Home > Issue 15 > Tackling the wild animal trade - the Hong Kong experience

During the early 1970s, wild animals were openly for sale in Hong Kong. A visit to the market would reveal cages of wild mammals and raptors stacked high, and snakes slaughtered in front of a big crowd. These scenes were not very different from those in wildlife markets in South China in the 1990s and early 2000s. According to a comprehensive report on the wild animal trade in Hong Kong at the time,1 over 10,000 mammals - mostly Leopard Cats, Masked Palm Civets and Pangolins - and over 10,000 raptors and owls were traded every year. However, this situation now belongs to history. Today there are no markets or shops specializing in wild animals in Hong Kong; one will find only the odd snake shop scattered around the city, and small numbers of turtles and wild birds, such as herons and egrets, for sale in the food markets. How did this reduction happen?

During the early 1970s a number of naturalists and conservationists were very concerned about the scale of the wild animal trade and the cruelty therein. They wrote reports and articles, and even appeared in radio documentaries in UK, raising public awareness on the issue. These created pressure on the Hong Kong Government, which then stepped up enforcement of the legislation that controls the wildlife trade and cruelty prevention. Moreover, the Animals and Plants (Protection of Endangered Species) Ordinance was introduced in 1976 and was based on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The tightening of legislation and enforcement resulted in much improvement in the food markets, so that protected species largely disappeared, the volume of trade was reduced and the condition of the animals improved. In a study on the wildlife trade in Hong Kong and neighbouring South China in the early 1990s,2 a stark contrast was observed: a lot more species, and in much greater abundance, in the wildlife food markets in Guangzhou and Shenzhen than in Hong Kong.

Interestingly, the attitude of the Hong Kong people towards wildlife had also changed. A lower percentage of Hong Kong people had consumed exotic animals in a survey in 1996 (33%) than in 1989 (70%) or in 1993 (48%).3 In the same survey, older people were found to be more likely than younger people to have eaten wildlife, and the younger generation and people with better education were more concerned about conserving endangered species.3 These results indicated that younger people in Hong Kong tended not to see wild animals as something to be consumed, but to be treasured.

I think this has been achieved by two main factors. First was effective enforcement. Besides the direct effect of legal penalties, the removal of wild animals from the food market reduced people's perception of them as food, and as lower beings of which mistreatment was acceptable. Second, the growth in both formal and informal environmental education and awareness during the 1980s and 1990s must have instilled a positive image for wildlife among young people, who had no past perception or experience of treating wild animals as food. However, for the older generations who were used to consuming wildlife, attitudes were difficult to change. Both removal of the negative image (a result of enforcement) and projection of the positive image (i.e. through effective environmental education) seem essential if we want to tackle the wildlife trade and garner support for species conservation.

It is interesting to note that some attitude surveys in Mainland China have indicated that more ‘educated' people eat more wildlife,4 5 a result quite different from the Hong Kong study.3 One reason is that more educated people tend to have higher income and hence can afford the relatively expensive wildlife. It probably also reflects that effective conservation education is inadequate in mainland China, and/or it is compromised by conflicting influences, like media promotion of wildlife cuisine and the experience of seeing wildlife for sale and eaten in daily life.

However, in terms of tackling the broader trade in wild animals and plants, Hong Kong is just a beginner. Hong Kong has a significantly higher than average ecological footprint and imports a disproportionately high amount of timber products and marine fish.6 These are seen as essential resources by many people and it is not feasible to completely ban the trade in them. Later generations, though, will not have the luxury of these "essentials" unless our generation acts decisively to conserve them. Although many people talk about sustainable development these days, how to reach real sustainability remains the biggest challenge.

Back to top