Michael'T Sas-Rolfes

International wildlife trade takes place in complex social-ecological systems (SESs). Understanding these systems is key to diagnosing the most effective policies and interventions to prevent wildlife overexploitation. A key component of SESs is the regulatory framework in which they sit, including international trade measures under CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). Here, we evaluate the extent to which proposals to amend the CITES appendices in the last ~20 years consider the SESs in which the harvest, use and trade of wildlife occur. Assessed against a social-ecological systems framework (SESF), proposals to amend the appendices have given only limited consideration to the SESs within which the species concerned are used and traded, which applies to all species and proposal types, and did not change between 2007 (CoP14) and 2025 (CoP20). Key parts of SESs overlooked in most proposals include market size (and structure) for traded species, price trends, benefits to people and businesses from trade, and feedback mechanisms. Policy impacts were evaluated in nearly 50% of proposals. Only 16% of proposals involved consultation with individuals and organizations beyond national CITES authorities; less than <2% of proposals involved consultation with Indigenous peoples and local communities and <1% with resources users or industry. To reduce the uncertainty of CITES listing decisions we recommend that Parties consider the risks and benefits of listing decisions in proposals to amend the appendices more explicitly, ideally based on an in-depth understanding of the species concerned and the relevant SESs and how they function. Parties could be encouraged to do so through revision ofResolution. Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP17) Annex 6 (Format for proposals to amend the Appendices) and this will hopefully lead to less uncertain decision-making to conserve species impacted by international trade.

Evidence suggests that numbers of African rhinoceroses can increase when annual poaching rates remain below 3.5% of the continental population. In 2020, the global response to the Covid-19 pandemic coincided with a poaching rate of 2.3% (the lowest recorded since 2015) suggesting favourable conditions for recovery. This study had two aims: (1) to examine trends in continental poaching rates since 2020 as pandemic-related restrictions eased, and (2) to assess whether reduced poaching rates have translated into growth in rhinoceros numbers. We found that poaching rates remained relatively low during 2020–2023, ranging from 2.3 to 2.5% annually. During this period, the continental rhinoceros population increased at an average annual rate of 2.9% (95% CI 1.7–4.1%), reaching an estimated 23,995 individuals by the end of 2023. However, population trends varied by site, with some areas experiencing declines as a result of localized increases in poaching. These findings highlight the importance of continued efforts to mitigate poaching, address habitat fragmentation, and adapt to broader environmental changes to support the long-term recovery of African rhinoceroses.

An increasing number of countries in the Global North have enacted, or are considering, import bans on hunting trophies to protect wildlife. We interrogate arguments used to characterize trophy hunting using data from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species, and empirical research. We show that trophy hunting is not a major threat to any CITES-listed species traded as a trophy during 2000-2022. Yet, 60% of global trade in trophies involving these species may be impacted by bans, with significant implications for conservation. We therefore question whether such legislative actions are proportionate. Wildlife trade solutions may appear simple but evidence-based policy is needed to conserve biodiversity and avoid harming people.

Growing awareness and concern over environmental issues has been accompanied by a proliferation of international environmental agreements during the last half‐century. Among these, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), stands out as one of the oldest and strongest influences on global biodiversity conservation policy. However, the effectiveness of CITES has been questioned—for various reasons and from various quarters—with a range of differing opinions. To provide further insight on this issue we drew from and built upon recent advances in the environmental governance literature to develop an approach to analysing how the CITES‐centred wildlife trading regime influences actor behaviour. After developing a rule‐categorised framework to analyse the structure of the treaty, we conducted dynamic analysis of actor behaviour using case study material on CITES‐listed African megafauna species (elephants, rhinoceroses, and lions), examining recent developments over a five‐year period (2016–2020). Drawing on this material, we further applied institutional diagnostics to gain insight into the conservation effectiveness of the CITES regime. Our analysis of these case studies suggests that CITES can be gamed by special interest groups and that its institutional design facilitates the evolution of an international prohibition regime. Our research produces novel insights into the operation of this process and raises concerns about consequences for African biodiversity conservation. We conclude with recommendations for wildlife trade policy reform and further research.

Among factors that threaten wild populations of African megafauna, wildlife trade has gained prominence as a global policy issue, with concerted international campaigns aiming to influence the trade of species such as elephants, rhinos and lions. Trade policy is strongly contested, confounding attempts to develop coherent approaches across jurisdictions and through international mechanisms such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This undermines conservation efforts. Understanding the drivers of such conflict may help to address this problem. Scholars of political science increasingly recognise the power of ideas as drivers within policy processes. Guided by this literature, we developed an analytical framework and conducted a thematic analysis to examine the ideas driving wildlife trade policy conflict. Our nested case study approach examined debates over trade policy toward African elephants, rhinos and lions at two levels: the international policy arena of CITES and within a single country, South Africa. Informed by earlier literature, we tracked the evolution of international trade policy debates over a 4‐year period (2016–2019) and analysed submissions to a national policy review process in South Africa that took place during 2020. During the study period, state and non‐state actors contributed to vigorous trade policy debates within seven key thematic issues across the case study species. Arguments were driven by both cognitive ideas, which specify cause‐and‐effect relationships, and normative ideas, which are values‐based and especially salient elements of anti‐trade stances. Fusing these cognitive and normative ideational elements, we identified three distinct overarching narratives relating to wildlife trade policy. These three narratives align with broader environmental policy and political narratives and elucidate inherent tensions within the CITES arena. They also reveal differing ethical interpretations and perceptions of risk and precaution. Policy implications. Wildlife trade policy conflict is driven at least in part by competing ideological visions, which may be entrenched by the CITES Appendix listing system. The structural role of CITES in perpetuating this polarisation—and the consequences thereof—warrants further research. Read the freePlain Language Summaryfor this article on the Journal blog.

Trade restrictions are often advocated and implemented as measures to protect wild species threatened by overexploitation. However, in some instances, their efficacy has been questioned, notably by governments in the southern African (SADC) region, which tend to favor a sustainable use approach to wildlife management. We conducted a systematic review of published literature guided by the PRISMA process to examine the effectiveness of trade restrictions and directly related control measures in addressing threats to species conservation in the SADC region, with a focus on elephants ( Loxodonta sp.), rhinoceroses ( Ceratotherium simum , Diceros bicornis ), lions ( Panthera leo ), and pangolins ( Manis sp.). We focused in particular on the direct conservation impact of trade restrictions at species or population level, indirect conservation impact at human behavior or attitude level, and socioeconomic impact on rural livelihoods and well‐being and on national economies. Research on these topics was uneven and focused strongly on the effects of trade restrictions and law enforcement on crime‐related behavior. Research gaps include socioeconomic impacts of trade restrictions, including effects of international restrictions on local livelihoods and consequent secondary conservation impacts, and evaluations of attempts to disrupt criminal networks. Based on the reviewed impact evidence, the effectiveness of international trade restrictions depends on a range of fully aligned measures in countries of origin, transit, and consumption. For example, our results suggest positive ecological short‐term but negative or unknown long‐term socioeconomic impacts of domestic restrictions. Based on these findings, key policy requirements include more nuanced approaches to incorporate a range of appropriate measures in range, transit, and consumer countries, that focus on capacity development for early detection and apprehension of incursions inside protected areas; measures for constructive engagement with relevant local communities outside protected areas; and future research to improve understanding of the socioeconomic contribution of wildlife.

Image‐based analyses from an online repository on rhino horns asserted that declines in size over time could be the consequence of poaching and hunting. We provide reflections on whether the sample was representative enough to make generalizations, the study adequately accounted for the main sources of horn‐size variation and the statistical methods were adequate to be confident in the results. The sample had a limited representation, most coming from zoo animals. We highlight several sources of variance in horn size that such a sample could not evaluate robustly using linear regressions, both for establishing a proxy for horn size corrected for size of a rhino and assessing trends over time. Nevertheless, horn poaching continues to be the key threat to rhinos. Addressing the underlying drivers of poaching and trafficking are key priorities for responsible public debate, policy making and interventions. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

1. Among factors that threaten wild populations of African megafauna, wildlife trade has gained prominence as a global policy issue, with concerted international campaigns aiming to influence the trade of species such as elephants, rhinos, and lions. Trade policy is strongly contested, confounding attempts to develop coherent approaches across jurisdictions and through international mechanisms such as CITES. This undermines conservation efforts. Understanding the drivers of such conflict may help to address this problem.2. Scholars of political science increasingly recognize the power of ideas as drivers within policy processes. Guided by this literature, we developed an analytical framework and conducted a thematic analysis to examine the ideas driving wildlife trade policy conflict. Our nested case study approach examined debates over trade policy toward African elephants, rhinos, and lions, at two levels: the international policy arena of CITES and within a single country, South Africa. Informed by earlier literature, we tracked the evolution of international trade policy debates over a four-year period (2016–2019) and analysed submissions to a national policy review process in South Africa that took place during 2020.3. During the study period, state and non-state actors contributed to vigorous trade policy debates within seven key thematic issues across the case study species. Arguments were driven by both cognitive ideas, which specify cause-and-effect relationships, and normative ideas, which are values-based and especially salient elements of anti-trade stances.4. Fusing these cognitive and normative ideational elements, we identified three distinct over-arching narratives relating to wildlife trade policy. These three narratives align with broader environmental policy and political narratives and elucidate inherent tensions within the CITES arena. They also reveal differing ethical interpretations and perceptions of risk, precaution, and the role of property rights.5. Policy implications: Wildlife trade policy conflict is driven at least in part by competing ideological visions, which may be entrenched by the CITES Appendix listing system. The structural role of CITES in perpetuating this polarization—and the consequences thereof—warrants further research.

Public policy addressing biodiversity loss is most likely to be effective when it is informed by appropriate evidence and considers potential unintended consequences. We evaluate key evidence relating to the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill that was discussed in the UK Parliament between 2022 and 2024. We characterize the UK’s role in international hunting trophy trade by analyzing CITES trade data for 2000-2021 and 2015-2021. For CITES-listed species imported to/exported from the UK as hunting trophies in these periods we use data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species to determine whether hunting designated as “trophy hunting” is i) likely a major threat contributing to species being of elevated conservation concern, ii) likely or possibly causing localized declines, or iii) not a threat. We then use the Red List to determine whether such hunting provides, or potentially provides, benefits for species and/or people. Finally, we evaluate the UK Government’s impact assessment of the bill. In 2000-2021 an estimated 3494 hunting trophies from 73 CITES-listed species and subspecies were exported to the UK involving an estimated 2549 whole organism equivalents (WOEs), i.e. individual animals. Imports involved 158.86 ± 66.53 (mean ± SD) trophies/year (115.83 ± 32.27 WOEs/year). In 2015-2021, 79% of imports were from countries where populations of the hunted species are stable, increasing, or abundant. Legal hunting for trophies is not a major threat to any of the species or subspecies imported to the UK, but likely or possibly represents a local threat to some populations of nine species. This hunting does, or could potentially, benefit 20 species and subspecies, and people. Among other concerns, the impact assessment failed to adequately consider the costs and benefits to local communities in countries where such hunting occurs. Informed by these analyses we discuss alternative regulatory options.