CITES is legally binding on member states, but does not take the place of domestic legislation and does not address IWT directly. 

Many countries do not provide legal protections for non-native species, creating significant gaps in legislation that criminals exploit to launder trafficked species into legitimate trade.

National wildlife trafficking laws are typically weak, unenforced or both. Wildlife crime legislation may be imprecise, lacking clear definitions to allow law enforcement to differentiate between “professional traffickers, opportunistic animal sellers, and people who keep a few animals at home as pets”(Charity and Machado Ferreira, 2020). In-depth criminal IWT investigations rarely occur (Vervaele et al, 2017).

Judiciaries typically lack knowledge on laws related to wildlife crime and do not understand the scope, scale or value of wildlife crime. Moreover, sentencing guidelines rarely reflect the seriousness of the crime. Even repeat offenders are typically only subject to seizure of their wildlife and a short jail term and small fine. High-level officials implicated in wildlife trafficking often face no penalties (Ortiz-von Halle, 2019).

Additional challenges relate to the overlap in responsibilities between enforcement agencies and across states, including specialised wildlife crime enforcement authorities. The resulting lack of coordination between states, and between states and federal agencies, impacts capabilities to counter wildlife trafficking (Charity and Machado Ferreira, 2020).

Complexity around laws and jurisdictions suggests that “[i]n contrast to most crime types, the most common question in wildlife trafficking cases is not who has committed the crime, but whether a crime has occurred at all” (Ege et al, 2020).