My opinion on CITES CoP15

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:23:38 +0900
My goal is to realize sustainable fisheries. Listing marine resources in CITES Appendix is one of measures.
The stock trend of Atlantic bluefin tuna may satisfy the border of Appendix I criterion (definitely satisfies Appendix II criterion). It has been notified since a decade ago, ICCAT did not make a useful restoration plan nor stop of overfishing. Southern bluefin tuna has also a similar (worse) problem, overfishing, underreport and short of transparency in tuna farming. I am worried about listing SBT in the next CITES Cop16.
Pacific bluefin tuna stock also has a similar problem. I think that nobody will propose a lising PBT in the CITES Appendix. Therefore, Japan should make a stock management plan of PBT.
[] Now I like to make a management plan of PBT in CoP10. Listing tunas in CITES is not a big subject even in Japan.

Few Japanese companies will be damaged from listing ABT in CITES Appendix I, except tuna farmers in Mediterranean.
My opinion is similar to the FAO Ad Hoc Expert Panel.
The FAO Panel concluded that the available evidence does not support the proposal to include Spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias, in CITES Appendix II.
"The historical extent of decline in population abundance does not meet the Appendix II decline criterion for the following regions defined in the proposal: northwest Atlantic (USA and Canada), northeast Pacific (Alaska, Hecate Strait, Puget Sound, Georgia Strait) and the Black Sea."
"International trade of Squalus acanthias is the key driver of exploitation in most areas, except the northeast Atlantic where most of the catch is traded internally within EU markets. "
Therefore, declined northeast Atlantic dogfish will be traded within EU, while healthier populations will be prohibited.
I hope trade ban of dogfish within EU. This is necessary to protect this stock. If it will be done, listing a whole populations in Appendix II is not needed.
Anyway, I recommend sharks should be traded as a whole body (or with DNA certification) to identify to identify the species.
"The Panel noted that the EU has adopted a Shark Action Plan and looks forward to its implementation." []

Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:50:40 +0900
[] CITES is one of measures for sustainability and conservation. And its criteria (especially the number of reduction rate) are not the law, the goal of CITES is to enhance benefit of sustainability and conservation. The criteria are flexible, as is written in the criteria.
Today I was interviewed [] about Atlantic bluefin tunas. I answered, ICCAT was less affected by CITES. But this time, ICCAT was affected by CITES in bluefin tuna. It is too late.
I used an analogy of a succer game. A player repeated fouls. A referee has two options, yellow card (Appendix II) or red card (Appendix I). I expect the player may stop playing fouls after yellow card. Because ICCAT has first been affected by CITES, I have expected reformation of ICCAT.
However, it is too late. I said the judgment of red card is reasonable. If ABT is once listed in Appendix I, it will not be downlisted within several decades.
There are two types of ecologists. One encourage to make a bad person better. The other plays as a policemman to arrest bad people. I like to be the former. This is my education policy.
I gave a comment [], this is probably a turning point for fisheries management sectors to involve environmental groups and consumers for decision making. If they exclude these groups, public consensus is more difficult. This is too late.
[] few campanies will have a big damage even if it is listed in Appendix I. []
I suspect CITES will not handle PBT (probably SBT will be listed within a decade). A more important issue is to manage PBT. This is a matter of Japanese fisheries. Therefore, I think the management of PBT is one of the most important issues in CoP10 in Japan.
[]
Sharks: As I mentioned, CITES is one of measure for sustainability and conservation. It does not work in EU community. The management is based on population-level, not the whole species. If the EU has closed its dogfish fishery [], listing CITES Appendix II is not necessary for north Atlantic dogfish, it is unnecessary for southern hemisphere stock.
Anyway, if possible, Pacific Bluefin Tuna is more important issue in CoP10.

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:52:37 +0900
I was much surprised the outcome of CITES CoP15. Yesterday, I talked about it as a chair of panel discussion of a symposium on biodiversity, organized by Ecological Society of Japan (ESJ) in front of ca.800 audience: "I predicted that proposal for the Atlantic bluefin tuna is accepted in CITES Appendix I because the absolutely majority of related scientists agreed to the listing. The outcome (reject) means that the CITES's decision was beyond science. I am afraid that a similar outcome (conflict between developed and developing countries beyond science) will appear in CBD CoP10." And I asked panelists for any idea of inclusion of scientific scopes into CoP10. I got no catchy answer.
Anyway, ICCAT needs to improve its managemet plan for ABT. CBD must encourage improvement of fisheries management of both Pacific and Atlantic bluefin tuna. Therefore, I like to have a side event on the management of PBT and ABT at CoP10. PBT is more serious because its international management system is weaker than ICCAT, and CITES may not be interestec in PBT.
ESJ also encourages eating local and seasonally catchy food idems in sustainable manner.
My goal is for [fishers and fisheries companies] to practice a better behavior for sustainability and conservation. Ban-on-exploitation itself gives no experience of sustainable use.