Is CITES an effective treaty?

The twentieth CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP 20) recently concluded in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. I attended as a presenter at two side events, and each of my presentations examined, to some extent, whether CITES is an effective treaty. The first was a discussion on the potential conservation impacts of trophy import bans. My contribution examined how legal hunting of white and black rhinos in South Africa and Namibia appears to have strongly supported population growth of those species – a conservation success, enabled by CITES exemptions for trophy exports and underpinned by progressive institutional arrangements that devolve rights (to own, use, and benefit from rhinos) to meaningful local levels. This success may be undermined when Parties decide to impose unilateral trophy import bans. 

Hoping to further leverage its stellar track record in conserving both rhinos and elephants, Namibia submitted three proposals to the CoP to trade in both rhino horn and ivory. However, these were defeated following widely expressed concerns that there would be negative spillover effects (through the laundering of illegal products from other countries and potential ‘demand stimulation’) that could harm rhino and elephant populations in other range states. For any future trading proposal to succeed, these concerns will need to be addressed more clearly to counter the scepticism of influential Parties such as the USA, the UK, and EU Member States. 

In a similar vein, a proposal by four SADC countries to delist giraffe populations of eight (southern) African range states (which were all included on Appendix II in a 2019 CITES listing vote) was defeated. Even though southern giraffes are faring well and the Appendix II listing places onerous administrative burdens on the hunting industry, opposing Parties cited concerns that more endangered subspecies further north in Africa could be affected by poaching and laundering. The matter was further complicated by the fact that the taxonomy of the giraffe species and subspecies is currently under revision. This uncertainty led the EU to abstain from voting, which was enough to ensure the proposal did not pass. 

In contrast, a South African proposal to delist the bontebok received unanimous support, with several Parties noting that, being an endemic species found only in South Africa, such delisting could not possibly negatively impact populations in other countries (thereby confirming the significance of spillover concerns for CITES Parties). As another interesting contrast, South Africa also proposed to uplist two endemic succulent plant species that have become seriously threatened by trade (again receiving unanimous support). 

As the meeting ended, opinions remained mixed on whether CITES is an effective treaty, with some celebrating victories and others lamenting failures. The Convention remains a platform for an ongoing ideological struggle between those who instinctively support sustainable use as a conservation approach and those who oppose it. My second side event presentation discussed this topic in some more detail, presenting evidence that 1) the original CITES treaty design assumes a questionable theory of change and is vulnerable to capture by special interest groups; 2) listing proposals often ignore critical variables in the social-ecological systems in which trade takes place, and therefore often ignore the potential for adverse feedback effects (and thereby mis-specify risk and precaution; and 3) this is in large part due to poor economic literacy within the CITES community. 

The economics of the wildlife trade and its links to conservation are complex and nuanced, and urgently require further discerning research and training, especially for national CITES Management Authorities, to better understand the nexus between wildlife trade and wildlife conservation.