Marine Species Welcome under CITES, Part Deux (heck, they're mentioned in the Convention text 3 times)

Fisheries, along with timber, dominate the wildlife trade.

It's called the Convention on International TRADE in Endangered SPECIES. Not endangered land mammals, or plants, but SPECIES. (Although see this hilarious facebook page, courtesy of the End of the Line film, on new names for CITES. My nonsensical favourite is 'Couldn't Issue Tickets to an Elderly Salmon). The Convention text boasts no less than 3 specific mentions to marine species, so despite all we've heard/seen/rolled our eyes about over the past two weeks, marine species, especially those exploited for the international trade, can and should be listed under CITES. Let's not forget that there are already 100 or so marine species already on there. And yes, for those of you not living/breathing CITES, I know this is all quite nerdy, but to suggest marine species shouldn't be under CITES are fightin' words for those that have worked hard to bring these proposals here, and who believe in the effectiveness of this Convention for important conservation and socioeconomic gains.

For more on this subject, I'm turning it over to Dr. Doukakis:

Exploitation of fisheries is often driven by international demand. This is quite evident with bluefin tuna, as 80% of the Atlantic bluefin tuna caught is sent straight to Japan (think this has anything to do with their vociferous rebuttal of Monaco’s proposal to ban all international trade in this valuable fish?). Trade regulation therefore can have a positive effect on fisheries and marine conservation by controlling market availability, and DOES NOT always mean a trade ban. Instead, it allows an additional way for us to manage our marine environments. A CITES listing DOES NOT replace fisheries management.

Time and again at this meeting, we have heard that we need to “let ICCAT do its job” (bluefin) and “let GFCM (the General Fisheries Commission of the Mediterranean) manage precious coral in the Mediterranean.” Both of these bodies have failed to sustainably manage these resources. CITES can COMPLEMENT both bodies. And if the management is lacking, if trade is proven to be having an adverse impact on these species in question, a mechanism exists to limit or stop trade.

How would we otherwise detect illegal trade in fisheries products if we don’t have species listed under CITES? Say, hypothetically, only 20,000 fins from the Appendix II-listed porbeagle shark were permitted to be sustainably taken and traded (because any more than that would have hurt the population). But through CITES monitoring, it was found that 40,000 fins were being traded. We would know that the porbeagle's luck might be running out and that its fisheries should be more closely monitored and management revised to address a clear lack of compliance.

Marine species may be much more widespread and may have much higher population numbers as compared to some of the terrestrial species we usually hear about at CITES. Millions of fish may seem like a lot if the bigger picture of decline is not taken into account. And we may not have many examples of marine extinction. Are we really so thick as to think that just because marine species exist in the ocean rather on land that we will not see the same extinction as we have seen on land? Fossil record, anyone?

The sharks that are up for listing have all the right CITES bells and whistles – they meet the biological criteria, their exploitation is driven by trade, there is potential for overexploitation that would drive the populations to be listed under Appendix I, there are tools to manage the trade (see this excellent fact sheet by the Pew Environment Group for more on this). So far, the porbeagle shark has managed to sneak on (editor's note: I would argue that's because it's more often caught for its meat than for its fins, meaning that Asia has less of an interest and the lobbying against this species was less intense).

If this CITES CoP closes without listing any other marine species that clearly warrant listing, it will be a triumph of commercial interests over biological evidence. The international community must address the issues raised at this meeting so this does not happen at CoP16.

Photo: Shannon Crownover, Marine Photobank

The FAO panel is providing political cover, nothing more (for the moment)

The FAO ad-hoc advisory panel on commercially-exploited aquatic species for consideration under CITES. Still with me or did you fall asleep? Yes, it's a long title for what is essentially a panel. And this will be a heavy post. But holy endangered species, there is A LOT of emphasis (for better or for worse) on the panel's recommendations when you start talking CITES.

A quick refresher on FAO. It's the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. It has a dedicated fisheries and aquaculture department whose mission is to "facilitate and secure the long-term sustainable development and utilization of the world's fisheries and aquaculture." FAO attempts to promote solutions to advance this mission, and a great deal of its work is monitoring, collecting and analyzing data from the world's fisheries and fish farming productions (see its SOFIA report). Its relationship with CITES has been contentious at times, because of a Memorandum of Understanding that was adopted between FAO and CITES in July 2006. The MOU essentially said that FAO and CITES should coordinate their efforts better, since a lot more marine species were increasingly being put forward for CITES protection (the need for FAO input on marine issues was first raised in 1997 at CoP10).

So from this MOU it was agreed that FAO would convene a bunch of experts to weigh in on the marine species being proposed for a CITES listing that could help guide the parties' decisions. They released their first panel report before CoP13 and so far have weighed in on the following marine species: (I've noted after each one whether or not the FAO felt the proposal met the CITES criteria and thus warranted listing, and if they received protection under CITES).

CoP13:
- white shark, Appendix II (no FAO support, received CITES protection)
- humphead wrasse, Appendix II (FAO support, received CITES protection
- Mediterranean data mussel, Appendix II (no FAO support, received CITES protection)

CoP14:
- Porbeagle shark (no FAO support, did not receive CITES protection)
- Spiny dogfish (no FAO support, did not receive CITES protection)
- Sawfish (FAO support, received CITES protection)
- European Eel (FAO support, received CITES protection)
- Banggai Cardinalfish (no FAO support, did not receive CITES protection)
- Brazilian spiny lobster (no FAO support, proposal withdrawn at CoP14)
- Red and pink coral: (no FAO support, did not receive CITES protection)

CoP15: ( some of these could get brought back in plenary)
- Porbeagle shark (FAO support, received CITES protection)
- Spiny dogfish (no FAO support, did not receive CITES protection)
- Oceanic whitetip shark ( support, did not receive CITES protection)
- Hammerhead sharks (FAO support, did not receive CITES protection)
- Bluefin tuna (FAO support, did not receive CITES protection)
- Red and pink coral: (no FAO support, did not receive CITES protection)

What's interesting to me is that the opinion of the panel feels all but useless at this meeting. If the panel supported a species being listed (hammerhead, bluefin spring to mind), once upon a time at CoP14, the parties would go almost exclusively on that recommendation. Not so at CoP15. In fact, the hypocrisy of the parties is reaching new....highs? lows? China and Japan railed against all marine proposals - the only time they invoked the FAO panel was if the FAO panel felt they did not meet the criteria. Opposing countries conveniently forgot, when making their interventions on hammerheads, bluefin and whitetips, that the FAO concluded that the species in question did warrant listing. So at this meeting, the FAO panel recommendations have provided convenient political cover at best (corals, spiny dogfish), and have been completely ignored at worst (all others).

Wow, that was a heavy post - you deserve a medal if you stuck that one out. Don't worry, I'm going to be posting pictures of elephants made out of towels and Middle Eastern malls next.

Japan - only one to blame?

I've been feeling a lot of ire for Japan and their 50+ strong contingent at CITES this week and last. I've given the stink-eye to the Japanese Fishing Association sitting in front of me in Committee 1, and have glared at the Japanese Leather Traders Ass [ociation.] to my right. (Its placard really does stop after the 's'.) I even had a line in a blog post earlier today that said Sapporo used to be one of my favorite beers, but now it has a distinctive 'endangered species' aftertaste. (I deleted it because I don't want to be disappointed AND broke - because I've been sued). I still love you, Sapporo!

But Japan is not the only one to blame for the lack of protection for bluefin and corals and corals at this meeting. As a country, they are certainly very powerful when it comes to marine species and have a lobbying machine that has to be seen to be believed, but it's important to remember that they are just ONE vote among many - and a two/thirds majority vote is needed to get something passed at a CoP. Yes, yes, I know they lobby the other countries, increasing their vote count, but we cannot solely blame them for the lack of progress on marine species protection at this meeting. More on this tomorrow (what do Japanese consumers think about their country's hawkish stance?) and more thoughts from Dr. Doukakis on CITES and marine species - Part Deux (check out Part 1 below). P and I were talking this evening - are CITES countries biased against listing species that are consumed for food? Food (see what I did there?) for thought.....

Marine wildlife welcome - Part 1 (more wise words from Dr. Doukakis)

Contrary to what some are saying at the 15th Conference of Parties, CITES SHOULD protect marine species. Unfortunately at this meeting, Doha has been given the tag “No-ha,” as no marine species proposals have been accepted (we do have 8 species of sharks that have yet to be considered, so there is some hope). The discussions so far at this meeting have revolved around the question, “is CITES irrelevant and/or too hard to implement for marine species?” The answer is a resounding NO.

Contrary to the detractors, conservation of fish is NOT only about production; it is in fact also about preservation of species and marine ecosystems, and, because we’re talking about CITES, it also has to do with TRADE. Fish are some of the most heavily traded wildlife commodities in the world. Marine environments and wildlife matter just as much as land-based places and animals. Just because we can’t always see the fish - or the corals, for that matter - they’re still there, providing services to ecosystems as well as to people and industries). Extraction and trade matter equally in both wet and dry environments

As folks like Carl Safina have noted, we often refer to taking fish out of the ocean as a “harvest.” This implies that fish populations are somehow like fields of crops that we can completely harvest and replant. There are multiple examples where this approach and mindset have miserably failed the species and the communities that depend on them, cod and sturgeon for a start.

These examples have ended in tragic consequences for fishermen, ecosystems and communities. History and science has shown that we cannot just “harvest” as much fish as we want. And what about other marine species?

Think of precious corals that support some of the slowest-growing “fisheries” known to man. A recent study of Mediterranean and Pacific coral scientists found that: "given the nature of the [precious coral] exploitation, the terms ‘harvesting’ and ‘fishery’ inaccurately imply a renewal of the resource, which in reality rarely occurs. In management terms, the majority of fisheries can more precisely be characterized as ‘coral mining’. "

We have to manage what we take out of the ocean, leaving some for other species and allowing the fish and other organisms to play their role in the ecosystem.

Where's all the bluefin going?

It's going to feed delegates at No-ha, apparently. A contact of mine in a delegation that shall remain nameless told me that last night at the official Japanese reception (which many delegates were required to attend), they were serving Atlantic bluefin tuna. Worst of all, the queue for the bluefin sushi was LONG. Truly disgusting and shameful. Remember that this fish is rated AVOID by the Monterey Bay Aquarium's seafood watch list, and countless others. I can only assume Japan was basking in the glow of their wins with bluefin and coral (their top two priorities at the CoP) being defeated. I wonder now if some of their 50+ strong delegation will be leaving?

So, Japan has held two receptions (that we know of) at CoP15 and they have served bluefin tuna at each event. (Remember the first reception was, as we understand it, impromptu, timed to clash directly with Pew/Oceana's sharks reception. All head of delegations were invited.)

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.

Thanks for reading!

Thanks for reading! Glad you're a fan of the blog.