A recent study states, “CITES is proving ineffective at deterring illegal and/or unsustainable exploitation of many listed species for international trade.” Could that be because the clarity and simplicity of the original agreement have somehow been lost in over 50 years of never-ending multilateral negotiations about a myriad of issues? Is it perhaps time to revisit how CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) was envisioned vis-à-vis how it works today?

Governments agreed to the text of CITES in the 1970s, which is quite straightforward. However, the agreement’s implementation has become incredibly complex and complicated today. At the just-ended 78th meeting of the CITES Standing Committee in Geneva, Switzerland (a key part of the CITES architecture for multilateral decision-making), there were over 100 agenda and sub-agenda items to tackle over a week of negotiations. Here are some of these items:

  • 6. Report of the Chairs of the Animals and Plants Committees
  • 14. CITES Strategic Vision
  • 15. Role of CITES in reducing risk of future zoonotic disease emergence associated with international wildlife trade
  • 16. Cooperation with Multilateral Environmental Agreements and other international organizations (changes to paragraphs 7 and 15)
  • 18. World Wildlife Trade Report (changes to paragraph a) of decision 20.BB)
  • 24. CITES Tree Species Programme
  • 25. CITES Global Youth Network
  • 26. CITES gender action plan
  • 27. Engagement of Indigenous peoples and local communities
  • 28. Livelihoods
  • 29. Demand reduction to combat illegal trade
  • 32. National reports
  • 33. Compliance matters
  • 34. Review of Significant Trade in specimens of Appendix-II species
  • 35. Resolution Conf. 17.7 (Rev. CoP19) on Review of trade in animal specimens reported as produced in captivity
  • 39. Wildlife crime enforcement support in West and Central Africa
  • 40. Illegal trade in cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) SC78 Doc. 40 13 Dec 2024
  • 41. Marine turtles (Cheloniidae spp. and Dermochelyidae spp.) SC78 Doc. 41 10 Dec 2024
  • 42. CITES Big Cats Task Force             
  • 48. Non-detriment findings for specimens of Appendix-II species taken from areas beyond national jurisdiction
  • 53. Stocks and stockpiles
  • 56. Rapid movement of wildlife diagnostic samples and musical instruments
  • 59. Labelling system for trade in caviar
  • 61. Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15) on Registration of operations that breed Appendix-I animal species in captivity for commercial purposes
  • 66. Great apes (Hominidae spp.): Report on the implementation of Resolution Conf. 13.4 (Rev. CoP18)
  • 69. Eels (Anguilla spp.)
  • 71. Seahorses (Hippocampus spp.)
  • 74. Trade in medicinal and aromatic plant species
  • 79. Implications of the transfer of a species from one Appendix to another (change to paragraph 2 of the guidance
  • 81. Informal review mechanism for existing and proposed annotations
  • 84. Taxonomy and nomenclature of African elephants Loxodonta spp.) (correction to cross-references to paragraphs)

Put several hundred people in a large room to talk about all of these issues, and the conversations can and, indeed, does go on for days. In addition, add to the official delegations from the Parties to CITES, a colourful mix of interested non-parties – NGOs, businesses, academics, community representatives, etc – with varying and often opposing views on the trade of wild species and all with something to say. 

The discussions spilled out of the plenary into working groups and side events over the lunch breaks and in the evenings, such as the ones I participated in last week. One focussed the on proposals by some countries, like the UK, to ban the import of hunting trophies and another on securing a voice with the CITES system for local communities who live with wild species. The conversations never seem to end. IISD’s Earth Negotiations Bulletin does a fantastic job of trying to make sense of the cacophony of a CITES meeting.

At a CITES meeting nowadays – whether it is the Standing Committee, the Animals Committee, the Plants Committee, or the Conference of the Parties (CoP) taking place later this year in Samarkand, Uzbekistan – there are always stacks of issues to consider and hundreds of people to engage in lively conversations and deliberations. However, has not all of this taken us far away from the aims and straightforward measures set out in the original agreement? Is it perhaps time for the CITES Parties to refocus on its original purpose?

The aim of CITES is clearly stated in the preamble to the agreement:

Recognizing that peoples and States are and should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora

Recognizing, in addition, that international cooperation is essential for the protection of certain species of wild fauna and flora against over-exploitation through international trade

CITES is an international agreement to ensure that wildlife trade is sustainable. The agreement establishes a process to recognise species threatened by trade and measures to mitigate these threats. The measures are straightforward and not terribly complicated.

Species under threat are listed in three Appendices: Appendix I for species in trade threatened with extinction, Appendix II for species in trade that could be threatened, and Appendix III for species protected by at least one Party. A key role for the CoP is to agree on the species to be listed. 

For species listed on Appendices I and II, the CITES agreement puts in place trade measures, notably securing an export permit from an exporting country’s CITES Management Authority. This permit can be issued once the Authority is satisfied that the wild product was acquired legally and that the “export will not be detrimental to the survival of that species.” 

For Appendix I species, there is an additional trade measure of securing an import permit from an importing country’s Management Authority. Here, the language of the CITES agreement is still not well understood. The Authority must be satisfied that “the import will be for purposes which are not detrimental” and that “the specimen is not to be used for primarily commercial purposes.” For many, these requirements are simply interpreted as a de facto ban on imports. However, if the purpose of the import is not a threat and if it provides benefits for people, then an import permit should be issued. It need not be terribly complicated.

So, in addition to listing or delisting species on the Appendices, another role for the CoP is to recommend best practices for issuing export and import permits for listed species. This could include guidance on undertaking non-detriment studies, determining the legality of the trade, and identifying the benefits of trade. Indeed, the Parties have been busy recently with updating and streamlining guidance on non-detriment findings. 

Of course, the Parties can do what they want with their agreement. Imagine, however, a decision-making process under CITES with only two agenda items – (1) decisions on the listing or delisting of species and (2) recommendations on best practices for issuing trade permits. This would make CITES considerably less complicated, and probably also significantly more impactful. By focusing directly on its core aim and measures, CITES could be a most effective mechanism for ensuring that the trade in wild species is both legal and sustainable. 

  • Prof Francis Vorhies

    Director & Professor Extraordinary