|
||||||||||
|
|
CITES |
|
Introduction During the time the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was in preparation, a process started in the early 60’s, as well as at the plenipotentiary conference (Washington, D.C., March 1973) where it was adopted, it became obvious that, for various reasons, the coverage of marine species subject to large-scale fisheries was not envisaged. No such species were included in the Appendices I and II adopted at that time. Nevertheless, considering how the Convention is drafted, there is no doubt that any wild animal or plant species, including those living in the high seas, may be listed in CITES appendices, with the condition however, in principle at least, that they are or may be affected by trade, as this latter term is defined by the Convention. This is recalled by the Conference of the Parties to CITES in the preamble of its Resolution Conf. 9.24 on Criteria for amendment of Appendices I and II. In Washington already, a number of marine species were included in Appendices I and II, in particular whales and sea turtles, and even a few fishes such as the coelacanth, which certainly had and still has a commercial value but is not subject to a large-scale fishery. In addition, when CITES makes reference to marine species and to intergovernmental bodies having functions in relation to those species, or to other treaty, convention or international agreement that afford protection to marine species, it is clear that the reference is essentially to whales, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, and the International Whaling Commission (IWC), although neither the treaty nor the institution is ever mentioned in the CITES text. The only treaty expressly mentioned is the Law of the Sea, a reference that says that nothing in CITES shall prejudice the present and future claims and legal views of any State concerning the Law of the Sea and the nature and extent of coastal and flag State jurisdiction. Although CITES has not been changed since its inception, except on a point not relevant to the issue under consideration, the idea that commercially-exploited marine fish species should be included in the appendices emerged around 1990 and has made serious progress since 1992. This was undoubtedly the result of an increased pressure from certain NGOs, which might have been genuinely concerned by problems linked to the exploitation of the marine resources or which found in CITES a forum for the exposure of their views and philosophies unequaled in the field of conservation and protection of wildlife particularly when compared to FAO and Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs). They were able to persuade a few governments to support their views and to submit some amendment proposals, although not with the success they expected. At the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP8, Kyoto, 1992), Sweden proposed the listing of the Atlantic blue-fin tuna partly in Appendix I and partly in Appendix II. The proposal was, however, withdrawn with a commitment by the International Commission for the Conservation of the Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) to take appropriate measures in favour of the species, which it did, at least to some extent. The proposal was however re-submitted by Kenya, for consideration at CoP9 (Fort Lauderdale, 1994), but withdrawn a few days later. At CoP10 (Harare, 1997), the United States of America proposed the inclusion in Appendix I of all Pristiformes but the proposal was largely rejected. In addition, the United States proposed the establishment of a working group on marine fish species. This was also rejected. On the other hand, the proposal by Germany and the United States to include all Acipensiformes in Appendix II was accepted by consensus. It was supported in particular by the largest producers of caviar, the main sturgeon product occurring in international trade. Finally, at CoP11 (Gigiri, 2000), the listing in Appendix I or II of three shark species was proposed by Australia, the United Kingdom and the United Sates. The three proposals were rejected, although the basking shark Cetorhinus maximus proposal lost by a very short majority. After the rejection of its proposal to include the basking shark in Appendix II, the United Kingdom requested its inclusion in Appendix III. This entered into force on 13 September 2000. Apart from animals, dead or alive, which are, by definition, subject to the provisions of Article V of the Convention on the regulation of trade in specimens of species included in Appendix III, the United Kingdom asked that fins and parts of fins only be subject to CITES controls, as made possible by Article I, paragraph (b) (ii). It is worth noting that CITES does not cover the trade in specimens of Appendix-III species taken in international waters. To present a complete explanation of CITES' relationship with marine species, it is necessary to add that all stony corals were included in CITES Appendix II at CoP5 (Buenos Aires, 1985), except the black coral which was already listed in Appendix II at CoP3 (New Delhi, 1981). Giant clams (Tridacnidae) were all listed in Appendix II at CoP4 (Gaborone, 1983) and CoP5 and the queen conch Strombus gigas was included in Appendix II at CoP9 (Fort Lauderdale, 1994). Although these species, as well as Acipenseriformes, are subject to significant international trade, they can not be put in the category of marine species subject to large-scale global fisheries. None of them were included in CITES appendices in spite of the opposition of the main range States and of nations with an important fisheries industry, and none were subject to reservations. In conclusion, possibly with the exception of the basking shark which has just been included in Appendix III, it may be said that no marine species subjected to a large-scale fishery is listed in CITES appendices, in spite of some serious efforts. |
 |
IWMC World Conservation Trust |