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.

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)

Dahlman Ström, 2577122 - Final course paper

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Dahlman Ström, 2577122 - Final course paper

Dahlman Ström, 2577122 - Final course paper