To remain relevant, Cites needs to adapt

THE Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites) is battling to “meet its mandate, to stay relevant and adapt itself to be more effective” in a world in which threats against wildlife and plant species have intensified since the treaty was drawn up 40 years ago.

Today, more than 3 500 government officials, conservationists, and NGOs will pack the conference rooms of the Sandton Convention Centre to begin two weeks of deliberations on protection and trade regulations for around 500 species.

But Ed Couzens, associate professor at the University of Sydney, representing the Environmental Law Association of SA at Cites CoP17, believes its function is limited.

“Cites was a fairly early treaty and concluded at a time (the early 1970s) when the understanding by its states’ parties (and of the scientists who advised the negotiators) of issues, focused more on single species and on hunting as a threat than would be the present understanding, which is that while hunting and trade remain threats, there are greater threats,” he explains.

These “newer” threats range from habitat destruction and degradation, to the influence of alien invasive species, pollution, “islandisation” and climate change, among others.

Cites, says Couzens, is struggling to deal with the sophistication of many of the wildlife smuggling and trade networks as well as “state party apathy” and the influence of corruption and vested interests.

“It (Cites) faces difficulty in… its limited jurisdiction to take action within a state party, its role remaining to govern international relationships, constraints of capacity and finance in governing effectively the international movements of some 35 000 species, when many are easily disguised and/or easily hidden (only a tiny number of the multiple millions of containers moved through ports every year are ever inspected, and even when species are found they are often not recognised as endangered).”

Some of its objectives are difficult to view as compatible, such as the “preservation of endangered species” and “free trade” with “conservation”, which provides an uneasy compromise between these two, he explains.

“Cites has done a relatively good job of adapting itself over the years, such as by introducing a “compliance and enforcement regime”, based on a system of trade sanctions, to deal with the inadequacy of having no “teeth” built into the original treaty text…

“On its own, Cites has a limited function and has structural and capacity limits, which mean it might never be as effective as we we’d like it to be.

“But if we see Cites within its limits as an essential component in a network of nearly 3 000 international legal instruments related to the protection of the environment… the situation remains dire, but our understanding becomes better.”

International environmental law is notoriously poorly-enforced, says Tracy Lynn-Humby, associate professor in the Wits school of law. “How can you penalise countries? Sanctions maybe, but this is not a realistic option in dealing with the wildlife trade.”