Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 28, Issue 12, pp 3343–3369 | Cite as

Trends in legal and illegal trade of wild birds: a global assessment based on expert knowledge

  • Joana RibeiroEmail author
  • Luís Reino
  • Stefan Schindler
  • Diederik Strubbe
  • Miquel Vall-llosera
  • Miguel Bastos Araújo
  • César Capinha
  • Martina Carrete
  • Sabrina Mazzoni
  • Miguel Monteiro
  • Francisco Moreira
  • Ricardo Rocha
  • José L. Tella
  • Ana Sofia Vaz
  • Joana Vicente
  • Ana Nuno
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biodiversity exploitation and use


Wildlife trade is a profitable economic activity. Birds are among the most heavily traded animals worldwide, with numerous species threatened by pet trade. Information on both legal and illegal aspects of trade and consumer demand is difficult to obtain across different countries, particularly given substantial socio-economic and cultural variation. Focusing on consumer demand in each country, we conducted a global survey among 105 international experts on bird conservation to identify expected trends, drivers and market characteristics of legal and illegal wild-caught pet bird trade. Our results suggest that future trends in legal bird trade will be mostly driven by socio-cultural motivations and intentional demand for wild-caught, rather than captive-bred birds. Bird popularity and rarity are the main factors expected to influence the choice of which bird species will be the most traded legally. Percentage of rural population was the main national-level socio-economic predictor for legal bird trade in the future. Demand for future illegal trade is expected to be driven by bird popularity and particular species identity. Experts consider illegal trade to be sustained mainly by consumers from higher socio-economic and educational backgrounds. Human population growth rate was the main national-level socio-economic predictor of illegal trade expected for the future. Legislation enforcement remains a critical issue in wildlife trade. Expanding trade networks and socio-economic changes continue to incorporate new regions into the wildlife trade. Investigating the multidimensional and synergistic determinants of wildlife trade will thus help address potential detrimental impacts bird trade might cause on biodiversity.


Biological invasions CITES Consumer behaviour Expert elicitation Global wildlife trade Invasive species 



We thank all the experts who kindly shared their time and participated in our survey, especially the two Syrian colleagues who showed complete availability to collaborate with this study, despite the ongoing turmoil in their homeland. We would also like to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their contributions. This research was funded by FEDER Funds through the Operational Competitiveness Factors Program “COMPETE”, and by national funds through the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) within the framework of project “PTDC/AAG-GLO/0463/2014-POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016583”. A.N. acknowledges the support of the Darwin Initiative. J.R. acknowledges the support from FCT through Grant ICETA 2017-38 within project “PTDC/AAG-GLO/0463/2014-POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016583”. L.R. and C.C. acknowledge support from the FCT through Grants SFRH/BPD/93079/2013 and SFRH/BPD/84422/2012, respectively.

Supplementary material

10531_2019_1825_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (599 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 598 kb)
10531_2019_1825_MOESM2_ESM.docx (39 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 39 kb)
10531_2019_1825_MOESM3_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 17 kb)
10531_2019_1825_MOESM4_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 16 kb)
10531_2019_1825_MOESM5_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (DOCX 15 kb)
10531_2019_1825_MOESM6_ESM.docx (2.4 mb)
Supplementary material 6 (DOCX 2450 kb)
10531_2019_1825_MOESM7_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 7 (DOCX 16 kb)
10531_2019_1825_MOESM8_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 8 (DOCX 16 kb)


  1. Abellán P, Carrete M, Anadón JD et al (2016) Non-random patterns and temporal trends (1912–2012) in the transport, introduction and establishment of exotic birds in Spain and Portugal. Divers Distrib 22:263–273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auliya M, Altherr S, Ariano-Sanchez D et al (2016) Trade in live reptiles, its impact on wild populations, and the role of the European market. Biol Conserv 204:103–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes MD, Craigie ID, Harrison LB et al (2016) Wildlife population trends in protected areas predicted by national socio-economic metrics and body size. Nat Commun 7:12747. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartoń K (2014) MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package version 1.10.5. R PackagGoogle Scholar
  5. Beissinger SR (2001) Trade of live wild birds, principles and practices of sustainable use. In: Reynolds JD, Mace GM, Robinson JG (eds) Conservation of exploited species. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 183–202Google Scholar
  6. Berkunsky I, Quillfeldt P, Brightsmith DJ et al (2017) Current threats faced by Neotropical parrot populations. Biol Conserv 214:278–287. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. BirdLife International (2008) Nearly half of all bird species are used directly by people. In: BirdLife State of the world’s birds website.
  8. BirdLife International (2015) Wild bird trade and CITES. In: BirdLife Int.
  9. Blackburn TM, Su S, Cassey P (2014) A potential metric of the attractiveness of bird song to humans. Ethology 120:305–312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brashares JS, Golden CD, Weinbaum KZ et al (2011) Economic and geographic drivers of wildlife consumption in rural Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:13931–13936. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brenton-Rule EC, Barbieri RF, Lester PJ (2016) Corruption, development and governance indicators predict invasive species risk from trade. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 283:20160901. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brochet AL, Van Den Bossche W, Jbour S et al (2016) Preliminary assessment of the scope and scale of illegal killing and taking of birds in the Mediterranean. Bird Conserv Int 26:1–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burgman M, Carr A, Godden L et al (2011) Redefining expertise and improving ecological judgment. Conserv Lett 4:81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burivalova Z, Lee TM, Hua F et al (2017) Understanding consumer preferences and demography in order to reduce the domestic trade in wild-caught birds. Biol Conserv 209:423–431. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burnham KP, Anderson DR, Anderson KP, Burnham DA (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Bush ER, Baker SE, Macdonald DW (2014) Global trade in exotic pets 2006–2012. Conserv Biol 28:663–676. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cardador L, Lattuada M, Strubbe D et al (2017) Regional bans on wild-bird trade modify invasion risks at a global scale. Conserv Lett 10:717–725. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cardador L, Tella J, Anadón J, Carrete M (2019) The European trade ban on wild birds reduced invasion risks. Conserv Lett 12:e12631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carrete M, Tella JL (2008) Wild-bird trade and exotic invasions: a new link of conservation concern? Front Ecol Environ 6:207–211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Challender DWS, MacMillan DC (2014) Poaching is more than an enforcement problem. Conserv Lett 7:484–494. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Challender DWS, Harrop SR, MacMillan DC (2015) Towards informed and multi-faceted wildlife trade interventions. Glob Ecol Conserv 3:129–148. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Challender D, Hinsley A, Milner-Gulland E (2019) Inadequacies in establishing CITES trade bans. Front Ecol Environ 17(4):199–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chan HK, Zhang H, Yang F, Fischer G (2015) Improve customs systems to monitor global wildlife trade. Science 348:291–292. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chen F (2016) Poachers and snobs: demand for rarity and the effects of antipoaching policies. Conserv Lett 9:65–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chng SCL, Eaton JA, Krishnasamy K et al (2015) In the market for extinction: an inventory of Jakarta’s bird markets. Petaling Jaya, SelangorGoogle Scholar
  26. Christensen R (2015) Package “ordinal”—regression models for ordinal data version 2015.6-28. CranGoogle Scholar
  27. Commission European Communities (2007) Commission Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 of 23 March 2007 layind down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Community and the quarantine conditions thereof [cited 12 July 2015]. Off J Eur Union, pp 7–29
  28. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (2016) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)Google Scholar
  29. Cooney R, Jepson P (2006) The international wild bird trade: what’s wrong with blanket bans? Oryx 40:18–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Courchamp F, Angulo E, Rivalan P et al (2006) Rarity value and species extinction: the anthropogenic allee effect. PLoS Biol 4:2405–2410. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Csardi G (2010) Package ‘igraph’. Cran. Google Scholar
  32. da Alves RR, Nogueira EE, Araujo HFP, Brooks SE (2010) Bird-keeping in the Caatinga, NE Brazil. Hum Ecol 38:147–156. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. da Alves RR, Lima JR, Araujo HFP (2013) The live bird trade in Brazil and its conservation implications: an overview. Bird Conserv Int 23:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, Department for International Development HO (2014) Declaration London conference on the illegal wildlife trade 12–13 February 2014. In: Declaration London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade. London, p 8Google Scholar
  35. Donald PF, Collar NJ, Marsden SJ, Pain DJ (2010) Facing extinction. T & AD Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Doukakis P, Pikitch EK, Rothschild A et al (2012) Testing the effectiveness of an international conservation agreement: marketplace forensics and CITES Caviar trade regulation. PLoS ONE 7:e40907. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Drescher M, Perera AH, Johnson CJ et al (2013) Toward rigorous use of expert knowledge in ecological research. Ecosphere 4(7):1–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Duffy R, St John FAV, Büscher B, Brockington D (2014) The militarization of anti-poaching: undermining long term goals? Environ Conserv 42:345–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Eaton JA, Shepherd CR, Rheindt FE et al (2015) Trade-driven extinctions and near-extinctions of avian taxa in Sundaic Indonesia. Forktail 31:1–12Google Scholar
  40. Edmunds K, Roberton SI, Few R, et al (2011) Investigating Vietnam’s ornamental bird trade: Implications for transmission of zoonoses. Ecohealth 8:63–75. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Elo S, Kyngäs H (2008) The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 62:107–115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Essl F, Bacher S, Blackburn TM et al (2015) Crossing frontiers in tackling pathways of biological invasions. Bioscience 65:769–782. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Faugier J, Sargeant M (1997) Sampling hard to reach populations. J Adv Nurs 26:790–797. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. FEDIAF (2018) Number of pet animals in Europe in 2017, by animal type (in 1000 s). In: Stat.—Stat. Portal. Accessed 19 Nov 2018
  45. Fleming P, Meek P, Banks P et al (2014) Camera trapping: wildlife management and research. Csiro Publishing, CollingwoodGoogle Scholar
  46. Gamer M, Lemon J, Fellows I, Singh P (2012) Various coefficients of interrater reliability and agreement. Cran.
  47. Guyer C, Robinson JG, Redford KH (1992) Neotropical wildlife use and conservation. J Wildl Manag 56:622. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Haenlein C, Smith MLR (2017) Poaching, wildlife trafficking and security in Africa: myths and realities. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Haken J (2011) Transnational crime in the developing world. Glob Financ Integer. Google Scholar
  50. Harrell FE (2017) CRAN—Package Hmisc. Hmisc Harrell MiscGoogle Scholar
  51. Harris JBC, Green JMH, Prawiradilaga DM et al (2015) Using market data and expert opinion to identify overexploited species in the wild bird trade. Biol Conserv 187:51–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hulme PE (2009) Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. J Appl Ecol 46:10–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hurvich CM, Tsai CL (1989) Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76:297–307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Husson AF, Josse J, Le S, et al (2015) Package ‘FactoMineR.’ FactoMineRGoogle Scholar
  55. Jamieson S (2004) Likert scales: how to (ab)use them. Med Educ 38:1217–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Jenkins P (2007) Broken screens: the regulation of live animal imports in the United States. Defenders of Wildlife, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  57. Jepson P, Ladle RJ (2005) Bird-keeping in Indonesia: conservation impacts and the potential for substitution-based conservation responses. Oryx 39:442–448. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Karesh WB, Cook RA, Bennett EL, Newcomb J (2005) Wildlife trade and global disease emergence. Emerg Infect Dis 11:1000–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Karesh WB, Cook RA, Gilbert M, Newcomb J (2007) Implications of wildlife trade on the movement of avian influenza and other infectious diseases. J Wildl Dis 43:S55–59. Google Scholar
  60. Kassambara A (2017) Practical guide to principal component methods in R: PCA, M (CA), FAMD, MFA, HCPC, factoextra, vol 2. STHDAGoogle Scholar
  61. Kuhnert PM (2011) Four case studies in using expert opinion to inform priors. Environmetrics 22:662–674. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kuhnert PM, Martin TG, Griffiths SP (2010) A guide to eliciting and using expert knowledge in Bayesian ecological models. Ecol Lett 13:900–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Martin TG, Burgman MA, Fidler F et al (2012) Eliciting expert knowledge in conservation science. Conserv Biol 26:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Masanja GF (2014) Human population growth and wildlife extinction in Ugalla ecosystem, Western Tanzania George F. Masanja. J Sustain Dev Stud 5:192–217Google Scholar
  65. McHugh ML (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Medica. Google Scholar
  66. Megias DA, Anderson SC, Smith RJ, Veríssimo D (2017) Investigating the impact of media on demand for wildlife: a case study of Harry Potter and the UK trade in owls. PLoS ONE 12:1–13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Milliken T (2014) Illegal trade in Ivory and Rhino Horn: an assessment report to improve law enforcement under the wildlife TRAPS project. USAIDGoogle Scholar
  68. Newing H (2010) Conducting research in conservation: social science methods and practice. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nijman V (2010) An overview of international wildlife trade from Southeast Asia. Biodivers Conserv 19:1101–1114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. OECD (2014) Long-term baseline projections, No. 95 (Edition 2014)Google Scholar
  71. Ostrom E, Nagendra H (2006) Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:19224–19231. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pe’er G, Zinngrebe Y, Hauck J et al (2017) Adding some green to the greening: improving the EU’s ecological focus areas for biodiversity and farmers. Conserv Lett 10:517–530. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pullin A, Frampton G, Jongman R et al (2016) Selecting appropriate methods of knowledge synthesis to inform biodiversity policy. Biodivers Conserv 25:1285–1300. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rabinovich J (2012) Parrots, precaution and project Elé: management in the face of multiple uncertainties. In: Cooney R, Dickson B (eds) Biodiversity and the precautionary principle. EarthScan, London, pp 173–188Google Scholar
  75. Regueira RFS, Bernard E (2012) Wildlife sinks: quantifying the impact of illegal bird trade in street markets in Brazil. Biol Conserv 149:16–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.4. 2) [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R foundation for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
  77. Reino L, Figueira R, Beja P et al (2017) Networks of global bird invasion altered by regional trade ban. Sci Adv 3:e1700783. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Robinson JE, Sinovas P (2018) Challenges of analyzing the global trade in CITES-listed wildlife. Conserv Biol 32:1203–1206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Robinson JE, Griffiths RA, Fraser IM et al (2018) Supplying the wildlife trade as a livelihood strategy in a biodiversity hotspot. Ecol Soc 23:13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Roe D, Booker F (2019) Engaging local communities in tackling illegal wildlife trade: a synthesis of approaches and lessons for best practice. Conserv Sci Pract 1(5):e26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Roe D, Mulliken T, Milledge S et al (2002) Making a killing or making a living? Wildlife trade, trade controls and rural livelihoods. Biodivers Livelihoods 59:109Google Scholar
  82. Roldán-Clarà B, Toledo VM, Espejel I (2017) The use of birds as pets in Mexico. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 13:35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rosen GE, Smith KF (2010) Summarizing the evidence on the international trade in illegal wildlife. EcoHealth 7:24–32. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Seebens H, Blackburn TM, Dyer EE et al (2018) Global rise in emerging alien species results from increased accessibility of new source pools. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115(10):E2264–E2273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Shepherd CR, Nijman V (2008) The trade in bear parts from Myanmar: an illustration of the ineffectiveness of enforcement of international wildlife trade regulations. Biodivers Conserv 17:35–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Simberloff D, Martin JL, Genovesi P et al (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:58–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Smith KM, Anthony SJ, Switzer WM et al (2012) Zoonotic viruses associated with illegally imported wildlife products. PLoS ONE 7:e29505. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Su S, Cassey P, Vall-Llosera M, Blackburn TM (2015) Going cheap: determinants of bird price in the Taiwanese pet market. PLoS ONE 10(5):0127482. Google Scholar
  89. Tella JL, Hiraldo F (2014) Illegal and legal parrot trade shows a long-term, cross-cultural preference for the most attractive species increasing their risk of extinction. PLoS ONE 9:e107546. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. TRAFFIC (2008) What’s driving the wildlife trade? A review of expert opinion on economic and social drivers of the wildlife trade and trade control efforts in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR and Vietnam. In: East Asia and Pacific Region Sustainable Development Discussion PapersGoogle Scholar
  91. UNEP (2018) Decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity. In: Conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity. Sharm el-Sheikh, EgyptGoogle Scholar
  92. UNEP-Interpol (2016) The rise of environmental crime—a growing threat to natural resources peace, development and security. A UNEP-INTERPOL rapid response assessmentGoogle Scholar
  93. UNEP-WCMC (2014) Analysis of the impact of EU decisions on trade patterns. Report 4: conclusions and recommendationsGoogle Scholar
  94. United Nations DESA/Population Division (2017) World population prospects: the 2017 revision—key findings and advance tablesGoogle Scholar
  95. Veríssimo D, Wan AKY (2018) Characterizing efforts to reduce consumer demand for wildlife products. Conserv Biol. Google Scholar
  96. Wickham H (2015) ggplot2: an implementation of the grammar of graphics. R package version 0.7.,3
  97. Williams A, Le Billon P (2017) Corruption, natural resources and development: from resource curse to political ecology. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joana Ribeiro
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Luís Reino
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stefan Schindler
    • 3
    • 4
  • Diederik Strubbe
    • 5
  • Miquel Vall-llosera
    • 6
  • Miguel Bastos Araújo
    • 7
    • 8
    • 9
  • César Capinha
    • 1
    • 2
  • Martina Carrete
    • 10
  • Sabrina Mazzoni
    • 8
  • Miguel Monteiro
    • 1
    • 2
  • Francisco Moreira
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ricardo Rocha
    • 11
  • José L. Tella
    • 12
  • Ana Sofia Vaz
    • 1
  • Joana Vicente
    • 1
  • Ana Nuno
    • 13
  1. 1.Laboratório Associado, CIBIO/InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos GenéticosUniversidade do PortoVairãoPortugal
  2. 2.Laboratório Associado, CIBIO/InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Instituto Superior de AgronomiaUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Environment Agency AustriaViennaAustria
  4. 4.Division of Conservation Biology, Vegetation and Landscape EcologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  5. 5.Terrestrial Ecology Unit (TEREC)Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium
  6. 6.Institute of Mountain ScienceShinshu UniversityMatsumotoJapan
  7. 7.Department of Biogeography and Global ChangeMuseo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSICMadridSpain
  8. 8.Rio Nabeiro Biodiversity ChairUniv. de ÉvoraÉvoraPortugal
  9. 9.Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, Natural History Museum of DenmarkUniv. of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  10. 10.Department of Physical, Chemical and Natural SystemsUniversity Pablo de OlavideSevilleSpain
  11. 11.Conservation Science Group, Department of ZoologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  12. 12.Department of Conservation BiologyEstación Biológica de Doñana, CSICSevilleSpain
  13. 13.Centre for Ecology and Conservation, College of Life and Environmental SciencesUniversity of ExeterPenrynUK

Personalised recommendations