income can improve the conservation and livelihood opportunities
from wildlife trade, where a sustainable harvest is feasible and institutional arrangements appropriate and
robust.
4.3. Consumer preferences
The quantity of a product demanded by international markets depends on consumer preferences for the
product and its attributes, which may vary significantly between countries and socio-economic groups. For
example, consumers may prefer products that are natural or synthetic; wild sourced or intensively
managed; abundant or rare; and legal or illegally sourced.
4.3.1. Natural vs synthetic
There may be synthetic substitutes for wildlife products, such as rubber, natural fibres and many medicinal
products. These substitutes can reduce demand for wildlife products, particularly when supplied at a lower
cost (FAO, 1998; Belcher and Schreckenberg, 2007). A lack of livelihood opportunities is likely to have a
detrimental impact and could also reduce incentives for sustainable wildlife management. On the other
hand, synthetic alternatives may reduce demand for overharvested products, enabling demand for wildlife
trade to decline to a sustainable level. For example, some reduction in demand for seal and tiger products
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
20 SC-15-311.E
Crocodile skin from Madagascar
Pronghorn is listed in CITES Appendix I. (© USFWS/Tom Koerner)
appears to be correlated with the emergence of synthetic treatments for erectile dysfunction such as
Viagra (Von Hippel et al., 2005).
4.3.2. Wild sourced vs intensively managed
Consumers may have a strong preference for
wild-sourced products that are perceived to be of
higher quality. For example, Chinese consumers
appear to prefer wild tiger bone products due to
perceptions of higher potency
(Gratwicke et al., 2008) and similarly, consumers
in South-East Asia prefer wild porcupine (Hystrix
brachyuraI) meat over that from porcupines bred
in captivity (Norsuhana et al., 2012). For others,
intensively managed wildlife is preferred. For
high-end buyers of crocodilian and tiger skins,
captive bred specimens are preferred as they
produce more consistent quality skins with less
scarring or other defects (MacGregor, 2006).
4.3.3. Abundant vs rare/regulated
Greater rarity and regulation may
themselves increase the appeal
of particular species among
certain consumers, adding
incentives for harvest (often
illegal) and raising conservation
threats (Courchamp et al., 2006;
Rivalan et al., 2007; Hall et al.,
2008). For example, Courchamp
et al. (2006) present data
showing rarer butterflies attract
higher prices among collectors,
as do CITES-listed species
compared to non-listed ones.
Rivalan et al. (2007) show that
CITES ‘uplisting’ from Appendix II to Appendix I can stimulate trade increases, further endangering already
threatened species.
Rare or localized species can potentially support the development of niche export markets for local
communities. However, unless incentives are well managed, rarity values can create incentives to
overharvest, which can further deplete species and push rarity values up, leading potentially to an
‘extinction vortex’ (Courchamp et al., 2006).
4.3.4. Legal vs illegal products
For most consumers, it appears commonsense that there is a strong preference for legal products. Most
people are unlikely to seek to consume illegal goods. However, for some products, it is possible that
illegality or increased regulation itself may raise the perceived rarity and desirability of species among
certain consumers.
In contrast, removing trade bans could lead to a ‘reverse stigma effect’ whereby demand increases as the
product is deemed to be socially acceptable. The conservation and livelihood outcomes depend on the
ability to meet legal supply through existing stockpiles and sustainable harvest.
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E 21
Baobab trees in Madagascar (© Shutterstock)
4.3.5. Shifting consumer preferences
Consumer preferences can be influenced
through education, branding, marketing
and other strategies. For example, the
‘superfoods’ market is rapidly expanding
and providing a trade opportunity for wild
resource-based businesses, such as
Peruvian maca (Lepidium meyenii)) and
African baobab (Adansonia digitata)
(ITC, 2012). Certification has played a
large role in capitalizing on emerging
consumer preferences, such as for
ethically sourced products.
Shifts in quantity demanded can have
conservation and livelihood impacts. If
demand falls, prices are likely to drop,
reducing incentives for conservation and
livelihood benefits of trade participation.
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
22 SC-15-311.E
Chapter 4 Challenges ahead
The benefits and risks associated with trade in wildlife depend on a host of factors related to the species
itself, governance, the supply chain and the end market for wildlife products. This report provides a
framework to explore and better understand the impact of international trade in wildlife on both
conservation and local livelihoods.
The four components – species, governance, supply-chain and end-market factors – explored in the
framework each play a role in revealing the conditions under which the outcomes of trade may be positive
or negative for conservation and livelihoods, including whether there may be tradeoffs between these. In
combination, these components can be reviewed to better understand and manage the impact of wildlife
trade. For example, whether a wildlife trade chain is positive for conservation will probably depend on
factors such as whether the species is resilient to harvest (species-level factors), whether the property-
rights regime (governance factors) and the economic benefits gained (supply-chain and end-market
factors) generate adequate incentives for conservation, and whether there is a supportive policy
environment (governance factors). Likewise, whether local people benefit from international trade depends
on the viability of species extraction (species-level factors), the market size (end-market factors) and the
distribution of economic returns along the supply chain (supply-chain and governance factors).
Detailed assessment of conservation and livelihood impacts of trade are increasingly important to mitigate
global challenges of biodiversity loss and rural poverty. Wild resources are critical to the livelihoods of large
numbers of people in rural communities, and often particularly important to the poor. It is necessary to gain
greater understanding of where harvest and trade can be sustainable to avoid jeopardizing species, their
habitats and the livelihoods of those dependent on them.
This framework can support practitioners looking to mitigate adverse impacts and improve the positive
contribution of wildlife trade to local communities and to biodiversity conservation. Yet any application
should consider a number of important challenges:
x There are a wide range of complex, multifaceted and interlinking factors that affect the outcomes of
wildlife trade on conservation and livelihoods and the tradeoffs between them. It is necessary to
consider that factors beyond those explored here may be relevant to trade outcomes.
x The benefits and consequences of wildlife trade are likely to be species-, country- and market-
specific. The likely outcome for one species may not hold for another, and the framework is not
intended to suggest that there is a blueprint approach to designing sustainable trade chains.
x Any comprehensive review of wildlife trade impacts is likely to require significant investment of time,
resources and multi-disciplinary expertise. For example, data for many trade chains are limited,
incomplete or lack transparency. While this may explain why conservation and livelihood outcomes
are so poorly understood, the importance of such information should not be underestimated,
particularly for vulnerable species where policy decisions may have unintended consequences or
overlook an opportunity to improve local livelihoods.
In the context of growing international concern about trade in wildlife, further exploring specific
conservation and livelihood outcomes and opportunities to lift these will necessarily gain greater priority.
This report offers an impartial framework and starting point to support informed discussion to facilitate a
shift towards sustainable trade chains with positive and transparent conservation and livelihood benefits.
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E 23
References
’t Sas-Rolfes, M. (2000). Assessing CITES: Four case studies. Threatened Species, Endangered Convention:
The Past, Present and Future of CITES, J. Hutton and B. Dickson, eds. London. Earthscan, pp. 69–87.
_________ (1990). Privatizing the Rhino Industry, FMF Paper 900501. Johannesburg, South Africa. Free
Market Foundation.
’t Sas-Rolfes, M. and T. Fitzgerald (2013). Can a legal horn trade save rhinos? PERC Research
Paper. No. 13-6.
Abbott, B. and G.C. van Kooten (2011). Can domestication of wildlife lead to conservation? The economics
of tiger farming in China. Ecological Economics 70(4), pp. 721–728.
Australian Government and DECC (2007). Wollemi Pine Recovery Plan. Australian Government and NSW.
Available from http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/RecoveryPlanWollemiPine.pdf.
Accessed 25 April 2014.
Baumol, W. (1982). Contestable markets: an uprising in the theory of industry structure. American
Economic Review 71(1), pp. 1–15.
Belcher, B. and D. Schreckenburg (2007). Commercialisation of non-timber forest products: a reality
check. Development Policy Review 25(3), pp. 255–277.
Belcher, B., M. Ruíz-Pérez and R. Achdiawan (2005). Global patterns and trends in the use and
management of commercial NTFPs: Implications for livelihoods and conservation. World Development, 33(9),
pp. 1,435–1,452. Available from http://frameweb.org/adl/en-US/2423/file/270/global_trends_in_NTFPS.pdf.
Accessed 12 May 2014.
_________ (2003). Global Patterns and Trends in NWFP Development. Paper presented at The
International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity. Bonn, Germany.
Biggs, D., F. Courchamp, R. Martin and H.P. Possingham (2013). Legal Trade of Africa’s Rhino Horns. Science
339(6123), pp. 1,038–1,039. Available from http://www.shootersandfishers.org.au/files/6/3654627243/legal-
trade-of-africa-27s-rhino-horns-28science-2c-1-march-2013-29.pdf. Accessed 10 April 2014.
Binot, A., T. Blomley, L. Coad, F. Nelson, D. Roe and C. Sandbrook (2009). What has CBNRM achieved in
Africa? The ‘3Es’ – empowerment, economics, environment. Community Management of Natural
Resources in Africa: Impacts, Experiences, and Future Directions. D. Roe, Nelson, F. and Sandbrook, C.
London. International Institute for Environment and Development, pp. 55–94.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., N. Dudley, T. Jaeger, B. Lassen, N. Pathak Broome, A. Philips and T. Sandwith
(2013). Governance of Protected Areas: From understanding to action. Best Practice Protected Area
Guidelines Series. Gland, Switzerland. International Union for Conservation of Nature.
Broad, S., T. Mulliken and D. Roe (2003). The nature and extent of legal and illegal trade in wildlife. The
Trade in Wildlife: Regulation for Conservation. S. Oldfield, ed. London. Earthscan, pp. 3–22.
Brooks, S.E., E.H. Allison, J.A. Gill and J.D. Reynolds (2010). Snake prices and crocodile appetites:
Aquatic wildlife supply and demand on Tonle Sap Lake, Cambodia. Biological
Conservation 143(9), pp. 2,127–2,135.
Brown, G. and D. Layton (1998). Saving Rhinos. Paper presented at First World Conference of
Environmental and Resource Economists, Venice, Italy, June 1997.
Bulte, E.H., G.C. van Kooten and T. Swanson (2003). Economic Incentives and Wildlife Conservation.
Economic Incentives and Trade Policy. Geneva.
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
24 SC-15-311.E
Caldwell, J. (2011). World trade in crocodilian skins 2007–2009. United Nations Environment Programme -
World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Available from http://www.unep-
wcmc.org/system/dataset_file_fields/files/000/000/163/original/World_Trade_in_Crocodilian_Skins_2007-
2009.pdf?1398702323. Accessed 12 November 2014.
Caldwell, J. and M. Courouble (2008). Wild bird trade: impact on livelihoods and illegal trade. Prepared for
the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by UNEP-WCMC and TRAFFIC Europe.
Campbell, B., A. Mandondo, N. Nemarundwe, B. Sithole, W. De Jong, M. Luckert and F. Matose (2001).
Challenges to proponents of common property resource systems: despairing voices from the social forests
of Zimbabwe. World Development 29(4), pp. 589–600.
Campbell, B., N. Byron, P. Hobane, E. Madzudzo, F. Matose and L. Wily (1999). Moving to local control of
woodland resources – Can CAMPFIRE go beyond the mega-fauna? Society and Natural
Resources 12(5), pp. 501–509.
Challender, D. W.S. and D.C. MacMillan (2014). Poaching is more than an enforcement problem.
Conservation Letters 7(5), pp. 484-494.
Chambers, R. and G.R. Conway (1991). Sustainable rural livehihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century.
IDS Discussion Paper 296. Available from https://www.ids.ac.uk/files/Dp296.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2014.
Child, B., S. Ward and T. Tavengwa (1997). Natural resource management by the people: Zimbabwe’s
CAMPFIRE Program. IUCN-ROSA Environmental Issues Series 2. Harare. IUCN Regional Office for
Southern Africa.
Comercio y Pobreza en Latino América (2009). The Brazil Nut Value Chain in the Northern Amazon
Region of Bolivia, Comercio y Pobreza en Latino América (COPLA: Trade and Poverty in Latin America).
Available from http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/5650.pdf.
Accessed 25 July 2014.
Conrad, K. (2012). Trade bans: a perfect storm for poaching? Tropical Conservation Science 5(3),
pp. 245–254. Available from http://tropicalconservationscience.mongabay.com/content/v5/TCS-
2012_Vol_5(3)_245-254_Conrad.pdf. Accessed 22 July 2014.
Cooney, R. and M. Abensperg-Traun (2013). Raising local community voices: CITES, livelihoods and
sustainable use. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 22, pp. 301–310.
Cooney, R., A. Baumber, P. Ampt and G. Wilson (2009). Sharing skippy: Models for involving landholders
in kangaroo management in Australia. The Rangelands Journal 31, pp. 283–292.
Cooney, R. and P. Jepson (2006). The international wild bird trade: what’s wrong with blanket bans? Oryx
40(1), pp.1–6. Available from http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/research/publications/rcooney-pjepson-oryx-
2006.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2014.
Courchamp, F., E. Angulo, P. Rivalan, R. Hall, L. Signoret, L. Bull and Y. Meinard (2006). Rarity value and
species extinction: the anthropogenic Allee effect. PLoS Biology 4(12). Available from
http://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/45493/1/38662918.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2014.
Dalal-Clayton, B. and B. Child (2003). Lessons from Luangwa: The story of Luangwa Integrated Resource
Development Project, Zambia. London. International Institute for Environment and Development. Wildlife and
Development Series No. 13. Available from http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/9079IIED.pdf. Accessed 22 March 2014.
Darwall, W., K. Smith, D. Allen, M.B. Seddon, G. Reid, V. Clausnitzer and V. Kalkman (2009). Freshwater
biodiversity: a hidden resource under threat. In Wildlife in a Changing World – An Analysis of the 2008
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, J.-C. Vié, C. Hilton-Taylor and S.N. Stuart, eds. Gland, Switzerland,
IUCN, pp. 43–54.
Decker, D.J., S.J. Riley and W.F. Siemer (2012). Human dimensions of wildlife management. Second
edition. Baltimore, Maryland. John Hopkins University Press.
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E 25
Demsetz, H. (1967). Toward a Theory of Property Rights. American Economic Review 57, pp. 347–359.
Duffy, R. (2014). Waging a war to save biodiversity: the rise of militarized conservation. International
Affairs 90, pp. 819–834.
Effiom, E.O., G. Nuñez-Iturri, H.G. Smith, U. Ottosson and O. Olsson (2013). Bushmeat hunting changes
regeneration of African rainforests. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 280(1759).
Available from http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsb/280/1759/20130246.full.pdf. Accessed
12 March 2014.
Elson, D. (2012). Guide to investing in locally controlled forestry. Growing Forest Partnerships in
association with FAO, IIED, IUCN, The Forests Dialogue and the World Bank. Available from
http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/13565IIED.pdf. Accessed 22 March 2014.
Erdelen, W. (1998). Trade in lizards and snakes in Indonesia – biogeography, ignorance and sustainability.
Mertensiella 9, pp. 69–83.
Finkel, M. (2012). Tibetan Gold: A medicinal fungus highly prized in China is fueling a boom on the Tibetan
Plateau. National Geographic. Washington, DC.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1998). Asia-Pacific Forestry Towards
2010: Report of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study, Rome, Italy.
Foreign Affairs (2014). Africa’s anti-poaching problem – how wildlife trade bans are failing the continent’s
animals legalize the wildlife trade, 5 February. Available from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/africa/2014-
02-05/africa-s-anti-poaching-problem. Accessed 15 July 2014.
Gratwicke B., J. Mills, A. Dutton, G. Gabriel, B. Long, J. Seidensticker, B. Wright, W. You and
L. Zhang, (2008). Attitudes Toward Consumption and Conservation of Tigers in China. PLoS ONE 3(7), p. 1.
Hall, R.J., E.J. Milner-Gulland and F. Courchamp (2008). Endangering the endangered - The effects of
perceived rarity on species exploitation. Conservation Letters 1(2), pp. 75–81.
Harrison, R.D., S. Sylvester Tan, J.B. Plotkin, F. Slik, M. Detto, T. Brenes, A. Itoh and S.J. Davies (2013).
Consequences of defaunation for a tropical tree community. Ecology Letters 16(5), pp. 687–694.
Hauck, M. and G. Gallardo-Fernandez (2013). Crises in the South African abalone and Chilean loco
fisheries – shared challenges and prospects. Maritime Studies 12(1), 3.
Hutton, J.M. and G. Webb (2003). Crocodiles: legal trade snaps back. The Trade in Wildlife: Regulation for
Conservation. S. Oldfield, ed. London. Earthscan, pp. 108–120.
International Trade Centre (ITC) (2012). The North American Market for Natural Products: Prospects for
Andean and African Products, International Trade Centre, Geneva.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2007). The Sustainable Use of Species: Developing
tools for managing wild living resources from a quantitative review of factors that influence sustainability. A
collaborative project managed through the Species Programme of IUCN and run by a steering committee
made up of representatives from the IUCN, TRAFFIC, The Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology
(DICE) and the University of Cambridge. Unpublished report to WCS.
_________ (2001). The effectiveness of trade measures contained in the Convention on International
Trade in Wild Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES). Nairobi, Kenya: Report to the Economics, Trade and
Environment Unit, United Nations Environment Programme.
_________ (2000). Trade measures in Multilateral Environmental Agreements. A report by IUCN – the
World Conservation Union on the Effectiveness of Trade Measures Contained in CITES. United Nations
Environment Programme.
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
26 SC-15-311.E
_________ (n.d.). IUCN definitions. Available from
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/en_iucn__glossary_definitions.pdf. Accessed 2 November 2014.
Jones, R. (2008). CITES, corals and customs: The international trade in wild coral. Advances in Coral
Husbandry in Public Aquariums. R. Leewis and M. Janse. Arnhem, the Netherlands: Burgers’
Zoo, pp. 351–361.
Kasterine, A., Arbeid, R., Caillabet, O. and Natusch, D. (2012). The Trade in South-East Asian Python
Skins. International Trade Centre, Geneva.
Kirkpatrick, R.C. and L. Emerton (2010). Killing tigers to save them: fallacies of the farming argument.
Conservation Biology 24(3), pp. 655–659.
Konaté, L. (2012). Creating competitive market models. Burkina Faso: the case of nununa women’s shea
butter federation, SNV Netherlands Development Organization. Available from
www.snvworld.org/download/.../burkina_shea_business_model.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2014.
Kusters, K. and B. Belcher (2004). Forest Products, Livelihoods and Conservation: Case studies of Non-
Timber Forest Product Systems. Vol 1 – Asia. Bogor, Indonesia, Centre for International Forestry
Research (CIFOR).
Larriera, A. (forthcoming). The trade in South American crocodilian skins: An overview of the situation in
seven relevant countries. Submitted to the International Trade Centre. Geneva, December.
Lichtenstein, G. (2013). Guanaco management in Argentina: Taking a commons perspective. Journal of
Latin American Geography 12(1), pp. 187–213.
_________ (2011). Use of Vicuñas (Vicugna vicugna) and Guanacos (Lama guanicoe) in Andean
countries: Linking community-based conservation initiatives with international markets. CITES and
CBNRM: Proceedings of an international symposium on ‘The relevance of CBNRM to the conservation and
sustainable use of CITES-listed species in exporting countries.’ M. Abensperg-Traun, D. Roe and C.
O'Criodain. Gland, Switzerland, and London: IUCN and IIED, pp. 103–108. Available from
http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/14616IIED.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2014.
_________ (2010). Vicuña conservation and poverty allevation? Andean communities and international
fibre markets. International Journal of the Commons 4(1), pp. 100–121. Available from
http://www.thecommonsjournal.org/index.php/ijc/article/view/139/130. Accessed 22 July 2014.
Lichtenstein, G. and P. Carmanchahi (2012). Guanaco management by pastoralists in the Southern
Andes. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 2(1), 16.
Lyons, J.A. and D.J.D. Natusch (2011). Wildlife laundering through breeding farms: Illegal harvest,
population declines and a means of regulating the trade of green pythons (Morelia viridis) from Indonesia.
Biological Conservation 144(12), pp. 3,073–3,081.
MacGregor, J. (2006). The Call of the wild: captive crocodilian production and the shaping of conservation
incentives. Cambridge. TRAFFIC International. Available from www.traffic.org/species-
reports/traffic_species_reptiles11.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2014.
Macqueen, D. (2008). Supporting small forest enterprises: A cross-sectoral review of best practice. IED
Small and Medium Forestry Enterprise Series No. 23. London. International Institute for Environment and
Development. Available from http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/13548IIED.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2014.
Makoye, K. (2014). Anti-poaching operation spreads terror in Tanzania. Inter Press Service, 6 Jan.
Available from http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/01/anti-poaching-operation-spread-terror-tanzania/.
Accessed 2 May 2014.
Marshall, E., K. Schreckenberg and A.C. Newton, eds. (2006). Commercialization of non-timber forest products:
Factors influencing success. Lessons learned from Mexico and Bolivia and policy implications for decision-
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E 27
makers. Cambridge: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Available from
http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/3769.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2014.
McAllister, R.R.J., D. McNeill and I.J. Gordon (2009). Legalizing markets and the consequences for poaching
of wildlife species: The vicuña as a case study. Journal of Environmental Management 90(1), pp. 120–130.
Mistry, J. (2014). World Savannas: Ecology and Human Use. Abingdon, UK and New York, Routledge.
Molnar, A., M. Liddle, C. Bracer, A. Khare, A. White and J. Bull (2007). Community-based forest
enterprises: their status and potential in tropical countries. ITTO Technical Series No. 28. Yokohama,
Japan. International Tropical Timber Organization.
Mous, P., L. Pet-Soede, M. Eerdmann, H. Cesar, Y. Sadovy and J. Pet (2000). Cyanide fishing on
Indonesian coral reefs for the live food fish market: What is the problem? Collected Essays on the
Economics of Coral Reefs H. Cesar. Kalmar, Sweden: CORDIO, Department for Biology and
Environmental Sciences, Kalmar University, pp. 69–76. Available from
http://www.spc.int/DigitalLibrary/Doc/FAME/InfoBull/LRF/7/LRF7_20_Mous.pdf. Accessed 27 June 2013.
Mukhia, P. and T. Rai (2012). Ophiocordyceps sinensis a significant nature gift to livelihood of high
mountain people of the Bhutan Himalaya: A review. Thimphu, Bhutan: SAARC Forestry Centre.
Available from http://www.forestrynepal.org/images/publications/Article%20to%20Forestry%20Nepal0.pdf.
Accessed 22 May 2013.
Ndam, N. and M.T. Marcelin (2004). Chop, but no broke pot: the case of Prunus africana on Mount
Cameroon. Forest Products, Livelihoods and Conservation. Case Studies of Non-Timber Forest Product
Systems. Volume 2 – Africa. T. Sunderland and O. Ndoye. Bogor, Indonesia. Centre for International
Forestry Research (CIFOR), pp. 37–52.
Neumann, R. and E. Hirsch (2000). Commercialisation of Non-Timber Forest Products: Review and
Analysis of Research. Bogor, Indonesia, and Rome. CIFOR and FAO.
Nijman, V. (2010). An overview of international wildlife trade from Southeast Asia. Biodiversity and
Conservation 19, pp. 1,101–1,114. Available from http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/mgntfp3.pdf.
Accessed 17 July 2013.
Norsuhana, A.H., M.N. Shukor and A. Aminah (2012). Perceptions on captive Malayan Porcupine
(Hystrix brachyura), Meat by Malaysian Urban Consumers, Health and the Environment Journal 3:1, pp. 67–78.
Platt, J. (2013). Pangolins in Peril: All 8 Species of Scaly Anteaters Endangered by Illegal Trade. Scientific
American. Available from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/2013/08/07/pangolins-
peril-illegal-trade/. Accessed 7 August 2013.
Primack, R. (2010). Essentials of Conservation Biology, fifth edition. Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA.
Sinauer Associates.
Purcell, S.W., B.A. Polidoro, J.-H. Hamel, R.U. Gamboa and A. Mercier (2014). The cost of being valuable:
predictors of extinction risk in marine invertebrates exploited as luxury seafood. Proceedings of the Royal
Society B. 281.
Rabinovich, J. (2005). Parrots, precaution and Project Ele: management in the face of multiple
uncertainties. Biodiversity and the Precautionary Principle: Risk and Uncertainty in Conservation and
Sustainable Use. R. Cooney and B. Dickson, eds. London. Earthscan, pp. 173–188.
Rhyne, A.L., M.F. Tlusty, P.J. Schofield, L. Kaufman, J.A. Morris Jr. and A.W. Bruckner (2012). Revealing
the Appetite of the Marine Aquarium Fish Trade: The Volume and Biodiversity of Fish Imported into the
United States. PLoS ONE 7(5), e35808.
Ribot, J. (2003). Democratic decentralisation of natural resources: Institutional choice and discretionary
power transfers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Public Administration and Development 23, pp. 53–65.
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
28 SC-15-311.E
Rivalan, P., V. Delmas, E. Angulo, L. Bull, R. Hall and F. Courchamp (2007). Can bans stimulate wildlife
trade? Nature 447(31), pp. 529–530.
Recolectores Organicos de Nuez Amazonia del Peru (RONAP) (2014). Available from http://ronap.org.pe/.
Accessed 2 November 2014.
Roe, D. (2008). Trading Nature. A report, with case studies, on the contribution of wildlife trade
management to sustainable livelihoods and the Millennium Development Goals. Cambridge and Gland,
Switzerland, TRAFFIC International and WWF International. Available from www.traffic.org/general-
reports/traffic_pub_gen19.pdf. Accessed 19 September 2013.
Roe, D., S. Milledge, R. Cooney, M. ’t Sas-Rolfes, D. Biggs, M. Murphree and A. Kasterine (2014). The
elephant in the room: Sustainable use in the illegal wildlife trade debate. London. IIED. Available from
http://pubs.iied.org/17205IIED.html. Accessed 17 August 2013.
Roe, D., F. Nelson and C. Sandbrook (2009). Community management of natural resources in Africa.
International Institute for Environment and Development. Available from
http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/17503IIED.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2014.
Roe, D., T. Mulliken, S. Milledge, J. Mremi, S. Mosha and M. Grieg-Gran (2002). Making a killing or making
a living? Wildlife trade, trade controls and rural livelihoods. Biodiversity and Livelihoods Issues No. 6.
London, IIED.
Ros-Tonen, M. and K. Wiersum (2003). The importance of non-timber forest products for forest-based rural
livelihoods: an evolving research agenda. The International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and
Biodiversity. Bonn, Germany.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2011). Livelihood alternatives for the
unsustainable use of bushmeat. Technical Series No. 60. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity.
_________ (1993). Article 2: Use of Terms. Available from: https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf.
Accessed 2 November 2014.
Schlaepfer, M.A., C. Hoover and C.K. Dodd (2005). Challenges in evaluating the impact of the trade in
amphibians and reptiles on wild populations. BioScience 55(3), pp. 256–264.
Sodhi N.S., B.W. Brook and C.A.J. Bradshaw (2009). Causes and consequences of species extinctions. In:
Princeton Guide to Ecology. S.A. Levin, ed. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 514–520.
Sunderland, T. and O. Ndoye, (2004). Forest Products, Livelihoods and Conservation. Case studies of
Non-Timber Forest Product Systems. Volume 2 – Africa. Bogor, Indonesia. Centre for International
Forestry Research (CIFOR).
Tierney, M., R.E.A. Almond, D. Stanwell-Smith, L. McRae, C. Zockler, B. Collen, M. Walpole, J. Hutton and
S. De Bie (2014). Use it or lose it: measuring trends in wild species subject to substantial use.
Oryx 48(3): pp. 420-429.
Tlusty, M.F., A.L. Rhyne, S. Dowd, L. Kaufman (2014). Controlling destiny of the trade: Proactive steps
now can address the major impediments to developing a more sustainable ornamental fish industry.
Ornamental Fish International Journal 75, pp. 23–26.
TRAFFIC (2014). TRAFFIC - Wildlife Trade. Available from http://www.traffic.org/trade/. Accessed 12 May 2014.
_________ (2008). What’s driving the wildlife trade? A review of expert opinion on economic and social
drivers of the wildlife trade and trade control efforts in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR and Vietnam. East
Asia and Pacific Region Sustainable Development Discussion Papers. Washington, D.C.: East Asia and
Pacific Region Sustainable Development Department, World Bank.
THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE
SC-15-311.E 29
Townsend, D. (2011). Sustainability, equity and welfare: A review of the tropical marine ornamental fish
trade. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 20.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2013). Biotrade: A catalyst for transitioning to a green
economy in Peru. United Nations Environment Programme.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (2013). From competition to cooperation: A win for the broad-snouted caiman.
Endangered Species Bulletin, fall 2013. Available from https://www.fws.gov/ENDANGERED/news/episodes/bu-
Fall2013/story1/index.html. Accessed 12 July 2014.
Velasco, A., G. Colomine, R. De Sola and G. Villarroel (2003). Effects of sustained harvests on wild
populations of Caiman crocodylus crocodilus in Venezuela. Intersciencia 28(9), pp. 544–548.
Verheij, P.M., K.E. Foley and K. Engel (2010). Reduced to skin and bones. An analysis of tiger seizures
from 11 tiger range countries (2000–2010), Cambridge: TRAFFIC International.
Von Hippel, W., F. Von Hippel, N. Chan and C. Cheng (2005). Exploring the use of Viagra in place of animal
and plant potency products in traditional Chinese medicine. Environmental Conservation 32(03), pp. 235–238.
Waller, T.P. Micucci, O. Menghi, M. Barros and J. Draque (2011). The relevance of CBNRM for the
conservation of the Yellow Anaconda. Proceedings of an international symposium on ‘The relevance of
CBNRM to the conservation and sustainable use of CITES-listed species in exporting countries.’
M. Abensperg-Traun, D. Roe and C. O’Criodain, eds. IUCN and London, pp. 93–102.
Webb, G. and S. Manolis (1991). Monitoring saltwater crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus) in the Northern
Territory of Australia. Wildlife 2001: Populations. An international conference on Population Dynamics and
Management of Vertebrates (Exclusive of Primates and Fish), Oakland, California: Elsevier Applied Science.
Weinstein, S. and S. Moegenburg (2004). Acai Palm Management in the Amazon Estuary: Course for
Conservation or Passage to Plantations? Conservation and Society 2, pp. 315–346.
Wilkie, D.S., M. Starkey, K. Abernethy, E.N. Effa, P. Telfer and R. Godoy (2005). Role of Prices and Wealth
in Consumer Demand for Bushmeat in Gabon, Central Africa. Conservation Biology 19(1), pp. 268–274.
Wyler, L. and P. Sheikh (2013). International Illegal Trade in WIldlife: Threats and US Policy. CRS Report
for Congress. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, US Congress.
Wynberg, R. (2004). Achieving a fair and sustainable trade in devil’s claw Harpagphytum spp. Forest
Products, Livelihoods and Conservation. Case studies of Non-Timber Forest Product Systems. Volume 2 –
Africa. T. Sunderland and O. Ndoye. Bogor, Indonesia: Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
FSC is an independent, non-governmental, not for pro¿t
organization established to promote the responsible management
of the world´s forests.
Printed by ITC Digital Printing Service on FSC paper, which is
environmentally-friendly paper (without chlorine) using vegetable-
based inks. The printed matter is recyclable.
A free pdf is available on ITC’s
website at:
www.intracen.org/publications
Street address
International Trade Centre
54-56 Rue de Montbrillant
1202 Geneva, Switzerland
P: +41 22 730 0111
F: +41 22 733 4439
E: itcreg@intracen.org
www.intracen.org
Postal address
International Trade Centre
Palais des Nations
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
The International Trade Centre (ITC) is the joint agency of the World Trade Organization and the United Nations.
