The links between human interactions with wild animals and the emergence and spread of zoonotic diseases, including through regulated, unregulated, and illegal trade and markets, is well known. The COVID-19 pandemic shone a spotlight on serious gaps in the wildlife trade regime, yet efforts to fill these gaps are lacking a sense of urgency.

John Scanlon

Dan Ashe

Sharon L. Deem

The links between human interactions with wild animals and the emergence and spread of 

, including through regulated, unregulated, and illegal trade and markets, is well known.

 exist, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) released a relevant 

 in 2020, all discussing the risks posed by international trade on the spillover of high-risk zoonoses. Of critical importance are those emerging zoonoses that can cause a pandemic or an epidemic for which a cure does not exist; including the 

World Health Organization (WHO) Blueprint

The COVID-19 pandemic shone a spotlight on serious gaps in the wildlife trade regime, yet efforts to fill these gaps are lacking a sense of urgency and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) largely wrote itself out of the 

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when the world’s attention was focused on its origins and response, the 

 that “matters regarding zoonotic diseases are outside of CITES’ mandate.” Surprisingly, the statement made no reference to the 

 between CITES and the World Organisation on Animal Health (OIE/WOAH).

Given its existing mandate, CITES’ role in preventing zoonoses may be relatively limited, but the Secretariat’s absolute statement displayed a disinterest that likely locked them out of crucial discussions on the topic. CITES was not included in the 

 MoU between the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), WOAH, the 

 (UNEP), and WHO on advancing a One Health approach – an approach necessary for pandemic prevention and response – and is not a central player in ongoing discussions.

The non-government sector was quick to act with new initiatives, including the Association of Zoos and Aquariums’ 

 – all advocating for prevention and presenting practical options on how to do so. 

CITES and risk to public health and animal health

CITES regulates international wildlife trade to ensure it is not detrimental to the survival of the species, without requiring consideration of the public health or animal health implications.

CITES does not regulate the way wildlife is harvested, handled, or stored in the source state, or how it is handled, stored, sold, or consumed in the destination state. Captive breeding now accounts for close to 

 are not assessed by CITES on public health grounds. Yet all these activities can pose a risk factor for zoonotic disease emergence.

’s reference to “any living specimen will be so prepared and shipped as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment” as a mandate. Read in context, it likely means to the health of the animal(s) in trade. However, parties could seek to give it a wider interpretation to help address some aspects of wildlife trade that present pandemic potential. However, the text is limited to ‘living’ specimens, not dead animals, their parts or derivatives, and it does not address the capture, holding prior to transport, marketing of the animal, or the criteria for listing a species.

 on ‘One Health and CITES,’ which demonstrated that parties to CITES had an interest in the topic. The plenary ultimately adopted a consolidated set of 

Any progress made toward adopting a One Health approach to wildlife trade and markets is welcome. However, given CITES’ current mandate, such decisions are of limited effect. Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) showed slightly more ambition at COP 15, through the adoption of the 

 and related decisions, which is also welcome. 

While valuable, non-binding decisions by CITES and CBD are inadequate to address the scale of risks presented by wildlife trade and markets, and the current response leaves us unnecessarily exposed to future zoonotic diseases.

Amending CITES to cover risk to public health and animal health

, was to amend CITES, given its well-established governance and permitting processes, and the impact it has on national legislation. It is, however, a big step for CITES to broaden its 

 after nearly 50 years, and, it did not find favor with parties, as well as some observers, including over a 

 that opening CITES for these amendments could open it to others.

It is essential to coordinate the regulation of wildlife trade, markets, and consumption together with human health and animal health, to help avert the next wildlife-related pandemic.

 may even offer greater scope as they start afresh, especially the Pandemics instrument being negotiated in the WHO. The EWC has made 

 on the need to include prevention in the scope of the instrument, along with preparedness and response. The 

 of the Pandemics instrument specifically references “wildlife trade” but not markets, in Article 18. Animal welfare is thus far absent.

The final outcome of these negotiations remains to be seen, but the current zero draft, while still insufficient, offers some hope. However, by taking the current WHO route, the wildlife conservation community is not in the driver’s seat and is largely ceding global leadership on how to address the risk to human health posed by wildlife trade and markets to public health organizations.

In failing to immediately ‘grasp the nettle,’ CITES removed itself from a central role in negotiations to scale up the global effort to prevent future wildlife-related pandemics.

Nevertheless, the world will increasingly take a One Health approach to wildlife trade and markets at both international and 

 levels. The risk they pose will be addressed, in some way, within a new Pandemics instrument.

Memories of the COVID-19 pandemic will fade with time, and decisions taken during that period may be slowly 

. Incremental changes will be made over time, but not as rapidly as is necessary, through a combination of a new Pandemics instrument, implementing resolutions under CBD and CITES, and scaling up efforts to update national 

A failure to rapidly institutionalize how we regulate the risk posed by wildlife trade and markets at the global level and across all countries means we will remain unnecessarily exposed to the risk of future emerging zoonotic diseases, such as those identified by the WHO.

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.

CITES, Wildlife, and Pandemics: Failure to Grasp the Nettle

John Scanlon AO spoke on Capitol Hill in Washington DC, to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the signing of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES):

The signing of CITES in Washington DC in 1973 is intertwined with a great story of strong, inclusive and effective US leadership to help bring CITES into existence – and this evening I’d like to briefly reflect on the rich history of CITES, and to then make some remarks on the present and the future.

This article captures the speech made during the International Conservation Caucus Foundation Group (the ICCF Group)

held on 28 February 2023 on Capitol Hill, Washington DC, to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the signing of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Attendees included Senator Chris Coons, Congressman John Garamendi and US Fish and Wildlife Service Director, Marth Williams.

Thank you to the ICCF Group for hosting 

It’s fabulous to be back in DC. There could be no better place than here in the US and at the US Congress to help celebrate CITES 50th Anniversary with you.

The signing of CITES in Washington DC in 1973 is intertwined with a great story of strong, inclusive and effective US leadership to help bring CITES into existence – and this evening I’d like to briefly reflect on the rich history of CITES, and to then make some remarks on the present and the future.

This story starts long before 1973. It starts back in 1963 in Nairobi, Kenya at the IUCN General Assembly where a resolution was adopted on the need for an international convention to regulate international wildlife trade. It was this resolution that got negotiations underway.

Around the same time, the US Congress was conducting a major review of the Lacey Act, and, after several years of hearings, the Congress amended the Lacey Act in 1969. These amendments directed the Secretaries of Interior and State to "seek the convening of an international ministerial meeting" to conclude "a binding international convention on the conservation of endangered species" and Congress also appropriated funding for the meeting.

For a variety of reasons progress in convening a meeting concluding a convention was slow and two competing draft convention texts had emerged, one from the IUCN and the other from Kenya.

The process was reinvigorated in 1972 at the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden, which adopted a recommendation that a plenipotentiary conference be convened “as soon as possible” to prepare and adopt an international convention on wildlife trade.

The US Congress had already supported such a conference, and the US Government agreed to host a Plenipotentiary Conference here in Washington DC in February 1973. It was co-hosted by the US Department of State, with the Department of the Interior, and called ‘the World Wildlife Conference’.

But the US did not just host the Conference. It played a lead role in getting a successful outcome.

It presented a compromise draft Convention text, which Delegates from the 88 States in attendance chose to move ahead with as the basis for negotiations.

It also shared its own figures on imports into the US in 1969 to help make the case for why an international convention was needed – and these figures were nothing short of staggering. They included the import of just under 8,000 leopard skins, close to 1 million live birds and over 1.4 million live reptiles – and the import of almost 99 million live fish.

The CITES text was concluded and signed on 3 March 1973, and since 2014, 3 March has been celebrated as 

 – so it’s also the 10th anniversary of World Wildlife Day.

We are here to celebrate this significant achievement, which happened during a time of great geopolitical tension. It was the height of the Cold War. Notwithstanding, States reached an agreement – and we pay tribute to the negotiators from across every region for agreeing on a text that has stood the test of time.

CITES entered into force just over two years later, on 1 July 1975 – and the US was the first State to join the Convention, which today has 184 Parties.

So, looking at the present. Has CITES been a success? There has been a lot of international environmental law making over the past 50 years, with varied levels of success. Looking at CITES, it is still far from perfect – there remain some serious gaps in national legislation, with scientific capacity, reporting, enforcement and with the paper permitting system.

However, notwithstanding these imperfections, CITES is rightly regarded as one of the most successful of all international environment-related agreements – and after 50 years we can say that CITES efforts to ensure legal and sustainable wildlife trade, have benefited elephants, rhinos, whales, sea turtles, parrots and thousands of other species of wild animals and plants threatened by illegal, unregulated and unsustainable trade.

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

CITES was designed 50 years ago to regulate trade in certain species, not fight transnational organised crime. The stakes are high and to end wildlife crime we must now embed tackling it into the international criminal law framework. It’s not a trade issue. It’s a crime issue.

As in 1973, making this happen requires ambition and leadership and, just two weeks ago, the American Bar Association adopted a 

 encouraging the US to take a lead in developing a new international agreement to tackle wildlife crime under the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime.

Colleagues, many challenges still lie ahead of us but CITES has provided a step in the right direction. It is fitting to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of CITES here at the US Congress, to acknowledge the leadership role played by the US, recognise the progress we have made over the last 50 years, and to also take this opportunity to encourage a renewed sense of ambition and leadership in taking the bold steps that are needed to finally end the scourge of wildlife crime.

Commemorating CITES at 50: We've come a long way but challenges remain

The world failed to achieve the 2010 and 2020 biodiversity targets set by the Convention on Biodiversity - in December it will adopt a third set of targets to 2030

Our global framework of biodiversity conventions and targets

 raised high hopes we could turn around the declining state of our global environment. The Convention on Biological Diversity (‘the Convention’) was opened for signature at the Summit, along with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (‘UNFCCC’)

, the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.

In an effort to achieve these objectives, the 196 Parties (countries) to the Convention agreed on global biodiversity targets for 2010 and for 2020, and are now in the process of finalising negotiations on a new Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (’the Framework’), to be adopted in Montreal at the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention in December this year (‘CBD CoP15’). Despite several years of negotiations, including intense discussions in Geneva and 

 in recent months, much remains to be agreed.

 for 2010 was adopted in 2002 at CBD CoP6 in The Hague

. It was not met. A set of 20 biodiversity targets for 2020, known as the 

, were adopted in Nagoya in 2010 at CBD CoP10. They were 

 either, although progress has been made against six of the targets, and in particular the target on the geographic area to be covered by protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. 

In 2019, the UN IPBES (the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) released its 

 on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services, which says that one million species will go extinct within coming decades if we continue on our current trajectory. Among its many other findings, IPBES tells us that 75% of the planet’s terrestrial surface is significantly altered, 3% of the ocean surface is considered as wild, and that we have lost 85% of wetlands by area, despite having a Convention on International Wetlands since 1973.

A graph in the WWF 2018 Living Planet Report shows that the adoption of the Convention, along with its various strategies and targets, made no discernible difference to the sharp decline in wildlife. WWF’s 

 finds that over the past 50 years we have lost 69% of the world's wildlife

At times, I wonder whether the adoption of a dedicated convention on biodiversity was a double-edged sword. On the one hand it demonstrated political and legal commitment to the issue, yet on the other hand it provided a forum for the global biodiversity community to meet, and agree upon biodiversity strategies and targets, largely detached from the agencies and sectors that determine the fate of biodiversity. There is an old expression that 'the tail does not wag the dog', and the biodiversity agenda has not (yet) shaped the development agenda.

The evidence clearly shows that, despite all these well-intentioned global initiatives to protect biodiversity, something is not working. The time has come for us to use the ‘f’ word. While we can see some local successes, global efforts to save biodiversity more broadly have largely failed.

We need international conventions, global summits, strategies and targets, but they have their limits and their success cannot be measured by how many we have, or how many decisions are adopted, but by how they impact what is happening on-the-ground. By that measure, the Convention has, thus far, failed. I am not alone in that view.

 in August 2022 on ‘A Thirty-year reflection of the 1992 Rio Conference on the Environment and Development, “Have States failed?”’ Ambassador Tommy Koh described the Convention as having been “a failure”, yet he also stressed his enduring belief in the value of international environmental law

Notwithstanding the world’s failure to deliver against its biodiversity targets, the Convention has provided the framework for action by Parties, a means to broadly monitor progress against commitments, and, in some instances, find avenues to advance compliance.

It is worth persisting with the Convention. It is still the best global forum we have to reach agreement on how to collectively halt and reverse the current disturbing trends of biodiversity loss. But after several rounds of failure, CBD CoP15 is crunch time, for the credibility of the Convention itself and, more importantly, the planet’s biodiversity.

 by Stephen Guilbeault, Minister of Environment and Climate Change for Canada, the host country for CBD CoP15 and the Convention’s Secretariat, which is based in Montreal. While Canada is hosting the CoP, China holds the Presidency.

At the core of CBD CoP15 rests the fate of the draft 

, which currently includes 22 draft targets, including one on the conservation of at least 30 per cent of global land and sea areas (‘the 30x30 target’). Listing a number of targets, has resulted in a scramble by Parties and stakeholders alike, to ensure their priorities are included in them.

Unlike the 2015 Paris Agreement, the draft Framework does not include a clear overarching target or require Parties to outline Nationally Determined Contributions (‘NDC’), which set out how each Party is contributing towards achieving the desired collective ends

. Rather, it has a process known as National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (‘NBSAPs’), which have not generated the same level of political attention or scrutiny as NDCs, which the draft Framework seeks to address.

We can be confident that a Framework will be adopted in Montreal. The question is how ambitious it will be, whether its implementation will be adequately financed, and how the Convention will address compliance with the agreed Framework. In this context, it is worth noting that the Convention does not have a compliance mechanism and it works on the basis of consensus

Parties to the Convention have considered taking decisions through voting where there is no consensus, which is provided for under some other global conventions

. However, the text on voting in the Convention’s rules of procedure remain in brackets, meaning it is not yet agreed, and is highly unlikely to be accepted. One can see the rationale for consensus on a global framework of this nature, but it invariably makes for compromise, with implications for the level of ambition.

The Convention, and its Executive Secretary Elizabeth Mrema, have been working hard to extend its reach beyond the traditional biodiversity community. Recent creative initiatives, such as the 

Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures

, reflect efforts to broaden the constituency with an interest in the Convention, and high-level events on biodiversity have been held at the 

Parties negotiate the Framework, but implementing it requires ‘all hands on deck’. The draft acknowledges a broad range of stakeholders, including the important roles and contributions of indigenous people and local communities, with 

 making up around 20% of the Earth’s territory, and containing 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity.

And there are bright spots as we head towards CBD CoP15, including the serious efforts at UNFCCC CoP26 to place biodiversity at the forefront of the response to 

 – mitigation, adaptation and building resilience – with a renewed interest in nature-based solutions (or ecosystem based approaches), the 

 for Nature and People, which now has over 100 countries championing the 30x30 target, and new 

 for financing biodiversity conservation.

Will all this outreach and momentum translate into a successful outcome from CBD CoP15, with the adoption of an ambitious, adequately financed, and implementable Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework? We will know by the end of the year what sort of Framework we have, but it is then up to Parties, together with all stakeholders, to live up to our commitments.

Implementation, implementation, implementation

” was the catch cry of the Executive Secretary of the Convention, Braulio Dias, when he took over the reins of the Secretariat following the CBD CoP10 in Nagoya in 2010 where the 2020 targets were adopted. It bears repeating.

For the sake of the world’s biodiversity, and our prosperity, let’s hope it is third time lucky.

 Together with the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, open for signature from October 1994, these three conventions are collectively referred to as ‘the Rio Conventions.’ 

 The 2010 biodiversity target was “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth.”

 The 2020 global Living Planet Index shows an average 68% (range:-73% to -62%) fall in monitored populations of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish between 1970 and 2016.

 “A thirty-year reflection of the 1992 Rio Conference on the Environment and Development with Ambassador Tommy Koh: “Have States failed?” National University of Singapore, August 25, 2022.

 Namely limiting global temperature rises to “well below” 2 Celsius above pre-industrial levels, while aiming to limit heating to 1.5 Celsius.

 There is an Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on the Review of Implementation of the Convention (WGRI). and the draft Framework includes text on enhanced mechanisms for planning, monitoring, reporting and review.

 By way of contrast, CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) does allow for voting. On substantive issues a two third majority of Parties present and voting is sufficient to decide a matter. However, the quid quo pro is that Parties can enter a reservation against the listing of species, meaning the Convention doesn’t apply to that country in relation to the species.

. 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.

Crunch time for biodiversity – will it be third time lucky?

This message is a modified version of the original speech delivered to the China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation for World Elephant Day on August 12, 2022: 

Good afternoon and a big thank you to our good friends and colleagues at the China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation for putting on today’s event and for inviting me to join you.

Time certainly flies. It was just 12 months ago that we were witnessing the long, and very public, march of the herd of 16 Asian elephants in China's Yunnan Province. It captured the imagination of people across China, and right around the world. The extraordinary images of these majestic animals sleeping, taking a mud bath, and playing, and the images of the two calves that were born en route were particularly captivating.





 is a modified version of the original spee

ch delivered to the China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation for World Elephant Day on August 12, 2022. 

Good afternoon and a big thank you to our good friends and colleagues at the China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation for putting on today’s event and for inviting me to join you.

Time certainly flies. It was just 12 months ago that we were witnessing the long, and very public, march of the herd of 16 Asian elephants in China's Yunnan Province. It captured the imagination of people across China, and right around the world. The extraordinary images of these majestic animals sleeping, taking a mud bath, and playing, and the images of the two calves that were born en route were particularly captivating.

We were all inspired by the extraordinary lengths the Chinese authorities, non-government organisations and local communities went to, to keep this wandering herd of elephants and local people safe and well, and with great success.

At the same time, it was a stark reminder that these large, hungry, thirsty animals can raid farmlands and people’s homes, and pose a real threat to the safety of local people, and of the scale of the effort that is required to keep both elephants and people happy and safe.

We have seen that it’s not easy and takes a great collective effort on the part of the authorities, local communities and supporting organisations to combine the use of practical mitigation measures, technology, local solutions, and political buy-in.

Over the past 12 months, mitigating and preventing human-elephant conflict has become of ever increasing importance in Africa, as people and elephants compete for land and dwindling natural resources.

Gabon’s Minister of Forests, Oceans, Environment and Climate Change, Professor Lee White, recently 

, and I quote: "Some people cannot farm anymore - the elephants are eating so much of their crops…It has become a political issue and is eroding support for conservation and for the president and government." I should add that Gabon is a shining success story in elephant, and indeed other, wildlife conservation. But its success is now threatened by the growth of human-elephant conflict.

In fact, this conflict affects all 50 Asian and African elephant range States, and is an issue that will require a lot more local, national and global attention if we are to ensure the harmonious coexistence of people and elephants.

We will all benefit from sharing best practices, lessons learnt, resources and capacity building opportunities between nations and continents. We must also enhance international cooperation in preventing and combating wildlife trafficking, including as it affects elephants.

Recognising the scale of the challenge posed by human-elephant conflict across continents, and the need for international cooperation in tackling wildlife trafficking, we are 

 that human-wildlife conflict, which includes human-elephant conflict, be included in Target 4 in the Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, and that Target 5 include taking measures to prevent and combat wildlife trafficking. We would warmly welcome your support in advancing these proposals.

This Framework is to be adopted by the 196 Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in December of this year in Montreal, which will be held under the Presidency of China.

Over the past 12 months many parts of the world have also been experiencing severe weather conditions, which is taking its toll on people and wildlife. Kenya's Wildlife and Tourism ministry says that climate change is now a bigger threat to elephant conservation than poaching. It says that in the past year, Tsavo National Park alone suffered 179 elephant deaths due to the ongoing drought affecting the Horn of Africa.

Last month, this threat was given attention through a high level event on 

Elephants, Biodiversity and Climate Change

, which highlighted the plight of the Samburu people in Northern Kenya. Here we see a convergence of crises; biodiversity loss, climate change, land degradation, poaching and pollution, all of which is putting elephants and people at severe risk.

We know that elephants are critical to healthy ecosystems, and that healthy ecosystems absorb more carbon. Pioneering work on the 

 that are provided by forest elephants is being led by Ralph Chami of the International Monetary Fund . How these benefits could be monetised through carbon markets, is a topic of great interest to all range States.

We are exploring this topic as financing elephant conservation is essential if we are to achieve our biodiversity objectives, and the needs of elephant range States must be addressed at the December meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Colleagues, there is much to be done but we must persist!

Thank you again and we are delighted to work with you as we collectively strive to achieve the harmonious coexistence of people and elephants.

Versions of the original speech can be found below:

Video posted to EPI YouTube channel available 

 YouTube channel with Chinese subtitles available 

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

World Elephant Day 2022 - A Message from John E. Scanlon AO

There are many things that need to happen at all levels if we hope to seriously tackle the scourge of wildlife trafficking – this includes addressing both demand and supply, working across source, transit and destination countries, building the capacity of the criminal justice system in each country, and having in place sound national and international laws. 

Here I focus on the need for enhanced international cooperation and the importance of strengthening the international legal framework that facilitates such cooperation. I am going to explore the case for a new international legal agreement on wildlife crime – an agreement taking the form of an additional Protocol under the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC), on combating and preventing the illicit trafficking of wildlife, as has been called for by the Presidents of 

. Protocols currently exist for tackling trafficking in persons, migrant smuggling and trafficking in firearms.

When talking of wildlife, I am including all wild fauna and flora, including all fish and tree species, not just the 38,000 species listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which only constitute 0.5% of our world’s eight million species.

Over a period of three years, from 2010-2012, it was conservatively estimated that over 100,000 elephants were killed for their ivory. Gains have been made since then, but they are fragile. The photo you see with this article was taken from an 

 held to destroy 359 pieces of confiscated African elephant ivory weighing over 1,500 kilograms in Colombo, Sri Lanka, in 2016. INTERPOL took forensic samples of the ivory, and it was determined that it originated mostly from Tanzania and northern Mozambique. Through the good work of Sri Lankan authorities, they ascertained that the contraband was intended to be shipped to the UAE, and transited through Kenya and Sri Lanka, where it was seized. It gives you a sense of what we are up against. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimates that 

 protected under CITES are being trafficked.

So why do we need to scale up our international efforts? Reports from 

, amongst others, graphically describe the severe environmental consequences of wildlife crime, for our climate, ecosystems, wild animals and plants, as well as for human and animal health. But the damage goes deeper than that; we know these crimes involve the theft of vital natural resources from local and indigenous communities, they discourage legitimate investors, and undermine the governments of source countries – and they do this by depriving them of revenue, fuelling corruption, destroying livelihoods, injuring and killing rangers, and creating national and regional instability. If we add the costs of the impacts on ecosystems, then The World Bank estimates the costs of these crimes at a staggering $1-2 trillion each year.

By way of example, elephants play a vital role in ensuring healthy ecosystems and healthy ecosystems sequester more carbon. And 

, of the International Monetary Fund, has come up with a value of $1.75 million for each forest elephant, based solely on the climate services it provides.

Successfully tackling these crimes demands high levels of cooperation at national and international levels and for some time now, I have had the opportunity to help galvanise support amongst countries, law enforcement agencies, and many others, to combat and prevent wildlife crime.

I served as CITES Secretary General for eight years, from 

, at which time I was directly involved in multiple collective efforts to achieve this objective, including establishing, institutionalising and attracting resources for the International Consortium to Combat Wildlife Crime (

) – which I chaired for its first eight years.

I mention this because, I have seen for myself the progress we have made through heightened international cooperation and national action. These endeavours have resulted in greater attention and resources being dedicated to the issue, which is encouraging.

But it’s equally clear that these gains are both insufficient and fragile. Notwithstanding these efforts, we are still nowhere near ending wildlife crime. Instead, we see these crimes continue to escalate against a backdrop of rapidly changing environmental, human health, and security challenges.

 for example: despite being given what is called ‘the highest level of protection under CITES’, poaching and trafficking has reached record levels, with thousands of these amazing animals continuing to be illicitly taken, trafficked and consumed. Over recent weeks we see reports of escalating 

And in February of this year park rangers were tragically killed in an ambush in 

, Benin. Horrific incidents like these are happening far too often. We must better tackle the demand and the trafficking to relieve the pressure on our brave rangers who are serving in the front lines, and this will require much deeper international cooperation and national action right across source, transit and destination countries.

There comes a point when one must recognise that what is being done is not enough. My focus here is on the international legal framework. Our current framework is not fit for purpose in addressing today’s global environmental realities, especially as it relates to the scourge of wildlife crime.

CITES is often referred to as providing some form of legal framework. I know this Convention extremely well. It is an important Convention, I love it, but it is limited in scope. It was not designed to deal with wildlife crime. It is a 50 year old trade-related convention, not a crime-related convention. It does not oblige States to criminalise breaches of the Convention, it only applies to cross border movement of wildlife, and not, for example, to illegal harvesting or poaching, and it applies to a limited number of species.

CITES obliges Parties to create management and scientific authorities, not enforcement authorities, and it is not a natural forum for the enforcement or wider criminal justice community. But, in the absence of any alternative at the time, we made the best possible use of CITES to help galvanise international cooperation and national action. And with some success.

But CITES does not provide the international legal framework we need, and a comprehensive legally binding regime for tackling wildlife crime, within the framework of international criminal law, rather than trade law, is way beyond the scope of CITES.

 legal trade transactions of listed species reported under CITES every year. Yet, we see regular examples of the abuse of the CITES permitting system, most recently with the 

 into Europe. CITES has its work cut out for it in adequately regulating this legal, sustainable trade, which is where it must direct its efforts.

And we must address all species that are being trafficked, not just the limited number of species listed under CITES, being just 0.5% of the world’s eight million, species (the UN World Wildlife Crime Report 2020 says 6,000 of which are represented in illegal trade). The UN World Wildlife Crime Report notes that “millions of species” that are not listed by CITES may be illegally harvested and traded, especially timber and fish.

It makes no sense to only pay attention to a limited number of species, and usually only once they are already threatened with extinction. We need to intervene early to stop a species getting to the point of being endangered!

Leaving things as they are will not cut it. We are going to have to shake up the status quo and make transformative changes to our system if we want to change course.

There are many disparate, non-binding Resolutions, and initiatives, in this area – from CITES, the UN Crime Commission, the UN General Assembly and more. They are all good in their own right, but they are not legally binding, and have not generated the level of political support, engagement of relevant agencies, or the necessary financial or human resources or national action that is required to end wildlife crime.

While there is this scattered array of Resolutions, there is no global centre of gravity for advancing cooperative efforts to combat and prevent wildlife crime, or for reviewing the progress made.

We must now embed both combating and preventing wildlife crime where it belongs, namely into the international criminal law framework, with the UNODC, the UN Conventions it hosts, the UN Crime Commission, and the UN Vienna duty station unequivocally leading a global cooperative, coordinated effort, including in reviewing progress.

A binding legal agreement will provide an enduring global platform that will act as a catalyst for heightened international cooperation and national action, both of which are desperately needed.

And, if adopted, a Protocol would be the first time that a crime that has an effect on the environment is directly addressed through the international criminal law framework, and be the first global legally binding instrument to include an agreed definition on wildlife crime.

As with the existing Protocol on trafficking in persons, 

 could facilitate a convergence in national approaches, thereby enhancing international cooperation.

The content of a Protocol is something that States would determine through an intergovernmental negotiating process. However, a Protocol would include specific obligations on how States will work together to combat and prevent these serious crimes.

Drawing upon the three existing UNTOC Protocols on human trafficking, migrant smuggling and firearms trafficking, as well as national legislation from many countries, (including Australia, China, Mexico, Mozambique, and the US,) as well as the relevant UNODC guide on drafting legislation to combat wildlife crime, EWC has, in order to help facilitate the discussion, outlined some of the provisions that could be contemplated. So, what are the sorts of 

 that one could find within such an agreement?

States could, through a Protocol agree for the first time on a definition of wildlife crime, and on a wide range of obligations to both prevent and combat such crimes. For example they could:

- set out the conduct that is to be criminalised.

- include any species of wild fauna or flora within the scope of the Protocol, including fish and tree species, that is protected under any international or, importantly, any national law.

- address the harvesting, taking, possession, purchase, sale (including by electronic means), import or export, or introduction from the sea of illicitly traded wildlife.

- make it a criminal offence to import any wildlife, or wildlife product into a country if it has been acquired in contravention of the national laws of the source country, representing a remarkable expression of comity between nations, a mutual respect for one another’s laws.

- specifically address the role and responsibilities of the carriers of contraband, such as airlines and shipping.

- require the verification of the legitimacy and validity of documents, including any documents suspected of being misused, which is a big problem under CITES.

- cooperate on training and technical assistance.

- raise public awareness, and to take measures to discourage demand.

- share information, such as on known groups active in illicit trafficking, on their concealment methods, and known transport routes, and legislative experiences and practices.

- share forensic samples, the importance of which we have seen with the excellent work done on elephant ivory by Dr Sam Wasser and others, and

You can’t miss it!

John Scanlon

John Scanlon

Recent publications

Readers also like

Want to know more about illuminem Voices?