A few examples of country interventions in No-ha, I mean Doha

Anyone want to have a guess as to which country made these interventions in the name of bluefin?

“Ignorance should disappear once everything appears as it should appear... Maybe you can have 10 cars, but you can only drive one car. Maybe you can have many fleets, but they are not going to work at the same time. There are many things related to the species, one thing is fishing, the other thing is trading...Monaco is trying to tell lies, and this will have a bad impact on our interests... Tuna is not a stupid animal, it is an intelligent fish. That is why they have gone back to the poor nations... [insert translator laughing]... If you are not sure about something, don’t step forward until you get all the necessary evidence. If you are not capable of being with people or cannot be a referee, don’t do that. You are a liar and you are not telling the truth. This goes for the EU... There are 5-6 million species as Japan said [Japan had actually said there are 5-6 million bluefin tuna fish left], and we have to study those 5 million species for 5 million years until we can reach any conclusions. In conclusion, I want to go into voting because there is no harmony here. I call for voting to reject the [Monaco Appendix I] proposal immediately.... Let's go to vote now!"

I am still amazed by the support on the floor of the FAO panel advice for corals despite FAO being thoroughly dismissed in the bluefin discussion. The industry hijacked these discussions on species under threat and, for bluefin tuna and red and pink coral, the best thing you can do is BOYCOTT both. With the overruling of meaningful trade protection, consumers have the power. Jewelers and designers who care about the ocean environment and the future of coral should leave coral in the ocean where it belongs. Maybe one day (hopefully before it's too late), we'll see meaningful international trade protection for corals and bluefin passed, but right now none exists.

This CoP still has the opportunity to lose its No-Ha tagline (thanks again, member of a delegation which shall remain nameless, for that brilliant tag). Eight species of sharks are up for listing (elephants first on Monday, then sharks). Japan doesn't really have dedicated shark fisheries (meaning they're just opposed generally to something that swims in the ocean receiving more stringent protection) so these species may get a chance at protection.....watch this space. More guest blogging coming from Dr. Phaedra Doukakis soon.

WHAT THE HECK EU? (and Japan definitely served bluefin last night at their reception)

The Japanese media scrum was happening RIGHT where our coral reception was supposed to take place. I didn't think they would leave. Pictures above. But we rallied and had a great turnout. Dr. Andy Bruckner of NOAA, Ernie Cooper of TRAFFIC and Kristian Teleki of SeaWeb did a great job of convincing the crowd that despite industry concerns, red and pink coral need and warrant international trade protection. But what about sharks? Do those 8 species have a fighting chance on Sunday? John Cigliano from the US delegation seems to think so. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Best giveaways at CoP15 so far

IFAW had some stuffed tigers that were going quick and fast - I think every delegate with a child under 10 had those snapped up before anyone else even had a chance. The CITES/Doha baseball hat moved less quickly. Hats off (see what I did there?) to WWF's Gemma Parkes who organised the International Herald Tribune's 'Tuna Edition' (above left).

But CLEARLY the best giveaway/prize/tschoke, the one that everyone is talking about, is the 'SIZE DOES MATTER' bag for Coralliidae (above) by yours truly. It's in reference to the fact that last time, at CoP14, the red and pink coral proposal was narrowly (and nastily) defeated because, among other reasons, the FAO analysis decided that there were plenty of red and pink corals in the sea and that population numbers were fine! When actually, the science shows that colony size has declined to the point that 80-90% of individuals (ie polyps, the reproductive elements of the coral) have been lost.

The official CITES delegate bags hold, among other things, a box of dates, a bunch of Doha postcards, a converter (score), a pen by Pew Environment Group (wonder how they managed that?), all the CITES CoP15 documents (amounting to a few saplings) and a partridge in a pear tree...

So what is CITES, anyway?

CITES (those in the know pronounce it 'sigh-tees') is an international agreement (kind of like the Kyoto Protocol) between most countries in the world to manage/oversee/enforce regulations relating to the significant trade in wildlife products. The global wildlife trade is lucrative (worth billions of dollars annually; check out TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, for some stats) and LARGE - it includes fur, food (seafood, bushmeat, caviar, etc) herbs, timber, jewelry, curios, medicine (tiger bone wine, anyone?). As you can imagine, sometimes this has negative consequences for certain animals and plants that the global community just can't get enough of. CITES was created to ensure that this trade, useful and important to help sustain economies, particularly developing ones, does not threaten the very resource on which the trade depends. Something that you've probably all heard of that was a direct result of CITES was the 1989 international trade ban on ivory.

There are over 30,000 species of plants and around 5,000 animals listed under CITES. CITES has 3 appendixes and each one offers varying levels of trade protection from Appendix I (most restrictive, international trade is not allowed) to Appendix III (least restrictive, trade is allowed and species in question has to be identified to its country of origin). Most plants and animals are listed under Appendix II, which simply requires proof from a country that trade is not detrimental to the species in question. Species are proposed for listing under the Appendixes every 2-3 years at something called the Conference of Parties (this year it's CoP15, in Doha, Qatar). Confusingly, the Copenhagen meeting that happened in December was also the 15th CoP for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

CoPs are generally quite controversial, with clear lines being drawn amongst groups and countries, and everyone falling into roughly 3 categories: pro-trade (any trade, doesn't matter how endangered the species is!) against trade (no matter what) and somewhere in between. CoP15 will be equally exciting, without a doubt. Controversial marine (we're SeaWeb, after all) proposals up for consideration include bluefin tuna, eight species of sharks, and 32 species of red and pink coral (scientific name Coralliidae). We're in favor of all of these, but are ESPECIALLY interested in red and pink coral - we've been working on it for years, after all! After the fiasco of CoP14 in 2007 (more on that later; have to keep you coming back for more), it is high time red and pink coral receive some help from the international community.