From the Saiga antelope in Kazakhstan to the whale shark in the Indian Ocean, the world’s legal wildlife trade has expanded regulation over more species. For half a century, it has been institutionalised that controlled commerce in wildlife and their derivatives can meet human needs while supporting the survival of wildlife. In this context, the 20th Conference of the Parties (COP20) of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), a global body overseeing wildlife trade, was held in the historical city of Samarkand, Uzbekistan, from November 24 to December 5. As it marks its 50th year, the emerging question is whether CITES effectively contributes to the conservation and management of wildlife.
CITES, the 185-member countries meet once in three years as the COP, which helps avert over-exploitation and illegal trafficking, facilitates recovery, and prevents the risk of extinction of the species. CITES regulates international trade by listing species in Appendices I, II and III based on their level of threat. While enlisting in Appendix I allows a limited trade in exceptional circumstances such as scientific research, Appendix II includes controlled trade in order to avoid over-exploitation. At last, Appendix III allows trade among range states, even the species protected in one country. Nearly 40,900 species – including roughly 6,610 species of animals and 34,310 species of plants – are protected under three lists of CITES. Meanwhile, the COP20 reviewed 50 proposals submitted by members while adding 78 new species to the CITES Appendices. Moreover, it can be labelled as an example of meeting the targets of SDG 14, life below water, as 50 marine species were added to the lists.
Among other outcomes of COP20, the enlisting of Guggul (Commiphora wightii), an endangered shrub found in India, Pakistan and Oman and the withdrawal of scrutiny of Vantara, the largest private wildlife rescue and care centre in Jamnagar, are worth mentioning. Initially, the EU, a non-range state, proposed listing Guggul in Appendix II for trade restrictions. India objected to the move due to the unavailability of a scientific assessment of the plant in the wild. The Guggul gum, a valuable oleo-gum resin, has been used for its medicinal properties in Ayurvedic, Unani, and Sidha systems of medicine for centuries. Due to unsustainable harvest or overexploitation, habitat degradation or fragmentation, the population was estimated to have declined by over 80 percent in the wild. As expected, Pakistan supported the EU proposal of listing due to the dwindling population. Initially, the proposal was rejected by open voting. Subsequently, an amended annotation by Pakistan to exclude finished products ready for retail trade of the Guggul was adopted by secret ballot by the COP20.
One of the least discussed, but highly political, issues is the large-scale import of wildlife into Vantara facilities. In September, CITES raised concerns about India’s implementation of enforced mechanisms on large-scale imports of wildlife to Vantara, a privately owned facility, and asked India not to issue any further import permits to the facility. However, India defended its laws and regulatory practices, citing a recent Supreme Court order that stated that animal acquisitions by Vantara complied with national and CITES requirements. With support from the US, Japan and Brazil, the CITES has withdrawn the reservations against India, thereof Vantara. This is one of the high-profile private cases in the CITES defended by a host government, which otherwise has been very strict in its approach to protecting endangered species; most are rehabilitated in Vantara.
Since 1976, as a signatory to CITES, India’s active participation has been anchored in the principle of precautionary approach and science-based decision making with an effective conservation ethos and commitment to protecting endangered species. Noting the fact that India is one of the 17 mega-biodiverse countries in the world. Four of 34 global biodiversity hotspots are in India. Therefore, the stakes are very high for India in CITES, in addition to its unilateral wildlife protection measures. The Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act (1972) and its amendments have aligned with the provisions of CITES. With only 2.4 percent of the earth’s land area, India hosts 96,000 species of animals, 47,000 species of plants, and nearly half the world’s aquatic plants. Arguably, with the porous international borders and a large appetite for poaching and overharvesting domestically for commercial purposes, India becomes one of the high-profile routes of illegal trafficking of live wildlife and its derivatives. From 2020 to 2024, India registered 2,822 wildlife trafficking cases in all the States and Union Territories. The highest cases were registered in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Assam and Odisha, mostly the bordering states of Nepal and Bangladesh.
The Illegal wildlife trade, which can be termed as green crimes or environmental crimes, is an illegal activity harming the environment by exploiting natural resources. While the legal wildlife trade is estimated to be an annual average of $2.3 trillion in the world, the illegal wildlife trafficking has grown to an annual $ 25 billion. During a global operation from mid-September to mid-October in 2025 by INTERPOL and the World Customs Organisation (WCO), with the support of the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife and Forestry Crime (ICCWC), authorities of 134 countries made a total of 4640 seizures of illegal trafficking of wildlife and their derivatives, which includes 30000 live animals and 10 tonnes of plants. Ironically, the majority of the seized items from the global operation are protected under CITES. This is just a month’s haul.
Recently, one of the ancient trade routes between India and Southeast Asia has been infamous for illegal trade in wildlife and their derivatives. We are looking at only the aerial route. For instance, the nearly 66 seizures of exotic wildlife species reported at international airports in Chennai, Bengaluru, and Mumbai between 2023 and 2025 represent just about 10 percent of the total contraband, indicating that the actual volume of illegal trade is likely ten times higher. Officials at airports in Malaysia had foiled at least 10 attempts to smuggle wildlife in passenger luggage to India between January and July 2025. They have rescued 4,958 wild animals from 32 species of mammals, reptiles and birds.
Domestically, in Odisha, like other states with contiguous international borders, six elephant tusks were seized in Keonjhar between August and early December. At the same time, 50 antlers of spotted deer were found inside the Bhitarkanika National Park in Kendrapara. In September, two leopard skins, a live Pangolin and a tiger skin were seized in Rayagada and Kalahandi districts, respectively. 1062 river turtles were rescued from smuggling in Malkangiri in August. In December, four leopard skins bearing gunshot marks were seized near Sambalpur. It is being acknowledged that more than 7000 poachers were arrested for killing and trafficking of 4000 wildlife animals during the past 11 years in Odisha.
This covert industry is ranked as the fourth most lucrative criminal enterprise in the world. The wildlife trade is incredibly diverse, encompassing live animals, plants and a wide range of wildlife products. Despite its global significance, CITES is not bereft of its weaknesses. So far, CITES has only been focusing on regulating trade rather than addressing the root causes of declining species, such as habitat loss and socio-economic linkages. In addition, the enforcement of provisions of CITES is inconsistent across the range countries of species, leading to loopholes that poachers and traffickers are grossly abusing. For example, India and its neighbouring countries do not have equivalent laws and regulations regarding illegal trafficking or poaching of endangered species. At last, even the listing process of animals is hugely influenced by political and economic interests, overriding or delaying scientific assessments. Above and beyond, the CITES success in protecting species depends on the cooperation among range states, stronger enforcement, periodic capacity building of enforcement officials, and minimising corruption at the local level with predictable financial assistance.
**Dr Avilash Roul is an International Advisor on Transboundary Water and Climate Change Risk, and also a Senior Fellow at the Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict (SSPC), a Delhi-based think tank. The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of IndiaVerve.
