An international conservation lobby is calling for a complete end to wildlife trade.
World Animal Protection is urging the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to enact policies to that effect, arguing that such a move would protect African wildlife from cruelty and exploitation.
Currently, about 1.6 trillion wild animals are killed or made to suffer through people's actions every year, the group says. CITES data for 2011–2015 shows that around 1.5 million live animals were traded as exotic pets and 1.2 million skins were legally exported.
The trade also poses public health risks: about 60 per cent of emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic, and more than 70 per cent of emerging infectious diseases are thought to originate from wildlife.
"The sheer magnitude of wildlife interference is not only impacting animals, but also the people and our planet. Whether the trade is legal or illegal, it doesn't matter," said Edith Kabesiime, Wildlife Campaigns Manager at World Animal Protection. She urged the CITES Secretariat and member parties to pass resolutions that protect wild animals.
The CITES debate
CITES, a treaty signed by more than 180 countries, regulates international trade in listed species through a system of permits and trade controls. Conservation groups like World Animal Protection argue the system legitimises trade that is inherently harmful, while supporters of regulated trade say sustainable use provides income for local communities and incentives to keep wildlife habitats intact.
Wildlife trade and pandemic risk
The COVID-19 pandemic brought renewed scrutiny of wildlife trade and consumption, given that zoonotic spillover — the jump of pathogens from animals to humans — most often occurs where wild animals are captured, kept in close confinement or traded in live markets. The World Health Organization, UNEP and other bodies have since called for stronger regulation of high-risk wildlife trade sectors.
What a ban would mean for Africa
Africa's wildlife economy supports tourism, ranches and conservancies. Critics of a total ban argue it could push trade underground, where it becomes harder to monitor. Advocates counter that legal trade channels provide cover for laundering illegal products — from ivory to pangolin scales — and that enforcement has repeatedly failed to keep pace with poaching.
