Demystifying CITES: Why African Media Must Tell the Full Story of Wildlife Trade

Mbabane, Eswatini – As journalists from across Africa gather for training on Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), one treaty stands out for both its importance and its complexity: the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Yet for many reporters, even those covering environmental beats, CITES remains misunderstood. It is often reduced in public discourse to simplistic slogans about “banning poaching” or “saving wildlife,” obscuring the real negotiations, compromises, and national interests that shape the treaty.

The training session here in Eswatini sought to bridge that gap—making the legal and technical details accessible, and challenging African journalists to move beyond slogans to tell clear, human-centred stories about CITES and Africa’s stake in it.

Adopted in 1973 and put in force in 1975, CITES now has 185 Parties—including all African countries and the European Union. Its core mission is to ensure that international trade in wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival.

But, as trainers emphasized, CITES does not ban all wildlife trade. Instead, it regulates trade through a system of permits and appendices:

Appendix I lists species threatened with extinction. Commercial trade is banned, but scientific or non-commercial trade may be permitted under strict conditions.

Example: the Northern White Rhino, now nearly extinct. Earlier exports to European zoos are being explored as a way to help reintroduce the species in Africa.

Appendix II covers species not currently threatened but at risk if trade isn’t controlled. Trade is allowed but requires scientific findings—non-detriment findings—proving that exports won’t harm populations.

Trainers likened this to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)—a rigorous scientific process, not a rubber stamp.

Appendix III is the “Help Me” list. A country can unilaterally list a species to request help controlling its export. Importing countries then need proof the specimen didn’t come from that country illegally.

For African negotiators, the CITES conversation is never just about wildlife. It is equally about development, sovereignty, and justice.

One of the trainers, Norah Kendeli Mugita Project Officer, Regional Office for Africa at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) said Africa’s biggest objective is to develop.

“Sometimes we want to sell these species to get funding for conservation itself.”

But this collides with positions from major trading partners. The EU demands stricter bans and tighter controls, arguing that trade drives demand and fuels poaching. China—once the world’s largest ivory market—banned domestic ivory trade in 2017 but balances a crackdown on illegal trade with exploration of sustainable use. The United States closes loopholes under its Endangered Species Act but has its own carve-outs, like limited trophy imports.

Nowhere is this tension clearer than in the debate over elephant ivory. Many African states have large stockpiles of ivory collected before bans were imposed. Some want to sell this ivory in controlled one-off sales, using the money for conservation.

However, critics argue that even controlled sales send the wrong signal, fueling demand and encouraging new poaching.

“We want to sell it to conserve elephants,” an African negotiator explained, “but CITES is saying no.”

Dr. Oduetse Oldman Koboto, the MEA Coordinator of the Sustainable Environment and Blue Economy Directorate of the African Union Commission (AUC) Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Blue Economy, and Sustainable Environment said the tension between sustainable use and strict protection defines Africa’s negotiating stance. The African Union and its Africa Group of Negotiators (AGN) insist decisions must be science-based and socio-economically informed, balancing conservation with development.

The session also highlighted a critical blind spot in many CITES debates: local communities and indigenous people.

“African ministers call for livelihoods and benefit-sharing to be central,” Dr Koboto reminded participants.

Yet studies of media coverage of recent CITES Conferences of the Parties (COPs) show almost no mention of these human dimensions—even though communities living with wildlife often bear the costs of conservation decisions.

Against this backdrop, journalists were challenged to transform how they report on CITES.

Too often, coverage is simplistic:

Framing CITES meetings as generic “wildlife conferences,” ignoring the treaty’s trade rules.

Omitting human stories about who benefits or suffers from decisions.

Failing to explain terms like non-detriment findings in clear language.

Trainers urged journalists to:

 Demystify jargon—explain terms and processes in accessible ways.

 Connect global decisions to local impacts—who gains, who loses?

 Include conservation and development angles—showing how communities balance protection with livelihoods.

 Use credible data and tell complete stories—from negotiation rooms to local villages.

Case studies drove the message home.

Nigeria was called out in global media for being the top exporter of pangolin scales—highlighting weak enforcement despite being a CITES Party. Kenya received praise for effective ivory-smuggling enforcement, with trained dogs intercepting illegal shipments at airports.

“These stories show the power of media,” Dr Koboto concluded. “You can hold governments accountable or showcase success. But you need to understand the issues first.”

Participants were urged to follow upcoming negotiations, including the next CITES COP in Uzbekistan in December 2025.

They were also encouraged to attend or cover African forums like the Africa Ministerial Conference on Environment (AMCEN), which shapes regional negotiating positions, and to stay connected with the African Union’s environmental agenda.

CITES is not simply about banning trade. It is about managing it—balancing conservation and development in ways that are scientifically sound, socially just, and economically viable.

For African journalists, the responsibility is clear: tell that full story.