Editorial

• Author: Harro Asselt
• Published date: 01 November 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12051
• Date: 01 November 2013

Editorial

Given the relatively short history of international envi-

ronmental law compared to some other areas of public

international law, 40 years can be considered a long

time. The Convention on International Trade in Endan-

gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES),

adopted in Washington, DC, in March 1973, has by now

reached this impressive milestone.

CITES is noteworthy for several reasons. The Con-

vention has been regularly praised as one of the few

effective international environmental agreements.1

Furthermore, as one of the first treaties to employ trade

measures to protect the environment – more specifi-

cally, wild fauna and flora – it illustrates how interna-

tional environmental law and international trade law

can co-exist harmoniously. CITES also provides a suc-

cessful example of an international environmental

regime building on the important work of nongovern-

mental actors (notably TRAFFIC) for the purposes of

implementation, monitoring and reporting. Lastly, the

Convention offers a fine example of how treaty bodies –

particularly the CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP)

– can further the normative development of a treaty

through the adoption of decisions and resolutions that

have a considerable impact on parties’ behaviour, even

if they are not explicitly legally binding.

Yet CITES is not without its critics. Some of these

criticisms are quite radical. Some commentators, for

instance, argue that the Convention as a whole should

be abandoned as it is not effective in protecting wildlife

and/or is too costly. While such criticisms are rather

rare, related critiques have been voiced more widely,

and a debate on CITES and ‘sustainable use’ has been

raging ever since the concept emerged in the 1980s.2

Perhaps the most pervasive criticism in this regard is

that the preservationist orientation of CITES is mis-

guided and rooted in outdated, colonial conceptions of

protecting wildlife. Therefore, critics argue, some level

of trade is in fact necessary, not only for the protection

of wildlife, but also to ensure the involvement of, and

benefits for, local communities. Although the debate on

sustainable use relates to a variety of species, it has

come to the fore especially in the context of charismatic

mammals such as the elephant – not coincidentally the

animal depicted on CITES’ logo.

To commemorate the 40th anniversary of the wildlife

trade convention, this special issue of RECIEL offers a

broad set of reflections on the functioning of CITES and

its place in international environmental law. It starts

with a contribution by John Scanlon, Secretary-General

of CITES, who offers an overview and assessment of

the most recent CoP, held in Bangkok in March 2013.

Scanlon discusses the variety of decisions adopted in

Bangkok, drawing specific attention to decisions on

timber and marine species, as well as to new and

enhanced efforts to combat wildlife crime. He con-

cludes on a positive note, highlighting the important

role the Convention continues to play in countering

unsustainable trade in wildlife.

Michael Bowman, in the next contribution, also empha-

sizes the strengths of CITES in its current form. In

doing so, Bowman confronts several of the above-

mentioned criticisms. Following a brief detour into the

discipline of psychology, he convincingly argues how

radical critiques – both by nongovernmental organiza-

tions arguing that CITES does not effectively address

unsustainable levels of trade, and by deregulation advo-

cates claiming that legalized trade would lead to better

results – are profoundly misguided, and can be said to

be largely driven by emotional reactions rather than an

engagement with actual facts. Bowman further consid-

ers – and deconstructs – other criticisms targeted at

CITES, including that it is a dated convention, it does

not take into account other causes of biodiversity loss, it

is too restrictive and it is insufficiently anthropocentric.

Bowman thereby dispels several myths concerning

the effectiveness of CITES and offers a strong, yet

measured defence of the Convention.

Like Bowman’s article, the ensuing contribution by

Annecoos Wiersema also moves the debate on sustain-

able use forward. Focusing on three iconic species –

elephants, rhinos and tigers – Wiersema carefully

assesses the claims behind arguments for opening up

legal trade of endangered species. She unpacks the

assumption behind economic models that predict

changes in supply of, and demand for, wildlife products,

showing that such assumptions can be contested.

1Although clearly this evaluation depends on which standard one

adopts for ‘effectiveness’. See D. Bodansky, The Art and Craft of

International Environmental Law (Harvard University Press, 2009), at

39 and 256–257.

2See, e.g., J.L. Garrison, ‘The Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the

Debate over Sustainable Use’, 12:1 Pace Environmental Law Review

(1994), 301; C.L. Krieps, ‘Sustainable Use of Endangered Species

under CITES: Is it a Sustainable Alternative?’, 17:1 University of

Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law (1996), 461; J.

Hutton and B. Dickson (eds.), Endangered Species, Threatened Con-

vention: The Past, Present and Future of CITES (Earthscan, 2000);

S. Young, ‘Contemporary Issues of the Convention on International

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and

the Debate over Sustainable Use’, 14:1 Colorado Journal of Interna-

tional Environmental Law and Policy (2003), 167.

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.

219