Back

The demand for wildlife not protected by the CITES multilateral treaty

Watters, F.; Stringham, O.; Shepherd, C.; Cassey, P.

2022-03-04 ecology
10.1101/2022.03.03.482781 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The international wildlife trade presents severe conservation and environmental security risks. However, no international regulatory framework exists to monitor the trade of species not listed in the appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). We explored the composition and dynamics of internationally regulated versus non-regulated trade, focussing on importations of wild-caught terrestrial vertebrates entering the United States of America (US) from 2009-2018. The prominence of the US in global wildlife imports and its detailed data collection conventions allows a unique opportunity to formally assess this substantial but often overlooked and understudied component of the legal wildlife trade. We found 3.6 times the number of unlisted species in US imports compared with CITES-listed species (1,366 versus 378). CITES-listed species were more likely to face reported conservation threats relative to the unlisted species (71.7% vs 27.5%). Yet, we found 376 unlisted species facing conversation threats, 297 species with unknown population trends and 139 species without an evaluation by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Unlisted species appeared novelly in imports at 5.5 times higher rates relative to CITES-listed species, where unlisted reptiles saw the largest rate of entry, averaging 53 unique species appearing in imports for the first time per year. Overall trade volumes were substantially larger for unlisted imports with approximately 11 times the number of animals relative to CITES-listed imports, however, import volumes were similar when compared at a species-by-species level. We found that the countries that were top exporters for CITES-listed shipments were mostly different from exporters of unlisted species. In highlighting the vulnerabilities of the wild-caught unlisted vertebrate trade entering the US and in the face of increasing global demand, we recommend governments adapt policies to monitor the trade of all wildlife.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Conservation Letters
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.1%
2
Conservation Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.0%
3
Conservation Science and Practice
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.0%
50% of probability mass above
4
Biological Conservation
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.6%
5
Animal Conservation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.7%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 35%
4.2%
7
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.0%
8
One Health
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.8%
10
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 41%
1.7%
11
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
12
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
13
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.4%
14
Communications Earth & Environment
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
15
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 37%
1.3%
16
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
17
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
18
Biodiversity and Conservation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
19
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
20
Animals
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
21
Diversity and Distributions
26 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
22
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.7%
23
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 24%
0.6%
24
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 22%
0.6%
25
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 30%
0.6%