Criteria for CITES species protection—Response

Abstract

Challender et al. argue against a near-automatic pathway from the IUCN Red List to a listing proposal in CITES for species that are threatened with extinction and can be linked to international wildlife trade. They emphasize that the Red List and CITES use different criteria when making their assessments and listing decisions. We respect the fact that the two institutions evaluate species using different criteria, but we nonetheless stand by our recommendation. A near-automatic pathway will ensure that Red List assessments are not overlooked or neglected. It will be up to CITES to then apply its own set of criteria when drafting the proposal, discussing it, and voting on whether to list the species in Appendix I or II. A determination from CITES that the party members have reviewed the case brought on by the Red List assessment and have decided not to list the species will be important and informative. Absent such a pathway, it is difficult to know whether a given species was assessed informally by CITES and deemed unworthy of protection from trade or whether it was overlooked. The Red List assessment process will also benefit if the CITES party members can convey to IUCN what factors went into their decision not to list a species on either Appendix. Even if international trade is not the primary threat to an imperiled species, it nonetheless contributes to its endangerment. We think CITES should err on the side of caution and seek to halt even minor amounts of trade for gravely imperiled species. Conservation policy on a global scale, which involves 183 party members, is a complicated challenge. Better use of the Red List assessments can help ensure that species get reviewed when there is a risk they might go extinct in the wild due partly to trade.