One million species will go extinct within the coming decades if we continue on our current trajectory.

John

<h2>A large body of international environmental laws&nbsp;</h2>
International environmental law-making has not been coherent, structured, or part of a grand plan. Rather, it has evolved naturally as the science base has improved.&nbsp;
As a result of decades of effort, we have many well-crafted, multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in place to address our most pressing environmental and sustainability challenges, including <a href="https://www.cbd.int/">biodiversity</a> loss, <a href="https://unfccc.int/">climate change</a> and <a href="https://www.unccd.int/">desertification.</a> Other instruments are being agreed upon, advanced or considered &ndash; on <a href="https://www.highseasalliance.org/treaty-negotiations/">high seas</a>, <a href="https://www.unep.org/about-un-environment/inc-plastic-pollution">plastics</a>, <a href="https://www.who.int/news/item/03-03-2023-countries-begin-negotiations-on-global-agreement-to-protect-world-from-future-pandemic-emergencies">pandemics</a> and <a href="https://endwildlifecrime.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/20.05.22-CCPCJ-press-release.pdf">wildlife trafficking</a> &ndash; all backed by a strong and improving science base.&nbsp;
<h2>We are losing the fight to protect biodiversity&nbsp;</h2>
Despite this, the two most recent Living Planet <a href="https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/living-planet-report-2022">reports</a> show a sharp decline in wildlife over the past 50 years &ndash; uninterrupted by the adoption of multiple MEAs, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (<a href="https://www.cbd.int/">CBD</a>) and its 2010, 2020 and, most recently, 2030, global goals and targets.&nbsp;
Almost 30 years since the CBD was adopted, the <a href="https://www.ipbes.net/">IPBES</a> Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services concluded that one million species will go extinct within the coming decades if we continue on our current trajectory. There has been an agreement on international wetlands since 1971, the <a href="https://www.ramsar.org/">Ramsar Convention. Y</a>et, IPBES says we&rsquo;ve lost 85% of wetlands by area.&nbsp;
Other IPBES reports on wildlife and pandemics, sustainable use, and the values of nature, highlight multiple shortcomings. The IPBES has, in a short space of time, done what no other entity has managed to do: clearly and credibly portray the multiple dire threats to our biodiversity.&nbsp;
<h2>We need &lsquo;all hands on deck&rsquo; to deliver on global biodiversity targets!</h2>
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (<a href="https://cites.org/eng">CITES</a>), with which I am very <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/early-reflections-eight-years-secretary-general-cites-scanlon-am/">familiar</a>, has been more open than most MEAs in enabling the active involvement of <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cites-role-civil-society-john-scanlon-ao/">observers</a> from across all sectors. CITES could not have been implemented without this active involvement. While States Parties carry the legal obligations, it is the wide array of actors that are actively engaged with the Convention that have been critical to its relative success.&nbsp;
But CITES can only address a thin slice of the biodiversity cake. There are many other biodiversity-related conventions, including on wetlands of international importance, migratory species, and outstanding cultural and natural heritage &ndash; as well as the CBD, which, as a framework convention, can address the full depth and breadth of biodiversity.&nbsp;
In some ways, the adoption of the CBD was a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it demonstrated political and legal commitment. On the other, 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.&nbsp;
This detachment, along with inadequate financing, is one reason why the CBD has <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/crunch-time-biodiversity-third-lucky-john-scanlon/">failed</a> to achieve its targets time and time again. Fortunately, the engagement with other agencies and sectors, and the level of financing, are starting to change for the better. These issues (amongst many others) are specifically addressed in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (<a href="https://www.cbd.int/article/draft-1-global-biodiversity-framework">GBF</a>), and multiple <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_7767">pledges</a> have been made for increased funding. However, we still have a long way to go to get close the <a href="https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/d6df/7cc2/0fe75538dc7109ed9d866c9f/sbi-03-inf-47-en.pdf">gap in financing</a> &ndash; with the CBD estimating the gap could be as high as between US$403 billion to US$711 billion annually.&nbsp;
It is critically important to continue to deepen the level of engagement with all actors in implementing the GBF, recognising the roles and contributions of local communities and indigenous peoples as custodians of biodiversity, the impact of business on biodiversity, and the contribution made by a wide array of NGOs towards achieving biodiversity goals and targets.&nbsp;
If not, we will fail once again.&nbsp;
<h2>Business sector &ndash; voluntary actions have not delivered</h2>
At CBD CoP10 in Nagoya in 2010, where the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2010-2020) was adopted, there was a concerted effort to engage with business, and there was some pick-up. At CoP15 in Montreal last year, where the GBF was adopted, we saw a step change in the level of outreach by the <a href="https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-finance-and-biodiversity-day">CBD</a> and <a href="https://www.unepfi.org/themes/ecosystems/cop15statement/">interest</a> shown by, amongst others, businesses, including financial institutions.&nbsp;&nbsp;
But we need to go beyond mere engagement and voluntary actions in implementing the GBF. For example, while the <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/finance-illegal-trade-natural-resources-john-e-scanlon-ao/">financial</a> sector is a central part of a prosperous economy, it can &ndash; unwittingly or otherwise &ndash; be an enabler of the destruction of biodiversity.
Over the past decades, we have placed a lot of reliance on non-binding, and voluntary initiatives, pledges, and declarations. In the financial sector, we have the <a href="https://equator-principles.com/">Equator Principles</a>, amongst others.&nbsp;
In 2014, major companies made significant commitments to zero deforestation through the New York Declaration on Forests. It was a necessary part of an effective strategy, but, as an independent <a href="https://forestdeclaration.org/summary">five-year review</a>&nbsp;of the Declaration revealed, it was not enough without the &ldquo;stick&rdquo; of government action.&nbsp;
Voluntary measures all serve a useful purpose, but they tend to attract industry leaders, not the entire industry. They have their place &ndash; but they also have clear limits. And one must ask where has it got us in real terms? The Living Planet and IPBES reports suggest not very far.&nbsp;
The IPBES explains in a compelling way just how dire the situation is: how much longer can we place so much faith in voluntary measures to save the day?&nbsp;
This applies to companies and financial institutions. But <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/finance-illegal-trade-natural-resources-john-e-scanlon-ao/">what are we asking</a> of them? What do we say they must, should, or could do? Are we asking them to be a de facto regulator, to support regulators, carry out due diligence, and make full disclosure? When making full disclosure, of what, or should they determine for themselves what is or is not environmentally destructive?&nbsp;
<h2>It&rsquo;s time for regulators to lead</h2>
Haven&rsquo;t we reached the point where governments and parliaments need to play a much stronger role as effective regulators in meeting a state&rsquo;s commitments under the CBD?&nbsp;
The GBF offers some high-level guidance regarding business in Target 15, which will need to be translated into national laws and policies, as will the outcomes of other important processes, such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (<a href="https://tnfd.global/">TNFD</a>).&nbsp;
Importantly, we are seeing some countries, such as <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-and-human-rights-journal/article/french-law-on-the-duty-of-vigilance-theoretical-and-practical-challenges-since-its-adoption/0398716B2E8530D9A9440EEB20DB7E07">France</a> and <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1133967/environmental-improvement-plan-2023.pdf">the UK</a>, and regions, such as the <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/doing-business-eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence_en">European Union</a>, starting to make better use of the law to reduce the loss of biodiversity by regulating larger businesses, and in some cases financial services, in new ways. It&rsquo;s not without its challenges and is still evolving, but it is needed, and one can expect this trend to continue.&nbsp;
One thing is for sure: we need all relevant actors on board to deliver on the GBF. Some are natural allies. Others will require more than a gentle nudge to head in the right direction.
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Global biodiversity goals and targets won’t be met through voluntary commitments

Our system is not orientated toward preventing the next pandemic. That’s why, in June 2020, the Global Initiative was created.

<h2>Interacting with wildlife</h2>
Colleagues, health and wildlife <a href="https://www.ipbes.net/pandemics">experts</a> have warned us for decades of the public health risks associated with people mixing with wild animals, including through habitat destruction, illegal, unregulated or poorly regulated wildlife trade, markets and consumption.&nbsp;&nbsp;
But let&rsquo;s never forget, that, when left alone, wild animals pose no risk to human health; the risk comes from how we, as people, interact with wildlife. And that&rsquo;s something we can manage, but do we?&nbsp;
No, we don&rsquo;t adequately regulate these interactions. Our system is not orientated toward preventing the next pandemic. That&rsquo;s why, in June 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 Pandemic, the <a href="https://endwildlifecrime.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Global Initiative to End Wildlife Crime</a> was created.&nbsp;
<h2>The Global Initiative</h2>
Right from the outset, the Initiative, which I chair, has set its sights firmly on <a href="https://www.growkudos.com/publications/10.1371%25252Fjournal.pbio.3001422/reader">prevention</a>. It has two objectives: firstly, the creation of a new global agreement to tackle wildlife trafficking; and secondly, for international laws to take a &ldquo;One Health&rdquo; approach to wildlife trade and markets, which is of most relevance to today&rsquo;s discussion.
Our initial <a href="https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/guest-articles/cites-wildlife-and-pandemics-failure-to-grasp-the-nettle/">preference</a> was to amend existing international wildlife trade laws &ndash; in particular the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) &ndash; to include public and animal health criteria in its decision-making. It was, however, too big a step for CITES to broaden its scope after 50 years. Instead, we have focused on a new Pandemic Instrument under the WHO, one that is rooted in a One Health approach and directly addresses prevention, along with preparedness and response.&nbsp;
To prevent the next pandemic, we need strong, globally agreed regulations on high-risk wildlife markets, and the international trade in, and consumption of, any wildlife that could pose a risk to public or animal health &ndash; including potential trade bans for specific high-risk species. Related to this, we also need to mitigate the impacts that such measures could have on those who lawfully exploit these species and to scale up our efforts to prevent and combat the trafficking of high-risk wildlife.&nbsp;
<h2>International efforts</h2>
So, why is this conversation relevant to the work of the WHO? Because this is not just a wildlife issue, this is a human issue, it&rsquo;s a public health issue. We know that the way we interact with wild animals has the potential to affect the safety and well-being of billions of people. But dealing with wildlife issues is not familiar ground to the WHO and we need to be active in making our case.&nbsp;
The WHO is not the only entity that has taken an interest in this issue. Four international agencies have agreed to strengthen their <a href="https://www.who.int/news/item/29-04-2022-quadripartite-memorandum-of-understanding-(mou)-signed-for-a-new-era-of-one-health-collaboration">cooperation</a> and several multilateral environmental agreements have expressed themselves on the issue.&nbsp;
In December 2022, Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted the Kunming-Montreal <a href="https://www.cbd.int/gbf/">Global Biodiversity Framework</a>, with Target 5 referring to &ldquo;reducing the risk of pathogen spill-over&rdquo;. Parties agreed that this Framework should &ldquo;be implemented with consideration of the One Health Approach [&hellip;] and aim to sustainably balance and optimize, the health of people, animals, plants and ecosystems&rdquo;. The Parties also adopted a decision on &ldquo;Biodiversity and health&rdquo;, which encourages Parties to &ldquo;further integrate the One Health approach&rdquo; in their <a href="https://www.cbd.int/nbsap/">national biodiversity strategy and action plans</a>.
We also saw some developments during the Conference of the Parties to CITES, in November last year. While CITES has <a href="https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/guest-articles/cites-wildlife-and-pandemics-failure-to-grasp-the-nettle/">no clear mandate</a> on the issues, Parties adopted <a href="https://cites.org/eng/node/134253">decisions</a> through which they encouraged CITES authorities to contribute to efforts &ldquo;to identify and reduce the risk of transmission - and spillover of zoonotic diseases - and pathogen emergence - from traded wildlife.&rdquo;
<h2>A pandemic instrument</h2>
Any progress made towards adopting a One Health approach to wildlife trade, markets and consumption is welcome. However, while valuable, enhanced inter-agency cooperation and non-binding decisions such as these are inadequate for addressing the scale and nature of the risks we face, they leave us highly exposed to future zoonotic diseases. To give humanity its best shot at preventing the next outbreak, we need a strong, legally binding pandemic Instrument.&nbsp;
Memories of the COVID-19 pandemic will fade with time, and decisions taken during that period may be slowly wound back. Human memories are short and we need to hard-wire changes into our international legal framework, right now, while the COVID-19 pandemic is still fresh in our minds.&nbsp;
Colleagues, we know what needs to be done; it&rsquo;s now a question of getting on and making it happen. We are delighted to join with you in this bold, collective endeavour to seriously rachet up our efforts to prevent future pandemics.&nbsp;
This presentation was first made at the <a href="https://www.cugh2023.org/satellitesession16">Consortium of Universities for Global Health 2023 Conference Session.</a> illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Why we need a strong pandemic instrument to prevent future pandemics 

From humble, and almost accidental, beginnings, UN World Wildlife Day has, in rapid time, grown to become the preeminent global annual celebration of wildlife, a day on which the world can come together to celebrate and raise awareness of the millions of wild animals and plants we share this beautiful planet with, and how important they are to our own well-being.

Origins and Evolution of the World’s Largest Annual Celebration of Wildlife

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) takes decisions by voting where consensus cannot be found, which has been critical to bringing new shark species under its trade controls. Combined with many high-profile topics for discussion, voting makes CITES Conferences of the Parties (CoPs) highly dynamic events, where emotions can run high. Next to the African elephant debates, listings of commercially exploited marine species, in particular sharks and rays, have long been among the most emotionally charged discussions.

Daniel

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) takes decisions by <a href="https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/guest-articles/cites-voting-and-reservations-a-delicate-balance/">voting</a> where consensus cannot be found, which has been critical to bringing new shark species under its trade controls. Combined with many high-profile topics for discussion, voting makes CITES Conferences of the Parties (CoPs) highly dynamic events, where emotions can run high. Next to the <a href="https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/guest-articles/elephant-in-the-room-cites-and-african-elephants/">African elephant</a> debates, listings of commercially exploited marine species, in particular sharks and rays, have long been among the most emotionally charged discussions.
The Convention text adopted in 1973 foresaw marine species listings. It included several provisions specifically for that purpose, while taking care not to upset the then-ongoing codification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea (<a href="https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm">UNCLOS</a>). One of these provisions is “Introduction from the Sea,” defined as the “transportation of specimens taken in areas beyond national jurisdiction into the territory of a State.” While this unique provision gave CITES a potentially broad mandate for regulating trade in species taken from the <a href="https://www.iddri.org/en/publications-and-events/blog-post/trading-experiences-what-can-global-ocean-treaty-learn-1970s">high seas</a>, the challenges in operationalizing this provision presented a major barrier for initial shark and ray listings.
After some initial successes in listing large charismatic sharks of limited commercial interest, the first major attempt to list commercially exploited sharks in Doha, Qatar, at CoP15 (2010) was <a href="https://cites.org/eng/cop/15/prop/results.php">rejected</a>. Not to be deterred, the proponents tried again at CITES CoP16 (2013) in Bangkok, Thailand. There was much nervousness about the fate of these proposals.
The first <a href="https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/guest-articles/cites-voting-and-reservations-a-delicate-balance/">vote</a> in Committee I on adding three species of hammerhead sharks to CITES Appendix II was <a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/common/cop/16/sum/E-CoP16-Com-I-Rec-10.pdf">carried</a> by the narrowest of margins. In a secret ballot vote, 92 voted in favor, 42 against, and eight abstained. It was followed by cheers that could be heard across the conference hall. The oceanic whitetip and porbeagle shark were also successfully listed at CoP16. What had happened?
<h1>Lead up to CoP16: Lessons learned</h1>
While there were many factors contributing to this shift in the voting pattern, some stand out.
A Standing Committee working group led by Roddy Gabel (US) and Fabio Hazin (Brazil) proposed a <a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/16/doc/E-CoP16-32.pdf">solution</a> to operationalizing “Introduction from the Sea,” conceived by Hazin and run past the Secretariat over dinner in 2012, that found initial agreement with a majority of parties at the Standing Committee, and would later be adopted at CoP16.
Also between CoP15 and CoP16, parties, stakeholders, and the Secretariat started to work on implementation support for potential future listings, with the EU <a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/common/cop/16/sum/E-CoP16-Com-I-Rec-10.pdf">committing</a> funding to support implementation, and several other parties and stakeholders developing and circulating implementation support tools, in particular identification guides.
Last but not least, proponents of the listings agreed to an 18-month delayed entry into force to allow countries to resolve any technical implementation challenges. It was this overall package of measures that convinced enough parties to support the proposed listings.
<h1>CoP16: The breakthrough</h1>
The successful Appendix II listing of commercially harvested sharks at CoP16, despite narrow margins, was a major breakthrough. With dedicated funding for capacity building for marine species, and the establishment of a dedicated staff position for marine issues in the CITES Secretariat, the Secretariat was able to forge a closer <a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/prog/shark/docs/Sharks_E_fsht04_partnerships.pdf">working relationship</a> with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), and many other entities working on fisheries, focused on practical issues of joint interest. At the same time, parties and stakeholders also continued to invest in capacity building and implementation support tools, lowering the barrier for future listings significantly.
<h1>CoP17, CoP18, Cop19: Carrying forward the momentum</h1>
These efforts were well received by many parties, as demonstrated by the consecutive adoption of additional listing proposals for commercially exploited sharks, with ever growing voting margins, and the <a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/document/E-Res-12-06-R18.pdf">modernization</a> of CITES’ long-term guidance on the conservation of sharks at CITES CoP18 in Geneva, Switzerland. CITES CoP19 in Panama City, Panama, saw the most ambitious shark proposal yet, with the host country and 40 co-sponsors proposing listing the entire family of requiem sharks, including the most caught shark, the blue shark, in Appendix II. CoP19 also saw, for the first time in CITES history, a shark proposal <a href="https://enb.iisd.org/convention-international-trade-endangered-species-wild-fauna-flora-cites-cop19-daily-report-17nov2022">adopted by consensus</a>.
This long streak of shark listings being adopted brings the number of shark species listed under the Convention close to 200, which shows that parties have decided that CITES has an important role in the regulation of international trade in sharks.
<h1>Reviewing implementation</h1>
The decision to list a species within CITES Appendices is only the beginning. It is critical that CITES delivers real conservation outcomes for the listed shark species. Monitoring of the implementation of the listings has rested with the CITES Animals Committee, in particular its shark working group. The Secretariat’s reports to the working group and its deliberations show a mixed picture.
There has been significant investment in implementation, but concerns have been raised in <a href="https://www.traffic.org/publications/reports/missing-sharks-a-country-review-of-catch-trade-and-management-recommendations-for-cites-listed-shark-species/">reports</a> and <a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/dec/valid19/E19-Dec.pdf">decisions</a> about an “apparent mismatch between the trade in products of CITES-listed sharks recorded in the CITES Trade Database and what would be expected against the information available on catches of listed species.” Similarly, a 2018 <a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/com/sc/70/E-SC70-34.pdf">review</a> of the implementation of the Introduction from the Sea provisions also paints a mixed picture. We have yet to see a Review of Significant Trade for any of the newly listed sharks, which is CITES’ peer review of implementation and its “safety net.”
<h1>New partnership for implementing shark listings</h1>
It is also key that support for implementation does not ebb off. There remains a need for capacity building, targeted research, and <a href="https://www.bmuv.de/en/topics/nature-species-protection/species-protection/international-species-protection/improving-synergies-between-regional-fishery-bodies-and-cites-authorities">initiatives</a> that continue to build bridges between CITES and fisheries actors. Currently, it is largely individual parties and civil society that continue to fund and support this important work.
CITES has initiated, or joined, many important partnerships to enhance implementation, including the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (<a href="https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/guest-articles/interagency-cooperation-at-its-best-iccwc-what-next/">ICCWC</a>) on enforcement in 2010, <a href="https://www.informea.org/en">InforMEA</a> on information in 2011, the <a href="https://www.fao.org/forestry/wildlife-partnership/93139/en/">Collaborative Partnership on Sustainable Wildlife Management</a> on sustainable use in 2013, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) on <a href="https://unctad.org/news/cites-secretariat-and-unctad-join-forces-assist-customs-authorities-regulate-trade-wildlife">e-permitting in 2014</a> and <a href="https://unctad.org/project/blue-biotrade-promoting-sustainable-livelihoods-and-conservation-marine-biodiversity">Blue BioTrade in 2020</a>, and the International Tropical Timber Organization (<a href="https://www.itto.int/">ITTO</a>) on trees through the CITES <a href="https://cites.org/eng/news/pr/EU_contributes_8_million_Euro_support_CITES_tree_species_programme_protection_African_elephants_14072017">Trees Programme</a> in 2017.
The time has clearly arrived for a bold new partnership on implementing CITES shark listings. Such a partnership should be of the same scale as what CITES initiated through ICCWC and the tree species programme. Partners in a CITES sharks programme could include the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), FAO, and regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs).
<h1>Looking ahead to the next 50 years</h1>
After getting off to a 40-year slow start, over the past decade, CITES’ 184 parties have shown an ever-growing appetite to entrust the Convention with regulating the international trade in sharks. Whether or not that trend continues, CITES already has its work cut out for it. It is now critically important to demonstrate that the listings are well implemented and translate into conservation benefits on the ground.
This will involve continuing to support parties in implementation, building bridges between CITES and fisheries actors at all levels, from national authorities to Secretariats of relevant international bodies, and establishing new partnerships.
If CITES can rise to the occasion, the future looks bright for the Convention’s role in regulating international trade in marine species.
This article is also published on <a href="https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/guest-articles/cites-growing-role-in-international-shark-conservation/">SDG Knowledge Hub</a>. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

CITES Growing Role in International Shark Conservation

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.

Sharon L.

The links between human interactions with wild animals and the emergence and spread of <a href="https://www.emro.who.int/fr/about-who/rc61/zoonotic-diseases.html">zoonotic diseases</a>, including through regulated, unregulated, and illegal trade and markets, is well known.
Many <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/to-prevent-next-pandemic-focus-on-legal-wildlife-trade">articles</a> exist, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) released a relevant <a href="https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/2020-12/IPBES%20Workshop%20on%20Biodiversity%20and%20Pandemics%20Report_0.pdf">report</a> 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 <a href="https://www.who.int/activities/prioritizing-diseases-for-research-and-development-in-emergency-contexts">World Health Organization (WHO) Blueprint</a> diseases, such as <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715">COVID-19</a>.
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 <a href="https://www.ilaparis2023.org/en/white-paper/health/">script</a>.
CITES and COVID-19
At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when the world’s attention was focused on its origins and response, the <a href="https://cites.org/eng">CITES</a> Secretariat issued a <a href="https://cites.org/eng/CITES_Secretariat_statement_in_relation_to_COVID19">statement</a> that “matters regarding zoonotic diseases are outside of CITES’ mandate.” Surprisingly, the statement made no reference to the <a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/disc/sec/Cooperation_Agreement_CITES_and_OIE_dec_15.pdf">Memorandum of Understanding</a> (MoU) signed in <a href="https://cites.org/eng/node/18857">2015</a> 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 <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/quadripartite-memorandum-understanding-mou-signed-new-era-one-health">Quadripartite</a> MoU between the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), WOAH, the <a href="http://sdg.iisd.org/news/cop-15-event-highlights-linkages-between-pandemics-and-biodiversity/">UN Environment Programme</a> (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’ <a href="https://www.aza.org/connect-stories/stories/preventing-pandemics?locale=en">Reduce the Risk</a> and <a href="https://www.freeland.org/newsroom/end-pandemics-appeal-to-world-leaders1761673">End Pandemics</a> initiatives, the <a href="https://endwildlifecrime.org/">Global Initiative to End Wildlife Crime</a> (EWC), <a href="https://www.preventingfuturepandemics.org/">Preventing Pandemics at the Source</a>, and the informal <a href="https://www.four-paws.org/get-involved/pandemics-and-animal-welfare">Pandemic and Animal Welfare Coalition</a> – 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 <a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/documents/E-CoP19-Inf-24.pdf">65% of trade</a> in animals. Captive breeding <a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/document/E-Res-12-10-R15.pdf">operations</a> are not assessed by CITES on public health grounds. Yet all these activities can pose a risk factor for zoonotic disease emergence.
Some <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cites-one-health-commentary-john-scanlon/">refer</a> to the <a href="https://cites.org/eng/disc/text.php">Convention</a>’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.
CITES and One Health
Two documents were <a href="https://cites.org/eng/cop/19/agenda-documents">submitted</a> to CITES CoP19, including a proposed <a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/documents/E-CoP19-23-02_0.pdf">Resolution</a> 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 <a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/documents/E-CoP19-Com-II-06.pdf">decisions</a>.
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 <a href="https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-final-text-kunming-montreal-gbf-221222">Global Biodiversity Framework</a> 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
Our initial <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-crucial-step-toward-preventing-wildlife-related-pandemics/">preference</a>, and that of the <a href="https://endwildlifecrime.org/">EWC</a>, 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 <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wildlife-trade-origins-covid-19-preventing-future-john-e-scanlon-ao/">focus</a> after nearly 50 years, and, it did not find favor with parties, as well as some observers, including over a <a href="https://endwildlifecrime.org/faqs/">concern</a> that opening CITES for these amendments could open it to others.
Another viable way forward
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.
Other <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fresh-look-global-wildlife-trade-law-can-cites-help-scanlon-ao/">options</a> may even offer greater scope as they start afresh, especially the Pandemics instrument being negotiated in the WHO. The EWC has made <a href="https://endwildlifecrime.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/EWC-Response-to-WHA-Decision.pdf">submissions</a> and <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/preventing-pandemics-through-one-health-approach-john-e-scanlon-ao/">presentations</a> on the need to include prevention in the scope of the instrument, along with preparedness and response. The <a href="https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/e/e_inb-4.html">zero draft</a> 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.
Looking ahead to the next 50 years
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 <a href="http://sdg.iisd.org/news/cop-15-event-highlights-linkages-between-pandemics-and-biodiversity/">national</a> 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 <a href="https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2F2022%2Fdec%2F15%2Fchinas-return-to-wildlife-farming-a-risk-to-global-health-and-biodiversity&amp;data=05%7C01%7Cekosolapova%40iisd.org%7Ce2ea513624904acec63608db0ba799c6%7C01a20ec6cfd9471cb34bedc36161c3ce%7C1%7C0%7C638116586739358021%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=m2pLEdc6B%2Fv3rAYDOiGva6FXMPo2a0XhmXW6BMjpmcU%3D&amp;reserved=0">wound back</a>. 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 href="https://endwildlifecrime.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/02.02.23-Press-Release-EWC-x-GIZ-Project-2.pdf">legislation</a> and policy.
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.
This article is also published by <a href="https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/guest-articles/cites-wildlife-and-pandemics-failure-to-grasp-the-nettle/">IISD - SDG Knowledge Hub</a>. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; 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) <a href="https://www.internationalconservation.org/component/eventbooking/international-wildlife-trade-past-present-future">Congressional Reception</a> 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 <a href="https://www.internationalconservation.org/component/eventbooking/international-wildlife-trade-past-present-future">today’s event</a> and for inviting me.
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 &quot;seek the convening of an international ministerial meeting&quot; to conclude &quot;a binding international convention on the conservation of endangered species&quot; 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 <a href="http://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/guest-articles/origins-and-evolution-of-world-wildlife-day-global-celebration-of-wildlife/">UN World Wildlife Day</a> – so it’s also the 10th anniversary of World Wildlife Day.
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/ff1d01bd9a97c72a6546b59d31868f9e4fc4d1c3.jpg" alt="John Scanlon AO speaking in Washington, DC for the 50th anniversary of CITES. Photo credit: Christina Meister">
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 <a href="https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/resolution-508-united-nations-must-adopt-wildlife-crime-protocol-to-stop-illegal-trafficking">Resolution</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.
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
<h6>Cover photo by <a href="https://unsplash.com/es/@davidclode?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">David Clode</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/zsalJqyCY8M?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Unsplash</a>​ </h6>

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

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
<h1>Our global framework of biodiversity conventions and targets</h1>
The 1992 ‘<a href="https://www.un.org/en/conferences/environment/rio1992">Rio Earth Summit’</a> 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’)<a href="https://d.docs.live.net/03782ac79d5aada4/Desktop/CBD_FINAL.docx#_edn1">[i]</a>.
The Convention has three <a href="https://www.cbd.int/intro/">objectives</a>, 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 <a href="https://www.cbd.int/doc/press/2022/pr-2022-06-26-wg20204-en.pdf">Nairobi</a> in recent months, much remains to be agreed.
A single <a href="https://www.cbd.int/2010-target">biodiversity target</a> for 2010 was adopted in 2002 at CBD CoP6 in The Hague<a href="https://d.docs.live.net/03782ac79d5aada4/Desktop/CBD_FINAL.docx#_edn2">[ii]</a>. It was not met. A set of 20 biodiversity targets for 2020, known as the <a href="https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/#:~:text=By%202020%2C%20at%20least%2017,well%20connected%20systems%20of%20protected">Aichi Biodiversity Targets</a>, were adopted in Nagoya in 2010 at CBD CoP10. They were <a href="https://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo5/publication/gbo-5-en.pdf">not met</a> 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. 
<h1>Loss of biodiversity is not slowing</h1>
In 2019, the UN IPBES (the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) released its <a href="https://ipbes.net/global-assessment">Global Assessment Report</a> 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 <a href="https://livingplanet.panda.org/#:~:text=The%20Living%20Planet%20Report%202022,in%20species%20populations%20since%201970.">2022 Living Planet Report</a> finds that over the past 50 years we have lost 69% of the world&#x27;s wildlife<a href="https://d.docs.live.net/03782ac79d5aada4/Desktop/CBD_FINAL.docx#_edn3">[iii]</a>.
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/798f088c26f8e36188f31f1b9b6ac733df912768.png" alt="WWF Living Planet Report 2018.">
<h1>Our global framework is failing</h1>
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 &#x27;the tail does not wag the dog&#x27;, 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 an <a href="https://cil.nus.edu.sg/event/a-thirty-year-reflection-of-the-1992-rio-conference-on-the-environment-and-development-with-ambassador-tommy-koh-have-states-failed/">interview</a> 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<a href="https://d.docs.live.net/03782ac79d5aada4/Desktop/CBD_FINAL.docx#_edn4">[iv]</a>.
<h1>Must persist but it’s crunch time</h1>
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.
Similar sentiments have been <a href="https://canadiangeographic.ca/articles/everything-you-need-to-know-about-cop15-in-montreal/">expressed</a> 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.
<h1>Our next global biodiversity targets</h1>
At the core of CBD CoP15 rests the fate of the draft <a href="https://www.cbd.int/conferences/post2020">Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework</a>, 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<a href="https://d.docs.live.net/03782ac79d5aada4/Desktop/CBD_FINAL.docx#_edn5">[v]</a>. 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<a href="https://d.docs.live.net/03782ac79d5aada4/Desktop/CBD_FINAL.docx#_edn6">[vi]</a>.
Parties to the Convention have considered taking decisions through voting where there is no consensus, which is provided for under some other global conventions<a href="https://d.docs.live.net/03782ac79d5aada4/Desktop/CBD_FINAL.docx#_edn7">[vii]</a>. 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.
<h1>Outreach and building momentum</h1>
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 <a href="https://tnfd.global/">Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures</a> and the <a href="https://www.financeforbiodiversity.org/">Finance for Biodiversity Pledge</a>, reflect efforts to broaden the constituency with an interest in the Convention, and high-level events on biodiversity have been held at the <a href="https://sdg.iisd.org/news/unga-takes-a-moment-for-nature/">UN General Assembly</a> and at UNFCCC <a href="https://www.worldbiodiversitysummit.org/sharm-el-sheikh">CoP27</a> in Sharm el-Sheikh.
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 <a href="https://www.iisd.org/articles/deep-dive/indigenous-peoples-defending-environment-all">indigenous lands</a> 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 <a href="https://ukcop26.org/nature/">climate change</a> – mitigation, adaptation and building resilience – with a renewed interest in nature-based solutions (or ecosystem based approaches), the <a href="https://www.hacfornatureandpeople.org/hac-members">High Ambition Coalition</a> for Nature and People, which now has over 100 countries championing the 30x30 target, and new <a href="https://www.leaderspledgefornature.org/updates/new-biodiversity-commitments-announced/?sf170658130=1">pledges</a> for financing biodiversity conservation.
<h1>Third time lucky?</h1>
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.
<h3>References</h3>
<a href="https://d.docs.live.net/03782ac79d5aada4/Desktop/CBD_FINAL.docx#_ednref1">[i]</a> 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.’ 
<a href="https://d.docs.live.net/03782ac79d5aada4/Desktop/CBD_FINAL.docx#_ednref2">[ii]</a> 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.”
<a href="https://d.docs.live.net/03782ac79d5aada4/Desktop/CBD_FINAL.docx#_ednref3">[iii]</a> 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 href="https://d.docs.live.net/03782ac79d5aada4/Desktop/CBD_FINAL.docx#_ednref4">[iv]</a> “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.
<a href="https://d.docs.live.net/03782ac79d5aada4/Desktop/CBD_FINAL.docx#_ednref5">[v]</a> Namely limiting global temperature rises to “well below” 2 Celsius above pre-industrial levels, while aiming to limit heating to 1.5 Celsius.
<a href="https://d.docs.live.net/03782ac79d5aada4/Desktop/CBD_FINAL.docx#_ednref6">[vi]</a> 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.
<a href="https://d.docs.live.net/03782ac79d5aada4/Desktop/CBD_FINAL.docx#_ednref7">[vii]</a> 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.

This article is also published on the <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/crunch-time-biodiversity-third-lucky-john-scanlon/?published=t&amp;trackingId=SY5RGw1dTxCnqkTdNnPTEQ%3D%3D">author&#x27;s blog</a>. Illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; 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.





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&#x27;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 <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/gabons-marauding-forest-elephants-test-public-patience-with-green-agenda-2022-07-13/">said</a>, and I quote: &quot;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.&quot; 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 <a href="https://www.elephantprotectioninitiative.org/_files/ugd/f42bce_d92d83253909485295ea7f6a1ad3ec7c.pdf">suggesting</a> 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&#x27;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 <a href="https://www.elephantprotectioninitiative.org/post/watch-the-epif-s-special-event-on-elephants-biodiversity-climate-change">Elephants, Biodiversity and Climate Change</a>, 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 <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01407-4">carbon benefits</a> 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.
Happy World Elephant Day 2022!
Versions of the original speech can be found below:
Video posted to EPI YouTube channel available <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnXsDWY9Tws">here</a>​ 
Video posted to CBCGDF YouTube channel with Chinese subtitles available here​ 
Video of entire event in Chinese <a href="https://www.cnxk.tv/liveplay/1092.html">here</a> and with Chinese subtitles <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86dZo4198Ao">here</a>​ 
Illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Energy &amp; 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. 

You can’t miss it!

John Scanlon

John Scanlon

Global biodiversity goals and targets won’t be met through voluntary commitments

Recent publications

Readers also like

Want to know more about illuminem Voices?