Understanding the effectiveness of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) is critical to addressing international environmental issues. Here we articulate the implied theory of change (ToC) underpinning the design and operation of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), based on an analysis of the Convention’s documented evolution. We use this as a framework to critically evaluate the effectiveness of the Convention, with respect to its stated aims, using a range of theoretical and empirical insights. Although achieving success in various ways, CITES is proving ineffective at deterring illegal and/or unsustainable exploitation of many listed species for international trade, which we attribute to implementation and compliance issues and the Convention’s design, including a principal focus on deterrence through state-led law enforcement. Informed by this analysis we develop a modified ToC which could support more effective implementation of CITES. This ToC is intended for application at the species level and incorporates an in-depth examination of the social-ecological systems (SESs) within which species are harvested, used, and traded. This species-system ToC explicitly considers formal and informal institutions, and the use of institutional diagnostics to inform potential revisions to institutional arrangements along supply chains. We argue that taking this approach when considering whether and how to implement trade measures under CITES could enhance the effectiveness of these measures in reducing overexploitation and support legal, traceable, and more ecologically and socially sustainable international trade in wild species. Finally, we highlight the role that CITES could play in the broader global biodiversity governance regime; better alignment with other relevant MEAs could lead to more effective biodiversity conservation overall.

GENERAL COMMENTARY article Front. Ecol. Evol., 25 April 2022Sec. Conservation and Restoration Ecology https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.889234

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous impact on almost all aspects of human society and endeavor; the natural world and its conservation have not been spared. Through a process of expert consultation, we identified and categorized, into 19 themes and 70 subthemes, the ways in which biodiversity and its conservation have been or could be affected by the pandemic globally. Nearly 60% of the effects have been broadly negative. Subsequently, we created a compendium of all themes and subthemes, each with explanatory text, and in August 2020 a diverse group of experienced conservationists with expertise from across sectors and geographies assessed each subtheme for its likely impact on biodiversity conservation globally. The 9 subthemes ranked highest all have a negative impact. These were, in rank order, governments sidelining the environment during their economic recovery, reduced wildlife-based tourism income, increased habitat destruction, reduced government funding, increased plastic and other solid waste pollution, weakening of nature-friendly regulations and their enforcement, increased illegal harvest of wild animals, reduced philanthropy, and threats to survival of conservation organizations. In combination, these impacts present a worrying future of increased threats to biodiversity conservation but reduced capacity to counter them. The highest ranking positive impact, at 10, was the beneficial impact of wildlife-trade restrictions. More optimistically, among impacts ranked 11-20, 6 were positive and 4 were negative. We hope our assessment will draw attention to the impacts of the pandemic and, thus, improve the conservation community's ability to respond to such threats in the future.

The CITES treaty is the major international instrument designed to safeguard wild plants and animals from overexploitation by international trade. CITES is now approaching 50 years old, and we contend that it is showing its age. In stark contrast to most environmental policy arenas, CITES does not require, encourage, or even allow for, consideration of the impacts of its key decisions—those around listing species in the CITES Appendices. Decisions to list species in CITES are based on a simplistic set of biological and trade criteria that do not relate to the impact of the decision, and have little systematic evidentiary support. We explain the conservation failures that flow from this weakness and propose three key changes to the CITES listing process: (1) development of a formal mechanism for consideration by Parties of the likely consequences of species listing decisions; (2) broadening of the range of criteria used to make listing decisions; and (3) amplification of the input of local communities living alongside wildlife in the listing process. Embracing these changes will help to ensure CITES decisions more effectively respond to the needs of wildlife in today’s highly complex and dynamic conservation context.

The crisis generated by the emergence and pandemic spread of COVID-19 has thrown into the global spotlight the dangers associated with novel diseases, as well as the key role of animals, especially wild animals, as potential sources of pathogens to humans. There is a widespread demand for a new relationship with wild and domestic animals, including suggested bans on hunting, wildlife trade, wet markets or consumption of wild animals. However, such policies risk ignoring essential elements of the problem as well as alienating and increasing hardship for local communities across the world, and might be unachievable at scale. There is thus a need for a more complex package of policy and practical responses. We undertook a solution scan to identify and collate 161 possible options for reducing the risks of further epidemic disease transmission from animals to humans, including potential further SARS-CoV-2 transmission (original or variants). We include all categories of animals in our responses (i.e. wildlife, captive, unmanaged/feral and domestic livestock and pets) and focus on pathogens (especially viruses) that, once transmitted from animals to humans, could acquire epidemic potential through high rates of human-to-human transmission. This excludes measures to prevent well-known zoonotic diseases, such as rabies, that cannot readily transmit between humans. We focused solutions on societal measures, excluding the development of vaccines and other preventive therapeutic medicine and veterinary medicine options that are discussed elsewhere. We derived our solutions through reading the scientific literature, NGO position papers, and industry guidelines, collating our own experiences, and consulting experts in different fields. Herein, we review the major zoonotic transmission pathways and present an extensive list of options. The potential solutions are organised according to the key stages of the trade chain and encompass solutions that can be applied at the local, regional and international scales. This is a set of options targeted at practitioners and policy makers to encourage careful examination of possible courses of action, validating their impact and documenting outcomes.

We present the results from our 12th annual horizon scan of issues likely to impact biological conservation in the future. From a list of 97 topics, our global panel of 25 scientists and practitioners identified the top 15 issues that we believe society may urgently need to address. These issues are either novel in the biological conservation sector or represent a substantial positive or negative step-change in impact at global or regional level. Six issues, such as coral reef deoxygenation and changes in polar coastal productivity, affect marine or coastal ecosystems and seven relate to human and ecosystem-level responses to climate change. Identification of potential forthcoming issues for biological conservation may enable increased preparedness by researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers.

Human activities are degrading ecosystems worldwide, posing existential threats for biodiversity and humankind. Slowing and reversing this degradation will require profound and widespread changes to human behaviour. Behavioural scientists are therefore well placed to contribute intellectual leadership in this area. This Perspective aims to stimulate a marked increase in the amount and breadth of behavioural research addressing this challenge. First, we describe the importance of the biodiversity crisis for human and non-human prosperity and the central role of human behaviour in reversing this decline. Next, we discuss key gaps in our understanding of how to achieve behaviour change for biodiversity conservation and suggest how to identify key behaviour changes and actors capable of improving biodiversity outcomes. Finally, we outline the core components for building a robust evidence base and suggest priority research questions for behavioural scientists to explore in opening a new frontier of behavioural science for the benefit of nature and human wellbeing. Nielsen et al. argue for more involvement of behavioural scientists in addressing the challenge of globally increasing biodiversity loss, identifying important gaps in existing knowledge and outlining core components for a robust evidence base.

Conservation is predominantly an exercise in trying to change human behaviour – whether that of consumers whose choices drive unsustainable resource use, of land managers clearing natural habitats, or of policymakers failing to deliver on environmental commitments. Yet conservation research and practice have made only limited use of recent advances in behavioural science, including more novel behaviour change interventions. Instead conservationists mostly still rely on traditional behaviour change interventions – education, regulation and material incentivisation – largely without applying recent insights from behavioural science about how to improve such approaches. This paper explores how behavioural science could be more widely and powerfully applied in biodiversity conservation. We consider the diverse cast of actors involved in conservation problems and the resulting breadth of behaviour change that conservationists might want to achieve. Drawing on health research, we present a catalogue of types of interventions for changing behaviour, considering both novel, standalone interventions and the enhancement of more traditional conservation interventions. We outline a framework for setting priorities among interventions based on their likely impact, using ideas developed for climate change mitigation. We caution that, despite its promise, behavioural science is not a silver bullet for conservation. The effects of interventions aimed at changing behaviour can be modest, temporary, and context-dependent in ways that are as-yet poorly understood. We therefore close with a call for interventions to be tested and the findings widely disseminated to enable researchers and practitioners to build a much-needed evidence base on the effectiveness and limitations of these tools.

We present the results of our tenth annual horizon scan. We identified 15 emerging priority topics that may have major positive or negative effects on the future conservation of global biodiversity, but currently have low awareness within the conservation community. We hope to increase research and policy attention on these areas, improving the capacity of the community to mitigate impacts of potentially negative issues, and maximise the benefits of issues that provide opportunities. Topics include advances in crop breeding, which may affect insects and land use; manipulations of natural water flows and weather systems on the Tibetan Plateau; release of carbon and mercury from melting polar ice and thawing permafrost; new funding schemes and regulations; and land-use changes across Indo-Malaysia.

We present the results of our eighth annual horizon scan of emerging issues likely to affect global biological diversity, the environment, and conservation efforts in the future. The potential effects of these novel issues might not yet be fully recognized or understood by the global conservation community, and the issues can be regarded as both opportunities and risks. A diverse international team with collective expertise in horizon scanning, science communication, and conservation research, practice, and policy reviewed 100 potential issues and identified 15 that qualified as emerging, with potential substantial global effects. These issues include new developments in energy storage and fuel production, sand extraction, potential solutions to combat coral bleaching and invasive marine species, and blockchain technology.

This paper presents the results of our seventh annual horizon scan, in which we aimed to identify issues that could have substantial effects on global biological diversity in the future, but are not currently widely well known or understood within the conservation community. Fifteen issues were identified by a team that included researchers, practitioners, professional horizon scanners, and journalists. The topics include use of managed bees as transporters of biological control agents, artificial superintelligence, electric pulse trawling, testosterone in the aquatic environment, building artificial oceanic islands, and the incorporation of ecological civilization principles into government policies in China.

We identified 100 scientific questions that, if answered, would have the greatest impact on conservation practice and policy. Representatives from 21 international organizations, regional sections and working groups of the Society for Conservation Biology, and 12 academics, from all continents except Antarctica, compiled 2291 questions of relevance to conservation of biological diversity worldwide. The questions were gathered from 761 individuals through workshops, email requests, and discussions. Voting by email to short-list questions, followed by a 2-day workshop, was used to derive the final list of 100 questions. Most of the final questions were derived through a process of modification and combination as the workshop progressed. The questions are divided into 12 sections: ecosystem functions and services, climate change, technological change, protected areas, ecosystem management and restoration, terrestrial ecosystems, marine ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems, species management, organizational systems and processes, societal context and change, and impacts of conservation interventions. We anticipate that these questions will help identify new directions for researchers and assist funders in directing funds.

Conservation BiologyVolume 22, Issue 1 p. 222-223 Diversity The World Can't Have Wild Tigers and Eat Them, Too BRIAN GRATWICKE, BRIAN GRATWICKE Save The Tiger Fund, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 900, Washington, D.C. 20009, U.S.A., email brian.gratwicke@gmail.comSearch for more papers by this authorELIZABETH L. BENNETT, ELIZABETH L. BENNETT Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10460, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorSTEVEN BROAD, STEVEN BROAD TRAFFIC International, 219a Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorSARAH CHRISTIE, SARAH CHRISTIE Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London, NW1 4RY, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorADAM DUTTON, ADAM DUTTON Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, University of Oxford, Department of Zoology, Tubney House, Abingdon Road, Tubney, Abingdon, OX13 5QL, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorGRACE GABRIEL, GRACE GABRIEL International Fund For Animal Welfare, P.O. Box 193, 411 Main Street, Yarmouth, Port, MA 02675, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorCRAIG KIRKPATRICK, CRAIG KIRKPATRICK TRAFFIC East Asia, Regional Office Room 2001, Double Building, 22 Stanley Street, Central, Hong KongSearch for more papers by this authorKRISTIN NOWELL, KRISTIN NOWELL Cat Action Treasury, P.O. Box 332, Cape Neddick, ME 03902, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this author BRIAN GRATWICKE, BRIAN GRATWICKE Save The Tiger Fund, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 900, Washington, D.C. 20009, U.S.A., email brian.gratwicke@gmail.comSearch for more papers by this authorELIZABETH L. BENNETT, ELIZABETH L. BENNETT Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10460, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorSTEVEN BROAD, STEVEN BROAD TRAFFIC International, 219a Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorSARAH CHRISTIE, SARAH CHRISTIE Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London, NW1 4RY, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorADAM DUTTON, ADAM DUTTON Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, University of Oxford, Department of Zoology, Tubney House, Abingdon Road, Tubney, Abingdon, OX13 5QL, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorGRACE GABRIEL, GRACE GABRIEL International Fund For Animal Welfare, P.O. Box 193, 411 Main Street, Yarmouth, Port, MA 02675, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this authorCRAIG KIRKPATRICK, CRAIG KIRKPATRICK TRAFFIC East Asia, Regional Office Room 2001, Double Building, 22 Stanley Street, Central, Hong KongSearch for more papers by this authorKRISTIN NOWELL, KRISTIN NOWELL Cat Action Treasury, P.O. Box 332, Cape Neddick, ME 03902, U.S.A.Search for more papers by this author First published: 18 October 2007 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00802.xCitations: 26Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume22, Issue1February 2008Pages 222-223 RelatedInformation