Foot, gun, bullet. Bang

Evidence suggests CITES uplisting can do more harm than good

You've got to have thick skin in this business One of the most successfully implemented conservation tools, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) could in fact be damaging the prospects of the species it aims to protect, according to a commentary published this week in Nature. Philippe Rivalan and colleagues at the University Paris-Sud and the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, show how the lag between a proposal to uplist a species and the changes actually coming into effect allows a window of opportunity for an increase in trade. The delay, typically lasting between 240 and 420 days – during which the merits of the proposal are considered in detail – corresponds to a significant spike in recorded legal trade as dealers rush to move stocks before restrictions come into force. Better management of those species not yet threatened with extinction, such as permitting limited trophy-hunting quotas, could help CITES to respond more flexibly to changing situations and/or improved data. Source: Rivalan P, Delmas V, Angulo E, Bull LS, Hall RJ, Courchamp F, Rosser AM & Leader-Williams N (2007) Can bans stimulate wildlife trade? Nature DOI: 10.1038/447529a