Expanding global commodities trade and consumption place the world’s primates at risk of extinction

Abstract

As a consequence of recent human activities. populations of approximately 75% of the world’s primates are in decline, and more than 60% of species (n = 512) are threatened with extinction. Major anthropogenic pressures on primate persistence include the widespread loss and degradation of natural habitats caused by the expansion of industrial agriculture, pastureland for cattle, logging, mining, and fossil fuel extraction. This is the result of growing global market demands for agricultural and nonagricultural commodities. Here, we profile the effects of international trade of forest-risk agricultural and nonagricultural commodities, namely soybean, oil palm, natural rubber, beef, forestry products, fossil fuels, metals, minerals, and gemstones on habitat conversion in the Neotropics, Africa, and South and Southeast Asia. Total estimated forest loss for these regions between 2001 and 2017 was ca 179 million ha. The average percent of commodity-driven permanent deforestation for the period 2001–2015 was highest in Southeast Asia (47%) followed by the Neotropics (26%), South Asia (26%), and Africa (7%). Commodities exports increased significantly between 2000 and 2016 in all primate range regions leading to the widespread conversion of forested land to agricultural fields and an increase in natural resource extraction. In 2016, US $1.1 trillion of natural-resource commodities were traded by countries in primate range regions. The Neotropics accounted for 41% of the total value of these exports, Southeast Asia for 27%, Africa 21%, and South Asia 11%. Major commodity exporters in 2016 were Brazil, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and South Africa, countries of high primate diversity and endemism. Among the top 10 importers were China, the US, Japan, and Switzerland. Primate range countries lag far behind importer nations in food security and gross domestic product per capita, suggesting that trade and commodity-driven land-use have done little to generate wealth and well-being in primate habitat countries. Modeling of land-use and projected extinction of primate species by 2050 and 2100 under a business as usual scenario for 61 primate range countries indicate that each country is expected to see a significant increase in the number of species threatened with extinction. To mitigate this impending crisis, we advocate the “greening” of trade, a global shift toward a low-meat diet, reduced consumption of oil seed, diminished use of tropical timber, fossil fuels, metals, minerals, and gemstones from the tropics, accompanied by a stronger and sustained global resolve to regulate and reverse the negative impacts of growing unsustainable global demands and commodity trade on income inequality, and the destruction of primates and their habitats.

Distinguished primatologist address—moving from advocacy to activism: Changing views of primate field research and conservation over the past 40 years

“…There are many opposing stakeholders, with the most powerful in terms of wealth and political influence on the side of development, exploitation, and profit. The least powerful are indigenous and economically poor peoples who live in communities that border and overlap primate distributions (Estrada et al, ). So, what can we do as primatologists?…”

“…Clearly, the main driver of primate population decline has been an expanding human population, which was 2.5 billion in 1950 and is projected to total 11–12 billion people by the end of the century (Samir & Lutz, ). This is expected to intensify the already environmentally unsustainable demands to feed, house, and provide energy, clean water, goods and services, and transportation networks for an ever‐expanding urban population (estimated to include 68% of all humans by 2050; UN Demographic Yearbook, ; United Nations Department of Economic & Social Affairs, ), resulting in the continued conversion of natural forests into monocultures, pastures for cattle, mines for the extraction of minerals, metals, and precious gems, and habitat degradation from land‐based fossil fuel exploration and dam building (Estrada, Garber, & Chaudhary, ; Henders, Persson, & Kastner, ; Li et al, ). In Central Africa, for example, a region of high primate biodiversity, the number of roads inside logging concessions has doubled in the past 15 years facilitating access into areas of previously intact forests, causing deforestation, habitat fragmentation, colonization, and increased bushmeat hunting (Estrada et al, ; Kleinschroth, Laporte, Laurance, Goetz, & Ghazoul, ).…”

“…A recent study examining the effects of the expanding global trade in forest‐risk agricultural (beef, oil palm, natural rubber, soy) and nonagricultural (timber, fossil fuels, mining of minerals, metals, and precious gems) commodities produced for export by primate‐habitat countries indicated the loss of 1.8 million km 2 of forest over the past 15 years (Estrada et al, ). This is an area equivalent to the land area of Indonesia, the 14th largest country in the world.…”

“…The production of forest‐risk commodities results in the permanent conversion of forested land into severely altered anthropogenic landscapes. Forest‐risk commodity resource extraction is expected to more than double by the year 2050, and assuming a “business as usual” pattern of commodities production and trade, by the year 2100, nine of the top 15 primate‐richest countries (in terms of number of species) are expected to have 80–100% of their primate species extinct or threatened with extinction and five of the remaining six primate‐richest countries will have 40–70% of their primate species extinct or threatened with extinction (Estrada et al, ).…”

“…The demand for forest‐risk commodities is driven by a small set of consumer nations (principally United States, China, Japan, the EU, Canada), their citizens, and multinational corporations who benefit economically and have access to a seemingly limitless supply of food and raw materials, whereas the majority of the social and environmental costs are borne by citizens of primate‐habitat countries who continue to face food insecurity, poverty, wealth inequality, and often live under conditions of political instability (Diffenbaugh & Burke, ; Estrada et al, ; Scoones, Smalle, Hall, & Tsikata, ). Socioeconomic development, as measured by both the gross domestic product per capita and the human development index (a measure of longevity, income, and education) for these primate‐richest countries are below the world's average and significantly lower than that of the 25 most developed nations (Estrada et al, ).…”