International Wildlife Law: Understanding and Enhancing Its Role in Conservation

Many conservation professionals are familiar with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Ramsar Convention, and the World Heritage Convention. Regional instruments, such as those focusing on Africa, Antarctica, or Europe, are also conspicuous features of the conservation arena. Other international wildlife agreements focus on particular species, such as polar bears or albatrosses, or particular transboundary protected areas, such as the huge Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (see table 1). These agreements are collectively known as international wildlife law (Bowman et al. 2010). The binding agreements themselves are typically accompanied and informed by an evolving set of nonbinding instruments, such as Conference of the Parties (COP) decisions and action plans. In our experience, some conservationists harbor high (and possibly unrealistic) hopes about what international wildlife law can achieve. Others are extremely skeptical, viewing wildlife treaties as paper tigers and their COPs as a waste of resources. Still others are simply unsure of the relevance of these intergovernmental affairs. Confusion, ignorance, and misinterpretation are common. Our view is that international wildlife law offers significant opportunities for conservation success and has promising but largely unfulfilled potential. We explore concisely the limitations of international wildlife regimes, as well as their actual and potential contributions to biodiversity conservation. We then argue that it is worthwhile to invest in making the most of international wildlife law for conservation by following a selective, informed approach. To that end, we issue a call for increased cooperation between international wildlife lawyers and other conservation professionals.