• Endangered species

Endangered species (CITES)

This document discusses the importance of wildlife trade for many rural livelihoods and the impact that wildlife trade regulations has on them.

The paper begins by outlining trade in wildlife which can occur both nationally and internationally and takes many forms. It can generally be said, however, that the trade remains largely undocumented and under researched but that it is estimated to have a value of US$160 billion and to flow, in the main, from developing to developed countries. CITES, which regulates trade in some species, records legal transfer of the wildlife on its lists, but this is considered to be a tiny part of the overall trade that takes place.

The document goes on to discuss regulation and restrictions to wildlife trade. Regulations governing international trade in wildlife may be international or domestic, imposed by the exporting or importing country, and may be direct (export controls, for example) or more indirect (e.g. resource access or harvest restrictions) but nevertheless affecting the ability of local people to export to international markets. CITES is the key international agreement relevant to controlling the international trade in wildlife. The authors discuss the workings of CITES and ways in which power relationships can favour developed countries in the CITES decision-making process.

The authors discuss the impacts of regulation on wildlife, stating that this is difficult to determine because of a lack of research. In some cases, regulation appears to have had a positive effect on wildlife, while in others the effect cannot be determined. Without research into the many variables that affect a species' survival, it is impossible to determine the absolute effects of regulation, or a lack of it. The authors argue that campaigns that effect consumer demand may be more effective than regulation.

The literature review carried out for this study found very little documentation on impacts of wildlife trade controls on local livelihoods other than general statements relating to increased human-wildlife conflict and loss of economic incentives to conserve. The authors state that the discussion has focused on the livelihood impact of declining availability of wild populations of species that are important for subsistence use or income generation. In this case, the negative impact on rural livelihoods could stem from too little trade control, not too much. However, they see an increasing tendency within CITES processes to create measures to allow trade in species for which there is conservation concern to continue where there is clear evidence that it will not be detrimental to wild populations, and, more specifically, is likely to be beneficial. Mechanisms to transfer species from Appendix I to Appendix II under ranching and quota schemes are examples of such measures. In some of these cases clear evidence can be seen for both conservation and livelihood benefits.

The paper then describes from the East Usambara Mountains in Tanzania, which shows a mixture of positive and negative monetary and non-monetary impacts resulting from changes to wildlife access and trade regulations at local, national and international levels. The authors ask what the overall effects of CITES style regulation are and conclude that, overall, they do not have a negative effect on conservation and on livelihoods.

Nevertheless, there are examples where international trade controls have reduced the income available to rural communities without bringing about any obvious conservation benefit. Such controls are likely to further undermine future efforts to improve local benefits from wild species through community-based management of wildlife resources. They make a number of recommendations for increasing the CITES sensitivity to and contribution to sustainable development objectives, and for future research priorities. [Adapted from authors]

• Full text of document
• Publisher details
• Send to a friend