Latin American countries boast rich ecosystems with a wealth of biodiversity, creating considerable international demand for the region’s fauna and flora. To ensure the exploitation and trade of coveted wildlife is sustainable, countries have introduced legislation to comply with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) – a legally binding international instrument that regulates trade in more than 40,900 species – and impose additional regulations or restrictions on the management, use and trade of wildlife as necessary.

However, enforcing such legislation is challenging in practice. Difficulties around validating the authenticity of permits, combined with poor traceability mechanisms for wildlife and regulatory ambiguities all create opportunities for illicit actors to pass off illegally sourced Latin American wildlife products as legitimate goods in legal global supply chains, a phenomenon known as ‘wildlife laundering’.

Compared to conventional trafficking methods, wildlife laundering allows illicit traders to operate in broad daylight. By using front companies and fraudulent paperwork, they can provide their activities with a veneer of legitimacy that is difficult to challenge.

Despite growing calls in international fora from source countries for stronger measures to combat wildlife laundering, progress is slow. In the meantime, there is a need for a regulatory rethink by source country governments to ensure the benefits from sustainable wildlife trade are captured locally.

Laundering of Endemic Wildlife

Latin America’s diverse range of species face extensive demand from exotic pet and collector markets. Between 2017 and 2022, live animals accounted for about 90% of wildlife seizures in the region. Endemic species, which are found in limited distributions in confined geographic areas, are particularly attractive for foreign traders, given their rarity fetching high prices in international markets.

To protect endemic species, Latin American countries have largely prohibited international trade in wild specimens, approving exports only from licensed breeding farms. However, when there is no sustainable and legal source of these species locally, foreign wildlife traders find ways to meet demand through an underground supply.

Strict regulatory frameworks in many Latin American countries create a high barrier to entry for locals seeking to create sustainable businesses that can supply this demand

In Ecuador, for example, trade in reptiles has been prohibited since 1959. Nonetheless, a recent study found that in 2014 Switzerland authorised exports of purported captive bred specimens of endemic Galápagos marine and land iguanas (Amblyrhynchus cristatus, Conolophus subcristatus, Conolophus marthae, Conolophus pallidus) to a breeding facility in Uganda, which has since exported offspring to consumers globally. However, the legal chain of custody could not be traced back to their country of origin, as the Ecuadorian government has never issued an export permit for these species. The iguanas therefore must have been smuggled out of Ecuador and passed off as captive-bred by foreign breeders, who continue to profit from trade in these species.

A similar phenomenon has occurred with poison frogs. There was extensive international trade in poison frogs endemic to Colombia prior to the first export permit for these species being issued by the Colombian government in 2011.

In 2020, German authorities seized 117 poison frogs from owners of a Slovakian breeding farm who were selling critically endangered poison frogs, including Oophaga vicentei, a species endemic to Panama, with export permits issued by the Nicaraguan government. However, similar to the Ecuadorian case, there was no evidence the Panamanian government had authorised the export of the original breeding pair. In addition, some of the frogs were releasing toxins, indicating they were wild-caught in Panama, rather than captive-bred in Nicaragua.

Missed Opportunities for Source Countries

Endemic species are usually found in rural, biodiverse areas with high levels of inequality and poverty. The high international demand for endemic wildlife should, in theory, help to alleviate this problem by providing a viable source of livelihood for local communities. The global ornamental plant market and reptile market have each been valued at about $23.6 billion and $70 million, respectively, in recent years, pointing to clear revenue-generating opportunities through sustainable production.

In reality, however, strict regulatory frameworks in many Latin American countries create a high barrier to entry for locals seeking to create sustainable businesses that can supply this demand. Setting up these facilities can be a long-winded, costly process. In Colombia, for instance, it can take years for breeding farms to pass the test phase and begin exporting, and even once operational, the costs and bureaucratic paperwork required mean businesses struggle to be viable.

A recent study estimated unrecorded species of amphibians to command a price premium of 40.4%, on average, in comparison to those traded with clean paperwork, suggesting that when successful, illegal or doubtful exports generate more revenue at a lower operational cost (no bureaucracy, breeding costs, taxes or permits involved).

The case of Monstera bocatorensis, a plant species endemic to Panama first discovered in September 2021, is an instructive example. In January 2022, the plant was already being sold in several plant websites across Asia, Europe and the US for prices ranging from $200 to $1,200, despite no official record of an authorised export from Panama. Legally supplying these markets could present a lucrative opportunity for local communities in Panama, as they could sustainably and ethically collect a few specimens and propagate the plant in nurseries for international trade, a process which requires minimal equipment or expertise.

However, the convoluted legal pathways to start a plant nursery make it difficult for these opportunities to be harnessed by local actors. To open a plant nursery in Panama, individuals need to register a business in the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, pay for a management plan designed by a certified botanist and submit an application to the Ministry of the Environment that meets various technical requirements. This is a costly process: businesses usually need to hire a lawyer and pay monthly taxes and operational costs before they are authorised to commence exports.

This creates a high barrier to entry inaccessible to most individuals, making it easier to sell a plant to an illegal trader for a small amount of money than registering a plant nursery. This not only reduces the likelihood of species being protected, but also fails to meaningfully support the local creation of jobs, revenue and taxes.

Meanwhile, foreigners can use the smuggled wildlife to set up a legal ornamental plant or captive breeding business with minimal requirements, creating jobs and revenue in destination countries instead of the country of origin. In turn, these businesses drive unsustainable demand for species, undermining conservation efforts and adding to the burden of enforcement for source countries with limited resources.

Towards a New Regulatory Response

The Twentieth Conference of the Parties (COP20) to CITES held in Samarkand in November 2025 saw proposals from several Latin American countries – including Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador and Panama – to include or uplist native and endemic species in the CITES Appendices for more restricted international commercial trade.

However, uplisting requires strong evidence legal trade poses a risk to wild populations, which source countries often lack the resources to collect. This was the case for a proposal put forward by Argentina, Bolivia and Panama to add 15 species of tarantula to CITES Appendix II; the CITES Secretariat concluded there was insufficient evidence of population decline to warrant the measure. Given COP only takes place every two-to-three years, a species population can plummet due to sudden elevated demand, and could mean protection under CITES is introduced too late.

Brazil and Ecuador also spearheaded a proposal at COP20 for destination countries to conduct ‘mandatory prior consultation’ with the country of origin of an endemic species to verify the legal acquisition of specimens and their founder stock across the chain of custody, prior to issuing an import permit. The proposal was ultimately rejected, the last in a series of repeated unheeded requests from Brazil for CITES Parties to consult the Brazilian government before approving trade in its endemic Spix’s macaws (Cyanopsitta spixi), which were driven to extinction in the wild due to excessive trade and habitat loss.

This demonstrates the difficulties of protecting endemic species through international fora that involve long-winded processes and ultimately disadvantage source countries with limited resources.

In the meantime, policymakers in Latin America should consider how to address the issue by adapting regulatory frameworks to create incentives for sustainable and ethical trade. This will require finding a delicate balance between ensuring there is sufficient regulation to control levels of extraction, while creating legal pathways for local communities that generate livelihoods and alleviate poverty.

Deterring unsustainable and extractive supply works best if combined with conditions that help local economies sustainably produce and sell resources. Once local economies are founded on these activities, not only will they compete against illegal and unethical trade, but they will be incentivised to protect wildlife resources instead of selling them for little profit to illegal traders.