So long Doha, and thanks for all the delicious hummus

So, since we may all be a little down based on the outcomes at CoP15 , we think it might be fun to play a little game.

A message from Dr. Phaedra Doukakis, as she flew out first thing Friday morning and has been an invaluable contributor to this compilation of stories from Doha:

"Thanks, Julia, for having me here - you're brilliant! But on to the quiz:"





If you answer all the below questions correctly, you just might win an all-expense paid trip to CoP 16…

1) A species get listed under CITES when it:

a. has no/little commercial value

b. is found on land

c. is not consumed in Japan

d. All of the above

2) A species allegedly qualifies for CITES listing when:

a. It shows a decline of over 90%

b. It shows a decline to 15% of its virgin biomass

c. Trade is an important driver in its harvest and individuals have declined by 80-90%

d. None of the above

3) A species is more likely to be protected by CITES countries if it’s:

a. Grey

b. Has a tusk

c. Endemic to Africa

d. All of the above

4) CITES should list a marine species when:

a. It is managed by a regional fisheries management organization (RFMO) because CITES can work hand and hand with RFMO’s to make sure illegal trade does not threaten the species.

b. Trade is major driver of exploitation (like with shark fins or with red and pink coral)

c. There are tools to monitor the trade like visual identification and genetics tools.

d. All of the above

5) CITES applies to marine species because:

a. Marine and aquatic species are mentioned in the Convention text three times.

b. Marine species are in fact ENDANGERED SPECIES and occur in trade. (in fact they make up the bulk of the wildlife trade (along with timber).

c. We depend on marine species for food, livelihood and climate

d. All of the above.

6) Marine species are listed under CITES at CoP15 when:

a. The UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) supports the species’ inclusion under CITES.

b. The CITES Secretariat recommends that protection is warranted.

c. A majority of the parties vote for listing the species in question under CITES.

d. None of the above.

7) What did the Libyan delegate say at CoP15:

a. "God fears only scholars."

b. "If you have 10 cars you only drive one."

c. "Excessive consumption of shark fins causes early Alzheimers"

d. all of the above.

8) Which country is most likely to request a secret ballot at CITES?

a. Iceland

b. St. Lucia

c. Japan

d. all of the above

9) Where are you most likely to find Atlantic bluefin tuna?

a. In abundance in the Mediterranean

b. In Appendix I

c. In Appendix II

d. On the menu at a Japanese reception at CITES

10) Which of the following species WERE listed under CITES at Cop15 (gotta end on a high note, folks!):

a. Kaiser's spotted newt

b. Leaf frogs

c. Iazambohitra (Liana plant)

d. all of the above

If you answered d to all of the above, go out and reward yourself by making smart, sustainable choices about the seafood you eat and the jewelry that you wear. Then go take a swim and marvel at all of the beautiful creatures in our ocean, and do you part to help preserve these creatures and their ecosystems.

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

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.