Editing CITES (section)

===Approach to biodiversity conservation===
General limitations about the structure and philosophy of CITES include: by design and intent it focuses on trade at the species level and does not address habitat loss, [[ecosystem approach]]es to conservation, or poverty; it seeks to prevent unsustainable use rather than promote sustainable use (which generally conflicts with the [[Convention on Biological Diversity]]), although this has been changing (see [[Nile crocodile]], [[African elephant]], South African [[white rhino]] case studies in Hutton and Dickinson 2000). It does not explicitly address market demand.<ref name=Hill>Hill, 1990, "The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species: Fifteen Years Later," ''Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal'' 13: 231</ref> In fact, CITES listings have been demonstrated to increase financial speculation in certain markets for high value species.<ref>{{cite book |last1=van Uhm |first1=D.P. |title=The Illegal Wildlife Trade: Inside the World of Poachers, Smugglers and Traders (Studies of Organized Crime) |year=2016 |volume=15 |publisher=New York: Springer |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-42129-2 |isbn=978-3-319-42128-5 |url=https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319421285}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Zhu|first= Annah|year= 2020|title=Restricting trade in endangered species can backfire, triggering market booms|work= The Conversation|url=https://theconversation.com/restricting-trade-in-endangered-species-can-backfire-triggering-market-booms-124869}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|title=China's Rosewood Boom: A Cultural Fix to Capital Overaccumulation|first=Annah Lake|last=Zhu|date=2 January 2020|journal=Annals of the American Association of Geographers|volume=110|issue=1|pages=277–296|doi=10.1080/24694452.2019.1613955|doi-access=free|bibcode=2020AAAG..110..277Z }}</ref> Funding does not provide for increased on-the-ground enforcement (it must apply for bilateral aid for most projects of this nature).

There has been increasing willingness within the Parties to allow for trade in products from well-managed populations.  For instance, sales of the South African white rhino have generated revenues that helped pay for protection.  Listing the species on Appendix I increased the price of rhino horn (which fueled more [[poaching]]), but the species survived wherever there was adequate on-the-ground protection. Thus field protection may be the primary mechanism that saved the population, but it is likely that field protection would not have been increased without CITES protection.<ref name=Hutton>Hutton and Dickinson, Endangered Species Threatened Convention: The Past, Present and Future of CITES. London: Africa Resources Trust, 2000.</ref> In another instance, the United States initially stopped exports of bobcat and lynx hides in 1977 when it first implemented CITES for lack of data to support no detriment findings.[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ESSA_30_Aug_1977.pdf]  However, in this Federal Register notice, issued by [[William Yancey Brown]], the U.S. Endangered Species Scientific Authority (ESSA) established a framework of no detriment findings for each state and the Navajo nation and indicated that approval would be forthcoming if the states and Navajo nation provided evidence that their furbearer management programs assured the species would be conserved.  Management programs for these species expanded rapidly, including tagging for export,[https://www.fishwildlife.org/afwa-inspires/furbearer-management] and are currently recognized in program approvals under regulations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.[https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-50/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-23/subpart-E/section-23.69]