CITES enters into force, shielding over 40,900 species from trade

Story: 1975 C.E.  |  Last updated: January 1, 1975

On July 1, 1975 C.E., an international agreement unlike anything before it became binding law for the nations that had signed it. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora — known worldwide as CITES — did not ban hunting or habitat destruction. It targeted something more specific and, at the time, far less regulated: the global marketplace for wildlife and wildlife products. That quiet entry into force marked the first time the international community had created a working system to govern what crossed borders in the name of the animal and plant trade.

Key facts about CITES

• CITES treaty: The convention was opened for signature on March 3, 1973 C.E., in Washington, D.C., after 80 countries sent representatives to finalize the text — earning it the informal name the Washington Convention.
• Species protection: The framework now covers more than 40,900 species of animals and plants, assigning each to one of three appendices that reflect the severity of the threat posed by international trade.
• Global participation: As of June 2025 C.E., 185 parties — including 184 states and the European Union — have joined the convention, making it one of the most widely adopted conservation agreements in history.

Why the trade problem was so urgent

By the early 1970s C.E., wildlife trade had become a massive and largely invisible industry. Luxury furs, exotic pets, ivory carvings, and traditional medicines were moving across borders with little oversight. The International Union for Conservation of Nature had recognized the problem as far back as 1963 C.E., when it passed a resolution calling for an international agreement. But turning that resolution into a functioning treaty took another decade of diplomacy.

The core insight behind CITES was simple but powerful: if a species is being pushed toward extinction by demand in one country and supply from another, no single government acting alone can fix it. The solution had to be multilateral, and it had to operate at the border.

How the permit system works

CITES does not replace national laws. It creates a framework that each member country agrees to implement through its own domestic legislation. When a species listed under CITES crosses an international border — alive, dead, or as a product — the transaction requires permits issued by designated authorities in both the exporting and importing countries. Scientific advisors within each government must confirm that the trade will not harm the species’ survival in the wild.

The three appendices carry different levels of protection. Appendix I covers species threatened with extinction, where commercial trade is essentially prohibited. Appendix II covers species that could become threatened if trade goes unmanaged. Appendix III allows individual countries to list species they need help controlling within their borders. The system is flexible enough to accommodate everything from live parrots to powdered rhino horn to manta ray gill plates.

The CITES Secretariat, currently led by Ivonne Higuero of Panama — the first woman to hold the position — coordinates among parties and oversees three working committees. Its three official languages are English, French, and Spanish, a small but deliberate signal that this is a genuinely global institution, not a Western-led one.

The treaty’s reach has grown with the threats

When CITES entered into force in 1975 C.E., much of its focus was on the demand for luxury goods in wealthy Western nations — mink coats, crocodile handbags, and elephant ivory trinkets. Over subsequent decades, as economic growth shifted and new consumer markets emerged, so did the pressures on wildlife. The convention adapted. Species once considered safe — manta rays, certain shark species, dozens of tree varieties — were added to the appendices as the data showed trade was taking a toll.

The convention also extended protections to plants in ways that early conservationists had barely anticipated. Orchids, cacti, and timber species like rosewood now appear in the appendices, reflecting an understanding that wildlife trade is not just about animals.

Research consistently shows the permit system reduces illegal trade pressure on listed species, even if it cannot eliminate it entirely. A study published in Nature Communications found that CITES listing significantly reduced trade volumes for monitored species, with the strongest effects seen in Appendix I listings.

Lasting impact

CITES established the template for international environmental governance. The model — voluntary participation, binding obligations on those who join, a secretariat to coordinate, and a permit system to operationalize the rules — has been borrowed and adapted for agreements on climate, biodiversity, and hazardous waste. It proved that sovereign nations could agree to constrain their own economic activity for a shared ecological goal, and that a system built on paperwork and border checks could actually change behavior.

The convention also helped build a global infrastructure of wildlife monitoring. The TRAFFIC network, which monitors wildlife trade around the world, grew in part because CITES needed better data. That data infrastructure now informs conservation decisions far beyond the treaty itself.

For communities in species-rich regions — across sub-Saharan Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Latin America, and the Pacific — CITES has given local governments a legal basis to push back against extraction driven by distant markets. It has not always been used effectively or equitably, but the framework exists where none did before.

Blindspots and limits

CITES has never fully solved the enforcement problem. Permits can be forged, borders are porous, and species listed under Appendix II continue to be traded in volumes that raise serious questions. Critics have also noted that the treaty’s permit system can, in some cases, provide cover for laundering illegally obtained specimens alongside legal trade. The convention’s emphasis on international trade also means it does not address habitat destruction — often the larger driver of species loss — at all. Some Indigenous and local communities have argued that restrictions on traditional use of wildlife, applied without adequate consultation, have been imposed from outside without accounting for sustainable practices that long predate the conservation movement.

Read more

For more on this story, see: CITES — Wikipedia

For more from Good News for Humankind, see:

• Ghana establishes the Cape Three Points marine protected area
• Uganda reintroduces rhinos to Kidepo Valley
• The Good News for Humankind archive on marine conservation

About this article

• 🤖 This article is AI-generated, based on a framework created by Peter Schulte.
• 🌍 It aims to be inspirational but clear-eyed, accurate, and evidence-based, and grounded in care for the Earth, peace and belonging for all, and human evolution.
• 💬 Leave your notes and suggestions in the comments below — I will do my best to review and implement where appropriate.
• ✉️ One verified piece of good news, one insight from Antihero Project, every weekday morning. Subscribe free.