key: cord-0049116-jvzg2jgc authors: Margulies, Jared D.; Wong, Rebecca W.Y.; Duffy, Rosaleen title: Understanding drivers of demand, researching consumption of illegal wildlife products: A reply to Bergin et al. date: 2020-08-26 journal: Geoforum DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.08.010 sha: 1ee6b2ff25b366d0899c7f91eb55bad7f0363191 doc_id: 49116 cord_uid: jvzg2jgc nan When we first began formulating our piece on illegal wildlife trade demand reduction campaigns nearly a year ago (Margulies et al., 2019) , we had no idea how soon wildlife markets, zoonotic vectors, and illegal wildlife trade would enter everyday public discourse as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. However, it was without great surprise, unfortunately, we observed media and public discussions about COVID-19 almost immediately infused with xenophobia, racism, and stereotypes about wildlife consumptive practices, with even the President of the United States repeatedly referring to COVID-19 as "The Chinese Virus" (Rogers et al., 2020) . As Bergin et al. (2020) note in their thoughtful response to our critical review, the spike in verbal and physical abuse that people of Asian descent have faced following the emergence of COVID-19 makes attention to language and narrative all the more pressing when discussing drivers of illegal wildlife trade in countries such as China amid speculation about the tenuous role of wildlife products in COVID-19's zoonotic transmission. Here we wish to clarify and respond to several key points regarding the intent and scope of our critical commentary and responses to it (Bergin et al., 2020) . First, we are glad the authors agree with us that it is essential to employ sociocultural specificity in the design of wildlife demand reduction campaigns. Further, we welcome the useful examples they present of research reports, such as those undertaken by their organization, e.g. USAID (2018a, 2018b) that "use scientific methods to develop culturally nuanced approaches to wildlife trade demand reduction" (Bergin et al., 2020) . We thank the authors for highlighting these examples of more careful, socio-culturally specific research to inform the design of demand reduction campaigns. We are additionally thankful to the authors for offering examples of studies carried out especially by consultancies or non-profit organizations investigating the drivers of demand for illegal wildlife products. However, we wish to make clear that our piece was not an exhaustive scholarly review of all illegal wildlife trade demand reduction campaigns in China or Asia, nor did we present our critique as such. Our intention was to highlight the recurring problem we identified with very high-profile campaigns that lack cultural specificity and reproduce what we see as problematic stereotypes furthering what we entitled the trope of the "Asian super consumer." It was not our aim to suggest that there are no demand reduction campaigns that avoid such framings, but to highlight examples of campaigns that do, in order to draw attention to this persistent issue. Our next set of clarifications and responses relates to data quality and method. The authors contrast some of our arguments, which are based on evidence from in-depth sociological interviews, with findings from large sample size surveys theirs and other organizations have conducted. We feel it is important to note that research methodologies inevitably produce very different types and qualities of data, and that particular research questions are better answered through particular research methods than others. For instance, studies that rely on large market research firms to conduct mobile phone-based surveys across thousands of potential consumers, such as those highlighted by the authors and implemented by their consulting firm, will produce specific kinds of consumer driven data; these data are fundamentally different in quality and meaning from the kind of interview approaches employed by ethnographers or sociologists focusing on illegal wildlife product suppliers or consumers with whom they develop trusting relationships. This is not a judgement of comparative quality, we see both types of data as important and relevant for producing the kinds of sophisticated, targeted campaigns the authors call for. A final response in relation to data relates to accessibility of research produced outside the academic sphere. As the authors point out, many NGOs or market research studies do not make their research findings publicly available, which reduces the capacity for more comparative reviews of demand reduction campaigns, or an exploration of their research methodologies. This is lamentable, as it further limits what kinds of broader analyses of demand reduction campaigns might be possible. In considering the authors perspectives, however, we believe that a more extensive review of campaigns, such as some of those the authors highlight, is likely warranted. In considering our initial review and the response of the authors, we feel it is important to further clarify and contextualize a key motivation for writing our critical review. Specifically, we remain concerned and attentive to the reality that consumers in Asian countries-and in particular, China-remain the primary target of major illegal wildlife trade demand reduction campaigns compared to people in other world regions. The promotion of the idea that Chinese consumption lies at the heart of the illegal wildlife trade ignores the continuing high rates of consumption of illegal wildlife products in Europe and North America, and the role of those regions as transit routes from source to consumer. The EU Trade in Wildlife Information eXchange (EU-TWIX) database shows that there are four important trade routes into the EU: large mammals (elephants, rhinos and big cats) from Africa and South America transiting through major hubs in Europe for export to Asia; coastal smuggling of leeches, caviar and other fish, as well as reptiles and parrots for the European pet trade; endangered birds traded from South Eastern Europe to Southern Europe; and finally Russian and Asian wildlife traded into Europe via Eastern European land routes (Sina et al, 2016: 24-27) . The USA is also one of the world's largest importers and consumers of illegal wildlife products. Smith et al.'s (2017) review of US Fish and Wildlife Service and other US agency data indicated that illegally imported wildlife most commonly included sturgeon (caviar), baby harp seal pelts, Indian peafowl (peacock) feathers, white tailed deer products, such as antler, elephant ivory, sea turtle products, crocodilians, musk deer (for traditional medicine products), and reptile and ostrich products. The majority of illegal shipments of non-aquatic species were intercepted at the border between the US and Mexico; whilst data also showed that China was a major exporter to the US of illegal wildlife products, including deer and bear medicinal items, macaque scientific specimens, live aquatic species and reptiles (Smith et al., 2017) . The centrality of Europe and North America in the wildlife trade, and especially illegal trade in European and American species, is often side-lined by the concerns about poaching and smuggling of high-profile, charismatic African and Asian animals. Nevertheless, these illicit geographies are an important part of the overall story of the illegal wildlife trade. In sum, we welcome Bergin et al.'s (2020) response; we agree that it is important to recognize and highlight examples of good practice that do not contribute to racist narratives about the drivers of the illegal wildlife trade. This will also be crucial for moving forward with research and debates about the possible intersections between the wildlife trade and COVID-19 (or other potential future zoonotic disease pandemics). As a community of concerned researchers we can build on this and move forward with recommendations, practices and forms of communication that are nuanced, culturally appropriate and effective. Response to "The imaginary 'Asian Super Consumer': A critique of demand reduction campaigns for the illegal wildlife trade The imaginary 'Asian Super Consumer': A critique of demand reduction campaigns for the illegal wildlife trade Trump Defends Using 'Chinese Virus' Label, Ignoring Growing Criticism. The New York Times Wildlife Crime, Study for the ENVI Committee Summarizing US wildlife trade with an eye toward assessing the risk of infectious diseases introduction Research study on consumer demand for elephant, rhino and pangolin parts and products in Vietnam Quantitative and qualitative study of consumer demand for wildlife products in Thailand This work was supported in part by funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme grant agreement No 694995 (BIOSEC: Biodiversity and Security, Understanding Environmental Crime, Illegal Wildlife Trade and Threat Finance), and was also partially supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (CityU 21607917). The usual disclaimers apply.