Questions and answers: Regulatory Solutions
The trade and keeping of wild animals as pets (often called “exotic pets”) is widespread throughout Europe. This trade poses serious risks to animal welfare, public health and safety, and the environment. Although there are different opinions on how best to manage these risks, it is clear they must be addressed effectively.
Based on decades of first-hand experience rescuing wild animals kept as pets, AAP (Animal Advocacy and Protection) believes that a Positive List is the most effective way to address these risks. A Positive List is a preventive approach that determines which animal species are allowed to be kept as pets, by default protecting those that are not listed. The needs of an animal species, and the potential impacts the trade and keeping can have on public health and safety and the environment, should be considered during the development of the list. If done correctly, a Positive List ensures that animals, humans, and the environment are protected, while making the rules clear and enforceable. In our view, it is the fairest, most effective, and economically practical solution.
This Q&A addresses the most common questions and concerns about regulating the trade in wild animals for pet keeping and the Positive List. The Q&A is divided into three sections:
- 1 Understanding Positive Lists
- 2 Answering common concerns about Positive Lists
- 3 Additional useful information
Understanding Positive Lists
Wild animals have not evolved to live life in a domestic setting. Whether taken from the wild or bred in captivity, these animals retain their natural instincts and characteristics. Additionally, their physical, psychological, and behavioural needs are often not fully understood, and even when they are, these needs are very difficult to meet in a home environment.
Research shows that wild animals are typically purchased impulsively, by people with little or no understanding of their complex needs. As a result, these animals are usually kept in unsuitable conditions, abandoned in the wild, or end up in one of our rescue centres. This harms both the animals and their owners, who likely have bought the animal with the best intentions but in the end cannot meet their needs.
Private individuals should not have access to animals that cannot thrive in captivity. Our goal is to protect these vulnerable wild animals and prevent them from a life of suffering.
A Positive List (also called a Permitted or Reversed List) is a regulatory tool that defines which animal species are allowed to be bred, traded, and kept as pets. By default, species not included on the list cannot be kept as pets.
This is a preventive and science-based approach, using objective evidence to ensure that keeping a species as a pet does not pose risks to animal welfare, public health and safety, and the environment.
A Positive List is more than just a list of species. It should also include clear rules on:
- What happens with animals already kept as pets,
- How species can be added or removed from the list,
- Which criteria must be used to assess whether a species should be listed.
No, a Positive List does not ban keeping animals as pets. A Positive List simply identifies which species can be cared for properly by general members of the public living in a house or apartment. This should be based on scientific evidence to ensure the welfare of the animals and the safety of people and the environment.
The trade and keeping of wild animals as pets has been linked to animal suffering, illegal trade, the emergence and spread of zoonotic diseases, biodiversity loss, and the introduction of invasive species. However, current regulations address these issues separately, without a unified approach. For example, the European Union has rules on wildlife trade, invasive species, animal health, and public health, but these were largely developed independently and in isolation of one another.
A Positive List offers a clear and comprehensive solution. It ensures that only species which pose no significant risk to animal welfare, public health, and biodiversity and ecosystems can be kept as pets. Other factors, such as available rescue capacity, enforcement resources, and veterinary expertise, can also be considered.
Eight EU Member States already have some form of Positive List, and interest in Positive Lists is growing across the European Union, with three more Member States currently developing their own.
Similar approaches are used globally, for example at sub-national level in the United States, Canada, and Australia and in South Korea, and Singapore. There is also increasing international recognition of the need for stronger controls on the wild animal trade, as it is linked to some of the greatest global challenges we face today such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and the spread of invasive species
Importantly, the idea behind a Positive List is not a new one. In most industries, products must meet clear safety standards before they can be sold (for example, toys or food). While animals are not products, there should still be clear criteria to decide whether it is safe and appropriate to buy, sell, and keep a species in a household.
The EU has several laws regulating the trade of wild animals. For example, the Wildlife Trade Regulations (1997) help implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which controls the import, (re)export, and trade of wild species. Other important laws include the Animal Health Regulation (2016) and the Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (2015).
However, there are no EU-level rules that protect the welfare of animals kept as pets, nor any regulations that decide which species are suitable to be kept in private homes. This is a serious gap.
An EU-wide Positive List would fill this gap. While we are supportive of those EU countries creating their own Positive Lists, we believe a common EU-wide approach is essential.
One of the EU’s key principles is the “internal market,” which allows free movement – including animals – between Member States. This supports trade in general but creates problems when each country has different rules on which animals can be traded, bred or kept as pets. Without common rules, this leads to market fragmentation, unfair competition, public confusion, and makes illegal trade easier.
An EU-wide Positive List would harmonise these rules, providing clarity for citizens, making enforcement easier, and better protecting animals, people, and the environment.
Answering common concerns about Positive Lists
Most existing laws in the EU and its Member States use what is called a Negative List approach. This means that species can be kept and traded unless they are specifically listed as not allowed.
This process to list a species on a Negative List takes a lot of time, costs a lot of money and is largely ineffective. Action is often only taken when a specific species becomes highly endangered, poses a risk to public health and safety, or becomes invasive. By then, the damage to wild populations, ecosystems, and society can be severe and often irreversible.
A Positive List would complement these regulations by closing gaps left by existing Negative Lists. For example, the EU Invasive Alien Species Regulation already bans the trade and keeping of species that could harm local ecosystems, so these species wouldn’t need to be considered for a Positive List.
Additionally, a Positive List avoids loopholes that can be exploited under the Negative List system, ensuring that no inappropriate species slip through the cracks simply because they are not yet popular. A Positive List can guarantee that only species suitable for life in captivity can be kept, based on clear, science-backed criteria.
There are an estimated 13,000 wild animal species kept as pets, and for most of these species, we lack basic knowledge about their natural needs. This makes it nearly impossible to ensure that these animals’ physiological, psychological, and behavioural needs are met in captivity. Current practices are often based on trial-and-error or misinformation, which can lead to significant suffering for the animals.
Enforcing species-specific care standards, including proper care and environmental conditions (husbandry), would be nearly impossible. As mentioned, for most species, we don’t know what these proper husbandry standards are. Additionally, inspectors would need expert knowledge of thousands of species to verify that proper care is being provided. Also, care standards alone do not address broader risks, such as the spread of zoonotic diseases, the threat of invasive species, or the illegal capture of wildlife.
A Positive List avoids these problems by clearly stating which species are suitable as pets and can be cared for responsibly by the general public.
In cases of insufficient or inconclusive scientific data, the precautionary principle should apply. This means that if there is doubt or uncertainty, the species would not be included on the Positive List. The benefit of the doubt goes to the protection of animal welfare, public health an safety, and the environment.
There is no evidence that Positive Lists increase illegal trade. In fact, most ‘exotic’ pet purchases are made on impulse. If these animals are no longer legally available, demand would likely decrease.
For example, Belgium, the first EU country to introduce a Positive List, documented no increase in illegal trade. A study by Eurogroup for Animals, which analysed trading sites, official confiscations, and rescue centre data, found that between 2009 and 2014, there were only 22 confiscations of wild animals kept as pets. Belgium’s experience also showed that enforcement became easier because people knew which species were allowed and could report the keeping of prohibited species to the authorities.
Of course, Positive Lists work best alongside measures like public awareness campaigns and proper training for enforcement officers. No regulation eliminates all illegal activity, but Positive Lists reduce demand, strengthen enforcement, and can improve traceability of the animals traded.
Our data shows the Positive List so far has not resulted in an increase in the number of animals needing rescue. To prevent a sudden increase in rescue requests, effective Positive List regulations should always include a “legacy” or “grandfathering” clause. This allows current owners to keep their animals until they die.
No, your animal would not be taken from you. As with most new legislation, a Positive List would typically include a “grandfathering” or “legacy” provision. This means you can keep your current animal until it dies. However, breeding, selling, or buying new animals of species not on the Positive List would no longer be allowed.
Some countries may also introduce extra measures to protect animals, people, and the environment, such as mandatory registration or identification. Additionally, if there are serious welfare concerns, authorities could intervene to ensure proper care and safety.
If you own a wild or “exotic” animal, make sure you comply with local laws and regulations. Take the best possible care of your pet, including annual veterinary visits.
If you can no longer care for your animal, contact a local rescue centre or shelter—never release the animal into the wild, as this can seriously harm native wildlife and ecosystems.
Finally, when your exotic pet reaches the end of their life, do not buy another wild animal as a pet. Instead, consider choosing a species that is well known to thrive in a home environment, such as a dog or cat.
Additional useful information
The negative impacts on biodiversity from the trade in wild animals for pets is well documented. While effects can vary depending on species, ecosystems, and source or destination countries, the wild animal pet trade is linked to habitat destruction, removal of key individuals – such as breeding adults – from within a population, the introduction of invasive species, and the spread of harmful wildlife diseases.
Although captive breeding of wild animals does take place, it does not necessarily reduce the demand or desire to capture animals from the wild. Wild capture is often cheaper, and for many species, new wild-caught individuals are needed to maintain genetic diversity in captive breeding programs. Additionally, the rarity or popularity of a species can further drive demand for wild-caught animals.
Some argue that captive breeding is important for conservation. We agree that protecting animal species is a critically important task. However, responsible breeding means preventing genetic pollution, working with local partners to protect natural habitats, and ensuring that animals can successfully return to the wild. These are complex processes that require specialist knowledge and significant resources and are best carried out by professional zoos and sanctuaries.
An estimated 1.7 million undiscovered viruses exist in mammal and bird species. Of these, around 631,000 to 827,000 could have the potential to infect humans. Over 60% of known infectious diseases and up to 75% of new or emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic. Most of these diseases originate in wildlife.
Research has identified 70 different “exotic” pet related zoonotic diseases in the EU, and between 2015 and 2019, AAP rescued wild animals that were susceptible to over 120 zoonotic viruses, bacteria and parasites that can be harmful and potentially lethal to humans. Our own research shows that 13.7% of rescued “exotic” pets carried one or more zoonotic diseases.
One challenge is that wild animals can carry dangerous pathogens without showing any signs of illness. This is a natural survival strategy for wild animals and means that such diseases can go unnoticed until the owner or other humans become sick.
Across Europe, animal health regulations mainly focus on animals in the food supply chain. However, most wild animals kept as pets are part of a different supply chain. As a result, monitoring for zoonotic diseases in these species has received little attention.
Furthermore, conditions in which wild animals are bred, traded, and kept—such as overcrowding, poor hygiene, and chronic stress—further increase the risk of zoonotic disease emergence and spread. The global, growing, and fragmented nature of the wildlife pet trade worsens this risk. Despite this, measures to detect zoonotic diseases in wild animals kept as pets are still very limited.
Illegal wildlife trade is often hidden within the legal trade. There are many cases where the legal trade has been used to launder illegally caught animals, look-alike species, or those protected in their country of origin. Once these animals are imported into the EU, they can be bred, traded, and kept legally because the EU doesn’t have regulations that addresses this. This creates a loophole, making the EU one of the largest markets where illegal wildlife trade can be “greenwashed”.