Discussions around CITES listings often focus on whether a species meets the biological criteria for inclusion in one of the Convention’s Appendices. Those criteria, set out in Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP17), provide the scientific framework Parties use when proposing amendments to the CITES Appendices.
A side event held during the 34th meeting of the CITES Animals Committee (AC34) invited participants to consider a different question:
Once a listing is adopted, what happens next?
Will trade decline as intended? Could demand shift towards substitute species? Might prices rise, incentives change, or trade move into illegal channels? How will communities, markets, and institutions respond?
These questions formed the basis of a discussion led by Dr. Daniel Challender, Dr. Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes, and Dr. Annette Hübschle. Although approaching the issue from different perspectives, the three speakers explored a common concern: biological evidence is fundamental for identifying species that may require conservation intervention but understanding how an intervention is likely to work in practice may require a wider range of evidence.
Predicting outcomes, not just identifying problems
The discussion drew attention to an important distinction. Determining whether a species may require additional protection is one question. Understanding how that protection is likely to work once introduced is another.
When Parties propose amendments to the CITES Appendices, they are asked to provide evidence on matters such as population status, distribution, trends, and the impact of trade. These biological criteria are fundamental because they help determine whether a species may require additional protection.
Challender’s analysis brought the second question into sharper focus:
If a listing is adopted, what is likely to happen next?
Drawing on an analysis of CITES listing proposals submitted over approximately the past two decades, his review found that proposals generally contain extensive biological information, but much less information about the wider systems in which wildlife trade takes place.
Information on market size, price trends, benefits from trade and feedback mechanisms was generally limited. Consultation beyond national CITES authorities was also uncommon. The study found that only 16% of proposals involved consultation with individuals or organisations beyond national CITES authorities, while fewer than 2% involved Indigenous Peoples and local communities and fewer than 1% involved resource users or industry.
Conservation happens in human systems
The discussion then turned to what happens when wildlife trade policies enter markets and begin to influence human behaviour.
Drawing on research involving African rhinos, elephants, pangolins, and lions, ‘t Sas-Rolfes explored why similar trade restrictions can produce very different outcomes under different circumstances. Policies can change prices and incentives. Consumers may switch to substitute products. Trade may decline, move into illegal channels, or shift towards other species. Much depends on how markets function, how institutions operate, and how different actors respond to new rules.
The point was not that trade restrictions either work or do not work. It was that their effects depend on the system in which they are introduced.
A systematic review by Christina Hiller and Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes reached a similar conclusion. It found that the available evidence was uneven and that the effectiveness of international trade restrictions depended on a range of aligned measures across countries of origin, transit, and consumption. The review also identified important gaps in evidence on socioeconomic effects, including impacts on rural livelihoods and the possible secondary consequences for conservation.
Economics can therefore help explain how incentives, prices, and market responses shape conservation outcomes. Governance research can help explain how policies are implemented and why similar measures may perform differently in different institutional settings.
Every trade system is different
The illegal trade in southern African succulents provided a useful example of why these outcomes are difficult to predict. Research presented by Hübschle showed that the trade between southern Africa and South Korea could not be explained by organised trafficking alone. Some local harvesters became involved because of limited livelihood opportunities, while consumer demand was shaped by plant appearance, collecting cultures, and changing market trends rather than simply by rarity or wild origin.
Regulatory uncertainty also mattered. Some communities were unclear about which activities were legal, while fear of unintentionally breaking the law discouraged participation in legitimate propagation. At the same time, changing demand and increased propagation were altering the market itself. The research forms part of a wider project examining illicit supply networks between South Africa and South Korea, demand for wild-harvested succulents and possible opportunities for legal and regulated alternatives.
The succulent case reinforced the broader point: wildlife trade policies operate within systems shaped by livelihoods, consumer choices, markets, institutions, and regulation. Measures introduced into those systems may therefore produce different outcomes in different places.
Bringing different forms of evidence together
Biological data remain central to determining whether a species meets the criteria for inclusion in the CITES Appendices and whether trade may be contributing to its decline.
The discussion pointed to an area where further reflection is needed. A recurring theme across the presentations was that listing decisions operate within wider social-ecological systems, yet information on markets, institutions, livelihoods, incentives, and the people involved in wildlife trade was often less developed in the proposals examined.
Understanding the likely outcomes of wildlife trade policies may require a fuller picture of the systems in which they operate. Once implemented, policies interact with markets, institutions and people in ways that may influence whether their intended conservation outcomes are achieved.
Rather than suggesting that biological evidence should be replaced, the discussion highlighted the value of bringing it together with evidence from economics, governance, and the social sciences, as well as the knowledge and perspectives of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, industry, and resource users.
Considering these forms of evidence and perspectives together may provide a clearer understanding of the factors that shape conservation outcomes and help inform future discussions on wildlife trade policy.
Further reading
CITES. Criteria for amendment of Appendices I and II (Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP17)
Challender, D.W.S., ’t Sas-Rolfes, M., Robinson, J. and Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2025. Reducing the uncertainty of CITES listing decisions. SocArXiv (preprint). Available at: https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/xgny6_v1
Hiller, C. and ’t Sas-Rolfes, M., 2025. Systematic review of the impact of restrictive wildlife trade measures on conservation of iconic species in southern Africa. Conservation Biology, 39(1), e14262. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14262
Hübschle, A., 2024–2026. Safeguarding southern Africa’s succulents through analysing demand and supply networks. Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund Evidence Project (IWTEV019). University of Cape Town. Available at: https://iwt.challengefund.org.uk/project/IWTEV019