Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Well-Being Status of Near-Threatened Gangetic Leaf Fish Nandus nandus (Hamilton, 1822) in the Kawadighi Haor: Implications to Haor Fishery Management in the Northeastern Bangladesh
Previous Article in Journal
Regional Conservation Assessment of the Threatened Species: A Case Study of Twelve Plant Species in the Farasan Archipelago
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Conservation
Volume 3
Issue 1
10.3390/conservation3010012
conservation-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Review of the Trade in Toucans (Ramphastidae): Levels of Trade in Species, Source and Sink Countries, Effects from Governance Actions and Conservation Concerns

by
Angus I. Carpenter
1,* and
Jennifer Slade
2
1
Institute of Science & Environment, University of Cumbria, Ambleside LA22 9BB, UK
2
School of Animal, Rural & Environmental Sciences, Brackenhurst campus, Nottingham Trent University, Southwell NG25 0QF, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Conservation 2023, 3(1), 153-174; https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation3010012
Submission received: 5 January 2023 / Revised: 6 February 2023 / Accepted: 13 February 2023 / Published: 21 February 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Utilising wildlife as natural resources has a long history and wide appeal for many nations, while seeking international wildlife that is sustainably managed is the primary responsibility of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). However, data-driven trade reviews are required, utilising CITES data to increase our understanding of the trade and facilitate evidence-based conservation planning. This study presents the first trade review for Toucans utilising CITES import reported data. The total number of Toucans exported was over 22,000, which subsequently generated a retail ‘real price’ value of nearly US $72 million. The countries accounting for the majority of Toucan exports were Guyana (39%), Suriname (33%) and Nicaragua (14%), while the main importing country was The Netherlands (nearly 25%). Toucan species traded were Ramphastos vitellinus (accounting for 21.5%), Ramphastos toco (19%) and Ramphastos tucanus (17%), making the top three while trade was recorded in 10 species. However, successfully identifying economic values for 15 species highlights that trade exists within non-CITES listed Toucan species too. Therefore, the levels of trade in non-CITES-listed Toucan species need urgent attention, as do the non-detrimental findings that underpin the CITES quotas set for each species, given the species’ importance ecologically.

1. Introduction

Human use of wildlife has existed for millennia [1,2], the impacts of which have been cited as contributing to biodiversity loss [3,4,5]. There has been a long-standing ambition of International Governmental Organisations (IGOs), NGOs and governments to seek the alignment of conservation actions with poverty alleviation to engender mutual benefits from wildlife resources [6,7,8,9]. Trade in wildlife resources has been reported to provide direct use value to local communities [10,11,12,13] and as having conservation benefits when traded within a sustainable management framework [9,14,15] following the ‘lose it or use it’ agenda [16,17]. However, relatively few case studies reported within the literature highlight the difficulties in achieving such aims. This was often due to either social or biological factors or a combination of both [18,19,20].
Trade in wildlife species to supply global pet market demands has been reported across many taxa groups [21], such as snakes [22], shrimps [23], primates [24], crayfish [25], chameleons [26,27] and amphibians [28,29]. Global conventions exist to monitor the sustainability of the international wildlife trade, principally the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), with member states reporting on international trade in species listed on any of the Convention’s three Appendices, including exports, imports, and re-exports [30,31,32]. Following CITES interventions, trade-related impacts on the traded resource, which can include individuals and/or their derivatives, have been shown to have variable effects, both predicted and unpredicted [27,33,34,35] and countries have been reportedly expanding commercial activities in their wildlife. For example, Argentina’s annual trade in wildlife was reported to be worth millions of US dollars and one of the principal industries on the continent, significantly depleting the wildlife populations of South America [10]. Furthermore, it has been stated that within Latin American countries, weak enforcement of environmental laws was one of the major reasons for facilitating the over-exploitation of wildlife [36,37,38].
Avian taxa have been extensively utilised within the pet trade, with varying factors driving the demand, such as rarity value, singing abilities, aesthetic desirability, etc. [21,32,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]. It has been estimated that approximately 45% of bird species were overexploited by the wildlife trade [46]; however, the total number of individual birds involved in the trade and the values they generate vary greatly between species. For example, [47] estimated that four million birds were legally traded annually. Brazil alone has been stated to supply up to 50,000 wild songbirds worth US $630,000.00 year-1 [40], while in Indonesia, at least 300 bird species were traded in wildlife markets and contributed US $80 million to the national economy annually [48]. Parrot and parakeet species were commonly cited as those in greatest demand [21,42], with Peru, Bolivia and Argentina recorded as major source countries [49] and a greater demand reported for larger sized or rarer species [45,50]. For example, estimated retail values of between US $5000–$12,000 per hyacinth macaw and $60,000–$90,000 per lear macaw were reported in 2003 [51], which equate to US $7257–17,417 per hyacinth and $87,083–130,624.24 per lear macaw in 2021.
However, no study has previously investigated, longitudinally, the levels of trade in Ramphastidae, a family of medium to large birds consisting of toucans, toucanets, mountain toucans and aracaris [52]. Six genera exist in the Ramphastidae family (from here on referred to as Toucans), all relatively long-lived, slow breeding, frugivorous birds synonymous with tropical forests and considered keystone species and amongst the most endangered species of Neotropical Aves [53,54,55,56,57,58] (Figure 1). The levels of conservation status vary across species, as does their IUCN RED list status and whether CITES is listed or not (Table 1), while alternative governance mechanisms also exist (see Table 2). Despite Toucans being highly charismatic and trade reported within these species from the 1960s, there have been only a few accounts of trade. However, commonly, data presented were for very short periods, and the best historical dataset is a total of 2441 Toucans exported between 1968 to 1991 across a minimum of 24 species [59]. More recently, it has been reported that Ramphastos tucanus and R. vitellinus were of conservation concern in Ecuador due to the trade [60], and stated how international trade had contributed to Andigena laminirostris, R. ambiguous and R. culminatus population declines [61]. Alternatively, R. sulfuratus was sold for up to US $2000 in domestic markets within El Salvador [62]. Despite the scarcity of literature on the Toucan trade, it had still been reported that R. sulfuratus and R. swainsoni were cited as species at risk from trade under the Central America Free Trade Area-Dominican Republic (CAFTA-DR) [63]. Legislation has been reported to affect wildlife trade dynamics in various ways [27], and many of the Toucan range states have existing legislation protecting them [59].
Therefore, this study aimed to comprehensively review the extent and dynamics of commercial trade through the analysis of secondary datasets. The aim was directed to identifying the spatial and temporal trends, focusing on: (1) the major countries contributing to the supply and demand of Toucans, and primary sourcing methods, (2) notable trade routes, (3) significantly featured species, and (4) estimating the economic value of the Toucan. The entire CITES database record was analysed and presented to commence addressing this research gap.
The aim of this study was to robustly investigate the size of the trade in Toucans, highlighting those species in high demand, identifying the main export and import countries, the structure of the trade network and the economic value of the trade. Presently, these data and information are lacking in the literature and thus are not considered in current conservation management plans. Therefore, this study will fill current knowledge gaps to allow better future conservation plans and actions.

2. Materials and Methods

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) was established to permit monitoring of trade in these resources to ensure its sustainability (www.CITES.org (accessed on 14 May 2020)). Party states submit yearly trade reports to a species trade database maintained by United Nations Environment Program-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) (https://trade.cites.org/ (accessed on 14 May 2020)), on behalf of the CITES Secretariat, which is open access and dynamic [31].
Data on the ‘commercial trade’ (CITES purpose code ‘T’) between 1975 to 2019 were collated and downloaded from the CITES database on 14 May 2020. The search criteria used in the collation of these data have been displayed in Table 3 and covered all species listed within the Ramphastidae family. Due to the greater level of fluctuation in trade data contained within the ‘export reported’ trade column, only ‘import reported’ trade values were used in the following analyses [26,29,31,75].
Economic data (retail trade prices) were collated using online search engines for each species and were collected on 4 July and 19 September 2020. Price data were recorded in US dollars (US $), where prices were extracted from websites using other monetary units. The prices were converted to US dollars ($). For prices preceding 2020, an appropriate inflation calculation was performed on the data to obtain the ‘real price’, representing the current market value adjusting for monetary inflation and then values were converted to US $ (utilising https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ (accessed on 19 September 2020)). Where several prices existed for a species, an average, current retail price was then calculated.

3. Results

A total of 22,218 individual toucans were exported between 1985, the first reported trading events, to 2018, the latest reported trading events, using the importer-reported CITES dataset. The majority of these individuals were reported as sourced from the wild (n = 18,080, 81.4%), followed by ranched (n = 2234, 10.1%), then captive bred (n = 1349, 6.1%) with the remaining categories accumulatively accounting for 147 (0.6%) individuals. The 22,218 individuals traded were recorded across 10 species (Table 4), with Ramphastos vitellinus accounting for the most individuals (n = 4783, 21.5%), followed by Ramphastos toco (n = 4276, 19.3%) and Ramphastos tucanus (n = 3809, 17.1%) making up the top three most traded Toucan species.
The four major export countries were all native range state countries of Toucans and together accounted for nearly 89% of the total exports (Table 5); these being Guyana (n = 8703 individuals; 39.2%) followed by Suriname (n = 7422; 33.4%), Nicaragua (n = 3100; 14.0%) and Paraguay (n = 521; 2.34%). A total of 47 countries reported exporting or re-exporting Toucans, with those contributing >1% to the trade presented in Table 5. Conversely, a total of 61 countries were reported importing Toucans, with 21 of those countries contributing >1% to the total number imported (Table 6). Of those importing countries presented in Table 6, European countries accounted for over 51% of the imported Toucan trade, with the Netherlands alone accounting for nearly 25% of imports.
The trade dynamics of both the most commonly exported species (Figure 2) and major export countries (Figure 3) can be observed in the temporal trends of the trade. Also displayed in Figure 2 and Figure 3 are relevant legislation/governance and when they were introduced. The period of trade can be divided into three using major legislative changes, these being; (1) pre Toucans being listed on CITES (pre CITES); (2) post CITES pre EU WBTB and (3) post EU WBTB (Table 7). The ‘pre CITES’ section refers to a time period before any Toucans had been listed in CITES’ Appendices. The second period, ‘post CITES pre EU WBTB’, refers to a period after Paraguay’s CITES Management Authority (MA) had submitted a proposal to list 23 Toucan species (11 Pteroglossus spp and 12 Ramphastos spp) to CITES Appendices at the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP8) held in Kyoto, Japan in March 1992. A total of 10 Toucan species were successfully adopted to CITES Appendix II or III (Table 1). At the beginning of this period, there was a rapid, positive linear increase in the number of Toucans reported as exported between 1992 and 1997, which was best described by the linear regression equation log y = 264.34x + 526,302 when 1992 was taken as the year 0 (adjusted R2 = 0.95, n = 6, p < 0.007). The third period is posting the introduction of the ‘European Communities (Avian Influenza) (Precautionary Measures) Regulations Order, 2005 (S.I. No. 678 of 2005)’, which witnessed the cessation of importing wild birds into member states. Across the three periods, the second period accounted for over 65% (14,523 individual Toucans), compared with 0.5% (period 1) and 34% (period 3), of the total number of Toucans being exported, equating to an average of over 1117 individuals exported per year within period 2 compared to just 25 in period 1 and 542 in period 3 (Table 7).
A total of 24 online sites were found selling Toucans dated 2019 and 2020, advertising 15 species of Toucan. Retail prices ranged from the lowest for Pteroglossus viridis at US $440.62 up to US $13,400 for R. toco, with an average price of US $4495.75 (Table 8). Using the average 2020 Toucan retail price, a yearly real price value was calculated (in US $), adjusting for inflation, which was then used to calculate the total yearly trade value for each trading year (calculated yearly real price × number traded in that year). The retail value of the trade varied across the three regulatory/legislative time periods, with the trade being valued at over US $200,000, period 2 at over US $42 million, and period 3 at nearly US $29.5 million. The total real price valorisation of the Toucan trade was nearly US $72 million at the retail scale.
The structural network (trade routes) of the trade at the international scale followed a similar pattern between four of the top six most heavily traded species (R. vitellinus, R. tucanus, P. aracari, P. viridis; Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7; Table 4). For these four species, exports originated mainly from Guyana and Surinam, with destinations spread around the globe and fewer re-export country destinations observed. The international structural networks for Ramphastos toco (Figure 8) displayed a much wider geographic spread with exports sourced from south, central, and northern Latin American countries. Alternatively, R. sulfuratus (Figure 9) was majorly sourced from Nicaragua with globally spread destination countries. The Netherlands was a major and consistent destination country for these exports across all species as well as being a major re-exporting country itself. However, despite the high economic gains, the CITES quotas were not exceeded in the years reviewed (Table 9), suggesting the countries traded within CITES defined sustainable levels providing robust ‘non-detrimental findings’ (NDFs) were conducted.

4. Discussion

It has been stated that Toucans perform important seed dispersal tasks within forest systems; such ecosystem services were not so well recognised before 1992. Furthermore, given their large size, slow growth rates and low fecundity [53,54,55,56,57,58], it would be prudent to consider their regional population densities to be relatively low too. In addition to low population sizes, population declines have been reported across several Toucan species. For example, Ramphostos toco has become rare in some northern localities of Argentina while an 11-year study in Paraguay reported sharp population declines in R. toco, R. dicolorus and P. castanotis due to both habitat destruction and harvesting individuals for the pet trade [59]. Similarly, IUCN Redlist assessments conducted in 2016 and 2018 (Table 1) reported all but one species (P. viridis; stable) of the 10 CITES-listed species as having decreasing populations while, of the remaining 40 species, 32 had decreasing populations, 5 * stable and 3 * unknown with many of these statuses not having changed from previous assessments in 2014. (Table 1). Whilst there were a few species-specific variations, Guyana, Surinam and Nicaragua were the major exporting countries reporting over 86.5% of the exported birds (Table 5). Therefore, even without knowing local trade structures, it would be only logical to consider those countries as having reduced Toucan populations regionally and, potentially, nationally, which means rewilding projects could be hindered or miss certain floral species, especially dominant tree species, within forest communities for those flora species where Toucan species performed as dispersal agents [56,57,58].
With over 99% of Toucan exports being reported post the CITES listing and an incredibly rapid rate of increase, essentially from zero to over 1117 years per year within 5 years and continuing for the following 13-year period (Table 7; Figure 2 and Figure 3). Support for the trade in Toucan species was well established before the CITES listing, hence Paraguay’s rationale for its proposal to CITES CoP8. However, trade data presented by Paraguay were patchy, utilising import data reported by the US mainly, which reported 9821 individuals between 1968 to 1972 and 3427 individuals between 1984 to 1991 in 3 known Toucan species [59]. For the period where reported exports overlap, the pre-CITES period, Paraguay’s CITES proposal recorded a total of 1899 individuals exported compared with just 102 (Table 7) within the CITES dataset. Additionally, Paraguay’s CITES proposal named three species being exported that were listed as endangered, EN (P. bitorquatus), vulnerable, VU (R. culminatus) and near threatened, NT (R. ambiguus), with all three species reported as having decreasing populations (Table 1). Therefore, Paraguay’s actions in 1992 should be viewed positively for facilitating data capture, which has permitted a more robust review and, therefore, managed the legal trade. Concomitantly, a more robust review promotes a greater understanding of any conservation needs. Ten species of Toucan recorded a minimum of 22,218 individuals exported, which was much greater than previously presented values. This highlights that much greater conservation efforts need to be afforded towards Toucans and that these need to start at the earliest opportunity, which could be listing all the remaining Toucan species on CITES Appendices at CITES Cop19.
Whilst national legislation exists within many Toucan range state countries, concerns have been raised as to how well enforced such national legislations were [36,37,51,59]. For example, of the imports to the US between 1984–91, 48.6% were from Argentina despite explicit protective legislation being in place. It has been commonly reported that local and regional trade network actors will utilise ‘traditional’ trade routes that, depending upon the locality, will often cross regional and national borders [38,41,59]. However, it has also been reported that due to the inherent secrecy around wildlife trade, it was often extremely difficult to obtain detailed information about networks, legal and illegal, both structural and economic, who filled the different actor roles, etc., which places serious constraints on any potential conservation initiatives [27,29,41]. It should be deemed as a high priority to seeking to obtain data that allow the mapping of who occupies which actor roles, especially from collection to export, and the economics of the trade, which will be variable both across species and geographies. However, without this detailed information, it is unable to know whether the nearly US $72 million generated by the trade at the retail level could be better distributed along the structural trade network and, thus, offer both greater economic opportunities to local communities’ concomitant with conservation benefits through habitat protection.
Whilst it was reported that national legislation within exporting countries was not being adhered to consistently [36,37,51,59], the trade’s dynamics (Figure 2 and Figure 3) were affected by legislation impacting import countries, highlighting three legislative periods (Table 7). Focusing on the third of these, the ‘post CITES listing & EU WBTB’ period, the Netherlands, a European region country, was the major importing country, accounting for nearly 25% of the reported total exports. Thus, with the emergence of several temporally and geographically spread avian influence outbreaks across Europe, the EU legislation banning wild bird imports was strictly enforced on the occasions of such outbreaks, which meant the cessation of imports to the Netherlands that could result in the peaks and troughs observed post-2005 (Figure 2 and Figure 3). However, despite these national/regional legislation impacts, the export of Toucans was still averaging over 542 individuals per year over those 14 years in just the 10 CITES-listed species. Considering Toucans are a slow-growing and breeding species, 542 individuals removed from the wild would have a significant impact on survival. Therefore, given the wide distribution of Toucans across many Central and Latin American countries, the management mechanisms responsible for wildlife trade, such as the Central American Wildlife Enforcement Network (ROAVIS) and South American Wildlife Enforcement Network (SudWEN), need greater commitment. Alternatively, biodiversity concerns can be written into trade agreements or partnerships (e.g., FTAs or TPAs), ensuring Parties adopt laws and measures to fulfil obligations under multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), such as CITES [51] or more broadly reaching agreements, such as the ‘Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean’ (ECLAC) or MERCOSUR agreement to which Guyana and Surinam are associate states. Furthermore, it has been proposed that FTAs/TPAs could operate as the framework to address the illegal wildlife trade in future agreements with countries that have a significant illegal wildlife trade, such as within U.S.-Peru TPA [51].
Finally, it should be highlighted again here that this study has utilised and presented values developed from the imported reported CITES data. One should be aware of its implications, not least that the values presented should be considered minimum values. Also, at no point has the study presented aspects of illegal wildlife trade (IWT) whilst being fully aware that they are interlinked [38] and were likely to be significant for Toucans that were high in individual value. Furthermore, it is important to note that domestic trade and confiscations of illegal birds were not included here, which could constitute a sizeable demand in itself, especially in regard to cultural dress, utilises the feathers of these and other bird species, and demand for pets. Thus, this study should be viewed as only just starting to highlight the need for much greater conservation attention and research orientated at Toucans as a matter of urgency. A review of the CITES NDFs for each of the main species is a good starting point to ensure trade is within sustainable levels, especially given the ecosystem services the species provide.

Author Contributions

The authors’ individual contributions were as follow: Conceptualization, A.I.C.; methodology, A.I.C.; formal analysis, J.S. and A.I.C.; investigation, J.S. and A.I.C.; data curation, J.S. and A.I.C.; writing—original draft preparation, J.S. and A.I.C.; writing—review and editing, A.I.C.; visualization, J.S.; supervision, A.I.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All wildlife trade data used within this study are freely and openly available via the CITES trade database. Available online at: https://trade.cites.org/ (accessed on 14 May 2022).

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to both Bruce Weissgold, USFWS, and Christina Kish, U.S. Department of the Interior, for their very helpful comments and suggestions to advance the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Driscoll, C.; Macdonald, D. Top dogs: Wolf domestication and wealth. J. Biol. 2010, 9, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. van Roon, A.; Maas, M.; Toale, D.; Tafro, N.; van der Giessen, J. Live exotic animals legally and illegally imported via the main Dutch airport and considerations for public health. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0220122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Bush, E.; Baker, S.; Macdonald, D. Global trade in exotic pets 2006–2012. Conserv. Biol. 2014, 28, 663–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Symes, W.; Edwards, D.; Miettinen, J.; Rheindt, F.; Carrasco, L. Combined impacts of deforestation and wildlife trade on tropical biodiversity are severely underestimated. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 4052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Di Minin, E.; Brooks, T.M.; Toivonen, T.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Heikinheimo, V.; Watson, J.E.M.; Burgess, N.D.; Challender, D.W.S.; Goettsch, B.; Jenkins, R.; et al. Identifying global centers of unsustainable commercial harvesting of species. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaau2879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. IPBES. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2019; Available online: https://ipbes.net/global-assessment (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  7. Low, B.; Costanza, R.; Ostrom, E.; Wilson, J.; Simon, C. Human-ecosystem interactions: A dynamic integrated model. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 31, 227–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Milner-Gulland, E.; Mace, G. Conservation of Biological Resources; Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK; London, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  9. Carpenter, A.I.; Robson, O. Madagascan amphibians as a wildlife resource and their potential as a conservation tool: Species and numbers exported, revenue generation and bio-economic models to explore conservation benefits. In Conservation Strategy for the Amphibians of Madagascar Proceedings; Andreone, F., Ed.; Monografie del Museo Regionale di Scienze Natural di Torino: Turin, Italy, 2008; pp. 357–376. [Google Scholar]
  10. Mares, M.A.; Ojeda, R.A. Faunal Commercialization and Conservation in South America. BioScience 1984, 34, 580–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Norman, D. Man and tegu lizards in eastern Paraguay. Biol. Conserv. 1987, 41, 39–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bodmer, R.; Lozano, E. Rural development and sustainable wildlife use in Peru. Conserv. Biol. 2001, 15, 1163–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cooney, R.; Roe, D.; Dublin, H.; Phelps, J.; Wilkie, D.; Keane, A.; Travers, H.; Skinner, D.; Challender, D.W.S.; Allan, J.R.; et al. From poachers to protectors: Engaging local communities in solutions to illegal wildlife trade. Conserv. Lett. 2017, 10, 367–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Iriarte, J.; Feinsinger, P.; Jaksic, F. Trends in wildlife use and trade in Chile. Biol. Conserv. 1997, 81, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Roe, D.; Mulliken, T.; Milledge, S.; Mremi, J.; Mosha, S.; Grieg-Gran, M. Making a Killing or Making a Living? Wildlife Trade, Trade Controls and Rural Livelihoods; Biodiversity and Livelihoods Issues No. 6; IIED: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  16. Brown, K. Innovations for conservation and development. Geogr. J. 2002, 168, 6–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hutton, J.M.; Leader-Williams, N. Sustainable use and incentive-driven conservation: Realigning human and conservation interests. Oryx 2003, 37, 215–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Martin, A.; McGuire, S.; Sullivan, S. Global environmental justice and biodiversity Conservation. Geogr. J. 2013, 179, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Walker, G. Environmental Justice: Concepts, Evidence and Politics; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  20. Neudert, R.; Ganzhorn, J.U.; Watzold, F. Global benefits and local costs–The dilemma of tropical forest conservation: A review of the situation in Madagascar. Environ. Conserv. 2017, 44, 82–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bager Olsen, M.T.; Geldmann, J.; Harfoot, M.; Tittensor, D.P.; Price, B.; Sinovas, P.; Nowak, K.; Sanders, N.J.; Burgess, N.D. Thirty-six years of legal and illegal wildlife trade entering the USA. Oryx 2021, 55, 432–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Hierink, F.; Bolon, I.; Durso, A.M.; de Castañeda, R.R.; Zambrana-Torrelio, C.; Eskew, E.A. Ray, N. Forty-four years of global trade in CITES-listed snakes: Trends and implications for conservation and public health. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 248, 108601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Patoka, J.; Bláha, M.; Devetter, M.; Rylková, K.; Čadková, Z.; Kalous, L. Aquarium hitchhikers: Attached commensals imported with freshwater shrimps via the pet trade. Biol. Invasions 2016, 18, 457–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ceballos-Mago, N.; González, C.E.; Chivers, D.J. Impact of the pet trade on the Margarita capuchin monkey Cebus apella margaritae. Endanger. Species Res. 2010, 12, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Chucholl, C.; Wendler, F. Positive selection of beautiful invaders: Long-term persistence and bio-invasion risk of freshwater crayfish in the pet trade. Biol. Invasions 2017, 19, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Carpenter, A.I.; Rowcliffe, M.; Watkinson, A.R. The dynamics of the global trade in chameleons. Biol. Conserv. 2004, 120, 295–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Carpenter, A.I.; Robson, O.; Rowcliffe, M.; Watkinson, A.R. The impacts of international and national governance on a traded resource: A case study of Madagascar and its chameleon trade. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 123, 279–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Andreone, F.; Loarie, S.R.; Pala, R.; Luiselli, L.M.; Carpenter, A.I. Trade and exploitation of amphibians and reptiles: A short overview of the conservation impacts. Zoologia 2012, 146, 85–93. [Google Scholar]
  29. Carpenter, A.I.; Andreone, F.; Moore, R.D.; Griffiths, R.A. A review of the global trade in amphibians: The types of trade, levels and dynamics in CITES listed species. Oryx 2014, 48, 565–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. CITES. How CITES Works. Available online: https://cites.org/eng/disc/how.php (accessed on 15 June 2020).
  31. Carpenter, A.I. The Ecology and Exploitation of Chameleons in Madagascar. Ph.D. Thesis, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  32. Roldán-Clarà, B.; López-Medellín, X.; Espejel, I.; Arellano, E. Literature review of the use of birds as pets in Latin-America, with a detailed perspective on Mexico. Ethnobiol. Conserv. 2014, 3, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Santos, A.; Satchabut, T.; Trauco, G.V. Do Wildlife Trade Bans Enhance or Undermine Conservation Efforts? Appl. Biodivers. Perspect. Ser. 2001, 1, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  34. Larrosa, C.; Carrasco, L.R.; Milner-Gulland, E.J. Unintended feedbacks: Challenges and opportunities for improving conservation effectiveness. Conserv. Lett. 2016, 9, 316–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Challender, D.W.S.; Hinsley, A.; Milner-Gulland, E.J. Inadequacies in establishing CITES trade bans. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2019, 17, 199–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ioris, A.A.R. Rethinking Brazil’s Pantanal Wetland: Beyond Narrow Development and Conservation Debates. J. Environ. Dev. 2013, 22, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Eufemia, L.; Bonatti, M.; Sieber, S.; Schröter, B.; Lana, M.A. Mechanisms of weak governance in grasslands and wetlands of South America. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Daut, E.F.; Brightsmith, D.J.; Mendoza, A.P.; Puhakka, L.; Peterson, M.J. Illegal domestic bird trade and the role of export quotas in Peru. J. Nat. Conserv. 2020, 27, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Herrera, M.; Hennessey, B. Quantifying the illegal parrot trade in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, with emphasis on threatened species. Bird Conserv. Int. 2007, 17, 295–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Regueira, R.S.R.; Bernard, E. Wildlife sinks: Quantifying the impact of illegal bird trade in street markets in Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 149, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Alves, R.R.N.; Lima, J.R.D.F.; Araujo, H.F.P. The live bird trade in Brazil and its conservation implications: An overview. Bird Conserv. Int. 2013, 23, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Li, L.; Jiang, Z. International Trade of CITES Listed Bird Species in China. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e85012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nijman, V.; Langgeng, A.; Birot, H.; Imron, M.A.; Nekaris, K.A.I. Wildlife trade, captive breeding and the imminent extinction of a songbird. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2018, 15, e00425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Krishna, V.; Darras, K.; Grass, I.; Mulyani, Y.; Prawiradilaga, D.; Tscharntke, T.; Qaim, M. Wildlife trade and consumer preference for species rarity: An examination of caged-bird markets in Sumatra. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2019, 24, 339–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Keighley, M.V.; Haslett, S.; Zdenek, C.N.; Heinsohn, R. Slow breeding rates and low population connectivity indicate Australian palm cockatoos are in severe decline. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 253, 108865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Scheffers, B.; Oliveira, B.; Lamb, I.; Edwards, D. Global wildlife trade across the tree of life. Science 2019, 366, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Karesh, W.; Cook, R.; Bennett, E.; Newcomb, J. Wildlife trade and global disease emergence. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2005, 11, 1000–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Harris, J.; Green, J.; Prawiradilaga, D.; Giam, X.; Giyanto; Hikmatullah, D.; Putra, C.; Wilcove, D. Using market data and expert opinion to identify overexploited species in the wild bird trade. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 187, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pires, S.F.; Schneider, J.L.; Herrera, M. Organized crime or crime that is organized? The parrot trade in the neotropics. Trends Organ Crim. 2016, 19, 4–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nijman, V.; Nekaris, K.A. The Harry Potter effect: The rise in trade of owls as pets in Java and Bali, Indonesia. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2017, 11, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wyler, L.S.; Sheikh, P.A. International Illegal Trade in Wildlife: Threats and U.S. Policy; Congressional Research Service; The Library of Congress: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  52. Short, L.; Horne, J.; Gilbert, A. Toucans, Barbets and Honeyguides; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  53. Winkler, D.W.; Billerman, S.M.; Lovette, I.J. Toucans (Ramphastidae); Birds of the World, Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Ithaca, NY, USA; Available online: https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.rampha1.01 (accessed on 25 September 2020). [CrossRef]
  54. Perrella, D.; Guida, F. Additional information on reproductive behavior of the red-breasted Toucan, Ramphastos dicolorus (Aves: Piciformes: Ramphastidae). Biota Neotrop. 2019, 19, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Worell, A.B. Ramphastids. In Handbook of Avian Medicine, 2nd ed.; Tully, T.N., Dorrestein, G.M., Cooper, J.E., Eds.; Saunders Ltd.: Edinburgh, UK, 2009; pp. 335–349. [Google Scholar]
  56. Vidal, M.; Hasui, E.; Pizo, M.; Tamashiro, J.; Silva, W.; Guimarães, P. Frugivores at higher risk of extinction are the key elements of a mutualistic network. Ecology 2014, 95, 3440–3447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Boissier, O.; Bouiges, A.; Mendoza, I.; Feer, F.; Forget, P. Rapid assessment of seed removal and frugivore activity as a tool for monitoring the health status of tropical forests. Biotropica 2014, 46, 633–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Strahl, S.; Grajal, A. Conservation of large avian frugivores and the management of Neotropical protected areas. Oryx 1991, 25, 50–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Paraguay CITES Management Authority. CoP8 Proposal for Inclusion of Pteroglossus spp. and Ramphastos spp. On to CITES Appendices. In Proceedings of the CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP8), Kyoto, Japan, 2–13 March 1992; Available online: https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/08/prop/E08-Prop-48_49_Pteroglossus.PDF (accessed on 8 May 2020).
  60. Sinovas, P.; Price, B. Ecuador’s Wildlife Trade; English translation of the technical report prepared for the Ministry of the Environment of Ecuador and the German Development Cooperation (GIZ); UNEP-WCMC: Quito, Ecuador, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  61. Ortiz-von Halle, B. Bird’s-Eye View: Lessons from 50 Years of Bird Trade Regulation & Conservation in Amazon Countries; TRAFFIC: Cambridge, UK, 2018; Available online: https://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/south_america_bird_trade.pdf (accessed on 19 May 2020).
  62. Chávez, C. El Salvador Serves as Bridge for Export of Trafficked Nicaraguan Birds; Mongabay: Menlo Park, CA, USA, 2015; Available online: https://news.mongabay.com/2015/11/el-salvador-serves-as-bridge-for-export-of-trafficked-nicaraguan-birds/ (accessed on 6 August 2020).
  63. TRAFFIC North America. Wildlife Trade Control; CAFTA-DR Regional Gap Analysis Report; TRAFFIC North America: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; Available online: https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/10107/cafta-dr-regional-gap-analysis-report.pdf (accessed on 8 July 2020).
  64. Saltzman, R. Establishing a “due care” standard under the Lacey Act amendments 2008. Mich. Law Rev. 2010, 109, 1–99. [Google Scholar]
  65. Jones, G.A. The Lacey Act. Printing Industries of America. Magazine 2010, 2, 46–48. [Google Scholar]
  66. FAO. Wild Birds Protection Act (cap. 71:07); Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2020; Available online: http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC016347/ (accessed on 18 August 2020).
  67. Verheij, P. An Assessment of Wildlife Poaching and Trafficking in Bolivia and Suriname; IUCN NL: Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2019; Available online: https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/49026 (accessed on 3 August 2020).
  68. Summers, A. Toucans: Success in the mountains of Northern New Mexico. AFA Watchb. 2002, 29, 47–55. [Google Scholar]
  69. USFWS. Wild Bird Conservation Act: Summary of Regulations & Effects; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: Moline, IL, USA, 2016. Available online: https://webharvest.gov/peth04/20041015100816/http://international.fws.gov/pdf/wbcasum.pdf (accessed on 17 August 2020).
  70. Cardador, L.; Lattuada, M.; Strubbe, D.; Tella, J.; Reino, L.; Figueira, R.; Carrete, M. Regional bans on wild-bird trade modify invasion risks at a global scale. Conserv. Lett. 2017, 10, 717–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. FAO. Hunting Law 1954; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2020; Available online: http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC171055/ (accessed on 8 September 2020).
  72. Ministry of Legal Affairs. Laws of Guyana: Wild Birds Protection Act chapter 71:07; Guyana’s Ministry of Legal Affairs: Georgetown, Guyana, 1997. Available online: http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/guy16347.pdf (accessed on 18 August 2020).
  73. Elias-Roberts, A. WWF-Guyana’s Project Report on Marine Biodiversity and Forest Governance: Legislative Review of the Environmental Laws of Guyana in Relation to the 2020 CBD Targets; WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2017; Available online: http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/legislative_review_and_gap_analysis_guyana__draft_.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2020).
  74. Reino, L.; Figueira, R.; Beja, P.; Araujo, M.B.; Capinha, C.; Strubbe, D. Networks of global bird invasion altered by regional trade ban. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1700783. Available online: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/11/e1700783 (accessed on 15 August 2020). [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. van den Burg, M.P.; Weissgold, B.J. Illegal trade of morphologically distinct populations prior to taxonomic assessment and elevation, with recommendations for future prevention. J. Nat. Conserv. 2020, 57, 125887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Conservation 03 00012 g001 550
Figure 1. Ramphastidae distribution across Central and Latin American countries (Adapted from IUCN, 2020).
Figure 1. Ramphastidae distribution across Central and Latin American countries (Adapted from IUCN, 2020).
Conservation 03 00012 g001
Conservation 03 00012 g002 550
Figure 2. Yearly export values showing the temporal trends of the main three species and accumulative for the remaining species involved in the trade in Toucans between 1975 to 2019 as reported by the importer reported dataset within the CITES trade database. The shaded area (on the secondary ‘y’ axis) represents the total yearly values over the period (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES database, 2020).
Figure 2. Yearly export values showing the temporal trends of the main three species and accumulative for the remaining species involved in the trade in Toucans between 1975 to 2019 as reported by the importer reported dataset within the CITES trade database. The shaded area (on the secondary ‘y’ axis) represents the total yearly values over the period (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES database, 2020).
Conservation 03 00012 g002
Conservation 03 00012 g003 550
Figure 3. Yearly export values showing the temporal trends for the export countries involved in the trade in Toucans between 1975 to 2019 as reported by the importer reported dataset within the CITES trade database. The shaded area (on the secondary ‘y’ axis) represents the total yearly values over the period (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES database, 2020).
Figure 3. Yearly export values showing the temporal trends for the export countries involved in the trade in Toucans between 1975 to 2019 as reported by the importer reported dataset within the CITES trade database. The shaded area (on the secondary ‘y’ axis) represents the total yearly values over the period (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES database, 2020).
Conservation 03 00012 g003
Conservation 03 00012 g004 550
Figure 4. The structural network (trade routes) for Ramphastos vitellinus Toucans between 1975 to 2019 showing export and destination countries as reported by the importer-reported dataset within the CITES trade database. The inset map shows an enlarged area of western Europe in greater detail (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES database, 2020).
Figure 4. The structural network (trade routes) for Ramphastos vitellinus Toucans between 1975 to 2019 showing export and destination countries as reported by the importer-reported dataset within the CITES trade database. The inset map shows an enlarged area of western Europe in greater detail (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES database, 2020).
Conservation 03 00012 g004
Conservation 03 00012 g005 550
Figure 5. The structural network (trade routes) for Ramphastos tucanus Toucans between 1975 to 2019 showing export and destination countries as reported by the importer reported dataset within the CITES trade database. The inset map shows an enlarged area of western Europe in greater detail (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES database, 2020).
Figure 5. The structural network (trade routes) for Ramphastos tucanus Toucans between 1975 to 2019 showing export and destination countries as reported by the importer reported dataset within the CITES trade database. The inset map shows an enlarged area of western Europe in greater detail (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES database, 2020).
Conservation 03 00012 g005
Conservation 03 00012 g006 550
Figure 6. The structural network (trade routes) for Pteroglossus aracari Toucans between 1975 to 2019 showing export and destination countries as reported by the importer reported dataset within the CITES trade database. The inset map shows an enlarged area of western Europe in greater detail (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES database, 2020).
Figure 6. The structural network (trade routes) for Pteroglossus aracari Toucans between 1975 to 2019 showing export and destination countries as reported by the importer reported dataset within the CITES trade database. The inset map shows an enlarged area of western Europe in greater detail (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES database, 2020).
Conservation 03 00012 g006
Conservation 03 00012 g007 550
Figure 7. The structural network (trade routes) for Pteroglossus viridis Toucans between 1975 to 2019 showing export and destination countries as reported by the importer reported dataset within the CITES trade database. The inset map shows an enlarged area of western Europe in greater detail (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES database, 2020).
Figure 7. The structural network (trade routes) for Pteroglossus viridis Toucans between 1975 to 2019 showing export and destination countries as reported by the importer reported dataset within the CITES trade database. The inset map shows an enlarged area of western Europe in greater detail (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES database, 2020).
Conservation 03 00012 g007
Conservation 03 00012 g008 550
Figure 8. The structural network (trade routes) for Ramphastos toco Toucans between 1975 to 2019 showing export and destination countries as reported by the importer reported dataset within the CITES trade database. The inset map shows an enlarged area of western Europe in greater detail (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES database, 2020).
Figure 8. The structural network (trade routes) for Ramphastos toco Toucans between 1975 to 2019 showing export and destination countries as reported by the importer reported dataset within the CITES trade database. The inset map shows an enlarged area of western Europe in greater detail (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES database, 2020).
Conservation 03 00012 g008
Conservation 03 00012 g009 550
Figure 9. The structural network (trade routes) for Ramphastos sulphuratus Toucans between 1975 to 2019 showing export and destination countries as reported by the importer reported dataset within the CITES trade database. The inset map shows an enlarged area of western Europe in greater detail (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES database, 2020).
Figure 9. The structural network (trade routes) for Ramphastos sulphuratus Toucans between 1975 to 2019 showing export and destination countries as reported by the importer reported dataset within the CITES trade database. The inset map shows an enlarged area of western Europe in greater detail (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES database, 2020).
Conservation 03 00012 g009
Table
Table 1. The current IUCN Red List conservation status and CITES Appendix listing, including review dates, for all Ramphastidae species. Top 10 species are CITES-listed, while the remaining species are all unlisted on CITES (Source: IUCN Red list, 2020; UNEP-WCMC CITES database, 2020; CITES, 1992-Microsoft Word-E-Amendments.doc (cites.org)).
Table 1. The current IUCN Red List conservation status and CITES Appendix listing, including review dates, for all Ramphastidae species. Top 10 species are CITES-listed, while the remaining species are all unlisted on CITES (Source: IUCN Red list, 2020; UNEP-WCMC CITES database, 2020; CITES, 1992-Microsoft Word-E-Amendments.doc (cites.org)).
Species Taxonomic NameCommon NameCITES App. ListingYear ListedCITES NotesIUCN Redlist StatusIUCN Redlist Population TrendDate of Last IUCN Redlist ReviewIUCN Notes
Baillonius bailloni (synonym Pteroglossus bailloni)Saffron toucanet III1992No previous entryNTDecreasing2016First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Pteroglossus aracariBlack-necked aracari II1992No previous entryLCDecreasing2016First addition 2004-previously unknown
Pteroglossus castanotisChestnut-eared aracari III1992No previous entryLC Decreasing2016First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Pteroglossus viridisGreen aracari II1992No previous entryLCStable2016First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Ramphastos dicolorusRed-breasted toucan (aka green-billed toucan)III1992No previous entryLCDecreasing2018First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Ramphastos sulfuratusKeel-billed toucan II1992App III from 23/4/81LCDecreasing2016First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Ramphastos tocoToco toucanII1992No previous entryLCDecreasing2016First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Ramphastos tucanusRed-billed toucan II1992No previous entryVUDecreasing2016Classified as LC in 2004, then Not Recognised in 2008 and VU 2014
Ramphastos vitellinusChannel-billed toucan II1992No previous entryVUDecreasing2016First addition in 2014 as VU
Selenidera maculirostrisSpot-billed toucanet III1992No previous entryLCDecreasing2016First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Andigena cucullataHooded mountain-toucanN/AN/ANo history of additionLCStable2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Andigena hypoglaucaGrey-breasted mountain-toucanN/AN/ANo history of additionNTDecreasing2016First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Andigena laminirostrisPlate-billed mountain-toucanN/AN/ANo history of additionNTDecreasing2016First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Andigena nigrirostrisBlack-billed mountain-toucanN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2018NT in 1988, then reclassified LC in 2004
Aulacorhynchus albivittaGreyish-throated toucanetN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Aulacorhynchus atrogularisBlack-throated toucanetN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Aulacorhynchus caeruleogularisBlue-throated toucanetN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Aulacorhynchus calorhynchusYellow-billed toucanetN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Aulacorhynchus coeruleicinctisBlue-banded toucanetN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Aulacorhynchus cyanolaemusBlack-billed toucanetN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Aulacorhynchus derbianusChestnut-tipped toucanetN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Aulacorhynchus haematopygusCrimson-rumped toucanetN/AN/ANo history of additionLCStable2016First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Aulacorhynchus huallagaeYellow-browned toucanetN/AN/ANo history of additionENDecreasing2016Classified NT in 2008, unknown in 1994 and EN in 2000
Aulacorhynchus prasinusEmerald toucanetN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Aulacorhynchus sulcatusGrove-billed toucanetN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Aulacorhynchus wagleriWagler’s toucanetN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Aulacorhynchus whitelianusTepui toucanetN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Pteroglossus azaraIvory-billed aracariN/AN/ANo history of additionLCStable2016First addition 2008-previously not recognised
Pteroglossus beauharnaisiiCurl-crested aracariN/AN/ANo history of additionLCStable2016First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Pteroglossus bitorquatusEastern red-necked aracariN/AN/ANo history of additionENDecreasing2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Pteroglossus erythropygiusPale-billed aracariN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016Classified as LC 2004, not recognised in 2008 and again LC in 2014
Pteroglossus frantziiFiery-billed aracariN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Pteroglossus humboldtiHumbolt’s aracariN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Pteroglossus inscriptusLettered aracariN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Pteroglossus pluricinctusMany-banded aracariN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Pteroglossus sanguineusStripe-billed aracariN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Pteroglossus sturmiiWestern red-necked aracariN/AN/ANo history of additionNTDecreasing2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Pteroglossus torquatusCollared aracariN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Ramphastos ambiguusYellow-throated toucanN/AN/ANo history of additionNTDecreasing2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Ramphastos arielAriel toucanN/AN/ANo history of additionENDecreasing2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Ramphastos brevisChoco toucanN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Ramphastos citreolaemusCitron-throated toucanN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Ramphastos culminatusYellow-ridged toucanN/AN/ANo history of additionVUDecreasing2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Ramphastos cuvieriCurvier’s toucanN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016Classified as LC 2004, not recognised in 2008 and again LC in 2014
Selenidera gouldiiGould’s toucanetN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Selenidera langsdorffiiGreen-billed toucanetN/AN/ANo history of additionLCUnknown2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Selenidera nattereriTawny-tufted toucanetN/AN/ANo history of additionLCUnknown2016First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Selenidera piperivoraGuianan toucanetN/AN/ANo history of additionLCStable2016First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Selenidera reinwardtiiGolden-collared toucanet (synonym Red-billed)N/AN/ANo history of additionLCUnknown2016First addition 2014-previously unknown
Selenidera spectabilisYellow-eared toucanetN/AN/ANo history of additionLCDecreasing2016First addition 2004-status remains unchanged
Table
Table 2. Relevant legislation and treaties that potentially impact the trade in Toucans.
Table 2. Relevant legislation and treaties that potentially impact the trade in Toucans.
Legislation Year EnforcedDescriptionApplicable RegionReferences
Lacey Act1900The 1981 and 1988 amendments to this conservation law, predominantly enforced by USFWS, prohibits the harvesting, possession and trade of illegally sourced animals and products, whilst additionally enabling the ability to prosecute importers.US[64,65]
Hunting Law1954Hunting activities were restricted for specific species, including birds, with stipulations as to the requirement of licences and methods to be used, however is reported as outdated to the latest understanding of sustainable hunting. Suriname[66,67]
Wild Bird Conservation Act1992Enforced to reduce high importation volumes of non-indigenous birds into the US, allowing only species with predetermined, sustainable management plans. Approved captive-bred list of CITES Appendix species are detailed, of which Ramphastids are not included. US[68,69,70]
Wild Birds Protection Act (WBPA)1997This amendment (71:07) to the 1919 Guyanan Act promoted the conservation of schedule 1 and 2 listed wild birds, requiring licence authorisation for exportation. Ramphastids are schedule 1 species, protected within open and closed seasons.Guyana[71,72]
Species Protection Regulations (SPR)1999Enacted to implement more efficient enforcement of CITES regulations, following accusations of wildlife poaching and laundering. A management authority for wildlife protection was established, however regulation was repealed following enforcement of the Wildlife Management and Conservation Regulations.Guyana[61,73]
Wild Bird Trade Ban2005The discovery of avian influenza within imported specimens within Britain encouraged this temporary trade ban, which permanentized in 2007, allowing only the importation of captive-bred birds from approved countries.EU[70,74]
Wildlife Management and Conservation Regulations2013Replacing the SPR, additionally improvements were developed to attempt to meet CITES requirements through the continuing quota system use and addressing illegal activities.Guyana[73]
Table
Table 3. Criteria selected prior to performing the data collation for Toucan trade within the CITES trade database (Source: UNEP-WCMC, 2020).
Table 3. Criteria selected prior to performing the data collation for Toucan trade within the CITES trade database (Source: UNEP-WCMC, 2020).
Database FieldSearch Input
Year range1975–2019
Exporting countriesAll countries
Importing countriesAll countries
SourceAll sources
PurposeCommercial trade
Trade termsLive, specimens, bodies
TaxonRamphastidae
Table
Table 4. The Toucan species reported in the CITES trade data set between 1985 to 2018 and the number of individuals traded in each species with the percentage value.
Table 4. The Toucan species reported in the CITES trade data set between 1985 to 2018 and the number of individuals traded in each species with the percentage value.
SpeciesTotal Number of IndividualsPercentage of IndividualsTotal Number of Years TradedYearly Average Number TradedNumber of Trading EventsAverage Number per Trading Event
Ramphastos vitellinus478321.527177.134513.9
Ramphastos toco427619.227158.432513.2
Ramphastos tucanus380917.127141.131911.9
Pteroglossus aracari379117.127140.418920.1
Ramphastos sulfuratus344215.523149.715222.6
Pteroglossus viridis19648.82772.715812.4
Ramphastos dicolorus670.388.4144.8
Pteroglossus castanotis620.3610.387.8
Baillonius bailloni150.143.843.8
Selenidera maculirostris90.042.342.3
Table
Table 5. The 7 exporting countries contributing >1% towards the total number of individual Toucans exported as recorded in the import reported CITES trade dataset between 1985 to 2018 (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES, 2020).
Table 5. The 7 exporting countries contributing >1% towards the total number of individual Toucans exported as recorded in the import reported CITES trade dataset between 1985 to 2018 (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES, 2020).
Export Countries (CITES Country Code)No. of Individuals Exported% of Total Exported IndividualsCumulative %Region
Guyana (GY)870339.1739.17Central and South America and the Caribbean
Suriname (SR)742233.4172.58Central and South America and the Caribbean
Nicaragua (NI)310013.9586.53Central and South America and the Caribbean
Paraguay (PY)5212.3488.87Central and South America and the Caribbean
Netherlands (NL)5082.2991.16Europe
Argentina (AR)4201.8993.05Central and South America and the Caribbean
South Africa (ZA)2581.1694.21Africa
Table
Table 6. The 21 importing countries contributing >1% towards the total number of individual Toucans exported as recorded in the import reported CITES trade dataset between 1985 to 2018 (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES, 2020).
Table 6. The 21 importing countries contributing >1% towards the total number of individual Toucans exported as recorded in the import reported CITES trade dataset between 1985 to 2018 (Source: UNEP-WCMC CITES, 2020).
Importing Countries (CITES Country Code)No. of Individuals Imported% of Total Imported IndividualsCumulative %Region
Netherlands (NL)551724.83124.8Europe
United States (US)15016.75631.6North America
Spain (ES)14386.47238.1Europe
South Africa (ZA)11975.38843.4Africa
Singapore (SG)11905.35648.8Asia
Japan (JP)11775.29854.1Asia
United Kingdom (GB)10694.81158.9Europe
Mexico (MX)9354.20863.1North America
China (CN)8613.87567.0Asia
United Arab Emirates (AE)8313.74070.7Asia
Turkey (TR)7393.32674.1Europe
Belgium (BE)7063.17877.2Europe
Portugal (PT)6693.01180.3Europe
Oman (OM)6032.71483.0Asia
Germany (DE)4982.24185.2Europe
Italy (IT)4662.09787.3Europe
Thailand (TH)4602.07089.4Asia
Malaysia (MY)4241.90891.3Asia
Denmark (DK)3141.41392.7Europe
Hong Kong (HK; dependent territory of China)3071.38294.1Asia
Dominican Republic (DO)2561.15295.2Central and South America and the Caribbean
Table
Table 7. Three legislative periods of the export of Toucans between 1985 to 2018 (Data source: UNEP-WCMC CITES, 2020).
Table 7. Three legislative periods of the export of Toucans between 1985 to 2018 (Data source: UNEP-WCMC CITES, 2020).
PeriodNo. Years in PeriodNumber Exported% of IndividualsNumber of Years TradedYearly Average Number TradedTotal Number of Trading EventsAverage Number per Trading Event
Pre CITES listing (1985–1991)61020.5425.5617.0
Post CITES listing/Pre EU ‘WBTB’ (1992–2004)131452365.4131117.289416.2
Post CITES listing & EU ‘WBTB’ (2005–2018)14759334.214542.461812.3
Table
Table 8. The average retail prices for different Toucan species and the total species valorisation at the 2020 retail price level.
Table 8. The average retail prices for different Toucan species and the total species valorisation at the 2020 retail price level.
SpeciesAverage Retail ‘Real Price’ in 2020 (US $)Number ExportedTotal 2020 Retail Value (US $)
R. toco (CITES II; Redlist LC)12,450.00427653,236,200.00
R. vitellinus (CITES II; Redlist VU)10,000.00478347,830,000.00
R. tucanus (CITES II; Redlist VU)7816.67380929,773,696.03
R. sulphuratus (CITES II; Redlist LC)3083.33344210,612,821.86
P. aracari (CITES II; Redlist LC)1620.6937916,144,035.79
P. viridis (CITES II; Redlist LC)440.621964865,377.68
R. dicolorus (CITES III; Redlist LC)10,000.0067670,000.00
P. castanotis (CITES III; Redlist LC)4000.0062248,000.00
B. bailloni (CITES III; Redlist NT)4500.001567,500.00
A. haematopygus (CITES n/l; Redlist LC)2500.00 0.00
A. Prasinus (CITES n/l; Redlist LC)1200.00 0.00
P. torquatus (CITES n/l; Redlist LC)2175.00 0.00
P. azara (CITES n/l; Redlist LC)2150.00 0.00
P. beouharnaesii (CITES n/l; Redlist LC)4000.00 0.00
Average 2020 price (US $) 4495.75
Table
Table 9. CITES export quotas (unshaded) and import reported numbers (shaded) for Ramphastidae for the period 2015–2020 (Source: cites.org).
Table 9. CITES export quotas (unshaded) and import reported numbers (shaded) for Ramphastidae for the period 2015–2020 (Source: cites.org).
CountrySpeciesCITES Exp. TermYearYear
2015201620172018202020152016201720182020
Guyana
Pteroglossus aracariLive.30030030030030087///
Pteroglossus viridisLive.525252525243//
Ramphastos tocoLive.2002002002002001031557796
Ramphastos tucanusLive.1701701701701701231013450
Ramphastos vitellinusLive.12012012012012083691332
Yearly Total 842842842842842400328124178
Suriname
Pteroglossus aracariLive./225225//80807456
Pteroglossus viridisLive./225225//5463818
Ramphastos tucanusLive./188188//////
Ramphastos vitellinusLive./263263///263263/
Yearly Total 901901 13440634574
Nicaragua
none listed //////////
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Carpenter, A.I.; Slade, J. A Review of the Trade in Toucans (Ramphastidae): Levels of Trade in Species, Source and Sink Countries, Effects from Governance Actions and Conservation Concerns. Conservation 2023, 3, 153-174. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation3010012

AMA Style

Carpenter AI, Slade J. A Review of the Trade in Toucans (Ramphastidae): Levels of Trade in Species, Source and Sink Countries, Effects from Governance Actions and Conservation Concerns. Conservation. 2023; 3(1):153-174. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation3010012

Chicago/Turabian Style

Carpenter, Angus I., and Jennifer Slade. 2023. "A Review of the Trade in Toucans (Ramphastidae): Levels of Trade in Species, Source and Sink Countries, Effects from Governance Actions and Conservation Concerns" Conservation 3, no. 1: 153-174. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation3010012

APA Style

Carpenter, A. I., & Slade, J. (2023). A Review of the Trade in Toucans (Ramphastidae): Levels of Trade in Species, Source and Sink Countries, Effects from Governance Actions and Conservation Concerns. Conservation, 3(1), 153-174. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation3010012

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop