A global indicator of utilised wildlife populations: regional trends and the impact of management

Abstract

The sustainable use of wildlife is a core aspiration of multi-lateral conservation policy but is the subject to intense debate in the scientific literature. We use a global data set of over 11,000 population time-series to derive indices of ′used′ and ′unused′ species and assess global and regional changes in wildlife populations, principally for mammals, birds and fishes. We also assess whether ′management′ makes a measurable difference to wildlife population trends, especially for the used species populations. Our results show that wildlife population trends globally are negative, but with used populations tending to decline more rapidly, especially in Africa and the Americas. Crucially, where used populations are managed, using a variety of mechanisms, there is a positive impact on the trend. It is therefore true that use of species can both be a driver of negative population trends, or a driver of species recovery, with numerous species and population specific case examples making up these broader trends. This work is relevant to the evidence base for the IPBES Sustainable Use Assessment, and to the development of indicators of sustainable use of species under the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework being developed under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

“Saving lives, protecting livelihoods, and safeguarding nature”: risk-based wildlife trade policy for sustainable development outcomes post-COVID-19

“…However, uncertainty remains regarding the role of wildlife trade in the emergence of COVID-19 (Cohen, 2020). Moreover, wildlife trade does not represent a homogeneous risk to public health, and can be beneficial to both biodiversity and people (Cooney, 2019;Hurley et al, 2015;Mcrae et al, 2020). As such, where wildlife trade policy responses are being formulated in light of COVID-19, they must consider the trade-offs within and between public health and other dimensions of the SDGs.…”

“…Conversely, well-managed, sustainable trade can have benefits for biodiversity (Mcrae et al, 2020). For example, regulated trade in vicuña wool fibre in Bolivia allowed the recovery of the species from near extinction, with direct benefits from harvesting for local communities and the national economy (Cooney, 2019).…”

“Saving Lives, Protecting Livelihoods, and Safeguarding Nature”: Risk-Based Wildlife Trade Policy for Sustainable Development Outcomes Post-COVID-19

“…However, uncertainty remains regarding the role of wildlife trade in the emergence of COVID-19 (Cohen, 2020;Huang et al, 2020). Moreover, wildlife trade does not represent a homogeneous risk to public health, and can be beneficial to both biodiversity and people (Hurley et al, 2015;Cooney, 2019;McRae et al, 2020). As such, wildlife trade policies in responses to COVID-19 must consider the trade-offs within and between public health and other dimensions of the SDGs.…”

“…Conversely, well-managed, sustainable trade can have benefits for biodiversity (Heid and Márquez-Ramos, 2020;McRae et al, 2020). For example, regulated trade in vicuña wool fiber in Bolivia allowed the recovery of the species from near-extinction, with direct benefits from harvesting for local communities and an estimated contribution of US$ 3.2 million to the national economy per annum (Cooney, 2019).…”

The perils of flawed science in wildlife trade literature

“…Although wildlife trade is a threat to some species (e.g., tigers [Dinerstein et al, 2006]), for others trade is demonstrably sustainable and generates considerable benefits for people, species, and ecosystems (Hutton & Leader-Williams, 2003;Roe et al, 2020). Indeed, analyses of the sustainability of wildlife trade reveal declining population trends for some species, but positive population trends for many species subject to trade-related management (McRae et al, 2020). Portraying all wildlife trade in a negative light can jeopardize these success stories and the conservation and management programs that underpin them.…”