Evaluating key evidence and formulating regulatory alternatives regarding the UK's Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Public policy addressing biodiversity loss is most likely to be effective when it is informed by appropriate evidence and considers potential unintended consequences. We evaluate key evidence relating to the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill that was discussed in the UK Parliament between 2022 and 2024. We characterize the UK's role in international hunting trophy trade by analyzing CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) trade data for 2000–2021 and 2015–2021. For CITES-listed species imported to/exported from the UK as hunting trophies in these periods we use data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species to determine whether hunting designated as “trophy hunting” is (i) likely a major threat contributing to species being of elevated conservation concern, (ii) likely or possibly causing localized declines, or (iii) not a threat. We then use the Red List to determine whether such hunting provides, or potentially provides, benefits for species and/or people. Finally, we evaluate the UK Government's impact assessment of the bill. In 2000–2021 an estimated 3494 hunting trophies from 73 CITES-listed species and subspecies were exported to the UK involving an estimated 2549 whole organism equivalents (WOEs), that is, individual animals. Imports involved 158.86 ± 66.53 (mean ± SD) trophies/year (115.83 ± 32.27 WOEs/year). In 2015–2021, 79% of imports were from countries where populations of the hunted species are stable, increasing, or abundant. Legal hunting for trophies is not a major threat to any of the species or subspecies imported to the UK, but likely or possibly represents a local threat to some populations of eight species. This hunting does, or could potentially, benefit 20 species and subspecies, and people. Among other concerns, the impact assessment failed to adequately consider the costs and benefits to local communities in countries where such hunting occurs. Informed by these analyses we discuss alternative regulatory options.