The Good, the Bad and the Ugly – a Review of CITES CoP20  

After two weeks in the beautiful, yet polluted, historic Silk Road city of Samarkand, CITES CoP 20 has finally come to an end.  It has been intense and exhausting. At times inspiring, at times depressing, but always interesting.

Samarkand, a city made famous by its key location on an ancient trade route, was a fitting backdrop for the CITES COP, given the convention’s increasing focus on the promotion of trade. But overall, the results of the COP were a mixed bag, with progress made in some areas, and worrying trends accelerating in others.

A COP first timer would be forgiven for thinking that the convention would be full of people working to protect wildlife, making impassioned speeches about biodiversity loss and the importance of species protection.  Not so, the language of CITES is highly technical, debates are at times almost entirely divorced from real-world conservation challenges, with delegates seeming to forget that they are discussing the fate of sentient, living animals.  And you are just as likely to run into a trophy hunter or exotic pet trader as you are a conservationist here, which is what makes CITES COPs such divisive meetings, with each proposal debated fiercely.

It is hard to overstate the breath taking cynicism and hypocrisy on display at COP20, as the rich as powerful co-opt the language of environmental and political struggle to justify their actions.  Authoritarian regimes suddenly discover an interest in human rights, trophy hunting organisations state their passion for the welfare of indigenous peoples and local communities, and industrial fishing nations stress their commitment to sustainability, the most frequently used and ill-defined buzzword here in Samarkand.

Politics and power have bulldozed a path bypassing science and data.

Time and time again countries have decided against protecting species, bowing to political pressure and favouring narrow self-interest.  But thankfully, sometimes the case for protection is so overwhelming, and powerful lobbies less invested, to allow for genuine conservation gains to be made.  When such opportunities arise, and when progressive governments and NGOs like DSWF work together, big achievements are still possible.  

Image credit: Alex Hofford

The Good

First, let’s take a look at some of the success of CITES COP20, the results of hard fought and long run campaigns by Governments, NGOs, and conservationists.

The defeat of Namibia’s proposals to re-open the rhino horn and ivory trade are a victory for all of us who care about species protection and the people who live alongside wildlife.  DSWF alongside like-minded NGOs and countries worked tirelessly and effectively to ensure these proposals were defeated despite vocal opposition from the proponents.

Several species were uplisted to CITES Appendix 1 which prevents international, commercial trade in a species.  This is the highest level of protection under CITES, providing genuine hope that these species can start to recover rather than being driven towards extinction due to commercial exploitation.

Species that have now moved to Appendix 1following this COP include the Okapi, Golden-bellied mangabey, Hoffman’s Two-toed sloth and Hoffman’s Two-fingered sloth, White-backed and Ruppelli’s vultures, Great-billed seed-finch, Galapagos Marine and Land iguanas, Whitetip shark, Whale shark, as well as several tortoise and snake species, and all species of Manta and Devil rays.  A number of species also benefited from being put on CITES Appendix 2, under which international trade is permitted but regulated, including African hornbills, Dorcas gazelle, and the Striped hyena.  A number of attempts to reduce protection for species also failed, including for the Giraffe and Peregrine falcon.

The bad

Other species were not so lucky and were downlisted or removed from the CITES appendices, meaning they will be more vulnerable to the international trade, including Bontebok and two Fur seal species.

The COP also permitted the resumption of the trade in horn from the Saiga antelope population in Kazakhstan (where over 90% of Saiga live), a potentially disastrous decision that could reverse the recent rebounding of Saiga’s numbers, a species that was once close to extinction.  The resumption of this trade demonstrates a worrying trend, that CITES parties are quick to attempt to reduce protections for species like Saiga and Peregrine falcon, when populations rebound, but are slower to react in the case of species decline.   Saiga populations have previously crashed due to both legal and illegal trade and disease, and by opening up the trade the COP has failed to adhere to the precautionary principle. 

Similarly with the Striped hyena, the COP decided against uplisting the species to Appendix 1 because of a lack of robust population data, ignoring the core principle of CITES that “ by virtue of the precautionary approach and in case of uncertainty regarding the status of a species or the impact of trade on the conservation of a species, the Parties shall act in the best interest of the conservation of the species concerned.”  Contrast these swift aims to downlist with the continued failure of CITES to uplist species such as the Polar bear, which remains on Appendix 2 despite the multiple threats faced by the species, including continued international legal trade as documented in the new film, Trade Secrets, which showcases previous failures to get the Polar bear listed on Appendix 1.

At DSWF our view is more caution is always needed, which is why we don’t support the commercial international trade of any endangered species. The clue is in the very title of CITES, the Convention on International Trade in ENDANGERED Species. These are some of the most threatened and rare species on earth, many of whom will never recover to stable population levels, and yet debate still rages as to the benefits of trade in their body parts.

The ugly

Image credit: Loic Furhoff / Unsplash

One of the biggest setbacks from this COP was the weakening of the rules that govern the live trade in African elephants. 

At the last COP in Panama in 2022, a moratorium was agreed which put a pause on the export of African elephants outside of their natural and historic range in Africa.  Subtle changes made to the text now mean that is possible for four southern African countries – Zimbabwe, South Africa, Namibia and Botswana – to export live elephants outside of Africa.  What this means in real life, is that a wild caught, baby elephant can be torn away from its family in the wild and shipped internationally to zoos in foreign climates away from anything known to be natural, safe and acceptable.

Changes to the text also mean that Zimbabwe are now able to commercially export leather products made from elephant skin, which was already permitted in Namibia, South Africa and Botswana.  This will continue to open up the commercial export of leather goods internationally and will likely increase incentives to cull elephants, something which these four southern African countries are increasingly keen to do given their claims that their countries are overpopulated with elephants.  Evidence doesn’t back this up – populations in these countries remain broadly stable – but a number of land management practices, including increased fencing and the use of artificial water points, means elephants concentrate in certain areas, leading to inevitable human-elephant conflict.

This is disappointing news but not unexpected – the text had sadly been largely negotiated prior to the COP at two previous meetings of African elephant range states under intense pressure from proponents.  However, the way this issue has been dealt with at COP has been a bitter pill to swallow.  Earlier in the COP, there was a closed meeting of the ranges states where it was agreed that the four southern African countries in question would make a statement that they wouldn’t seek to export live elephants outside of Africa. In the debate the next day, no such statement was forthcoming.

To make matters worse, the CITES secretariat made some confusing and misleading statements in the discussion about how the changes would impact on live trade, and further debate was restricted.  It was unclear if many of the parties involved in the debates had a clear understanding of the implications of the changes that were being made and what it would mean for the live trade of elephants.

The decision was also presented as one of African unity, even though a significant number of range states in West and East Africa were in disagreement.  One thing we do agree with all elephant range states on however is the need for more financial resources and support for countries that are home to Africa’s elephants and rhinos.  The financial burden of keeping them safe is huge, rangers put their lives on the line daily to protect them, and it is communities in these countries that bear the brunt of human-wildlife conflict.  Countries would be less likely to resort to pro-trade policies and trophy hunting if they were better resourced, and it is the responsibilities of countries with the means to do so to do more to help.

The fight continues

Unlike those who feign concern at CITES for communities to further own agenda, all the projects that DSWF fund on the ground in Africa and Asia focus equally on protecting wildlife and delivering benefits to local communities through employment and education opportunities.

Conservation without community involvement and benefits is doomed to fail, just as CITES will if not guided by precautionary principals, underpinned by robust science and rigorous data.

Armed with this knowledge, DSWF will continue our dedicated efforts to protect wildlife and support communities at a local level by funding projects on the ground.  At the same time, we will continue to fight internationally in crucial policy conventions like CITES to uphold and ensure total and permanent bans in the international trade in endangered species, their body parts and derivatives like ivory and rhino horn, including at the next CITES Standing Committee meeting in 2026, and the next COP in Panama in 2028.