CITES?

So CITES doesn't give a damn about Sharks.
Yes, maybe - and now what?

What about removing the infamous Dr. Giam?
Let me be crystal clear about this: he's an asshole and getting rid of him would certainly be a good thing. The Sea Shepherd petition focuses on Giam's conflict of interest and the org has accumulated a body of evidence that you can review here.
But just to play the devil's advocate: is being biased reason enough for dismissal - and if so, what about the pro-Shark NGOs like Pew or the WWF that are admitted to the sessions of the animals committee and that are clearly equally biased, only this time in favor of the good cause?
And provided one had the better arguments: wouldn't debating Giam be more credible?

And anyway, will Giam's dismissal save Sharks?
Frankly, I am not at all convinced it would, and this is why.

CITES is not primarily about conservation.
The T stands for Trade, and the treaty is about how to trade wildlife once it has been deemed sufficiently endangered to warrant its listing onto one of its appendices. The decision for that listing is not within the authority of any committee, let alone a person like Giam: instead, all such decisions are being taken by the parties, ie the countries that have signed the treaty. Furthermore, only a party can propose that such a listing be considered and a vote be taken, this at a formal so-called meeting of the Conference of the Parties, or CoP, the paramount decision-making body of CITES.
So far, zero Sharks have ever been proposed for a full trading ban under Appendix I.
The Only Elasmobranchs listed there are the Sawfishes, whereas only three Sharks are listed for regulated trade under Appendix II. Other Sharks have been proposed for listing under Appendix II but have failed (and in 2007) to reach the required 2/3 majority of votes in favor.

And the infamous animals committee?
It travels, meets, deliberates and pontificates and is supposed to advise the parties - and contrary to what is being asserted, it very much "cares" about Sharks, only not in the way we would like it to!
The transcripts appear to show that whereas there have been a lot of discussions, there is certainly no consensus, and that some of the Asian countries are clearly opposing having any further Shark species listed, to the point that China even appears to favor a review (= de-listing?) of the Basking Shark, Whale Shark and Great White!
And you may also want to read this that makes a lot of sense!

And now what?

The next meeting of the CoP is less than one year away.
So far, only two proposals for listing Sharks have been submitted:

• The listing of Scalloped Hammerheads (and by extension, Smooth and Great) on Appendix II is being proposed by Costa Rica and Honduras.

• Europe is proposing the listing of the Porbeagle onto Appendix III (only)

Better than nothing - but is that good enough?
I fear that as long as Pretoma continues to report a glaring disregard of the laws by Costa Rica's fisheries agency, I remain rather skeptical about the Costarican proposal - and then there's of course this.
And Europe? I'm frankly not much impressed, Appendix III just means a lot of paper pushing and no real protection.
And then there's the USA that is still pondering whether to even do anything; and after all the frothy activism and resounding defeat last time, it very much appears that this time around, nobody will even bother to propose to list the Northern Bluefin, let alone its critically endangered Southern cousin!

Yes the global economy continues to suck and it really looks like it's gonna be Realpolitik all over again!
Hardly the right backdrop for attaining the enthusiastic support of 67% of the votes - and if I had to venture a prediction, the final result will be even worse than last time!

Which brings me straight back to this post!
Remember the outrage and remember the ensuing discussions?
To paraphrase Alex the Sharkman
But... Will the lesson be learned or will this disaster just be "forgotten", only to be repeated again when the time comes?

Indeed, that is precisely the question!

• Have the Shark conservationists met, are they coordinating their efforts and pooling their resources, and are they going to be sending their best, most seasoned negotiators to represent the whole Shark conservation movement - or are we going to see yet again the same convention tourism by yet again the same motley uncoordinated naïve and clueless group of amateurs who will pay themselves a trip to Pattaya in order to protest, pontificate and vociferate?


• Do we a have a champion, ie a country in favor of Shark conservation that is already vigorously, and ruthlessly lobbying in favor of Shark conservation in order to counteract what Japan, Inc. and possibly others are undoubtedly already perpetrating once again - or will the pro-ban countries and conservationists once again be ambushed by a fait accompli that has been orchestrated long before the meeting?
  

Anybody taking bets?
And if the answer to the above is negative: is this even a cause worth spending so much time, energy and money on, or should those resources not rather be prioritized in favor of more successful strategies?
Yes it always boils down to the same old questions!

And the good news?
I just happen to believe that CITES is the wrong body to deal with fisheries issues.
Like possibly Alex, I believe that in reality, it is the countries and the RFMOs that dispose of the relevant local know-how, and that it is them who ultimately carry the responsibility of protecting their fish stocks.
And there, things look much better: since the ignominious Doha conference, several countries and states have enacted Shark fishing and trading bans, and some RFMOs have also protected some species of Shark.

Think global, act local.
Nowhere is this more true than in Shark conservation.

It's about the Money!

Graph by Oceana - click on it and read the report!

From Patric's post about the Seal hunt.

The end users of trade are the most vulnerable and usually have the most to lose.
The folks on the front lines, the guys with the Hakapiks on ice flows in Canada make nice media targets but at the end of the day have the least to lose, because they are starting with little to begin with. Same goes for the shark finners in Mozambique, or the folks in Latin America coming in with tons of sharks fin on second and third rate fishing boats, selling their fins for a dollar a pound.

Change can come, and ultimately conservation groups can be successful, but the days of staged multi-million dollar media extravaganzas on television, small protests with semi naked protesters, and the endless cycle of online petitions has to end.

Trade agreements between nations trump everything and right now very few NGO's have a seat at the table when it comes to changing trade agreements.

Precisely!
Let's never forget that (over)fishing, the principal immediate cause for the depletion of marine resources is big business providing for countless jobs and food security in many, many countries and thus, any decision in the matter will be political and not driven by ethics.
But there's also the following flip side - the resources allocated to conservation.

From my controversial post about the Doha debacle.

I however see the real chance for the civil societies in quiet, polite and persistent lobbying "on the ground", flanked by developing, financing and implementing economical and social solutions for the fishermen, country-wide education campaigns and above all, money and hardware for effective enforcement and policing.

Let me share two recent anecdotes.
I will try and keep this vague as my aim is not to embarrass anybody but to illustrate where I'm coming from and that there are real problems in a real world that make the task so much more difficult.

One.

Mangroves for Fiji has been embraced by several Government Ministries.
We recently met with a very high ranking government official who sees this as an ideal conduit for motivating coastal communities to restore their vital Mangrove belts instead of cutting them down for the fire wood trade. It was decided that his staff would take us to several of those communities where we could pitch our initiative. Staff were assigned, dates were discussed.
And then the boss said, could you please assist us with fuel for our transport, as we have no more budget allocation for re-fueling our vehicles.

Two.

As you may suspect, I'm working on expanding Shark protection throughout Fiji.
This week, I took the representative of an important NGO to visit a crucial player within the Ministry of Fisheries. He's a scientist in his own right, passionate, knowledgeable, one hundred percent incorruptible and totally committed to the preservation of Fiji's natural resources. The portfolio of his team includes, inter alia, the re-drafting of Fiji's fisheries laws, the farming and restoration of Giant Clams, the protection of Napoleon Wrasse, Bumphead Parrotfish, Turtles, Whales and now Sharks, the establishment of MPAs, running awareness campaigns in local communities, the drafting of position papers for the countless meetings of the countless local and international fisheries agencies, and many many more.
He is the go-to man and without his support, nothing will ever get done.

The meeting was excellent.
We agreed that we would continue the conversation via e-mail and meet at a later stage. The official gave us a gmail address and when I inquired, he explained that the government server was down and that anyway, he did not dispose of a desktop computer and could not access the internet from his office. Whenever he wanted to go online, he had to leave the office and download his mail in the next internet café.

That's where the rubber hits the road!
Again, this is not to embarrass anybody - it is merely to show the real situation on the ground. It is great to make a lot of noise and our collective efforts may indeed succeed in convincing the powers that be to take action, at least on paper. But those victories are merely the first step and to be perfectly clear, the job is not done if we stop there!
If the people tasked with implementing the decisions by the bigwigs are left without the necessary resources, those regulations will forever remain toothless and the killing will continue.

In the end, it's all about the money.
It's also about prioritizing our resources and directing them where they will have the biggest effect. And in view of the plethora of NGOs that are increasingly fragmented and thus underfunded, those resources need to be pooled.

Yes I know I'm repeating myself!