By now everyone has probably heard in one form or another of the fracas over the killing of a tagged lion in Africa by an American trophy hunter. The killing of Cecil the lion, who had been GPS-tagged for scientific study, awoke the ire of global netizens after the story went viral.

It was all quite appalling, that in this day-and-age rich trophy hunters can travel half way around the world to a poorer country to ‘bag’ some exotic animal, returning home with the taxidermied head to mount on their wall. This particular case was even more pathetic due to the fact Cecil was lured out of a protected national park where he was then shot by a dentist ‘on safari’.

But what was interesting in this all from an air cargo perspective, was how quickly the link was made to the transport of these gruesome trophies back to the, surely well-appointed, homes of the trophy hunters. Like cascading dominoes, one air carrier after another stepped up and decreed the trophy hunting practice saying they were henceforth banning the carriage of such cargo.

Now the problem here is that while many (most?) were surely well meaning, one could not help but smell the familiar scent of proactive public relations damage control. Many of these same airlines were probably still smarting from the ‘name and shame’ campaign successfully mounted by environmental groups against carriers transporting shark’s fins which is seriously endangering the global existence of a number shark species.

Interestingly two of the integrator giants – UPS and FedEx – publicly stated they would continue to ship any cargo as long as it met international legal norms. A somewhat shocking admission that their cargo policies extend only to legal limits and apparently don’t factor in ethical considerations. All the more surprising considering that a much larger portion of their business, compared to the general cargo carriers, is mass consumer related and hence one would think more sensitive to public sentiment.

We say hats off to Virgin Atlantic Cargo – who likely were accused by some of public relations opportunism – for calling for an industry-wide ethical cargo policy. The UK-carrier is not alone in having a strict policy on what it carries, but for sure it is a good example of a proactive policy – somewhat ahead of controversial incidents like the killing of Cecil.

In Virgin’s case its three years old ethical cargo policy bans the carriage of cargoes such as hunting trophies, bluefin tuna, shark fins, animals for research purposes including primates and laboratory rats, as well as hatching eggs and day-old chicks, meat or products from Cetaceans and furs and pelts.

Virgin also pointed to the position announced in June by the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) to reduce illegal trade in wildlife and products that come from animals as a potential catalyst for this much-needed change.

CITES and IATA have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to create a formal framework for their ongoing cooperation on the implementation of standards and best practices such as the IATA Live Animals Regulations, the IATA Perishable Cargo Regulations, and the CITES Guidelines for the Non-Air Transport of Live Wild Animals and Plants. They will also support joint training and communications activities to reduce illegal trade and ensure the safe transport of legally traded wildlife.

Now is the time to take this further and make it a truly global, industry-wide agreement. If there were a global agreement that bound airlines to refuse uplift of hunting trophies and endangered species, the earth would clearly be better off. And such a policy would obviate the need for carriers to trip over themselves proving how earth-friendly they were when controversy strikes. Don’t get me wrong, I personally applaud any of the carriers that step up and do the right thing, it would just be nice if they did the right thing before they smelled the potential of a massive public face-slap.