Home > Issue 15 > Combating the Southeast Asian wildlife trade: toward winning more battles

Many individuals of Indochina's rare species, like this Owston's Palm Civet Chrotogale owstoni, are consumed in China. Photo : John Fellowes @ KFBG

The Tiger case study notes recent interest from China and elsewhere in legalising domestic Tiger trade from farmed specimens. The report, however, supports CITES Resolution Conf. 12.5 calling on Parties to ban all trade, noting there is no evidence that legalising trade would reduce pressure on wild populations.2 It also raises doubts about the success of public education; while awareness-raising efforts and regulation aimed at reducing consumption of Tiger products in China have had some success in reducing sale of Tiger parts,3 levels of Tiger poaching in Indochina and Indonesia have not been discernibly reduced. Authors call for enforcing controls of illegally harvested wildlife in restaurants in China and elsewhere, with an added focus on depleted Tiger prey species.

Among turtles, most hard-shelled taxa, and many softshells, from Indochina and Indonesia are exported to China. Severe depletion of China's own turtle populations led to harvesting in other Asian countries by the late 1990s.4 While opportunistic collection remains a major source of wild turtles, some trade syndicates based in China or Vietnam employ professional hunters to collect them.

Rising demand for wildlife in China, coupled with declining availability of wild resources, has steeply increased the price of many products. Increasing regulation of the trade is also likely to result in a price increase,5 but most experts felt price rises would not diminish demand. Overall rising affluence in urban China is the driving force for much of the international wildlife trade in the region;6,7 a recent model found that increases in per capita income in Guangdong explained 80% of the increase in shark fin consumption there.8

Attempted interventions in the wildlife trade have been based on assumptions on economic and social drivers. These assumptions were reviewed, with a number of findings:

• Efforts to improve the income or livelihood status of harvester communities, intended to reduce their participation in the wildlife trade, have often failed to do so.
  
  
• Conversely, factors associated with economic growth, trade expansion and infrastructure development have increased the wildlife trade. Price- and market-based instruments to control it (e.g. certification, buying agreements, tax incentives and price controls) have shown early promise.
  
  
• Laws and regulations have improved control, but their effectiveness has depended on enforcement and broader governance conditions.
  
  
• Improved awareness about illegality and negative conservation impacts of wildlife trade do not necessarily lead to a corresponding reduction in the trade.
  
  
• Resource management practices (e.g. species management plans and harvest controls) have generally been successful in controlling exploitation, but are hampered by weak information on the sustainability of different harvesting regimes.
  
  

	Many turtles, like these Cyclemys dentata (foreground) and Indotestudo elongata (background), are imported from elsewhere in Asia. Photo : John Fellowes @ KFBG

2. Wealth appears to be a stronger driver of illegal and unsustainable wildlife trade in Southeast Asia than poverty.
Livelihood-based interventions for the rural poor are not, in isolation, likely to resolve the trade problems. The report urges targeting interventions toward urban consumers and powerful trade groups.

3. The design of wildlife trade interventions needs to take into account the broader conditions and trends that act to drive illegal and unsustainable wildlife trade.
Changes in transport infrastructure, economic growth, technological advances, tenure and corruption can strongly influence trade. Development decision-makers need to understand wildlife trade issues, and regional co-operation is needed.

4. Laws and regulations stand little chance of success unless they are effectively implemented and enforced, and wider issues of governance are also tackled.
Enforcement requires not only detection of wildlife-trade related crime, but also prosecution, and this requires
adequate staff resources and capacity; the judiciary needs special training. ASEAN's multi-lateral enforcement efforts must be expanded to include consumer countries such as China, Japan, USA and the EU.

5. Non-regulatory approaches to controlling illegal and unsustainable trade, e.g. market-based interventions and support for improvements in resource management, are under-used.
Research is needed on sustainable harvest management, buying agreements and product certification. These measures should be linked to awareness-raising.

6. Awareness efforts to reduce illegal and unsustainable trade need to be targeted to specific audiences and their effectiveness evaluated over time.
Past awareness-raising efforts are believed to have succeeded in changing behaviour quite rarely: of consumers in about half the cases, and of harvesters or traders in less than one-third of cases. Greater understanding and evidence is needed of what shapes stakeholder attitudes. Awareness campaigns also need a monitoring and evaluation component.

7. Coordinated packages of mutually reinforcing interventions are required to address illegal and unsustainable wildlife trade in a more comprehensive manner.
Interventions need a balanced mix of enabling and positive incentives with more restrictive and punitive measures. Again better coordination, data-sharing and joint efforts between ASEAN and consumer countries is highlighted.

8. Increased policy attention and action is required if wildlife trade is to be brought within sustainable levels and conducted according to national and international trade controls.
High-level political support, and the mainstreaming of trade issues in development and poverty-reduction policies, are needed to address the ongoing decline of many wild species.

Back to top