Prevalence of sustainable and unsustainable use of wild species inferred from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

Résumé fourni par la source

Unsustainable exploitation of wild species represents a serious threat to biodiversity and to the livelihoods of local communities and Indigenous peoples. However, managed, sustainable use has the potential to forestall extinctions, aid recovery, and meet human needs. We analyzed species-level data for 30,923 species from 13 taxonomic groups on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species to investigate patterns of intentional biological resource use. Forty percent of species (10,098 of 25,009 species from 10 data-sufficient taxonomic groups) were used. The main purposes of use were pets, display animals, horticulture, and human consumption. Intentional use is currently contributing to elevated extinction risk for 28-29% of threatened or near threatened (NT) species (2752-2848 of 9753 species). Intentional use also affected 16% of all species used (1597-1631 of 10,098). However, 72% of used species (7291 of 10,098) were least concern, of which nearly half (3469) also had stable or improving population trends. The remainder were not documented as threatened by biological resource use, including at least 172 threatened or NT species with stable or improving populations. About one-third of species that had use documented as a threat had no targeted species management actions to directly address this threat. To improve use-related red-list data, we suggest small amendments to the relevant classification schemes and required supporting documentation. Our findings on the prevalence of sustainable and unsustainable use, and variation across taxa, can inform international policy making, including the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.