Groups attack wildlife trade plans

"This concept should not be adopted. The ones who would benefit are big traders not small ones, and certainly not endangered wildlife," shot Surapol Duangkhae, former secretary general of Wildlife Fund Thailand.

Last week Traffic, a wildlife trade monitor, and World Wildlife Fund International issued a report called "Trading Nature: the contribution of wildlife trade management to sustainable livelihoods and the Millennium development goals".

It said a managed trade on wildlife and wildlife products can offer opportunities to poor people and communities.

The report recommended governments explore "semi-intensive production methods", experiment with management regimes, develop "pro-poor" approaches to standards and certification schemes, and consider co-ordinated approaches to different components of wildlife trade.

The report examined case studies on selling wild meat in East and Southern Africa, the trade in peccary (swine), caiman (crocodile) skins and vicuna wool in South America, and Asian coastal fisheries trade.

"This is an unfair report as it only examined exceptional species that do not face extinction. It did not touch on species like pangolin that had been illegally traded for years," said Sompote Srikosamart, a wildlife scientist from Mahidol University.

According to Sompote, the concept could only apply to some species.

"You have to specify species and areas. Don't use wildlife to cover thousands of mammals and birds," said Sompote.

He said the concept could not be applied in Asia where wildlife populations, even in protected areas, have sharply shrunk, many to the point of extinction.

"Before promoting this managed-trade concept, the two organisations should give a clear answer on whether it would reduce the number of species under the endangered and critically endangered lists; and how the concept can be applied to 'silent forest' in Asia," said Sompote.

Though the concept is used elsewhere, Petch Manopavitr, deputy director of the Wildlife Conservation Society in Bangkok, said it should not be used here, as local wildlife was already quite low.

"It's premature [to use it here]. We can start only once we manage to secure our wildlife. I think the report tries to say wildlife trade can improve communities and they in turn can help conserve. It's really not the case for us right now," he said.

In an e-mail to The Nation, William Schaedla, WWF Thailand's country director, recommended a couple of major ways where "subsistence hunting" had been applied in a protected area.

They included forming a system that allowed "limited" use by hunters, with kill quotas and the establishment of "special zones" where hunting is allowed in protected areas.

Sompote said he thought Schaedla's recommendation was "out-of-date".

It was mentioned in a textbook for wildlife management several decades ago, he said.

"We are no longer talking about such ideas any more as evidence has  shown they cannot control [excessive] hunting. Once African elephants were allowed to be hunted in one area. But elephants in other areas were also hunted," he said.