The International Breakdown: CITES Explained
One of the biggest misconceptions about CITES protection is that species are fully protected internationally, it is law. In actuality, CITES is not law. It is a treaty that depends on “Parties” (or countries) to sign on in support AND abide by the rules. So lets dive deeper into the relevant parts...
WHAT IS CITES AND HOW DOES IT WORK?
Administered through the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), is a treaty aimed to help govern how species can be traded legally between countries, whether that be live animals and plants, animal products, leather, food or trinkets. It was conceived in 1963 during a meeting of IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) members made up of 80 different countries. The U.S. joined in 1973 when the convention was opened for signatures. As of June 2019, 183 countries have signed on as “Parties.” Each Party that joins CITES is required to designate a Management Authority, that certifies that CITES-listed species are legally traded via permits, and a Scientific Authority, that decides if the trade of a certain species will be harmful to its conservation in the wild. When trade is “controlled” under CITES, there is a system in place that is called “Appendices” that divide up different levels of protection by permits or certificates. Approximately, 35,000 species are currently listed under one of these three appendices:
A species will be listed on CITES Appendices if it fits into one of four of the following criteria: 1) the population is small, 2) the population is constrained in its range, 3) a decline of the population is observed or inferred, 4) the statute of the species is ‘likely to satisfy one or more’ of the first three criteria within five years.
Appendix 1
Includes species that are threatened with extinction and therefore provides the greatest level of protection from commercial trade. Essentially is, or generally is, a shutdown of commercial trade of species within this Appendix.
Appendix 2
Includes species that are not currently facing the threat of extinction, but could without trade controls. Species can be traded internationally but only if accompanied by the correct permit. These permits weigh on whether the exportation of the species will have no significant impact on their ability to survive at a level consistent with its place in the current ecosystem.
Appendix 3
Includes species that a range country that has asked other Parties control international trade. In this appendix, a member state can regulate without the approval from other members.
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT OR RELEVANT?
It is important that sharks are protected across the board so to speak. Sharks are a highly migratory species, so protecting Great White sharks in California, for an example, only covers about one third of the ground they traverse in a year. Full management of Great White Sharks should become the responsibility of California, Hawaii and Mexico to implement equal protections and share data. Therefore, if Great White Sharks are only protected in California then it makes them vulnerable during two-thirds of the year when they are in Hawaii and Mexico. Essentially, it boils down to a country's willingness to be involved and their national government establishing strong laws on fisheries management and protections. For example, the U.S. only has one species of shark listed under the Endangered Species Act (the Scalloped Hammerhead Shark) and the rest of the species fall under various fisheries management regulations. These regulations are usually up to the states, to protect their respective native species; many of these regulations are to create a viable fishery stock, not to protect the species populations. There is a lot of science and communication involved in making sure management in bordering areas is done correctly, and unfortunately, a verdict is only sometimes agreed upon.
WHAT ARE THE MISLEADING IDEAS SURROUNDING CITES?
Currently, there are roughly 35,000 CITES-listed animals and plants, 38 of which are shark and ray species (13 shark species). The big misunderstanding by most is that this would mean those species are fully protected internationally. However, what it really means is that the Parties abide by the rules that are determined by CITES, which can only control international trade, nothing more. These rules are not laws. If the Party determines that a particular species can be fished and traded in a non-detrimental way, then they can give permits for those species. In order to determine whether a shipment of fins needs a CITES permit, officials have to identify the species of shark fin and usually that requires extreme expertise and expensive genetic testing. In CITES terms, this is referred to as “split listing.” Let’s dig into this more. If Mako sharks are listed in Appendix II, but some other species are not, it is extremely difficult to decide whether fins came from a CITES-listed Mako species, or not. Inspections of cargo ships often uncover smugglers hiding fins in hard to reach containers and/or trading it under different species names that are legal without the need for a CITES permit. The expertise to identify different species by visual inspection is rare, potentially inaccurate and the process of genetic testing is time consuming and expensive, making it that much easier for smugglers to often get away with trading shark fins that are considered “illegal.”
The main objective of CITES is to regulate wildlife trading, not crack down on illegal wildlife trafficking. Not to mention, wildlife is the fourth largest trafficked “product” next to drugs, weapons and humans. That is a serious industry to take down in one fell swoop. On top of that, CITES assumes that every nation has the resources and capacity to implement enforcement, but unfortunately this is not the case. Adding even more complexity is the fact that membership of CITES is completely voluntary for a nation. If a nation violates their CITES involvement, sanctions can be implemented. But instead of accepting sanctions, a nation can purely pull out of CITES. So, although CITES can be picked apart for its flaws, it does do a lot of good to help protect species. CITES is not failing at protection, but it could do better at protecting migratory species so they are protected no matter what border they cross. This involves understanding more about Parties, their interests, and other acts that exist throughout the world.