- Bill is illiberal, harmful to conservation efforts
Dr Francis Vorhies, a world-renowned conservation economist, asserts that the proposed UK’s Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill 2023-24 is both illiberal and harmful to conservation efforts, as well as detrimental to local communities in the source countries.
A well-researched document, titled, "Elephant in the Room: Why a Trophy Hunting Ban Would Hurt Conservation and Development," was published this month. Supported by scientific evidence, it bolsters one of the expensive efforts of Botswana and her SADC sister countries, who strongly oppose the UK government’s intent to pass the Bill.
Dr Vorhies has a notable background in conservation economics, with a focus on expanding and diversifying Africa’s wildlife economy. He is the founding director of the African Wildlife Economy Institute at Stellenbosch University and a research visitor at the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit at the University of Oxford.
His past roles include serving as the academic director of the School of Wildlife Conservation at the African Leadership University, chief economist at the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and resource economist at the African Wildlife Foundation.
In his new research, he argues that the proposal overrides existing CITES regulations, which provide an internationally agreed framework for sustainable and legal wildlife trade, including specific provisions for hunting trophies. The proposed Bill banning the trade also creates an unusual post-Brexit dependency on EU wildlife trade regulations by referring to EU annexes for species listings, rather than relying solely on CITES appendices.
Dr Vorhies describes the Bill as “an illiberal measure that undermines the UK’s commitment to WTO trade liberalisation and to the CITES measures that promote sustainable and legal trade of wild species”. He argues that the Bill is anti-conservation, as it weakens the ability of exporting countries and their local communities to benefit from the sustainable use of their wildlife.
Instead of an outright ban on the importation of hunting trophies, Dr Vorhies suggests that the UK government could adopt a more nuanced and selective approach, which would support both trade liberalisation and wildlife conservation. He also advises that rather than acting unilaterally, the UK should adhere to the established multilateral, rules-based framework.
Dr Vorhies notes that the UK, as a founding member of the WTO, now has the opportunity to represent itself as a sovereign nation in WTO negotiations and disputes following its departure from the EU. A recently published House of Commons Library Research Briefing (Peres 2024) highlights the UK’s recognition of the WTO’s importance in liberalising trade, curbing protectionism, and fostering resilient trade relations.
The briefing explains that the principle of comparative advantage underpins the WTO’s rationale for trade liberalisation and its efforts to reduce protectionist practices. According to this principle, countries should allocate their financial, human and natural resources toward producing goods they can make more efficiently than others and then trade those goods for products that other countries excel at producing.
This approach aims to boost trade flows, enhance efficiency, foster competition, and stimulate innovation, ultimately giving consumers access to the best products at the most competitive prices.
In contrast, illiberal trade measures, such as this Bill, disregard the principle of comparative advantage and instead impose trade restrictions that diminish trade flows and limit consumer choices.
"The Bill is entirely incompatible with the UK’s membership in the WTO," Dr Vorhies says, citing official statements like the one made by the UK Trade Secretary earlier this year at the 13th WTO Ministerial Conference (Department for Business and Trade, Hands and Badenoch 2024).
"Free trade creates jobs, opportunities for businesses, and puts money in people’s pockets. We want to see more barriers removed; not new ones erected. This bill creates new barriers, restricts trade, and reduces business and employment opportunities."
However, there is one aspect of the WTO agreements that might be interpreted as supporting the Bill’s restrictive import ban: Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), particularly paragraphs b and g (WTO 2024a).
According to Dr Vorhies, Article XX allows for General Exceptions, which states that, provided such measures are not applied in a way that results in arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where similar conditions exist or as a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in the Agreement should prevent the adoption or enforcement of measures by any contracting party that are: (b) necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health; (g) related to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources if such measures are applied alongside restrictions on domestic production or consumption.
The government might argue that the Bill is related to "the conservation of exhaustible natural resources," if it can demonstrate that the import prohibition is indeed an effective conservation measure, as supporters of the Bill claim. However, there is considerable debate surrounding the Bill's effectiveness in conserving hunted species.
He notes a study that highlighted the following (Challender et al. 2023): If past trade patterns are a reliable indicator of future imports, the claim that the Bill would alleviate pressure on many threatened species legally hunted for trophies is not supported by evidence. Other threats, such as unregulated hunting, poaching, and retaliatory killings, pose much greater risks to most species imported into the UK as hunting trophies.
The bill could also undermine conservation efforts that benefit from legal trophy hunting. While more research is needed to fully understand the potential impacts, the bill could reduce revenue for conservation areas that rely on such hunting to fund management activities, including law enforcement and anti-poaching efforts, which are crucial in addressing other threats to species and habitats.
Additionally, the bill could have a detrimental, even devastating, effect on Indigenous peoples and local communities who depend on legal trophy hunting for both monetary and non-monetary benefits, such as cash income, meat, and employment opportunities.
Furthermore, Article XX stipulates that any trade restriction must not be ‘a disguised restriction on international trade.’ The bill is undeniably a restriction on international trade, and the UK is already a Party to an international trade agreement—CITES—that governs such matters.
Additionally, the UK is a Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and a signatory to the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), both of which, advocate for the sustainable and legal trade of wild species. Dr. Vorhies points out that in addition to being a founding member of the WTO, the UK has been a Party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) since 1976. CITES implements measures to ensure that the trade in endangered species is sustainable (non-detrimental) and legal.
Article XX(g) links the WTO to CITES, with CITES trade measures generally recognized as legitimate exceptions to GATT rules. The US prohibition on shrimp and shrimp products, based on Article XX(g), is often cited as supporting evidence for the role of CITES in regulating the trade in wild species (WTO 2024b).
As noted in a joint report on the WTO and CITES, ‘there has not been any WTO dispute directly challenging a CITES trade measure’ (WTO 2015). As an illiberal trade measure, the bill contradicts the UK’s stated policy of "tearing down barriers rather than putting up new ones." However, it must also be considered in light of the UK’s role as a Party to CITES.
Vorhies argues that the UK is undermining its position because CITES is an international agreement established to ensure the sustainable and legal trade of endangered wild species. CITES was created following a resolution by the General Assembly of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 1963, agreed upon by 80 countries in 1973, and implemented in 1975. Trophies were specifically addressed in the original
IUCN resolution, which noted that many rare and endangered species were threatened with extinction due to illegal export from their native countries. The resolution suggested that illegal exports could be reduced if other
countries prohibited their import.
Therefore, the 8th General Assembly of IUCN, held in Nairobi in 1963, recommended that the practical and political challenges of illegal export be studied and that an international convention regulating the export, transit, and import of rare or threatened wildlife species, including their skins and trophies, be drafted and presented to governments for approval by the relevant international organizations, potentially during a global conference
convened for this purpose).
He notes that the UK was an active member of IUCN at the time and played a significant role in the first CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP) in 1976, where it submitted numerous proposals on regulating trade in wild species.
For example, the UK emphasized that "All rhinoceros’ species are endangered, and tight control of trade in them is necessary." Today, the UK government offers detailed guidance for anyone seeking to import or export specimens of CITES-listed species, including hunting trophies (Animal and Plant Health Agency, Department for Environment and Food & Rural Affairs 2013).
Under CITES, member countries must first agree that a particular wild species is threatened by international trade, and then determine the appropriate trade measures to mitigate this threat. This is achieved by listing the species under one of three appendices e.g., Appendix I: List’s species that are the most endangered among CITES-listed animals and plants.
Appendix II: includes species that are not currently threatened with extinction but may become so unless trade is strictly regulated. Appendix III: Contains species listed at the request of a Party that already regulates trade in the species and needs the cooperation of other countries.
The CITES agreement outlines specific measures for permitting trade in listed species. Dr Vorhies highlights that Appendices I and II are particularly relevant to the trophy hunting bill, and the key trade measures for these appendices include:
Export of Appendix I and II species: An export permit is only granted when the following conditions are met: (a) A Scientific Authority in the exporting country advises that the export will not harm the species' survival, and (b) A Management Authority in the exporting country confirms that the specimen was not obtained in violation of the country’s wildlife protection laws.
Import permit for Appendix I species: An import permit is only granted when the following conditions are met: (a) A Scientific Authority in the importing country advises that the import will not harm the survival of the species, and (b) A Management Authority in the importing country confirms that the specimen is not intended for primarily commercial purposes.
In other words, trade in species listed on either Appendix I or Appendix II requires an export permit based on a non-detriment (sustainability) finding and a legal acquisition finding.
Trade in Appendix I species also requires an import permit based on a non-detriment finding for the purpose of the import and confirmation that the import is not primarily for commercial purposes.
Hence, under CITES, an internationally agreed-upon system to which the UK is an active Party is in place for regulating the trade in endangered species specimens, including hunting trophies.
This system recognizes the sovereignty of countries in making decisions about export and import permits, notably with respect to the sustainability and legality of trade.
The import prohibition of this bill, on the other hand, ignores this system to which the UK has been a Party for decades and declares most illiberally that hunting trophies from any endangered species cannot be imported.
A well-researched document, titled, "Elephant in the Room: Why a Trophy Hunting Ban Would Hurt Conservation and Development," was published this month. Supported by scientific evidence, it bolsters one of the expensive efforts of Botswana and her SADC sister countries, who strongly oppose the UK government’s intent to pass the Bill.
Dr Vorhies has a notable background in conservation economics, with a focus on expanding and diversifying Africa’s wildlife economy. He is the founding director of the African Wildlife Economy Institute at Stellenbosch University and a research visitor at the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit at the University of Oxford.
His past roles include serving as the academic director of the School of Wildlife Conservation at the African Leadership University, chief economist at the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and resource economist at the African Wildlife Foundation.
In his new research, he argues that the proposal overrides existing CITES regulations, which provide an internationally agreed framework for sustainable and legal wildlife trade, including specific provisions for hunting trophies. The proposed Bill banning the trade also creates an unusual post-Brexit dependency on EU wildlife trade regulations by referring to EU annexes for species listings, rather than relying solely on CITES appendices.
Dr Vorhies describes the Bill as “an illiberal measure that undermines the UK’s commitment to WTO trade liberalisation and to the CITES measures that promote sustainable and legal trade of wild species”. He argues that the Bill is anti-conservation, as it weakens the ability of exporting countries and their local communities to benefit from the sustainable use of their wildlife.
Instead of an outright ban on the importation of hunting trophies, Dr Vorhies suggests that the UK government could adopt a more nuanced and selective approach, which would support both trade liberalisation and wildlife conservation. He also advises that rather than acting unilaterally, the UK should adhere to the established multilateral, rules-based framework.
Dr Vorhies notes that the UK, as a founding member of the WTO, now has the opportunity to represent itself as a sovereign nation in WTO negotiations and disputes following its departure from the EU. A recently published House of Commons Library Research Briefing (Peres 2024) highlights the UK’s recognition of the WTO’s importance in liberalising trade, curbing protectionism, and fostering resilient trade relations.
The briefing explains that the principle of comparative advantage underpins the WTO’s rationale for trade liberalisation and its efforts to reduce protectionist practices. According to this principle, countries should allocate their financial, human and natural resources toward producing goods they can make more efficiently than others and then trade those goods for products that other countries excel at producing.
This approach aims to boost trade flows, enhance efficiency, foster competition, and stimulate innovation, ultimately giving consumers access to the best products at the most competitive prices.
In contrast, illiberal trade measures, such as this Bill, disregard the principle of comparative advantage and instead impose trade restrictions that diminish trade flows and limit consumer choices.
"The Bill is entirely incompatible with the UK’s membership in the WTO," Dr Vorhies says, citing official statements like the one made by the UK Trade Secretary earlier this year at the 13th WTO Ministerial Conference (Department for Business and Trade, Hands and Badenoch 2024).
"Free trade creates jobs, opportunities for businesses, and puts money in people’s pockets. We want to see more barriers removed; not new ones erected. This bill creates new barriers, restricts trade, and reduces business and employment opportunities."
However, there is one aspect of the WTO agreements that might be interpreted as supporting the Bill’s restrictive import ban: Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), particularly paragraphs b and g (WTO 2024a).
According to Dr Vorhies, Article XX allows for General Exceptions, which states that, provided such measures are not applied in a way that results in arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where similar conditions exist or as a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in the Agreement should prevent the adoption or enforcement of measures by any contracting party that are: (b) necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health; (g) related to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources if such measures are applied alongside restrictions on domestic production or consumption.
The government might argue that the Bill is related to "the conservation of exhaustible natural resources," if it can demonstrate that the import prohibition is indeed an effective conservation measure, as supporters of the Bill claim. However, there is considerable debate surrounding the Bill's effectiveness in conserving hunted species.
He notes a study that highlighted the following (Challender et al. 2023): If past trade patterns are a reliable indicator of future imports, the claim that the Bill would alleviate pressure on many threatened species legally hunted for trophies is not supported by evidence. Other threats, such as unregulated hunting, poaching, and retaliatory killings, pose much greater risks to most species imported into the UK as hunting trophies.
The bill could also undermine conservation efforts that benefit from legal trophy hunting. While more research is needed to fully understand the potential impacts, the bill could reduce revenue for conservation areas that rely on such hunting to fund management activities, including law enforcement and anti-poaching efforts, which are crucial in addressing other threats to species and habitats.
Additionally, the bill could have a detrimental, even devastating, effect on Indigenous peoples and local communities who depend on legal trophy hunting for both monetary and non-monetary benefits, such as cash income, meat, and employment opportunities.
Furthermore, Article XX stipulates that any trade restriction must not be ‘a disguised restriction on international trade.’ The bill is undeniably a restriction on international trade, and the UK is already a Party to an international trade agreement—CITES—that governs such matters.
Additionally, the UK is a Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and a signatory to the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), both of which, advocate for the sustainable and legal trade of wild species. Dr. Vorhies points out that in addition to being a founding member of the WTO, the UK has been a Party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) since 1976. CITES implements measures to ensure that the trade in endangered species is sustainable (non-detrimental) and legal.
Article XX(g) links the WTO to CITES, with CITES trade measures generally recognized as legitimate exceptions to GATT rules. The US prohibition on shrimp and shrimp products, based on Article XX(g), is often cited as supporting evidence for the role of CITES in regulating the trade in wild species (WTO 2024b).
As noted in a joint report on the WTO and CITES, ‘there has not been any WTO dispute directly challenging a CITES trade measure’ (WTO 2015). As an illiberal trade measure, the bill contradicts the UK’s stated policy of "tearing down barriers rather than putting up new ones." However, it must also be considered in light of the UK’s role as a Party to CITES.
Vorhies argues that the UK is undermining its position because CITES is an international agreement established to ensure the sustainable and legal trade of endangered wild species. CITES was created following a resolution by the General Assembly of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 1963, agreed upon by 80 countries in 1973, and implemented in 1975. Trophies were specifically addressed in the original
IUCN resolution, which noted that many rare and endangered species were threatened with extinction due to illegal export from their native countries. The resolution suggested that illegal exports could be reduced if other
countries prohibited their import.
Therefore, the 8th General Assembly of IUCN, held in Nairobi in 1963, recommended that the practical and political challenges of illegal export be studied and that an international convention regulating the export, transit, and import of rare or threatened wildlife species, including their skins and trophies, be drafted and presented to governments for approval by the relevant international organizations, potentially during a global conference
convened for this purpose).
He notes that the UK was an active member of IUCN at the time and played a significant role in the first CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP) in 1976, where it submitted numerous proposals on regulating trade in wild species.
For example, the UK emphasized that "All rhinoceros’ species are endangered, and tight control of trade in them is necessary." Today, the UK government offers detailed guidance for anyone seeking to import or export specimens of CITES-listed species, including hunting trophies (Animal and Plant Health Agency, Department for Environment and Food & Rural Affairs 2013).
Under CITES, member countries must first agree that a particular wild species is threatened by international trade, and then determine the appropriate trade measures to mitigate this threat. This is achieved by listing the species under one of three appendices e.g., Appendix I: List’s species that are the most endangered among CITES-listed animals and plants.
Appendix II: includes species that are not currently threatened with extinction but may become so unless trade is strictly regulated. Appendix III: Contains species listed at the request of a Party that already regulates trade in the species and needs the cooperation of other countries.
The CITES agreement outlines specific measures for permitting trade in listed species. Dr Vorhies highlights that Appendices I and II are particularly relevant to the trophy hunting bill, and the key trade measures for these appendices include:
Export of Appendix I and II species: An export permit is only granted when the following conditions are met: (a) A Scientific Authority in the exporting country advises that the export will not harm the species' survival, and (b) A Management Authority in the exporting country confirms that the specimen was not obtained in violation of the country’s wildlife protection laws.
Import permit for Appendix I species: An import permit is only granted when the following conditions are met: (a) A Scientific Authority in the importing country advises that the import will not harm the survival of the species, and (b) A Management Authority in the importing country confirms that the specimen is not intended for primarily commercial purposes.
In other words, trade in species listed on either Appendix I or Appendix II requires an export permit based on a non-detriment (sustainability) finding and a legal acquisition finding.
Trade in Appendix I species also requires an import permit based on a non-detriment finding for the purpose of the import and confirmation that the import is not primarily for commercial purposes.
Hence, under CITES, an internationally agreed-upon system to which the UK is an active Party is in place for regulating the trade in endangered species specimens, including hunting trophies.
This system recognizes the sovereignty of countries in making decisions about export and import permits, notably with respect to the sustainability and legality of trade.
The import prohibition of this bill, on the other hand, ignores this system to which the UK has been a Party for decades and declares most illiberally that hunting trophies from any endangered species cannot be imported.
