TRADE WITHOUT A FUTURE

I wrote this editorial for the Middle East's Gulf Times newspaper as a participant at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), a UN treaty agreement comprising 175 nations. Distributed in English, French and Spanish, my preemptive article called for the protection of sharks slated to be voted on throughout the upcoming week.

COMMENT – Gulf Times -- Doha, Qatar 21.3.2010

A Resounding Cry for Reason is Vital at CITES
By Edward Dorson

The current Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) reached its mid-way point last Thursday clearly working against the very mandate it had vowed to protect. The science was irrefutable, nonetheless CITES denied much-needed protection for the polar bear and the Atlantic bluefin tuna. The emergent, yet still unseen, other endangered "species" is trade in species itself. All trade in a species vanishes when that species no longer exists.

CITES must now intensively inspect its definition of just what trade is in fulfilling its mandate properly. What CITES can't tolerate, while still claiming legitimacy, is trade without a future. With the tuna defeat, a financial scheme that willfully banks on species' extinction has now been legitimized as a means to hyper-inflate short term profit. Unfortunately, the natural world cannot respond to economists’ projections for maximizing profits. Shortsighted gains in the form of set quotas simply cannot be met through natural reproduction of species that are being depleted at a demanded-upon pace. This pattern of thinking has no place on a planet where a species continued existence is essential for the biodiversity that must remain intact to support future generations as well as future economies.

In the case of the bluefin tuna, failure to support a trade ban until populations recover is projected to have negative consequences for the other commercially exploited marine species, particularly the equally endangered sharks. Almost a quarter million sharks are killed each day, mostly to have their fins sliced off for a status symbol soup served at weddings and banquets. Some shark populations are already functionally extinct, having declined by as much as 99%.

Sharks targeted by finners aren't taken whole, their valuable fins (up to US$700 a kilo) are sliced off and the less valuable finless shark is tossed back into the sea to sink and slowly die. That's not only despicably inhumane, it wastes 95% of the shark that could go for consumption. The obliteration of 400 million years of evolution for some perceived social status with serving shark fin soup isn't just incredibly wasteful and cruel -- it's tragic.

A healthy ocean depends on sharks. As apex predators, sharks are vital to regulate species abundance and distribution necessary to maintain an interdependent ecosystem of diversity and life. Their removal is causing devastating impacts with harmful results rebounding into the ocean's food chain.

"Cascade" events demonstrate how the elimination of sharks ruins both ecosystems and economies. One such example began in the western north Atlantic in the late 1990’s as shark populations were depleted. The rays and skates the sharks had once fed upon underwent a population explosion. The rays and skates, in turn, rapidly depleted the scallops, oysters, and clams. Once shellfish stocks collapse, their beneficial role in filtering toxins from the water ceases and results in algal blooms that are harmful to all marine life. Events such as this disrupt tourism and devastate coastal economies.

The ecological and economical consequences of an ocean without sharks is staggering. Natural processes can't be compromised or bartered. As the ocean is the very engine that runs the systems that maintain all life, this hidden holocaust will critically impact life on land as well.

Many nations are contributing to this tragedy, countries with damaged economies or a quick-fix determinism to prey upon the natural world until all is consumed. Surely this is outright madness. We must denounce this travesty and take considered action to stop such predation. Grotesque greed and indifference must be denied for the sake of sharks and a planet that requires their continuing existence.

A prime responsibility of all generations is to ensure that the world left to the next one is at least as vital and habitable to the one we live in today. All reasoning people must now reach a threshold that says no more to the senseless slaughter of the world's sharks for soup. Reckless decision making at CITES must be countered with a resounding cry for reason going into the final sessions starting today. Denying CITES protections for sharks would add a major ingredient in the rapid creation of a vast lifeless soup, formally known as the ocean.

-- Edward Dorson is Director of Conservation Strategies, Shark Research Institute