The magnitude of legal wildlife trade and implications for species survival

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3890407/v1

Download PDF

Biological Sciences - Article

The magnitude of legal wildlife trade and implications for species survival

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3890407/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The unsustainable use of wildlife is a primary driver of global biodiversity loss. No comprehensive global dataset exists on what species are in trade, their geographic origins, and trade's ultimate impacts, which limits our ability to sustainably manage trade. The United States (US) is one of the world's largest importers of wildlife, trade data being compiled in the US Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS), the only comprehensive publicly-accessible wildlife trade database of non-CITES listed species. In total, 21,097 species and over 2.85 billion individuals were traded over the past 22 years (2000-2022). When LEMIS data is combined with CITES records, the US imported over 29,445 wild species, including over 50% of all globally described species in some taxonomic groups. For most taxa, around half of the individuals are declared as sourced from the wild. Although LEMIS provides the only means to assess trade volumes for many taxa, without any associated data on most wild populations, it is impossible to assess the impact or sustainability of trade, or any potential risk of pest or pathogen spread. Furthermore, these insights underscore the likely under-estimation of trade, and the urgent need for other countries to adopt similar mechanisms to accurately record trade.

Earth and environmental sciences/Ecology

Biological sciences/Ecology/Conservation biology

An analysis of 22 years of publicly accessible US wildlife trade data, of almost 30,000 species and over 2.85 billion individuals, provides novel insights into global trade trends and emphasises the importance of accessible trade data in biodiversity conservation efforts.

The overexploitation of wildlife is one of the greatest global threats to species survival ¹. Recent studies have revealed that the size and scope of the legal wildlife trade far exceeds previous assessments, and misunderstanding of the trade’s magnitude hampers decision-makers’ ability to gauge the impacts of trade on species survival, and tailor targeted policies ^2,3,4,5,6. For the majority of legally traded species, we have no data to assess if trade is sustainable at local, regional or global scales ⁵. Much of our knowledge on global trade relies on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which tracks and regulates international legal trade in certain species to reduce the risk of overexploitation for vulnerable species. Although a valuable data source, CITES only tracks a listed subset of species, and multiple analyses have identified key limitations of relying only on CITES data for decision making. CITES does not catalogue the majority of species across multiple key groups, including songbirds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, or arachnids, and consequently many traded species remain undocumented by CITES ^2,3,4,7,8.

A lack of globally standardised legal trade data makes identifying trends and drawing inferences a time-intensive process fraught with uncertainty ⁹. Inconsistencies in wildlife trade datasets frequently lead to misinterpretations of trade data, which is a critical challenge in accurately assessing the impact of wildlife trade on biodiversity and conservation efforts ^10,11. The overreliance on taxonomically-narrow data sources like the CITES database (or regional databases such as TRACES) ¹³. The essential data needed to inform trade regulation for conventions such as CITES simply do not exist for the majority of taxa potentially threatened by unsustainable trade ¹⁴.

Without more accurate and representative data we have no way to identify vulnerable wildlife populations that may be most susceptible to the impacts of high levels of international trade, no knowledge of where to most efficiently and effectively direct sustainability interventions, and no idea who to engage in the co-design of such interventions, especially around sourcing ¹⁵. Although particular industries, such as fisheries, now collate more comprehensive data to enable more sustainable regulations, the majority of sectors such as the exotic pet trade, medicinal trade, or even elements of fashion trade lack comprehensive and usable data ¹⁶. Understanding the sustainability of trade requires going beyond trade statistics to consider the provenance of species, which could allow researchers to establish a link between harvesting practices, the status of wild populations, and local socio-economic benefits ¹⁷. Direct exploitation of wild populations (where such data exists) is estimated to drive average population declines of 62% in terrestrial mammals, birds, and reptiles, but only a tiny fraction of species in trade have any form of population assessment ¹⁸.

The United States (US) is a major global market for wildlife and is one of the only countries that collates and releases wildlife import data, allowing unrivalled insights into global trade dynamics ¹⁹. The US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS) records the volumes and origins of wild animals and plants imported into the US for internal law enforcement purposes ^6,20. Although LEMIS contains inaccuracies ²¹ and may under-represent the number of species in trade due to aggregating some species data through harmonised codes ^6,22, it remains one of the most comprehensive wildlife trade databases. LEMIS data contains details on the declared provenance of wildlife (e.g., captive bred, taken from the wild), the quantity imported and exported, and more detailed trade purpose. US wildlife import and export regulations are restrictive, especially compared to other markets, such as those in the European Union. The tighter restrictions within the US are partially due to the Lacey Act, which prohibits the import of wildlife collected illegally ²³.

Assessments of trade sustainability are impossible without comprehensive datasets. Knowledge of the quantities of species traded can inform conservation planning and efforts to reduce illegal trade. Here, we explore wildlife imported into the US between 2000 and 2022 using a recent release of LEMIS data, and following substantial data cleaning efforts and collation with existing CITES trade data. We describe what is traded, whether trade originates from captive or wild sources, the volumes of wildlife traded, and how these trends have shifted over the last two decades. To our knowledge, this represents the most comprehensive analysis ever made on wildlife trade and its dynamics in time, covering all taxonomic groups from across the world. This effort allows us to provide insights into global wildlife trade at an unprecedented level, even if limited to the portion that crosses US borders.

The LEMIS data from 2000-01-01 to 2022-06-30 included 8.7 million entries (listed import groupings), of which we examined 3,479,466 entries, where the items were imported (93% of the 8.7 million entries), constituted whole individuals (52%) live or dead (e.g., excluding parts), and was reported as a count (i.e., quantity of individuals, not mass, length or volume). 99% of these entries were cleared for import, and 84% of 8.7 million entries were listed to a taxonomic level of genus or species. Once outliers were removed, these data record the import of 2,847,052,429 items that constituted a whole individual, 815,572,384 (29%) of which were vertebrates. Records included 21,135 species from 10,452 genera (Data_S22), of which 6,689 species were invertebrates (4,496 genera), 11,243 were terrestrial vertebrates (3,968 genera), 2,885 were marine/aquatic vertebrates (1,664 genera), and 280 were plants. Small numbers of other taxa (such as fungi) were also noted (38; Figure 1A; Data_S9). Entries that lacked genus/species level data, (and were often listed under “Exemption 4” -commercial interests barring release of species level data) were not included in our analysis (Figure 1A).

We merged LEMIS data with data for CITES imports into the US over the same period and the number of species increased to 29,445 with the greatest increase being 8,116 plant species (in addition to 232 animal species) that were only recorded in CITES, not present in the LEMIS data. This difference is attributed to the jurisdiction of plant imports in the US by the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS). Likewise, animals inspected by the USDA (cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, domesticated chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, and squabs) are rarely included in LEMIS even though some may come from the wild, and siluriformes (catfish) and ratites may be declared to USFWS or USDA, and their records may not be reliable (see supplements).

Invertebrate groups showed the highest numbers of whole individuals traded (both live and dead). Miscellaneous (i.e., those organisms not confidently included in more specific ad-hoc groupings) included 580,769,084 individuals and represented the most traded of our groupings (60% of total individuals; Figure 2; Data_S4), followed by Crustaceans and Molluscs at 119,859,391 (12%) and Fish 84,544,098 (8.7%).

By number of entries, Terrestrial Mammals dominated, with more than 1,348,125 entries (35%), followed by Echinoderms and Cnidaria 886,973 (23%; Figure 1B-C). The differences between the numbers of individuals traded and the number of entries highlights differences in trade dynamics and/or recording (Text S1), where for some groups individuals are more likely to be imported in bulk shipments (potentially enabled by their size or form, e.g., eggs/slings).

1.1 Dimensions of trade: what is traded, what they are traded for, and where are they from?

Most species in trade, even if predominantly captive bred, will have some individuals from the wild (Table S1), though the veracity of listings of source (wild or captive) may vary and is hard to assess ¹¹ (Data_S21).

Overall 65% of individuals were declared as wild-sourced, but this ranged dramatically depending on the group (Figure 2). For example, Marine Mammals show 96% and Echinoderms and Cnidaria show 94% of individuals coming from the wild. Lepidoptera and Arachnids are reported to fall below 15% wild-sourced individuals, thus skewing overall percentages 3. Terrestrial Mammals (21%), Birds (18%), and Arachnids (14%) have higher rates of ranched individuals. Ranching refers to individuals collected from the wild as eggs or juveniles, then raised in captivity; however, the listing of some species (particularly certain invertebrates, as well as Terrestrial Mammals) as ‘ranched’ suggests inconsistent use, as the collection of some of these species as juveniles or eggs from the wild seems improbable, especially in invertebrates. However, it should be noted that if weight was considered the percentage wild may increase for certain taxa such as fish, but inconsistent units as well as body-sizes means this measure is challenging.

Mammals exhibit the most wild-sourced entries (94%), followed by Birds (89%) (Figure 2). This result potentially indicates that bulk imports are less likely to be wild-sourced, while those smaller or more specialist shipments are wild-sourced. The wild sourcing of individuals is not evenly spread, but impacts the vast majority of traded species to some extent (Figure S6). All marine mammal species listed as traded have wild-sourced individuals, and every other group except Lepidoptera and Arachnids have over 80% of the species being wild-sourced at some point (Data_S22). The lower overall percentage from the wild is influenced by a small number of species being traded in high volumes not originating from the wild, whilst conversely the majority of other taxa are imported in smaller numbers, but largely from the wild (Figure S6). In vertebrates in particular, we find species traded in high quantities with most being wild-sourced. Similar patterns exist when examined by order, where many orders see high percentages of individuals wild-sourced (Figure S7). When looking by order, the skew is towards wild sourcing: over 64% of orders have over 90% of their individuals originating from the wild (Figure S7).

1.2 Changing patterns of trade

For most vertebrate taxa the number of species and genera traded annually increased until 2017 after which they declined and species counts fluctuated. Birds (at 1,876 species) and reptiles (at 1,249 species) reached peaks earlier, in 2015 (Figure 3; Data_S10; Data_S7). Invertebrate groups show similar patterns, with a continued increase throughout the LEMIS data time frame; Crustaceans and Molluscs reached over 973 species in 2021, the most species traded in a single year for invertebrates (Figure 3, S1). Increases in invertebrates during 2020 may relate to heightened trade during the pandemic (Marshall et al., 2022). Declines in imports in recent years for some taxa may relate to more restrictive import regulations ²⁴, and increased domestic trade from captive breeding. LEMIS recording methods also changed in 2016, which affected how data was split (records were split by purpose), which may be responsible for some of the rapid changes in trade. Notice of species that may be listed in upcoming CITES meetings could also increase trade in such groups prior to such meetings (such as 2019).

Cumulative sums of species over time reveal an increase in the number of species traded, however, part of the increase may originate from splitting of species, or creating notation to enable species to be more accurately listed (such as noting species individually rather than within aggregates such as “tropical fish”). Patterns largely follow the counts of species per group, with birds and fish showing the steepest increases (Figure S1; Data_S5). By contrast marine mammals have remained stable over the past two decades. The higher species numbers of birds and fish appear largely due to high numbers of species traded in individual years (Figure S1; Data_S8), while other groups (e.g., Terrestrial Mammals, Echinoderms and Cnidaria) reveal a considerable number of species consistently traded over the entire period.

For some groups the percentage of wild caught individuals decreased between 2020 and 2022 (Figure S2; Data_S13), but this time period may include issues with harvesting and transport access, or a lack of monitoring resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patterns of ranching also varied over time, with increasing percentages of species listed as ranched for mammals, arachnids and amphibians, especially in recent years. Other groups fluctuate, possibly marking changes in regulations, demand, and purpose, or possible delays in clearing in 2018 for vertebrate taxa.

There are also differences between the number of individuals imported as whole vs. live. While all live individuals were obviously whole, whole specimens may also be imported dead for other purposes (compare numbers in Figures S3 and S4; Data_S11). This highlights differences between likely trophies or specimens and animals imported live as pets or for research, education, and live exhibition. This difference is particularly noticeable in mammals, birds, and lepidopterans, who see large trade in dead whole individuals. For mammals and birds, this disparity is likely due to the import of hunting trophies (see section 1.3). Live bird imports have decreased, whereas imports of live lepidopterans have increased. Conversely, Reptiles, Amphibians, Crustaceans and Molluscs, see little difference in the live versus whole individual trends, indicating the predominance of live trade in these groups.

1.3 Imported for what purpose?

Commercial trade was the dominant purpose stated for the trade of whole individuals (Figure S5, Data_S16). All groups show over 77% of individuals are traded for commercial purposes, with the exception of marine mammals that are primarily imported for “scientific/research” purposes. The focus on commercial purposes is particularly acute in 8 of 15 groups (Figure 4A), with over 98% of individuals imported for commercial purposes.

Much of the wild sourcing of individuals is listed as being for commercial purposes (Figure S5). For example, 98% of species listed as wild-sourced within Echinoderms and Cnidaria are identified as being for commercial purposes, similarly over 90% of listed wild-sourced Porifera are labelled for commercial purposes; however, terrestrial invertebrates (at least those listed) are largely captive bred (Figure 4). Reptiles show the greatest intersection for a vertebrate group, where 54% of wild-sourced individuals were for commercial purposes, likely for the pet trade ². However, the reptile percentage (both live and whole) has likely declined over time due to an increase in the percentage of captive bred individuals imported, as well as a slight decrease in overall trade volumes (Figure S2, 3; 4).

Much of the non-commercial trade is for scientific/research purposes, with a few notable exceptions (Figure 4): non-commercial trade of birds and mammals appears connected to hunting trophies. The primary non-commercial reason for amphibian import is listed as education, and this appears linked to the live import of these individuals. Amphibians have the highest percentage of wild sourcing when looking at non-commercial live imports for vertebrate groups (Figure S5; Data_S19), but the percentage of live reptiles and marine mammals is greater than amphibians when commercial trade is included. Live imports largely follow the trends of whole individuals when commercial trade is included. Notable exceptions are Terrestrial Mammals (25% wild dead or alive; 2% live only), Porifera Sponges, Bryozoa, and Squirts (91%; 62%), and Marine Mammals (96%; 77%) where we see less wild sourcing for live individuals.

1.4 Risks of invasion from wildlife trade

Of the thousands of species listed in LEMIS, many potentially pose a biological threat to native ecosystems by acting as invasive species. Of the world’s top 100 invasive species ²⁵, 28 were recorded as imported live into the US within LEMIS. This includes continued (i.e., 2020-2022) trade of species like zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) that have already led to detrimental ecological, environmental, and economic consequences in the US ²⁶. In total, 203 known invasive species were imported into the US based on species listed as invasive in the US by the IUCN invasive species database (see methods). In addition, the Lacey Act has a shortlist of injurious invasive species ²⁷ that includes 57 genus level listings and 34 species level listings. Of these, at least 23 species were listed as being imported live into the US on at least some occasions after regulatory changes. For example, 12 of the listed fish genera continue to be imported live, and of the 20 amphibian genera listed as injurious in 2016, seven were imported live after that date (and in addition to these imports, exports of all listed “injurious invasive” groups increased). Whilst this may have been for conservation or educational purposes, it underscores the need for further data in such systems.

Advancing our understanding of international wildlife trade

US wildlife trade covers a substantial proportion of global trade, and thus the LEMIS data provides critical insight into worldwide wildlife trade. However, we know that the trade is undoubtedly much larger than what is included in LEMIS. The US has imported over 21,097 species based on LEMIS records, with over 11,243 terrestrial vertebrates, 2885 marine vertebrates and 14,128 invertebrates. When we add CITES records for the same time-period this number increases to 29,445 species.

This trade includes 46% of described birds, 28% of mammals, 26% of reptiles, and 16% of Amphibians, yet still do not capture the trade’s full magnitude, as many taxa are under-recorded within LEMIS ^3,28. Conversely, results from Rhyne et al. (2017)²², indicated fewer individuals recorded on invoices than were recorded in LEMIS, highlighting challenges in accurate quantification. Additionally, many listings within LEMIS are denoted as “Exception 4” and hence do not provide species-specific taxonomic information. CITES data highlights further differences by indicating 8,139 more plant species than the 281 recorded in LEMIS because plants are inconsistently included in LEMIS and fall under USDA not USFWS jurisdiction. There are likely thousands more plant species in trade going undetected and unmonitored. Though the US records data for all declared wildlife imports (both CITES and non-CITES) in the LEMIS database, species may be missed owing to changing regulations and because particular agencies can be responsible for different taxa (e.g., USFWS, USDA, APHIS, and FDA) and often do not coordinate data collection or sharing. These gaps in monitoring further highlight that the US wildlife trade encompasses a broader swathe of global biodiversity than previously realised, and allowing these gaps to persist contributes to the continued exploitation of wildlife and reduces our ability to truly understand what is in trade ²⁴.

Although LEMIS has known gaps, it still provides a comprehensive perspective on the wildlife trade, particularly when compared with other data sources, such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The IPBES sustainable use assessment was the most comprehensive global assessment of species in trade ¹. Yet, that assessment cannot realistically estimate the degree of trade due to limited monitoring of most taxa. For example, IPBES ¹ stated 1,700 species of terrestrial arthropods are in trade globally. However, LEMIS reports 751 species of arachnids ³ and over 1,091 lepidoptera imported into the US alone. Further, a recent global analysis reported 3,767 traded lepidoptera species ²⁸. The fact that the number of traded butterflies alone exceeds the global IPBES estimate of all traded terrestrial arthropods highlights the large data gaps in current global assessment of legal wildlife trade. Furthermore, the 3,097 invertebrate species imported into the US within LEMIS, highlights the scale of present difficulty in global assessments of legal wildlife trade and the risk of neglecting trade for many taxa. Additionally, whilst it is a major global importer ^29,30,31, the US is a single market for wildlife and without comparable data from other regions we cannot accurately quantify the global dimensions of trade. European Union (EU) imports may help to fill these data gaps and may contain information on many more species, particularly species with smaller body sizes like invertebrates, reptiles and amphibians for pets. Almost no regulation exists for the majority of wildlife in trade in the EU, and whilst the EU 2005 ban on wild-bird trade caused major shifts in the global trade ³², most taxa are still imported into the EU with no specific regulations ^2,3,4. Building on the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking (2022-2027), Cardoso et al. ³³ proposed that the EU expand the EU-TWIX database to cover all trade following the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles ³⁴. Additional country- or region-specific trade databases comparable to LEMIS are urgently needed to provide key baseline data to document and respond to the global dimensions of both legal and illegal wildlife trade.

Potential negative impacts within importing countries, and their control

The US, along with other countries, faces ongoing challenges posed by numerous invasive species, and associated pathogens, that threaten native species, ecosystems, agriculture, and silviculture, with many of these introductions stemming from wildlife import ^35,36,37. This threat should not be underestimated, as invasive species have been identified as drivers of up to 60% of recent animal and plant extinctions and have an annual control cost of over $423 billion ³⁸. Our data show that the legal wildlife trade into the US carries substantial associated invasion risk: 203 of the species imported are listed as invasive in the US according to the IUCN ISSG, 30 of these appear on the list of the world’s 100 worst invasive species, and many species listed as “injurious” under the Lacey Act ²⁴, as well as other potential invasive species, continue to be imported ^39,40. Given that these shipments were cleared into the country, they likely had sufficient permits, or were imported prior to regulation. In sum, the potential for species imported into the US to become invasive, especially under a changing climate, is considerable ^41,42, yet many taxa are challenging to detect and identify within trade shipments. Better real-time analysis would help to validate the import of injurious species ¹³. Invasive invertebrates may be of particular concern given that many countries have limited resources for inspection and many invertebrates may have the capacity to become invasive ⁴³. For example, the importation of millions of mites for biocontrol increases the chance that individuals of these species escape confinement and establish non-native populations in the US ^44,45. At present, there is relatively little concern given to the potential risk of imported biocontrol agents, and more attention is likely needed ^46,47,48. However, the risk of invasive species introduction certainly extends beyond invertebrates, with the widespread invasion of pythons (originally imported for pets) across south Florida as a clear example of how wildlife trade can directly cause ecosystem disruption and wildlife declines within importing countries ⁴⁹.

The potential for novel outbreaks of pathogens also presents a significant risk emanating from the largely unmonitored wildlife trade ⁵⁰. For example, imported bees may have played a role in colony collapse disorder ^51,52, and the global wildlife trade has contributed to the spread of Batrachochytrium fungi species that are deadly pathogens of amphibians ^53,54. In the US, the Lacey Act has been leveraged in forward-looking conservation policy that attempts to reduce the risk of pathogen import that could threaten native amphibians with disease, yet major concerns remain ⁵⁵. Notably, even following the listing of some salamander genera as injurious under the Lacey Act to prevent the import of taxa known to host Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans, other amphibian species that could serve as disease carriers continue to be imported ⁵⁶. In addition, already established non-native populations can contribute to pathogen spread (i.e., “bridgeheading”), further amplifying the risk posed by wildlife import, invasive species, and their pathogens ⁵⁷.

Understanding origins: do we have the data to understand the impact of trade?

Mirroring patterns previously reported in the recent literature (^2,3,4,58), the LEMIS data indicates that wild sourcing of traded individuals for some taxa continues at high rates. While LEMIS has shown a trend towards listing more species as captive and ranched within amphibians, arachnids, fish, insects and Myriapoda, and reptiles (Figure S2), a majority of species have at least some individuals coming from the wild, and for less voluminous groups, most individuals are wild sourced. Understanding the sustainability of wildlife trade requires both the volumes of taxa in trade, and the impacts on wild populations. Yet in most countries there is virtually no monitoring for the impact of wild sourcing or ranching for terrestrial animals ¹⁸, despite indications it comprises a large portion of the trade. Wild sourcing impacts thousands of species yet we have virtually no data on wild populations, nor adequately reliable data on the level of imports or their sources; thus we have no means to assess the sustainability of wildlife trade of most species. Furthermore, it is known that whilst freshwater aquaria trade has largely transitioned to documented captive breeding, up to 95% marine species still largely come from the wild ⁵⁹ and our results show this trend has continued through recent years. In fisheries, trade data are an important component within productivity-susceptibility analyses used to prioritise species requiring additional wild stock monitoring and recent PSAs ⁶⁰ rely on trade data derived outside of the LEMIS system ^6,22. Although LEMIS supplies an unprecedented insight in terms of scale, the reliability of import data cannot be interpreted unquestionably. Examples of wild-caught individuals sold as captive-bred and misidentification of species are well documented, and often require targeted effort to reveal ⁶¹. By contrast, captive bred (cultured) individuals may be listed in importation records as wild, but the lack of oversight precludes the ability to verify captive cultivation ¹⁷. Legality and lack of evidence of harm cannot be used to assume trade is sustainable ⁶² (Figure S7).

Recent years have seen an increase in the number of species traded in many groups, with the percentage of individuals and species coming from the wild often staying approximately similar. This trend undoubtedly poses a risk to the survival of wild species. For some taxa (largely vertebrates) the number of species within LEMIS records peaked around 2016-2018, whereas many invertebrates show a peak during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may be continuing.

Moving forward; improving inventory of wildlife trade to inform management?

The launch of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in December 2022 presents two targets devoted to “sustainable wildlife trade” (Targets 5 and 9; ^4,63). With a single country–US– trading so many species, with unreliable data to demonstrate sustainability, and with clear room for improvement in this “best-case” data scenario, these targets cannot be achieved without renewed effort to monitor what is in trade and connecting that trade to impacts on wild populations. While LEMIS is considered one of the better contemporary systems for collecting wildlife trade data, it was not developed to collect biodiversity information but rather to track the volume of commerce at each port of entry to guide staffing and resource allocations. If LEMIS is to be used to better gauge the impacts of wildlife trade it requires a number of improvements including, but not limited to, (1) ensuring that correct and up-to-date taxonomic identification is entered, (2) units are standardised with the default being counts of items, (3) automated processes that ensure declaration and invoice data match, and (4) a commitment to making the data publicly available in real or near-real time ¹³.

Accurate trade data accounting should be the absolute minimum requirement of any country for wildlife import or export. CITES provides the only overarching mechanism for regulating international wildlife trade given that other global trade databases, such as COMTRADE, do not record species information and harmonised codes are largely not species specific. However, CITES includes only a fraction of species in trade ⁶⁴. The limited availability of such trade data actively frustrates efforts to list species potentially threatened by trade. Major importing regions, such as the EU, should mandate better data collation to improve understanding of what is in trade. Whilst the EU-TWIX (www.eu-twix.org) and TRACES (https://food.ec.europa.eu/animals/traces_en) databases capture some of this when species are imported for food, their focus on biosecurity has not been optimised to provide the detail needed to understand wildlife trade. Yet exporter regions need both capacity and resources to develop and implement such approaches, and the development of these should be supported by major import regions ²⁹. Having a clearer understanding of the dimensions of wildlife trade in a major market such as the EU would dramatically improve our ability to assess species at risk for conventions such as CITES. These data are instrumental to enumerate the risk to biodiversity that wildlife trade poses, which is an important first step towards ensuring that international wildlife trade does not threaten species survival.

Here we show that almost 30,000 wild species are declared as being imported into the US, largely with no data to assess the risk these species pose as invasive species or the sustainability of trade on populations of the species in their native ranges. For the majority of species in trade, most individuals are wild-sourced, most plants and invertebrates are not assessed by the IUCN, and there is no requirement for non-detriment findings, demonstrating trade on a scale that cannot be assumed to be sustainable. Globally, the number of species in trade is unknown and the LEMIS estimates we produce here likely dramatically underestimate the number of species in international trade globally, especially given that undescribed and threatened species may be traded under other species names, and newly described species can be freely traded ^2,3. Better methods for species identification, such as molecular approaches (which have become increasingly affordable) or other automated methods to centralise complete data collation could dramatically improve the accuracy of species inventory ¹³. Reducing the human-induced extinction risk of these species, and reduced ecosystem services as a consequence of trophic cascades resulting from species loss is crucial for effective conservation. Thus, there is a clear opportunity to both collect better data to understand trade, including more standardised and centralised reporting, avoiding the data-loss of harmonised systems ¹³. Further, implementing regulations to propagate the principle of “do no harm” should be applied to all trade in wildlife. Diverse opportunities to achieve this goal exist today, in addition to comprehensive databasing of species in trade, and automating these approaches, initiatives such as reverse listing are now seeing renewed interest ⁶⁵, to provide a positive list for trade rather than only regulating trade of species once a risk has been acknowledged.

This paper helps demonstrate the immense value of holistic datasets for advancing our understanding of what is in trade. More complete data could highlight species for up-listing, flagging what species may be at risk, and highlighting where monitoring data for wild populations is clearly needed given the risk of unsustainable trade, and which species most urgently need non-detriment findings to be assessed. Such approaches are challenging, as they require both data on wild populations, and data on offtake; but monitoring of international trade provides key data to attempt to assess levels of offtake ⁵. Without such efforts, and without clear understanding of what is in trade, we cannot hope to reach these targets or prevent unsustainable trade. We collectively observe that globally, national authorities continue to lack the necessary resources and capacity to accurately and reliably collect and report data for monitoring trade.

Acknowledgments:

PG-D was hosted by the Instituto de Ecología Regional (CONICET-UNT; Tucumán, Argentina) while contributing to this paper. We would also like to thank Orion Goodman for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript

Funding:

No explicit funding was dedicated to this project

Author contributions:

Conceptualization: ACH, BMM, CS

Methodology: BMM, ACH

Investigation: BMM, ACH

Visualization: BMM

Project administration: ACH, BMM, CS

Supervision: ACH

Writing – original draft: ACH, BMM

Writing – review & editing: All authors

Competing interests:

Authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Data and materials availability:

All data used in figures are available as supplementary material, and also available: 10.6084/m9.figshare.25040498. Code used to compile data, create summaries, and figures is available: 10.6084/m9.figshare.25041803. Main data files detailing the correction and filtering process is available: 10.6084/m9.figshare.25041584.

IPBES (2022). Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on the Sustainable Use of Wild Species of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Fromentin, J.M., Emery, M.R., Donaldson, J., Danner, M.C., Hallosserie, A., Kieling, D., Balachander, G., Barron, E.S., Chaudhary, R.P., Gasalla, M., Halmy, M., Hicks, C., Park, M.S., Parlee, B., Rice, J., Ticktin, T., and Tittensor, D. (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6425599
Marshall, B. M., Strine, C., & Hughes, A. C. (2020). Thousands of reptile species threatened by under-regulated global trade. Nature communications, 11(1), 4738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18523-4
Marshall, B. M., Strine, C. T., Fukushima, C. S., Cardoso, P., Orr, M. C., & Hughes, A. C. (2022). Searching the web builds fuller picture of arachnid trade. Communications Biology, 5(1), 448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-03374-0
Hughes, A. C., Marshall, B. M., & Strine, C. T. (2021). Gaps in global wildlife trade monitoring leave amphibians vulnerable. ELife, 10, e70086. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70086
Hughes A. C., Auliya, M., Altherr S, Scheffers B.R., Janssen, J., Nijman, V., Shepherd, C.R., D’Cruze, N., Sy, E., Edwards, D.P. (2023). Determining the sustainability of legal wildlife trade. Journal of Environmental Management https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117987
Rhyne, A.L., Tlusty, M.F. and Kaufman, L., 2012. Long‐term trends of coral imports into the United States indicate future opportunities for ecosystem and societal benefits. Conservation Letters, 5(6), pp.478-485. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00265.x
Juergens, J., Bruslund, S., Staerk, J., Nielsen, R. O., Shepherd, C. R., Leupen, B., ... & Conde, D. A. (2021). A standardized dataset for conservation prioritization of songbirds to support CITES. Data in Brief, 36, 107093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2021.107093
Fukushima, C.S., Mammola, S. & Cardoso, P. (2020) Global wildlife trade permeates the Tree of Life. Biological Conservation, 245: 108503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108503
Gore, M. L., Hilend, R., Prell, J. O., Griffin, E., Macdonald, J. R., Keskin, B. B., Ferber, A., & Dilkina, B. (2023). A data directory to facilitate investigations on worldwide wildlife trafficking. Big Earth Data. https://doi.org/10.1080/20964471.2023.2193281
Challender, D. W., Brockington, D., Hinsley, A., Hoffmann, M., Kolby, J. E., Massé, F., ... & Milner‐Gulland, E. J. (2022). Mischaracterizing wildlife trade and its impacts may mislead policy processes. Conservation Letters, 15(1), e12832. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12832
Kolby, J. E., & Weissgold, B. J. (2022). Exaggeration of the US role in the international tiger trade: Response to Khanwilkar et al.(2022). Conservation Science and Practice, 4(7). https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12723
European Commission (2016) TRACES TOOLKIT https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-10/ah-traces-info-mat-toolkit_en.pdf
Tlusty, M. F., Cawthorn, D. M., Goodman, O. L., Rhyne, A. L., & Roberts, D. L. (2023). Real-time automated species level detection of trade document systems to reduce illegal wildlife trade and improve data quality. Biological Conservation, 281, 110022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110022
Watters, F., Stringham, O., Shepherd, C. R., & Cassey, P. (2022). The U.S. market for imported wildlife not listed in the CITES multilateral treaty. Conservation Biology, 36, e13978. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13978
Gore, M. L., Schwartz, L. R., Amponsah-Mensah, K., Barbee, E., Canney, S., Carbo-Penche, M., ... & Naess, L. W. (2022). Voluntary consensus based geospatial data standards for the global illegal trade in wild fauna and flora. Scientific Data, 9(1), 267. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01371-w
Fukushima, C. S., Tricorache, P., Toomes, A., Stringham, O. C., Rivera-Téllez, E., Ripple, W. J., ... & Cardoso, P. (2021). Challenges and perspectives on tackling illegal or unsustainable wildlife trade. Biological Conservation, 263, 109342.
Rhyne, A.L., Tlusty, M.F. and Kaufman, L., 2014. Is sustainable exploitation of coral reefs possible? A view from the standpoint of the marine aquarium trade. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 7, pp.101-107.
Morton, O., Scheffers, B. R., Haugaasen, T., & Edwards, D. P. (2021). Impacts of wildlife trade on terrestrial biodiversity. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(4), 540-548.
Eskew EA, White AM, Ross N, Smith KM, Smith KF, Rodríguez JP, Zambrana-Torrelio C, Karesh WB, Daszak P. 2020. United States wildlife and wildlife product imports from 2000–2014. Scientific Data 7:22. DOI: 10.1038/s41597-020-0354-5.
FWS (2023) Office of Law Enforcement. https://www.fws.gov/program/office-of-law-enforcement/information-importers-exporters
Schlaepfer, M. A., Hoover, C., & Dodd C. K. (2005). Challenges in evaluating the impact of the trade in amphibians and reptiles on wild populations. BioScience, 55(3), 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0256:CIETIO]2.0.CO;2
Rhyne, A. L., Tlusty, M. F., Szczebak, J. T., & Holmberg, R. J. (2017). Expanding our understanding of the trade in marine aquarium animals. PeerJ, 5, e2949.
Vinke, T, Vinke, S (2015) Can illegal be legal within the European Union? Schildkröten im Fokus Online, Bergheim. 1: 1-6
APHIS-USDA (2023) Lacey Act. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/import-information/lacey-act
Lowe S., Browne M., Boudjelas S., De Poorter M. (2004) Updated and reprinted version: 100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species A selection from the Global Invasive Species Database. The Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) a specialist group of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN), 12pp.
Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) (2023). Global Invasive Species Database. http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/
FWS (2023a) Injurious Wildlife Listings. https://www.fws.gov/initiative/invasive-species/injurious-wildlife-listings
Wang, Z., Chan, W-P., Pham, N.T., Zeng, J., Pierce, N.P., Lohman, D.J, Meng, W. (2023) One in five butterfly species sold online across borders. Biological Conservation., 282. 11092.
Liew, J. H., Kho, Z. Y., Lim, R. B. H., Dingle, C., Bonebrake, T. C., Sung, Y. H., & Dudgeon, D. (2021). International socioeconomic inequality drives trade patterns in the global wildlife market. Science Advances, 7(19), eabf7679.
Andersson, A. A., Tilley, H. B., Lau, W., Dudgeon, D., Bonebrake, T. C., & Dingle, C. (2021). CITES and beyond: Illuminating 20 years of global, legal wildlife trade. Global Ecology and Conservation, 26, e01455.
Humane Society (2022) Summary Trophy Hunting by the Numbers: The European Union’s role in global trophy hunting. Humane Society International/Europe Kunstlaan 50, 1000 Brussels, Belgium hsi.org https://www.hsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Summary_EU-Trophy-Hunting-by-Numbers-report-2.pdf
Reino, L., Figueira, R., Beja, P., Araújo, M. B., Capinha, C., & Strubbe, D. (2017). Networks of global bird invasion altered by regional trade ban. Science Advances, 3(11), e1700783.
Cardoso, P., Fukushima, C.S., Maxhelaku, A., Poczai, P., Porto, M., Puksas, A., Reino, L., Saar, I., Stringham, O., Toomes, A., Vargas, T. & Veríssimo, D. (2024) Reform wildlife trade in the European Union. Science
Wilkinson, M.D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I.J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.W., da Silva Santos, L.B., Bourne, P.E. and Bouwman, J., (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data, 3(1), pp.1-9.
Leskey, T.C., Short, B.D., Butler, B.R., Wright, S.E. (2012). Impact of the invasive brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys (Stål), in mid-Atlantic tree fruit orchards in the United States: case studies of commercial management. Psyche: a journal of entomology, vol. 2012, 14pp.
Abella, S. R. (2014). Impacts and management of hemlock woolly adelgid in national parks of the Eastern United States. Southeastern Naturalist, 13(6), 16-45.
Vandershaaf, C. L., McConnell, T. E., Tanger, S. M. (2020). Estimated impacts of emerald ash borer on ash timber supply in Texas, USA. Journal of Forestry, 119(1), 45-61.
Roy, H. E., Pauchard, A., Stoett, P., Renard Truong, T., Bacher, S., Galil, B. S., ... & Vandvik, V. (2023). IPBES Invasive Alien Species Assessment: Summary for Policymakers.
Lieurance, D., Canavan, S., Behringer, D. C., Kendig, A. E., Minteer, C. R., Reisinger, L. S., ... & Wanamaker, C. (2023). Identifying invasive species threats, pathways, and impacts to improve biosecurity. Ecosphere, 14(12), e4711.
Pratt, E. N., Lockwood, J. L., King, E. G., & Pienaar, E. F. (2023). Identifying inconsistencies in exotic pet regulations that perpetuate trade in risky species. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14189
Street, S. E., Gutiérrez, J. S., Allen, W. L., & Capellini, I. (2023). Human activities favour prolific life histories in both traded and introduced vertebrates. Nature Communications, 14(1), 262.
Gippet, J. M., & Bertelsmeier, C. (2021). Invasiveness is linked to greater commercial success in the global pet trade. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(14), e2016337118.
Daera (2021) Sanitary and phytosanitary checks and Points of Entry. https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/articles/sanitary-and-phytosanitary-checks-and-points-entry
Myers, J. H., & Cory, J. S. (2017). Biological control agents: invasive species or valuable solutions?. Impact of biological invasions on ecosystem services, 191-202.
Johnson, M. T., Follett, P. A., Taylor, A. D., & Jones, V. P. (2005). Impacts of biological control and invasive species on a non-target native Hawaiian insect. Oecologia, 142, 529-540.
Bielza, P., Balanza, V., Cifuentes, D., & Mendoza, J. E. (2020). Challenges facing arthropod biological control: identifying traits for genetic improvement of predators in protected crops. Pest management science, 76(11), 3517-3526.
Hoelmer, K. A., Sforza, R. F., & Cristofaro, M. (2023). Accessing biological control genetic resources: the United States perspective. BioControl, 1-12.
Schulz, A. N., Lucardi, R. D., & Marsico, T. D. (2019). Successful invasions and failed biocontrol: The role of antagonistic species interactions. BioScience, 69(9), 711-724.
McCleery, R. A., Sovie, A., Reed, R. N., Cunningham, M. W., Hunter, M. E., & Hart, K. M. (2015). Marsh rabbit mortalities tie pythons to the precipitous decline of mammals in the Everglades. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1805), 20150120.
Williams, G. R., Tarpy, D. R., Chauzat, M. P., Cox-Foster, D. L., Delaplane, K. S., Neumann, P., ... & Shutler, D. (2010). Colony collapse disorder in context. Bioessays, 32(10), 845.
Oldroyd, B. P. (2007). What's killing American honey bees?. PLoS biology, 5(6), e168.
Flores, J. M., Gámiz, V., Jiménez-Marín, Á., Flores-Cortés, A., Gil-Lebrero, S., Garrido, J. J., & Hernando, M. D. (2021). Impact of Varroa destructor and associated pathologies on the colony collapse disorder affecting honey bees. Research in veterinary science, 135, 85-95.
Schloegel, L. M., Picco, A. M., Kilpatrick, A. M., Davies, A. J., Hyatt, A. D., & Daszak, P. (2009). Magnitude of the US trade in amphibians and presence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and ranavirus infection in imported North American bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana). Biological Conservation, 142(7), 1420-1426.
O’hanlon, S. J., Rieux, A., Farrer, R. A., Rosa, G. M., Waldman, B., Bataille, A., ... & Fisher, M. C. (2018). Recent Asian origin of chytrid fungi causing global amphibian declines. Science, 360(6389), 621-627.
Klocke, B., Becker, M., Lewis, J., Fleischer, R. C., Muletz-Wolz, C. R., Rockwood, L., ... & Gratwicke, B. (2017). Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans not detected in US survey of pet salamanders. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 13132.
Connelly, P. J., Ross, N., Stringham, O. C., & Eskew, E. A. (2023). United States amphibian imports pose a disease risk to salamanders despite Lacey Act regulations. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), 351.
Bertelsmeier, C., & Ollier, S. (2021). Bridgehead effects distort global flows of alien species. Diversity and Distributions, 27(11), 2180-2189.
Toomes, A., Moncayo, S., Stringham, O. C., Lassaline, C., Wood, L., Millington, M., ... & Cassey, P. (2023). A snapshot of online wildlife trade: Australian e-commerce trade of native and non-native pets. Biological Conservation, 282, 110040.
King, T. A. (2019). Wild caught ornamental fish: A perspective from the UK ornamental aquatic industry on the sustainability of aquatic organisms and livelihoods. Journal of fish biology, 94(6), 925-936.
Baillargeon, G.A., Tlusty, M.F., Dougherty, E.T. and Rhyne, A.L., 2020. Improving the productivity-susceptibility analysis to assess data-limited fisheries. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 644, pp.143-156.
Nijman V, Shepherd CR. 2015. TRAFFIC Report: Adding up the numbers : An investigation into commercial breeding of Tokay Gecko in Indonesia. Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia: TRAFFIC.
Smith, K. M., Zambrana-Torrelio, C., White, A., Asmussen, M., Machalaba, C., Kennedy, S., ... & Karesh, W. B. (2017). Summarizing US wildlife trade with an eye toward assessing the risk of infectious disease introduction. EcoHealth, 14, 29-39.
Hughes, A. C., & Grumbine, R. E. (2023). The Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework: what it does and does not do, and how to improve it. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11
Chan, H. K., Zhang, H., Yang, F., & Fischer, G. (2015). Improve customs systems to monitor global wildlife trade. Science, 348(6232), 291-292.
Hughes, A. C. (2021). Wildlife trade. Current Biology, 31(19), R1218-R1224.

There is NO Competing Interest.

R20240122T062000Z001.zip
All Code used for analysis
SupplementaryMaterials.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The magnitude of legal wildlife trade and implications for species survival

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

One-Sentence Summary

Wildlife trade data remain fragmented and incomplete

Results

Interpretations

Advancing our understanding of international wildlife trade

Potential negative impacts within importing countries, and their control

Understanding origins: do we have the data to understand the impact of trade?

Moving forward; improving inventory of wildlife trade to inform management?

Declarations

References and Notes

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1