Cites is obsolete and needs a complete rebuild, say wildlife researchers

Created in the 1970s when wildlife trafficking was in its infancy, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites) was conceptualised on market principles that saw wildlife as an export commodity.

As the trafficking of wild creatures rocketed, Cites has failed to deal with the growing social, ecological and moral consequences and the deeper injustices playing out across the globe.

This is the view in a new policy review published in Frontiers in Conservation Science, which argues that it’s time for more than reform — it’s time for a complete overhaul. Authored by Nicholas King, Gunārs Platais and Jamie Reaser, the paper calls on member states to recreate Cites not as a marketplace regulator but as a global justice mechanism.

The authors contend that without embedding environmental justice — justice for people, species and ecosystems — into its core mandates, Cites will continue to fall short of its mission and accelerate the very crises it was designed to prevent.

The Cites secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland, was provided with a copy of the research by Daily Maverick with a request to comment, but, after two weeks, it had not responded.

Poor enforcement

The paper outlines that while wildlife trade continues to rise, especially in its illegal form, regulation is not keeping pace.

Growing quantities of wildlife and their derivatives are being seized due to unlawful possession and trade, yet enforcement remains patchy and under-resourced.

Dealing with seized wildlife is described as “hopelessly ad hoc”, uncoordinated and lacking in both conservation and welfare considerations — particularly in countries of origin, which often lack the capacity to properly implement regulatory frameworks.

In many cases, say the authors, the movement of wildlife within countries is entirely unregulated and outside Cites surveillance frameworks. This makes assessment and intervention especially difficult and leads to injustices at the species level that extend to the places from which the wildlife was sourced.

Social justice implications, they argue, are even more complex. These include the impacts of corrupt societies, increased risks of zoonotic disease outbreaks, and unequal access to and benefit from wildlife resources.

While Cites operates as a transaction-based framework focused on production, consumption and sustainability, it has demonstrated little awareness of environmental justice concerns, the authors.

The research draws from multiple case studies across Africa, Asia and Latin America. Notable examples include:

• Ibadan’s bushmeat markets, where environmental and social justice are tightly interlinked.
• Zambia’s legal game meat system, which reveals weak regulatory enforcement and zoonotic risk blind spots.
• West African traditional medicine markets, where trade intersects with deep-rooted cultural practices and unregulated harvesting.

Not just regulation but justice

The authors argue that justice-sensitive regulatory frameworks should be developed that take into account not just economic sustainability, but also social and ecological fairness.

The authors call for the 183 member states of Cites to play a more active role in mitigating zoonotic disease risks, emphasising that illegal wildlife trade is not only a conservation crisis but a public health, social justice and governance crisis.

From cheetah introductions in India to wildlife trafficking in northeastern Mexico, the message is clear: the world needs a wildlife trade system grounded not just in survival, but in fairness.

The illegal wildlife trade has become one of the largest transnational crimes in the world — worth up to $23-billion a year — and is no longer just a conservation issue. It’s a justice issue. And justice, as this paper makes clear, is no longer optional.

SA could show the way

In an interview, King said South Africa’s recent White Paper on Biodiversity, currently in force as the country’s overall biodiversity conservation framework, could act as a template for rethinking Cites.

King suggested the country could take a lead in proposing and promoting the necessary Cites revamp. The White Paper’s principles — the sustainable use of biodiversity to support ecosystems, livelihoods and human wellbeing, and the promotion of transformation — are the type of groundwork for a “justice lens” rebuild that the authors suggest would be of great benefit to Cites.

The researchers say a way forward should:

• Incorporate environmental justice into Cites’ decisions, including community impact assessments and inclusive stakeholder consultations.
• Strengthen data systems by improving coordination, standardisation and adopting digital tools for effective monitoring and regulation.
• Promote youth involvement and gender equity in wildlife trade governance to ensure diverse and inclusive decision-making.
• Establish humane post-seizure protocols for live animals, prioritising rehabilitation, repatriation or sanctuary based on species and ecosystem needs.
• Develop justice-focused training for enforcement officials, integrating principles of procedural and distributive fairness.
• Include justice indicators in national reports and raise awareness of Cites’ role in promoting environmental justice.
• Support knowledge sharing, integrating traditional ecological knowledge with scientific research in regulatory processes.
• Promote the publication of frontline research, enabling local practitioners to share insights through peer-reviewed platforms.
• Deal with zoonosis risk by aligning Cites’ practices with public health, conservation and justice objectives. DM