Dahlman Ström, 2577122 - Final course paper

One CITES, Many Realities:

Diverging Views on the Illegal Trade in Endangered Species

Final Course Paper

Maria Dahlman Ström, s2577122

Amstelveen, March 28, 2016

MSc Political Science

Workshop in Global Environmental Governance

Lecturers: Dr. Philipp Pattberg & Dr. Aysem Mert

Word count: 6758


Table of Contents

2.1. Stakeholders ................................................................................................................. 3

2.2. Diverging Views on CITES ......................................................................................... 5

4.1. Market Liberals ............................................................................................................ 6

4.2. Institutionalists ............................................................................................................. 7

4.3. Bioenvironmentalists ................................................................................................... 8

4.4. Social Greens ............................................................................................................... 9

4.5. Summary .................................................................................................................... 10

5.1. Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 12

6.1. Stakeholder Document 1 ........................................................................................... 13




1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1

2. State of the Art ................................................................................................ 2

3. Research Question ........................................................................................... 5

4. Theory ............................................................................................................. 6

5. Method .......................................................................................................... 11

6. Analysis ......................................................................................................... 13

7. Conclusion..................................................................................................... 17

Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 19


1

1. Introduction

With a biodiversity loss rate which is between 100 and 1000 times higher than the natural

biodiversity loss rate, there is an obvious threat to the health of the world’s ecosystem

(Rockström et al. 2009). For this reason, biodiversity is the main focus of conservation efforts

globally, and these efforts take place on all levels of governance, involving states,

international organizations, transnational NGOs, corporations, celebrities, scientists and local

grassroot movements among others.

One main way in which biodiversity loss is addressed is by international treaties

between states. Although it has been argued that there is a so-called “biodiversity regime

complex”, i.e. a cluster of over 150 biodiversity-related treaties that together constitute the

state-based international biodiversity efforts (Gomar et al. 2014), one of the largest and most

influential ones is the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna

(CITES). CITES is a Multilateral Environmental Agreement (MEA) which entered into force

in 1975, has 181 parties, and works by monitoring, restricting or prohibiting trade in species

based on their population numbers (CITES 2016). The Convention has been hailed as one of

the most effective and best-recognized conservation treaties, but due to its focus on trade

rather than conservation, scholars have argued that it also receives criticism by two different

camps: those that think it does not successfully enforce its trade bans, and those that think

trade bans are an outdated and counterproductive approach (Bowman 2013; Walsh 2005).

These two diverging views are argued to be based on two larger environmental paradigms: the

neoliberal one, which sees market approaches such as free trade as the solution rather than the

problem, and the one which prioritizes environmental protection and limiting the reach of the

markets. However, in a world with an abundance of different environmental actors, and when

the issue at hand, i.e. biodiversity loss, is dealt with on all levels of governance, it seems

rather oversimplified to argue that there are only two ways in which stakeholders view CITES

and its effectiveness.

In order to provide a more nuanced account of the current debate regarding CITES and

the approach it takes to conservation of biodiversity, this paper will investigate how relevant

stakeholders view the convention. This will be done by firstly conducting a literature review

in order to provide a background to the topic and situate the research, before moving on to the

formulation of more specific research questions. Secondly, the theoretical framework

provided by Clapp and Dauvergne (2011) will be explained, followed by a description of the

methodology that will be used in order to apply the theoretical framework to documents and

statements from the chosen stakeholders. This will enable an analysis which maps how


2

diverging views on CITES fit with the larger and more overarching environmental paradigms.

Lastly, a conclusion will be provided in order to discuss the relevance of the findings and

provide suggestions for future research.

2. State of the Art

The most commonly mentioned drivers of biodiversity loss, either in the media, on the

webpages of conservation NGOs or in nature documentaries, are direct drivers such as

poaching and habitat loss. However, the causes of habitat loss or degradation are rarely

accounted for in detail and range from agriculture, urbanization, forestry, resource extraction,

industry and tourism. Poaching can be seen as a sort of resource extraction, where a demand

for animal parts drives people to engage in illegal wildlife hunt. However, poaching is not the

only resource extraction that drives extinction of wildlife, and there are other, less obvious

drivers of biodiversity loss as well (Duffy 2010).

Many scholars argue that what these drivers all have in common is that they are driven

by human consumption choices (see for instance Brockington et al. 2008; Duffy 2010; Igoe

2010). With increasing consumption, unaware consumers and ineffective resource use, there

is an ever increasing demand for agricultural goods, forestry goods, and other resources such

as metals and oil. Even tourism stems from an increasing demand for what Polanyi refers to

as ‘fictitious commodities’ (1957), which can be defined as things, experiences or landscapes

that are sold through market transactions without originally having been produced for that

purpose (Carrier 2010). Hence, there is an inherent problem in the common portrayal of

poaching and habitat destruction as the main drivers of biodiversity loss, since it entirely

leaves out the complexities behind why these things happen, and therefore also leads to a

focus on solving the problems ‘on the ground’ rather than the underlying issues (Duffy 2010).

However, addressing underlying drivers is more complicated than focusing on direct drivers

such as poaching and trade in endangered species. Hence, CITES was established in order to

take the easier approach – to regulate, prohibit and control trade in endangered species in

order to “ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not

threaten their survival” (CITES 2016).

Based on the best data available on population sizes and trade quantities, CITES lists

endangered or threatened species in three different appendices: Appendix I prohibits all

international trade in the species that fall under this category; Appendix II entails that trade in

the species listed here is regulated and monitored through trade permits; and Appendix III

concerns species that are considered endangered or threatened in specific countries or regions.

However, since the convention is an MEA to which states adhere voluntarily, it does not take


3

the place of national laws, and can instead be seen as “a framework to be respected by each

Party, which has to adopt its own domestic legislation to ensure that CITES is implemented at

the national level” (CITES 2016). As with most MEAs, issues of enforcement, interpretation

and compliance are complex and provide significant challenges for the effectiveness of the

convention (Walsh 2005).

2.1. Stakeholders

Although this paper focuses on an international treaty between states, it is important to

consider that not only states are important or interested in the conservation of biodiversity, but

that there are many stakeholders involved. A stakeholder is commonly defined as “any group

or individual who can affect or is affected” by a decision or action (Freeman 1984:46), but

can also be expanded with the help of Starik’s claim that also the natural environment (living

and non-living) can be considered a stakeholder (1995). Since CITES aims to protect species

from extinction due to pressures from trade, the stakeholders that are relevant for CITES are

many times the same as the stakeholders that are relevant in the biodiversity issue area in

general, and this section will map out the most important ones.

In the public sector, there are several levels of government involved. Of course,

international organizations are key stakeholders, comprised by many different governments

working together. However, in a stakeholder analysis of a conservation area in Mozambique,

Mushove and Vogel (2005) identify for instance the provincial administration, the district

administration as well as sub-district administrative posts as important stakeholders as well.

Further, a study by Duffy (1999) highlights the role of the state in anti-poaching policies in

Zimbabwe. However, it is not only different levels of government that are involved in the

protection of biodiversity, but also different offices at the same level of government. Granted,

all states have varying ministries, but at the state level, involved stakeholders can range from

the ministries of tourism, natural resources and environment to the military, which is

employed to guard protected areas (Lunstrum 2014).

When it comes to the private sector, there is also an abundance of stakeholders

involved. Especially in the global South, paramilitary companies play a large role in anti-

poaching operations and in protecting national parks (Lunstrum 2014). Similarly, (eco-)

tourism operators in the global South have high stakes in the protection of biodiversity, since

wildlife is a main tourism attraction in biodiversity rich countries (Duffy 2002). Other

stakeholders in the global South are owners of private protected areas, which are becoming

increasingly common (Duffy 2010). The involvement of private actors has many times been

encouraged in order to ensure long term success, but it comes with problems of transparency


4

and a concern for whether their economic ambitions are prioritized higher than their

dedication to conservation (Duffy 2014; Hunter et al. 2012).

Due to the problematic nature of the biodiversity issue, the complexity of ecosystems

and the relative lack of data, experts are regularly consulted and involved in decision-making

processes (Martin et al. 2012). Hence, experts are important stakeholders in conservation.

According to Hagerman et al. (2010), experts in the biodiversity field are individuals in

governments, NGOs or academia. However, this is not an exhaustive list, and it is possible

that local populations or other citizens have expert knowledge to contribute with as well

(Elbroch et al. 2011). Out of the ones mentioned, however, NGOs are perhaps the most

debated, due to their recent rise in influence and capital. In fact, it has been argued that their

rise was highly dependent on the rise of the neoliberal economic paradigm, and that

conservation NGOs have become crucial to the spread of capitalism (Brockington &

Scholfield 2010; Scherrer 2009). Such critique has raised concerns about the fact that NGOs

have significant power over which conservation approaches are considered viable, over how

Western consumers view animals, landscapes and people in the global South, as well as what

type of knowledge is mediated and legitimized to the general public (Brockington &

Scholfield 2010).

Furthermore, there are several interest groups that can be considered stakeholders, and

the main ones identified are local populations and tourists. Starting with the local populations,

these are the interest groups that have been affected the worst by biodiversity loss and the

attempts to curb it. In order to save biodiversity, misguided conservation policies have forced

local populations out of protected areas, in spite of the fact that they have lived in harmony

with nature for generations (Brockington et al. 2008). In other cases, the local populations are

those that are most vulnerable to wildlife attacks, and hence constitute some of the strongest

protestors against conservation efforts (Rastogi et al. 2012).

Tourists in general are other stakeholders that can be argued to be affected by terrestrial

biodiversity loss and attempts to curb it. For many, wildlife and ‘wilderness’ is for everyone,

and should be preserved so that everyone can enjoy it (Cronon 1995; Igoe 2010). However,

when conservation policies such as protected areas are implemented, Western tourists can be

argued to be the ones that benefit the most. Protected areas, as a matter of fact, have been

argued to be a tool for opening up natural spaces in the global South for Western ecotourists,

while closing out the local populations (Duffy 2010:63).

While discussing stakeholders, it is also important to consider those that have a clear

stake in the matter, but cannot speak for themselves. In the case of biodiversity loss,

ecosystems and species can be argued to be such stakeholders, since the adopted definition of


5

stakeholders includes ‘any naturally occurring entity’. How to make their ‘voices’ heard is a

problematic questions, and although many have stepped forward to do so (for instance

Greenpeace and WWF), these ‘champions of the earth’ are not accepted by everyone (Bitzer

& Glasbergen 2015; Duffy 2010).

2.2. Diverging Views on CITES

In an investigation on the perceived effectiveness of CITES, Bowman (2013) argues that there

is ‘a tale of two CITES’ – two entirely different opinions on whether the approach taken by

CITES has the capacity to address the problem of illegal wildlife trade as well as the larger

issue of biodiversity loss. One camp, building on ideas of environmental protection and

ecocentrism, argues that the approach taken by CITES is the only right approach, and that by

banning, regulating and disincentivizing illegal hunting and trading in endangered species, a

great threat to the world’s biodiversity will be alleviated. Granted, within this camp, there are

mixed opinions on whether or not CITES manages to effectively enforce such trade bans and

restriction, but at least those adhering to this view believes in its potential (Bowman 2013).

The other camp is more critical. Taking an approach inspired by the neoliberal

economic paradigm, although to varying extent, the actors in this camp are convinced that

trade bans and restrictions will only push the trade underground, involving criminal leagues,

raising the prices and economic incentives, and inevitably causing more damage than good to

the biodiversity cause (Bowman 2013). Instead, trade should be legalized (but possibly

regulated in order to ensure sustainable use), which would reduce prices, remove economic

incentives for criminal leagues, and hence facilitate better monitoring and regulation.

Not only Bowman (2013) argues along these lines, but scholars such as Walsh (2005)

as well. However, if it is true that “while the vagaries of human nature are such that our

conservation endeavours are never likely to achieve spectacular success, a balanced approach,

which acknowledges a wide array of values and seeks to pay due regard to all of them, is the

one which offers the greatest prospect of rational progress in the long term” (Bowman

2013:238), is it not also important to investigate whether there are other relevant values as

well?

3. Research Question

Due to these seemingly oversimplified accounts of how different actors and stakeholders view

CITES and its approach to conservation, this paper will investigate whether there are other,

relevant paradigms or ways of thinking about CITES present in the debate. Hence, the

research questions posed are the following:


6

- How do CITES stakeholders view the convention and its approach to protecting

wildlife through trade bans and restrictions?

- Which environmental paradigms can be identified in the debate regarding CITES?

These questions will be answered by conducting a qualitative content analysis of four

different documents by four different stakeholders. The first research question aims to more

generally map out the different arguments present in the debate, while the second research

question aims to compare the four stakeholder approaches with four overarching

environmental worldviews, in order to see if similar divisions exist in the debate regarding

CITES.

Providing a more nuanced debate on CITES and the issue of illegal trade in species is

important since, if we ignore parts of the debate and the arguments made by those actors

adhering to other worldviews, we risk missing important insights on how to solve the

problem, or important details, connections or causes that cannot be seen from our

perspectives. Furthermore, social construction can be problematic, and if scholars,

policymakers or stakeholders are constantly told that only these two approaches exist, they

might end up even blinder to other solutions, or start to reinforce the two views themselves.

4. Theory

In their book on different paths to a green world, Clapp and Dauvergne (2011) present a

typology of four main global environmental worldviews and how they perceive causes of

environmental degradation as well as possible solutions to such problems. These four

overarching paradigms are market liberals, institutionalists, bioenvironmentalists and social

greens, and they are to be considered as ideal, somewhat exaggerated categories (although

there are certain individuals that adhere to the extremes as well). The thinkers that identify

with each category range from academics to policy makers and activists, and the framework is

therefore a good tool for mapping debates in the ‘real’ world, such as international

negotiations and activist campaigns (Clapp & Dauvergne 2011). This section will explain the

four paradigms in detail, and lastly provide an overview of their main characteristics.

4.1. Market Liberals

Market liberals, as indicated by their name, view free markets, globalization and economic

growth as the key to environmental health. Hence, they perceive poverty, failed markets, bad

policies and restrictive trade as the causes of environmental degradation (Dauvergne and

Clapp 2011). Sustainable development is defined as a win-win situation where economic

growth “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations


7

to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987), and this is argued to be possible since economic

growth leads to higher incomes which in turn generates funds and political will to reduce

environmental degradation.

Granted, market liberals admit that certain government functions might be necessary as

well as that economic growth might lead to increased economic inequality and initially,

deteriorating environmental conditions. However, although governments might need to

strengthen some institutions (such as those enabling free markets, free trade, property rights

and education for the poor), the ways in which they do so should be market based and kept to

a minimum. Similarly, although economic growth might exacerbate economic inequality,

everyone will eventually be better off, and although increased industrialization and

development might initially lead to more environmental degradation, it will eventually lead to

wealthy citizens that expect and demand higher environmental standards (Clapp & Dauvergne

2011).

Poverty is identified as a main driver of environmental degradation by market liberals,

but poor people are not blamed for these effects. Instead, they are seen as both victims and

agents of environmental degradation. In order to fight poverty, and ultimately save the

environment, technology and science are seen as key. As phrased by Clapp and Dauvergne,

“human ingenuity is seen to have no limits” (2011:6). This also causes market liberals to be

wary of precautionary policies unless the environmental effect of new technology or any

market-based approach can be demonstrated clearly. After all, according to market liberals,

potentially harmful goods or approaches can be adjusted afterwards, and their effects can be

counteracted with the development of even newer technology.

All in all, market liberals have a rather optimistic view on the state of environmental

affairs and whether or not our current problems can be solved. Population growth and

resource scarcity are not major concerns, and with the help of economic growth, free trade,

technology, adaptation and cooperation, most, if not all, environmental problems can be

solved (Clapp & Dauvergne 2011).

4.2. Institutionalists

Like market liberals, institutionalists believe in the value of economic growth, globalization,

trade and technology, and the two worldviews share the same definition of sustainable

development (Clapp & Dauvergne 2011). However, institutionalists argue that, if not

managed properly, globalization and market-based approaches can have detrimental effects,

and therefore, institutions are crucial in order to transform such processes into a force of good

for the environment. Hence, a lack of global cooperation and poorly designed institutions are


8

seen as key drivers of environmental degradation. Population growth, environmental scarcity

and economic inequality are real issues, but issues that can be overcome with the help of

strong and well-designed institutions as well as the spread of environmental norms.

In order to design strong institutions, and in that way save the environment,

institutionalists argue that environmental norms and principles of sustainable development

need to be internalized, “including into the decision-making processes of state bureaucracies,

corporations, and international organizations” (Clapp & Dauvergne 2011:8). Crucial aspects

of this are strengthening international environmental regimes, enabling or enhancing

technology transfers, donating funds to poorer countries in order to enhance their

environmental capacity, as well as implement “controls at all levels of governance, from the

local to the national to the global” (Clapp & Dauvergne 2011:8). Unlike market liberals,

technological innovations are not viewed uncritically, and institutionalists view the

precautionary principle as one of many environmental norms that need to be internalized and

enforced through collective action in the face of scientific uncertainty.

Although institutionalists view the state of environmental affairs slightly less optimistic

than market liberals, they do believe that with the help of the above mentioned components,

global economic policies will work to simultaneously improve environmental conditions and

eradicate poverty. The creation of an abundance of international institutions as well as the

many changes and improvements of these are seen as proof of progress.

4.3. Bioenvironmentalists

Bioenvironmentalists take an approach more inspired by the natural sciences, and argue that

there are biological limits to how much life our earth can support – often referred to as the

earth’s ‘carrying capacity’ (Clapp & Dauvergne 2011). Humans are seen as too

anthropocentric, and bioenvironmentalists therefore advocate a more ecocentric worldview

where the world as seen as one large, fragile ecosystem, where all species are equally

important. The abundance of environmental problems and disasters are emphasized as proof

and as the effects of what is really wrong in the world: human population growth and

economic growth. Together, these two causes have led us to consume far too much of the

earth’s resources, and some would even argue that we have overstepped our planet’s carrying

capacity.

When it comes to population growth, it is by bioenvironmentalists seen as something

that must be curbed since we are currently too many and too consumptive. Measures to lower

population growth include “expanding family planning programs in poor countries, and […]

curbs on immigration to rich countries where consumption problems are the worst” (Clapp &


9

Dauvergne 2011:11). Coercive government policies in order to achieve this goal are seen as

justified. Further, when it comes to economic growth, it is argued to be based on a faulty

economic assumption that infinite economic growth is possible with finite resources. Instead,

bioenvironmentalists argue, “a relentless drive to produce ever more in the name of economic

growth is exhausting our resources and polluting the planet” (Clapp & Dauvergne 2011:10).

In order to solve the problem of the constant strive for economic growth, we need to “revamp

economic models to include the notion of physical limits, which involved changing our

measures of ‘progress’ and the methods we use to promote it” (Clapp & Dauvergne 2011:11).

Although not commonly engaging in debates about globalization, the

bioenvironmentalists that do would argue that it contributes to further overconsumption and

environmental degradation. Indeed, it enhances economic growth, but since economic growth

is seen as a problem rather than a solution, this is not desirable. Furthermore, with

globalization comes the spread of Western consumption habits into other parts of the world,

as well as a ‘race to the bottom’, enabling the move of environmentally harmful production

processes to poor countries with fewer environmental regulations.

The bioenvironmentalist worldview is a rather gloomy one, where more is wrong than

right and where the proposed measures for improvement are complicated and long-term.

However, bioenvironmentalists might also be more realistic, and perhaps the solutions

proposed would be more effective than those of market liberals or institutionalists.

4.4. Social Greens

As indicated by their name, social greens see social and environmental problems as two sides

of the same coin (Clapp & Dauvergne 2011). The root causes of all environmental issues are

argued to be capitalism, injustice, inequality, domination and globalization. The ever

expanding quality of capitalism, accelerated by globalization and leading to increasing

industrialization, is seen as a cause of overconsumption by the rich while also forcing the poor

into unsustainable resource extraction.

Social greens share many of the bioenvironmentalist views, such as those regarding

carrying capacity, globalization and overconsumption. However, these problems are viewed

through a more post-colonial/social justice lens, where the main problem lies with the wealthy

Westerners and their ever increasing and complex domination over other parts of the world.

Such injustice is argued to be what drives environmental degradation, and globalization is

seen as an intensifier of these processes, since it “exacerbates the inequality within and

between countries”, “reinforces the domination of the global rich and the marginalization of

women, indigenous peoples, and the poor”, “assists corporate exploitation of the developing


10

world (especially labor and natural resources)”, “weakens local community autonomy and

imposes new forms of domination that are Western and patriarchal (local customs, norms, and

knowledge are lost […])” and “destroy[s] local livelihoods, leaving large numbers of people

disconnected from the environment in both rich and poor countries” (Clapp & Dauvergne

2011:13). Due to this focus on social justice, social greens do not sympathize with

bioenvironmentalist views on population growth and the suggested measures to curb it.

Instead, population control policies are seen as a threat to the self-determination of

marginalized people such as women and the poor, and the focus should instead be directed

towards the unsustainable overconsumption in the global North.

In order to solve the environmental problems of our time, major reforms are necessary

in order to curb overconsumption by the wealthy, and modern economic structures as well as

institutions need to be dismantled. A ‘back to the roots’ approach is advocated, where local

and small-scale economies will enable people to reconnect with and restore the natural

environment (Clapp & Dauvergne 2011). In order to reach such developments, social greens

emphasize the involvement and empowerment of marginalized peoples in all levels of

governance, since their knowledge is worth more than Western science.

All in all, social greens are perhaps the most radical of the four worldviews, with

solutions that seem even further away than those proposed by the bioenvironmentalists.

However, the focus on social justice should be seen as a welcome addition to the global

debates on environmental issues.

4.5. Summary

The categories presented above are not the only environmental worldviews out there, and in

real life, the lines that separate them are likely to be less clear-cut. From their description, it

becomes clear that there are alliances between different worldviews that might make it hard to

distinguish which actors should be categorized as what. However, the framework does

provide a general overview over the main schools of thought in the field, and they all have

strengths and weaknesses. For a summary of the main assumptions and arguments of the

different perspectives, see Table 1.


11

5. Method

In order to answer the research questions, a qualitative content analysis of stakeholder

statements on CITES will be conducted. Qualitative content analysis is a method, which

similar to its quantitative counterpart, is concerned with maintaining a systematic, replicable

and valid manner of analysis, but differs in that it also aims to uncover meanings, motives and

purposes in texts (Halperin & Heath 2012:310). With the help of the typology presented in the

theoretical framework, categories will be developed, which in turn will facilitate the

development of specific codes which are to be searched for in the material (Mayring 2000) –

see Table 2. These codes will enable the identification and labelling of passages of text that

are relevant to answering the research questions. Subsequently, the labelled passages will be

analyzed by comparing what is said (its underlying assumptions, suggested solutions and

claims of causes) to the four different worldviews.


12

5.1. Data Collection

Since the aim of this paper is to nuance the debate and investigate whether there are more than

merely two opposing views on the approach to conservation taken by CITES, the data

collection was based on keywords relating to the four worldviews presented by Clapp &

Dauvergne (2011). Hence, the following four google searches were conducted:

1. CITES wildlife trade poverty development

2. CITES wildlife trade poverty cooperation

3. CITES wildlife trade consumption reduce

4. CITES wildlife trade injustice community

The first three words of each search were included to reduce the amount of irrelevant results.

The fourth word is based on what each worldview sees as the main cause of environmental

problems, while the fifth word is based on what solutions they propose.

For each google search, the first relevant PDF was chosen as material. It was

considered relevant if it does not concern a specific country or region, if it is not published by

or in cooperation with CITES, and if it addresses causes and solutions of the wildlife trade

issue. The resulting four documents that will be analyzed are the following:


13

1. Dickson, B. (2002). International Conservation Treaties, Poverty and Development:

The Case of CITES (published by the Overseas Development Institute)

2. UNEP (2014). Illegal Trade in Wildlife

3. IFAW (2011). Stopping Illegal Wildlife Trade

4. Cooney, R., & Abensperg‐Traun, M. (2013). Raising local community voices: CITES,

livelihoods and sustainable use

Hence, the documents are produced by a range of different stakeholders: one is published by a

development institute, the second one by an international organization, the third is published

by an NGO and the last one is published in an academic journal. Although one statement per

type of actor does not guarantee any sort of representativeness, since actors of the same type

can adhere to different worldviews, it does fit the purpose of diversifying and nuancing the

debate.

6. Analysis

This section will provide the results and analysis of the coded material, and each subsection

will be organized in the order of the categories (in italic) provided in Table 2.

6.1. Stakeholder Document 1

The focus of the document published by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) is

undoubtedly economies. Development, economic growth and poverty reduction are key terms

throughout the document, and a clear stance is taken against “NGOs in the developed world

whose aims are not purely or even mainly conservationist” which have “used their large

membership and considerable resources to lobby Parties to ban trade, particularly in the so-

called ‘charismatic megafauna’” (Dickson 2002:1). CITES is viewed as a potentially

effective, but far too restrictive instrument for the purpose of conserving endangered species.

The state of biodiversity loss is not addressed at all in the paper. Since the author argues

for more effective ways to conserve biodiversity than by prohibiting trade in endangered

species, it is obvious that biodiversity loss is recognized as a problem, although perhaps not

an alarming one. The problem which is in focus, instead, is that trade prohibitions are not the

best way to achieve economic development.

The causes for biodiversity loss are argued to be poverty and bad policies. When

discussing how regulated trade in wildlife can contribute to sustainable development, it is

stated that “if a policy is to count as contributing to sustainable development, it must help to

reduce poverty” (Dickson 2002:3). Trade bans, on the other hand, reduce local populations’

benefits from and goodwill towards conservation. Hence, poverty is the underlying issue that


14

must be addressed. It is also argued that habitat loss and degradation are far greater threats to

wildlife than trade – but there is no mention of what drives these greater threats.

When it comes to the impacts of globalization, this is not addressed explicitly.

However, international trade is seen as a positive force for economic growth, conservation

and poverty reduction, although regulations are needed in order to ensure that trade in wildlife

is sustainable.

Dickson (2002) proposes several solutions, whereof all are geared towards addressing

poverty. A commitment to systematically linking CITES policies with attempts to address

rural poverty is advocated, and this can be achieved by realizing the positive link between

environment and development, realizing the beneficial role that sustainable trade in wildlife

can play in conservation, and using trade regulations rather than trade bans. The latter is

argued to result in a green-labelling of wildlife products, creating incentives for consumers to

engage in sustainable rather than unsustainable trade.

In sum, the document written by Dickson (2002) and published by the ODI is, perhaps

unsurprisingly, quite compatible with the market liberalist worldview. Granted, certain

regulations are advocated, which is more typical for institutionalists, but most other key

institutionalist features are missing, while almost all criteria for market liberalism are fulfilled

to a certain extent. What is missing, however, is an emphasis on science and technology.


In the report provided by UNEP (2014), the focus is sustainable development (imagined as a

win-win situation for economic growth and environment) and global cooperation. Although

the problem of wildlife trade is considered severe, CITES (and other biodiversity related

treaties) is argued to provide a strong and coordinated response to illegal trade in endangered

species.

The state of biodiversity loss and illegal wildlife trade is portrayed as acute. The report

starts with a shocking account of how the global rhino population has declined since the 20th

century and returns to the same topic towards the end of the document when providing data

on how many rhinos and elephants are slaughtered annually now compared to 20 years ago.

Furthermore, wildlife trade is argued to “threaten[s] the environment, deprive[s] communities

of their livelihoods, decrease[s] revenues for governments and businesses, and increase[s] the

probability of conflicts creating security risks – in addition to jeopardizing the survival of

some species” (UNEP 2014:28).

Causes of the issue are argued to be “poverty, poorly monitored borders, corruption,

and weak regulations and enforcement” (UNEP 2014:26), but also uninformed or uneducated


15

consumers. Hence, it is not consumption which is the problem, but the fact that consumers do

not know about the scale of the illegal wildlife trade, its impacts or how the commodities they

purchase have been obtained.

The report argues that the impacts of globalization have become increasingly well

understood, and that globalization connects producers and consumers of wildlife commodities

around the world. More specifically, the “expansion of economies, international commerce,

transportation, and the use of information and communication technology” have helped those

involved in illegal wildlife trade. However, with the help of global cooperation and

strengthened institutions, globalization can be channeled into something positive for

biodiversity.

The solutions to the problem, therefore, are regulations, enforcement as well as

education of consumers and producers. Collaboration between states and global organizations

on different levels of governance is seen as key, and exchange of information, development of

new technology as well as transfer of technology are crucial elements of such collaboration.

Not surprisingly, this document, produced by an international environmental

organization, adheres to the institutionalist worldview. Although there were some references

to ecosystems and some dramatic formulations of the problem which is more typical for

bioenvironmentalists, almost all typically institutionalist arguments were present.


The document prepared by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) puts heavy

focus on ecocentrism, consumption and global cooperation. With chapter headlines such as

“selling into extinction”, “running out of time” and “dying for ivory”, the report really does

paint a pessimistic picture (IFAW 2011). Criticism is directed towards CITES for allowing

stockpiles of ivory to be sold in 1997 and 2008, which is believed to have further fueled the

demand for wildlife products, and subtle hints of IFAW’s dismay can be found in

formulations such as “How is CITES supposed to protect animals?” (IFAW 2011:6, emphasis

added).

The state of biodiversity loss to wildlife crime is portrayed as dire. Illegal trade is

argued to push many species to the brink of extinction, and hence, poses a very real threat.

The emphasis, however, is not on ecosystems and biodiversity as a whole, but on individual

species and wild animals’ right to roam free in their natural habitats. This is stressed further

with the use of close-up images of charismatic species such as tigers and elephants, and with

information boxes of 10 different iconic species that are being threatened with extinction due

to illegal wildlife trade (IFAW 2011:4-5).


16

The causes identified are primarily increased consumption and increased accessibility

to wildlife products (for instance through the internet). Such consumption results in poaching

for body parts, illegal trade, and habitat destruction, and for all the iconic species mentioned

above, their main consumptive appeal is listed: parrots as exotic pets, tigers as trophies and

Chinese medicine, elephants for ivory, jewelry and souvenirs, and so on.

The impacts of globalization are not mentioned specifically, although the fact that

illegal wildlife trade is spanning the globe is highlighted several times. The subsection on

“Killing with Keystrokes”, i.e. purchasing wildlife parts over the internet, is inherently linked

with globalization, since the internet has opened up barriers between countries across the

globe. With statements such as “illegal trade over the Internet is killing wildlife”, it is safe to

say, that IFAW considered globalization, or at least certain aspects of it, to have detrimental

effects on wildlife and biodiversity.

In order to save the world’s wildlife, IFAW argues for solutions such as reducing

consumption, prohibiting trade in all threatened species, extinguishing poaching, and

protecting precious habitat. In order to do so, international cooperation needs to be enhanced

in order for conventions such as CITES to not only be words on a paper, and backed by strong

enforcement in the shape of “high penalties in countries where wildlife is poached or illegally

transported and in consumer countries such as China, the United States and countries within

the European Union” (IFAW 2011:4), training rangers for the poaching frontlines, tracking

internet trade, and educating consumers and tourists about illegal wildlife products.

All in all, the document produced by IFAW does not adhere to one of the four

worldviews in an as clear-cut manner as the previous two documents, but with its focus on the

extreme threat consumption poses to endangered species, ecocentrism and changing the

system on both production and consumption level, it does indeed fit within the frames of

bioenvironmentalism. However, the document also places importance on global cooperation,

and can perhaps therefore be classified as moderate or institutional bioenvironmentalism.


Just by reading the title of the fourth document you get a clear indication of what its main

focus is: empowerment of local communities. Arguing that CITES should take its effect on

the livelihoods of marginalized people as well as their potential effect on the effectiveness of

CITES seriously, it places great value on local knowledge, the interconnectedness between

wildlife and local communities, and social justice (Cooney & Abensperg-Traun 2013).


17

The state of biodiversity loss is not discussed in this paper at all. There are no alarming

figures and no discussion of the threats that biodiversity loss brings, except for in connection

to local populations and the effects that unsustainable wildlife use has on their livelihoods.

Since there is little, if any discussion, on the state of biodiversity loss, its causes are

also not explicitly mentioned. However, socioeconomic factors that worsen biodiversity loss

are explained and discussed in great detail: trade bans constrain the economic possibilities of

local populations to the extent that they may engage in illegal or unsustainable resource use,

and CITES regulations will be less effective and less educated if local knowledge is not heard

in decision-making processes (Cooney & Abensperg-Traun 2013). Furthermore, with their

massive reach and sizeable funds, conservation NGOs have a much larger influence on

CITES decisions than local populations, which creates an even more skewed power balance

for the peoples in the global South.

The impacts of globalization are not addressed, but the ways in which Western

countries address and have control over biodiversity issues in the global South is undoubtedly

a problem of globalization, and is undoubtedly seen as negative (as mentioned above).

As a result, the proposed solutions are based on empowering local communities in the

decision-making processes of CITES. Decisions need to take socioeconomic factors into

account and not just be based on biological and trade criteria. Trade prohibitions should be

avoided if they will have significant effects on local populations, and locals should be made

into partners with conservation, rather than enemies of it. Including such considerations will

not only be more socially just, but also guarantee better outcomes for conservation of

biodiversity.

All things considered, this article can be categorized as adhering to the camp of the

social greens. The unwavering focus on social justice, local/marginalized communities, and

the effects CITES has on these communities as well as the benefits they can bring to CITES

makes this classification quite obvious. However, statements such as “close linkages between

poverty and natural resources”, and the fact that the authors discuss livelihoods more in terms

of economic opportunities than as traditional livelihoods that are not part of a larger,

capitalistic system, lead this paper to argue that the authors are not radical social greens.

There are no references to de-globalization and de-growth as solutions to the problem, but

empowerment of the poor and marginalized is definitely the way to go.

7. Conclusion

In order to provide a more nuanced account of the ongoing debate regarding CITES and the

approach it takes to conservation of biodiversity, this paper has investigated how relevant


18

stakeholders view the convention. This was done by firstly conducting a literature review in

order to provide a background to the topic and situate the research, before moving on to the

formulation of more specific research questions. Secondly, the framework provided by Clapp

and Dauvergne (2011) was explained, followed by a description of the methodology used in

order to apply the theoretical framework to policy documents or statements from the chosen

stakeholders. This enabled the analysis to map how diverging views on CITES fit with larger

and more overarching environmental paradigms.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, since the data collection was tailored to the four different

worldviews, the research conducted here found that there are indeed more than two ways in

which stakeholders view CITES and its approach to conservation. Some stakeholders view

the convention as relatively effective and definitely the right way to go, but in need of even

stronger cooperation, enforcement and/or regulations, while others see it as ineffective and

misinformed, either on the basis of market logics or social justice. Further, some stakeholders

view it as a potential tool for increased human welfare, while others view it as a tool for

animal/ecosystem welfare or decreased social inequality.

The investigated stakeholders have hence been identified as market liberals,

institutionalists, bioenvironmentalists and social greens, although not all of them embody

perfect examples of their worldview. However, this is unlikely to be an exhaustive list. As

admitted by Clapp and Dauvergne (2011), the four environmental paradigms are in no way

the only existing views on our environmental problems, and the amount of worldviews out

there is further diversified by an abundance of combinations. Although it is likely impossible

to map and identify them all, paying more attention to their arguments and proposed solutions

is important for the future of CITES, endangered species and the overarching goal of

protecting biodiversity. Further research is important in order to evaluate the potentials and

pitfalls of the different proposed solutions, and the extent to which stakeholders adhering to

the different worldviews are included in biodiversity-related decision-making.


19

Bibliography

Bitzer, V., & Glasbergen, P. (2015). Business–NGO partnerships in global value chains: part of the solution or

part of the problem of sustainable change?.Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 12, 35-40.

Bowman, M. (2013). A Tale of Two CITES: Divergent Perspectives upon the Effectiveness of the Wildlife

Trade Convention. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 22(3), 228-238.

Brockington, D., Duffy, R., & Igoe, J. (2008). Nature unbound: Conservation, capitalism and the future of

protected areas. London: Earthscan.

Brockington, D., & Scholfield, K. (2010). The Conservationist Mode of Production and Conservation NGOs in

sub‐Saharan Africa. Antipode, 42(3), 551-575.

Carrier, J. G. (2010). Protecting the environment the natural way: ethical consumption and commodity

fetishism. Antipode, 42(3), 672-689.

CITES (2016). What is CITES? [online] Available at: https://cites.org/eng/disc/what.php (last accessed: March

28, 2016)

Clapp, J. and Dauvergne, P. (2011). Paths to a Green World: The Political Economy of the Global Environment,

2nd Edition. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Cooney, R., & Abensperg‐Traun, M. (2013). Raising local community voices: CITES, livelihoods and

sustainable use. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 22(3), 301-310.

Cronon, W. (1995) The trouble with wilderness: Or, getting back to the wrong nature. In Cronon, W. (ed.)

Uncommon ground: Toward reinventing nature. New York: W.W. Norton.

Dickson, B. (2002). International conservation treaties, poverty and development: the case of CITES. Overseas

Development Institute, Natural Resource Perspectives, 74, 1-4

Duffy, R. (1999). The role and limitations of state coercion: Anti‐poaching policies in Zimbabwe. Journal of

Contemporary African Studies, 17(1), 97-121.

Duffy, R. (2002). A trip too far: Ecotourism, politics, and exploitation. London: Earthscan.

Duffy, R. (2010). Nature crime: How we're getting conservation wrong. New Haven and London: Yale

University Press.

Duffy, R. (2014). Interactive elephants: Nature, tourism and neoliberalism.Annals of Tourism Research, 44, 88-

101.

Elbroch, M., Mwampamba, T. H., Santos, M. J., Zylberberg, M., Liebenberg, L., Minye, J., ... & Reddy, E.

(2011). The value, limitations, and challenges of employing local experts in conservation

research. Conservation Biology, 25(6), 1195-1202.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

Gomar, J. O. V., Stringer, L. C., & Paavola, J. (2014). Regime complexes and national policy coherence:

Experiences in the biodiversity cluster. Global Governance, 20(1), 119-145.

Hagerman, S., Dowlatabadi, H., Satterfield, T., & McDaniels, T. (2010). Expert views on biodiversity

conservation in an era of climate change. Global environmental change, 20(1), 192-207.

Halperin, S. & Heath, O. (2012) Political Research: Methods and Practical Skills. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Hunter, L. T. B., White, P., Henschel, P., Frank, L., Burton, C., Loveridge, A., Balme, G., Breitenmoser, C. &

Breitenmoser, U. (2012) Walking with lions: Why there is no role for captive-origin lions Panthera leo in

species restoration. Oryx, 47(1), 19-24.

https://cites.org/eng/disc/what.php


20

IFAW (2011). Stopping Illegal Wildlife Trade. [online] Available at:

http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/wildlife_trade_us_0.pdf (last accessed: March 28, 2016)

Igoe, J. (2010). The spectacle of nature in the global economy of appearances: Anthropological engagements

with the spectacular mediations of transnational conservation. Critique of Anthropology, 30(4), 375-397.

Lunstrum, E. (2014). Green militarization: Anti-poaching efforts and the spatial contours of Kruger National

Park. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(4), 816-832.

Martin, T. G., Burgman, M. A., Fidler, F., Kuhnert, P. M., Low‐Choy, S., McBride, M., & Mengersen, K.

(2012). Eliciting expert knowledge in conservation science. Conservation Biology, 26(1), 29-38.

Mayring, P. (2000) Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2).

Mushove, P., & Vogel, C. (2005). Heads or tails? Stakeholder analysis as a tool for conservation area

management. Global Environmental Change, 15(3), 184-198.

Polanyi, K. (1957). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of our Time. Boston:

Beacon Press

Rastogi, A., Hickey, G. M., Badola, R., & Hussain, S. A. (2012). Saving the superstar: a review of the social

factors affecting tiger conservation in India. Journal of environmental management, 113, 328-340.

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., ... & Nykvist, B. (2009). A safe

operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472-475.

Starik, M. (1995). Should trees have managerial standing? Toward stakeholder status for non-human

nature. Journal of business ethics, 14(3), 207-217.

Scherrer, Y. M. (2009). Environmental conservation NGOs and the concept of sustainable development. Journal

of Business Ethics, 85(3), 555-571.

UNEP (2014). Illegal Trade in Wildlife. [online] Available at:

http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2014/PDF/chapt4.pdf (last accessed: March 28, 2016)

Walsh, B. W. (2005). Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora: a CITES

Timeline. Selbyana, 92-102

WCED (1987). Our Common Future. [online] Available at: http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-

future.pdf (last accessed: March 28, 2016)

http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/wildlife_trade_us_0.pdf

http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2014/PDF/chapt4.pdf

http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf

http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf

Dahlman Ström, 2577122 - Final course paper

Documents

Transcript of Dahlman Ström, 2577122 - Final course paper