CITES at Forty: Never Too Late to Make Lifestyle Changes

• Date: 01 November 2013
• Author: Ed Couzens
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12046
• Published date: 01 November 2013

CITES at Forty: Never Too Late to Make

Lifestyle Changes

Ed Couzens

This article argues that an under-recognized weakness

of the Convention on International Trade in Endan-

gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is that

it continues to take the approach of ‘categorizing’

species, which was the dominant feature of early

wildlife-related conventions such as the 1900 London

Convention on the Preservation of Wild Animals, Birds

and Fish in Africa. It argues that this approach has in

the past been problematic for efforts to protect wildlife

and that as long as it continues to be a primary feature

of efforts to protect wildlife in the face of modern

understandings of the complexities inherent in ecosys-

tems, CITES will never be fully effective. A gradual

move toward an (admittedly radical) alternative

approach is advocated – at least as far as commercial

trade is concerned.

INTRODUCTION

One of the most difficult aspects of crafting a multilat-

eral convention must be designing it so that it will not

quickly become outdated. As difficult as creating a suc-

cessful convention might be, ‘uncreating’ an unsuccess-

ful one may be even more difficult – especially as

parties might for myriad reasons become locked into

positions which they are reluctant to abandon. A danger

of creating a convention is that if it is not successful

overall, but suits some of its parties, it may be almost

impossible to reach agreement to abandon it or to

change it radically. Conventions, especially those with a

global scope, may also be ‘self-perpetuating’ in the

sense that they will influence the approaches taken both

by other conventions and within national systems. A

convention might begin with an approach considered at

the time to be appropriate but, decades later, be out of

kilter with improved understandings.

The 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endan-

gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)1has 178

parties at the time of writing and is almost certainly the

world’s best-known international wildlife-related con-

vention. As it reaches the age of forty, however, signs of

its age are becoming apparent. Put somewhat flip-

pantly, it could be said to be facing dodgy knees,

hearing loss, middle-aged spread, weakening eyesight

and less ability to focus on the increasing clutter that

comes with advancing age.

It may be contended that, throughout the world’s rela-

tively brief history of efforts to conserve wild species, an

under-acknowledged problem has been that of catego-

rizing species. All too often, species that have been mis-

guidedly under-valued (or, even worse, deliberately

exterminated) have subsequently come to be seen as

occupying important, even vital, positions within their

ecosystems. This ‘problem’ is visible in numerous inter-

national conventions, ranging from the 1900 London

Convention on the Preservation of Wild Animals, Birds

and Fish in Africa to CITES. It can also be seen within

the national legal systems and the domestic policies of

many States.2A useful response would be for the world

to move away from the ‘categorizing’ of species toward

an approach that affords protection to ecosystems and

habitats rather than to selected species.3While it might

be objected that such an approach is really just another

way of listing species, it is submitted that it would mean

a different approach to managing ‘on the ground’ – the

approach would mean viewing entire ecosystems as

‘sacrosanct’, bar certain species which might be taken

out for limited commercial trade, as opposed to the

present approach of selecting certain species for protec-

tion. This would be, of course, just one way of promot-

ing the protection of ecosystems – no matter what

approach one takes to international trade, CITES will

still not address areas of concern, such as domestic

trade. In a real sense, too, the benefits to ecosystems

would be indirect through keeping animals and plants

within those ecosystems.

1Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Wash-

ington, DC, 3 March 1973; in force 1 July 1975) (‘CITES’).

2In South Africa, for instance, there is a multiplicity of national and

provincial statutes or ordinances which identify particular species

considered worthy of protection – these differ from province to prov-

ince, and certain species (such as the caracal, which is a CITES

Appendix II-listed species) are even identif‌ied as ‘problem animals’

and accorded no legal protection. Only in 2004 did South Africa

promulgate a national statute to protect biological diversity generally

(the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of

2004).

3It might be objected at this point that the world has already moved

toward such an approach, but the argument being made here is that

it cannot be said to have reached such a point while still reliant in

good measure on conventions that do not ref‌lect such an approach.

bs_bs_banner

Review of European Community & International Environmental Law

RECIEL 22 (3) 2013. ISSN 2050-0386

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

311