Wild Animal Trafficking: Biased Regulations

The health crisis has once again brought into the spotlight the issues surrounding the wild animal trade, which today generates as much—if not more—revenue than the trafficking of drugs or weapons. Far from slowing down, this trade now poses a major threat to biodiversity, raises significant concerns about public health, and raises legitimate ethical questions. Human activity is plunging the world into a sixth mass extinction. Biodiversity is in crisis, primarily due to habitat loss, pollution, and climate change—not to mention the trade and trafficking of wild animals. After habitat loss, the direct exploitation of wildlife is the human activity most damaging to global biodiversity. This age-old practice shows no signs of slowing down. While the ivory trade predated the gold trade, today the scale of wildlife trafficking threatens the survival of thousands of species on Earth. Every year, millions of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians—as well as fish, corals, shellfish, and other invertebrates—are traded to meet an ever-growing global demand. The severity and scale of the illicit wildlife trafficking and sale of wildlife products have been recognized at the international policy level. Leaders, the international community, and civil society have responded by defining and strengthening commitments to combat this trafficking.  

Regulations, Yes—But Selective

Contrary to popular belief, the international trade in wild animals is not banned and is not limited to a few iconic species. It represents a massive financial windfall, amounting to nearly $100 billion annually. Illegal trade accounts for about a quarter of this amount—at least $7 to $23 billion. It is as profitable as, if not more so than, the drug or arms trade. International cooperation to reduce the trade in wild species led to the creation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in 1975. Unfortunately, however, this is not enough. Only 5,800 animal species are covered by CITES, out of the 116,177 species on the IUCN Red List, which, unfortunately, does not provide any legal protection. This means that a species can be at risk of extinction yet not be subject to regulations governing its international trade. On average, it takes ten years for a species classified as threatened with extinction by the IUCN to be listed in a CITES appendix. Over the past 10 years, France has thus imported more than 40,000 live Russian tortoises (Testudo horsfieldii) and nearly 25,000 golden seahorses (Hippocampus kuda), two species classified as vulnerable to extinction. The regulations are far from perfect, particularly due to their obvious bias toward species that make the headlines. CITES focuses primarily on wildlife trafficking, having only recently begun to cover lesser-known species. The infamous pangolin, for example, was added to the list in 2016, yet this has not prevented it from remaining the most poached mammal even after the regulations took effect.    

Thousands of Unprotected Animals

Thousands of species are still missing from the list. Unfortunately, international efforts generally overlook “less valuable” species, resulting in limited knowledge of the trade in less popular animals. Currently, CITES is failing to adequately protect many species, particularly reptiles. Thirty-six percent of reptile species are subject to trafficking—four times the 9% of species monitored through CITES. Three-quarters of this trade therefore involves species—often endangered or endemic—that are not covered by international trade regulations. The species trade is particularly driven by novelty, meaning that recently discovered species—which are naturally low in population density—are targeted. 5.5% of species described since 2000 are currently being traded, and up to 11 species are traded within a year of their description. Yet the protection of unassessed species should be the default standard. However, the lack of regulations for most species allows for the legal import of individuals captured in the wild, even endangered species. Unfortunately, it all comes down to money, as recent CITES meetings have highlighted. Monitoring a large number of low-value species would be prohibitively expensive. As a result, thousands of species that are victims of wildlife trafficking remain largely unmonitored.    

A dynamic that remains understudied

Although awareness is beginning to take shape and materialize, this is not the only problem facing the regulation of wildlife trafficking. Aside from species that are regulated and monitored internationally, the dynamics of the wildlife trade remain unknown on a global scale. Assessments of the wild species trade remain incomplete, too often focusing on a small subset of species or locations (and frequently using inconsistent methods). The true extent of the trade in wild species is, for the most part, only an estimate, as is the potential impact on the species involved. Significant gaps in understanding the drivers, status, and impacts of this trade—as well as conservation efforts—hinder the effectiveness of regulatory measures. Even population data often remain incomplete, meaning that many species may be traded despite risks to population viability. More robust and up-to-date data are needed if we are to have better-informed, more effective, and, above all, more consistent interventions at the global policy level. And the situation is becoming urgent.    

Underregulation That Endangers Animal and Human Lives

The disconnect between trade regulations and the health and viability of populations potentially threatens thousands of species of birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals. Unregulated or under-regulated trade in wild species can lead to the unsustainable exploitation of wild populations, which is not without consequences. The spread of disease, the disruption of ecosystems, and even the economies of entire continents are at stake. Ultimately, the negative impacts of wildlife trafficking on ecosystem functioning undermine rural livelihoods in both the short and long term. It creates major obstacles to the sustainable management of natural resources by local communities, further weakening their governance and national security. At the root of these problems are regulatory gaps and their effects on populations. We must reexamine the entire current system and reverse the presumption by requiring proof of population viability and sustainability before trade is authorized and species can be marketed. We must protect not only species that attract attention but all species in distress, including those with low financial value.