A History of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Implementation in Nepal

Abstract

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is a conservation and trade convention regulating international trade in wild species listed under its various appendices. Party nations are required to have designated scientific and management authorities to administer CITES and, ideally, domestic enabling legislation for proper implementation. However, the complexity of the convention makes it difficult to implement in resource-constrained nations that lack expertise and commitment. Apart from the lack of resources and expertise in much of the global south, hurdles to CITES implementation arise from delays in the formation of necessary legislation, apathy in enforcing the legislation, and the gatekeeping of resources by leading government agencies. Nepal has a long and well-documented history of wildlife conservation and is party to most major global environmental conventions, although it has frequently lacked the ability to implement them fully. Recently, Nepal has formulated domestic policies and developed institutions supporting biodiversity conservation but still refrains from formulating and implementing some provisions. After a long history of only partial (at best) compliance, Nepal enacted domestic CITES-implementing legislation, the CITES Act of 2017, with progressive provisions for enforcement, wildlife farming, and resource utilization and conservation. Here, we used a mixed methods research approach involving published and gray literature reviews and key informant interviews with concerned stakeholders to understand the workings and modality of authorities under the 2017 Act. We explore its nuances and discuss potential challenges for its implementation over time. Though the new policy has many positive aspects in that it is progressive in shifting away from more classical, strict protection, we found that there are still shortcomings within national administrative structures and a lack of policy that coordinates and informs different government offices of their responsibilities and how they interface under the current federal system. This has resulted in ongoing obstacles to achieving fuller CITES implementation to date and, in some cases, also inhibits sustainable uses of biodiversity.

1. Introduction and Background

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is a multilateral agreement that regulates the trade of various species at risk of extinction from uninterrupted transnational trade [1]. Discussions about threats posed by international trade to the existence of many rare species led the initiative to propose an international convention to address the issue at the seventh (1960) and eighth (1963) IUCN General Assemblies. By the late 1960s, the first list of at-risk species was developed, and this eventually gave rise to the drafting and signing of CITES in 1973, which came into force after the 10th ratification in 1975 [2,3,4]. CITES is a multinational environmental agreement that addresses both the conservation and international trade of CITES-listed plants and animals globally [5] using bans or permits depending on the threat level [6]. It is governed by the text of the convention that now has 185 parties [7]. Article II of CITES gives the fundamental principles for categorizing species into Appendices I, II, and III, respectively. Species listed in Appendices I are at high risk of extinction and are generally only allowed in international trade for scientific, captive breeding, and other noncommercial uses. Species listed in Appendix II are not necessarily threatened currently but could become so if trade is unregulated; quotas for their trade are developed and regulated through import/export permits. Appendix II also allows for the listing of look-alike species that can be also traded with permits. Species listed in Appendix III are protected by individual countries such that international trade from those countries may be prohibited or limited.

Legal wildlife trade under CITES has two major requisites: the fulfillment of non-detrimental findings (NDFs) and legal acquisition findings (LAFs) by importing countries from exporting countries before importing any CITES-listed specimens [8]. Under NDFs, the exporting country’s scientific authority must certify that exporting Appendix I and Appendix II species will not harm their survival in the wild, while under LAFs, the management authority must confirm that the trade complies with local law [9]. CITES Article IX requires the designation of at least one management and one scientific authority by each party for administrative and regulatory purposes [10].

The main purpose of CITES is to “Ensure compliance with the implementation and enforcement of the Convention”, and the first objective is for “parties to comply with their obligations under the Convention through appropriate policies, legislation, and procedures”. Article VIII requires each party to adopt domestic implementing legislation as CITES is not easily self-executing [11]. By 1993, nearly 20 years after CITES came into force, there was a growing realization that CITES had not achieved its full potential and that more research on the status of species and criteria for listing was needed [12]. At CITES’ 40th anniversary, Cuozens [13] argued that species-level conservation advanced by CITES is limited as the complexities of biodiversity became better understood and that more global conservation approaches should be focused on protecting habitats and ecosystems. Others criticized CITES for ignoring the economic prospects for wildlife trade and disregarding the livelihoods of rural communities [14,15].

Apart from that, implementing CITES becomes problematic for the species listed in Appendix II because of its look-alike provisions, as restricting trade in common species that are similar to rare species can increase black market demand [16]. Implementation becomes even more complex when species are traded in processed forms, further complicating enforcement [17]. Myriad political and economic factors, and the complexities of species identification, add to the difficulty of CITES implementation for both terrestrial and marine species. For example, there is a high demand for seahorses which creates a profitable market with low risks of detection and punishment due to the ability to conceal their products within larger shipments, making enforcement challenging [18] with evidence from Nepal [19]. The vastness and inaccessibility of marine areas lead to significant gaps in regulatory oversight [20]. In addition, e-commerce and social media have facilitated illegal wildlife trade without the barriers associated with cross-border transactions [21,22]. Political and economic factors play an important role in the effectiveness of CITES implementation in many developing countries that lack the necessary resources and infrastructure [23,24].

2. CITES in Nepal

Nepal began its era of wildlife conservation policy with the passage of the 1973 National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (NPWCA), which adopted strict preservationist approaches common at the time. The legislation evolved to include more local participation and benefit sharing as the protected area system (0.6% of the country in 1973 with just one protected area and now covering over 20% of the country) expanded, and many wildlife populations were recovering [25]. The 1973 Act dealt mostly with establishing protected areas and controlling poaching [26]. Nepal realized the concerns of trade-related conservation issues and was the first Asian country to ratify CITES, although it failed to pass domestic implementing legislation as required by Article VIII [11] for many years (below). Because of this, Nepal was listed as a Category III nation, i.e., one lacking proper implementing legislation based on the CITES National Legislation Project of 2015 [27]. Nepal achieved this objective after passing the CITES Act, 2017, which changed it to a Category II nation (partial implementation) after COP 19 of 2023. Fully implemented CITES Category I nations have four components of CITES implementation: designation of management and scientific authorities, prohibition of trade in species listed on CITES Appendices, penalization of trade violations, and confiscation of illegally traded or possessed specimens [28].

Nepal arguably made slow progress as it took 42 years from the time it became a party to CITES before enacting implementing legislation. However, it did so in coordination with other laws such as the Constitution of 2015; NPWCA, 1973; Forest Act, 1993; Export and Import (Control) Act, 1957; Customs Act, 2007; Environment Protection Act, 1996, and several other regulations in the past. In addition to these efforts, Nepal supported the establishment of the South Asia Wildlife Enforcement Network (SAWEN), community-based anti-poaching units around its protected areas, and the country collaborated with the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau of India to combat internal and transboundary wildlife crime, so it had implemented CITES to some degree [29]. A recent study mentioned 52 available legal tools for the conservation, cultivation, and trade of orchids in Nepal [30], for example; however, orchids are widely cultivated and important in Nepal’s non-timber forest policy [31] and information is lacking for most other native CITES-listed species. Many of those older laws are not well enforced and many agencies lack the capacity to investigate or prosecute wildlife crimes [32].

Nepal has a rich biodiversity [33] in which major internal illegal wildlife trade nodes [19] and many CITES violations for common leopards, pangolins, Bengal tigers, and others have been uncovered [19,34,35,36]. It faced partial CITES trade embargoes in 2008 and 2012 for inadequate reporting and in 2008 for inadequate control of the ivory trade [37]. There have been significant spates of poaching and illegal transboundary trade with both India and China [38,39,40,41,42] and as the major trade route between them [43,44,45,46]. Unregulated wildlife trade also poses threats to human and livestock health [47] and is increasing [48], as are economic losses and crimes related to wildlife trade [49,50]. The CITES website regularly updates CITES-listed species by country [51]. The list of protected species from Nepal has been published at various times over the years [29,31,51,52,53] and has trended upwards. By 1995, 127 species native to Nepal were listed [31] and by 2014, the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan mentions 182 native listed species, excluding all species of cycads and orchid listed in Appendix II due to similarity of appearance [54]. This was updated by the 17th CoP in 2016, and the Department of Plant Resources includes 171 native CITES-listed plants, with an additional 14 species likely native but not yet reported from Nepal [29].

The latest publication by Nepal’s Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), published in 2018/19, lists 73 mammals, 113 birds, 29 reptiles, 2 amphibians, 3 butterflies, and 417 plants native to Nepal and listed in CITES, again excluding all species of cycads and orchids listed in Appendix II [51]. Nepal is a member of SAWEN, which is a regional inter-governmental body with the mission to strengthen, promote, and coordinate regional cooperation to combat illegal wildlife trade with eight South Asian countries (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) [55]. Nepal has also formed the Wildlife Crime Control Coordination Committee at the ministerial level to combat illegal wildlife trade at the National level with the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, Wildlife Crime Control Unit, and community-based anti-poaching units at the regional and community levels [31]. Here, we review aspects of Nepal’s older conservation-related laws, the caveats of Nepal’s relatively new CITES Act, 2017 [56], and discuss the roles and limitations of the CITES-appointed national authorities.

3. Research Framework

We adopted the general research framework of Jacobson and Weiss [57] to assess national implementation and compliance with treaty instruments in light of the enactment of Nepal’s CITES Act, 2017. This framework broadly considers the capacity of the government to adhere to conventions based on national laws, treaty complexity, and funding and staffing issues of agencies required for implementation. Especially relevant is assessing the country’s ability to monitor compliance, its enforcement capacity, and the political and economic circumstances in which the treaty is under implementation. We used a mixed-methods qualitative approach of document reviews and key informant (KI) interviews [58,59]. Key informants include working professionals from different government offices that are part of the compliance structure outlined in the CITES Act, 2017, and related laws [56,60]. All were informed of the nature and purpose of the study and guaranteed anonymity. No compensation was provided to the KI for giving the interview.

We also collected data on delegates at the CITES Conferences of Parties (CoPs) from www.cites.org to assess the country’s scientific and management authorities’ participants. We incorporate selected key informant statements combined with findings from various pieces of the literature such as policy documents (acts, regulations, by-laws, government reports), scientific articles, the grey literature published from 1973 to 2024 from government websites, www.cites.org (24 August 2024), and IUCN portals, including international journals, and concluded our thoughts on the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the new legislation on existing wildlife-related trade issues.

3.1. Nepal’s CITES Act, 2017, and Regulations

Nepal’s CITES Act, 2017 [56], has 38 articles and 7 chapters and categorizes species and subspecies into 3 appendices: threatened (Appendix I, e.g., Chinese pangolin, Eurasian otter, Himalayan monal); vulnerable (Appendix II, e.g., common myna, Alexandrine parakeet, Indian egg-eating snake); and protected (Appendix III, e.g., common jackal, striped hyena, sweet smelling bulbophyllum orchid), collectively referred to as endangered wild fauna and flora (

Table 1. Chapter, articles, and provisions of the CITES Act, 2017.

SN	Chapter Number	Article Number	Provisions
1	Preamble		Introduction to the act.
2	1: Preliminary:	I	Short title, extension, and commencement
3	1	II	Definition
4	2: Provisions concerning Transactions of Endangered wild fauna or flora or specimen thereof	III	Prohibition on trade or transaction of threatened or vulnerable wild fauna or flora or specimen thereof
5	2	IV	License to be requested
6	2	V	Advice to be required for granting license
7	2	VI	License granting provisions.
8	2	VII	Threatened species of wild fauna or flora or specimen
9	2	VIII	Transaction of protected wild fauna or flora
10	2	IX	Certificate of origin and export permission
11	2	X	Special provisions concerning re export
12	2	XI	No risks to the existence of fauna or flora
13	2	XII	To have become a state party to Convention
14	3: Provisions concerning Registration of the Endangered wild fauna or flora or specimen thereof	XIII	Endangered species of wild fauna or flora to be registered
15	3	XIV	Imported endangered wild fauna or flora or specimen thereof to be registered
16	3	XV	Not to Transfer
17	4: Provisions concerning Management Authority and Scientific Authority	XVI	Management Authority
18	4	XVII	Functions, Duties and Powers of Management Authority
19	4	XVIII	Scientific Authority
20	4	XIX	Functions, Duties and Powers of Scientific Authority
21	5: Offences and Punishment	XX	Offences deemed to be committed
22	5	XXI	Punishment:
23	5	XXII	To be confiscated
24	6: Investigation and Filing of Cases	XXIII	Investigation Officer
25	6	XXIV	Accused Person may be remanded to custody:
26	6	XXV	Filing of a Case
27	6	XXVI	Court to Try the Cases
28	7: Miscellaneous Provisions	XXVII	Extraordinary Powers of Government of Nepal
29	7	XXVIII	Non-application when in transit
30	7	XXIX	Not to be deemed to be used for commercial use
31	7	XXX	Management of confiscated wild Fauna or Flora or their specimen
32	7	XXXI	Endangered Fauna or Flora National Coordination Committee
33	7	XXXII	Publication of Names of Wild Fauna and Flora
34	7	XXXIII	Records of details to be maintained
35	7	XXXIV	Fund may be created
36	7	XXXV	Awards may be granted
37	7	XXXVI	To be according to the laws in force
38	7	XXXVII	Rules may be formed
39	7	XXXVIII	Directives may be formulated

). The act describes the roles and responsibilities of the scientific and management authorities as mentioned in Article IX of CITES. It identifies the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) and the Department of Forests and Soil Conservation (DoFSC) as management authorities. Similarly, the Natural History Museum (NHM) and the Department of Plant Resources (DPR) are scientific authorities.

Subsection 2 of Article III provides provisions for captive breeding, selling, transporting, and importing and exporting endangered wild fauna and flora after obtaining a license from the management authority. Subsection 1 of Article V provides the provisions to seek advice from the scientific authority before granting a license and only determining that the activity will not be detrimental to the existence of endangered fauna and flora. Provisions for granting licenses are described in Article VI. Article VII describes specimen types, and Article VIII allows for trade of protected species by those holding a license. At the same time, Subsection 5 enables the government to revoke licenses. Article IX allows the management authority to certify origin, import, and export licenses for protected species and Article X provides for re-exporting licenses.

Article XII allows the management authority to monitor persons, organizations, or agencies obtaining a license for trade in specimens, which can only be carried out with countries that are party to CITES. Articles XIII, XIV, and XV of Chapter 3 provide for registering retained or imported endangered wild specimens, which cannot be transferred without management authority consent. Articles XVI, XVII, XVIII, and XIX of Chapter 4 identify the management and scientific authorities and describe their functions, duties, and powers concerning advisory roles, certificate issuances, coordination, monitoring, granting licenses, etc.

Chapter 5 provides provisions for punishment of offenses and Chapter 6 provides powers to investigate and file cases under the act. Depending on the severity of the crime, imprisonment from 1 month to 15 years and/or fines from one hundred thousand to one million Nepalese rupees (NRs) can be assessed. Punishment is also allowed for abetting wildlife crime or contravening any clause. Article XXII allows authorities to confiscate specimens, weapons, and vehicles used in crime. Article XXVII allows the government to donate specimens of listed species to foreign institutions (e.g., zoos) that support conservation in the country.

Article XXXI allows for the formation of the cross-sectoral Endangered Fauna and Flora National Coordination Committee to include the Secretary of the Ministry of Forests and Environment as a convener and task them with recommending policies for conservation. Article XXXII provides for publishing the names of listed wild fauna and flora in the Nepal gazette, and Article XXXIII directs the management authority to keep detailed records on licenses and registration certificates. Information on all parties and specimens involved in any facet of the wildlife trade is published annually. Article XXXIV provides funds to confiscate endangered fauna and flora and Article XXXV empowers the management authority to grant awards for providing information for any offenses under the act. Articles XXXVII and XXXVIII allow the government to make and publish rules for its implementation.

The regulations of the act were prepared based on the provisions of Article 37 and have five parts, each describing a particular section [60]. Part 1 is the preamble, which gives the title and definitions of relevant terms, while Part 2 lists the provisions related to permits, and Part 3 gives the rules related to species registration, naming, and ownership transfer. Part 4 explains the duties of the management and scientific authorities, and part 5 describes miscellaneous regulations regarding species management planning, quantifying gifts to foreign countries, determining exhibition fees, and choosing laboratories for testing specimens. Similarly, there are provisions for identifying the proper appendix of specimens to be listed and for conducting coordination council committee meetings, publicizing annual reports, managing funds, and amending schedules.

Regarding these provisions, several key informants (KIs) from the management authority and scientific authority expressed the following opinions:

“…We have enough laws to implement CITES, and now, by enacting CITES, 2017, we have made the use of natural resources so complex that even collecting wild vegetables can be in the same basket as wildlife-related crimes …. poor people suffer while following traditional practices. Crime should be seen in relative terms. I was not in favor of the CITES Act, 2017.”

KI from the Ministry of Forests and Environment

“….In Nepal, we follow the rules and regulations and often create stricter regulations, though we don’t have the mechanism to check whether the actuated rules and regulations are either working properly or need changes based on evidence.”

KI from DoFSC

“…The most important challenge for implementing CITES is that the 2017 Act is federal and the Division Forests Offices are under provincial governments; that is why we cannot get easy access to data on traded species from some districts. When we ask about data, they don’t send it; the Division Forest Offices are not under the DoFSC chain of command. So, the federal system is a hurdle for the implementation of these laws and policies.”

KI from DOFSC

3.2. CITES-Implementing Authorities and Their Responsibilities

After promulgating the 2015 constitution, Nepal became administratively divided into 1 federal government, 7 provinces, and 753 local governments [61]. The protected areas and park offices are under the federal DNPWC, but the 84 Division Forest Offices (DFOs) are spread over 77 districts under the Provincial Forestry Directorate and the Ministry of Industry, Tourism, and Environment. Hence, CITES violations outside protected areas are not necessarily reported to the DoFSC or DNPWC, and both are responsible for sending annual reports to the CITES Secretariat, thus creating major challenges for data acquisition, reporting, and compliance (Figure 1).

As stated in the act, the DNPWC and the DoFSC are national management authorities, while the NHM and DPR are scientific authorities [56]. CITES does not require a separate enforcement authority [28]; however, Customs, Division Forest Offices, local offices of protected areas, and the Central Investigation Bureau of Police (CIB) are all de facto CITES enforcement authorities as all have the power to investigate, arrest offenders, and confiscate contraband in any wildlife-related crime but are not mentioned as enforcement authority in the CITES Act, 2017. DNPWC, DoFSC, and DPR are major government organizations under the Ministry of Forests and Environment (MoFE). The main mission of the DNPWC is to conserve wildlife and landscapes of ecological importance and promote the well-being of local people [62]. The DNPWC is governed by the NPWC Act, 1973, and it currently manages 20 protected areas. Local DNPWC offices act as enforcement agencies for illegal wildlife take and trade violations within the protected area system, with limited powers outside it. The DoFSC, established in 1942, is one of the oldest government agencies in the country. Its mission is to conserve, develop, and manage forest resources. Forests and Wildlife Conservation is a major DoFSC division with the duty to control wildlife-related crime outside protected areas. The DoFSC also prepares guidelines for environmental protection and implements national and international environmental agreements [63]. Illegal wildlife trade is registered in the respective Division Forest Offices based on the location of the crime, and those offices are responsible for prosecuting violators.

The DPR is a scientific authority and was established to study and certify botanical resources and identify floral specimens and products seized from illegal trade [64]. The major objective of the other scientific authority, the NHM of Tribhuvan University, is to collect and preserve floral, faunal, geological, and other natural specimens from the country and identify specimens and their products seized from illegal wildlife trade [65]. The Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) and Departments of Prison Management and Management of Proceeds of Crime are under the Home Ministry, and the Customs Department is under the Finance Ministry. All the agencies mentioned above have some responsibilities for enforcing CITES but lack the specialized staff to do so.

The following quotes are from key informant opinions from the management and scientific authorities about Nepal’s CITES-implementing authorities:

“…Our role on behalf of NHM is to give suggestions, feedback, and consultation related to fauna to the Government of Nepal. District Forest Offices (previously) now changed to Division Forest Offices (DFOs) are responsible for enforcing CITES. DFOs collect live wildlife or body parts confiscated by the Central Investigation Bureau. The CIB arrests people who trade in wildlife and specimens are brought to us for identification. We issue a letter after identification and the case is registered”.

KI from NHM

“…The permission for CITES-related documents on plant resources used to be provided by DPR, but now, this responsibility is given to DoFSC. The responsibility of DPR is to provide advice and suggestions related to plants on the CITES list”.

KI from DPR

“…There are regular meetings with the DPR and the DNPWC as necessary. These meetings can be formal, with “minutes.” However, we don’t sit in meetings with the scientific authority on fauna”.

KI from the DoFSC

“…we have not yet held CITES Coordination meeting as provisioned in the CITES Act 2017”.

KI from DNPWC

The DNPWC is the leading agency of CITES implementation in Nepal, and both DPR and DoFSC coordinate with each other regularly as all three are government departments under the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation; however, NHM is affiliated with Tribhuvan University, and thus coordination with it and the other agencies is difficult to achieve on short notice.

3.3. Nepal’s Participation in CITES Conferences of Parties (COPs)

Except for CoP 1, which was held in Bern, Switzerland, in 1976, Nepal has participated in all CITES CoPs. The DNPWC has participated regularly except for CoP 16 in 2013, and the DPR, as a scientific authority, has participated irregularly (CoPs 11, 18, and 19). Non-governmental organizations such as the National Trust for Nature Conservation and international organizations with offices in Nepal (e.g., World Wildlife Fund—Nepal and The Zoological Society of London—Nepal) that have supported CITES implementation in the country have also participated in various CoPs, but the major scientific authority for fauna, the NMH, has not. To date, the main activity of the Nepalese delegations to CITES CoPs has been to propose adding species to Appendix III. Below are several KI opinions of Nepal’s CoPs participation:

“…The fact is we (NHM) do not get direct invitations to the meeting. The invitation is sent to the management authority of CITES or to the Ministry, and participants are selected from there.”

KI from NHM

“….Meetings are mostly attended by management authorities as there are only two invitees from the CITES Secretariat and any further delegations need to be sponsored by the government. …delegates from the Ministry and the DNPWC participate, but in recent years, the issue has been raised about NHM not participating.”

KI from the Ministry of Forests and Environment

“…. I participated in CoP 18 and 19. We published a checklist of CITES listed plants and we also had the 2017 Act by then. We requested a budget from the government a year prior, which was accepted, and I was able to participate in the CoP meeting”.

KI from DPR mentioning their achievements after enacting the CITES Act

Participation in the COP meetings is a technical issue and the management authority should be careful in the equal participation of all the CITES-related authorities in the COP meeting with proper preparation. The fact that no one has been allowed to participate in the last 50 years from the scientific authority of fauna can lead to incompetent agencies in the working modality of CITES.

Clearly, there is a lack of planning and various bureaucratic obstacles to participation in CoPs. The DPR, the scientific authority for flora and a government agency, was able to take part in two CoPs; however, the NHM, the scientific authority for fauna, an academic institute not part of central governmental bureaucracy, was not. We see this as an important issue given that many publicized cases involving illegal wildlife trade from Nepal have involved highly endangered fauna (e.g., rhinos, tigers, bears, pangolins) [11].

4. Discussion

Nepal has come a long way toward CITES compliance with the 2017 Act but has more progress to make for full implementation based on the research framework [57]. Similar to results obtained in Kenya [66], there is little coordination among authorities and the DNPWC is still the main implementing agency despite limited jurisdiction outside protected areas. For fuller implementation, there is a need for more active participation by the CIB, DoFSC, and Customs through dedicated staff and funding. The lack of economic resources and inclusiveness is also reflected in the failure of the scientific authority to participate in the CoPs for the last 50 years, further impeding CITES implementation.

Environmental concerns are often overshadowed by economic and political interests [67,68], and adhering to multi-lateral agreements is difficult due to the complexities of compliance in the context of globalization [69,70]. Although CITES provides freedom to its parties to regulate their own implementation through domestic legislation, its effectiveness is difficult to track [57]. The fact that environmental conventions generally take lower priority internally and internationally than those involving, e.g., weapons and human and drug trafficking, makes it marginal. For complex conventions such as CITES, several structural problems are apparent. Fewer than 15% of parties had passed domestic implementing legislation by the early 1990s [7], and Nepal was not among them. This increased to over 50% in 2021 [16], including Nepal, but this is abysmally low given that CITES is now over 50 years old and, given that the numbers of species in decline are increasing, needs are constantly changing [69,70]. However, Nepal’s CITES Act, 2017, is in some ways overly strict. Several ambiguities can hinder local and domestic trade and oppose the traditional rights of indigenous communities. Local sustainable uses are permitted both in buffer zone and conservation area amendments to the NPWC Act and in several provisions of the Forests Act [71,72]. An egregious case of arrest and imprisonment of an Indian national who tried to sell his domesticated elephant in Nepal was widely reported in 2022. Given that the animal was legal in India, and given his nationality, he could not obtain a permit in Nepal. There are also numerous published examples where seized live animals are not sent back to the country of origin (generally India), or seized plant products are left rotting in storage. In one rather infamous case, two chimpanzees were seized at the national airport in 2017, but unlike the case in some countries [73], they were not sent back to the country of origin because Nepal demanded that the Nigerian government pay for their travel. They now reside at Nepal’s Central Zoo. Such publicized cases can cause obvious public distrust.

Heinen and Chapagain [11] provided several cases of non-compliance in Nepal with examples of shops in Kathmandu selling fur products to tourists in open violation of CITES [37]. There was little ability to prosecute them due to a lack of domestic CITES implementation legislation. To rectify this, The Rare (Endangered) Wildlife and Plants Trade Control Act, 2002 was drafted. This was meant to be Nepal’s CITES-implementing legislation and consisted of 32 articles and 3 appendices, but it was never enacted and the reasons for not rectifying the act is not known. In addition, China has been an increasing sink of illicit wildlife trade from neighboring countries as it grows wealthier [34,74,75].

The majority of KIs we interviewed indicated that the agencies have become more connected and productive after the enactment of the CITES Act, 2017. However, some issues still remain to be fixed. Officials in the scientific and management authorities are responsible for preparing CITES-related documents for timely reporting of wildlife crimes, preparing NDFs, and identifying specimens under seizure. They also cooperate to a degree by conducting CITES-related outreach and producing publications. However, based on our findings, CITES-implementing government offices outside the protected areas, i.e., local Division of Forest offices, jurisdictionally come under the provincial government and the management authority, i.e., DoFSC is under the federal government, which creates a gap in smooth flow information and greatly hinder reporting requirements. These issues have increased given the political changes that have happened over the past few decades.

The act clearly delineates the roles and responsibilities of the management and scientific authorities. Following its implementation, a checklist of CITES-listed species was promptly published in 2018, and regular activities related to CITES education have been conducted. However, the CITES Coordination Committee has yet to convene. Furthermore, both CITES and the fifth amendment to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (NPWC) Act include provisions for wildlife farming. Nevertheless, as of August 2024, no wildlife farming enterprises have been officially registered in the past seven years.

The draft legislation of 2002 represented a progressive step forward in comparison to the original National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (NPWC) Act of 1973. It introduced legal mechanisms to facilitate the implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and to regulate wildlife trade to a certain extent [11], although not comprehensively. It subsequently took an additional 15 years for the CITES Act of 2017 to be enacted. This act is notably more progressive than the 2002 draft, as it incorporates two key advancements: (1) provisions for wildlife farming to expand legal trade, and (2) enhanced enforcement mechanisms, including stricter penalties for illegal trade. Moreover, the 2017 CITES Act demonstrates stronger alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the objectives of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (to which Nepal is also a party), particularly in promoting the sustainable use of biodiversity for human development. However, inconsistencies remain across Nepal’s domestic legal framework, particularly in the classification of species—some as threatened and others as exploitable—which require harmonization [56,71]. A number of species listed in the NPWC Act of 1973 also appear in the appendices of the 2017 CITES Act (see

Table 2. Difference between CITES Act, 2017, and NPWC Act (fifth amendment) 1973.

Act	Term	Prosecution	Remarks
CITES ACT 2017 [56]	Appendix I (Threatened Wild Fauna and Flora)	An offender can be sentenced to 5 to 15 years in prison or a fine of five hundred thousand rupees to one million rupees or both.	Species listed in different Appendices of CITES are collectively termed “Endangered wild fauna and flora”
	Appendix II (Vulnerable Wild Fauna and Flora)	Imprisonment of 2 to 10 years or fine from one hundred thousand rupees to five hundred thousand rupees or both for an offense against fauna and fine of fifty thousand to one hundred thousand rupees or imprisonment of six months to one year or both for an offense against flora.
	Appendix III (Protected Wild Fauna and Flora)	Imprisonment of one to five years or with a fine of from twenty thousand rupees to one hundred thousand rupees or both for an offense against fauna and fine of one thousand to fifty thousand rupees or imprisonment of one month to six months or both for an offense against flora.
NPWC ACT 1973 (FIFTH AMENDMENT) (GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL, 2017A) [71]	Protected species (rhinoceros, tiger, elephant, musk deer, snow leopard)	Imprisonment of five to fifteen years or a fine of five hundred thousand to one million rupees or both in case of illegally poaching, injuring, buying, selling or providing rhinoceros, tiger, elephant, musk deer, clouded leopard, snow leopard, or bison as well as keeping, buying, selling or transporting musk pod of musk deer, skin of snow leopard and other protected species For other species, the punishment is imprisonment from one to ten years or a fine of forty to seventy thousand rupees or both, and person hunting, killing, or injuring species other than birds and fish inside protected areas is imprisonment of six months to two years or a fine of one thousand rupees to 10 thousand rupees or both.	All the species listed in the NPWC Act 1973 are termed “Schedule I Protected Species”
	Other protected species	Except for the above-mentioned species hunting, killing, or injuring protected species, the punishment is fine of one hundred thousand rupees to five hundred thousand rupees or imprisonment of one year to ten years or both.
	Species within protected areas	Except for birds and fish, hunting, killing, or injuring species within protected areas without a license is punishable by a fine of twenty thousand rupees to fifty thousand rupees or imprisonment of six months to one year or both.
	Protected birds	Killing, hunting or injuring protected species of birds is punishable by fifteen thousand to thirty thousand rupees or imprisonment of three months to nine months or both.
	Other species of birds inside protected areas	Hunting, killing, or injuring bird species except that in protected lists without a license is punishable by twenty thousand to fifty thousand rupees or imprisonment of six months to one year or both.
	Building inside protected areas	Building any kind of house, hut, lodging place, or infrastructure or using resources inside national parks and reserves is punishable by twenty thousand to fifty thousand rupees or imprisonment for one year or both.
	Removing vegetation, mining, or harming land and wildlife inside protected areas	Removing trees, shrubs, or any kind of vegetation, drying, firing, destroying or transporting vegetation, mining, stone removing, minerals extracting, or soil collection, as well as harming wildlife and land inside the national parks and reserve, is punishable by compensating if the loss is up to one thousand rupees, compensating and imprisonment upto six months or both if the loss is one thousand to ten thousand rupees, or compensating double and imprisonment of one year or both if the loss is more than ten thousand rupees.
	Breeding or rearing wildlife or running a zoo without permission	Rearing, breeding, or running a zoo without a license is punishable by six months of imprisonment, or fifty thousand rupees fine, or both.
	Punishment to the accomplice	An accomplice in any offense described by this act is punishable by half the punishment given to the offender. However, in the case of offense to rhinoceros, tiger, musk deer, and elephant, the accomplice is punished same as the offender.
	Right to seize	An officer has the right to seize any wildlife contraband, arms, vehicle, or other equipment utilized in the offense conducted against the rules made in this act.

), often with divergent legal designations. For instance, several species listed in Appendix I of the CITES Act are concurrently classified as protected under the NPWC Act, yet they are subject to different legal statuses. These discrepancies lead to significant variations in penalties for similar offenses, depending on the specific legislation under which individuals are prosecuted. For example, the CITES Act of 2017 stipulates that serious violations involving Appendix I species may result in fines of up to one million Nepalese rupees and lengthy prison terms. In contrast, under the NPWC Act of 1973, such penalties are typically reserved for infractions involving certain high-profile protected species, such as rhinoceroses and tigers [11,76]. Additionally, the trade of species listed under Appendices II and III of CITES is not categorically prohibited; yet, some of these species are fully protected under the 1973 NPWC Act, further complicating enforcement and regulatory consistency.

The fact that no private entities within the country have yet registered with the DNPWC (based on the information provided by the KI of DNPWC) for wildlife farming or trading permits under the CITES provisions may be either because people feel that wildlife trade is not economically viable under current law, or potential clients consider it too restrictive given confusing, overlapping regulations. In any case, sustainable use provisions within the 2017 CITES Act are not being realized for many species, and where progress has been made (e.g., medicinal plants), it was due to other specialized policies adopted years before [34].

Despite the slow progress in passing national CITES implementation legislation, the provisions for wildlife farming in the fifth amendment of the rules and regulations of the NPWC Act [76,77] and the CITES Act, 2017, do show the Government of Nepal’s shift away from the strict preservationist mindset and toward sustainable development goals through the conservation and use of biodiversity. The changes in government from a Kingdom to a Federal Republic [61] have arguably compounded many of the challenges regarding coordination among agencies in CITES implementation, but the newer focus does show some progress.

The analysis of participation in CITES CoPs (Figure 2) shows selective bias against agencies with less influence in government in that few people from the scientific authority for flora (DPR) and no one from the scientific authority for fauna (NHM) participated. We contend that this indicates inadequate stewardship on the part of the management authorities resulting in a lack of opportunity among decision-making agencies and inadequate economic resources. According to the 2017 Act, management authorities must consult scientific authorities concerning research, education, training, and many other related issues. Yet, since passing the act, two CITES CoPs have taken place without scientific representation from Nepal. Lastly, CITES-listed species need to be updated regularly and harmonized with other conservation laws, as relevant species lists are subject to regular change.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Nepal has a taken major step forward to implementing CITES more effectively and, in doing so, it has realized that sustainable utilization of its biodiversity for socioeconomic development is important for conservation via amendments of older laws and passage of the 2017 Act [76,77]. Tourism has long been a major economic activity in Nepal, and its wildlife and protected areas are major factors supporting that industry [78]. Sustainable trade in biodiversity is also a growing economic activity requiring well-run bureaucracies to succeed [79,80]. The government’s primary responsibility should be the effective implementation of CITES and related legislation, while also ensuring that the legal framework supports sustainable economic development [81]. However, the limited progress in formulating necessary regulations, the persistence of conflicting legal provisions, and the continued reluctance to facilitate broader stakeholder participation—when coupled with chronic resource constraints and the low prioritization of environmental issues—indicate that significant challenges remain in achieving comprehensive implementation of CITES. In light of these shortcomings, we offer the following recommendations:

1. The CITES Act, 2017, stipulates a CITES coordination council. Our information suggests that despite the law, the body is not functioning in that we were unable to confirm that any formal, documented meetings took place through KI testimony or document review. Given that our results show a lack of information exchange among agencies, the council should be formally developed and fully staffed, required to meet at least annually, and include the Directors General or first-class deputy officers of all relevant agencies to allow better cross-coordination and cooperation. The results of such meetings should be published and made widely available. In fact, Nepal should perhaps also be a party to the Aarhus convention for transparency on access to information, public participation in decision making, and access to justice in environmental matters.

2. We recommend the establishment of an ad hoc committee of legal and policy experts from the Ministry of Law and Justice, legal officers from within the DoFSC and DNPWC, and other experts (e.g., university faculty and conservation-related NGO experts) to review all legislation regarding protection and use of native species. This committee’s task would be to reconcile the competing lists of species that are fully protected under one statute or another with those that can be farmed or harvested for commerce and under what sets of rules. As it is the newest and most comprehensive law, provisions of the CITES Act, 2017, should take priority. Since legal proceedings and decisions take a long time, all available and willing experts should be involved and other frameworks supporting the law should be strengthened.

3. We further recommend the establishment of an ad hoc committee of experts from the scientific authorities and others (e.g., University faculty, conservation-related NGO staff, etc.) to review all published materials on the status of listed species and reconcile the various lists of protected versus harvested species listed in Nepal’s wildlife, forestry, plant products, and CITES laws.