The commercial trade threatens species worldwid

Lieberman, Susan S.

English

Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy

Wildlife Exploitation

WBI Studies Repository (WellBeing International)

w I L D A N I M A L s WILDLIFE EXPLOITATION Elephants are still being killed for their ivory. Earth Day 1990: Tens of thousands of primates are captured and exported every year for biomedical research. Chimpanzees continue to be captured and traded illegally. The skins of 50 million fur animals are traded internationally every year. Millions of parrots and other birds are cap­tured in the wild each year for the commer­cial pet trade. More than 10 million turtles, crocodiles, snakes, and reptiles are killed annually for the skin trade, involving both a "legal" trade and a large, lucrative illegal trade. The illegal trade in wildlife, including spotted-cat furs, elephant ivory, tropical par­rots, and other species, is a multimillion dollar business. Will it ever end? • • • The Commercjaf Trade Threatens Specjes Worldwjde no Convention on International Trade in En - extinction is habitat loss due to human activ­dangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora ities. The rapidly expanding hnman popula­(CITES), and no Marine Mammal Protection tion worldwide and its resulting agricultural Act (MMPA). The peep le of the United States and developmental demands are the greatest and, indeed, the entire world were awakened threats to the continued existence of healthy to the extinction crisis racing many species in habitats and species. If something is not done the 1970s, due in no small part to the en- in this decade to control the exploding human vironmental consciousness-raising events of population, all of our efforts to protect en­the first Earth Day. Progress has been made: dangered species will be but a holding action there is no doubt that some species alive and forestalling the inevitable, as human needs recovering today would be extinct (and others outstrip the ability of the land to support the nearly extinct) if these laws and treaties had requisite species' diversity. The consequences not been passed. of the irrevocable loss of a species or a pop-Yet the commercial exploitation of wildlife, ulation are usually unpredictable and often and the resultant endangerment of species, disastrous, a loss measured not only in terms continues. We should use this anniversary of of its impact on human health and welfure, but Earth Day to reassess the enormous price of one which also results in the loss of vital com­wildlife exploitation, particularly in the con- ponents of the world's ecosystems. The text of the international commercial trade. human species is the principal culprit. Why does this trade continue? Who benefits? In response to the crisis of endangerment What legislation and treaties exist to protect racing conntless species, including the com­wildlife? Can the system be improved? mercial slaughter of whales and other marine Wtldlife threatened with extinction include mannnals, the U.S. Congress passed the Such a litany of anirnal exploitation makes fumiliar species such as chimpanzees, goril- MMPA in 1972 and the ESA in 1973, both of it seem that nothing has changed in wildlife las, pandas, whales, whooping cranes, con- which were reauthorized in 1989. Both of protection in the twenty years since the first dors, and elephants, as well as many un- these landmark pieces of legislation have gone Earth Day. Fortunately, however, although the fumiliar species. A student once asked me to a long way in addressing the problems racing international commercial trade in wild ani- name the five most endangered species: I re- many species, yet any legislation is only as mals and anirnal products continues at an plied that I couldn't name them, since they good as its funding base and enforcement ef­alarming rate, treaties and legislation exist that were the five species that became extinct in fort. Far more is necessary at the state and weren't in place twenty years ago. For the next the two minutes it took to ask the question, federal level in the way of funding, implemen­twenty years, those dedicated to wildlife pro- before they wer - :J...it ever even known talion, and enforcement if a meaningful pro-tection may well have as their goal not passage to exist and be ■ described by tection of threatened and endangered species of new legislation but the vigorous enforce- scientists. &'I � and their habitats is to take place. ment and implementation of existing statutes. The pri- � mary factor Habitat destruction, and concomitant mis-Twenty years ago, there was no En - threatening · species with gnideddevelopmentprojects, hashada disas-dangered Species Act --- ----- - ------ =-- -- - -- --- trous impact on bio-(ESA) as we know it, B Y D R. S U S A N S. L I E B E R M A N diversity worldwide. 14 HSUS NEWS • Earth Day 1 990 • HSUS NEWS • Earth Day 1 990 Left: Some par­rot species have been traded until their populations are virtually wiped out, then they are placed under CITES protection. Inset: Wfld-mught parrots on their way to market. 1 5  The wjJdhfe trade conUnues because jt generates an enormous amount of money . . . . The wildlife trade, for example, has largely been ignored in this context, although, for many species, the consequences are now ir­revocable. Yet the exploitation of wildlife touches all of us and is directly affected by our actions-for either good or ill- and, as such, is particularly amenable to activist involve­ment. Wildlife exploitation is a multibillion dollar international business that includes everything from animal products ( such as furs, ivory, reptile skins, and kangaroo leather) to live animals for the pet and bio­medical markets (monkeys, parrots, lizards, snakes, frogs, and fish, among others). In 1972, the United Nations Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment rec­ommended worldwide controls over the wild­life trade. In response, the CITES treaty was concluded in March of 1973 in Washington, D.C. ; it was subsequently ratified and came into force in 1975, with 18 countries as par­ties to the convention. A,, of January 1990, 104 countries had become signatories. CITES is probably the best known conservation treaty in existence. But, for better or worse, CITES as a treaty can have no impact on endangered The commercial trade in chimpanzees made this baby ao orphan; trappers killed its mother in Uberta. 1 6  species that are not subject to trade. An in ­ternational biodiversity convention scheduled for 1992 may help those other species. CITES serves a critical function as the world community's principal means of pro­tecting threatened and endangered wildlife from the most disastrous effects of interna­tional trade. CITES provides two levels of protection to species threatened by trade: commercial trade is outlawed for Appendix I ( endangered) species and is regulated through a permit process for Appendix II (threatened) species. (The last biennial Con­ference of the Parties of CITES was held in October 1989 in Switzerland.) It is through the cooperation of the 104 CITES parties that the international wildlife trade is both monitored and regulated. The 1989 Conference of the Parties was a water­shed meeting for CITES: the world commu­nity, and the world press, paid more attention to this meeting than any before, in large part due to the crisis facing the African elephant. It is useful to reevaluate the effectiveness of CITES in controlling and monitoring the trade in threatened and endangered species in the context of the impact of that trade on African elephant populations. Until last year's CITES Conference, the African elephant was listed as an Appendix II species (recognized as threatened or likely to become so due to trade); all trade was to be regulated through a permit and quota system. The CITES Ivory­Quota Control System failed in its attempts to control and regulate the ivory trade. The tusks of close to 100,000 poached elephants were exported from Africa in one year, in spite of CITES. It could be argued that the veneer of legality created by the CITES ivory-quota system provided a cover for and, indeed, stim­ulated, the illegal trade. The world community finally realized that the only hope for the African elephant is a total ban on its trade. This was a watershed event for CITES, in that the party nations realized that market forces and illegal trade could get so out of hand that CITES was incapable of regulating trade. Yet "legal" and illegal trade continues for hundreds of other species. Any treaty or legislation is only as good as its en­forcement infrastructure. In the context of animal suffering and endangerment, surely the time has come to reevaluate the uature and very existence of the wildlife trade. The wildlife trade continues because it gen-erates an enormous amount of money, though very little of it ever benefits the Tirird World countries from which the majority of wildlife is taken. A,, long as consumers in the wealthy nations continue to purchase furs, ivory, wild birds, pet reptiles, coral jewelry, sea turtle products, wild cacti, wild orchids, and wildlife souvenirs, a market and, consequent­ly, an industry will exist to exploit these species. For many exporting nations, par­ticularly those with marginal economies, the wildlife trade could potentially provide needed foreign currency. Yet, unless the trade is strictly regulated ( an exceedingly rare event), the acceptance of this foreign currency by a country constitutes the selling of its pat­rimony and heritage. Many Third World countries, such as Brazil and Mexico, con­sider the wildlife trade to be a form of economic imperialism and ban all exports of their uative wildlife. The parrot trade represents an excellent case to exemplify the problems of the pet trade. The commercial trade in wild-caught parrots for the pet market has been justified by the importers and their lobbyists as being acceptable in the context of the sustainable utilization of wildlife resources. Yet, in fact, the trade has wreaked havoc on wild-bird HSUS NEWS • Earth Day 1 990 populations. There is no evidence that the trade in any species of parrot is sustainable or that any single tract of tropical forest has been preserved for the purpose of providing wild birds. Indeed, the opposite is the case. The pet market is a serious threat to the continued ex­istence of many species, including many rare or endangered species. While semantic dis­tinctions exist between the "legal" trade and smuggling markets, as a practical matter the two are inseparable, for the "legal" trade cre­ates a market demand that smugglers exploit. Species such as some of the macaws and parrots have been traded until their popula­tions are wiped out, at which time they are placed on CITES Appendix I, which bans all commercial trade. Every time CITES meets, more species of parrots and their relatives are placed on Appendix I. For example, last full ,  the Moluccan cockatoo, a once-common spe­cies, was placed on Appendix I, since it is now in danger of extinction. The placement of more species on an endangered list is not cause for celebration, as it represents a :fu.ilure of sorts: If CITES were truly working, the issuance of nondetriment findings would pre­vent nonsustainable trade. In fact, no wild­bird species has ever been demonstrated sci-HSUS NEWS • Earth Day 1 990 entifically to be able to be traded commer­cially without detriment to its population. To quote the International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP), of which The HSUS is an active member: While there are a number of reasons for the decline or disappearance of individual spe­des, one of the most persistent and pernicious is the taking of birds in the wild for the cage­bird trade. A number of species, particularly parrots, are either extinct or severely en­dangered due to the almost unrestricted market for them in the United States. The capture and export of wild birds de ­pletes wild populations and is  anathema to true conservation interests. Certainly, many species that are not yet endangered will be ­come so if the commercial trade continues at its present levels. We don't allow the capture and sale of our domestic wild birds, and we should afford the same level of consideration and protection to the wildlife heritage of other nations. The only reasonable solution to the wild­bird trade, in the interest of conservation and the prevention of needless animal suffering, is to put an end to the commercial trade in wild-caught birds and educate the public to avoid purchasing wild-caught birds. At CITES in 1989, the world com­munity recognized the daoger fac­ing the Africao elephant aod banned totally the trade in ele­phaots and elephant products; sev­eral countries have, unfortunately, indicated they will not abide by that decision. The world community needs to reevaluate radically the way it looks at the utilization of threatened and endangered species, however. As it stands now, species can be and are ex­ploited until they are shown to be endangered. In the case of the African elephant, an end to commercial trade has, one can hope, come soon enough to prevent its extinction. But, for many other wildlife species, the trade has so decimated populations that recovery, even in the absence of exploitation, is doubtful. There have been no studies to determine the sus­tainable level of exploitation, or even to deter­mine what constitutes sustainable use, for such species. In a practical sense, it may well be an oxymoron. Perhaps it is dangerous to think, in relation to the threat to biodiversity, that massive com­mercial trade in any species, whether yet en­dangered or not, can adequately or effectively be controlled. The entire concept of sus­tainable utilization of wildlife, as opposed to other natural resources, must indeed be reevaluated. If we do not give the benefit of the doubt to the species now, in another twenty years humankind will have been responsible for the disappearauce of countless irreplaceable species. When these species are gone, it will be too late. If we make the wrong decisions today, it will only take a few years of uncontrolled exploitation to eliminate what has taken millions of years to evolve. Rather, let us all look forward to a celebration on Earth Day in the year 2010 with the expecta­tion that we did, indeed, make the right dec i ­sions today. ■ Dr. Susan S. Lieberman is active in the field of international wildlife conservation mui ,ms the associate director of wildlife and environ­ment of The HSUS for several years, where she specialized in the problems of the wild­bird trade and the protection of elephants. 1 7  

https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1145&context=newshsus

Wildlife Exploitation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy

WBI Studies Repository (WellBeing International)