Date:
Author: Dan Challender, Senior Research Fellow, Conservation Science and Policy, University of Oxford
Original article: https://theconversation.com/the-world-wildlife-trade-regulator-is-50-heres-what-has-worked-and-what-needs-to-change-248268
Have you ever bought a souvenir from a local market on holiday? Or tried to travel overseas with a guitar? If so, you may have been stopped at the airport if your item contains animal or plant parts. This is because most countries, and also the EU, implement Cites, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
Cites is the main global agreement regulating international wildlife trade to ensure the protection of the 41,000 species covered by the convention. Under Cites, trade measures are established for species to ensure that international trade is legal and ecologically sustainable. For most species (96%), this comprises close regulation of trade. For more threatened species (3%), commercial international trade in wild animals and plants is banned (the remaining 1% refers to a third category of species protected in at least one country).
Under Cites, countries must prohibit international trade in violation of the convention. They are also encouraged to restrict or prohibit the collection of – and domestic trade in – Indigenous species included under Cites. Crucially, countries must enact laws to implement the convention. By design, Cites relies mainly on state-led law-enforcement to achieve its goals.
This year, as Cites marks its 50th anniversary, our new study evaluates the convention’s effectiveness. It asks whether it solves the problem for which it was designed, as well as outlining how it could be more effective.
Taking stock
Cites has had several successes. It can boast an effective system of international cooperation among 184 countries and the EU. Much international trade in Cites-listed species is legally permitted and has been determined to be sustainable. The convention has helped raise the profile of, and catalysed conservation action for, species threatened by international trade, such as pangolins and seahorses.
The convention has also supported the recovery of species, such as crocodiles and vicuña, a member of the camel family that lives in South America. Since 2010, Cites has generated awareness of, and coordinated action to address, illegal wildlife trade, most notably through the establishment of the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime.
Afrianto Silalahi/Shutterstock, CC BY-NC-ND
However, there are some major problems with the Cites approach. Illegal or unsustainable wildlife trade involving thousands of Cites-listed species occurred in at least 162 signatory countries from 2015 to 2021. This includes countries such as the US that are well resourced to deter it. A predominant focus on state-led law enforcement is therefore proving ineffective in many instances.
We find that many law enforcement agencies are not well enough resourced to deter illegal collection and trade of species. Simply creating laws does not necessarily mean that people or businesses will comply with them.
Also, regulating or prohibiting international wildlife trade does not necessarily reduce the threat to the species concerned. These measures may signal scarcity and lead to price increases, which could accelerate over-exploitation by incentivising speculative collection and stockpiling. In this context, there is much room for improvement.
What needs to change
Deciding on appropriate Cites trade measures for species relies primarily on biological criteria, such as population size. Typically, that process does not involve consultation with the people extracting or trading wildlife. Nor does it really consider insights from the social sciences, including economics, on the likely impact of trade measures on wildlife and people. Decisions by the world’s governments to establish these measures are therefore highly uncertain.
To better prevent species from being overexploited for international trade through Cites, countries need to have a greater understanding of how different species are traded. This would enable them to identify the most appropriate combination of rights, rules and decision-making procedures along supply chains, and then pre-test and implement interventions specific to these systems.
Countries therefore need to analyse how species are traded. This would include looking at the relevant property rights and other laws that affect people involved in the trade, as well as understanding factors such as incentives for people to harvest species, the extent to which trade contributes to peoples’ income, and market size for traded species and products.
Countries could then reconfigure rights and rules so that they are aligned along supply chains. This is needed to avoid creating loopholes and facilitating illegal trade. Where trade (both within countries and between countries) is taking place, these arrangements should support it to be legal and sustainable. That’s the ultimate aim of Cites. The relevant actors, including collectors and traders should also be consulted – or better yet involved in co-designing regulations – so that the rules are legitimate to them.
The most appropriate interventions will depend on each country’s analysis of its own trading situation and their role in the trade of given species. They may include devolving land or use rights to Indigenous peoples so that they manage and can benefit from the species. Or interventions may be programmes to reduce consumer demand or develop responsible markets for wildlife products as appropriate.
The approach we propose in our study has the potential to reduce reliance on state-led law enforcement along international supply chains. Pluralist regulatory approaches, including self-regulation, community monitoring or the engagement of appropriate third parties, could be used to support compliance with new rules at each stage of supply chains. Where property rights are appropriately assigned, clear and enforceable, this could mean less reliance on state law-enforcement. This is because local people with a sense of ownership of wildlife are more likely to help protect it rather than overexploit it.
How could Cites be more effective? By understanding the dynamic trade systems for species in greater detail. Then, identifying the most appropriate combination of rights, rules and decision-making procedures to achieve sustainability throughout supply chains. And, finally, integrating Cites trade measures within these broader systems.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.