The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
PERSPECTIVE article
Front. Conserv. Sci.
Sec. Conservation Social Sciences
Volume 6 - 2025 |
doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2025.1488946
This article is part of the Research Topic Advancing the Science of Environmental Justice in the International Wildlife Trade View all 7 articles
Implementation biases in wildlife trade regulation foster unscientific and inequitable intervention strategies
Provisionally accepted- Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (SI), Front Royal, United States
International conservation initiatives such as international wildlife trade regulation are important for species conservation efforts, but many current implementation models lend themselves to an environment that promotes biased values and inequitable distribution of benefits and responsibilities. This Perspective article aims to highlight prevailing sentiments observed among the international conservation community that contribute to asymmetrical discourse, policy development, and enforcement. These biases can limit the positive biodiversity impacts of interventions, preventing them from accomplishing species or landscape conservation goals. They can also contribute to mistrust between stakeholders, therefore adversely affecting relationships that are crucial to maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services. Additionally, interventions and policies can be shaped more by subjective judgements of value than by science. The regulation of foreign bushmeat in the United States and the discourse surrounding it demonstrates the presence of value judgements in conservation policy. It also demonstrates how these value judgements appear to supplant evidence-based policy development and promote a landscape of wildlife resource use where some species and usages are permitted and others are considered unacceptable. The ramifications of these inequities can be seen in protected area and species management strategies globally but are particularly prevalent in African and Asian regions, where militarization and shoot-to-kill policies are in place. We argue that fostering sustainable wildlife resource use is enormously complex and requires a scientific, evidence-based approach to develop and implement initiatives that are both fair and effective. These arguments are supported through the use of select quotations from notable public authorities.
Keywords: Bushmeat, environmental justice, Equity, poaching, Wildlife crime, Zoonoses
Received: 30 Aug 2024; Accepted: 22 Jan 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Kolby and Goodman. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Jonathan Edward Kolby, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (SI), Front Royal, United States
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.