The look-alike clause of CITES [art.II 2 (b)] provides that also species
that are difficult to distinguish from one that is listed on appendix II,
may be listed correspondingly independent of population status. In relation
to commercial fisheries, such an approach is questionable for several
reasons:
First, fish products that enter trade are often processed. It is often
extremely difficult to distinguish between listed and not-listed species
when they are processed. The tracing mechanisms required to follow products
to avoid such difficulties, would be very demanding and costly and could
easily be used for trade-distorting purposes.
Secondly, in a notification to the parties [2001/037], the CITES
secretariat defines a look-alike species as when a non-expert is
unlikely to be able to distinguish between a listed species and a
look-alike species. Such an approach is, however, contravening the
fundamental principle that decisions should be based on the best scientific
evidence available. It is critical that such assessments are made by the
appropriate scientific expertise rather than laymen.
Thirdly, aquaculture products will fall within the look-alike provision
unless tagged or marked. This is problematic, inter alia with regard
to the like products clause under articles I and XIII of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
Finally, fisheries management is carried out on a stock-by-stock, rather
than species basis. Different stocks, or sub-populations, of a species may
be very different in terms of their population size relative to a baseline
size and with regard to depletion rates. Managing fisheries on a species
basis is therefore not a sensible approach. CITES does, however, not allow
for different treatment of different stocks of the same species, or
"split-listing", except in special circumstances. This is
problematic in relation to a huge number of fisheries worldwide, and is
likely to pose serious difficulties to fish trade as well as management.
