When experts recommend that trade in species should be regulated or prohibited, CITES is quick to act. When they find the species do not meet listing criteria, however, CITES ignores them.
The entire family of requiem sharks (Carcharhinidae) – all twelve genera and 59 species of them – are to be included in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES).
The 19th Conference of the Parties (CoP19), which concluded last week in Panama City, voted to accept the proposal.
It was hailed as a ‘historic step’ by the Worldwide Fund for Nature, and as ‘the day we turned the tide to prevent the extinction of the world’s sharks and rays’ by the World Conservation Society.
However, the vote was controversial, and contradicted the advice of a duly appointed panel of 21 scientific experts responsible for evaluating listing proposals for aquatic species.
This raises serious concerns about the scientific integrity of CITES.
The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) has much experience in the conservation of shark populations, having established an International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. It recommends that states with interests in the shark trade adopt and implement this plan.
The FAO has for almost two decades been formally invited to convene a Panel of Experts tasked with providing the CITES Secretariat with scientific assessments of proposals to list commercially valuable aquatic species on the CITES Appendices, in accordance with the CITES biological listing criteria.
The panel was also asked to provide advice on the technical aspects of the proposal in relation to biology, ecology, trade and management issues, as well as, to the extent possible, the likely effectiveness of a proposed listing for conservation.
Overruled
Despite its excellent record and the unanimous support of member states in convening it for the assessment of proposals to CITES CoP19, the FAO expert panel reportedly faced withering criticism from the Israeli delegation, and the CITES Secretariat overruled most of its findings.
Eugène Lapointe, Secretary-General of CITES from 1982 to 1990, and president of the IWMC World Conservation Trust, commented: ‘It is interesting to note that when the FAO Panel of Experts concludes that the proposed listing meets the CITES criteria for listing, proponents and supporters make great use of this statement. However, when the FAO Panel of Experts concludes that proposals, such as the blanket listing of all requiem sharks, do not meet the CITES criteria, then the advice is ignored or seriously criticised.’
The requiem shark proposal (Proposal 37) covered 19 species, but sought the listing of all the remaining species in the family under the look-alike clause of the listing criteria.
The FAO argued, firstly, that this could not be considered as a single proposal.
When evaluated separately, it found that only three of the 19 named species – the grey reef shark, the smalltail shark and the Ganges shark – met the criteria for inclusion on Appendix II. Twelve did not meet the criteria, and there was insufficient data to evaluate the remaining four.
In toto, therefore, the FAO recommended against listing even just the 19 named requiem shark species.
The CITES Secretariat ignored the expert panel and recommended that the entire family be listed on Appendix II.
Discrepancies
During the committee deliberations on proposal 37, the FAO drew attention to the findings of its expert panel assessment, which considered that several of the requiem shark species proposed did not meet the listing criteria.
According to the minutes of the meeting, Iceland, supported by Mauritania, noted discrepancies between the advice by the CITES Secretariat and that of the expert panel. Antigua and Barbuda, and Papua New Guinea opposed the proposal entirely, stating a lack of scientific basis for the inclusion of some species and observing that it would threaten livelihoods of coastal communities, in particular in developing countries.
Japan opposed the inclusion in the proposal of the 35 to 40 species proposed for listing under the look-alike criteria. It offered an amendment to exclude these from the proposal. Using exactly the same wording as the paragraph that recommended their inclusion, it proposed to exclude ten named genera that do not meet the CITES listing criteria, ‘and any other putative species of family Carcharhinidae that do not satisfy [the criteria].’
Japan’s proposal was supported by Canada, Indonesia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, South Africa and the International Coalition of Fisheries but opposed by Liberia, Niger and the United States of America.
However, the chair of the committee, Dr Vin Fleming of the United Kingdom, noted that the words ‘and any other putative species … that do not satisfy [the criteria]’ would cover many species other than the 35 or so Japan intended to exclude by name.
That would be because the vast majority of the 19 named species in the original proposal do not meet the criteria, as the FAO expert panel had noted.
Out-voted
Japan requested a secret ballot on its proposed amendment, in the hope of convincing more countries to support it without being publicly seen to do so. It gained the support of only 43 countries, but that wasn’t enough to defeat the 81 who voted against.
The chair then put the original proposal to a vote, also by secret ballot. The minutes do not make it clear who requested a secret ballot.
In the end, with a vote of 88 parties in favour, 29 against and 17 abstentions, the original proposal to include the entire family of requiem sharks on Appendix II was adopted.
To repeat: fifty-nine individual shark species were listed, although only three met the criteria for such a listing, against the advice of 21 scientific experts on the FAO panel, and, presumably, against the wishes of the countries whose people derive their incomes from these sharks.
This hardly sounds like a decision worth celebrating.
Other proposals
The FAO Panel of Experts also made recommendations on several other proposals.
It agreed that hammerhead sharks (Prop. 38) met the listing criteria. The CITES Secretariat duly recommended that it be adopted, and the proposal to include it on Appendix II was accepted by consensus. Even Japan came around to support it.
However, the expert panel found that only one of the two species of freshwater stingray proposed for listing (Prop. 39) met the criteria, and cautioned that a transfer to Appendix II could incentivise illegal trade, owing to increased administrative burdens.
The expert panel said that the six species of guitarfish of proposal 40 did not meet the listing criteria, raising concerns regarding a lack of supporting data, negative impacts on the livelihoods of local communities, and potential difficulties in implementation and the production of the ‘non-detriment findings’ that are required to acquire international trade permits for species listed on Appendix II.
It also found that two of the three species of sea cucumber in proposal 42 didn’t meet the listing requirements, either.
Despite this, the Secretariat recommended that both stingray species as well as several look-alikes, all six guitarfish species, and all three sea cucumber species, be listed on Appendix II.
All three proposals were consequently accepted by majority vote, against the scientific advice of the expert panel.
The only proposal on which the expert panel, the Secretariat and the voting parties on the committee agreed, was number 41, which sought the listing on Appendix I of the zebra pleco (Hypancistrus zebra). The panel found that it did not meet the listing criteria, the Secretariat recommended against accepting the proposal, and the committee duly rejected the proposal.
Integrity
Lapointe said one member of the FAO Panel of Experts, who requested anonymity, told him on the fringes of CoP19 that they will never again agree to sit on the panel.
If CITES rides roughshod over the findings of the experts it commissions when they do not align with the Secretariat’s own preconceived conclusions, CITES rulings are not based on the best possible scientific and technical information at its disposal.
This calls the integrity and objectivity of CITES into question. It is clear that it has allowed itself to become a tool of animal rights activists who ideologically oppose any form of trade in or sustainable use of wild animals and plants.
If anyone is going to regulate the international trade in endangered species, it ought to follow its own rules, and base its decisions on science, not ideology.
[Image: Albert kok, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8969258]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend