Trade in Endangered Species - Research Paper Example

Trade in Endangered Species Introduction The issue concerning protection of wildlife species which are under threat of extinction was brought into the spotlight in the last century, and it still remains a matter of considerable international concern. Nowadays, the life of many rare wild animals is exposed to a grave risk due to persistently growing rates of the world trade to satisfy consumer need for clothes, foodstuff, trophies, traditional medicine, etc. in certain countries. In accordance with current statistical data, the international illegal market for products of such origin is appraised at around 22 billion dollars per year, and it continues to increase (Santos 2). In spite of the international bans on the trade in endangered species, such as elephants and rhinoceroses, imposed by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), these animals are being slaughtered as never before. The statistics shows that in 2012 nearly 45,000 elephants were killed for their ivory leading to 4 % decline in population (Wittemyer 13117). Besides, in 2014 more than white 900 rhinos were slaughteredfor their horns by poachers in South Africa, it makes up 2,5 % of the overall national population of black and white rhinos. If this dangerous tendency further escalates, rhinos can extinct during 25 years (Taylor 7). For this reason, illegal hunting and killing, as well as trading in animals which are on the verge of extinction, remains a crucial environmental issue of the modern world. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the efficiency of the existing international bans on trade in endangered species. The paper will argue that legalizing trade will not save these animals from extinction. Further, it will present possible measures which can be taken in order to protect endangered animals. 2. Background The international environmental community has taken different measures in order to maintain strict control over the global trade in endangered species and prevent them from extinction. Apart from securing internal policies and creation of natural reserves, many states have joint their efforts to adopt worldwide laws and regulations overseeing this trade. One of the organizations established for such purpose in 1973 is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). It introduces an international arrangement among 150 countries which governs trade of more than 32,000 species of animals and plants facing extinction. CITES divided all species into three Appendices according to the species’ status and protection level: 1) Appendix I forbids trade of those species which are most jeopardized and are practically on the brink of extinction; 2) Appendix II oversees the species which are endangered at present and negatively influenced by enduring trade; 3) Appendix 3 protects the species that are probably expose to danger (Cole 35 -36). Moreover, CITES can impose different bans. They represent official regulations that outlaw the trade in endangered species and their parts. The primary objective of such bans is to safe the populations of rare animals by reducing the usage of them for commercial purposes. They remain in force for a restricted period of time (Santos 4).Nevertheless, the efficiency of these bans subjects to heated debates nowadays.In March, 2013 there was a conference in Bangkok dedicated to this issue. Representatives of 178 countries assembled to revise the agreement concerning the ban on trade in endangered animals. The main subject of the meeting was whether such regulations work effectively and provide real protection for those species or have an opposite effect and do even more harm to the wildlife (Cole 32).The opinions were divided. Some experts advocated the abolition of the ban and legalizing the trade, while other strongly opposed this idea. 3. Proponents of Legalizing Trade in Endangered Species Defenders of the legalizing trade in endangered species claim those bans placed by CITES to be inefficient. They support their argument with the following statistical data: around 700 rhinos were killed in 2012 in spite the ban on trade imposed in 1976; nearly 25 tons of ivory were illegally trafficked in 2011 despite the ban introduced in 1989; tiger population decreased by 49 %, though the trade was prohibited in 1975 (Chicago). Provided facts indicate that introducing restrictions on trade does not presuppose decline in demand for the particular species in the world market. On the contrary, it leads to creation of so-called “black markets”, the activity of which remains out of the governmental control (Cole 38).Since that species cannot be hunted and sold legally, their financial worth grows. As a result, more poachers appear who are ready to break the law for the sake of extremely high profits. Besides, it becomes even more difficult to protect the endangered animals due to impossibility of their monitoring (Raffalovich 9). Advocators of the ban’s elimination are inclined to believe that selling the seized products can meet consumer needs and reduce prices, at the same time providing less benefits for poachers. The ban on trading such goods has quite opposite effect. It leads to higher demand and correspondingly higher prices, in fact stimulating illegal operations. Consequently, even greater number of animals are severely killed (Fischer12). That is why, it is popularly believed that legalization of trade will be highly beneficial for endangered species. The demand for them can be partially satisfied, prices will be decreased and less brutal illegal killings will take place. Moreover, reserves of goods gained from animals that dye naturally can be sold. This, in turn, will provide some money for organizing a campaign against poaching and help save species from extinction.All these things become possible with the help of proper governmental regulations and strict control (Taylor 76). 4. Counter Arguments 4.1 Practical Aspects The arguments of the advocators of legal trading in endangered species cannot be accepted without reservation. First of all, the economic theory they refer seems questionable, as it is based on the following suppositions: products obtained illegally and those seized good which are sold in legal markets can completely interchange each other, and customers are uncaring of population of rare animals. In fact, the situation is much more complicated. The following aspect should be taken into consideration: 1) legalized trade would increase demand from conscientious and law-abiding clients which would cause the rise in prices; 2) it would diminish shame of buying goods obtained from endangered species, and at the same time lead to higher needs and prices; 3) legal trade may encourage laundering when illegal products are sold in legal markets; 4) the monitoring and overseeing such trade becomes extremely difficult (Fischer 12-13). Moreover, the belief that those large amounts of money received from legal selling can be further used for special programs concerning wildlife protection is rather debatable. According to the economic theory, governments usually invest such funds in the fields from which they are likely to get high profits and improve the quality of people’s life. So, it would be mistaken to think that the money will be used for conservation purposes.Besides, the political systems and governments in the countries which provide home for endangered species are highly corrupted (Raffalovich10-11). In addition, nobody will deny the fact that it was exactly legal trading which put wild species at risk of extinction. It should be taken into account, that the attempts to control the trade in ivory, for instance, had failed. Due to this fact, in 1989 the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora imposed the ban on trading in these goods, and significantly contributed to preservation of elephants. However, at the request of Japan and China, the largest consumers of ivory in 1999, CITES permitted sale of reserved ivory to these countries. This created a fallacy that the ban was completely cancelled (Rice). The results of this mistaken assumption were disastrous. More than 150,000 kg of ivory was transported to Japan within several years. This number continued growing. CITES reports that in 2011 23,000 kg of ivory were confiscated. In 2012 the poaching of elephants reached apogee when about 13 tons of ivory prepared for illegal trafficking in Asian countries were withdrawn. Overall, more than 165 tons of ivory were transported by poachers between 2009 and 2014 (“Stop the Ivory Trade”). Few would agree with the fact that even partial legalization of trade has brought positive results for wildlife conservation. The demand for precious goods in Japan and China has even increased in comparison with those years when any trade in endangered species was prohibited. Furthermore, more favorable conditions were created for illegal actions. Another vivid example is the situation with conservation or rhinos in South Africa. The experts in this field strongly believe that the abolition of the international ban on trade in rhino horns will have far-reaching harmful consequences for the population of this animal. First of all, South Africa is incapable ofmonitoring the internal trade. This can lead to increasing laundering and selling illegally gained horns as legal ones. Also, it encourages another way of getting so highly valuable goods: purchasing horns from private individuals who is engaged in breeding rhinos. It is estimated that more than 2,250 kg was sold in 2012 (Taylor 80). 4.2 Moral Aspects It is the truth widely acknowledged that there is decline in demand for goods derived from endangered animals nowadays. It happens, probably,because of moral restrictions introduced by the bans. If the prohibition of trade is cancelled, the markets of former illegal goods will be openly reestablished, and this, in turn, will attract new consumers. No doubt, the success of the international trade bans is greatly connected with the stigma of buying illegal goods obtained in a cruel and barbaric way. If such concept is changed, the demand can again grow, as there will be more people who can afford such treasure as, for instance, ivory or rhino horns (Fischer13). Last but not least, there is a famous saying in English about the greedy nature of a human: “Give him an inch, and he’ll take an ell.” It reveals the bitter truth about people’s demands. A person is never satisfied with what he has at present, and he constantlydesires and asks for more. His needs always grow gradually towards a more advanced level. Same thing can happen if the international ban on trading in endangered species will be eliminated. It will not reduce the demand on goods which have been used in certain countries for centuries. Though, it is widely believed that only reserved goods obtained from animals which die a natural death would be used for trading, this argument causes serious doubts.For instance, if you legalize crime, will it actually decrease the number of illegal activities? The answer is quite obvious. Certainly, it will lead to the greater number of illicit cases. Criminal acts will be partially regulated by laws, and then offenders can easily emerge unscathed. In fact, the abolition of the bancan have the same consequences, since it will definitely lead to flourishing killing of animals which are already facing extinction. To make matters worse, those barbaric acts will be justified and supported by laws. Poachers will have a perfect excuse for their illegal activities. As a result, even the greater number of animals will be not only under threat, but actually killed for the sake of greedy demands of certain people. 5. Potential Measures The efficiency of the bans is dependent on the plenty of various factors, including the political and economic situation in the country which has the populations of endangered species also on thecapability of this state to maintain the proper control over national trade and conservation programs. As a matter of fact, it is often extremely difficult to enforce such well-intentioned campaigns, since a lot of developing countries with the rich wildlife face other serious and pressing problems apart from animals’ extinction, such as great levels of poverty, malnutrition or even starvation, different diseases, etc. (Chicago). However, it is essential that the ban should be further maintained. Other possible measures which can be taken to reverse this trend include bigger finesand more harsh punishment, stricter regulations and laws, implementation of certain educating programs to inform the consumers about the brutal and uncivilized acts of violencemade for trading purposes towards the endangered species.In accordance with the recent study, 69% of the Chinese people are not aware of the fact that those ivory which they buy came from the killed elephants (“Stop the Ivory Trade”). They were inclined to believe that ivory can fall in the same way as teeth do. That is why, such educating campaigns can become extremely beneficial for species’ protection. Also, they should aim at convincing people that saving those animals’ lives is likely to bring profits to the country, for instance, with eco-tourism. Besides, there are certain marketing methods which can reduce the attractiveness of wildlife goods in the eyes of potential customers. These strategies should focus their attention on inhuman killings of endangered species and enormous risks to which the remaining population of these animals is exposed. Such methods can considerably reduce the consumer demands and in such a way protect the species (Santos10 -11). 6. Conclusion The illegal trade in endangered species is one of the crucial environmental issues of the contemporary world. Despite the numerous bans on such trades, rare animals are still brutally slaughtered in many countries. The number of species which are threatened with a total extinction is increasing at an alarming rate. Although the effectiveness of the bans is highly debatable nowadays, and there are a lot of people who are eager to eliminate them, it is a fallacy to suppose that legalizing trade will prevent animals from extinction. Only joint efforts of the international environmental communities can change this situation for the better. The bans on trade in endangered species should be constantly maintained, as they provide significant contribution to the conservation of the wildlife. Moreover, other necessary measures should be imposed by the international environmental organizations and governments of the countries which provide home to the mentioned animals in order to ensure that the introduced bans on trade are carried out efficiently and endangered species are protected from the threat of being killed by poaches. Works Cited Chicago, N. L., and J.P. London. “Trade Protection.” The Economist. 5 Mar. 2013. Web. 27 Mar. 2015. Cole, Ryan. “The Effect of International Trade Bans on the Population of Endangered Species.”Penn State Journal of International Affairs. 2012:35-53. Web. 27 Mar. 2015. Fischer, Carolyn. “Trading in Endangered Species: Legal Sales versus Total Bans.” Resources. 2003: 12-14. Web. 27 Mar. 2015. Raffalovich, Aminta. “White Gold: The Ivory Trade Ban.”University of California. 2006: 1-16. Web. 27 Mar. 2015. Rice, Mary. “The Case Against a Legal Ivory Trade: It Will Lead to More Killing of Elephants.” Yale Environment 360. 13 Oct. 2014. Web. 27 Mar. 2015. Santos, Anna, ThitikanSatchabut, and Gabriela Vigo Trauco. “Do Wildlife Trade Bans Enhance or Undermine Conservation Efforts?” Applied Biodiversity Sciences. 1.3. (2011):1‐15.Web. 27 Mar. 2015. “Stop the Ivory Trade.” Bloody Ivory.2014. Web. 27 Mar. 2015. Taylor,Andrew, Kirsty Brebner, Rynette Coetzee, Harriet Davies-Mostert, Peter Lindsey, Jo Shaw, and Michael ‘tSas-Rolfes. “The Viability of Legalizing Trade in Rhino Horn in South Africa.” the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). 2014: 1-107. Web. 27 Mar. 2015. Wittemyer, George,Joseph M. Northrupa, Julian Blancd, Iain Douglas-Hamiltonb, Patrick Omondif, and Kenneth P. Burnhama. “Illegal Killing for Ivory Drives Global Decline in African Elephants.” PNAS. 111.36. (2014) :13117–13121. Print. 27 Mar. 2015. Read More