Counting exported wildlife products sounds like a way to measure pressure on an animal. But the connection is not straightforward. Several products may come from one carcass, a product may pass through more than one market, and a giraffe killed for local consumption may never appear in an export record.
Matilda E. Dunn and colleagues investigated that problem in a 2021 study of giraffe parts and derivatives. They asked where products came from, who used them, where they travelled and what evidence existed about the consequences for wild populations. Their answer was a varied regional picture rather than a single continent-wide trading pattern.
Combining the written record with specialist knowledge
The team searched academic databases and other sources in English and French, collecting 161 documents. They also surveyed specialists in giraffe conservation and wildlife trade between May and August 2019. Seventy-two respondents completed the questionnaire sufficiently for the final analysis.
The two approaches addressed a difficult evidence landscape. Peer-reviewed research was only part of the available written record; reports, news articles and other material also described use that had received little formal study. Specialists could add experience that was not necessarily captured in publications.
The researchers classified information by geography, product, use and whether the reported source and market were legal or illegal. They distinguished records from before 2000 from later reports, excluding historical use from the contemporary trade analysis. That avoided treating an old description as proof that the same practice still occurred during the study period.
Combining sources helped reveal recurring patterns. It could not remove every imbalance in what had been studied or noticed. Respondents were concentrated in East and Southern Africa, and most documents did not identify a particular giraffe species or subspecies. The resulting map is a map of evidence as well as activity.
Local demand was a recurring part of the picture
Reports from Central, East and West Africa repeatedly identified domestic use and local markets. Meat was a prominent use in East Africa; tails, skins, craft materials and products used in traditional practices also appeared in the evidence.
These uses should not be folded into a single motive. Food, income, decoration and cultural significance can create different reasons for demand. Recognising those differences is necessary before judging which interventions could plausibly alter the pressure on animals.
Southern African accounts described another mix: domestic meat use alongside international movements of trophies, other products and live giraffes. The study also found reports of illegal hunting within that region. A broad regional distinction therefore did not mean that every transaction followed the same rules or had the same effects.
The legal categories in the paper describe its research period. The scientific point is that legality, market destination and conservation impact are separate questions. A product crossing a border does not by itself reveal whether the original animal was taken illegally, nor whether that removal was sustainable for the source population.
An expert response is not a trade-volume measurement
The survey asked specialists what uses and sources they knew about and how frequently they believed trade occurred. When many respondents identified a particular use, that indicated a recurring concern in their knowledge. It did not measure the percentage of giraffes killed for that purpose.
Uncertainty was substantial. In the question about the extent of trade, answers expressing lack of knowledge made up 40% of the recorded responses across product categories. Knowledge of traditional uses was particularly limited in respondents’ own assessments.
The literature had parallel gaps. Some documents described removals without connecting them to a population trend; others asserted positive or negative impacts without enough information to reconstruct the number of animals involved. The team highlighted that counts of traded parts could not simply be converted into counts of giraffes.
That matters biologically because the same number of removals can have very different consequences for a small, declining population and a larger population with greater recruitment. To evaluate the effect, researchers need a source population, a number of animals and an understanding of how that population is changing.
Following a threat at the scale where it happens
The study was published after giraffes’ 2019 inclusion in CITES Appendix II, which provided a mechanism for monitoring international trade. Its findings explain why such records need to be complemented by research on domestic markets and consumption. Activity that remains within a country is not adequately described by totals of international shipments.
A separate northern Kenyan investigation by Kirstie Ruppert and colleagues illustrates one possible complement. It used methods that concealed individual answers to estimate giraffe meat consumption at two times. Those local surveys addressed behaviour that a shipment database could not measure. They also could not, by themselves, count the giraffes killed or establish the cause of a change in consumption.
Dunn and colleagues identify the questions that future evidence needs to connect: what people use, where it comes from, how many animals are removed and what happens to the source population. More precise research on each link would help distinguish a well-documented concern from an assumed one. Their work makes clear why conserving giraffes requires following the particular trade and use patterns surrounding particular populations.
Sources
Matilda E. Dunn, Kirstie Ruppert, Jenny Anne Glikman, David O’Connor, Stephanie Fennessy, Julian Fennessy and Diogo Veríssimo. (2021). Investigating the international and pan-African trade in giraffe parts and derivatives. Conservation Science and Practice. DOI: 10.1111/csp2.390. Read the full paper.
