Mapping the Evidence: Effectiveness of International ... · Evidence: Effectiveness of International Wildlife Trade Practices and Policies Working Paper #1. Mapping the Evidence:

Mapping the Evidence:Effectiveness ofInternational Wildlife Trade Practices and Policies

Working Paper #1

Mapping the Evidence: Effectiveness of International Wildlife Trade Practices and Policies Samantha H. Cheng1, Janine E. Robinson2, Neil Cox3,5, Duan Biggs4, Annette Olsson5, Michael B. Mascia5, Madeleine C. McKinnon5,6

CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL / WORKING PAPER #1

Copies of Conservation International’s Working Papers are available for download at: www.conservation.org.

1 National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), University of California-Santa Barbara 2 Durrell Institute of Conservation & Ecology (DICE), School of Anthropology and Conservation,

University of Kent 3 International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 4 Environmental Futures Research Institute. Griffith University 5 ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, Centre for Biodiversity & Conservation Science,

University of Queensland

6 Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, Stellenbosch University 7 IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group 8 Moore Center for Science and Oceans, Conservation International 9 Vulcan, Inc.

Front Cover Photo by: © WLDavies

Copyright:

The contents of this paper are solely the property of the authors, and cannot be reproduced without the permission of the authors.


1. PROJECT BACKGROUND

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND Wild animal and plant resources provide critical resources for human communities worldwide. These

resources also form an important component of local, national and international economies, valued at nearly USD 400 billion in 2009 (TRAFFIC 2014) spread across several industries including food, healthcare, construction, fuel, luxury items, and pets (Broad et al. 2003). A significant proportion of wildlife resources are found in developing countries, forming a major component of livelihood strategies of the rural poor (Chambers and Conway 1992; Roe et al. 2002; Shackleton and Shackleton 2004). However, increasing demand on these resources presents an enormous threat to both the survival of species and ecosystems as well as to the stability of critical natural resources and human livelihoods. Concern about rampant loss of biodiversity and widespread illegal trade in threatened species has propelled this issue to the top of political and conservation agendas (see 2014 European Parliament Resolution, Declaration from the 2014 London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade, Statement from the 2015 Kasane Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade, Declaration from the 2015 International Conference on Illegal Exploitation and Illicit Trade in Wild Flora and Fauna in Brazzaville, and the (U.S.) Presidential Task Force on Combating IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud).

Over the past couple of decades, a broad range of interventions has been established to regulate the international trade of wildlife and stop the dramatic decline of biodiversity. Initially, international agreements and regulations were the predominant approach to regulating trade of wildlife, particularly of threatened or endangered species. Regulations governing international trade operate at multiple scales from local to international, can be imposed from any point along the supply chain, and operate in direct and indirect pathways (Roe et al. 2002). While international agreements and regulations such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) have been key to controlling wildlife trade, there has been a growing recognition of and establishment of more “bottom-up” approaches to regulating trade. For example, organizations are utilizing awareness campaigns (e.g. Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch) (Jacquet and Pauly 2007) and certified sources to target consumer behavior as its relates to demand for wildlife-based products (O’Brien and Teisl 2004; Treves and Jones 2010). Trade following certification standards, such as those promoted by Marine Stewardship Council and the Forest Stewardship Council also offer incentives on the supply side through price premiums for species harvested sustainably (Gulbrandsen 2009).

In addition to reducing threats and improving conservation outcomes, many strategies also aim to provide co-benefits for biodiversity and human well-being. Trade can result in both positive and negative outcomes for biodiversity and for local livelihoods. For example, economic benefits from trade could provide an incentive to conserve and sustainably manage wildlife populations (Challender and McMillan 2014, McAllister et al. 2009) and increased community participation in sustainable management can also ensure the return of some benefits for the local community (Cinner et al. 2005). However, previous efforts to understand how wildlife trade and wildlife trade policies affect target species and dependent communities have not found any strong support for specific pathways (Roe et al. 2002). Specifically, impacts were hard to attribute to specific interventions due to uncertain contributions of governance structures around access to resources and markets, overall economic atmosphere, and unrelated factors. While it is now broadly recognized there is no one-size-fits-all solution to addressing wildlife trade, in the nearly 15 years since the Roe et al. review, there has not been another attempt to wholly review the effects of these policies and programs. In the meantime, there is growing international


pressure to take definitive action to combat illegal trade in the face of a recognized lack of comprehensive understanding on what is effective and when.

Consequently, without sufficient evidence on effectiveness, organizations and governments run the risk of investing in ineffective actions that result in negative consequences. For example, previous efforts addressing wildlife trade issues targeted protection harvested populations of specific species, but without clear or explicit consideration of how these actions would impact human communities. Blanket trade bans on high-value species such as elephants for the ivory trade initially saw increases in elephant populations, but poaching activity eventually crept back up (Lemieux and Clarke 2009). Inappropriate siting of protected habitat area has displaced communities (West et al. 2006) and limited access to resources (Hoare 2000), while also increasing levels of conflict between humans and wildlife (Dublin and Hoare 2004). Understanding the dynamics of these trade-offs is critical as national and international agendas are trying to combat both illegal wildlife trade and sustain global livelihoods. A systematic and comprehensive assessment of the state and distribution of evidence is thus necessary to drive more effective actions.


2. OBJECTIVE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

2. OBJECTIVE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS The objective of this evidence map is to identify, map and describe the evidence on the effects of

programs and policies aimed at regulating both illegal and legal international wildlife trade (IWT) on biological and human well-being outcomes. We use TRAFFIC’s definition of IWT as the sale or exchange of wild animal and plant resources, which can involve live individuals or a wide range of derived products including skins, medicinal ingredients, curios, timber, and food products over national boundaries. The map identifies and collates evidence from systematic reviews and primary research studies to scope and characterize the existing evidence base. We will use the map to identify key evidence gaps where future primary studies and systematic reviews can add value, and highlight priorities for further syntheses.

In doing so we address the following research questions:

1. What is the frequency, types and scale of IWT policies and programs for which evidence exists?

2. What are the characteristics of the global evidence on the effects of IWT policies and programs in terms of quantity, study design (as a proxy for robustness), outcome measures, species groups, and geographical location?

3. What are the major gaps in the evidence base from (a) primary research studies and (b) systematic reviews?


3. METHODS

3. METHODS Systematic maps and evidence gap maps are collections of evidence on effects covering a broad

thematic area. They present a visual overview of existing studies in a sector or sub-sector, schematically representing the types of interventions evaluated and the outcomes reported. The approach draws on the principles and methodologies adopted in existing evidence mapping and synthesis products (Eg: Bottrill et al. 2014, Arksey and O’Malley, 2005; Becker and Oxman, 2011; Bragge et al., 2011; Clapton and Coren, 2007; Khangura et al., 2012; The UK Civil Service, 2008; Waddington et al., 2012). Our study follows, as close as possible, the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) (Snilstveit et al. 2013) and Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) (James et al. 2016) guidelines for developing evidence gap/systematic maps. As this effort is also an exploratory approach to determining the quantity and characteristics of information that exist, there have been some modifications to the standardized systematic map guidelines.

3.1. Framework development

Previous frameworks around the drivers of wildlife trade and impacts of trade on species and communities are varied. It is broadly recognized that the interactions between people, environment and IWT are complex and affected by a number of enabling conditions and factors. However, synthesis across three comprehensive conceptual models (Roe et al. 2002; Biggs et al. 2016; Cooney et al. 2015) highlight common key areas that can be incorporated into an analytical framework to understand impact. Specifically, all three models indicate pathways to impact through (1) regulation and enforcement over the entire supply chain, (2) incentive-based action at both end-market and supply sides, and (3) awareness-based action at the end-market side. Within this broad framework, a review team composed of topic-relevant experts and stakeholders from Conservation International and academics specializing in wildlife trade and evidence synthesis, defined key intervention types (Table 1) and pathways for regulating IWT and achieving co-benefits for harvested species and human well-being.

3.2.Criteria for including and excluding studies:

To be included in the evidence map, studies needed to meet the criteria outlined below. These criteria were reviewed and confirmed with input from the research team and advisory group.

Types of study

All primary research studies, grey literature and systematic reviews were considered for included, if they fell within one of the following criteria:

1. Uses an appropriate comparator to evaluate the impact of an intervention explicitly targeted to regulate international wildlife trade on conservation behavior, species and/or a human well-being outcomes.

2. Uses an appropriate comparator when relying on opinion or perception data from people’s views to evaluate wildlife trade impacts.


Population

We included studies conducted in any country, documenting effectiveness of local, subnational, national, regional and international scale efforts, explicitly aimed to regulate sale or exchange of wild animal or plant resources (wildlife trade) across national boundaries. These include products such as skins, medicinal ingredients, timber, fish and other food products from hunting, harvesting, fisheries, aquaculture. Sale or exchange of domesticated or captive breed species were excluded. Related efforts, such as natural resource management which may include actions affecting trade, though while relevant, are beyond the scope of this evidence map due to resource constraints.

Intervention

Three broad groups of actions are primarily implemented to control wildlife trade: 1) Trade controls: establishing and enforcing policies, laws and regulations which include restrictions, bans, and regulating access to resources and markets; 2) End-market actions: actions aimed to reduce demand and/or consumption and change behaviors include using market forces and awareness building campaigns; 3) Supply-end actions: supporting sustainable local livelihoods and economic development including promoting alternative livelihoods, increasing local stakeholder participation, and reducing human-wildlife conflict (Roe et al. 2002, Cooney et al. 2015, Biggs et al. 2016).

We included studies that evaluate or measure impacts of an action explicitly aimed to regulate IWT (Table 1) on behavioural, biological and/or human well-being outcomes (Table 2). We included studies documenting the impact of these actions at any point along the supply chain.

Broad intervention categories and associated actions include the following:

Table 1. Categories and subcategories of programs and polices targeted at regulating international wildlife trade with definitions derived from a synthesis of wildlife trade frameworks (Cooney et al. 2015, Biggs et al. 2016) and the IUCN-CMP Conservation Actions Classification (version 2.0).

Method Intervention Definition Types of actions

TRADE CONTROLS

Establish and refine laws and regulations

This category includes interventions related to establishing laws, policies, and regulations that regulate the harvest, sale and transfer of wildlife species and products over international borders.


Establish laws, regulations and codes

Laws and regulations refer to official legal code governing the sale, transfer and harvest of regulated wildlife and associated products. Codes include formal or voluntary agreements between organizations in the private sector and civil society on sale, transfers and harvest of wildlife and associated products

Trade bans, trade controls, moratoria, CITES, U.S. Endangered Species Act, Marine Stewardship Council, Forest Stewardship Council, Seafood Watch, national laws and trade regulations, quotas, license schemes?

Define/refine policies and guidelines for implementation

Policies and guidelines govern how laws and regulations are implemented

Input into agency plans regulating species and harvests at all levels, task forces, trade commissions

Increase enforcement and compliance

This category includes interventions aimed to monitor and enforce existing laws and policies to reduce/deter threats and compel compliance

Detection Detecting, directly stopping, and/or deterring violations at any point along the supply chain

Surveillance, patrolling, monitoring trafficking, informer networks, poacher control,

Prosecution Deterring threat behaviors through legal punishment

Trials, convictions, fines

Civil action Deterring undesired behaviors or compliance through civil legal proceedings

Law suits, agency enforcement

END-MARKET ACTIONS


Reduce demand and consumption

This category includes interventions aimed at reducing demand and consumption of regulated wildlife and wildlife products on the consumer side of the supply chain in order to reduce pressure on harvested wildlife

Promote substitutions

Developing, promoting and/or providing alternative products or practices to substitute for overharvested and/or threatened species

Drugs for traditional medicines, farmed/aquaculture replacements for wild products, synthetic replicas of wild products (i.e. artificial rhino horn)

Awareness raising and building

Promoting awareness and/or emotions and behavior change by providing information to target consumer audiences through various channels

Organization campaigns, PSAs, informative lectures, outreach

Market-based incentives

Creating incentives to change behavior and attitudes through market mechanisms

Boycotts of unsustainable products, certification of products, educating consumers on sustainable products

SUPPLY-SIDE ACTIONS

Reduce threats by supporting local livelihoods

This category includes interventions aimed to reduce local scale threats to harvested species of concern by using positive or negative livelihood and economic incentives to directly influence attitudes and behaviors

Strengthen disincentives for illegal behavior

Actions that strengthen community engagement in enforcement

Training local guards against poachers, community conservation agreements, law enforcement (patrolling and legal action)


Increase incentives for stewardship of wildlife

Actions that develop and support initiatives that can generate local benefits from wildlife

Increase participation of local stakeholders in management, establish ecotourism enterprises, providing training as nature guides, promote NTFPs, community conservation agreements Allocate ownership and use rights over wildlife to individuals and to community groups

Decrease human-wildlife conflict

Actions mitigating costs from human-wildlife conflict

Providing fencing for livestock, deterrence solutions for wildlife near communities, compensation for losses

Reduce threats to harvested species of concern

This category includes interventions aimed to reduce direct threats/mitigate stresses to populations of specific taxa

Establish spatial areas of protection

Actions that protect key habitats, ecosystems, and/or areas for harvested species

Wildlife reserves, , protecting spawning breeding and feeding grounds

Regulate harvest of species of concern

Actions that limit harvest on populations

Quotas, seasonal closures, permitting, gear type, population management


The following interventions are excluded: species re-introduction, captive breeding, domestication, criminal syndicate control

Furthermore, interventions are stratified by international, regional, national, subnational and local levels as well as by where they fall along the supply chain (supply-end, harvest/trade, and end-market).

Data sources and data types

We included studies that obtain data from primary (e.g direct measurements, self-reported measurements from participants/respondents) and secondary (e.g. census data, data from other studies) sources as long as the methods are sufficiently reported. We included studies that use either quantitative or a combination of quantitative and qualitative measurements of impact.

Study designs

We included studies that are experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental in design. We also included studies explicitly described as systematic reviews and reviews that describe methods used for search, data collection and synthesis as per the protocol for the 3ie database of systematic reviews (Snilstveit et al., 2014).

Theoretical or modelling studies, editorials and commentaries, and studies not explicitly trying to measure effectiveness or impact were excluded. Literature reviews which do not describe methods for search, data collection and synthesis, and systematic reviews of efficacy trials (trials undertaken in clinical or laboratory settings) were also excluded.

Examples of potential primary studies for inclusion are listed in Appendix 2.

Comparator

Comparators were classified as temporal, spatial or between groups. Temporal comparators examine effects over time including before and after, interrupted or continuous time series and reported/perceived changes. Spatial comparators compare effects between sites over distance (e.g. near vs. far, linear distance). Lastly between group comparators compare effects between populations either of species/type of ecosystems or humans in relation to the intervention. This includes comparisons between presence/absence of an intervention.

Culturing of species to reduce pressure on wild species

Actions that promote raising of desired species in captivity as an alternative to capturing from the wild. This does not include domestication or captive breeding.

Culturing, ranching


Sampling strategy

We disaggregated studies by whether they employ a control, use stratified sampling, use random sampling, or not. This allowed us to document the overall quality of the existing evidence base.

Outcomes

We included studies that assess the effectiveness of the above listed intervention types on overall status of the species or population of concern and their impacts on human well-being. Specifically, we included any studies that document biological outcomes for populations/species of concern, behavioural outcomes, and/or human well-being outcomes. We also recorded the direction of impact for each outcome reported as positive, neutral, mixed, or negative.

(1) Behavioural

We included studies that assess changes in conservation behavior through changes in management, listing status and/or attitudes.

Table 2. Categories and examples of behavioural outcomes

(2) Species

We included any studies that document changes in biological outcomes at the population and species levels including abundance, recovery, biomass, function and health. Note, that this does not include ecological outcomes – e.g. habitat stability, ecosystem integrity, etc…

Category Examples

Management Quotas, harvest restrictions, enforcement, sustainable/unsustainable use, allocation of ownership rights, etc…

Protection IUCN threat category, endangered species listing, legal protection

Trade Decreased trade, trade policies

Behavior change Changes in attitudes towards harvesting practices, valuation of wildlife, consumer preference for products


Table 3. Categories and examples of biological outcomes

(3) Human well-being

We included studies that assess explicit social and economic outcomes for individuals, households and communities/settlements. This human well-being typology is a subset adapted from a synthesized typology from (Bottrill et al. 2014; McKinnon et al. 2016).

Table 4. Categories and examples of human well-being outcome measures

Category Examples

Population

Defined as a group of interbreeding individuals that are spatially, temporally, and/or genetically distinct from another such group (ref)

Density Relative abundance Biomass Presence/absence Distribution

Species

Biological species definition? Use IUCN definition of species

Density Abundance Biomass Presence/absence Distribution

Category Examples

Economic living standards

Definition: Economic living standards of basic life

Income, livelihood, jobs, poverty, employment opportunities, wealth, savings, payments

Material living standards

Definition: Material living standards of basic life

Basic infrastructure, resource use (both sustainable and unsustainable), food security, assets owned

Health Definition: Indicators and determinants of human health

Physical health, nutrition, longevity/life expectancy, maternal health, child health, access to health care, occurrence of diseases, mental health, injury, access to medicines

Education Definition: Basic education access required


Education infrastructure (access to school, access to training, quality of education); Informal education (transfer of knowledge and skills includes livelihood skills, traditional knowledge and skills); Formal education (degrees awarded, students enrolled

Social relations Definition: Interactions between individuals, within and/or between groups (communities, stakeholders, ethnic groups, gender)

Conflict, relationships, connectedness, ability to work together, ability to help others, and trust

Security and safety Definition: Security and safety of rights, assets, environments, and physical persons

Physical security (personal safety and security), resource security; tenure security; human rights; vulnerability, resilience and adaptive capacity – rights to access, use and/or benefit from resources

Governance and empowerment

Definition: Structures and processes for decision making

Including both formal and informal rules; includes participation and control in decision making, accountability, justice, transparency and governance skills

Subjective well-being

Definition: Measures of individual contentment with oneself, one’s society, and one’s environment

Measures of happiness, quality of life, satisfactions supported by some value of ecosystem(s) and/or resources

Culture & spirituality

Definition: Ability to engage in and preserve ability to practice religious/spiritual beliefs and uphold cultural/spiritual values

Cultural, societal and traditional values of natural resources and nature to the community; Sense of home; Cultural identity and heritage; spiritual or religious beliefs and/or values

Freedom of choice & action

Definition: Ability to pursue what you value doing and being

Choice, ability to choose


3.3.Search strategy

We identified studies using three main strategies, as outlined below:

1. Publication database searches: We chose to search Web of Science based upon previous systematic reviews on related topics e.g. McKinnon et al. 2016, Pullin et al. 2013, Roe et al. 2012.

2. Topical databases and organization searches: Targeted searches of specialist websites and databases were conducted, in particular, of established online repositories of impact evaluations and systematic reviews on related topics to our research question. These websites were searched when possible with the original search string, and when not, with the following individual terms: “wildlife trade”, “wildlife traffic*”. When this did not reveal useful results, the website was searched via a Google Scholar website search e.g. "wildlife trade" site:panda.org. Boolean operators and wildcards were used when possible. We screened the first 50 returns from each site for relevance by reading first titles and abstracts and then full text. A list of websites is provided in Table 5.

Table 5. List of organizations and databases to be searched

Database or Organization Web URL

Poverty and Conservation Learning Group http://povertyandconservation.info

International Impact Initiative (3ie) www.3ieimpact.org

Collaboration for Environmental Evidence www.environmentalevidence.org

Cochrane Collaboration www.cochrane.org

J-Poverty Action Lab www.povertyactionlab.org

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)

www.iied.org

Conservation, crimes and communities database (IIED)

http://communitiesforwildlifetrade.iied.org

International Trade Centre (ITC) www.intracen.org

Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) http://wcswildlifetrade.org/

World Trade Organization (WTO) www.wto.org

TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network www.traffic.org

Worldwide Fund for Nature Conservation (WWF) www.panda.org

United Nations Environment Programme – World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)

www.unep-wcmc.org


http://www.cochrane.org

http://www.intracen.org

http://wcswildlifetrade.org/

http://www.wto.org

http://www.traffic.org/

Search terms

We compiled an initial set of English search terms relevant to different components of the research question. We modified this initial set through a scoping exercise in Web of Science (Appendix 1) to check for sensitivity of alternate terms and wildcards. The final search string was then tested on a test library compiled through solicitation of relevant literature from an expert advisory panel (Appendix 2), resulting in ~80% of documents being found.

Search string:

Trade terms:

("trade" NOT "trade-off*") OR "traffic*" OR "poach*"

AND

Wildlife terms:

"wildlife" OR "conservation" OR "fauna" OR "flora" OR "endangered species" OR "threatened species" OR "fish*" OR "aquarium" OR "aquaculture" OR "ornamental" OR "pet" OR "timber" OR "ivory" OR "elephant" OR "rhino*" OR "tiger" OR "shark" OR "ray" OR "plant" OR "medicinal" OR "bushmeat" OR "ape" OR "bear" OR "turtle" OR "reptile" OR "leopard" OR "deer" OR "primate" OR "coral" OR "non timber forest products"

AND

Action terms:

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

www.iucn.org

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

www.cites.org

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) www.cbd.int

Conservation Evidence www.conservationevidence.com

Open Grey www.opengrey.eu

Darwin Initiative www.darwininitiative.org.uk

Department for International Development (DFID) www.dfid.gov.uk

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

www.usaid.org

African Wildlife Foundation www.awf.org

Save the Elephants http://savetheelephants.org


http://www.cites.org

AND

Outcome terms:

"recovery" OR "abundance" OR "protection" OR "income" OR "poverty" OR "livelihood*" OR "security" OR "asset" OR "stewardship" OR "awareness" OR "behavior" OR "behaviour" OR "benefit" OR "impact" OR "value" OR "effectiveness" OR "effective"

3.4.Reference management

The online literature review and reference management software, EPPI-Reviewer 4 (Thomas et al. 2010), was used to upload relevant titles and abstracts for candidate studies identified through the search strategy. A project workspace was established to assist the research team in organizing and managing the sources of evidence (i.e., where possible studies were located) and the screening process.

3.5.Screening

Following implementation of the search strategy, screening for studies involved a multi- step process. The initial stage involves first, screening of titles, and then the abstracts of the full set of studies identified by the search strategy.

Studies that meet the inclusion criteria at both the title and abstract stages were reviewed at full text. Double screening was conducted on a small portion of studies selected for full text assessment due to resource constraints. Also, when reviewer was uncertain about study inclusion, it was marked for a second opinion and screened by a second reviewer. Detailed instructions provided by CEE on this full text assessment stage were followed.

3.6.Data extraction

We used a standardized questionnaire to extract descriptive data from all studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Data extracted from each study included bibliographic details, intervention type, scale of intervention, outcome type, direction and definition (as a heuristic measure), study design, species type, species use, and geographical location. A complementary codebook was created to explain the scope of each question in the data extraction form (Appendix 3).

We conducted a pilot with a small subset of studies by a portion of the research team to ensure consistency and to resolve any issues or ambiguities.

3.7. Data analysis and synthesis

We summarized the descriptive characteristics of the included studies according to the population, interventions, comparators, supply chain, study designs and outcomes. We mapped the included articles into a structured matrix, or “evidence map” which visually illustrates the distribution and frequencies of articles documenting linkages between categories action and outcomes types identified a priori (Tables 1-4). Each cell represents the number of unique articles documenting a linkage. Articles can appear in multiple cells.

Extracted data was compiled into a searchable database using the statistical programming language, R (version 3.1.0), RStudio, and the packages dplyr and tidyr (R Development Core Team). The resultant R


database was used to generate descriptive statistics on key trends across and between articles, regions and linkages. The structural matrix of linkages between actions and outcomes was visualized as a heat map using the package ggplot2 [59].

The final data set is available on a sub-portal of the SNAPP Evidence for Nature and People data portal (www.natureandpeopleevidence.org/wildlifetrade). This is a graphical display of the existing evidence in terms of types of studies and the interventions and outcomes assessed in the current literature. You can use this to identify ‘absolute’ evidence gaps (where there are no impact evaluations or systematic reviews) and synthesis gaps (where there are impact evaluations but a lack of high quality systematic reviews).


http://www.natureandpeopleevidence.org/xxxxxxxx)

4. RESULTS

4. RESULTS

4.1. Number and types of articles

A total of 4,281 articles from publication databases and organization websites were screened, resulting in 353 potentially relevant articles flagged for full-text data extraction (Figure 1). Approximately 15% of these articles were screened by two reviewers to control for researcher bias. Full text assessment further refined this list of included articles to 42 articles for data extraction.

�


Figure 1. Step by step results of screening and extraction

Nearly 50% of studies screened at title and abstract were excluded as they not related to the trade of wildlife and wildlife products. The remaining 50% were excluded due to a number of different reasons including 1) not documenting an implemented action (22%), 2) not measuring realized outcomes of an intervention (7%), and 3) discussing associated impacts of trade such as zoonotic diseases, invasions, and pest species (5.5%) (Table 6).

While a good proportion of articles were deemed relevant following screening at title and abstract, the majority of these did not make it to the final evidence map (87%) (Figure 1). We could not locate or access full text for 17 articles. Qualitative appraisal of exclusion rationale for the 307 articles for two primary reasons. Upon full text examination, many studies were excluded because they either did not examine an implemented intervention (n=15), or examined interventions that were not explicitly linked to international wildlife trade (n=26) and/or dealt with only local trade (n=5). Second, many studies covering relevant topics pertaining to wildlife trade were also excluded because they that did not have an appropriate study design (n=62). This includes, for example, case studies that did not use a valid comparator (n=30), not explicitly testing for impacts (n=11), narrative reviews (n=12), modelling studies (n=4), and studies employing only qualitative data (n=3). Other reasons included studies which broadly examined fisheries or forestry as an industry (n=23) and agriculture (n=6).

Table 6. Distribution of exclusion criteria for the 3928 articles that were excluded at title and abstract stage

Exclusion criteria Examples Number excluded

Exclude on study topic Did not fit general description of included studies – e.g. food quality, non-wildlife crime enforcement

1949

Exclude on intervention Did not document an actual intervention. Potential or planned interventions, documents trade patterns but no actions to regulate

873

Exclude on outcome/evidence Discussing implementation of actions, but no outcomes

283

Exclude on study design Theoretical modelling studies, editorials, commentaries, non-comparative study designs, literature reviews with no methods for search or synthesis

155


INCLUDED ARTICLES

4.2.Study design and comparators

The final articles in the evidence map comprise a range of different practices and policies aimed at regulation international wildlife trade. We found no articles prior to 1994 and very few articles from then until 2009. After which, the rate of relevant articles has increased exponentially over time (Figure 2). Articles examined effectiveness of these actions on a variety of outcomes used primarily non-experimental study designs (93%) to assign treatments to different groups or sites (Figure 3A). The most commonly employed comparators were examining the effects of an action over time either using a baseline before the start of the policy or program (before-after) and/or over a continuous time period (Figure 3B).

Exclude – trade related Broader studies with interventions not specifically targeting wildlife trade regulation but this may be part of the broader goal of intervention e.g. impacts of different resource management interventions such as national parks or community based conservation, on species abundance or socio economic status

138

Exclude – local trade Studies documenting trade eg illegal hunting, market surveys, wildlife use etc, but NOT focused on intervention to regulate wildlife trade

145

Exclude – agriculture/livestock/food

agriculture, livestock, food safety, seeds, gemstones

150

Exclude – trade impact disease, invasive species, pests 216

Exclude – diagnostics/identification/tracing tools

Techniques to identify products in trade - not necessarily an intervention but rather way of monitoring and detecting illegal wildlife trade

35


Figure 2. Distribution of articles on effectiveness of international wildlife trade practices and policies over time. Earliest article included was from 1994

Figure 3. Types of study designs (A) and comparators (B) used to examine effectiveness of international wildlife trade practices and policies

4.3.Species coverage

Seven different animal phyla and one protist phyla from terrestrial, marine and freshwater habitats were represented in the evidence base (Figure 4, Appendix 6). The majority of articles examined focused on actions intended to address or regulate trade in terrestrial species, mostly mammals (33%), in comparison with freshwater and marine species combined (30%). Overall, a large diversity of target species and uses were represented with 41 different named species with a moderate number of studies covering multiple sub-species or groups of species. Albeit, most species were represented by only one article, save for rhinoceroses (n=5). The most reported uses of target species studies were for food (n=21, medicine (n=12) and decoration (n=14) with many species serving multiple use types (Appendix 6).


A B

�

Figure 4. Distribution of studied target species over habitat types and purpose of harvest (indicated by the stacked columns). As articles may have examined multiple species, counts here indicate the number of occurrences of a species type.

4.4.Geographic coverage

The evidence map contains articles that represent a wide range of geographic regions (Figure 5). The most well-studied region was Asia (including South Asia and Southeast Asia), with a total of 14 articles. Individually, the United States (n=5), Peru (n=4), China (n=4), India (n=3), Indonesia (n=3), Nepal (n=3) and Zambia (n=3) were the top studied countries. While ~25% of total articles were conducted in Africa (n=10), only 7 countries were represented in the southern, western and eastern regions. As a heuristic, the incidence of illegal wildlife trade alerts was overlaid on geographic distribution to understand how distribution of study effort coincides with hotspots of illegal wildlife trade (Figure 6). These alerts were compiled from the Health Map Wildlife Trade Map which collates reports of interceptions from news and organization sources (Sonricker Hansen et al. 2012). Qualitatively, regions with higher incidences of alerts in 2016 seemed to coincide with more well-studied regions.


�

Figure 5. Geographic distribution of articles. Darker countries indicate higher occurrences of articles while lighter colors indicate lower occurrences.

�

Figure 6. Geographic distribution of articles in relation to number of illegal wildlife trade alerts (indicated by size and color of circle) in 2016 as compiled by Health Map Wildlife Trade Map (http://www.healthmap.org/wildlifetrade/) created by Wildlife Conservation Society and Children’s Hospital of Boston.

4.5.Dimensions of wildlife trade practices and policies covered

Figure 7 documents the distribution and characteristics of the five broad categories of wildlife trade practices and policies covered in this evidence map. Approximately 29% of articles documented complex programs that involved more than one type of action (n=12). The effectiveness of trade control


http://www.healthmap.org/wildlifetrade/)

http://www.healthmap.org/wildlifetrade/)

actions - establishing or refining laws and policies (n=21) and increasing enforcement and compliance (n=11) - were the most well-studied categories. Within trade control actions, laws, regulations and codes (70%) and detection (26%) dominated in terms of sub-categories. Overall, while actions aimed to address trade at all areas of the supply chain, the majority of articles examined the impact of actions either on the supply-side or trade control areas (Figure 7).

�

Figure 7. Distribution of actions examined along the international wildlife trade supply chain. Actions are divided by major intervention types. Articles are coded for where along the supply chain the study aimed to examine impacts (indicated in stacked bars). Articles can appear multiple times in the chart if they examined more than one action type and more than one area of the supply chain.


�

Figure 8. Distribution of behavioural, biological, and human well-being outcomes examined in the evidence map. Outcomes are divided by major category. Articles can appear multiple times in the chart if they examined more than one outcome type.

4.6.Categories of outcomes measured

Figure 8 presents the distribution of outcome categories and sub-categories measured in the evidence base. There were few articles that examined outcomes across behavioural, biological and human domains (n=11), however approximately half the articles evaluated more than one outcome (Figure 9). Behavioural and biological outcomes were the most frequently documented outcomes with all but three articles including these as a measure. Within behavioural outcomes, most studies measured outcomes associated with management practices and trade flows, with relatively little documented in for behaviour change and none for protection status. Biological outcomes were restricted solely to measures at the population level. In comparison, only ~25% of articles examined human outcomes. Within this domain, economic and material living standards were most often measured. In comparison, there were few articles evaluated education, security and safety, and governance and empowerment


impacts and no articles measuring health, social relations, or other types of outcomes based on more subjective measures of well-being (e.g. culture and spirituality, freedom of choice & action).

�

Figure 9. Number of outcomes measured in articles.

4.7. Intersection of international wildlife trade practices and policies on behavioural, biological and human outcomes

The evidence map is presented as a visual heatmap of distribution and frequency of linkages across the framework of wildlife trade practices and policies and outcomes. Linkages with higher occurrences of evidence are indicated in darker colors while lower occurrences are indicated in lighter colors. The evidence map is presented in two forms – a summarized form displaying major categories of actions and outcomes (Figure 10) and the full map detailing linkages between individual sub-categories (Figure 11). The linkage with the highest occurrence of evidence is the impact of establishing laws and policies on behavioural outcomes (n=13). Other areas of high occurrence include links between laws and policies and biological outcomes, increasing enforcement and compliance and behavioural as well as biological outcomes, and supporting local livelihoods on behavioural and biological outcomes. Comparatively, there was little evidence examining impacts on human outcomes except for the impact of laws and policies. In addition, the impacts of actions to reduce demand and consumption on biological outcomes was also not well-studied. When the evidence map is further disaggregated by specific action and outcome types, we see that the most well-studied linkage is between establishing laws, regulations and codes and trade outcomes (i.e. changes to trade flows). The impact of laws, regulations and codes as well as the impact of practices and policies aimed to facilitate detection on management practices and target populations is also relatively more studied than other types of actions and outcomes.


�

Figure 10. Summarized evidence map of international wildlife trade practices and policies’ impact on behaviors, target species (biological) and human well-being outcomes.


�

Figure 11. Evidence map of international wildlife trade practices and policies’ impact on behavioural, target species (biological) and human well-being outcomes with detailed breakdowns of individual sub-types of actions and outcomes.


5.DISCUSSION

5. DISCUSSION This systematic map provides an up-to-date snapshot of the current state of evidence on the

impacts of wildlife trade practices and policies on behavioural, biological and human outcomes. In total, the evidence base contains 42 articles from 1970 until the present spanning a wide range of geographic regions and target species. While illustrative in nature, the more well-studied regions in this map seemed to coincide with hotspots of illegal wildlife trade (Figure 6). Well-studied relationships focus on effectiveness of established interventions, such as the establishment or refinement of laws, regulations and codes (e.g. CITES, trade export bans, etc…) and increasing compliance and enforcement (e.g. local-scale patrolling), on management practices, trade flows, and target populations. Outstanding gaps in the evidence base include a lack of evidence overall for impacts of any actions on human outcomes, protection measures, or biological outcomes. This study is the first systematic map of international wildlife trade practices and policies. Both the map itself and the process to generate the map offer several insights for informing wildlife trade actions.

5.1 Limitations of the map

While the search strategy employed to generate this map was comprehensive, it was not exhaustive due to finite time and resources. Thus, while there are numerous databases of peer-reviewed published literature, our search was limited to one broad publication database (Web of Science). Given the breadth of topics and journals included in Web of Science, we feel that the results are still reflective of the general state of evidence. Second, the search was also limited to English language literature. Third, additional searches of related bibliographies from other systematic maps and reviews besides McKinnon et al. 2016, and forward and backward screening of the included articles was not performed. However, as the search was conducted in a repeatable and transparent manner, it can be easily updated in the future with additional sources.

5.2 Insight from excluded articles

While the studies included in an evidence map are critical to understanding the current state of knowledge, there is also a wealth of information to be gleaned from the characteristics of studies which did not make the final cut. A large proportion of excluded studies were not included as they examined elements of wildlife harvest that were not explicitly linked to international trade, but rather to local trade. While not relevant for this particular systematic map, these studies represent a potential wealth of information for future synthesis efforts that may provide key insight on successful mechanisms that can be translated across scales.

Beyond studies which were excluded due to topic irrelevance, approximately 8% of studies on relevant topics were excluded because they did not employ a valid study design to explicitly test for effectiveness or impacts. Many of these studies were theoretical or modeling studies, which while useful for predicting outcomes under a myriad of conditions, do not provide any information grounded in “real life” that can reliably guide decision making. In addition, others excluded were case studies, that while relevant, did not employ a comparator. The large volume of relevant insight that was excluded highlights


the need to improve evaluation of ongoing programs. Oftentimes, limited resources preclude sufficient monitoring and evaluation programs. However, as the scale and volume of wildlife trade have increased, it is imperative that programs invest sufficient resources to monitor progress.

5.3 Characteristics of the evidence base

Interventions

Achieving sustainable harvest and trade of wildlife trade products has typically been managed through a relatively limited set of conservation policy tools – with laws, regulations and policies established to ban, restrict and/or regulate harvest and trade being the most commonly implemented (Roe et al. 2002, Biggs et al. 2016). More recently, there has been a push to pursue both supply-side and consumer-side wildlife trade actions in order to achieve sustainability while minimizing negative consequences for dependent human populations (London Declaration 2014, Kasane Declaration 2015). The evidence base reflects this bias as the majority of articles focus on evaluating the impacts of trade controls and to a lesser extent, the impact of increasing compliance and enforcement (Figure 11). However, in contrast, despite more recent emphasis on supply-side and end-consumer actions in scientific literature, international resolutions and programmatic activity – the evidence base indicates sufficient information on how these actions can lead to sustainable wildlife harvest and livelihoods is still lacking. It is possible that because of the complex nature of these types of interventions, desired outcomes can take considerable time to manifest (Roe et al. 2002). Thus, this evidence gap may be filled as more time has passed since these actions were implemented.

Outcomes

The vast majority of included studies examined impacts on behavioural and biological outcomes. However, in comparison, there is a distinct lack of evidence supporting impact of wildlife trade practices and policies on human outcomes. The predominance of studies focusing on behavioural and biological outcomes is not surprising given the long-standing bias towards ecological research in conservation science. However, while wildlife and ecosystem-focused conservation dominated in the early years of conservation, emphasis on achieving win-win outcomes for nature and people have come to the forefront of many governmental, organization and institutional objectives. This evidence gap could highlight an area that has insofar been understudied, underfunded, or not prioritized in existing program evaluations. This could also reflect biases in the design of this study. For example, we only included studies that documented the impact of a specific wildlife trade action, however, this excludes studies which document the reliance of a population on wildlife trade as there is no action being evaluated.

The most well-studied linkage in the evidence map is between law, regulations and codes and behavioural and biological outcomes. This focus is consistent with existing research which have focused on the consequences of implementing laws and regulations such as CITES on revisions to management structures and evidence for species or population recovery (Bowman 2013; Challender and MacMillan 2014; Weber et al. 2015). These types of international regulations are often criticized for their inability to provide accommodation to support local livelihoods which are typically most impacted by the trade controls and trade bans required for implementation (Biggs et al. 2016). However, we observe much lower occurrences of evidence on the impact of laws, regulations and codes on human well-being outcomes. There was also a high proportion of included articles which examined the impact of improving


detection of illegal trade on primarily behavioural and biological outcomes. While many of these studies focused on the impact of patrolling on reducing poaching while also providing alternative livelihoods as wardens and patrollers, few explicitly examined human well-being outcomes (Figure 11).

Demand-side incentives (e.g. market-based incentives, consumer awareness) have arisen more recently than other approaches (however, with some caveats, e.g. McNamara et al. 2016), the evidence base supporting the impacts of these policies is still small. However, these studies may provide a key starting point for future endeavors and improvements upon existing efforts to achieve positive outcomes. Another key area for achieving sustainable wildlife trade is change in stakeholder behavior at all parts of the supply chain. While only two articles in the evidence base explicitly examined actual behaviour change, a number of articles were excluded as they considered qualitative perceptions and opinions of stakeholders about an intervention. Thus, it is possible that useful information on behaviour change may exist but however falls short of the quality criteria for this map. This is important to consider as while supply-side policies can decrease incentives to engage in wildlife harvest, particularly illegal harvest (e.g. poaching), the demand for wildlife products can weaken the impact of these policies. For example, recent studies have found that people place higher value on wildlife and wildlife products that are considered rare or uncommon, and that this demand for rarity can reduce the impacts of supply-side policies (Gault et al. 2008; Palazy et al. 2011; Chen 2016).

All other linkages were characterized by one or two studies at the most, thus any insight in these areas is substantially biased due to small sample size.

5.4 How to use the evidence map

Linkages with higher occurrences of evidence represent areas that may be promising for further in-depth analysis such as a meta-analysis or a systematic review. Linkages with moderate or low occurrences of evidence but are in priority areas for wildlife trade policy and programs may represent promising areas for future or increased investment, increased monitoring and evaluation, and additional impact evaluations. This map is a useful tool for determining where to direct limited resources to conduct further research, and strengthen monitoring the impact of current interventions and information on the efficacy of specific interventions.

5.5 Recommendations for future synthesis

As the global conservation and development community aim to achieve win-win outcomes for both natural ecosystems and for human populations, understanding mechanisms governing potential synergies and trade-offs between these two goals is critical for success. The trade in wildlife supports millions of livelihoods around the world, both directly and indirectly. More often than not, those whose livelihoods directly depend on sustained harvest and sale of wildlife and wildlife products are the global poor (Roe et al. 2002). While this evidence map is relatively small, it does present some areas in which to synthesize information to understand important mechanisms and factors that impact different types of outcomes. In total, 5 articles examine both impacts on conservation and human outcomes, another 5 on conservation and biological outcomes, with one study examining all three.


6. CONCLUSIONS

6. CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Implications for management and policy

One of the biggest challenges that remains is finding real life examples of when these policies and practices have been implemented and whether positive outcomes were achieved and under what conditions (Sutherland et al. 2004). While a number of articles were initially recovered using the search strategy, the majority did not make into the final map because very few of them attempted to evaluate impacts of implemented actions (Table 6). A pressing area to expand the scope of evaluations is in less studied interventions such as market forces and supply-side incentives. Understanding the effects of incentive-based interventions is particularly important given growing interest in market-based approaches among both NGOs (WWF, Conservation International), foundations, institutions (e.g. Monterey Bay Seafood Watch), as well as public-private certification partnerships (e.g. Marine Stewardship Council, Forest Stewardship Council). Given limited resources, the ability to prioritize efforts between different strategies is extremely important, particularly when dealing with a complex and multi-faceted target such as wildlife trade (Challender et al. 2015). The predominance of both past practice and existing evidence by trade control interventions limits insight into the range of options for conservation policymakers, planners and practitioners.

The evidence that goes into this map represents the distribution and breadth of both published and unpublished knowledge on impacts. However, we are limited by which resources are actually accessible. Thus, if evaluations are currently being conducted in some of the areas we have identified as gaps, but are not reported or accessible, this presents considerable potential risk. By not reporting outcomes from increasingly popular intervention – such as alternative livelihoods and consumer-driven demand, at the minimum, we risk investing in increasingly popular interventions that may or may not work, and worse, risk compounded further negative impacts on at risk populations.

6.2 Implications for research

The map highlights significant knowledge gaps that are critical for understanding which pathways lead to successful regulation of wildlife trade and sustainable livelihoods. While detailing specific causal pathways will require further in-depth investigation of the proximate factors leading from an action to an outcome, this map provides a starting point.

In particular, this map highlights the need for more robust research designs. This finding has been echoed across the conservation and development sectors with projects often claiming success based on anecdotal evidence rather than rigorous assessments taking into account counterfactuals, confounding factors and baseline data (Ferraro 2009; Miteva et al. 2012 but see Valters 2014, 2015 for argument for complexity). This has two major implications for future research in wildlife trade. First, at the basic level, there needs to be adequate resources and capacity for in-depth monitoring and evaluation of implemented programs along all parts of the supply chain. This involves not only long-term monitoring of key indicators but investment in developing robust theories of change to inform evaluation frameworks.


Second, in order to generate more evidence to inform wildlife trade practices and policies, we recommend future research to validate existing frameworks and conceptual models with empirical data. While past research has brought up the difficulty of attributing observed outcomes to a trade-based policy given the complexity of socio-economic systems (e.g Roe et al. 2002), more recently, detailed synthesis frameworks have emerged detailing out specific theories of change for various action types on different parts of the supply chain. In particular, the importance of institutions, governance structure, and species characteristics are beginning to be better understood (Cooney et al. 2015; Crona et al. 2015). The evidence contained in this map can help support our understanding of these relationships.

This evidence base provides a collated repository of empirical studies to support different strategies, including some that have been hotly contested due to lack of demonstrated outcomes (e.g. supply-side strategies, Bulte et al. 2002; Brooks et al. 2010; Kirkpatrick and Emerton 2010) and others with conflicting evidence (e.g. CITES - IUCN and CITES 2000; Challender et al. 2015). Although the evidence base is small, it provides a starting point to investigate on a broader level which combination of actions and circumstances can more likely lead to positive outcomes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the Betty and Gordon Moore Foundation for their generous support in funding this evidence mapping initiative. We thank the Science for Nature and People Partnership working group on Evidence-Based Conservation for their advice and feedback on developing and refining the protocol for this project.

APPENDICES

1. Search results from initial scoping and testing of search string within online publication databases

2. Test library of candidate studies for inclusion

3. Data extraction form and codebook for coding data from studies

4. Final coded data

5. Bibliography of included studies

6. Supplemental annotated bibliography organized by target species studied, parts used, and purpose.


REFERENCES

REFERENCES Arksey, H. and O’Malley, L. (2005) Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. , International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 1, 19-32.

Becker, L.A. and Oxman, A.D. (2011), ‘Overviews of reviews’, Chapter 22 in Higgins, J.P.T. and Green, S. (Eds), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org

Biggs D, Cooney R, Roe D, Dublin H, Allan J, Challender D, Skinner D. 2015. Engaging local communities in tackling illegal wildlife trade Can a “ Theory of Change ” help ?

Bottrill M, Cheng S, Garside R, Wongbusarakum S, Roe D, Holland MB, Edmond J, Turner WR. 2014. What are the impacts of nature conservation interventions on human well-being : a systematic map protocol. :1–11.

Bowman M. 2013. A Tale of Two CITES : Divergent Perspectives upon the Effectiveness of the Wildlife Trade Convention. Rev. Eur. Community Int. Environ. Law 22:228–238.

Broad S, Mulliken T, Roe D. 2003. The nature and extent of legal and illegal trade in wildlife. trade Wildl. Regul. Conserv.:3–22.

Brooks EGE, Roberton SI, Bell DJ. 2010. The conservation impact of commercial wildlife farming of porcupines in Vietnam. Biol. Conserv. 143:2808–2814.

Bulte E, van Soest DP, van Kooten GC, Schipper RA. 2002. Forest conservation in Costa Rica when nonuse benefits are uncertain but rising. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 84:150–160.

Challender DWS, Harrop SR, MacMillan DC. 2015. Towards informed and multi-faceted wildlife trade interventions. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 3:129–148.

Challender DWS, MacMillan DC. 2014. Poaching is more than an enforcement problem. Conserv. Lett. 7:484–494.

Chambers R, Conway G. 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. Institute of Development Studies (UK).

Chen F. 2016. Poachers and Snobs: Demand for Rarity and the Effects of Antipoaching Policies. Conserv. Lett. 9:65–69.

Cooney R, Kasterine A, MacMillan D, Milledge S, Nossal K, Roe D, ’t Sas-Rolfes M. 2015. The trade in wildlife: a framework to improve biodiversity and livelihood outcomes. Geneva.

Crona BI, Van Holt T, Petersson M, Daw TM, Buchary E. 2015. Using social-ecological syndromes to understand impacts of international seafood trade on small-scale fisheries. Glob. Environ. Chang. 35:162–175.

Dublin HT, Hoare RE. 2004. Searching for Solutions: The Evolution of an Integrated Approach to Understanding and Mitigating Human–Elephant Conflict in Africa. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 9:271–278.


http://www.cochrane-handbook.org

Ferraro PJ. 2009. Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. New Dir. Eval. 2009:75–84.

Gault A, Meinard Y, Courchamp F. 2008. Consumers’ taste for rarity drives sturgeons to extinction. Conserv. Lett. 1:199–207.

Gulbrandsen LH. 2009. The emergence and effectiveness of the Marine Stewardship Council. Mar. Policy 33:654–660.

Hoare R. 2000. African elephants and humans in conflict: The outlook for co-existence. Oryx 34:34–38.

IUCN, CITES. 2000. Trade Measures in Multilateral Environmental Agreements. A Rep. by IUCN - World Conserv. Union Eff. Trade Meas. Contain. Conv. Int. Trade Endanger. Species Wild Fauna Flora.

Jacquet JL, Pauly D. 2007. The rise of seafood awareness campaigns in an era of collapsing fisheries. Mar. Policy 31:308–313.

Kirkpatrick RC, Emerton L. 2010. Matando tigres para salvarlos: Falacias del argumento de la reproduccion en cautiverio. Conserv. Biol. 24:655–659.

Lemieux AM, Clarke R V. 2009. THE INTERNATIONAL BAN ON IVORY SALES AND ITS EFFECTS. :451–471.

McKinnon MC, Cheng SH, Dupre S, Edmond J, Garside R, Glew L, Holland MB, Levine E, Masuda YJ, Miller DC, et al. 2016. What are the effects of nature conservation on human well ‑ being ? A systematic map of empirical evidence from developing countries. Environ. Evid.:1–25.

McNamara J, Rowcliffe M, Cowlishaw G, Alexander JS, Ntiamoa-Baidu Y, Brenya A, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2016. Characterising Wildlife Trade Market Supply-Demand Dynamics. PLoS One 11:e0162972.

Miteva DA, Pattanayak SK, Ferraro PJ. 2012. Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: What works and what doesn’t? Oxford Rev. Econ. Policy 28:69–92.

O’Brien KA, Teisl MF. 2004. Eco-information and its effect on consumer values for environmentally certified forest products. J. For. Econ. 10:75–96.

Palazy L, Bonenfant C, Gaillard JM, Courchamp F. 2011. Cat dilemma: Too protected to escape trophy hunting? PLoS One 6:1–6.

Roe D, Milliken T, Milledge S, Mremi J, Mosha S, Grieg-Gran M. 2002. Making a killing or a making a living? Wildlife trade, trade controls, and rural livelihoods. London Biodiversity and Livelihood Issues No. 6.

Shackleton C, Shackleton S. 2004. The importance of non-timber forest products in rural livelihood security and as safety nets : a review of evidence from South Africa. :658–664.

Sonricker Hansen AL, Li A, Joly D, Mekaru S, Brownstein JS. 2012. Digital Surveillance: A Novel Approach to Monitoring the Illegal Wildlife Trade. PLoS One 7.

Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM. 2004. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:305–308.


Thomas J, Brunton J, Graziosi S. 2010. EPPI-Reviewer 4: software for research synthesis. EPPI-Centre Software. London: Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education.

Treves A, Jones SM. 2010. Strategic tradeoffs for wildlife-friendly eco-labels. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8:491–498.

Valters C. 2014. Theories of change in international development: communication, learning or accountability. The Justice and Security Research Programme, London.

Valters C. 2015. Theories of change: time for a radical approach to learning in development. Overseas Development Institute, London.

Weber DS, Mandler T, Dyck M, Coeverden PJ Van, Groot D, Lee DS, Clark DA. 2015. Unexpected and undesired conservation outcomes of wildlife trade bans-An emerging problem for stakeholders? Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 3:389–400. West P, Igoe J, Brockington D. 2006. Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact of Protected Areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35:251–277.


Mapping the Evidence: Effectiveness of International ... · Evidence: Effectiveness of International Wildlife Trade Practices and Policies Working Paper #1. Mapping the Evidence:

Documents