When people hear about illegal wildlife trade, they tend to imagine elephant tusks or tiger pelts. Regrettably, the illegal wildlife trade runs much deeper than only two species. Thousands of species of animals and plants are impacted by illegal trading which can have detrimental impact to species populations and ecosystems. To counteract illegal trade, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was created.
Enacted in 1975, the CITES treaty was put in place to ensure that wildlife trade is legal, traceable, and biologically sustainable for countries and species across the globe, according to USFWS. This global treaty is supported by 184 countries and the European Union. It has shown great success over the past fifty years and partners with organizations such as WWF and IUCN. The work and policies that CITES creates shows continuous success in preventing illegal wildlife trade for over 40,000 species of wildlife.
During the 78th CITES standing committee meeting, held in February 2025, CITES reported significant work done to review 82 out of 87 agenda items in addition to reviewing over 150 documents. Decisions such as lifting the trade suspension on the Emperor Scorpion (native to Togo) were made, and enforcement matters were heavily discussed. One focus was on how to address challenges on enforcing complex trade systems that occur online according to the CITES website.
Challenges such as limits to enforcement practices and funding limitations are nothing new to CITES. In addition to common challenges over the past 50 years, CITES may be facing new challenges this year as reported by the Oxford Martin School.
Researchers from the Oxford Martin Programme on Wildlife Trade have shown concern over similarities between the threats to withdraw from the Convention presented by ten Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries and the steps Japan took to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 2019. The Oxford Martin School highlights opposing sides created by polarized positions and countries losing the ability to have an impactful influence over the trade of their sovereign resources as two main reasons that the SADC threatens to withdraw.
The ten SADC countries disagree on the way elephant ivory and rhino horn trade should be regulated by CITES. Wildlife trade can be an integral part to the livelihood of people in these nations and around the world. Trade can be significant in cultural traditions, provide food security, and income. That is not to say these countries are seeking to freely trade ivory but rather come to a compromise that supports their sovereign needs and global needs.
Countries withdrawing from international agreements weaken the integrity of global treaties and empower other countries to withdraw their support. Researchers with the Oxford Martin School feel that with CITES turning 50 this year, it is the ideal time to evaluate the structure of the convention and potentially reform in ways that could strengthen the international cooperation for effective wildlife trade governance long term.