Not just bluefin - coral jewelry, too - courtesy of Japan

Hello from rainy London! Thanks for reading over the last couple of weeks as we reported the at-times depressing news from Doha. I have another little tidbit to share....In addition to serving bluefin tuna sushi at their receptions in Doha, Japan also decided to shower delegates with coral tie-pins and jewelry. Nothing like being subtle. The world will be watching as these "new" management measures are put in place for bluefin (ICCAT, on the last day of the conference, if you recall, said something to the effect of, now we've really got to get our act together) and red and pink coral. Apparently, the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) is supposedly going to create some new management measures for red and pink coral, but it's unclear to me exactly how. In the meantime, I fully support the Christian Science Monitor's excellent editorial that states we need an 'Endangered Species Hour' - not just Earth Hour:

"As countries prepare for the next CITES meeting in Thailand in 2013, they should not forget the marine species that were turned down this time. Grass-roots pressure can do much to push governments toward a more responsible approach to marine life management. On Saturday, when people switch off the lights at 8:30 p.m. for Earth Hour, they should also consider switching off their appetites for bluefin tuna or pink and red coral jewelry. And for longer than just an hour."

Indeed! In the meantime, keep checking back; we'll keep posting interesting/unusual tidbits as SeaWeb continues to do its part to advance ocean conservation. Thanks again to Dr. Phaedra Doukakis for her invaluable contribution to this blog during CITES. How did everyone do on the quiz?

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.

Poor porbeagle - no marine species listed under CITES at CoP15

In a shocking turn of events, the CITES parties reversed their earlier (GOOD, SOUND) decision to list porbeagle sharks, prized for their meat, under CITES Appendix II. No ban, just sound management measures in place for trade to be allowed. Obviously, this was clearly a crazy idea, once countries had a day or so to think about it, and so today in plenary, the vote was reversed. 84 were in favour of protection, 46 against and 10 abstentions. (You need 2/3rds majority for a vote to pass). The only other time this has happened was the red and pink coral vote at CoP14. Industry groups were thrilled that time, and now this time. The Japanese Fishing Association sitting in front of me broke into applause.

But let's look at it this way - many, many countries were in support of this proposal. More countries were in support of porbeagle protection, red and pink coral protection and hammerhead protection than they were against. That makes me proud of all those countries who considered the science and found it was sound, and pushed 'yes' for these species (on a related note, SeaWeb's Melanie Siggs pointed out to me that it's so odd to be voting on these species, as if we own them, and I agree). We now have to hold these industries and regulatory bodies responsible. ICCAT made a statement that said something along the lines of 'we base our decisions on sound science, we now have a clear mandate to conserve bluefin tuna." (Picture above.) When did you NOT, ICCAT? We'll be watching, and we'll be back at CoP16 if things don't start to turn around.

In the meantime, we must, as consumers, refuse to purchase red and pink coral, bluefin tuna, and none of you better be ordering any shark fin soup. There is simply no guarantee that the trade in these species is at all sustainable. Right now we need to take the precautionary approach. It's an interesting concept, countries-opposed-to-CITES-listings-for-marine species. You might want to consider it. And for the umpteenth time, these App II proposals for sharks and corals would not have been a ban on trade (the bluefin App I proposal, which DOES ban international trade, was much-deserved and needed). Perhaps if we had heeded Sweden's 19992 proposal to list Atlantic bluefin under Appendix I, we would not be where we are now. And trade in red and pink corals, for example, could have continued under Appendix II. Now it continues, regardless, unchecked and unregulated....and unsustainable - for these species and the people that depend on them.

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.

IUCN red list assessment for red and pink corals?

Yesterday, during the US and EU's discussion of its red and pink coral proposal (which failed to receive the 2/3rds majority needed to pass, despite receiving a simple majority), many of the views expressed by the opposing countries mentioned the fact that red and pink corals "weren't even on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species." As if the fact that red and pink corals weren't on the List meant that all is fine. Today, I attended an IUCN press briefing on marine issues at CITES and Agence France Presse's Marlowe Hood asked the burning question, "Why haven't Coralliidae (red and pink corals) been assessed and are there plans to do an IUCN assessment of these species?

The amazing and prolific Kent Carpenter of IUCN and Old Dominion University responded. The reason that red and pink corals aren't on the IUCN red list is because they HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO DO AN ASSESSMENT YET. It was a completely erroneous argument by Japan and other opponents, and by the IWMC World "Conservation" Trust.

Other points made by Kent:
- 5 years ago, only 1% of IUCN red list species were marine.
- IUCN is due to assess over 20,000 marine species over the next five years
- All stony corals have been assessed and 1/3 were found to be threatened with extinction

My guess is that if red and pink corals are assessed for the IUCN Red List, they would be found 'vulnerable' or 'threatened with extinction.'

So my question is, now that this has been raised, can IUCN commit to doing a Red List assessment of precious and/or deep-sea corals? I know you only have a few thousand other species to consider, but if you could bump red and pink corals to the top of the list, we'd all appreciate it.

Trade in red and pink coral to continue unchecked

This CoP should be called No-ha, instead of Doha. Red and pink coral protection voted down after intensive lobbying efforts from the coral trade industry. We heard that after bluefin, this was the proposal that Japan was most keen to see defeated. Final vote count was 64 in favor, 59 against and 10 abstentions, with a total of 133 countries voting. That's no 2/3rds majority. So think twice before purchasing (actually, just don't purchase it, full stop) any red and pink coral - who knows where and how it was harvested? And those that are supplying it clearly don't care about meaningful protection.

The US and EU did a great job. Tom Strickland of the US introduced proposal 21 (see photo), and then the opposition were off and running. Libya, Singapore, Vanatu, Malaysia, Iceland, Japan, Morocco, Tunisia, Indonesia all spoke out against. Croatia, Iran, UAE, and EU all supported. Thank you Iran! SeaWeb's Kristian Teleki made the only NGO intervention and did a SMASHING JOB, pointing out that the EU and US proposal was not a ban on trade, that capacity building in the range states could have taken place if an Appendix II was put in place, and that if there is no RESOURCE, there is no INDUSTRY, LIVELIHOODS OR FUTURE for these coral artisans and workers. It's not rocket science.

The coral proposal got some attention (the wrong kind, I might add) from the Libyan representative as well. My favorite part of his intervention was him giving FULL CREDIT to the flawed FAO analysis, imploring all the countries to follow the FAO's advice on coral (they didn't support). Because just three days ago, he railed against the FAO analysis for bluefin, saying there was no basis to support the propsal.

Thanks for reading!

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

Don't Kill Us, We Are At Work

Indeed. I think we all hope this when we're at work, no? This is my favourite Doha road sign. And it's a sentiment I'm thinking for tomorrow - don't kill us, CITES delegates....grant some protection for red and pink coral. Yes, I know it's a tenuous link, but it's 12:30am Doha time and it's all I've got at the moment.

Will be blogging/tweeting about the outcome as soon as I'm able. Corals should be having their moment in the Doha sun about 2pm local time.

LOBBYING OVER RED AND PINK CORAL REACHES FEVER PITCH IN DOHA

Red and pink coral, prized for jewelry and home décor, are among the least known species being discussed at the 15th Conference of Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), taking place this week in Doha, Qatar. However, behind the scenes there is considerable lobbying by those who want to see this unique and valuable marine resource protected from unregulated trade, and coral industry representatives who fear any trade controls may force them out of business.

The Doha conference meeting has focused primarily on bluefin tuna and sharks, which are being proposed for Appendix I and Appendix II trade protection. While the bluefin tuna proposal was overwhelmingly defeated on Thursday, sharks and corals still have a chance at trade protection. Meanwhile intensive lobbying, side events, and distribution of materials by the coral industry with inaccurate information have occurred; all this activity is over 32 little-known, but extremely valuable deep-sea red and pink coral species, known as the Family Coralliidae.

Red and pink corals are long-lived, slow growing deep-sea coral species that are drastically different from their tropical water coral reef cousins. Over 30-50 metric tons of Coralliidae are harvested annually from the Mediterranean and the Pacific to meet consumer demand, yet there are no international trade protections to ensure these species can sustain such intense trade. All stony tropical reef corals have been protected under the Convention since the 1980s. Increased fishing pressure on Coralliidae species has resulted in serial depletion of populations around the world, prompting some coral scientists to say that: "given the nature of [red and pink coral] exploitation, the terms ‘harvesting’ and ‘fishery’ inaccurately imply a renewal of the resource, which in reality rarely occurs.” The United States and European Union have submitted a proposal at the 15th Conference of Parties to CITES to protect red and pink coral. Trade would still be allowed, but would have to be proven sustainable.

Kristian Teleki, vice president of science initiatives with SeaWeb said Coralliidae populations are under pressure from unregulated trade: “Red and pink corals are the most valuable and widely traded of all deep-sea corals. They’ve been intensively fished for centuries and populations are struggling as a result. An Appendix II CITES listing will ensure greater monitoring and protection of these species, to ensure their populations remain strong and continue to play an essential role in the marine ecosystem.”

In a recent piece by broadcast news network Al Jazeera, the Italian artisans and businesses who support a USD$230 million-a-year industry expressed concern that a CITES Appendix II listing for red and pink coral will force them to give up a livelihood that has deep historical and cultural roots. But Italian conservationists note that continued overharvesting of red and pink coral could be the real industry killer. Italy, once the world’s capital of the luxury red coral trade, is now sourcing 70% of its coral from the Pacific, where destructive fishing practices such as dredging are regularly used.

“During this meeting we have heard a great deal about bluefin tuna, sharks and the lobbying involving these species,” added Teleki. “What we haven’t heard is that similar industry interests are also attempting to thwart any protection for red and pink coral. In reality, this monitoring of the trade can help protect these species, as well as the people and livelihoods that depend on them. SeaWeb urges countries to ignore the propaganda and listen to the science and vote in support of the Coralliidae proposal. This may be these species’ last chance to receive any sort of meaningful protection.”

CITES parties will vote on the United States and European Union’s proposal on Sunday, March 21 in Doha, Qatar.

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.

Sharks on Al Jazeera today; Coral on Wednesday

Absolutely fantastic piece here by Al Jazeera on shark finning (who knew UAE supplies the world with 10% of its shark fins?) I could only find the text version but just watched the broadcast piece and it's fantastic. Here's another great shark fin piece (video), by the same journalist, Nick Clark. Al Jazeera will be running a story on red coral and CITES tomorrow, and will be interviewing SeaWeb at 12pm Doha time, from the CITES CoP. Watch this space!

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...

A few good reasons to protect red and pink coral

Here are just a few reasons why red and pink coral need international trade protection, straight from the mouths of some people who ought to know: Jewelry designer Temple St. Clair, ocean conservationist Céline Cousteau, coral scientist Andrew Baker, and Fernanda Kellogg, president of the Tiffany & Co. Foundation.

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.