After investigating vote-rigging within the CITES decision-making framework across three Conferences of the Parties (CoPs) 2019, 2022 and 2025, it has become clear that well-funded animal-rights extremist NGOs, together with some developed-world governments, continue to influence and allegedly bribe financially weaker countries from Africa and South America.
At the close of CITES CoP20 in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, I again asked the CITES Secretary-General Ivonne Higuero to confirm whether vote-rigging exists within the international wildlife-trade body she leads. Unsurprisingly, her response did not differ from that given at the Geneva CITES CoP18 conference about six years earlier. At the August 2019 CITES CoP18, speaking through the CITES Secretariat’s then Communications Advisor, Mr David Witbourn, the response was:
“We don’t have evidence of vote-rigging. If anyone has evidence, we invite them to approach the CITES Secretariat.”
This time, however, CITES Secretary-General Higuero provided more detail on how such allegations would be handled, stating that “the Standing Committee will handle that matter.” The Standing Committee comprises CITES member countries, meaning the Secretariat can only act on the basis of the Committee’s findings. Any action against governments or NGOs would depend on existing CITES articles governing sanctions against offending Parties and observers.
No formal complaints lodgedFrom Secretary-General Higuero’s response, it was clear that no country has ever formally lodged a vote-rigging complaint with the CITES Secretariat. Many African countries, particularly those whose ivory and rhino horn trade proposals continue to be overwhelmingly rejected, attribute these outcomes to vote-rigging, but raise these claims only with their presidents, citizens and the media, rather than submitting formal complaints.
As a result, they are effectively barking up the wrong trees, misdirecting their message and drawing public sympathy without triggering any formal investigation. If their presidents, citizens and media fully understood this procedural gap, such misplaced sympathy would likely disappear.
Defining Vote-BuyingDuring my continued engagement with the CITES Secretary-General Higuero at CoP20 in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, I asked her to define vote-rigging.
She explained that vote-buying occurs when something of value is exchanged in return for a desired vote.
- Zimbabwe’s lobby to lift ivory trade ban stutters
- Zimbabwe ivory trade lobby raises questions
- Japan, EU in lukewarm response to Zimbabwe’s lobby to lift ivory ban trade
- Involve communities in conservation, says Ndlovu
Keep Reading
Having established this definition, I raised a question I had long wanted to ask, one relating to CITES CoP19 in Panama, where Mali openly admitted to being funded by anti-use government and animal-rights NGOs from 2004 to 2022.
In a filmed plenary statement, Mali’s head of delegation thanked the Government of Israel, the Franz Weber Foundation, and NGOs including International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and Born Free for funding Mali’s participation at CITES meetings since 2004.
This admission revealed a long-standing pattern: Mali consistently speaks and votes against the ivory and rhino horn trade in line with the positions of its funders. Mali, along with other funded West African countries, has repeatedly voted against trade proposals.
When Secretary-General Higuero stated that she was unaware of Mali’s long-term funding by the Government of Israel and animal-rights extremist NGOs (Franz Weber Foundation, Born Free Foundation and IFAW, I reminded her that Mali’s admission was made publicly at the CoP19 closing ceremony in Panama City, was livestreamed and remains permanently available on the CITES video platform. She did not comment further. Here is the Mali video link: https://we.tl/t-MUAS5cVBm2
How the CITES Secretariat evaluates proposalsResponding to my investigative questions about how CITES evaluates proposals before votes, Secretary-General Higuero explained that Parties and the Secretariat rely on established CITES resolutions.
She said proposals must meet specific criteria supported by scientific, trade and population data, including the IUCN Red List, trade data, and FAO assessments for marine species. The Secretariat also applies the precautionary principle, particularly where data are limited but population concerns exist.
Where international trade could pose an additional threat to a species, the Secretariat may recommend listing under Appendix II to improve traceability through the CITES permitting system and trade database.
Secretary-General on vote-Rigging AllegationsAddressing vote-buying more broadly, Higuero stated:
“This is quite a sensitive issue. There’s always a lot of talk about it, but I don’t actually know if this is happening. I have never seen any proof.”
She added that rumours have circulated among Parties and observers for years, but remain hearsay. Any credible evidence, she urged complainant countries, must be submitted to the CITES Standing Committee.
Using an analogy, she described vote-buying as an exchange of compensation for votes, such as providing goods or specifically “chickens to voters” as happened in her country Panama, during political campaigns in exchange for votes. However, she repeated that no such evidence has ever been presented to the CITES Secretariat.
Limits of the CITES enforcement frameworkCrucially, the CITES compliance framework was designed to enforce wildlife trade rules, not to police political conduct such as vote-buying.
Disappointingly, CITES contains no explicit provision defining vote-buying as a punishable offence, nor does it prescribe automatic sanctions such as fines or exclusions for such behaviour. When asked about consequences, officials, including Secretary-General Higuero, have consistently responded in general terms, without specifying concrete penalties.
As a result, even proven vote-buying would likely result in poli:cal or reputa:onal consequences rather than enforceable legal sanc:ons. This is a maBer that wildlife-rich SADC countries, whose legi:mate ivory and rhino horn trade proposals have con:nued to be unjus:fiably rejected; should urge the CITES Secretariat and member countries to revisit, in order to ensure that vote-rigging is recognised as a punishable offence. They should advocate for specific and severe penal:es to be explicitly included in the text of the Conven:on, to serve as a deterrent against vote-rigging.
Secretary-General Higuero also emphasised that wildlife conservation debates should extend beyond CITES meetings to national-level discussions involving forestry, fisheries, law enforcement and wildlife authorities, enabling better-informed decisions based on shared data and realities.
The Mali question put directly to CITES Secretary-GeneralI told Secretary-General Higuero that my conscience would not allow me to leave CoP20 and go back to Africa, without asking why Mali’s admission of long-term funding by anti-trade interests remains unaddressed.
I asked: “At CoP19 in Panama, Mali thanked the Government of Israel, the Franz Weber Foundation, Born Free and IFAW for funding its attendance since 2004. This is on video on the CITES platform. Mali’s speeches and votes mirror those of its funders. What would you conclude from such a relationship?”
Higuero responded that NGOs often work closely with governments on conservation projects and that funding alone does not prove wrongdoing. She reiterated that any evidence of compensation in exchange for votes must be submitted to the CITES Standing Committee.
Silencing of sustainable-use voicesElsewhere during CoP20, I investigated attempts by animal-rights extremist NGOs representative to silence researchers promoting sustainable-use models because such evidence undermines their fundraising narratives.
A case in point involved Lydia Daring Bhebe, a Stellenbosch University-affiliated PhD researcher from the African Wildlife Economy Institute. She reported being harassed by a well-known South African animal-rights activist who challenged her credentials and photographed her without consent.
Although she proceeded with her presentation, she later described feeling “very uncomfortable”, indicating an infringement on her freedom of expression.
She explained: “He (the animal rights-linked individual from South Africa) questioned whether I represented Stellenbosch University, demanded my name and photographed me without consent.”
Sustainable-use message delivered despite intimidationDespite this, Miss Bhebe delivered a powerful message highlighting Namibia’s conservation successes and warning that denying communities legal benefits from wildlife turns conservation success into punishment rather than partnership.
She urged Parties to “let evidence lead, not fear.”
- This is the first of a two-part series on investigations into vote-buying at CITES
