Our use of cookies

As early career scientists, it’s easy to be naïve about the ways that research informs policy and practice.

Whether student or lecturer, scientists often have little contact with the people who make policy or the places where decisions are made.

We are increasingly reminded of our responsibility to use our science to benefit society but our results will not magically inform better decision-making.

Understanding how science informs policy is critical to how we do our science: how to identify relevant questions, frame our ideas, find receptive audiences for our results, and ensure our results are responsibly used.

To this end, we joined a surprisingly small group of university scientists at the 66th Standing Committee Meeting of the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) in Geneva.

Protecting endangered species

CITES is the multilateral agreement among 181 countries that regulates the international trade of more than 35,000 species of flora and fauna. These are protected with different levels of stringency - from absolute trade bans, to rules that restrict trade quotas. This Standing Committee Meeting saw 500 participants, including 77 country negotiator teams, and dozens of non-governmental organisations discussing some of the world’s most threatened species.

Jacob is a lecturer at Lancaster University and has been working on wildlife trade and CITES issues since before his PhD but, like most of his colleagues, had never attended a related political negotiation. Sophie is completing an MSc in Ecology and Conservation at Lancaster Environment Centre, focused on CITES.  This was a perfect opportunity for us to dive into not only the science, but also the process of developing policy, on how to protect threatened species from trade.

During the Meeting, country representatives and NGOs addressed the surge in illegal elephant and rhino poaching, as well as the commercial trades in species such as pangolins (scaled-mammals), seahorses, lions, crocodiles, saiga antelope, hyacinth macaws, and poison arrow frogs.

The obvious solution is not always the right one

Negotiations involved not only discussions about whether to protect these species, but also complex question about how best to protect them from illegal trade. It may seem counter-intuitive, but simply banning all trade is not necessarily the most effective conservation strategy, nor is it always feasible in countries with weak legal enforcement.

For example, at the Meeting most Parties resoundingly supported the large-scale destruction of ivory stockpiles, and rejected the (previously considered) proposal of a legal regulated market trade for restricted quantities of ivory. While accepting that this decision was motivated by concern for species conservation and welfare, we also questioned the evidence basis behind these decisions. What are the impacts of stockpile destruction on consumer behaviour, ivory prices and illegal trade networks? Do they have clear conservation impacts, or do they just make us feel better?

The conference also addressed several proposals to increase species protection, from limited trade to complete bans. This “up-listing” process and it historical impacts on conservation have remained largely unevaluated, and are the focus of Sophie’s current research.  This meeting was an opportunity to see whether and how her results might eventually inform the CITES Convention.

Issues of captive breeding for trade (wildlife farming) and regulated trophy hunting of lions were also debated. As some of Jacob’s previous research has shown, the outcomes of these policies are not always as expected.  The Meeting called for further research into these topics, and Jacob now plans to tailor his own research agenda to help address policy-makers’ key questions.

The Meeting also placed entire bans on wildlife trade from three countries (Guinea-bissau, Liberia, Venezuela), which have recurrently failed to comply with requirements of the convention. However, these countries were not represented at the meeting and, one might argue, understandably struggle to comply with international trade standards.

Watching policy making in practice

As early career scientists, observing the five-day process was a tremendous education. While we may have had a stronger scientific foundation than some key players, we were helplessly naïve about the processes, protocols and politics of international conservation negotiations. We learnt about the factors, beyond science, that plainly shape wildlife trade decisions, including welfare concerns, broader geopolitical phenomena, interpersonal relationships among country negotiators and NGOs, emotions and economic concerns. How these play out in practice cannot be distilled from academic articles, but is critical to understanding how science is used and to shaping our own research.

We were also able to network with a range of important contacts including researchers, NGOs, delegates, donors and conservation practitioners.  These provide access to new case studies and prospective interviewees, hard to source without first-name introductions.

For students, this type of engagement presents a unique opportunity to contextualise learning. Sophie not only refined her research questions, but can now see better where she fits within a complex conservation world and has a clearer idea of where her future career may lie.

Being part of an international community meeting for a common goal was also a very positive experience. We sincerely believe that it is our responsibility, as students and faculty at the Lancaster Environment Centre, to become more frequent presences at this type of meeting. The scope for new, engaged science is clear, but getting these into the policy arena will require new, proactive engagement.