Endangered Animals and Plants under Scrutiny – Hope of protection for polar bears, red tuna, sharks and corals disappears over the horizon
Although Germany and the European Union have been fighting within CITES for more than nine years for better protection for the porbeagle shark and spiny dogfish, yet again there was a crushing defeat. The majority of the 188-country-strong Convention categorically quashed the inclusion of these two endangered shark species on Appendix II at its 15th Conference in Doha, Qatar, from 13th-25th March. And this, despite the fact that the listing would not even have banned international commercial trade but would simply have called for a control of trade and evidence of sustainable use. Only a listing on Appendix I would result in an international commercial ban on trade.
The USA fared no better. They had originally proposed six shark species for Appendix II listing but had already withdrawn three during the discussions. Three hammerhead species remained but stood no chance of clearing the necessary hurdles. Even recommendations and warnings from the FAO (the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation), which studies the status of fish stocks, fell on deaf ears. Fish and chips (from porbeagle), shark steaks (all sharks), so-called ‘Schillerlocken’, (smoked strips of dogfish) or even shark fins, much-loved in Asia for the soup of affluence and prestige, all are obviously far more important than the survival of endangered species so vital for the marine ecosystem.
Against every scientific recommendation and contrary to all common sense, Japan and its allies succeeded in preventing the adoption of urgently-needed protective measures for these species in the Atlantic, even for the bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus). Monaco’s proposal for a temporary ban on international commercial trade of this coveted and threatened delicacy was also rejected. The outcome is very disappointing given that the tuna has been struggling for sheer survival for a long time.
CITES was the last hope for sanity to prevail. Even ICCAT (the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas), the body responsible for the management of fisheries, has been failing in its aims for more than three decades. A catch quota for 2007 of 15,000t, for example, was proposed by scientists; eventually a quota of 29,500t was sanctioned by fisheries – and, of course, the final number caught was far higher. No surprise there. One specimen of this charismatic, four-metre-long fish, which weighs more than 700kg and can reach an age of 40, puts US$100,000 into the coffers. It is the highlight of every sushi menu.
ICCAT scientists have projected that stocks in the eastern Atlantic will be reduced to 18% of those in 1970 – and only 6% of the original stocks before commercial exploitation – if the present quotas continue. In the western Atlantic, things are looking even worse. ICCAT scientists calculated that even with a hypothetical quota of 0 (zero), this fish icon will still have to be considered endangered in the year 2019. For 2023 the prognosis is no better.
In addition to the already politically too highly-estimated fisheries quotas, the illegal quota must be considered. It even has a name: IUU fishing (illegal, unreported and unregulated). It could mean the final straw for this amazing fish. A CITES listing could have helped by banning commercial trade – and by exposing some of the illegal trade. Only one hope remains: that the devotees of the blue fin tunas could, in their own interest, put a temporary stop to the catch and then allocate future quotas with far more care. A continuation of the present mismanagement could bring down the curtain on this species.
Bad luck, too, for the Ursus maritimus, the polar bear. Although the USA spared no effort, even distributing polar bear soft toys, their attempts to protect polar bears from international commercial trade through a listing on Appendix I failed. In fact, climate change creates more problems than trade for Knut’s relatives in the wild. (Knut is the polar bear cub born in captivity at Berlin Zoo). A listing on Appendix I would not have resulted in better protection from trophy hunters, as products from any species listed there are allowed to be sold as trophies with import and export permits from the participating countries. Added to this, the use of these ‘resources’ by indigenous people (in this case Greenland, Alaska, Canada or Siberia) would still remain possible. It doesn’t count as commercial. In other words: the world would not have become a better place for Ursus maritimus. The king of the Arctic remains on Appendix II, which at least demands a control of trade, e.g. if he is to be used as a bedside rug.
Negotiations over better protection for delicacies or other treasures from our oceans have no chance of success as long as Japan and its friends, as well as other fishing nations, continue to fight for their own commercial interests. This became clear yet again with a US proposal to list red corals on Appendix II. Although this would not entail a general trade ban but only proof of sustainabilty and better trade controls, the proposal was also doomed to failure. It is incomprehensible, especially as all criteria for a listing were met – and scientists were in no doubt of the necessity for protective measures.
Any proposal for more protection, no matter how well-founded, has little chance of success if valuable products are part of the bigger picture. The majestic elephant is, of course, also affected because it is unfortunate enough to possess valuable ivory tusks. Tanzania and Zambia wanted to facilitate the sale of ivory through a de-listing from Appendix I to Appendix II, whilst Kenya proposed a nine-year moratorium on the sale of ivory. Neither aim was reached.
Saved from massive lobbying by the for-and-against camps, small frogs and a salamander species were able to climb the Appendices by consensus. Tree frogs from Central America, including the red-eyed tree frog, were listed on Appendix II, and the Kaiser’s spotted newt from Iran on Appendix I. These species are ‘only’ of interest to the zoo trade and there are obviously not too many takers. And last but not least, with little discussion for or against, a duck (Anas oustaleti) was struck off Appendix I. It is definitely extinct.
Petra Deimer-Schütte, 29.03.2010
Translation: Susan Oestmann
