I’m sitting in the Committee 1, listening to the debate around the Atlantic blue fin tuna proposal which has been proposed by Monoca for listing on Appendix 1, which would mean no international trade in the species. So far more countries have indicated that they will not be supporting the proposal than those that will. It is not looking good. This despite the fact that the eastern stock of blue fin tuna has fallen to less than 15% of its long term potential. The majority insist that though they are aware that blue fin tuna stocks have declined considerably (to the point that even under a complete fishing ban the stock will continue to decline to record lows), they believe the management and conservation of the species is the responsibility of the RFMOs, i.e. the Regional Fisheries Management Organizations, in this case the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), and not the business of CITES.

In addition, some countries are concerned about the impact the ban will have on poorer countries who depend on the fishery (short-term view – once the fish are gone there will be no fishery), while others add in how well they are managing their own stock (if they were it wouldn’t be in a crisis situation), and affirming why CITES should not get involved with a fishery related issue since ICCAT is doing such a great job (ignoring the fact that ICCAT has repeatedly failed to adopt science-based conservation measures for years and therefore largely responsible for the dire situation of the populations).

After the results, Japan smiles to their victory, or disgrace?The CITES comedy act of the afternoon has just taken off as Japan is blatantly ignoring all facts and has just said that there is no problem with tuna stocks, that there is no scientific evidence to indicate they are under threat of becoming extinct, that in fact stocks are very healthy, and that it shouldn’t even be considered for CITES Appendix I as it does not meet the criteria. They really are a joke given that the proposal is endorsed by ICCAT, FAO, IUCN AND TRAFFIC. It’s no wonder they put on their clown outfit, denying facts since they voraciously consume two thirds of all blue fin tuna catches worldwide while stuffing their faces with sushi and sashimi. Last night at an evening function they held they served blue fin tuna as if to confirm: ‘we eat blue fin tuna, now and forever’ till the last fish.

Spain says they are “…deeply concerned about the poor conservation status of Atlantic blue fin tuna and acknowledge that fisheries for this species are driven by international trade. We therefore believe that the species qualifies for inclusion into Appendix 1.” Sounds good so far but then they add their BUT and propose an amendment to the proposal, which includes reviewing new scientific evidence, and deferring, listing if it is required, but still this is better than a straight-out no.

Patrick Van Klaveren ambassador of Monaco speaking to press after the results. Good for Monaco for the proposal.Libya has taken the floor and appears to have been hired to supports Japan’s previous comedy show and the act begins: Libya is directly insulting Monaco and their proposal, going as far as to accuse them of lying, of not having their facts correct, and of making a mockery of the CITES process with their proposal. His exaggerated gesticulations, the garbage that he spews, the mud slinging in Monaco’s direction has the entire committee room entertained and even the translator is trying not to laugh. I wonder why the Chairman doesn’t turn his mic off, surely insults flung at other counties should not be allowed? Libya demands a vote. The debate has gone on for two hours now. Monaco requests an opportunity to ammend the proposal and not to vote. But his request comes in after Mr Libya’s, even though he said he had indicated his request to speak before Mr Libya, but that doesn’t matter now. The fate of blue fin tuna moves closer and so the vote is taken. Firstly for the EU amendment which is defeated and then the big vote, the do or die for tuna on CITES and as a species. It was a given, it is defeated and badly too: 20 votes for the proposal, 68 against and 30 abstentions. Japan must have paid well for the clown act, Mr Libya, and many of those votes. There is a round of applause – I turn to see who is clapping and spot short, little men with dark hair and Asian eyes.

I would be ashamed to be Japanese today, or Libyan -  today marks the day they had a chance to save a species but chose to drive it to extinction and fill their stomachs and greed till the last mouthful.

I'm sorry but today I have been unable to blog what with meetings, interviews and functions all day, but will catch up tomorrow.

Today there was a chance for shark conservation to be boosted but China, Japan and Russia helped to defeat a proposal at CITES. A non binding measure called for increased transparency in the shark trade, including more research into the threat posed to sharks by illegal fishing.

Supporters included South Africa, the EU, and the USA, but the vote results were 52 in favour, 36 against and 11 abstentions, thus missing the two-thirds required to be accepted, and so the document was rejected. Those against expressed concern that the non binding measure would hurt poor nations and should be handled by the Regional Fishery Management Organisations (RFMOs), that countries should take responsibility individually and implement their National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, as proposed by FAO, and thus not become issues of CITES.

This is not a good start to the bigger issues proposed and which will come up later this week, namely the eight species of sharks proposed for Appendix II, the porbeagle, scalloped, smooth and great hammerheads, sandbar, dusky, oceanic whitetip and spiny dogfish.

Doha, Qatar 15 March 2010 - I'm writing for local papers back home, following other issues relevant to South Africa. I will post my content the day after it is published. I attended a press conference yesterday on the following:

Chief Enforcement Officer of CITES, John Sellar said: “Millions of dollars have been invested in trying to save tigers but we have failed miserably. There are only 3200 tigers left in the wild and the loss of one tiger a day continues.” The perilous state of tiger populations is due to habitat loss, human encroachment, conflict between tigers and humans and wildlife crime. Tigers are being poached to extinction for almost every part of their bodies, which are used for decorative or medicinal purposes, and even tiger bone wine.

“The real problems for tigers are criminals and rhinos are facing the same problems. Rhino poaching is the most sophisticated organized crime that CITES is facing,” said Stellar. Although rhino populations appeared stable, the last two years has seen a dramatic increase in rhino poaching with about 250 individuals being lost to illegal crime in South Africa alone. The demand for rhino horn is driven by a belief in Vietnam, and neighboring countries, that if taken daily it can stave off cancer or halt cancer completely, explained Stellar. Rhinos in India, Nepal and Zimbabwe are also targeted. It is believed that legal systems in Zimbabwe are being exploited as arrested poachers who are bailed out, flee the country indicating an organized structure behind these crimes. Zimbabwe has agreed to work with CITES in dismantling poaching in the country but has requested assistance from CITES.

According to a document presented by South Africa to CITES, though current levels of poaching in South Africa are not endangering the South African rhino population of 19 000, if the current rate of illegal killing continues it could pose a serious threat to the population in the near future.

 “If we don’t do something tigers will soon be gone, and if we lose them it will be a terrible indictment to us and the rhino is heading the same direction. We do not want to make the same mistake twice and we hope to encourage governments to do more,” urged Stellar.  South Africa has committed “…to continue fighting the illegal killing of its rhinoceros populations and will leave no stone unturned in the investigation and prosecution of all cases of illegal killing of rhinoceros.”



Today I spoke to a delegate from Namibia, who told me that Namibia, as far as he knows has no shark finning problem at all, and that he loves shark fin soup, which he orders every time he goes to Mauritius, because it tastes so good. I went on to express both my bewilderment that Namibia has no shark finning issues since its neighbouring country, South Africa, is infested with it, and explaining that actually shark fins are cartilage, devoid of taste and the taste he is talking about has nothing to do with the fins and everything to do with stock etc. As though he never heard me, he preceded to confirm that it tastes really nice, and that Namibia has no problem with illegal catching and finning of sharks. As for Namibia's position on the proposed 8 species of sharks, they still thinking about it I'm told.A beautiful seven gill shark, South Africa. Not a proposed species but also under threat by fishers.

I was warned that many of the delegates are clueless about the animals proposed and that the outcome of the proposals are largely in the hands of those lacking knowledge. Not that CITES can prevent animals from becoming extinct but certainly another opportunity to do all we can in trying, in particular in the case of CITES, regarding international trade of species. The rest is up to each country, right down to ground level. Therein lies the challenge, one which no country has succeeded in doing yet.

Equally perturbing was my interview with a former member of the CITES secretariat who told me that non profit organsiations create sensation out of animals like sharks with one aim, to raise money to continue their work (he didn't know I was from a NPO). He enforced his viewpoint with all the hocus documentaries non profits produce to make a point, like WildAid, he said. According to him shark fin issues only came to the fore when WildAid produced a documentary insert about sharks being finned alive, which shocked people, and all the while the footage was fake. Now I know the footage he is talking about and I know it is not fake. At some point he talks about how all parts of sharks are used in catches by a particular country, even their bones (?). He digs his lack of knowledge grave further when he tells me sharks are only finned when they are dead, which he thinks isn't so bad - a kind of 'rather dead than alive' approach. When I tell him that I have actually been on a longline boat and witnessed shark finning and that 90% of the sharks are alive when finned, he does what Mr Namibia did, he acts as though he never heard me and confirms that as far as he is concerned sharks are finned when dead. And his position on the proposed species of shark and tuna? Well, as far as he is concerned it's not the business of CITES to be taking on fishery issues, but that of the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMO).

And so it goes, those that know much, against those that know little to nothing, and the animals teetering on the edge of extinction in the middle.

Tuna and sharks are on the menu this week...Tomorrow I have arranged a screening of Sharks in Deep Trouble, which has just won its 7th award at the Beneath the Waves Film Festival this week. It will part of the daily programme, which the 1500 attendees get. I have also given copies to members of the media, as well as a copy to all the delegates. We do what we can even though it feels like water off a ducks back when you speak to the likes of those I did today.