Is It Sustainable Trade? An Insight Into Trade of Wildlife in the Solomon Islands.

Author: W. Kadi (LLB/LLM, Chevening Alumni 22/23)

In the 2016 State of the environment report for Solomon Islands, it mentioned that Solomon Islands has the second highest terrestrial biodiversity of anywhere in the Pacific, surpassed only by Papua New Guinea. We also occupy the eastern portion of the global centre of marine diversity known as the coral triangle which includes all or part of the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Timor Leste, and Papua New Guinea.

The 2019 State of the environment report provided charts which helps to analyse the state of the environment. Both the 2016 and 2019 report showed significantly higher rates of degradation particularly due to unsustainable logging practices. There have been numerous texts and literature that provide detailed data into the rate of unsustainable logging practices and the deteriorating state of the environment.

In this article, we will look instead to the mechanisms which enabled wildlife trade in the Solomon Islands and try to provide a summary evaluation on the question of sustainability.

The Wildlife Protection and Management Act 1998 forms the basis for trade of wildlife in Solomon Islands. This piece of legislation was created to comply with the obligations imposed upon Solomon Islands under the Convention on International Trade to Endangered Species of Wildlife Flora and Fauna (CITES), amongst other matters connected to it.

Recently, the country renewed its commitment to CITES. However, in light of how trade in wildlife is carried out, we want to relook into the purpose of CITES to evaluate whether; what we are doing by engaging in trade and exporting wildlife is actually in line with the spirit of CITES or not?

There is only one overarching objective of CITES: to ensure that international wildlife trade does not threaten the survival of wild species of flora and fauna. One of the challenges that can be found in carrying out trade of wildlife is the meaning of ‘specimen’ in the context of CITES, and how it was interpreted by traders of wildlife.

In the case of Solomon Islands, it is fair to say that the meaning of ‘specimen’ has been taken out of context from its intended purpose when it comes to trade of wildlife, particularly the export of tubi, or xanthostemon. In other scenarios, wildlife trade in the Solomon Islands also attracted smuggling of species.

In renewing Solomon Islands’ commitment to CITES, the trade of wildlife species continues regardless of the risks to lose even more species. In some circumstances, the trade of wildlife species has helped to store some of the most unique specimens recorded in Solomon Islands. This includes the case of the ground pigeon of Choiseul, kukuvojo specimens that were stored in the American Museum of Natural History.

The above examples showed what CITES intends and what it does not intend, as objectives for the trade of wildlife specimen. For scientific purposes, the trade of species may be justified as necessary, however, respective authorities need to understand that the trade of wildlife specimen have a commercial aspect to it and that need to be clarified in the laws governing wildlife trade. More emphasis needs to be given to the objectives of CITES as the purposes of trading specimens, and that is, to promote the management and conservation of such endangered species. The commercial aspect of trading rare specimens should not be entertained at all.

As the decline of flora and fauna continues, it justifies the urgency to review these legal mechanisms and have a wider audience to participate on discussing whether the trade of specimen should only be intended specifically for scientific purposes and to promote conservation only - and never for profit or as a source of income.