CITES Fails to Protect Sharks

The Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) has failed to protect all eight shark species proposed for protection by several nations, including the United States and the island nation of Palau.

Protections for the porbeagle shark passed early on at CITES but were overturned on March 24th after a huge push from Japan during a re-vote. The porbeagle, spiny dogfish, oceanic whitetip, scalloped hammerhead, great hammerhead, smooth hammerhead, dusky and sandbar sharks now face an extremely uncertain future. Nobody was asking for a ban on trade, only management of trade, yet the proposals were a nogo! Had the protections passed, countries involved in the trading of these sharks would have been required to monitor and report all exports and demonstrate that their fishing methods were carried out sustainably.

Among the most vocal opponents of instituting trade regulations for sharks are Japan and China. Japan argues that regulations should be managed regionally and that CITES is not the appropriate forum. China is the largest consumer of shark fin soup, and consumption continues to increase exponentially as more and more Chinese move into the middle class and are able to afford the so-called "delicacy." Japan has vehemently opposed trade restrictions not only for sharks but for all of the marine species proposed for protection under CITES. For example, prior to the March 19, 2010 decision not to protect Bluefin tuna, Japan explicitly stated that it would have ignored protections for Bluefin had any passed. We are appalled by the audacity of Japan (They even shmoozed the delegates at a reception before the meeting by serving bluefin sashimi!) and by the betrayal of CITES' purpose at this meeting.

CITES is supposed to use scientific evidence to manage trade of endangered species, and yet all scientific evidence was thrown into a corner because of economic factors. Short-term economic interests have won out over long-term conservation efforts and solid scientific evidence showing the dramatic declines of these critically important species. The decisions not to protect all eight shark species could have disastrous consequences. All are subject to persistent demand, show dangerously high declines, are traded internationally and managed inadequately, are not subject to regional fishing limits, and have low reproductive rates (making them unable to reproduce quickly enough to keep up with demand).

We're simply not going to take the short-sighted decisions made at CITES without a fight. Iemanya is currently in the process of collaborating with other organizations to strategically ensure that protections are instituted for sharks and that history doesn't repeat itself next year at CITES. Follow us on facebook and twitter for updates and to find out how you can get involved.