Looking to aquatic species for conservation farming success

Abstract

Thousands of species worldwide are threatened with extinction due to human activities. For some animals, such as elephants, totoaba, and bluefin tuna, population declines are largely driven by hunting. High prices and large profits create a strong incentive for illegal hunting, even in the face of penalties and strict international restrictions against trade. One innovative solution to help reverse the declines of such species is to farm them to increase supply, thereby reducing prices and decreasing hunting incentives. However, this idea has been criticized as impractical, though some examples exist of successful implementation. Here, we evaluate the hurdles facing endangered species farming as a market‐based mechanism to reduce illegal harvest of wild populations and provide guidance on when it is most likely to be effective. Using a simple model, we show how farming costs and enforcement of anti‐poaching measures are key drivers of success for this solution. We also argue that many of the most promising candidates are aquatic species that have been largely overlooked. Thus, while conservation farming may not be a solution for all endangered species, it should be more seriously considered for species that could be produced quickly and cost‐effectively.

Wild assumptions? Questioning simplistic narratives about consumer preferences for wildlife products

“…With increasing attention being paid to the growing challenges associated with the illegal wildlife trade, it is vital that we do not jump to inappropriate conclusions on the best way to address it—this includes avoiding simplistic assessments of the conservation impacts of wildlife farming. Whereas the economic costs of farming relative to wild harvesting may be a critical factor (Gentry, Gaines, Gabe, & Lester, 2019), conservation success will also depend in large part on consumer preferences and related purchasing behaviour. To date, some questionable assumptions have been made about both the magnitude and the nature of consumer demand for wildlife products (Margulies, Wong, & Duffy, 2019), which may have led to an underestimation of the potential for farmed products to displace demand for illegally harvested wild products (Gentry et al, 2019; Moyle, 2013).…”

“…Whereas the economic costs of farming relative to wild harvesting may be a critical factor (Gentry, Gaines, Gabe, & Lester, 2019), conservation success will also depend in large part on consumer preferences and related purchasing behaviour. To date, some questionable assumptions have been made about both the magnitude and the nature of consumer demand for wildlife products (Margulies, Wong, & Duffy, 2019), which may have led to an underestimation of the potential for farmed products to displace demand for illegally harvested wild products (Gentry et al, 2019; Moyle, 2013).…”

The changing role and definitions of aquaculture for environmental purposes

“…Past successful implementation of conservation aquaculture as a means to offset impacts from wild harvest for species with faster growth and high fecundity (e.g. totoaba, sea horses) have been documented 9 . For k‐strategist species that require longer restoration efforts, projects can be more time‐consuming and require larger budgets 9 —as is the case with white sturgeon.…”

“…totoaba, sea horses) have been documented 9 . For k‐strategist species that require longer restoration efforts, projects can be more time‐consuming and require larger budgets 9 —as is the case with white sturgeon. Therefore, monitoring of people and nature outcomes within aquaculture approaches should consider the innate variability in methods, species and timing of benefits.…”

Poacher-population dynamics when legal trade of naturally deceased organisms funds anti-poaching enforcement

“…It is one of the most controversial theories in conservation biology (Biggs et al 2017;Sekar et al 2018;Eikelboom et al 2020), eliciting strong supporting (Cooney and Jepson 2006) and opposing arguments (Litchfield 2013;Lusseau and Lee 2016;Sekar et al 2018). While mathematical models have been used to demonstrate why flooding the market with legal products may benefit (Gentry et al 2019) or harm (Crookes and Blignaut 2015) different types of poached species, the potential use of legal trade revenue to fund conservation has largely been ignored by mathematical biologists, despite the unique nonlinear feedbacks this policy would create.…”