In 2017, when Nature Needs More decided that the illegal trade in wild species couldn’t be decisively tackled until the legal trade system under the CITES was modernised, we stumbled on the historic consideration of moving the CITES to a revise listing system. For clarity, under the CITES model established 50 years ago the default for any wild species is to allow trade. Trade can happen unregulated until those who are concerned that the (international) trade is undermining the survival of the species can prove that trade is a problem and get this accepted by 2/3 of the CITES signatory parties. Sometimes it can take decades before trading countries and businesses accept the need for any monitoring and [...]

Finally, some good news coming out of the CITES. In the days leading up to the start of CoP20, the map highlighting which countries are moving away from the obsolete 1970s paper permit system has been updated. It would have been frankly ridiculous for the CITES to reach its 50th anniversary CoP event without the absolute minimum step to show it can evolve with the times being in place. But for a long while it was looking like this was going to be the case. But in the last few days there has been a mini revolution. Firstly, for those of you who don't know this map, it is useful to understand that for some reason the CITES [...]

Nature Need More can with 100% certainty state that there is No Chance of achieving the CITES Strategic Vision 2030. Equally, there is No Chance of achieving the KMGBF Target 5 by 2030. Why do we say this? Because neither body is making any substantive effort to achieve a transparent, legal, and sustainable trade by 2030, that can be independently validated. Instead, just look at what the CITES is actually doing to achieve its strategic vision for 2030. In essence the CITES document submitted to CoP20 reports: We mapped the CITES Strategic Vision 2030 indicators against the KMGBF indicators and UN Sustainable Development Goals We will provide relevant data to the KMGBF monitoring framework We [...]

Plenty of conventions and IGOs deal with the rights of people, poverty and development; The World Bank and UNCTAD were created for this very purpose. So why, when there are so few that focus on non-human species does the corporate conservation sector and conservation academics want to bring these considerations 'formally' into the CITES? Recent years have seen an increasing focus on Sustainable Use and Livelihoods (SULi) on committee and the CoP agendas of the CITES. While indigenous peoples and local communities have a right to be at the table as observers, poverty alleviation is not the role of the CITES; CITES must not be captured by this issue.  The ONLY possible explanation for many corporate conservation organisations [...]

The illusion and delusion of the supposed CITES effectiveness must end. While a modern and well-funded CITES is desperately needed, the convention cannot survive in its current state because it has long failed in its stated objective of protecting endangered species from overexploitation through international trade. Over decades the CITES has undergone a death by a thousand cuts. The neglect of the convention itself means its activities are primarily performative in nature. Its time is up, it must be modernised and made fit for purpose or be shut down. Maintaining the status quo is just selling out wild species and gutless. The most important document submitted to CITES CoP20 is Doc. 14, that admits, “The current situation [in [...]

Given the CITES trade measures have never been enforced, the valid question is, has the CITES ever really been a regulator of the trade in wild species? That CITES is believed to be a regulator in not in doubt. In a briefing session, John Scanlon, who was Secretary General of CITES between 2010 and 2018 summarised the CITES this way, “CITES is a convention of the 1970s. It is focused on a very specific issue, in this case regulating international trade in wildlife to protect against over exploitation from international trade. [CITES Parties] have preferred to maintain the narrow focus of the convention”. He continued, “CITES regulates trade in certain species to ensure the trade is legal and [...]

Over the years of researching the CITES listed legal trade in wild species, periodically the question arose, “What if Jeff Bezos ran Amazon Inc. with the same supply chain processes as the CITES?”. Amazon Inc. is a perfect contrast of what can be achieved when it is in the business’ interest for supply chains to be well monitored. Amazon runs 175 fulfilment centres across the globe and stocks hundreds of millions of items, so the complexity of the trade is not the issue when it comes to real-time monitoring and tracking. In stark contrast, the CITES trade management processes, based on a 1970s paper-permit system, is what happens when businesses would rather keep you in the dark about [...]

No stakeholder is interested in validating the sustainable use model that the CITES is purportedly based on. After 50 years of the CITES, there is still no way to validate if the trade this regulator manages is sustainable. Businesses and industries know genuine validation of sustainable use of wild species would threaten their profits and is likely to reduce access to the ‘raw materials’ they need for production. After seafood, fashion and furniture are the biggest users of these ‘raw materials’. Governments know that validating the sustainable use model would challenge their ‘economic growth at all costs’ mindset because a transparent and precise assessment of the current scale of extraction would undoubtedly mean a reduction in trade. [...]

The convention cannot deliver anything for wild species until the funding crisis is solved. For decades the CITES has been an ineffective regulator due to its impoverished state. Submissions to CITES CoP 20 detail that the contributions due to the CITES for 2025 are US$6.6 million, but to-date only $3.3 million have been received. That’s means another US$3.3 million are outstanding plus an additional $1.4 million in unpaid contributions from prior years. What makes this both tragic and ridiculous is that that the CITES trade is primarily for the luxury markets, with fashion and furniture being the biggest users of wild species after seafood. In 2016, a European Parliament Report acknowledged that “The wildlife trade is one of [...]

In a 2024 article, On Climate Week and Toxic Positivity, journalist Amy Westervelt, said, “the focus on positivity to the exclusion of anything else felt completely surreal and, if I’m being honest, a little scary….seeing so many climate leaders demand positivity, and only positivity, was more than a little unnerving”. In the world of conservation, phantom solutions and incrementalist actions to deal with biodiversity loss are even called ‘nature positive’, an equally surreal and completely meaningless term. I don’t meet many conservationists who I would say can embrace and deal with conservation’s Stockdale Paradox. Inspired by Admiral James Stockdale’s survival of seven years in a North Vietnamese prisoner of war camp, the Stockdale Paradox combines the ability to [...]