CITES与CMS附录差异分析

Comparative Analysis of Discrepancies Between CITES and CMS Appendices

  • 摘要: 《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》(CITES)与《保护野生动物迁徙物种公约》(CMS)是两个以物种保护为核心目标的国际公约, 均采用附录名录的方式, 对受关注物种实施管控与管理。笔者在简述两大公约及其附录体系的基础上, 通过对比分析公约收录的动物类群差异, 提出针对性履约建议。研究表明, 两个公约在类群覆盖范围、保护侧重点与物种组成方面存在显著差异。截至2026年3月23日, CITES共收录6 689个动物物种/亚种, CMS收录1 205个动物物种/亚种。CMS仅覆盖哺乳类、鸟类、爬行类、鱼类及昆虫, 且仅包含1种昆虫; 而CITES类群覆盖更为广泛, 除上述类群外, 还涵盖两栖类、珊瑚及其他无脊椎动物。共计369个动物物种/亚种被两大公约交叉收录, 主要集中于食肉目、鲸目、偶蹄目、隼形目等类群, 多数交叉收录物种在两个公约的附录等级保持一致。整体来看, 两大公约附录动物呈现互补性强、重叠范围有限的格局, 共同构筑了全球濒危野生动物保护体系。未来应统一两大公约的分类命名体系, 推进CMS-CITES联合物种数据库建设, 加强与其他多边环境公约的协同合作, 持续跟进CMS履约进展, 进而推动生物多样性全面保护目标的实现。

     

    Abstract: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) are two international treaties with species conservation as their core objective. Both adopt appendix-listing mechanisms to categorize, and regulate species of conservation concern. Based on a comprehensive review of the two conventions and their appendix systems, this paper analyzes the differences in animal species listed in the appendices and puts forward targeted implementation suggestions. The findings reveal marked divergences between the two conventions in taxonomic coverage, conservation priorities, and species composition. As of March 23 2026, CITES appendices include 6 689 animal species or subspecies, while CMS appendices cover 1 205. The CMS listing is taxonomically confined to mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and insects, with only one insect species listed. In contrast, CITES encompasses a broader taxonomic scope, additionally including amphibians, corals, and other invertebrates. A total of 369 animal species or subspecies are listed under both conventions, predominantly distributed across Carnivora, Cetacea, Artiodactyla, Falconiformes and other taxa. Most cross-listed species share identical appendix levels under the two conventions. Overall, the species listings of the two conventions exhibit a pattern of predominance complementarity with limited overlap, jointly contributing to a global conservation framework for endangered fauna. To enhance future synergy, it is recommended to harmonize the taxonomic and nomenclatural systems between CITES and CMS, promote the development of a joint CMS-CITES species database, strengthen coordination with other relevant multilateral environmental agreements, and continuously monitor the implementation progress of CMS. These measures would facilitate the comprehensive conservation of global biodiversity.

     

/

返回文章
返回