The striped hyaena Hyaena hyaena has been categorized as Near Threatened on the IUCN Red List since 2015, but the assessment is annotated as ‘needs updating’ and the species is currently the subject of international policy discussions. At the 20th Conference of the Parties to CITES in late 2025, a proposal to uplist the striped hyaena from CITES Appendix III to Appendix I was initially rejected, but was subsequently adopted in plenary for inclusion in Appendix II. In parallel, a proposal for the species’ inclusion in Appendices I and II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals is under consideration for the 15th Conference of the Parties in March 2026. These efforts reflect growing concern over illegal trade and continuing decline.

In recent evaluations, some advisory and review processes have recommended not to include the striped hyaena in CITES Appendix I because of the limited availability of robust, peer-reviewed data. These concerns raise an important question: does reliance on comprehensive data inadvertently disadvantage species that are poorly studied? Supporters of the proposal to uplist have emphasized a precautionary approach under CITES regulations, noting that remaining uncertainties should not delay action when evidence points to ecological vulnerability, continued decline and illegal trade. The precautionary principle was developed for such situations, guiding decision-making even when full scientific certainty is lacking. This places scientists in a difficult position. Global policy frameworks depend on scientific assessments, yet many species, especially those that are elusive or considered uncharismatic, usually do not have the detailed data needed to satisfy such expectations. This creates circular dependency. We struggle to obtain stronger protection for species that have been the subject of limited research, yet we often lack data precisely because these species have not benefited from the funding and attention that typically follow, rather than precede, higher-level listings. Consequently, data continue to accumulate for well-studied species, whereas lesser-studied species remain at a disadvantage.

Consultation processes during proposal preparation for Conferences of the Parties do seek additional information from range states, much of it not published in the peer-reviewed literature but nevertheless essential. However, such evidence often carries less weight than formal assessments, and preparing peer-reviewed data is in some cases beyond the capacity of many range states. This raises concerns about equity in global decision-making: countries with limited research capacity may be unintentionally marginalized in this respect. Although the IUCN Red List remains an indispensable global resource, outdated assessments complicate its use as the primary reference for policy decisions. Complementary frameworks such as the IUCN Green Status of Species, which assesses recovery potential and conservation success, may help provide broader guidance for decision-makers.

The ongoing debate about the striped hyaena highlights a deeper ethical and practical dilemma: how can international conventions ensure support for species needing urgent conservation actions but lacking the comprehensive data required to meet existing listing criteria? Without reflection and potential adjustments to current processes, under-researched and less publicly prominent species may continue to face disadvantages within the very mechanisms designed to secure their long-term conservation.