The real New Criteria for CITES Listing

CITES has spent years in the process of revising its listing criteria. FAO has spent over $1 million in contributing to the process. On Thursday, to general acclaim, the outcome of this process was accepted by consensus and with agreement not to immediately entertain changes. A representative of an ultra-conservative NGO expressed the hope that in future, listing decisions would be taken on the basis of these criteria.

The first test of this apparent new mood in CITES came with consideration on Friday of Thailand's proposal to transfer the Irrawaddy dolphin to Appendix I. Norway drew attention to the Secretariat's evaluation that the proposal did not meet CITES criteria. No Party challenged this statement, including Thailand, whose final summary indicated that their desire to list this species was "to draw attention to it" and "to assist in raising funds". The proposal was adopted.

So it took only one day for many Parties to renege on Thursday's commitment not to further revise criteria. Clearly there now seem to be further new criteria that override all others:

"A species shall be listed on Appendix I if a Party wishes to draw attention to it and/or to facilitate raising funds."

Is the nervousness with which FAO Parties view CITES' possible involvement in fisheries management issues at all surprising when this is the way CITES behaves?