Poor and rural people around the world rely on plants and animals for shelter, food, income and medicine. In fact, the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals on sustainable ecosystems acknowledge many developing societies’ close relationship with nature when it calls for increased “capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities.” However, how is this to be achieved?
The 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora provides a viable framework for reducing poverty while also conserving nature. It regulates the harvesting and exchange of more than 35,000 wildlife species across a range of locales.
Nature has been described as the “GDP of the poor.” The convention framework, combined with strong national conservation policies, can simultaneously protect wild species and benefit poor, rural and indigenous people, by encouraging countries and communities to adopt sound environmental management plans.
For example, under the convention, Peruvian Andes communities shear the vicuna for its fine wool, which they sell to the luxury fashion industry in other parts of the world. Cameroonians collect African cherry bark for export to European pharmaceutical companies. And people on the Tibetan Plateau in Bhutan make a living selling caterpillar fungus to the traditional medicine industry.
SOUTHEAST ASIAN PYTHONS
However, outside of the convention, limited guidance is available to ensure that legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor. Sustainable trade often depends on poor and rural communities conserving their own resources at the local level.
To see what that looks like, the International Trade Center recently examined how people in Southeast Asia sustainably manage the python trade.
Python skins are commonly used as a raw material in the luxury fashion industry, and the center’s surveys of python skin harvesters, farmers, processors and exporters in Vietnam and Malaysia found that the trade reinforces livelihood resilience by providing an additional source of income.
In Vietnam, an estimated 1,000 households farm and trade pythons, and python harvesting in Malaysia provides incomes for low-skilled, low-income workers during periods when other employment opportunities are either out of season, or simply scarce because of larger economic factors. Researchers found that most of those harvesting pythons implement simple and effective sustainable management plans, and that this has reduced pressure on wild populations.
However, python skins, like many wildlife products, are a commodity, so communities harvesting them are limited in terms of how they can add value to increase returns. Women in the Andes might clean vicuna wool by hand to increase the price it fetches per kilogram by US$50, whereas selling a wool scarf could yield them US$150-US$200; a Malaysian python skin sells for US$200, while a python skin bag could sell for US$2,000.
Still, some emerging countries are moving up the value chain and retaining a greater share of returns, as demonstrated by local brands such as Kuna, which markets alpaca and vicuna wool in Peru, and Natura, a Brazilian natural cosmetics brand.
The biggest threats to the legal wildlife trade are poaching, smuggling, improper trade permitting and animal abuse, all of which must be addressed by regulators and rural community stakeholders at the local level.
Fortunately, rural communities are already in the best position to protect wildlife, so long as they are motivated to do so. In the right circumstances, a virtuous cycle, in which local producers have a direct interest in protecting wildlife — because they are benefiting from its legal trade — is the best, and sometimes the only, long-term solution to the problem of sustainability.
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
To help with this, governments can increase rural communities’ resource and wildlife-use rights so that they can manage and protect their natural resources sustainably.
For example, in the 1970s, when Peru granted Andean communities the right to use vicuna wool, it saved the vicuna from extinction and created new, long-term income streams for the community. As legal and natural circumstances vary by country and community, we will need similar policy innovations across different sectors.
One promising sector is tourism, which also fits into the convention’s framework. For example, since Rwanda began sharing wildlife tourism revenue with local communities, the mountain gorilla population has grown. As we see time and again, when local communities are included, they can become resolute wildlife defenders.
More generally, we should be supporting scientists working on new adaptive management methods, and the private sector should be given incentives to invest in greater sustainable sourcing and increased supply and production chain transparency.
Conservation and improved livelihoods for the rural poor are feasible, and even mutually reinforcing. With more political will and smart investment, there is no reason we cannot achieve the goals of both reducing poverty and safeguarding wildlife for future generations.
Last year, the UN passed a historic resolution to tackle illicit wildlife trafficking, recognizing the effectiveness of the convention’s legal framework. The resolution calls on the 182 convention member countries to protect the interests of wildlife, as well as to provide tangible benefits for poor and rural communities.
Hopefully delegates from those member countries meeting at the World Wildlife Conference in South Africa are hearing that call.
Arancha Gonzalez is the executive director of the International Trade Center, a joint agency of the UN and the WTO. John Scanlon is secretary-general of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with