Photo by flickr/coral_abi/Abigail Powell

Resources

Key documents

• Full case study (PDF, 325kb)
• VERIFOR Briefing Paper 1 - Designing Verification Systems for the Timber Trade: Learning from International Processes (PDF, 621kb)

Also on this site

• IFM Bibliography - CITES

CITES provides an interesting case of verification with a focus on trade and a consignment-based approach. It demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses of a structure where verification is almost entirely in the hands of the signatory states, and the implications of attempting to verify trade in thousands of species under one system. CITES displays a high level of NGO involvement, which is largely accepted to have been a great benefit to it.

This case study has been prepared by David Brown and Erin Swails. David Brown is a Research Fellow of the ODI and Director of the VERIFOR Project. Erin Swails was an ODI intern at the time this study was undertaken and is now with the Peace Corps in Latin America.

Points to note

• CITES is a trade-based convention with broad international participation.
• A huge diversity of species is covered by the Convention, and there are wide variations in the cost-effectiveness of controls, between species.
• The Appendix listing system has a pivotal role.
• There is a strong scientific bias in Convention philosophy, although high levels of uncertainty remain about what is being assessed (conservation status).
• State sovereignty is the basis for the control system.
• International authority is increased by virtue of a hierarchy of specialist bodies and committees, culminating in regular meetings of the Conferences of the Parties (the supreme authority).
• Tracking and verification is consignment-based.
• There is a heavy reliance on low-level control technologies, increasing the potential for abuse.
• A complex system of compliance controls is applied, with strong NGO participation in detection of deviation but no systematic independent verification mechanism.
• The compliance system has evolved over time, and important adjustments and additions continue to be made.
• The formation of a Compliance Committee is currently under discussion, which would be an interesting development.

The 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is a multilateral environmental agreement (MEA), aiming to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. As of 2003, it had 160 member parties spanning five continents.

As one of the earliest MEAs, dealing with sensitive subject matter of international concern, CITES has been subject to close scrutiny over the years. Much criticism has centred on its heavy dependence on 'soft law' mechanisms to deal with non-compliance (Reeve, 2002), but supporters argue that the existing structure of compliance, whatever its defects, is a reasonable compromise given the limited financial means at its disposal. They cite the significant investment which some countries are making in attempts to limit the scope of CITES (for example over fisheries) as a good indication of its force.

This case study examines the convention and the mechanisms used to verify compliance, and will underline the limitations to effective policing of an international agreement in the face of heightened sovereignty concerns. A central thesis of the Convention is that 'peoples and States are and should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora' ( Preamble to the CITES Convention). It follows, as Reeve notes, that 'a global enforcement agency to oversee compliance with international treaties, or, to quote Professor Christopher Stone, an 'international sheriff with badge and pistol', does not exist and would be out of the question in a global political order based on sovereign states. Instead, treaty-specific compliance systems and non-compliance procedures have evolved to fill the void. For regulatory MEAs such as CITES which place specific obligations on parties, it is particularly important that these self-policing systems be effective' (2002:p.6).

There are some important differences between CITES and forest sector verification. It is notable that most commercially important timber species are not listed under CITES, and CITES has neither fully involved nor taken on the timber industry as a forest verification system would have to do. Given the similarity of its subject matter, however, forest sector verification may have much to learn from the CITES experience.