Halt the overexploitation of terrestrial wild species and ensure sustainable use

Effectively halting the overexploitation of species depends on not only governments’ strengthening national policies, laws and regulations to protect terrestrial ecosystems but also their willingness to act with integrity and apply these policies consistently — including to those with political and economic power. Yet in many countries, corruption facilitates illegal activities that drive overexploitation and the illegal wildlife trade.

According to the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, as of 2025, government corruption was relatively low in roughly 36% of countries with biodiversity hotspots, a figure that has remained fairly stable in recent years. However, in Bolivia, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) — three countries known for their high levels of terrestrial biodiversity — corruption remains a challenge. The DRC and Bolivia received the fourth- and sixth-lowest scores, respectively; while Indonesia fared better, it still ranked in the bottom half, scoring well below the threshold used to determine lower levels of corruption within a country’s government.

Unsustainable use threatens biodiversity and affects many major groups of species. The wildlife trade is a driving force of species extinction, threatening around 24% of terrestrial vertebrates. In addition to illegal wildlife trade, the underregulated trade in live species or their products also puts pressure on wild populations.

Ensuring that exploited species populations are managed through permitting systems or management guidelines can reduce their extinction risk. Permitting systems set formal frameworks to regulate how wild species or their products can be used, whereas management guidelines provide recommendations and best practices for managing species. In tandem, these mechanisms help support the sustainable use of wild terrestrial populations. However, there is currently no data tracking the proportion of species populations managed through these approaches.

Wild meat plays a critical role in food security and local livelihoods, providing an important source of nutrients and additional income for local communities. In developing countries across Latin America, Africa and Asia, an estimated 150 million households harvest wild meat. These households are primarily low-income and often use wild meat as a key part of their diets. While the exact number of species used for wild meat is unknown, estimates range from several hundred to 2,000.

Global trends indicate that growing human populations, advances in technology and access to markets are some of the factors driving increased demand for wild meat. In Peru, for example, wild meat sales increased in parallel with population growth between 1973 and 2018, although the overall contribution of wild meat to diet remained steady. However, meat selection is often concentrated on a small number of preferred species, increasing pressure on specific populations. For example, only five species of ungulates and rodents accounted for 88.5% of the biomass traded in Peru.

Monitoring wild meat consumption is essential for promoting sustainable use of wildlife and ensuring that levels of take do not exceed the capacity of local populations. Without this knowledge, species may be exploited to critical levels without detection, especially in regions where biodiversity is high and data is sparse. By tracking where species are being hunted, in what quantities and under what circumstances, we can understand the demand for these types of wildlife products, inform evidence-based policies and create regulations that balance human needs with conservation.

There is currently no comprehensive global dataset that tracks wild meat use and consumption. A related effort from WILDMEAT.org tracks the use of wild meat, as measured by hunting offtakes, consumption and market sales. Its database includes 31 consumption studies since 2000, assessing wild meat across Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Indonesia, Laos and the Republic of the Congo. The data is currently limited to these countries, and additional work is needed to track the take and consumption of wild meat worldwide.

Overexploitation of wild terrestrial species means addressing both supply and demand. For supply, interventions often include top-down regulations and their enforcement. However, even with these mechanisms in place, local demand for illegal products continues to contribute to overexploitation. Efforts to halt the overexploitation of terrestrial species must therefore also include drivers of household demand for wildlife products, as consumption decisions are often based on income, location, and access to alternatives.

Most efforts to decrease household demand focus on individual species, particularly mammals, and the drivers of their consumption. Researchers have classified the demand for wildlife products in five categories: experiential (e.g., recreational use like fishing), social (e.g., reputation like trophy hunting), functional (e.g., medicine), financial (e.g., profit) and spiritual (e.g., ritualistic). These demands are rooted in cultural, social and financial pressures, and interventions must shift how households view — and consequently use — wild threatened species.

Such interventions should also consider the complex dependencies of local communities on terrestrial species, as many households rely on local wildlife for food or income. Sustainable alternatives are needed to replace the use of threatened or unsustainably used species, especially for communities that are a key entry point for intervention. Examples might include community-based livestock rearing, aquaculture or ecotourism.

Through demand-reduction activities, such as raising awareness of a species’ conservation status, and availability of sustainable alternative livelihoods, household demand for wildlife products can be reduced, thereby decreasing overexploitation. However, key gaps remain in understanding the effectiveness of such initiatives — not because efforts to reduce demand are unsuccessful, but because broad methods to track and reduce demand are infrequently reported or monitored over the long term. In addition to tracking broad demand, it is necessary to evaluate demand-reduction campaigns and better understand their effectiveness.