CITES, the world’s wildlife trade regulator, turns 50 – a success or a failure?

Turning 50 is a major milestone, even for multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), and on 1 July 2025 it will be 50 years since the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) entered into force. 

Everyone familiar with CITES has an opinion on the Convention and much has been written by academics on its successes, failures and future direction. Unfortunately, not as much is written by practitioners, including those who have served in the Secretariat, which is a gap I have sought to help fill, and it’s one reason I am thrilled that a CITES veteran practitioner, David Morgan, has written a book called ‘Regulating International Trade in Wildlife - 50 years of CITES’, which will be released later this year.  

I’ve written this short article to commemorate CITES 50th anniversary, reflecting some of my personal views on the Convention’s past, present and future. 

Signature and entry into force

Signed on 3 March 1973  – a date celebrated since 2014 as UN World Wildlife Day – CITES entered into force on 1 July 1975, following its tenth ratification, and it now has 185 Parties. The United States was the first State to ratify the Convention in January 1974. In January 2025, the President of the United States issued an executive order, which includes conducting a review of all conventions and treaties to which the United States is a party. 

A pioneer on many topics 

CITES is one of the world’s first MEAs and it has been a pioneer on many topics, such as on issues of compliance, the involvement of observers, and voting. It is a ‘hands on’ Convention, with individual species being listed, trade transactions being regulated, and compliance measures being taken. As such, CITES is viewed by many as a Convention with ‘on-the-ground’ impacts, that ‘has teeth.’ 

The world has changed since 1975

A lot has changed since 1975; human population has more than doubled and the value of world trade has grown exponentially, as have household incomes. At the same time the state of our environment, including thousands of species, has drastically deteriorated. This dichotomy has some parallels with the size of the CITES agenda, which has grown exponentially, and the resources available to Parties and the Secretariat, which is more akin to the trajectory of the world’s wildlife.

Of particular interest from an international trade in wildlife perspective is the growth in the listing of commercially valuable marine and tree species. While in one sense these new listings reflect a sad decline in the abundance of these species and the impacts of high demand, they also represent a growing recognition of the positive role that CITES can play, and a shift away from the historical focus of the Convention. They have made CITES more impactful and relevant. Also of interest, is the fact that captive bred animals and artificially propagated plants are today more prevalent in international trade than wild taken specimens. 

We have seen the growing involvement of observers, especially non-governmental organisations (NGOs), but also including industry associations and the private sector, all of whom have made a valuable contribution towards CITES. This is something I warmly welcomed as Secretary-General, and during my tenure we set about to create an inclusive environment, one where all were welcome to engage with us no matter who they were, where they were from, or whatever their viewpoint was, always recognising the role of the Secretariat to be fair, balanced and neutral. It is a philosophy I also applied to staff of the Secretariat, irrespective of their level, breaking down the overly hierarchical approach of the UN, which can serve to stifle debate, inclusivity and innovation. 

One does hear complaints from time to time about a sense of undue influence by NGOs on CITES matters. Some of these complaints are well founded, for example how NGOs were starting to outnumber Parties in some processes, with steps being taken to ensure that Parties were not overwhelmed by NGOs. However, overall, the opening up of CITES to a broad array of observers is a defining characteristic of CITES and it has been positive for the Convention and its Parties, noting it is only Parties that can vote.

How do you measure if CITES has been a success? 

To answer the question of whether CITES has been successful, one must first ask what was CITES created to do? At its core, CITES exists to advance international co-operation for ‘the protection of certain species of wild fauna and flora against over-exploitation through international trade’. Central to this process are the three main pillars to achieve this outcome: the legal acquisition finding, the non-detrimental finding, and reporting on each trade transaction. Related to this is the process for listing species, or revising the listing, on one of CITES three Appendices, with each offering a different level of regulation, and creating a global system of certificates and permits. 

CITES Parties have been vigilant in interpreting the Convention to provide certainty in the implementation of the core pillars of CITES to further enhance international cooperation and national implementation, which has been essential to deliver on CITES mandate. However, it is important to recognise that CITES does not seek to encourage or discourage trade. It exists to regulate international trade in certain species to achieve a conservation objective. It recognises that trade can have benefits for local people, but the decision on whether to trade or not is left to each Party, subject to respecting the trade rules under CITES.  

CITES has also opened a space for the active participation of observers, as referred to above, and has gone much further than any other MEA in developing a compliance mechanism, and utilising compliance measures. While imperfect, this compliance mechanism has enabled Parties to keep one another in check. 

Unsustainable agendas and CITES UN-ification 

With CITES seen as more effective than most other Conventions, some entities have, at times, turned to CITES to do more than it was designed to do.  Over recent years we have also seen the CITES Secretariat and others put forward agenda items that stray from CITES core mandate and absorb time at meetings. This has led to concerns being expressed by several Parties and observers, with some describing it as the increasing ‘UN-ification’ of CITES (see IISD summary report on Standing Committee 78).  The combined effect of these, and various other factors, has resulted in an unsustainable growth in the CITES agenda.

It is worthwhile recalling that CITES is not a UN Convention, although it is registered with the UN and its Secretariat is provided by the UN Environment Programme (but fully funded by the Parties). CITES is not a UN Convention as it was not negotiated by the UN but at a Plenopotentiary Conference hosted by the United States in March 1973. 

Narrow mandate but bigger contribution

CITES has a rather narrow mandate, but intentionally so. It is but one of many MEAs designed to protect biodiversity, but it contributes to a wider effort. CITES has pioneered novel and impactful synergies with other MEAs, such as the Convention on Migratory Species, as well as outside of the family of MEAs. This is something I focused upon during my tenure as Secretary General, recognising that synergies are about how effectively implementing CITES mandate relates to achieving a range of other goals.  

Synergies are not just about the MEAs, they are about the relationship between CITES and the animal health community (an MoU with the (now) World Organisation on Animal Health was signed in 2015, since updated), the Global Environment Facility (with CITES first presenting to the GEF Council in 2011), the enforcement community (see below), and the World Trade Organisation, as well as with UNCTAD on electronic permitting, FAO and regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) on regulating trade in marine species, including from the high seas (known under CITES as introduction from the sea), amongst others.  

At CoP17 in 2016, CITES Parties linked the Convention to the (then) Strategic Plan for Biodiversity adopted under the Convention on Biological Diversity, which opened a window for GEF funding for CITES-related issues. Doing so did not change CITES mandate; rather it showed how well-regulated international trade in wildlife contributed towards achieving these wider biodiversity goals and targets. This approach has been carried forward to the successor to the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.  

These types of practical, well-targeted synergies with other Conventions, programmes and processes are key to the successful implementation of CITES, which is something I addressed at the (then) UNEP Governing Council and Global Ministerial Environment Forum back in 2012 and presented to the 65th meeting of the CITES Standing Committee in 2014. 

CITES regulates trade – it is not an enforcement treaty 

CITES was designed to regulate international trade. It obliges Parties to prohibit trade in specimens in violation of the Convention, but it was not drafted as a law enforcement instrument. Parties are obliged to establish Management and Scientific Authorities, but not enforcement authorities. 

It is for this reason, during my eight years as CITES Secretary-General I put so much effort into establishing and operationalising the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) and in engaging with the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice and others, because, if CITES is to be effectively enforced, then it needs the international and national enforcement bodies to be fully engaged. 

Standing out in a crowded field 

CITES stands out amongst the 1,400 multilateral environmental agreements adopted since the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. While far from perfect, CITES is rightly regarded as one of the most successful of all international environment-related agreements – and after 50 years we can say with some – but not always total – confidence, that CITES' efforts to ensure that wildlife trade is legal and sustainable, have benefited elephants, rhinos, whales, sea turtles, parrots and thousands of other species of wild animals and plants (although not yet fungi) threatened by unregulated and unsustainable trade. The reason for not being totally confident in all cases, is due to a lack of a large body of research on the impacts of regulated international wildlife trade.

These successes in addressing wildlife trade need to be measured against the enormous challenges that still lie ahead, with one million species predicted to go extinct over the coming decades – including through over-exploitation and the scourge of wildlife crime, the impact of which is valued by The World Bank at $1-2 trillion annually.

Selected challenges looking ahead

As we look back 50 years, it is also useful to project forward 50 years. Some of the challenges looking ahead include:

- addressing the gaps that remain in national legislation, with scientific capacity, reporting (annual trade and illegal trade reports), compliance, enforcement, and the slow progress being made with the shift away from a paper permitting system towards an electronic system, known as eCITES. This is also linked to issues of geopolitical shifts and financing (see below). 

- CITES meeting agendas being too long, with many items drifting away from its core mandate. Some are calling for more frequent or longer CoPs. However, it’s Parkinson’s law for CITES, namely the work will expand to fill the time allotted for its completion. Rather, there is a need to work with Parties and observers to limit the items being brought to the CoP. 

- geopolitical shifts that are impacting all MEAs, other international agreements, and the UN. The full implications for CITES are unknown, but there will be an impact. Parties have threatened to leave CITES from time to time over many decades, including to me in private meetings after I was first introduced as incoming CITES Secretary General, in Doha, in March 2010. To date this outcome has been avoided, with CITES membership remaining steady and continuing to grow. 

- a reduction in financial resources available for the environment, including for wildlife management and trade. This is both for governments and observers, who have played an important role in the implementation of CITES. CITES is particularly vulnerable, as it does not have a financial mechanism (although efforts initiated in 2011 with the GEF and the CITES Standing Committee opened up some opportunities for CITES Parties under the GEF). 

- several Parties and observers have lamented the CITES Secretariat’s loss of expertise in CITES matters, how compliance matters are being handled, and a growing perception of a lack of impartiality.  It is critically important for the Secretariat to maintain its core expertise and the confidence of Parties regarding its impartiality, especially if it is to play its mandated role in assisting Parties navigate future challenges.  

Standing the test of time

CITES is imperfect and must further improve its effectiveness, but it has overall been a successful convention that has stood the test of time. CITES is a trade-related treaty that uses trade-related measures to achieve a conservation objective. It remains a valuable instrument for advancing international cooperation for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity through well-regulated international trade in wildlife. Just how valuable CITES can be, depends on how successful it is in addressing its current and future challenges. 

Celebrating CITES at 50 with a CITES insider 

These personal reflections to commemorate CITES at 50 provide a brief snapshot into some of the views I have formed about CITES from experience gained both within and outside of the Secretariat. I am looking forward to the online event on CITES at 50 being hosted by ADM Capital Foundation, the Global Initiative to End Wildlife Crime, and the International Council of Environmental Law on 30 June, when I will have the opportunity to discuss with David Morgan his forthcoming book on CITES at 50; as well as hear the voices of youth and CITES veterans alike. If you miss it, it will be available via YouTube after 1 July. 

With sincere thanks to Tanya Rosen, David Morgan and Jonathan Barzdo for reviewing an earlier draft of this article and for their excellent feedback. All opinions expressed are mine alone.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.