Navigating discrepancies in macaque trade reporting: A response to Kolby et al. (2024) and a call for enhanced transparency

Abstract

We extend our gratitude to the commentators for engaging with our article [1] and offering valuable insights. While we welcome constructive criticism, we find it necessary to assertively address the points raised to ensure a clear understanding of our work.1)Importance of the Long-Tailed Macaque Trade: Our article aims to underscore the conservation and public health implications associated with the long-tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis) trade. We identified discrepancies in CITES reporting, raising concerns about the efficiency and reliability of the current system. The urgency lies in monitoring the legal wildlife trade, considering conservation, welfare, and safety aspects to safeguard biodiversity and prevent potential pandemics.2)Data Availability, Analysis, and Interpretation: Acknowledging valid concerns regarding CITES data, we concur that a comprehensive investigation into the disparities in live macaque trade reports from involved parties, including the United States and China, is imperative. The highlighted discrepancies in reported trade volumes, as depicted in Fig. 1 of the source article, emphasize potential issues in reporting accuracy, underscoring the necessity for a meticulous evaluation of CITES reporting practices. It is crucial to clarify that our intent is not to undermine the reporting system, but to draw attention to its inherent shortcomings, particularly when significant parties such as the United States display inconsistencies. Emphasizing the significance of timely reporting, our article endeavours to stimulate a thorough examination of the underlying reasons for delays in reporting by signatory parties.3)Statement about the Macaque Trade to the United States of America: Contrary to interpretations made by the commentary authors, our focus extends beyond the United States trade; rather, we delve into the global landscape of the long-tailed macaque trade. Our article highlights the shifting trends among exporting countries, notably the transition from China to Cambodia, prompting us to scrutinize current production capacities. While acknowledging recently released data detailing macaque movements between China and the United States, it is essential to note that these additions neither alter established trends nor provide conclusive answers to the queries posed in our original article.In conclusion, our article seeks to contribute to the improvement of wildlife trade data accuracy and reporting practices. We value the discourse sparked by the commentators and emphasize our commitment to transparent and evidence-based discussions for the betterment of global conservation and public health efforts.