 |
| Thursday's noise workshop - Nicolas Entrup (left) and Mr Simmonds presiding. |
Big Fish Wednesday
We got into some major issues today here in Quito.
The marine species proposals for listing and big resolutions all wondered into
focus in the big hall. Some of the debate in the CoW (the Committee of the
Whole) is recorded below and as usual I am trying to capture the gist of what
is said. This is not verbatim and corrections are welcomed.
We start the day with a thirty minute taxi trip out
of the central part of Quito to the conference centre in the valley. In fact
the conference centre forms most of the ground floor of a big shopping mall.
Outside there are flags and banners announcing the conference, inside there are
corridors lined with pictures and propaganda. As is usual there is a massive
meeting hall with occasional tumultuous air conditioning and a lousy wireless
connection. These are all important
elements in a major international meeting. About 700 people are attending.
We start the day with wildlife crime (this is a bad
thing) and then move on to Boat-based wildlife watching (this is not bad but
needs to be managed better). The redoubtable Heidrun Frisch, recently relieved
of her dreadlocks (or were they cornrows) , of the CMS Secretariat introduces
the issue which has an associated resolution and guidelines. These were
approved by the Scientific Council and the issue is still being discussed in
the Marine Working Group (which opened yesterday in the lunch break) and Heidi
explains that a large number of changes have already been made. The draft should
be finalised by lunchtime today. The Chair asks for no debate on this now.
Redoubtable Heidi then details the marine debris resolution and associated workplan. She
notes that this harmonises with agreement from the previous CoP. The Scientific
Council has made three reviews. The general approach of the resolution is to
make use of and improve existing mechanisms and initiatives. She stresses the
importance of linkages with other process and education work. The Chair awaits
the results of the working group and asks for no interventions…. But UNEP takes
the floor as asks for a mention of a resolution made under his auspices.
Argentina appreciates the documents but draws attention to the right of the
state to determine what is a gap within its own waters. The Chair directs him
to the working group.
Excitement mounts as we move to the discussion of
the species listings. The Chair indicates no voting at this stage in the CoW. The
process will be that he will report to the Chair of plenary (the Ecuadorian environment
minster) if there is widespread support or not.
First comes Cuvier’s Beaked whale - Mediterranean
Population.
This proposal is brought by the EU. They point out
that there are fewer than 10,000 individuals left and they are facing many
threats – including underwater noise and ingestion of plastic
debris … for all these reasons this listing is important.
Niki
Entrup makes the following intervention: – “On
behalf of Ocean Care, NRDC, WildMigration, NRDC, HIS, The Born Free Foundation,
Whale and Dolphin Conservation and I anticipate many other NGOs in the room [and probably many outside trying to get on the
internet] we congratulate and thank the
European Union for submitting this proposal and in particular the Spanish
government and the many researchers and scientists for developing it. The
proposal is not only based on strong science. This is also a good example of
how constructively the CMS Family works together, noting the processes this
proposal has gone through from the Scientific Committee of ACCOBAMS through the
ACCOBAMS MOP and now to the Parties of the Convention.
This is a species that many may not recognize as it
spends much of its time deep underwater. But what has become apparent in recent
years as our knowledge has improved is that its small relatively isolated
populations in the Mediterranean are facing a variety of threats and the
species is especially vulnerable to noise disturbance, in particular high
intensive impulsive sound caused by military activities and by some methods
used during the exploration of hydrocarbon resources in the seabed, as laid out
in the proposal.
In my last sentence I have put the emphasis on
“some methods” as there have been a lot of progressive developments in the past
years to promote better, less noise intense technologies to undertake such
activities providing similar or even more promising results. The promotion of
such better available technologies has been the subject to previous Resolutions
adopted by the CMS Parties to address underwater noise pollution.
We are of the belief that the listing of the
Cuvier's Beaked whale of the Mediterranean Sea into Appendix I of the
Convention is not simply a paper exercise to reflect the status of concern, but
will genuinely help Parties to implement the activities this species needs to
receive proper protection.”.
Chile says that the South
American and Caribbean region supports the proposal.
The CITES Secretariat then
says that it is true that all sub-species are of value for the conservation for
a specious. However, we do struggle to address the conservation needs of a full
species. If we divide all matters to a lower species, this should be done sparingly.
This species is in CITES Appendix II. The listing would put it out of step with
CITES.
[There is a shark intake of
breath and some grumbling from cetacean corner.]
Monaco, in the form of his Excellency
the redoubtable ambassador to the court of St James, Patrick Van Klaveren says
firmly ‘we firmly support this proposa’l.
The Chairman rules that the
proposal is brought forward by consensus. [There is quiet cheering over in
cetacean corner of the great hall].
Asiatic Lion
A resolution is now coming
forward instead of a listing proposal says Kenya
Great Crested Bustard
– Mongolia proposes it for
appendix 1. IUCN supports this listing. The time to save the bustard is now.
The CITES Secretariat notes that the GB is on appendix II of CITES and he hopes
that a proposal will come forward for an appendix 1 listing. The Chair rules
that the recommendation is that it should be adopted by consensus.
Semi-palminated sandpiper
– Paraguay and Ecuador have
brought the proposal. This is small shore bird that breeds in the north. Its
population size is 2.3 million individuals but there seems to have been an 80%
decline in recent years. Chile and Argentina support. So does the EU. It is
moved forward by consensus.
The great knot
The Philippines proposes
this for appendix 1. It is vulnerable on the red list. It has national protection
in many countries but collaborative measures would be facilitated by this
listing. New Zealand has had thirty sightings of the species and hence is a
range state and is supportive. Australia notes he has national protections in
place and he is very protective. Fiji and Chile are supportive.
European Roller
The EU brings forward for
appendix 1 the European Roller – and it is widely supported but Norway asks how
it complies with appendix one. The EU has misplaced its expert and is unable to
reply.
Five species of Sawfishes to appendix 1 and 2
-proposed by Kenya. The chair notes these will be considered
species by species (one by one) in the plenary but here we will look at the
whole group. The proponent, Kenya, says that IUCN finds them endangered or critically
endangered – all are listed under appendix 1 of CITES. Many interventions
follow. The IUCN shark specialist group has identified sawfish as the most endangered
family of all marine fishes and calls firmly for listing. There is consensus
for all species.
The Roller returns (the EU’s
expert has been found) – the roller shows rapid declines. It is doing badly and
all the details are in the proposal. The IUCN assessment is relatively old. All
populations winter in the same place in Africa. Israel supports but notes some
problems in the language. It says that it is hunted throughout its range – it
is not hunted in Israel so this should be amended. Does Norway need any more
information? There is a shaking of heads.
Reef manta ray to appendix
1 and 2 – proposed by Fiji.
This is a highly vulnerable
and highly migratory species says Fiji . There are significant rates of decline
caused by a swiftly expanding industry. The giant manta is already on CMS
appendices 1 and 2 and this listing would make the reef manta ray consistent.
Countries from Latin America and the Caribbean support. So does the EU.
CITES however is waving his
flag. He says inclusion in appendix 1 is not consistent with his convention. He
is not aware of a significant deterioration in the status of the species. He
calls on states to coordinate their activities across conventions.
[There is grumbling over in
shark corner.]
A coalition of NGOs
supports. They meet the criteria says their spokeswoman and stresses their small
litter size [that’s the shark’s small litter size – apparently sharks have
kittens which is a bit of a worry as I don’t know now where cats come from] and
notes that the more sustainable use is tourism. Act in a precautionary way she
says.
The US (not a party)
supports. The Chair notes widespread support… consensus. Is there consensus?
South Africa is not against others supporting but will have to update its
domestic legislation. The Chair notes that they can also make a reservation
within 90 days of the close of the parties.
Fiji also proposes all
mobula (devil) rays for the appendices. They have low reproductive rates and
inadequate management. The conservation status varies. IUCN notes that its
assessments are old and some out date but concerns have still been raised. New
red list assessments are currently underway. The Manta Trust speaks up for this
species – noting that the animal is being hunted for its gill rakers and urges
a precautionary approach to all species. The chair pauses and then there is ….
Consensus.
[Shark-corner seems a
little jollier now and many swim off into the lobby to hunt fresh prey and the
internet.]
Polar Bear.
Norway proposes to add the
polar bear to appendix 2. Norway says they are a relatively well-studied
species. Many would say it is a flag-ship species. There is a polar bear
agreement in 1973 – all five range states are members – the questions is not
today whether we have the right kind of knowledge or not. The polar bear is classified
as vulnerable and threatened by climate, pollution and marine debris – a future
of no summer ice in the ocean basin will have consequences for it and many
other ice-dependent species. It is an ice-hunter. Take of polar bear has a long
history. CITES requires that trade is not detrimental.
Some offtake is regards as
too high by some parties to CITES. A significant trade review is in process.
Off take must be sustainable and precautionary, especially taking into account
climate change. The five range states do collaborate on its conservation – this
will expand. While Norway and the other countries are building this, listing under
CMS will help and mobilize scientific resources and expend to shipping and oil
and gas. Every nation has a responsibility for climate change. Reduction in
emissions of environmental pollutants is another issue where every party to CMS
makes party choices for the polar bear. An appendix 2 listing facilitates the
contributions of non range states. The cooperative action plan will come to the
scientific council. CMS can complement the existing agreement and give CMS a
stronger voice in the polar bear debate. She makes small amendments to the
proposal – correcting a comment attributed to IUCN and a ‘debatable’ reference
to the precautionary approach.
Canada follows swiftly.
16,000 of the 25,000 polar bears belong there, says their delegate. Canada
takes its responsibilities very seriously and is aware of the new threats
facing the polar bear. Canada struggles to see the benefit of a listing but
welcomes the interest from the wider international community. A representative
of the Inuit community mentions their relations with the bear (including that
they can be dangerous) – he feels they manage them sustainably. They have
managed them over thousands of years. He feels their livelihoods are again
under attack. An appendix 2 listing is not warranted at this time and urges all
to look at the facts and not be distracted by the emotional rhetoric.
The USA supports the
proposal. There are not a CMS party but they are a range state.
Niki Entrup speaks for a
number of NGOs including Wild Migration and HSI – we all know the future of the
polar bear does not look that bright. There is a bleak future for the species.
There is strong science behind this and it could qualify for appendix 1 and 2.
The range states cannot save the ice bear alone. This proposal is complementary
to exiting actions and it adds value as it reaches out to the international
community.
The EU is supportive.
The Inuit representative (a
wildlife manager) speaks. He comes from Labrador but speaks for several communities.
This powerful animal is part of their culture. Their way of life includes the
polar bear and they are connected in ways that most people here cannot
comprehend. He stresses that the polar bear is already heavily managed and that
the polar bear is one of the great conservation successes. They do not support
the proposal. It is redundant and he does not feel that his people have been
adequately consulted. Rhetoric approaches are disrespectful. Climate changes in
the regions have not affected the polar bear. Climate change needs to be
addressed via emission reduction and not a listing proposal.
There is a period of quiet
whilst the Chair and the Executive Secretary converse on the stage.
Monaco breaks the silence.
The ambassador has listened carefully to the words from the Inuit and the
efforts of the people have to recognized in CMS in an effort of synergy.
The Chair says if there are
no more inventions… and listening to the
parties and non-parties I hear consensus. I will propose [the ice bear] to the
plenary for adoption by consensus.
Lunch time turns into a
side event on marine noise followed by a marine working group where slow progress
is made on some proposals and then….. back in the great hall a gazelle proposal
runs in and out so fast that I am unable to follow it.
Then the Canada Warbler is
recommended for appendix 2. Its population has critically dropped in its breeding
grounds in the United States.
The air conditioning roars
or that may be the background grumbling of many delegates complaining about not
being able to connect to the internet.
Canada waves his flag and
looks forward to increased coordination between all states for the recovery of
this species. The USA supports. Norway finds it a good proposal but she asks
about the way forward for this species. Ecuador says that Canada and the USA
(non parties) are developing action plans and appendix 2 would help wider
collaboration. Norway is satisfied. Egypt urges all to support it. The EU
supports. The Canada warbler is forwarded with unanimous support.
Egypt introduces the silky
shark. He says the sharks ruled the seas for 400 million years. They did not
need to change because they were so well designed. Humans have copied these
designs …. Science fiction about sharks, especially ‘Jaws’ started them to be
treated as criminals. They were hunted and now over-fished. …the silky shark is
in decline. He mentions significant declines in several oceans. Egypt with the
CMS has initiated the CMS MoU on sharks and now Mr. Chairman it is time for
action… for silky sharks.
The IUCN notes an
assessment made in 2007 when it was close to vulnerable but more alarming
trends data have become available. They support listing. Chile says they have a
plan of action for sharks. Not clear if there are one or two stocks. The main
threat is fishing. There is a significant decline in the Pacific but the data
are not good and they do not support it.
Fiji fully supports Egypt.
The EU speaks of significant declines and supports inclusion in appendix 2 and
1. Ecuador too.
Headphone now stops
working - some interventions missed
including one from Costa Rican NGO PRETOMA on behalf of various NGOs including
HSI in support of the Silky.
The USA commends Egypt for
bring the shark forward, noting it will complement other actions and supports.
Peru is already acting in other ways and does not support. Senegal does.
The flags stop flying and
the Chairman concludes that there is widespread support …. Two countries do not
support at this stage. Either we hand it to plenary or we conclude here and now
that there is consensus. This does not prevent any of you from taking the floor
again. A vote might be taken.
Egypt adds some
clarification – when I said with an exception of a few countries that have
conservation measures – many many many range states do not. We recognize Peru
and Chile have measures but we are speaking about a global species that needs
the support of everyone.
The great and scalloped hammenhead
shark head towards appendix 2 on Sunday.
Ecuador and Costa Rica are
bringing this forward for two species of hammerheads. They have similar biology
and face similar threats. They have a large dorsal fin and so are valued in the
fin market. They have low breeding capacity and late maturity. Their
populations have decreased significantly. This is an appeal to recognsie this.
He notes the efforts made by several countries to manage them. In his country,
Ecuador, they have strong fisheries management measures in place. …. As
everyone knows these species have been recognized as IUCN as being in danger of
extinction and CITES has placed them on appendix 2. It is time for the sharks.
Chile says there is a Latin
and Caribbean consensus for these proposals. Fiji also fully supports.
Defenders of Willdlife (also
speaking for HSI and others) speaks in support. It is a very vulnerable species.
They are captured for their fins… ecotourism is better. They call on the
parties to support.
The EU supports. Since the
listing at CITES at their last CoP there has been a global effort to help these
species and ne notes action at ICCAT. Costa
Rica supports, as does Egypt and IFAW and a long list of NGOs. They would
qualify for appendix 1 he says – at least for the north Atlantic. Monaco
supports. Peru too. WWF (on the behalf of others too) supports.
The hammerheads move
forward by consensus and the recommendation is that both are adopted by
consensus.
[There is loud applause]
The European Union now
proposes there three shark species. This is three species of thresher shark.
All species share biological characterizes and declines and all are in need of
conservation action.
Fiji speaks next and
welcomes and supports. Scientific work in Fiji shows that there may be two
distinct populations of threshers, making them much more susceptible to
exploitation. New Zealand supports. Australia has been engaging with the EU on
this and has studied the documentation provided and consulted widely but feel
there remain data issues. There is no evidence of a decline in Australian
waters. However, he recognizes that there are declines in many other parts of
their range.
Israel supports.
Pew speaks up for a
coalition of shark-orientated NGOs.
Peru supports. Exploitation
is a major concern she says. This proposal matches her national legislation.
IUCN in the redoubtable form of Sarah Fowler OBE – notes these are highly
threatened and that an appendix 2 would complement existing actions.
The Chair says that he has
only heard support and he will recommend it is adopted by consensus on Sunday.
Monaco now brings forward
the European eel for appendix 2. The stock faces numerous threats on its
migration, including climate change. This is complex and compounded by lack of
data and lack of knowledge. They have one of the longest migrations – 5000 kms
out to the Bahamas Islands. The routes are not well known in the high seas.
There are some grey areas.
In Tunisia, says their
delegate, the status of the eel is of less concern. There has been no
consultation with range states by Monaco. The eels should be considered in
different European regions (and he lists them). In the North African region in
Tunisia fishing for juveniles is prohibited and there is little pollution.
Norway, however, supports
and would like to participate in the further work.
The EU (and its member
states) notes that the European eel is critically endangered. The population is
just 5% of that known in the 1980s. The EU has a comprehensive framework in
place. More action is needed and they support.
The Latin and Caribbean
block support.
Egypt suggests this should
be delayed to the next CoP further to a working group. (Microphones and
earphones stop working again in cetacean corner).
The Chair summarizes it
will be proposed for consensus.
Monaco thanks everyone for
contributing. He thanks the North African states for the work already
undertaken.
Andrea takes us to agenda
23.2.1 – the resolution on the conservation of migratory sharks and rays.
She notes that time is
ticking away for sharks – ¼ are threatened dues to overfishing and between
63-273 million are caught annually.
Brazil notes the work going
on in his country and that they and others have taken proposals to CITES.
Ecuador also supports.
What will the EU say? They
welcome the draft resolution. Several RFMOs have put conservation measures in
place for sharks. The EU has been amongst the front-runners in promoting such
measures and this needs to be taken further. The EU calls on all CMS parties to
collect species- specific data. He notes the special vulnerability of sharks
and invokes a precautionary approach.
HSI (Rebecca) on the behalf
of the coalition speaks up in support too:
On
behalf of Humane Society International and the coalition of NGOs that you have
heard listed many times already today, we welcome this initiative taken by the
CMS Secretariat to help strengthen the efforts of and collaboration among the
CMS Parties to conserve threatened species of migratory sharks and rays.
We
urge Parties to adopt this draft resolution. We believe it offers specific
actions that range states can take such as collaborating on the collection of
data and conducting population or risk assessments; adopting new as well as
strengthening the implementation of existing domestic and regional regulations
such as bans on removing fins at sea and species-specific limits on both direct
and indirect fisheries catches; and identifying and protecting key habitats.
We
would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Sweden for becoming
the newest signatory to the Sharks MoU and urge other range states that have
not already done so to join this important agreement.
We
call on the CMS family to not only support this resolution, but to also take
action to implement the various elements of the Sharks MoU Conservation Plan
for Migratory Sharks.
Thank
you.
The draft will be moved
forward from the COW to the COP for approval.
Then suddenly a turtle
swims in and the redoubtable Colin Limpus, CoP appointed councilor for turtles,
is telling us about the loggerhead ‘single species action plan’ and their
remarkable lives, which includes a trans-Pacific migration. – the primary
problem is the ingestion of plastic debris when they are very small!
The proposal is to span the
gap between existing proposals. Various countries speak in support and some
further suggestions for synergies are made.
When then move to the
resolution on live captures of wild cetaceans……
To follow!
 |
| delegates consult - Vanessa of Argentina speaks to Patrick of Monaco |
 |
| Presiding over the CoW: Melanie of the Secretariat and Chair Storkerson |
 |
| An intervention from Alejandra of Defenders of Wildlife |
 |
| The Shark MoU comes forward |
 |
| The elements of the MoU |
 |
| Peter Pueshal of IFAW and Rebecca of HS prepare for interventions |
 |
| A sharky intervention from Rebecca |
 |
| The loggerhead plan is explained on the big screen |
 |
| A highly migratory species |
