The study is significant because it highlights the difficulties and contradictions faced by developed nations when they deal simultaneously with human and animal welfare issues overseas. The study concludes that "wildlife is a means of promoting employment and enterprise development" and also notes that "wild resources are often key to local cultural values and tradition and contribute to local and wider environmental sustainability."

The UK government appears to be facing up to the fact that animals cannot be placed before humans where questions of global poverty are concerned. There now needs to be a re-evaluation of the disastrous protectionist policies followed by UK officials at international environmental meetings and a shake-up of certain departmental responsibilities.

At meetings of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the UK has rigidly followed the protectionist environmental positions promoted by groups such as the World Wide Fund for Nature/UK (WWF/UK), Greenpeace and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). UK officials have regularly opposed the use of wildlife for anything except tourism and pressured other countries in the European Union and British Commonwealth to do the same. The result is that poor nations have often been unable to utilize their resources in a controlled and sustainable manner.

For some westerners, it has become immoral for any wild animal to be hunted for food or to raise revenue, whatever the level of its overall abundance and whatever management controls are in place. The protection of species has become a means to force people into poverty.

In November 2002, UK officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) battled to prevent the CITES COP12 meeting from authorizing the sale of small stockpiles of ivory from five African countries. With revenue from the sale slated to support local conservation programs, and with the ivory originating from the natural deaths of elephants and from management programs, there should have been little reason to oppose the proposal. Botswana, Namibia and South Africa prevailed by securing narrow majorities, while Zimbabwe and Zambia were unsuccessful.