It has been remarked that endemic species are especially well suited for a listing in Appendix III, as the opportunity for laundering the species through other range states is essentially non-existent (Wijnstekers 2018; Heinrich et al. 2021). For any species in Appendix III, the listing Party has to issue an export permit, while any other exporting country has to issue a certificate of origin to show that the individual did not originate from a country which has prohibited its export and trade. If a species is native to several countries, which have not all listed the species in Appendix III, a person wishing to circumvent Appendix III could apply for a certificate of origin in another native country that has not listed the species in Appendix III and allows its export, claiming that the specimen originates from that country instead.

In the case of India, only four of the 33 currently listed (sub-) species are Indian endemics. This includes the Malabar civet, which has been listed in Appendix III since 1989. The Malabar civet is Critically Endangered and only occurs in the Western Ghats in the south of India (Mudappa et al. 2016). According to the IUCN Red List fewer than 250 mature individuals remain (Mudappa et al. 2016). It is threatened by habitat loss and potentially hunting as well as retaliatory killings (Mudappa et al. 2016). From the CITES database there are nine records involving 182 wild caught Malabar civets since 1989 (Table 2). This represents a very large number of Malabar civets given their precarious state. However, in all but one case the origin of the animals is reported as unknown. In the one case where the origin country was reported it came from Vietnam, where it does not occur. Since the Malabar civet is an Indian endemic species, all trade instances of wild-caught individuals must have originated in India. As their export from India is strictly prohibited, all of these instances thus represent illegal trade. CITES permits should never have been issued and the animals should have been seized by the relevant authorities. Interestingly, since 2010 the majority of trade records involving Malabar civets were exported from Africa.

Further, if looking at trade records of Malabar civets recorded in LEMIS, none of these match the trade records recorded in CITES (and vice versa; Table 2 and Suppl. material 1: Table S1). Likewise, the incidents recorded in LEMIS should not have been cleared for import in the US, as these would have been in direct violation of the Lacey Act. It is a possibility that some of the recorded trade incidents, both in CITES and LEMIS, are based on species misidentifications or documentation errors (noting that all of the wild caught Malabar civets recorded in LEMIS, supposedly originated in Africa), however, the international trade records should be re-examined and verified, because with a critically endangered species that only occurs in such small numbers like the Malabar civet, even the smallest amount of offtake and trade can have detrimental consequences.

An Appendix III listing can have further benefits, for example, through the recording of international trade data – crucial information that is often missing for many traded non-CITES wildlife species (Janssen and Shepherd 2018). These could ultimately aid in determining if a species needs better protection from international trade or not. It should be noted that in reality these data can be incomplete, as many Parties seem unwilling to undertake the administrative burden to document trade in Appendix III species (Res. Conf. 9.25 (Rev.CoP17); Wijnstekers 2018), even though they are required to do so (CITES Article VIII; https://cites.org/eng/disc/text.php#VIII). However, based on the available trade data it can theoretically be evaluated whether the species may be better suited to be moved to a different Appendix (I or II), be removed from CITES completely, or kept in Appendix III.

For example, six species that had been listed by India in Appendix III were subsequently transferred to Appendix II, i.e., Monocled Cobra (Naja kaouthia), Spectacled Cobra (Naja naja), Central Asian Cobra (Naja oxiana), King Cobra (Ophiophagus hannah), and Oriental Ratsnake (Ptyas mucosus); and Appendix I, i.e., Sloth Bear (Melursus ursinus). Among the central arguments supporting the inclusion of the five snake species to Appendix II was trade data gathered while the species were included in Appendix III, as well as illegal trade data supporting the transfer (CoP7 Proposals 45, 46, and 47; https://cites.org/eng/cop/07/prop/index.php). The five snake species were transferred to Appendix II approximately six years after their initial listing in Appendix III, while the Sloth bear was moved to Appendix I approximately two years after its initial listing in Appendix III (Table 1). The Appendix III listing for the Sloth bear was not contributing enough to its conservation, especially in light of its rapidly dwindling populations (CoP7, Proposal 12; https://cites.org/eng/cop/07/prop/index.php). Legal trade was essentially not permitted or recorded, while illegal trade continued to occur. Additionally, the Sloth bear was being used to launder parts and derivatives of other bear species that were at the time already included in Appendix I. To better protect the Sloth bear, as well as other bear species, Melursus ursinus was transferred to Appendix I in 1990.

The 33 taxa that have been listed by India, and which are still included in Appendix III today, have been listed for over 30 years each and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the listings and the ongoing suitability of the species may be warranted. Ideally, Appendix III should be an interim, not a long-term solution. Assistance for the review of Appendix III species can be sought from the Animals and Plants Committees of CITES (see Res. Conf 9.25 (Rev CoP18), paragraph 5) and Parties are urged to undertake these reviews at regular intervals (Res. Conf. 9.25 (Rev CoP18), paragraph 6).

For example, another species currently listed in Appendix III by India that would potentially benefit from a transfer to Appendix II is the Siberian weasel (Mustela sibirica) (see Res. Conf 9.24 (Rev CoP17); https://cites.org/sites/default/files/document/E-Res-09-24-R17.pdf for Appendix II criteria). It has a wide distribution, occurring in at least 12 countries and is currently listed as Least Concern by the IUCN Red List (Abramov et al. 2016). The Siberian weasel is heavily traded, mostly for its fur and tail hair. CITES trade data reveals that since 1990 more than 2500 trade incidents occurred worldwide, the majority of which (>70%) involved wild-caught Siberian weasels. Its traded hair alone made up 3% of the value of all European animal imports in 2016 (UNEP-WCMC 2018). The total value of the hair in the EU in 2016 alone was estimated at ~40.2 million Euros, the majority of which (81%) was from wild-caught Siberian weasels exported from China (UNEP-WCMC 2018). Wild-sourced Siberian weasel hair traded for commercial purposes also accounted for 4% of the value of animal exports from the EU. Exports from the United Kingdom to the United States accounted for 99% of this trade (UNEP-WCMC 2018). At first glance, the Siberian weasel does not appear an ideal candidate for an Appendix III listing, following the criteria outlined in Res. Conf. 9.25 (Rev.CoP18); especially owing to its wide distribution, perceived non-threatened global status, and the fact that it is only listed by India and none of its other range states. There are 24 (European) countries that have entered a reservation to the Siberian weasels’ listing in Appendix III, which from a trade perspective appears unreasonable, as the small mustelid is evidently heavily traded and in volumes that hardly seem sustainable in the long term – noting that this data is only available due to its listing in Appendix III. Given the large number of Siberian weasels that are killed and traded each year, further analysis into this trade is urgently needed to clarify whether the trade is sustainable or not, and how it is impacting their populations. From a listing perspective, and pending further research, Siberian weasels seem to be better suited to be included in CITES Appendix II, as it appears that they do need better protection from and regulation of international trade as is currently the case. As such, the EU, as one of the main demand regions for Siberian weasel products, should re-think their current reservations in regards to the Siberian weasel’s listing in Appendix III (see also UNEP-WCMC 2015) and support measures to improve trade controls and regulations in the species.

One of the often-mentioned downfalls of a listing in Appendix III is that it may become ineffective for species with a large native range, spanning several countries, as e.g., the potential for laundering is very high, and the listing is often hindered by a lack of cooperation and communication between the relevant range states (Willoek et al. 2004; Wijnstekers 2018). For such species it is often more difficult to detect documentation errors and potential incidents of illegal trade, as in the case for example for the endemic Malabar civet, and cooperation with other range states would be beneficial. In the case of India, this has only occurred once, when Pakistan joined the Appendix III listing for the Indian Grey Mongoose (Herpestes edwardsi) in 2014, noting however, that none of the other ~14 range states have joined the listing and that there are only three CITES trade records in total for the species and none since 2012. For some of the other non-endemic species with a larger native range, it may be possible to make the existing Appendix III listing more effective. For example, the Olive Keelback Water Snake (Atretium schistosum), Brown Mongoose (Herpestes fuscus), Ruddy Mongoose (Herpestes smithii), Stripe-necked Mongoose (Herpestes vitticollis), Himalayan Marmot (Marmota himalayana,), and Bengal Fox (Vulpes bengalensis) occur in four or less range states each. Thus, if these (relatively few) range states would cooperate and join the listing(s), law enforcement would be greatly facilitated and the opportunity for laundering these species through other range states greatly reduced. This is only useful of course if the species fulfil other Appendix III criteria, which should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. A cooperative listing of the aforementioned species seems more realistic, as compared to other listed species with a comparatively larger native range.

The native range of some of the other listed species involves several (i.e., more than 10) countries and it is unlikely that all of them would join the listing of the species in question. Especially if the conservation situation for the species differs in the many different range states. They may not be perceived as threatened in some countries, while the situation may be different in other countries. For example, countries have entered reservations for 26 of India’s listed taxa throughout history, nine of which are still current. It is noteworthy that all current reservations are exclusively for fur-bearing animal species of varying commercial value, and the majority of the reservations (five out of nine) were entered for subspecies. Three of these are subspecies of the Red fox (Vulpes vulpes). The number of extant fox taxa in India has been of much debate, including subspecies of the Red fox (Maheshwari et al. 2013). Currently, India has included three subspecies of the Red fox (Vulpes vulpes griffithi, V. v. montana and V. v. pusilla) in Appendix III since 1989. Of note is that V. v. griffithi is thought to only occur in Afghanistan and Pakistan, although camera trap surveys have captured this species in India, close to the Pakistan border (Maheshwari et al. 2013). There is very little information on international trade for the three subspecies. Based on the CITES Trade Database, there are only 35 records that document the trade in Red foxes since the subspecies were listed in 1989 up to 2018 and none involving India. Of these, 15 records specifically mention the three subspecies, i.e., V. v. griffithi (five records), V. v. montana (seven records) and V. v. pusilla (three records), mostly involving small quantities of skin pieces or garments made from their skins. At least five records reveal international trafficking; one involving a seizure of V. v. griffithi in the US from Pakistan; and four seizures involving V. v. montana in New Zealand exported from China, the United Kingdom, Hungary and the US respectively. Considering their relatively wide distribution in the region, it is impossible to determine whether any of these incidents had illegal origins in India. According to the Wildlife Protection Society of India (WPSI), from 1974 to 2011 at least 245 skins, 12 skin caps, 85 garments made of skins and seven skin coats made from Red foxes have been confiscated from illegal trade in India; however, the subspecies were not distinguished and no cases were recorded since 2011 (WPSI, pers. Comm.). Currently, there does not appear to be much documented evidence of international trade in the three Red fox subspecies, and it is thus questionable whether an Appendix III listing is suitable for them.

It could be argued that the inclusion of subspecies is relevant, as they can essentially be treated as ‘endemics’, depending on the actual geographic range of the subspecies in question. However, one issue of listing subspecies and/or national populations in CITES generally, but Appendix III in particular, is the potential for misidentifications, especially for very similar looking (sub-)species, which makes law enforcement extremely difficult (Alfino and Roberts 2019). The listing of subspecies and national populations of species in Appendix III in particular should therefore be treated with caution (see also Wijnstekers (2018)) to avoid the potential of laundering similar looking subspecies or national populations as non-CITES listed conspecifics. Further, the ‘look-alike’ provisions that are provided for Appendix II species (Res. Conf. 9.24 (Rev.CoP17); https://cites.org/eng/res/09/09-24R16.php), are not applicable to Appendix III species and apart from assessing the target species suitability for Appendix III, it may be beneficial to consider whether similar looking non-CITES species in trade could be used to launder the protected species. In some cases, it may be better to include species instead of national populations or subspecies to minimise identification and therefore enforcement issues. Split-listings that place some species populations inside Appendix I or II and the remaining populations outside the Appendices should generally not be permitted (Res. Conf. 9.24 (Rev.CoP17)), and the same could be argued for national populations of Appendix III because of the aforementioned issues. Further, in the past concerns have been raised about the overuse of Appendix III, mostly due to species being listed that are not found in international trade (Wijnstekers 2018). In the case of the three Red Fox subspecies, it is possible that instances of trade were not recorded, as the subspecies could not be identified and distinguished. In this case it may make more sense to list the entire species Vulpes vulpes in CITES to monitor trade, instead of only a few subspecies. For V. vulpes international trade is evidently occurring in large volumes, especially for the fur industry (Wilson et al. 2013), but the species may not fulfil other listing criteria (see Res. Conf. 9.24 (Rev.CoP17)). However, if the concern is for the subspecies in particular and these are not traded internationally, but threatened by other (domestic) issues, they should not be listed in CITES, unless there is further evidence that international trade (legal or illegal) in these subspecies is occurring, which we may not have captured here.

Apart from the difficulties of identifying subspecies, another possibility for why trade may not have been captured for the Red fox subspecies is that trade for personal purposes in Appendix III species does not require any documentation under CITES (https://cites.org/eng/imp/Exemptions_and_special_procedures). It is the only ‘true’ exemption that exists in CITES, as opposed to any of the other exemptions, e.g., captive bred, or pre-convention specimens, which require special procedures and documentation (Res. Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP18); https://cites.org/sites/default/files/document/E-Res-12-03-R18.pdf). It is possible for Parties to take stricter domestic measures in regards to the personal and household effects exemption (Res. Conf. 13.7 (Rev.CoP17); https://cites.org/eng/res/13/13-07R16.php), but not many Parties do for Appendix III species. It is therefore possible that legal trade in Appendix III species does occur, but is not recorded in CITES (see also Willoek et al. (2004)).