Sustainable wildlife use and the reptile skin trade: A global study

By Ms Lydia Daring Bhebe

Wildlife has long provided food, clothing, livelihoods and income for communities around the world. Today, the wildlife trade continues to support industries ranging from fisheries and timber to leather and luxury goods. Yet few aspects of wildlife conservation generate as much debate as the commercial use of wild species and the question of whether there is such a thing as sustainable wildlife use.

Wildlife trade is often presented as a simple choice: either it threatens biodiversity, or it supports conservation. A recently published study in Scientific Reports challenges this familiar binary by asking a more fundamental question: what does the evidence actually show?

Drawing on more than two decades of international trade data, the researchers examined one of the world’s largest wildlife industries, the legal reptile skin trade, to assess whether commercial trade is contributing to the decline of the species being traded.

Their findings do not settle the debate surrounding the wildlife trade. However, they do provide one of the clearest examples yet of why conservation discussions are strongest when they are informed by evidence.

Twenty years of trade evidence

The researchers analysed more than 71 million legally traded reptile skins from 46 reptile species between 2000 and 2020, making this one of the most comprehensive assessments of the global reptile skin trade to date. The analysis combined CITES trade records, IUCN Red List assessment process, national harvest quotas, management information and the biological characteristics of each species.

Rather than examining individual species in isolation, the researchers explored patterns across the international trade to understand whether the species most commonly traded were becoming increasingly threatened.

What the evidence shows

The findings reveal a more nuanced picture than the trade-or-no-trade debate often suggests. The vast majority of species involved in the international reptile skin trade were not among the world’s most threatened reptiles.

The study also found that international trade is concentrated among a relatively small number of species and countries. Indonesia, Colombia, the United States, Malaysia and Argentina accounted for 70% of all reptile skin exports, while Singapore, Italy, Mexico, France and Germany accounted for 78% of all reptile skin imports.

However, wild harvest did not automatically mean unmanaged harvest. The authors found that 91% of wild-harvest systems operated under formal management programmes, and 74% were supported by field or harvest monitoring systems designed to assess populations and regulate sustainable offtake.

The overall evidence suggests that the international legal reptile skin trade does not appear to be driving the traded species towards extinction.

What the study does not conclude

An important strength of the study is its careful interpretation of the evidence.

The authors do not conclude that all wildlife trade is sustainable, nor do they suggest that regulation is unnecessary. Instead, they repeatedly emphasise that sustainability depends on effective governance, species biology, monitoring, compliance and adaptive management.

Poorly regulated trade can still threaten wildlife populations, particularly where governance is weak or monitoring systems are absent. Likewise, the study does not examine broader issues such as animal welfare, carbon emissions, pollution associated with leather processing or the social dimensions of wildlife trade.

In other words, this is not an argument for unrestricted wildlife trade. It is an evidence-based assessment of whether the legal, commercial reptile skin trade, under existing management systems, is biologically sustainable.

Why sustainable wildlife use matters for Africa

Although this study focuses on reptiles, the questions it raises extend far beyond the reptile skin trade.

Across Africa, discussions surrounding crocodile ranching, community conservancies, trophy hunting and game meat production often centre on a common question: can the sustainable use of wildlife contribute to conservation?

Increasingly, the scientific literature suggests that the more useful question is not simply whether wildlife should or should not be used, but whether that use is supported by effective governance, sound science, appropriate incentives and long-term monitoring.

Recent research on African rhino conservation found that conservation outcomes were strongest where governments, private landholders and local stakeholders shared responsibility for protecting wildlife through institutions that aligned incentives with conservation outcomes. Similarly, a recent evaluation of proposed hunting trophy import restrictions argued that policy decisions should be grounded in empirical evidence and local conservation realities rather than broad assumptions about wildlife use.

While these studies examine different sectors, they point towards a remarkably similar conclusion.

Wildlife use is neither inherently sustainable nor inherently unsustainable. Its outcomes depend on how it is governed.

Rather than offering a one-size-fits-all solution, the study reinforces the importance of matching wildlife management approaches to ecological, institutional and governance realities.

Looking ahead to CITES 2026

As delegates and observer organisations participate in the 34th meeting of the CITES Animals Committee (13–17 July 2026) and the 28th meeting of the Plants Committee (17–23 July 2026), this study serves as a timely reminder that discussions on wildlife trade are strongest when informed by robust scientific evidence.

The paper does not argue that wildlife trade is always the right approach, nor does it dismiss the genuine concerns surrounding its use. Rather, it demonstrates the value of asking a different question, not simply whether wildlife should be traded, but under what conditions wildlife use can contribute to conservation.

As discussions continue within CITES and beyond, studies such as this one remind us that effective conservation policy is strongest when built on robust scientific evidence and adapted to local ecological and governance realities.