2.3. Wildlife Trade

The major institution affecting the international trade in wild-caught animals is CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. The purpose of this treaty is to regulate international trade in those species for which the continued removal of individuals from their natural habitat is a threat - actual or potential - to the continued survival of wild populations, either on a global or a national level [Favre 1989: xvii]. I am aware of only a single evaluation of the success of the treaty, that of Trexler [1990], who expresses a great deal of scepticism about its merits as a conservation initiative. According to Trexler, CITES is 'often labelled the most successful international wildlife conservation instrument' [ibid.: 30], but the grounds for this are shaky in the absence of any indicators of success - implementation costs are not borne by developed countries, implementation is itself often counterproductive to conservation (such as when the impounding of products encourages a rise in capture rate to meet demand), the relationship between trade flows and the status of wild populations is generally obscure, and there is in any case no evidence that overexploitation of any species has been halted by the convention [ibid.: 98-99]. The real successes of CITES, he continues, are not directly linked to its putative conservation mission, but in enhancing awareness and understanding of the wildlife trade and the associated problems, especially in animal welfare, and encouraging conservation-related research [ibid.: 100]. His recommendation is that CITES could be made more effective if it combined focussing implementation on the minority of species actually affected by the trade, and expanding its mandate to include a much broader range of policy goals [ibid.: 125-6].

The detailed reasons given by Trexler for CITES' lack of effectiveness as an item of conservation policy are relevant here in so far as they illuminate the Guyana situation. He points out that since the year 1600, the importance of live trade as a cause of extinction in all four classes of tetrapod has been minimal. Furthermore, the numbers of individuals involved in international trade are generally small compared with those removed from the wild for subsistence or domestic live trade, and that the effects of these factors are difficult to separate. The conservation impact of the international wildlife trade is small compared with that of habitat loss and degradation - in fact only a small proportion of it affects endangered species, and is therefore of conservation relevance - but its glamour and the possibility of control have led to it being the focus of an inordinate amount of attention [Trexler 1990: 4-15]. Although there is some truth in these arguments, they are also naive in many respects. The current wave of anthropogenic extinction lacks any precedent, making inference from historical trends of dubious relevance. In addition, there are interactive effects between species depopulation and habitat degradation. Firstly, the depletion of local populations of species with important roles in the ecosystem, such as in dispersal or pollination of plant species, can itself be a component of habitat degradation, and it is therefore incorrect to assume that this is of conservation importance only when it directly threatens the wild populations of harvested species [Mulliken et al 1992: 9-11]. Second, extensive loss or degradation of a species' habitat can increase the vulnerability of the remaining population to significant depletion by live capture, as is becoming true for many species of psittacines in the neotropics [Collar & Juniper 1992: 12-13].

Literature on the wildlife trade in Guyana is minimal - a brief report on the trade in live birds was published by TRAFFIC international in 1992 [Edwards 1992], but there has been no independent study of the situation since, and it is unlikely to have been unaffected by the radical economic and social changes the country has undergone since that time. Guyana became a CITES signatory in 1977 [ibid.: 77]; legislation concerning the wildlife trade currently takes the form of the third revision of the 1987 wildlife regulations, dated June 10 1995, and concerned with both the conservation of wild species and the welfare of individual animals involved in the trade. The most significant element of this from the conservation perspective is the quota system - since 1987 national export quotas have been set for all species which can be legally exported from Guyana. The levels of these quotas were set in the absence of any baseline population data at conservative levels assumed to be below those at which wild populations might begin to be threatened; many of these have since been revised downwards under advice from the CITES secretariat [ibid.: 80]. It has been suggested that the scientific naivete of these figures might mean they exceed sustainable harvesting levels [Thomsen & Mulliken 1992: 229]. On the other hand, it is reported that exporters were generally of the opinion that the size of wild populations is sufficient that the export quotas were in fact unnecessary, especially since only around 10% of the available habitat is exploited in this way and a vast reservoir of habitat therefore available for repopulation [Edwards 1992: 79]; however local depopulation is obviously a possibility. Although it is not unlikely that the legal international trade is within the limits of sustainability on a national level, it is quite possible that there may nevertheless be declines in local populations. Furthermore, the regulated trade may be only a small proportion of the total catch of live animals; the magnitude of the domestic trade is unknown, (but assumed to be substantial due to the popularity of keeping pets, especially birds and monkeys) [ibid.: 84], as is that of illegal export across the land borders to Brazil, Venezuela and Suriname.

The economic importance of the wildlife trade in Guyana in 1992 was estimated by Mrs. Reece of the Guyana Wildlife Exporters Association. She calculated that the industry involved 16 exporters employing a total of 430 people, and around 7540 trappers and domestic traders, meaning that around 50,000 people (including the families of all those involved in the trade) receive some form of direct financial benefit from the trade, along with an estimated 2,000 who benefit financially from the provision of goods or services to those directly involved. Amerindians comprise around 75% of these people, and the vast majority of trappers are Amerindian men, who may operate individually or as part of a village cooperative [Edwards 1992: 82-83]. It is notable that this is an economic activity based upon exploitation of natural resources via the application of local knowledge of the biology and behaviour of the animals involved. The most conspicuous component of the trade involves birds, mostly of the order Psittaciformes (parrots, macaws and relatives), but also including several species of toucans and other taxa. In terms of quota sizes, birds are actually outnumbered by reptiles, several species of which are exported in numbers of 10,000 or more per annum. A small number of species of amphibian are exported, and small quotas exist for several species of mammal [P.E. Williams, pers. comm. 1997]. The export of numerous species is totally banned, including all native CITES-listed species [IUCN 1996], and it seems unlikely that any native Guyanese species is threatened with extinction by capture for the live export market.