Global Trade of Wildlife and the Potential for Extinction from Trade
Introduction:
A recent study found one in five land-based species are affected by trade, with indications that an additional 3,196 species could be at risk. Certain phylogenetic groups like pangolins and hornbills are most affected, thus giving rise to long-term impacts on lineages of identified groups. Overall, trade has the capacity to affect and pose extinction risk to up to 8,775 species. This post will discuss wildlife trade generally, identify specific percentages of affected wildlife, discuss the areas where trading is most common, and lastly, discuss the potential policy to combat the increasing threat trade poses to wildlife as identified by a recent study published in Science magazine.
Trade & Wildlife
Currently, the global extent and patterns of wildlife trade are limitedly understood. However, wildlife is generally traded for use for skins, pelts, and furs, pets, luxury foods, or medicinal components. Billions of plants and animals have introduced into the market annually in order to meet the ever-expanding global market. Each year, the illegal trade of wildlife generates $8-21 billion, making it one of the world’s largest illegitimate businesses. This trade represents one of the largest influencers of vertebrate extinction globally.
Severe losses in tigers, elephants, rhinos, and poison dart frogs have been directly related to the trade as global demand increases. Shifting cultural pressures resulting in changing demands can increase the pace of extinction. An example of this is the growing desire in Asian countries for pangolin as a delicacy, and additionally hornbill beaks for their ivory-like features.
It is estimated that approximately 18% of all “extant terrestrial vertebrate” is affected by trade. A breakdown of the estimates is as follows: 23% of 10,278 bird species, 27% of 5,420 mammal species, 12% of 9,563 species, and 9% of 6484 amphibian species. Within these categories, Scheffers determined that large-bodied species are more traded than small-bodied species, species with unique and distinctive traits are targeted more often, and generally, that trade selects non-randomly. This allowed Scheffers to identify species not yet traded that faced high risks of becoming rare or extinct due to the trade of wildlife.
The study focused on specific kinds of trade and found that amphibians and reptiles are often traded as pets; birds are most often traded as pets and products, including the use for commercial meat, clothing, medicine, or religious purposes; and mammals are often traded for the products similar to those listed above.
Trade Hotspots
The hotspots of trade vary depending on the animals and the use of the animals. However, Scheffers recognized that South America, Central to Southeast Africa, the Himalayas, Southeast Asia, and Australia are the main locations of the wildlife trade. These areas were found to have the highest number of traded species. Within these areas, regional variations were identified. For example, in South America, the Andes, and eastern Amazon, birds were most commonly traded, whereas in the western and central Amazon amphibians were most traded.
Policy
In order to combat the increasing effects of trade on wildlife, it is necessary to review the policy surrounding the issue. Policy needs to become proactive, not reactive. Action will need to occur across all levels of government. In order to combat the illegal trade of wildlife, local communities, state governments, and federal governments will need to target the import and export of wildlife in hotspot locales. Additionally, policy makers should offer economic incentives to locals within the species’ habitat for protections rather than exploitation. There must be a shift in focus to limit the supply and demand for wild-caught species.
Conclusion
In conclusion, trade of wildlife for multiple uses poses high extinction risks. Without active change at all levels of government to determine the sources of illegal trade and action taken to combat illegal trade, the global demand may contribute to the decline of the population in one out of every five land-based species.