Supplying the wildlife trade as a livelihood strategy in a biodiversity hotspot

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Much of the global wildlife trade is sourced from biodiversity-rich developing countries. These often have high levels of poverty and habitat loss, particularly in rural areas where many depend on natural resources. However, wildlife collection may incentivize local people to conserve habitats that support their livelihoods. Here we examined the contribution of the commercial collection of live animals to rural livelihoods in Madagascar, one of the world's most important biodiversity hotspots. Using questionnaires, we investigated the prevalence, profitability relative to other livelihood activities, and local importance of the trade, and its capacity to provide incentives for conservation. Thirteen percent of households were engaged in live animal collection in the study area (~5% trapped reptiles and amphibians and the remainder trapped invertebrates). This formed part of a diverse livelihood strategy, and was more profitable than other activities (in terms of returns per unit of effort), with median earnings of ~US$100 per season (~25% of Gross National Income per year). However, trapping was part-time, usually undertaken by poorer members of the community, and often perceived as opportunistic, risky, and financially unreliable. Further, trappers and nontrappers held similar perceptions regarding conservation, suggesting wildlife trade currently does not incentivize enhanced stewardship of traded species and their habitats. Our study brings together a range of methodologies to present the most comprehensive insights into livelihoods and conservation in poor rural communities involved in the commercial collection of live animals to supply international trade. This improved understanding of the wider socioeconomic dimensions of wildlife trade can inform policy and management interventions for both the threats and opportunities associated with global trade in biodiversity both in Madagascar and more generally.

Wildlife supply chains in Madagascar from local collection to global export

“…For example, a small amount of money will go further amongst local collectors, compared with intermediaries and exporters residing in towns and cities, and local collectors in rural communities may be more in need of employment no matter how small the financial benefits. Recent research in the same study area (Robinson et al 2018) revealed that 13% of households in collection areas benefitted from local harvest of live animals for export (including some of the poorest) and it was potentially profitable. However, it also revealed the unreliable and sporadic nature of live animal collection (limited by quotas, season, opportunity cost and supply), and that incentives appear insufficient to promote conservation of species and habitats (Robinson et al 2018).…”

“…Recent research in the same study area (Robinson et al 2018) revealed that 13% of households in collection areas benefitted from local harvest of live animals for export (including some of the poorest) and it was potentially profitable. However, it also revealed the unreliable and sporadic nature of live animal collection (limited by quotas, season, opportunity cost and supply), and that incentives appear insufficient to promote conservation of species and habitats (Robinson et al 2018). Equally, in their study of mantella frog trade in Madagascar, Rabemananjara (2008) observed that because collection permits are issued to exporters rather than local collectors -and collectors are paid low prices -the system becomes counterproductive in terms of promoting sustainable harvesting and incentives to conserve resources based on benefits received.…”

“…Subsequently, intermediaries were asked to provide names and village locations of local collectors. Local collectors were identified through systematic household sampling in identified villages and snowball sampling, whereby village leaders, local guides and respondents from the household sample were asked to identify local reptiles and amphibian collectors (Robinson et al 2018).…”

“…Additionally, as well as providing livelihood benefits to local people; economic, cultural or spiritual benefits obtained by those engaged in wildlife trade may, or may not, provide incentives for conservation and sustainable management of natural resources at the local level (Hutton & Leader-Williams 2003;Jones et al 2008;Robinson et al 2018). In general, for trade to generate incentives for conservation, both adequate benefits, and favourable governance conditions including long-term, secure property rights, are required (Bulte et al 2003).…”

“…There is insufficient information to understand the degree of crossover between the legal and illegal herpetofauna trade, although some consider it unlikely that smuggling of large quantities of low commercial value species occurs (Rabemananjara et al 2008). Previous studies, conducted over a decade ago, explored the structure of the trade chain in Madagascar in relation to chameleons (Carpenter et al 2004) and mantella frogs (Rabemananjara et al 2008) and more recent research has analysed the relative importance of wildlife trade as a livelihood strategy in rural areas (Robinson et al 2018). Here we apply VCA to understand the scale and value of the wildlife trade on a national scale, and the profit distribution and value along the chain from village to export.…”