Biz/ed - CITES [ Biz/ed Virtual Developing Country ]

Theories

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

CITES is an international agreement between 140 countries to combat the commercial exploitation of wild plant and animal species that are at risk. The agreement, started in 1975 urged countries to introduce legislation to regulate or prohibit international trade in the body parts and derivatives of certain species, their (e.g. tigers, tiger skins, tiger-bone medicines). CITES classifies species at risk. Those species that at risk of extinction are place on Appendix 1. This list includes black and white rhinos, most African elephant populations and all apes. A further list, appendix 2, includes another 25,000 or so species that are at risk. The Convention meets and trade issues relating to flora and fauna are discussed. Species will be moved from one list to another according to the degree of risk.

CITES operates a permit system to ban or monitor and control trade in them. For Appendix 1 species no permits for international commercial trade are issued. Trade in Appendix 2 species is regulated through quota and permits.

The effectiveness of the agreement in controlling poaching and the illegal trade of flora and fauna is entirely dependent upon the efficiency of the individual national governments to monitor and police the capturing, collecting, hunting and trade in animal and plant species. This will also depend upon the co-operation between signatories of the CITES agreement.

Some African countries are not in favour of elephants being classed as Appendix 1 species. Indeed it is only in the last few years that Zambia agreed. Countries such as Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe with large wild elephant populations did not consider their elephants were in danger of extinction. Many areas of these countries have faced considerable destruction of woodland from the elephants themselves pushing down trees in search of food and water. They also oppose the ban because they consider that being unable to sell their ivory would seriously limit their investment in conservation.

Next theory - Property Rights >>