Reflections on CITES at 50

Every 2-3 years, the Conference of the Parties (COP) meets to review the implementation of the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). These meetings provide a critical opportunity to work with governments and advocates to protect wildlife, both plants and animals, from exploitation and illegal trade. Having attended the most recent COP in Uzbekistan in November 2025, as well as every CITES COP since 2004 this piece reflects on the treaty’s promise as it marked its fiftieth year in 2025. For more than half a century, CITES has been one of the most successful multilateral environmental agreements. For those not steeped in the intricacies, CITES is an international agreement between governments that aims to ensure that international trade does not threaten the survival of wild fauna and flora. While not perfect, the treaty has helped prevent extinctions and has protected many species and individual plants and animals from international wildlife trade. It has driven the progressive development of wildlife law around the world, and the Parties have held both the treaty and other Parties accountable to its goals in many productive ways.

But the future of CITES requires more to achieve its aim and to address the increasingly complex global markets threatening wildlife around the world. In that vein, I want to highlight three provisions of the treaty that have been underutilized, brushed aside, or sometimes misinterpreted—these provisions could provide a foundation for building CITES work in a way that meets the contemporary challenges of the biodiversity crisis and stays focused and anchored in the Convention’s mandate.

Proactivity Prevents Threats Before its Too Late

First, the treaty is built on a precautionary approach to ensuring that international trade does not become a driver of the extinction crisis. The drafters were prescient in recognizing that to wait for irrefutable evidence of trade-driven decline would be irresponsible. This logic is embedded in the operational heart of the treaty, particularly in Article II, paragraph 1, which states that “Appendix I shall include all species threatened with extinction which are or may be affected by trade.” There are two things to note here.

One, the provision is prescriptive, requiring that ALL species SHALL be included in Appendix I that meet the criteria. Two, the criteria are expansive and precautionary. The phrasing “or may be affected” deliberately acknowledges that uncertainty cannot be an excuse for inaction. It also implies that trade need not be the main driver of a species’ decline. With this provision, the drafters transformed the precautionary approach from an abstract principle into a concrete legal mandate, providing an opportunity for the international community to remain vigilant, responsive, and proactive in confronting international trade’s role in the biodiversity crisis.

Importing Countries Have an Important Role in the Survival of Species

Second, CITES overall design and structure of the permit regime makes it a market control treaty. By asking importing Parties to evaluate the role of domestic markets in exploitation of species in Article III, paragraph 3(a), concern about the role of such markets becomes a critical condition of Appendix I trade. This provision requires the Scientific Authority in the importing State to advise whether the import will be for purposes that are detrimental to the survival of the species. This implies that importing countries have an obligation to ensure that domestic markets do not undermine the goals of the treaty. This language has not often been given its proper due and should feature as a priority for CITES Parties. CITES requirement for a non-detriment finding (NDF) for issuing an import permit is not merely a double-check of the NDF required to be made by the exporting country—instead, the fundamental question here is whether the use of the specimen in the country of import will drive demand or illegal trade or contribute other, ultimately detrimental, factors.

Functional Compliance Provides More Meaningful Impact

Third, Article XIII requires addressing both illegal and unsustainable trade—with clear triggers in the treaty text—Parties have a mandate to address situations in which Appendix I or II species are “adversely affected by trade” OR “when the provisions of the treaty are not being effectively implemented.” As the legal basis of the CITES “compliance” mechanism, ensuring that this provision is not misinterpreted in pursuit of an overly strict understanding of compliance is important.

CITES explicitly does not require that a violation of the Convention exist before the Parties take measures to address implementation or illegal trade concerns. In fact, the negotiating history of the treaty shows that the drafters intentionally chose to design a “compliance” mechanism that reflects a functional perspective—an approach that emphasizes meeting the treaty’s goals rather than a box-ticking approach to meeting only those elements clearly identified as obligations. This functional approach contrasts with a formal, strict approach to compliance, focused on a violation of the Convention. This was intentional in CITES’ construction. When the Washington Conference convened to finalize the text, some drafters proposed provisions that referred to addressing “violations” of the Convention—an approach rejected in favor of the functional one enshrined in Article XIII.

The clarity of CITES’ purpose, as expressed in the treaty text, is an extraordinary strength. Fidelity to CITES’ core mandate and text can provide exceptionally useful tools to center the Convention’s work in addressing the biodiversity crisis over the next 50 years and beyond. By doing so, CITES will continue to serve the world’s wildlife—and people—with clarity and credibility.

About the Author: Clinical Professor Erica Lyman has over fifteen years of experience in international environmental law, with a strong focus on wildlife protection issues. She is the Director of GLA. Launched in the fall of 2020, GLA is an innovative collaboration of the Center for Animal Law Studies and the top-ranked Environmental Law Program at Lewis & Clark Law School. GLA champions wild animals and wild spaces around the world. Law students (JD and LLM) actively participate in GLA’s work for academic credit. She also teaches Global Wild Animal Law in the online Animal Law advanced degree program.

The Center for Animal Law Studies (CALS) was founded in 2008 with a mission to educate the next generation of animal law advocates and advance animal protection through the law. With vision and bold risk-taking, CALS has since developed into a world-renowned animal law epicenter. CALS’ Alumni-in-Action from over 25 countries are making a difference for animals around the world. CALS is a nonprofit organization funded through donations and grants.