Certainly CITES’ single-minded focus on protection of wildlife from extinction by over-exploitation via international trade is laudable and desirable. Over 150 member nations attest to the importance of that goal. But, for CITES mechanisms (i.e., listing on Appendices I, II, or III) to come into play the operable conditions of species in question are "endangered" and "threatened" with "extinction."

Within the CITES’ process a species might qualify for a place on one of the CITES Appendices if one of the following conditions exist: a) there is a small wild population, b) the species has a restricted area of distribution, c) there is a decline in its numbers of individuals in the wild. Under Appendix II, not only must member nations monitor trade, they must also determine that trade in the species will not be detrimental to the survival of the species.

Commercially fished marine species certainly cannot be said to be confined to a limited area of distribution. They traverse vast expanses of gulfs, bays and other marine areas with most roaming throughout the planet’s oceans with their range limited by factors such as water temperature. The shark species referenced at COP 11 certainly have a worldwide range from the Americas, to Europe to Asia.

On-going studies further show a phenomenon characteristic of many commercially fished marine species that precludes use of the CITES "population decline" criteria.

According to FAO’s Marine Resources Service, many of the largest fish stocks experience a pattern of abrupt population growth followed by equally startling declines (Kawasaki, 1983, Bakun, 1989, Csirke, 1995). This rhythmic, "feast or famine" synchrony produces unexplained periods where species stocks virtually vanish, during which time, the need for CITES’ listing seems apparent. However just as startling as the species disappearance worldwide during its "famine" phase, occurs, is the reappearance of the species in great abundance during the "feast" end of the cycle. Under such circumstances, CITES’ listing criteria would be in for a dizzying roller-coaster effect.

The perception of stock population declines is often influenced by weather conditions such as periodic El Nino effects as well as changing patterns exhibited by many species. For example, fishing pressure may drive some species further off shore giving the impression of a "population decline" where none, in fact, exists.

While the focus of CITES is on the preservation of wildlife from trade-induced extinction, FAO’s mandate is to "alleviate poverty and hunger" and assure "the access to all people at all times to the food they need for an active and healthy life."

Within that framework, FAO’s Fisheries Department seeks to augment FAO’s mission through the "long-term sustainable development and utilization of the world’s fisheries and aquaculture." Sustainability of any resource-based endeavor cannot be achieved without conservation of nature’s resources. Therefore, intrinsic to FAO’s mission, like CITES’, is the protection of wildlife and the wild habitat necessary for sustaining those species.

The difference between FAO and CITES is one of emphasis and the added complexity of FAO’s area of expertise. That the marine species that fall under FAO’s guardianship are commercially fished is vitally significant and constitutes an important difference from CITES point of view. FAO must consider the added consequence of maintaining a healthy and secure food supply for people in its species conservation strategies. Both must survive under FAO’s mandate.

The true spirit of CITES has no quarrel with FAO’s twin goals of conserving wild species and conserving humanity. However, that duality of conserving wildlife on one hand and humans on the other is exactly the issue at the core of the controversy over CITES entering into the regulatory arena of commercially fished marine species.

As amazing as it might sound, within CITES are ideology-driven organizations that harbor no moral or ethical imperative to apply the same ardor toward preserving cultural or human populations as they bring to "saving" wild species of plants and non-human animals. Within the inner sanctum of these groups, their leadership openly espouses the seemingly unreal aim of converting terrestrial landmasses such as Africa and Alaska into wildlife preserves devoid of all human habitation and interaction save as "observers." To them the world’s oceans, too, should be nothing more than great aquariums where marine species are never bothered by humanity’s tradition of deriving nourishment from the creatures that dwell in their waters.

Such narrow visions of how the world "ought to be" ignore the reality of how the world "is" and the importance of the relationships among its inhabitants that keep each in a state of compatibility with the diversity of earth’s resources. Such environmental and ecological myopia is detrimental to wildlife and humanity alike.

The practice by groups posturing as pro-animal and pro-environmental stewards who, in fact, are using organizations such as CITES as the vehicle for imposing highly political, emotion-based ideologies that ignore science or even the basic principles of biological diversity and sustainability of species and habitat undermines the effectiveness and credibility of those important international forums.