Another Critical Article Directed at CITES

The CITES irresponsible treatment of marine animals made it to Huffington Post too. This article is by the President of the Blue Frontier Campaign.

I'm glad others share my disgust with CITES and the UN. Hopefully, regular citizens will read this and not just other activists. (I forwarded an article about this to my book club members. Knowing them, I bet they were hoping for fish and chips instead!)

Christian Science Monitor Calls for Endangered Species Hour

"Earth Hour" was held yesterday. People were supposed to turn their lights off for an hour. I like this opinion piece from the Christian Science Monitor which calls for an "Endangered Species Hour."

It's in response to the pathetic CITES conference which basically screwed marine animal protection. The Christian Science Monitor rightly points out that citizens and consumers need to get involved in endangered species protection, because at the CITES level, it's all about money and international politics.

Japan, which imports most of the tuna, led the fight against a proposed ban. Nations where livelihoods depend on fishing the tuna and on harvesting other marine species held sway over countries, including the US, that pointed to scientific evidence of drastically dwindling populations.

Commerce vs. conservation is often at the center of environmental battles, whether they involve global warming or the spotted owl.

Over the years, environmentalists have learned that arguing solely on behalf of other life forms is not enough. They’ve had to earn degrees in economics and sociology to learn to marry their causes with the human one – explaining, for instance, that humans depend on bats to pollinate or on coral reefs to support other marine life that is advantageous to mankind.

In Qatar, the concern about lost livelihoods during difficult economic times was particularly acute. But jobs that depend on harvesting endangered species will quickly disappear if those species are not protected.

More Drivel Out of CITES

As noted in another post, no protections for marine mammals. But plenty of drivel about improving law enforcement for wildlife protection.

Just more drivel out of a toothless organization.

No Marine Animal Protection from CITES

The opening line in this USA Today article says it all, "Every proposal to protect marine species at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species meeting in Doha, Qatar was voted down."

It's unfortunate, but true, thanks primarily to Japan and China.

Asian Countries Score Another Victory Over Marine Animals

Delegates to the CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) conference in Qatar voted down three of four proposals to protect sharks. This really sucks.

According to the New York Times...

China, by far the world’s largest consumer of the cartilaginous fish, for sharkfin soup, and Japan, which has battled to keep the convention from being extended to any marine species, led the opposition.

Japan Mad about Banning Bluefish Tuna Fishing

I'm not surprised considering their attitude about whale meat. Apparently, it's all "cultural imperialism." Considering Japan's history in East Asia, it is seriously ironic to me that they throw the word "imperialism" around. Give me a break. (The article's writer is a bit more objective about this than I am.)

By the way, the proposed ban was defeated. We'll see how long this fishery lasts before it too goes extinct.

Marine Life Top of CITES Meeting Agenda

Oh look, more meetings.

From Al Jazeera...

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or Cites that opened in the Qatari capital on Saturday will be discussing 42 proposals during the next two weeks.

Apart from issues like combating elephant poaching for ivory in Africa and banning trade in polar bear skins, those focusing on sharks and tuna are likely to be among the most contentious.

On its agenda is Monaco's proposal to have a complete ban on the international commercial trade in Atlantic bluefin tuna.
Australia and Japan are among the countries refusing to back a total ban.

Interesting to see Japan and Australia united on some issues, in contrast to their conflict over whaling.

Shut Down Domestic Ivory Markets?

This guy provides an interesting analysis of the ivory trade.

The real cause of increased elephant poaching, which does seem to be a reality, is being obscured by the debate over international ivory sales authorised by Cites. The real cause is legal domestic ivory markets existing while legal raw ivory sales to supply those markets are prohibited.....

THERE IS ENOUGH IVORY originating from natural deaths and the elimination of rogue elephants to supply current global demand. However, there is too much corruption built into the supply system by the 18-year Cites ban for legal trading to recommence on a regular basis.

The only way I see of rooting out the corruption is to shut down the entire system for a specified period. Shut down all domestic use and selling of ivory. In the interim, governments and conservationists should launch a dedicated campaign to reduce consumers' desire to buy ivory, aimed primarily at Asia.

China Gets to Buy Elephant Ivory

I don't know how to call this one....will it help or hurt the elephant population in the long run?

Either way, I hate these incredibly intelligent animals being "harvested" as "product."

The UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) meeting in Geneva voted in favour of China becoming a licensed importer. Britain was one of nine countries which supported the move.

It will allow China to bid for more than 100 tonnes of ivory stockpiled in Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe through culling and natural deaths.

The African states say they need to sell the stockpiles to finance the conservation and management of their elephant populations but critics say it will give illegal traders the opportunity to launder poached ivory.

The Economist Looks at Illegal Wildlife Trade

Leave it to The Economist to provide an insightful analysis of CITES' effectiveness in actually preventing illegal trade in wildlife and their parts. It's a good article and worth your time and thought...whether you agree with it or not.

The point is not that bans never work. They can, especially in the short term or when species are in dire danger. But their longer-term success depends on three factors. First, they must be coupled with a reduction in demand for the banned products. If a ban helps to shift people's tastes, so much the better. Second, they must not undermine incentives to conserve endangered species in the wild. Third, they have to be supported by governments and citizens in the countries where these species live. If these conditions are not met, bans are unlikely either to reduce trade or to maintain endangered species. They may even make matters worse.


Photo by IFAW Think Twice.