3. Underlying Issues

3.4 - The "Thin End of the Wedge"

The proposals to list three, large, charismatic species of sharks, which have only minor involvement in international trade, is interpreted by some observers as an attempt to establish a precedent: the allocation of responsibility for the regulation of commercial marine fish species to CITES. Yet the problems of commercial marine fisheries operate in a different sphere than those of CITES, with overlap only occurring in rare instances.

(i). Determining "status" objectively, in terms of population size, is very problematic for most marine fish. For example, IUCN has faced real difficulties applying its Red List criteria to marine species, due to the different biological, environmental, biogeographic and management protocols (IUCN 1999).

(ii). In many nations, regulation of marine fisheries is under completely different national legislation and bureaucracies than has been enacted to control trade in endangered species and to comply with CITES. It is not at all clear whether conservation of endangered species will be the principle beneficiary of merging such organisations, which often have completely different commercial priorities.

(iii). Identification of major products in trade such as bodies, meat, fins, oil, cartilage and skin is not simply a regulation challenge that technology can overcome (current proponents have committed to preparing an identification guide; see C. maximus and C. carcharias proposals), but will represent a major cost to all Parties.

(iv). The inability to readily identify species in processed products such as fish meal, oil, processed meat, fertilisers, etc. is very real. It may well lead to exporting nations being restricted to exporting products which can be readily identifiable, such that the ability to process and value-add shifts from producer to consumer Parties.

(v). The inability to identify products in trade may well lead some Parties to seek the listing of all shark species in trade on Appendix II under Article II 2b of the Convention (look-a-like species). Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Annex 2bA) provides the mechanism: "specimens that resemble species included in Appendix II... such that a non-expert, with reasonable effort, is unlikely to be able to distinguish between them". Further, if there are difficulties distinguishing processed shark from other fish species, it could be argued they also should be listed.

(vi). That fisheries organisations are concerned about these proposals being the "thin end of the wedge" is understandable. Many of the NGO organisations that are promoting acceptance of the shark proposals are openly committed to getting commercial marine fisheries under the umbrella of CITES.

In overview, Parties clearly need to consider the broader ramifications of listing commercial marine fisheries species on CITES. Despite the enthusiasm some NGO’s have for such listings, the effectiveness and credibility of CITES as a convention for managing endangered species may well be at stake, and the operation of fisheries industries may be severely compromised.