Reversing wildlife trade rules so that species can only be traded when this has been shown to be sustainable would not, on its own, solve many of the problems facing current regulation according to new research from the Oxford Martin Programme on Wildlife Trade.
Globally, people use and trade at least 50,000 wild species for food, medicinal products, construction materials, and to support their livelihoods, among many other purposes. Effectively regulating this use and trade to ensure that it is legal and ecologically sustainable has long been recognised as a critical challenge to conserving biodiversity.
Currently, most wildlife laws around the world use a ‘negative list’ approach, whereby the use and trade of species on the list is either closely regulated or prohibited. However, several thousand species can be found in illegal and unsustainable trade, and for some species, trade is essentially unregulated. Key challenges include a lack of knowledge of which species are in trade, delays before new species can be listed, and limited resources to effectively enforce wildlife laws.
This has prompted calls from some conservationists for a fundamental change in how species are legally protected. They have proposed ‘reverse listing’ (also known as white-listing or positive listing). This is an approach that would see the harvest and trade in wildlife banned, by default, unless there is evidence that it is ecologically sustainable.
Drawing on conservation science, economics, and criminology, this new paper assesses whether reverse listing would deliver better conservation outcomes, the challenges involved in changing regulatory systems, and how trade in wildlife from non-wild sources (e.g. captive breeding) would be addressed. The authors intentionally brought together a range of perspectives, including both supporters and sceptics of reverse listing, to provide a balanced assessment.
Reverse listing could address some issues with the current approach to regulating wildlife trade, including providing immediate protection for newly discovered species that are not yet legally protected.
"Protecting wildlife is about more than simply banning trade."
Dr Amy Hinsley
But making harvest and trade illegal by default would not automatically improve law enforcement, enhance compliance with applicable laws or reduce demand for wildlife products. Effective implementation would require increased and sustained investment in law enforcement, improved systems for identifying and tracing wildlife products, and regulations that are regarded as legitimate by people subject to them. Each of these challenges applies to the current approach to regulating international wildlife trade.
Rather than applying a blanket approach, the authors argue that wildlife trade policies should reflect the ecological and social context in which trade takes place and be informed by evidence. They say further research is needed to establish whether, and in what circumstances, reverse listing could be effective.
Dr Dan Challender, Co-Director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Wildlife Trade and Senior Research Fellow in Oxford's Department of Biology, said:
"There is increasing interest in reversing the way international wildlife trade is regulated, but until now there has been little critical evaluation of what that would mean in practice. Our study shows that reverse listing is not a universal solution to addressing current challenges with wildlife trade regulation. The most effective policies will be those that are legitimate to the people subject to them and whether appropriate mechanisms are in place to enforce them.”
Dr Amy Hinsley, Co-Director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Wildlife Trade and Senior Research Fellow in Oxford's Department of Biology,
"Protecting wildlife is about more than simply banning trade. Successful conservation depends on designing policies that are evidence-based, enforceable and appropriate for the ecological and social context."