This is a topical issue that is relevant and widely discussed right now and keeps popping up in our daily local newspapers. 

The question of countries considering withdrawal from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is indeed a subject of significant international debate. There are some valid arguments on both sides of the story.

“Withdrawal from CITES” refers to a country leaving the Convention, often due to disagreements over wildlife trade regulations, particularly concerning elephant ivory, rhino horn, and trophy hunting. In this case, with a bloc of Southern African countries, including Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe, threatening this step to gain control over sustainable resource use for conservation funding, despite feeble concerns about weakening global biodiversity governance.

Pro-withdrawal perspective

The decision is quite complex and involves trade-offs between national sovereignty, economic interests, and global conservation goals. Southern Africa argues that CITES infringes on their sovereign right to manage their natural resources as they see fit. They believe that sustainable, legal trade in species like elephants and rhinos can provide economic incentives for local conservation efforts. They contend that conservation is more effective when wildlife has an economic value that can compete with other land uses. 

Banning trade, as CITES often does for certain species, removes this incentive and can lead to less effective conservation outcomes.

Dissenting nations argue that CITES decision-making can be politicised and may not adequately consider local conditions and conservation needs or the potential economic benefits of sustainable wildlife use. In addition, they argue that they can become disenfranchised when non-state actors and western countries or other member countries have undue influence, which can lead to “loss of decidability” for nations that are home to the wildlife populations in question or decisions that contradict local, science-based management approaches. These are disenfranchisement tactics.

They argue that controlled, legal trade in products like elephant ivory or rhino horn, if supported by sound scientific evidence, can generate significant revenue for conservation efforts and local communities, making wildlife economically competitive with other land uses. These are major economic incentives for conservation. They also argue that they should have greater authority over their natural resources within their own boundaries and that CITES should not impede their ability to manage national wildlife populations effectively.

In the end, polarisation within CITES can lead to a situation where dissenting nations feel their voices and scientific data are ignored, pushing them to consider withdrawal as a last resort, similar to Japan’s exit from the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 2019.

Conundrum

CITES mandates strict, secure management and annual reporting of elephant ivory and rhino horn stockpiles while maintaining a ban on international commercial trade. CITES also does not recommend a universal disposal method, and the decision to destroy or retain stockpiles rests with individual nations, though international sales are prohibited. But ironically, countries cannot draw potential economic benefits of such huge amounts of elephant ivory and rhino horn stockpiles for sustainable wildlife conservation.

As of recent reports in 2025 and earlier, the estimated value of Namibia’s elephant ivory and rhino horn stockpile combined is approximately N$1 billion. This is roughly equivalent to US $55-60 million, although actual market value can vary significantly from the official estimate. At the 20th Conference of the Parties (CoP20) to CITES, Namibia submitted three proposals: the down-listing of white rhinos (Proposal 9), the down-listing of black rhinos (Proposal 10), and approval to sell the country’s long-held stockpile (Proposal 13). All three proposals were voted down.

Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) countries collectively protect a substantial majority of the world’s elephants and rhinos, with estimates suggesting over 70% of Africa’s elephants and around 80% of Africa’s rhinos are found in the SADC region, and our scientists possess the most credible experience in managing them. But surprisingly, at the Conference of the Parties (CoP 20) to CITES, delegations from outside Southern Africa, including many from other regions with no elephant or rhino and no conservation burden, were siding with international NGOs campaigning against any form of legal trade.

Reform perspective

Indeed, some conservationists and other CITES parties argue that a country’s withdrawal would significantly weaken the entire framework for global wildlife trade governance. 

Admittedly, this would undoubtedly also weaken the global integrity of CITES and damage the Convention’s credibility and create a precedent for others to leave global environmental treaties when facing polarisation. This may drive the risk of increased illegal trade by driving trade from a regulated framework to unregulated countries or illegal sources. These could worsen poaching and black-market activity, making enforcement more difficult across the globe. Therefore, there must be some kind of positive shift driven by evidence in global conservation thinking and a greater international openness on the matter.

In closing, international cooperation is considered crucial for biodiversity conservation. 

Therefore, in order to address these tensions and prevent potential CITES disintegration or collapse, CITES should tend to focus on enacting reforms to its structure, such as increasing flexibility for conservation; adopting normal processes that incorporate the value and circumstances of local stakeholders; and implementing inclusive decision-making and voting reforms that give range states more say over conservation strategies for natural resources within their own boundaries.

Internal reforms and compromise are preferable to withdrawal to ensure the long-term effectiveness of global wild trade governance. While countries can legally leave CITES due to disagreements, doing so is generally viewed as a failure of international cooperation and could significantly weaken global biodiversity conservation efforts. 

This problem needs to be fixed “at the drop of a hat” (immediately and without hesitation).

*Maj. Gen. (RTD) J. B. Tjivikua is a criminal intelligence analyst.