CITES kapsamındaki yaban hayatı ticareti kontrolünde Avrupa bilimsel otorite yapısının incelenmesi

Öz

Giriş ve Hedefler Bu çalışmada, CITES Bilimsel Otoritelerinin kurumsal profilleri ile yasadışı yaban hayatı ticaretiyle mücadeledeki etkinlikleri arasındaki ilişki, özellikle Avrupa Birliği ülkeleri üzerinde odaklanılarak incelenmektedir. Yöntemler Nitel ve nicel veri analizi uygulanan çalışmada, Sözleşme üyelerinin bilimsel otorite kurumsal yapıları gruplandırılmıştır. Sekretarya resmi verilerine göre ilan edilen kurumların Avrupa ülkeleriyle sayısal kıyası yapılmış ve yasadışı ticaretin artma nedenleri doğrultusunda alınacak önlemler yorumlanmıştır. Bulgular Kısaca CITES olarak bilinen Nesli Tehlike Altında Olan Yabani Hayvan ve Bitki Türlerinin Uluslararası Ticaretine İlişkin Sözleşme'nin, Avrupa Birliği dahil olmak üzere dünya çapında 185 tarafı bulunmaktadır. Tüm taraflar arasında, bilimsel otoriteleri üniversiteler olan 31 ülke bulunmaktadır ve bunların yaklaşık %13'ü Avrupa Birliği ülkelerindedir. Tüm taraflar arasında, bilimsel otoriteleri bakanlıklar olan 62 ülke bulunmaktadır ve bunların yaklaşık %11'i Avrupa Birliği ülkelerindedir. Sonuçlar Bu oranlara bakıldığında, Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinin bilimsel otoritelerinde üniversite sayısının artmasıyla birlikte genel olarak korumacılığın başarısının da artacağı düşünülmektedir. Ülkelerin bilimsel otoriteleri bünyesinde bitki ve hayvan türlerine ilişkin uzmanlardan oluşan bir ekibinin bulunup bulunmadığının ve bu ekibin gümrük birimleriyle sürekli iletişim içerisinde olup olmadığının düzenli takip edilmesi önemlidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biyoçeşitliliği koruma
• yasadışı yaban hayatı ticareti
• yönetişim
• yaban hayatı yönetimi

Evaluation of the European scientific authority structure in the control of wildlife trade under CITES

Öz

Background and Aims This study investigate the relationship between the institutional profiles of CITES Scientific Authorities and their effectiveness in combating illegal wildlife trade, with a particular focus on European Union countries. Methods Qualitative and quantitative data analysis was applied in the study, and the scientific authority institutional structures of the Convention parties were grouped. A numerical comparison was made between the institutions announced according to the official data of the Secretariat and European countries, and measures to be taken in line with the reasons for the increase in illegal trade were interpreted. Results The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, known as CITES for short, has 185 parties worldwide, including the European Union. Among all parties, there are 31 countries with universities as their scientific authorities, of which approximately 13% are in the European Union countries. Among all Parties, there are 62 countries with ministries as scientific authorities, of which approximately 11% are in the European Union countries. Conclusions With these ratios; it is thought that the success of protectionism in general will be higher with an increase on the number of universities in the European Union countries' scientific authorities. It is also important to regularly monitor whether countries have a team of experts on plant and animal species within their scientific authorities and whether this team is in constant communication with customs units.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biodiversity conservation
• illegal wildlife trade
• governance
• wildlife management

Kaynakça

1. Annorbah, N.N.D., Collar, N.J., Marsden, S.J., 2016. Trade and habitat change virtually eliminate the grey parrot Psittacus erithacus from Ghana. Ibis 158, 82–91.
2. Atik, A.D., Öztekin, M., Erkoc, F., 2010. Biyoçeşitlilik ve Türkiye'deki endemik bitkilere örnekler. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty (GUJGEF), 30(1), 219-240.
3. Baltaci, A., 2017. Nitel veri analizinde Miles-Huberman modeli. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(1), 1-15.
4. Baltaci, A., 2019. Nitel araştırma süreci: nitel bir araştırma nasıl yapılır?. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(2), 368-388.
5. Bansal, A.K., 2021. Sustainable trade of wood and wood based products in India. NCCF Policy Paper, 1(2021), 1-15.
6. Beevers, M.D., 2016. Forest Governance and post-conflict peace in Liberia: emerging contestation and opportunities for change? The Extractive Industries and Society, 3, 320-328.
7. Birben, Ü., Gencay, G., 2019. Bio-smuggling in Turkey. Crime, Law and Social Change, 71, 345-364.
8. Bropleh, R.S., 2023. Adoptive national park management: assessing the governance and ınstitutional capacity of cıtes ımplementation for conservation in Sapo national park, Liberia. Open Access Library Journal, 10(5), 1-16.

9. Cardoso, P., Amponsah-Mensah, K., Barreiros, J.P., Bouhuys, J., Cheung, H., 2021. Scientists' warning to humanity on illegal or unsustainable wildlife trade. Biological Conservation, 263, 109341.
10. Carry, I., Maihold, G., 2022. Illegal logging, timber laundering and the global illegal timber trade. In Geopolitics of the Illicit. pp. 275-308.
11. CIFOR, 2020. Evidence-based forestry, www.cifor.org (accessed: 05.11.25).
12. CIFOR-ICRAF, 2021. CIFOR-ICRAF strategy 2020–2030. Bogor, Indonesia: center for ınternational forestry research, Nairobi, Kenya: world agroforestry. https://www.cifor-icraf.org/publications/pdf/CIFOR-ICRAF-Strategy.pdf (accessed: 05.11.25).
13. CITES, 2025. Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, documents. https://cites.org/ (accessed: 11.09.25).
14. COP, 2016. Resolution Conf. 17.8: Disposal of confiscated live specimens of species included in the appendices. In proceedings of the seventeenth meeting of the conference of the parties to CITES, Johannesburg, South Africa, 24 Sept–5 Oct 2016, pp. 1–25.
15. Creswell, J.W., 2015. Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.
16. da Silva Marques, L. C., 2024. Illegal wildlife trade through the lens of the European Union. Master's Thesis, ISCTE-Instituto Universitario de Lisboa, Portugal.
17. Denzin, N.K., Lincoln Y.S., 2008. Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed., pp. 1–43). Sage Publications, Inc.
18. Erol, V., 2014. Biyokaçakçılık. Jandarma Dergisi, (Gendarmerie Journal) 140,40–48.
19. Friedman, K., Braccini, M., Bjerregaard‐Walsh, M., Bonfil, R., Bradshaw, C. J., Brouwer, S., 2020. Informing CITES parties: strengthening science‐based decision‐making when listing marine species. Fish and Fisheries, 21(1), 13-31.
20. Greenpeace, 2018. Imaginary trees, real destruction. How licensing fraud and illegal logging of Ipe trees are causing irreversible damage to the Amazon rainforest. https://www.greenpeace.de/publikationen/20180301-greenpeace_report_imaginary_trees_real_destruction.pdf (accessed: 23.09.25).
21. Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y.S., 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2(105), 163-194.
22. Guggisberg, S., 2016. The use of CITES for commercially-exploited fish species. Hambg. Stud. Marit. Aff, 35, 453.
23. Heim, J., Böcher, M., 2016. CITES and science: Using the RIU model to analyze institutionalized scientific policy advice in Germany for the case of ivory trade. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 19(2), 159-175.
24. Helmer, W., Saavedra, D., Sylvén, M., Schepers, F., 2015. Rewilding Europe: a new strategy for an old continent. In Rewilding European Landscapes (pp. 171-190). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
25. IATA, 2025. Live Animals Regulations (LAR). The international air transport association. https://www.iata.org/en/publications/manuals/live-animals-regulations/ (accessed: 31.10.25)
26. ICCWC, 2023. Who we are. The international consortium on combating wildlife crime. https://www.iccwc-wildlifecrime.org/ (accessed: 14.07.25)
27. Inskipp, T., Wells, S., 2019. International trade in wildlife. Routledge. 1967-1970.
28. INTERPOL, 2019. A multi-sector approach to tackling wildlife crime. Environmental crime programme (eds). 4 December 2019. https://www.interpol.int/News-and-Events/News/2019/A-multi-sector-approach-to-tackling-wildlife-crime (accessed: 21.06.25)
29. INTERPOL, 2022. Ivory, rhino horns, pangolin and tiger parts seized in transit from Africa to Asia. 24 January 2022. https://www.interpol.int/News-and-Events/News/2022/Ivory-rhino-horns-pangolin-and-tiger-parts-seized-in-transit-from-Africa-to-Asia (accessed: 10.08.25)
30. INTERPOL, 2023. Illegal wildlife trade has become one of the world’s largest criminal activities. 6 November 2023. https://www.interpol.int/News-and-Events/News/2023/Illegal-wildlife-trade-has-become-one-of-the-world-s-largest-criminal-activities (accessed: 21.09.25)
31. IPBES, 2019. global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Brondizio ES, Settele J, Díaz S, and Ngo HT (editors). 1148 p., ISBN No: 978-3-947851-13-3. Bonn, Germany.
32. Kadykalo, A.N., Cooke, S.J., Young, N., 2021. The role of western‐based scientific, Indigenous and local knowledge in wildlife management and conservation. People and Nature, 3(3), 610-626.
33. Klenke, K., 2016. Qualitative research in the study of leadership. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
34. Leaman, D. J., Oldfield, T. E. E., 2014. A nine-step process to support CITES scientific authorities making science-based non-detriment findings (NDFs) for species listed in CITES Appendix II.
35. Lee, D.E., Bond, M.L., 2018. Quantifying the ecological success of a community-based wildlife conservation area in Tanzania. Journal of Mammalogy, 99(2), 459-464.
36. Lindsey, P.A., Romañach, S.S., Tambling, C.J., Chartier, K., and Groom, R., 2011. Ecological and Financial Impacts of Illegal Bushmeat Trade in Zimbabwe. Oryx, 45, 96-111.
37. Maddison, N., 2019. Guidelines for the management of confiscated, live organisms. (Ed.). IUCN.
38. Mallat, N., 2007. Exploring consumer adoption of mobile payments-a qualitative study. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 16(4), 413-432.
39. Martin, R.O., 2018. The wild bird trade and African parrots: past, present and future challenges. Ostrich 89, 139–143.
40. Merriam, S.B., 1998. Qualitative research and case study applications in education. revised and expanded from “case study research in education.”. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
41. Mora, C., Tittensor, D.P., Adl, S., Simpson, A.G., Worm, B., 2011. How many species are there on Earth and in the ocean?. PLoS biology, 9(8), e1001127.
42. Nellemann, C., 2012. Green carbon, black trade: illegal logging, tax fraud and laundering in the worlds tropical forests. a rapid response assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal.
43. Nurbani, E.S., Koynja, J.J., Pitaloka, D., Octavia, D.G.R., 2021. Implementation of CITES 1973 in Indonesia: a study of shark fishing in Tanjung Luar East Lombok, West Nusa Tenggara. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing. Vol. 712, No. 1.
44. OECD Publishing, 2012. Illegal trade in environmentally sensitive goods. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
45. Patton, M.Q., 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. WILEY Online Library.
46. Paudel, P.K., Acharya, K.P., Baral, H.S., Heinen, J.T., Jnawali, S.R., 2020. Trends, patterns and networks of illicit wildlife trade in Nepal: a national synthesis. Conservation Science and Practice, 2, e247.
47. Pomeranz, E.F., Hare, D., Decker, D.J., Forstchen, A.B., Jacobson, C.A., Smith, C.A., Schiavone, M.V., 2021. Successful wildlife conservation requires good governance. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 2, 753289.
48. Reeve, R., 2004. The CITES treaty and compliance: progress or jeopardy?. Royal Institute of International Affairs.
49. Reeve, R., 2006. Wildlife trade, sanctions and compliance: lessons from the CITES regime. International affairs, 82(5), 881-897.
50. Rivera, S.N., Knight, A., McCulloch, S.P., 2021. Surviving the wildlife trade in Southeast Asia: reforming the ‘disposal’ of confiscated live animals under CITES. Animals, 11(2), 439.
51. Ruiz‐Miranda, C.R., Vilchis, L.I., Swaisgood, R.R., 2020. Exit strategies for wildlife conservation: Why they are rare and why every institution needs one. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 18(4), 203-210.
52. Salerno, J., Andersson, K., Bailey, K.M., Hilton, T., Mwaviko, K.K., Simon, I.D., 2021. More robust local governance suggests positive effects of long‐term community conservation. Conservation Science and Practice, 3(1), e297.
53. Seale, C., 1999. Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465-478.
54. Sellheim, N., 2020. The CITES appendix II-listing of mako sharks-revisiting counter arguments. Marine Policy 115, 103887.
55. Sollund, R. A., 2025. Wildlife Trade and animal victimization: parallel harms and crimes. Taylor and Francis. Turnhout, E., Purvis, A., 2020. Biodiversity and species extinction: categorisation, calculation, and communication. Griffith Law Review, 29(4), 669-685.
56. Ugochukwu, A.I., Hobbs, J.E., Phillips, P.W.B., Kerr, W.A., 2018. Technological solutions to authenticity issues in international trade: the case of CITES listed endangered species. Ecological Economics. 146, 730-739.
57. UNEP, ASSESSMENT, 2016. The rise of environmental crime. Nairobi: UNEP.
58. UNODC, 2011. Trafficking, I. D. Focus on: trafficking in persons smuggling of migrants illicit drugs trafficking. Uyar, Ç., 2023. Legal analysis of the ınternational CITES convention in terms of sustainable forestry. Doctoral Thesis, İstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, İstanbul.
59. Uyar, Ç., Elvan, O.D., 2024. Legal analysis of the CITES convention in terms of Turkish administrative and judicial processes. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 24, 515–538.
60. Watters, F., Stringham, O., Shepherd, C.R., Cassey, P., 2022. The US market for imported wildlife not listed in the CITES multilateral treaty. Conservation Biology, 36(6), e13978.
61. Wolf, D., Oldfield, T.E., McGough, N., 2018. CITES non-detriment findings for timber: a nine-step process to support CITES Scientific Authorities making science-based non-detriment findings (NDFs) for timber/tree species listed in CITES Appendix II. Deutschland/Bundesamt für Naturschutz.
62. WWF, 2020. Korumazsak kaybederiz. Sürdürülebilir bir Türkiye için korunan alanlar hedef: 2030’a kadar %30. https://www.wwf.org.tr/denizler/?10800/Surdurulebilir-Bir-Türkiye-Icin-Korunan-Alanlar (accessed: 04.08.25).
63. Wyatt, T., 2021. Canada and the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES): lessons learned on implementation and compliance. Liverpool Law Review, 42(2), 143-159.