What is the economic value of exctinct species?
Following his last blog on the tragedy of bluefin tuna, here is John Frizell's lastest commentary on the mockery that governments are making of this year's CITES meeting.
Just as rivers have rapids and smooth stretches, so does CITES. When the meeting returned to work on Sunday, after the Friday/Saturday weekend, the ferocity of the bluefin tuna battle was forgotten and debate flowed smoothly again.
When Honduras put forward a species of iguana for listing, comments were calm and favorable. After all, there was a strong scientific case and evidence of a sharp decline which is clearly being driven by international trade. The same countries which on Thursday had said that a strong scientific case and evidence of a sharp decline which is clearly being driven by international trade did not matter in the case of bluefin tuna, joined in a consensus to list the species and others that followed.
The debate flowed on calmly, with species being listed on Appendix 1 or Appendix 2 based on scientific evidence until mid day when we hit the white water of social and economic needs again.
The red and pink precious corals are not fish and no one depends on them for food. They are far more vulnerable because of their very low rates of reproduction. As the proponent of the listing told the conference of parties, they are vulnerable to climate change and also to ocean acidification. But many parties spoke out about the need to continue trade [despite the fact that the Appendix 2 listing proposed would only record trade, not eliminate it]. Even Iran’s intervention that if we are concerned about socioeconomic factors then we need to consider the socioeconomic impact if we lose the species, was to no avail. The vote was 64 in favor of listing, 59 opposed and 10 abstaining, far short of the 2/3 required.
Big rapids ahead when sharks are considered in two days' time. After today, no one expects them to be listed.
No sign of the little bird from Thursday. It seems that the wildlife has left CITES.
Follow Greenpeace »
Comments
zilch?
Posted by: finn braaksma | March 22, 2010 9:31 PM
Gentle People:
It is apparent to me that money is the operating word within this CITES convention and so I am hazarding a guess that money has been paid to certain members of the convention for their favorable votes. Votes that will lead to the extinction of certain species. Why else would sombody deliberatly condemn a whole Species to death?
Posted by: Joseph Raglione | March 23, 2010 2:31 AM
The arrogance of this whole situation makes me sick. Who the hell are we (humans) that we feel we can choose which species survive and which don't. We do not 'own' the planet and it's inhabitants, free to sentence them to extinction at our will! I am embarrassed to be a human being.
Posted by: Alix | March 23, 2010 11:04 AM