ABSTRACT CITES has demonstrated a persistent trend of regulatory tightening over five decades, raising critical questions about both equity and effectiveness in global conservation governance. This study examines how structural power imbalances and dominant Northern narratives within the Convention have systematically marginalized pluralistic conservation discourses, disproportionately disadvantaging Global South states. Through mixed‐methods analysis—combining voting pattern data from CITES Appendix amendment proposals (CoP3–CoP19) with case studies of giraffes, European eels, and totoaba—this study reveals systemic inequities in decision‐making processes. Findings indicate that Northern countries disproportionately promote “strict conservation” narratives, targeting Southern species, with upgrade proposals adopted at significantly higher rates than downgrades despite equivalent voting thresholds. Concurrently, sustainable utilization strategies face institutional barriers in Southern states, further reflecting structural inequities. Our study shows that centralization within CITES correlates with the underrepresentation of Southern voices and the disproportionate influence of Northern‐dominated NGOs. Ultimately, we argue that CITES’ regulatory tightening reflects neocolonial dynamics, prioritizing Northern ethical narratives over resource sovereignty and local realities. Thus, to ensure more equitable and effective governance, reforms must democratize decision‐making processes and better respect pluralistic conservation discourses.
Lian et al. (Sun,) studied this question.