The world continues to fail to do enough to save species.
The 20th Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, concluded in Samarkand in December 2025, was hailed as a “historic step” in wildlife protection. Over 70 species of sharks and rays received new protections; the okapi and Galápagos iguanas were elevated to the highest level of protection; and the international ban on the ivory trade was upheld.
All true. All important. But terribly insufficient.
The reality is that COP20 has once again highlighted the structural limitation of CITES: always acting one step behind the crisis, always after the damage has already been done, always with compromises that betray science and the logic of conservation.
Yes, the massive inclusion of sharks and rays in Appendix I is a milestone, perhaps the most significant in the history of the Convention. However, the context should not be ignored: these species had already been in dramatic decline for years, some reduced to functionally extinct populations. Protecting them today means acknowledging yesterday’s collective failure.
And while we celebrate, illegal trade continues to thrive, often circumventing the very CITES lists that are supposed to stop it. There is a lack of oversight, a lack of resources, and a lack of adequate sanctions.
Among the most serious omissions are:
The refusal to protect all eels of the genus Anguilla, currently at the center of one of the most devastating illegal trades in the world. Once again, the choice is to leave the door open to their exploitation while populations collapse.
The reopening of the saiga horn trade, a decision that defies all ecological logic. The saiga is a symbol of evolutionary fragility and precarious survival. Reenabling international trade—even with quotas—is simply irresponsible.
The maintenance of ineffective status quos, in which many measures remain on paper because governments fail to invest enough in concrete implementation.
These choices reveal a system incapable of saying “no” when it really matters.
The decisions at COP20 do not reflect the state of global biodiversity: they reflect economic interests, diplomatic pressure, and geopolitical balances.
Scientists have been warning for years that we are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction, but the decision-making process remains slow, constrained, and bureaucratic.
The question is simple: what else would have to happen for species protection to become a priority?
We need an international system that protects species before they are decimated, not afterward. One that places conservation at the center, not the margins, of political negotiations.
Without radical transformation, upcoming conferences will focus on an ever-decreasing number of remaining species.
