Wildlife trade: The unsustainability of ‘sustainable use’ (Part 1)

Global calls to end the wildlife trade are eminently sensible. Nonetheless, prominent academics have defended the trade on the grounds that it generates economic benefits. They argue, for instance, that if wildlife markets and breeding farms were shut down in China, 14 million people would go without livelihoods. This figure is from a newspaper article, but appears to have no scientific backing. Even if true, it seems a poor reason to support an industry that may precipitate global economic collapses like the one presently caused by Covid-19. 

At the root of this debate is an ideological confrontation. On the one hand are those who call for new economic models that pivot away from treating the environment as free capital to be endlessly exploited for human consumption. On the other hand, there are those who believe in the “sustainable use” of natural resources; that better regulation can overcome the failures of the current model. The animating proposition is that a maximum sustainable yield (MSY) can be scientifically established and a quota for extraction set that doesn’t undermine “stock” replenishment ability. With the appropriate allocation of incentives and governance mechanisms to avoid over-exploitation, sustainable extraction can be achieved.

Slight problem: When this model fails, the default response is that the incentives need to be fine-tuned. So, we tinker round the edges while the planet burns.  

But the South African government continues to call for increased utilisation and even the farming of wild species. 

“Sustainable use” ideology ignores the complexity of ecological systems and the impact of repeated over-extraction on the functionality of those systems over time. Perhaps the starkest example of economic activities justified under the auspices of “sustainable use” is South Africa’s captive lion-breeding industry. The government and its scientific authority see it as providing a potential buffer against wild lion exploitation. 

In other words, if we breed lions in captivity, we will be able to supply a sufficient volume of their derivative parts (bones, claws, teeth and paws) to satisfy consumers that would crowd out illegal procurement. This ignores the opportunity costs of the activity in terms of the negative impact on a country’s reputation. It ignores the criminality – that legal trade provides a channel for laundering illicitly procured product – embedded in the trade. And it ignores the fact that (while correlation shouldn’t be confused with causation) wild lions are being exploited for their parts in Mozambique (in the Greater Limpopo transfrontier reserve). Demand for parts continues to grow, however, resulting in industry growth from about 5,800 lions in captivity in 2013 to more than 8,000 in 2019.   

Behind the ideological confrontation is a battle over the correct interpretation of Section 24 of our Constitution: 

Everyone has the right to:

 

•  an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and

• to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that ­

• prevent pollution and ecological degradation;

• promote conservation; and

• secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.