Author: Kristin Stone

Elephants in Africa are being slaughtered on an unprecedented scale. In 2012, more than 35,000 of them—or close to 100 per day—were killed for their tusks. Things turned particularly ugly in 2013, when more than 300 fell victim to cyanide poisoning by poachers in Zimbabwe. If things continue at this rate, African elephants may be extinct in as few as 15 years.

Elephants are not the only casualties in this war. Hundreds of wildlife rangers have died while while working to protect the animals. Local governance, community stability and regional security are seriously threatened as well. Several African militia groups, such as Janjaweed in the Sudan, Uganda’s Lord’s Resistance Army, and Somalia-based Al-Shabaab, have engaged in elephant poaching and used profits from sale of the ivory to fund their terrorist activities.

Burgeoning market demand

Global demand for ivory products is fueling the elephant poaching crisis despite the international ban on commercial trade in ivory that was established in 1990. China is the largest market for ivory products, followed by the United States.

A 2008 report supported in part by The Humane Society of the U.S. found that an estimated one-third of ivory items for sale in the U.S. might have been imported illegally. In China, which has a government-approved ivory carving industry, an investigation by the International Fund for Animal Welfare found widespread abuse and fraud in the government registration system set up to ensure that no illegal ivory enters the legal trade.

Some estimate that 90 percent of ivory sold in China is from smuggled tusks; legal markets have become a front for laundering illicit ivory obtained from poached elephants.

Decades of lax trade regulation, increased poaching

Until 1990, the legal international trade in African elephant ivory flourished. Ivory showed up as, among other things, carvings sold in Asia and jewelry sold in the United States and Europe.

Nations that are Parties to CITES tried and failed to regulate this trade. Between 1979 and 1989, the number of African elephants plummeted from approximately 1.2 million to about 600,000.

In 1989, CITES effectively banned the international commercial trade in African elephant ivory by placing the species on Appendix I. Once this ban went into effect in 1990, elephant populations in the wild stabilized somewhat.

At first, the ban worked. Demand for ivory in the United States dropped to a historic low, illegal trade was severely curbed and ivory carving factories in China and shops in Hong Kong closed down. A number of African governments reported that the ban had been a tremendous success.

However, CITES approved a one-off sale of 49.4 metric tons of stockpiled ivory from Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to Japan in 1999. Soon after that, between January 2000 and June 2002, at least 2,563 tusks, 14,648 ivory objects or pieces and more than 6.2 metric tons of ivory were seized. During the same period, 1,059 or more African elephants were found dead, killed for their tusks.

In 2008, again with the approval of CITES, South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe exported 102 metric tons of government stockpiled ivory to Japan and China. China received 62 tons of ivory and many Chinese called it the “resurrection” of the Chinese ivory carving art. It also marked the resurrection of African elephant massacres.

Looking to the future

To protect elephant populations, closure of domestic markets for ivory and an international trade ban without any exceptions are necessary. By allowing the international ivory trade to continue—through occasional sanctioned exports and by not recommending the closure of domestic markets for ivory (as CITES has done for tiger parts)—CITES has turned a blind eye to poaching and an illegal trade that threatens the survival of the species.

In November 2013, the United States government, in a highly publicized media event, destroyed its nearly six-ton stockpile of confiscated ivory. The destruction was intended to send the unequivocal message that illicit ivory has no value or place in the U.S., and to inspire other countries with large stockpiles to follow suit. In a great victory for elephants, China did exactly that a month later, and then Hong Kong.

Every year, millions of sharks suffer painful deaths from the cruel and wasteful shark fin trade. Whether unintended “bycatch” by or caught specifically for their valuable fins, these animals have their fins removed and then—either dead or dying—are immediately cast back into the water. Shark meat is of low commercial value, so fishers save freezer space for highly valued fish and discard the sharks after the animals are “finned.”

The market for shark fin soup, a traditional dish in east Asia, is driving this growing practice—an appetite that has contributed to the shocking decline of most large shark species over the past half-century.

As the chief predators of the ocean, sharks play an essential role in the balance of the marine ecosystem. Their overfishing leads to collapsing populations, which—along with that of other large predators—will likely lead to serious consequences for many other ocean species. The effects of shark overfishing are already being seen.

Shark fin soup

While shark fin has no flavor and very little nutritional value, it does provide texture to soup, not to mention handsome profits to an industry estimated to be worth $500 million per year. Fins are dried, de-skinned, boiled and sometimes bleached, and then made into soup by the addition of chicken or fish stock, which provides the flavor. The fins of certain species are considered more valuable because of the length and thickness of the “fin needles” that they contain.

Mainland China is the world’s biggest end-market for shark fin. Because of its perceived value, serving shark fin soup at private functions is a way of honoring one’s guests and signaling one’s wealth and status. Chinese people frequently express the view that no self-respecting host would ever leave shark fin soup off the menu, particularly at weddings and other important social functions, for fear of losing face.

White gold

The international trade in shark fins has generated a highly lucrative industry in east Asia, with many shark fin dealers having multi-million dollar annual turnovers. Global Customs data show that over 100 countries are involved in the shark fin trade, the majority of them being exporters. The main consumer countries in Asia are mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia and Thailand, but large volumes of shark fins are also imported into the US and the EU, to supply local Chinese communities.

The high commercial value of shark fins has led to gangland murders, with one fin trader killing another to warn others off his “patch.” In some parts of the world, mafia-style organizations, such as the Chinese Triads, are in complete control of the trade.

Illegal activity

There have been numerous seizures of illegal shark fins around the world. In some cases, the sharks were caught in areas where shark fishing is prohibited. In other cases, the vessels were apprehended in areas where finning is illegal and were found to be carrying only fins, or insufficient shark carcasses to account for the number of fins on board—in other words, the sharks had been finned.

Some countries, such as Costa Rica, have strong shark finning regulations but lack the resources to enforce them. As a result, sharks are often finned in totally protected sea areas where all shark fishing is banned. In such cases, the many seizures that have taken place are likely to represent only the tip of the iceberg.

Read more about shark finning regulations.

Mercury with your soup?

Laboratory tests in Hong Kong and Thailand have uncovered levels of mercury in shark fins that far exceed recommended safe levels. Mercury is a neurotoxin that can cause extensive damage to the nervous system and to fetuses. The increasing consumption of shark fin soup may well cause widespread public health problems resulting from mercury poisoning. In addition, The Washington Post reported concern that shark fins have been processed in China using industrial chemicals.

Sharks are killed for many reasons: for sport, as targets of intensive commercial fisheries, and as accidental bycatch of fisheries that target other large fish such as swordfish and tuna. A variety of species of rays, which are related to sharks, are also caught by commercial fisheries. Sharks caught both as bycatch and as target species wind up being sold in a variety of forms.

Shark meat

While the meat of some sharks and rays, such as makos, dogfish and skate, is sold for human consumption, the meat of most species of sharks and rays is not eaten in the developed world. Shark meat may be sold under the name of the shark from which it came (for example, blackened mako) but it is often disguised. For example, shark meat is sometimes called “flake” and may be sold as fish and chips in restaurants.

Shark fins

Popular in East Asia, shark fins are considered a delicacy and shark fin soup can sell for as much as $100 per bowl. This has given rise to the particularly wasteful practice of “finning,” where the shark’s fins are removed and the remainder of the shark thrown back into the sea to die an agonizing death. Around the world, tens of millions of sharks die in this way every year. Some countries have banned the practice.

Shark skin

The skin of sharks and rays is made of fine scales known as denticles. The United States, northern Europe and Japan are major markets for shark skin. It is used in the manufacture of luxury items including boots and shoes, handbags, wallets and purses, belts, watch straps, holsters and for ornamentation. According to the United Nations, tiger, lemon, dusky, nurse, sandbar, porbeagle, shortfin mako, scalloped hammerhead and bull sharks are most often used in the manufacture of leather goods.

Shark cartilage

The skeleton of a shark is comprised of cartilage, not bone. There are unsubstantiated claims that shark cartilage has curative and/or preventative powers for a variety of minor and major ailments.  It has been used to treat ailments from acne, asthma and eczema to  AIDS and cancer.  Trade in shark cartilage is widespread and poorly documented. The major producing and consuming countries are the USA, Japan, Australia and India, with growing markets in Europe and other industrialized countries. Companies in the United States market shark cartilage to more than 35 other countries.

The cartilage of blue sharks is considered to be among the highest in quality because it contains larger quantities of chondroitin, but cartilage of a variety of both deep sea and coastal tropical sharks is used.

Shark liver oil

Unlike most other fish, sharks lack a swim bladder. Instead, their large livers are saturated with oils that help provide them with buoyancy. Rich in Vitamins A and D, omega-3 fatty acids and alkylglycerols, which have immune system-enhancing properties, shark liver oil also contains pristane, squalene, triglycerides, glycerol ethers, and fatty alcohols. 

Squalene is among the most widely used components of the oil. It is used internationally in cosmetics and as a lubricant.  It is also sold as a non-proven cure for cancer, and to treat arthritis, psoriasis and other skin disorders, and in anti-hemorrhoidal ointments such as Preparation H. Shark liver oil is obtained from sharks living in deep, cold water. The species most often targeted for their oil include blue sharks, gulper sharks, basking sharks and tope sharks.

Other non-food products

Shark teeth and jaws are sold as ornaments and souvenirs, with the jaws of larger sharks, such as mako and great white, being the most marketable. Small sharks may be used for bait. By-products of shark fishing are used to manufacture food for farmed fish and shrimp; and to make “fish meal,” which is used as a fertilizer or in animal feed.

Sharks belong in the sea

Virtually all large shark species are in steep decline as a result of poorly managed domestic and international fisheries. There are few products made from sharks for which some other ingredient cannot be substituted. It’s time we started valuing the contribution that sharks make to healthy ocean ecosystems rather than simply trying to maximize their commercial value.  You can show that you care about the survival of shark species by avoiding products made from sharks. Sign our No Shark Fin pledge.

Sharks are known as “K-selected” species, which means that they have a life history strategy featuring slow growth, delayed maturation, long gestation, and the production of few young.

Many shark species grow only a few centimetres per year, reaching maturity at perhaps seven or eight years of age. Females are often pregnant for a year or more and typically have only a handful of pups. These pups are “ready to go” at birth, able to catch their own food and fend for themselves from day one.

This strategy, while spectacularly successful for the past 400 million years, has come up against an even more “successful” species—humans. A combination of modern fishing technologies, global markets, rapid airfreight and sheer greed have allowed us to decimate shark populations in the past few decades.

Ignoring shark biology has catastrophic consequences

Take, for example, the case of the spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), a small shark that ranges across both the Atlantic and the Pacific. In the 1980s and early 1990s, the US fishing industry was encouraged to focus on this highly commercial species in order to allow time for over-fished populations of groundfish to recover. On the surface, this may have seemed a good idea, but it took no account of the life history of sharks in general and dogfish in particular.

Atlantic dogfish are thought to live for at least 30-40 years while, in the Pacific, their lifespan is now thought to reach 70 years. The female dogfish does not mature until her mid “teens” to early twenties. After mating, she is pregnant for 18-24 months and gives birth to an average litter of 6 live pups, some of which will not survive to maturity.

It is then another year at least before she becomes pregnant again. Combine this with the fact that mature females school together and that they are significantly bigger than males, and you end up with a scenario where fishers specifically target schools of mature females, many of which are at some stage of pregnancy, thus removing not one but two generations.

Collapse of fishery-targeted shark populations

Not surprisingly, the plan to use the dogfish as an economic bridge while other species recovered was a spectacular failure, resulting in the decimation of dogfish populations in the western Atlantic. Within a handful of years, scientists were warning that populations would take decades to recover—if they recovered at all. They are now being proposed for special international protection.

And it is not only the USA that has overestimated the ability of shark species to recover. Almost every known fishery that has specifically targeted sharks has collapsed within a few years.

• During the 1960s the Norwegians and Danes began fishing for porbeagle sharks (Lamna nasus) in the northwest Atlantic; between 1961 and 1964 their catch rose from 1,800 metric tonnes to 9,300mt and then declined to less than 200mt.
• The common skate (Dipturus batis) in the Irish sea is now considered to be commercially extinct as a result of short-term overexploitation.
• A historical harpoon fishery for the basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) off the west coast of Ireland was briefly revived in the 1940s but the catch quickly peaked and declined by the end of the 1950s.
• A fishery for bluntnose sixgill sharks (Hexanchus griseus) began in the Maldives in 1980, peaked in 1982–84 and collapsed by 1996. Other fisheries for this species, in Australia, New Zealand, France and  Brazil are all reported to have declined.
• The collapse of the soupfin shark (Galeorhinus galeus) fishery in the US Pacific follows a typical pattern. The fishery expanded enormously in 1938, with the discovery that liver oil was rich in vitamin A. The catch peaked at 4,000mt in 1940, crashed in 1942 and by 1944 was down to only 300mt. Only about 40mt are now caught annually.
• Catches of porbeagle sharks in the north-eastern Atlantic peaked in 1947 then declined; catches temporarily rose again during the 1960s as the fishery spread to the northwestern Atlantic, but then declined to a low level in the mid 1980s.
• US Pacific angel shark (Squatina california) catches peaked in 1985–86 at 560mt but decreased quickly to 120mt three years later. A ban in 1994 is likely to have averted a total population collapse.
• In the early 1980s a fishery for sevengill sharks (Notorhynchus cepedianus) in San Francisco Bay, USA, crashed within a few years.
• Many more shark fisheries are likely to have declined drastically, but have never been formally documented.

If we are to conserve the world’s remaining shark populations, management schemes, fishery regulations and trade regimes must take into account the extraordinary life history of this fascinating group of species.

What is shark finning?

The word “finning” refers to the act of cutting off a shark’s fins and throwing the rest of the often still-living animal back into the sea. The vast majority of finned sharks bleed to death, or become prey for other sharks. A shark cannot be “finned” at port, as the term includes the act of throwing the body back into the sea.

The “fins-attached” method of enforcing finning bans requires that sharks be brought to land with their fins naturally attached to their bodies. This limits the number of sharks a vessel can kill because whole sharks take up more of a boat’s limited storage space.

How many sharks are finned each year?

There are no official figures on shark finning. However, taking into the account the wide discrepancy between the number of sharks reported as caught and the recorded imports of shark fins into East Asia, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) has estimated that tens of millions of sharks are finned every year.

Why is finning harmful?

• If crews are not required to keep and freeze shark carcasses, they can continue catching and finning sharks (and drying just the fins on deck) long after their freezers are full. This means that sharks can be caught in totally unsustainable volumes.
• Because they are near or at the top of the food chain, the disappearance of sharks is likely to have devastating consequences for other fish species in the chain.
• Since it is difficult to identify a shark species by observing its severed fins, or to identify a species by observing its finless carcass alone, shark management is severely impacted by the removal of sharks’ fins at sea.
• Communities in developing coastal communities in Africa, Latin America and India have reported precipitous declines in sharks in their waters in recent decades believed to be caused by large foreign vessels’ finning sharks only a few kilometers farther out.

Which sharks are most often used for the fin trade?

DNA studies of shark fins in trade show that blue sharks comprise about 17 percent of the total sharks used for the fin trade. Studies have found that as many as 20 million blue sharks are killed annually and that the population is in decline. Other species commonly used for shark fin soup include hammerhead, shortfin mako, silky, sandbar, bull and thresher sharks.

Is there an alternative to using real shark fins for shark fin soup?

Although various alternatives have been promoted in Asia, they have not achieved widespread popularity. The main reason is that they lack the historical cachet of shark fin soup, a dish that was once the sole preserve of emperors and that, for 2000 years, has symbolized wealth and power. The low-level acceptance of alternatives is certainly not based on a preference for the flavor of real shark fins, since they have none. Flavor is imparted to shark fin soup by the addition of chicken or fish stock.

So what will work in the consuming countries?

Many Asian organizations and individuals in a number of major consuming countries are waging strenuous campaigns against the consumption of shark fin soup. As people start to understand how vulnerable sharks are, how much we need them and how fast they’re disappearing, attitudes can and do change. HSI is actively encouraging this trend and collaborating closely with local shark advocates.

Asian communities around the world have the ability to turn the tide and bring about a drastic decline in the consumption of shark fin soup. The only question is: can they do it in time?

---

1 The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and Indian Ocean Tuna Commission have nearly identical recommendations regarding shark finning at sea. Under these rules, fins may be removed at sea but fins and carcasses must both be landed and must adhere to the 5 percent rule, at least at the first point at which they are unloaded. However, the recommendations do not make clear whether the weight ratio is based on dressed or whole sharks.

As human populations have increased, so have populations of our companion animals. In fact, communities around the globe now face a daunting challenge: overpopulation of humans’ best friends.

Whether in the markets of India, the mountains of Peru, or the fishing villages of Mexico, unwanted dogs and cats subsist off the refuse of their human communities, unhealthy and unloved. With no humane programs in place, governments and citizens sometimes turn to abhorrent methods of animal control: electrocution, poisoning, beating. Animals are treated as one more element of garbage to be removed from the streets. Without proper spay/neuter programs in place, these methods are not only brutal, but ineffective. Animals continue to reproduce, quickly replacing the ones who have been killed with yet another generation of ill-fated puppies or kittens.

The solution to this pressing problem is complex, but one component remains constant: the need for spay/neuter. Reducing the number of unwanted animals is the only way to reduce the number that end up on the street. HSI works with local partners and communities to implement spay/neuter and animal health initiatives in a dozen countries around the globe. By implementing low- or no-cost high-volume clinics, we’re making a tangible difference in the number of homeless animals. In addition, participating communities receive important training in how to implement such programs, so that as the demand for spay/neuter services increases, local professional are able to meet the need.

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the 6 million seals, or whatever number is out there, killed and sold, or destroyed and burned. I do not care what happens to them…the more they kill the better I will love it.”
– John Efford, former Canadian Minister of Natural Resources

Opinion polls consistently show a clear majority of Canadians oppose the commercial seal hunt. Nearly 70 percent of Canadians oppose the seal hunt outright, with even higher numbers against specific, inherent aspects of the hunt—such as the killing of seal pups. (Environics Research, 2005)

In recent months, domestic and international opposition to the commercial seal hunt has steadily gained momentum as images of extreme cruelty at the hunt—including the skinning of live animals—have been broadcast around the world. This opposition has resulted in effective consumer action campaigns targeting Canada’s seafood and tourism industries.

In light of the high level of public opposition, and the potential threat to other industries, many people ask why the Canadian government continues to defend and support the seal hunt. The answer is rooted in a history of fisheries mismanagement and the current political situation in Canada.

Seals – an ideal scapegoat

In the 1950s and 60s, industrial fishing fleets decimated fish stocks off Canada’s East Coast, hauling up in one hour twice the amount of fish a sixteenth century ship would take an entire season to catch. By the 1970s, it was clear the northern cod population was on the brink of collapse.

At the end of the same two decades, the harp seal population was also in a steep decline as a result of massive over-hunting. By 1974, senior Canadian government scientists were so concerned they warned that the harp seal population could be lost forever in the absence of a 10 year moratorium on sealing.

The world acted to save the seals. In 1983, responding to intense public pressure, the European Union stepped in and banned the import of whitecoat and blueback sealskins—the main products of the commercial seal hunt at the time. Since Europe was the hunt’s primary market, kill levels dramatically declined and the harp seal population slowly began to recover.

The cod were not as lucky. In the 1970s, Canada established a ‘200 mile limit’ to protect fish stocks from foreign fishing fleets. But instead of using the new law to allow stocks to rebuild, Canadian fishing companies dramatically increased their own take. Ignoring and suppressing advice from its own scientists, Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) authorized highly unsustainable quotas throughout the 1970s and 80s. By the 1990s, with northern cod stocks at only one percent of their historic levels, it was clear decades of over-fishing had resulted in an ecological catastrophe. In 1992, a moratorium was declared on cod fishing.

“All scientific efforts to find an effect of seal predation on Canadian groundfish stocks have failed to show any impact. Overfishing remains the only scientifically demonstrated conservation problem related to fish stock collapse.”

– From a petition signed by 97 scientists from 15 countries at the 11th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, December 1995

As 40,000 Atlantic Canadians lost a primary source of income, the DFO attempted to blame factors beyond their control. And despite a consensus in the scientific community to the contrary, seal predation on cod was at the top of their list. Given the residual anger about the EU sealskin ban, the failure of the cod stocks to recover, and the prevalent myth that seals harm fish stocks, seals were a perfect scapegoat for the dwindling fish stocks. Government and independent scientists argued that only 3 percent of a harp seal’s diet consists of northern cod, and that harp seals also consume many significant cod predators. But their advice went unheard, and calls for a seal cull echoed loudly through Eastern Canada and within the DFO bureaucracy itself.

“It is not study that we want…We want those seals taken out. I do not care how they are taken out. Every bloody one of them can be killed. I will go in there myself with a rifle and help shoot them.” 

– Lawrence O’Brien, former Member of Parliament, in an address to the Newfoundland House of Assembly, 2003

Political background

The timing worked well for the political aspirations of a Newfoundlander named Brian Tobin, Canada’s Fisheries Minister from 1993 to 1996. Tobin needed an issue to launch his return to provincial politics (he subsequently became Premier of Newfoundland). And in the run up to a federal election, the Canadian government needed political currency on the East Coast of Canada.

They found it in seals—and the few remaining cod. In 1996, Tobin announced a massive federal subsidy, literally paying fishermen per pound of seal they killed. Hunt numbers exceeded 240,000 seals that year, and have remained high since. The following year in a controversial move, Fred Mifflin (Brian Tobin’s successor as Fisheries Minister) announced the reopening of several cod fishing zones off Newfoundland’s south coast and in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence.

As irresistible as it must have been for the federal government to give away presents to the East Coast electorate shortly before an election, the scientific community agreed—they were in no position to give away the cod. By 2003, it was clear the new cod fishing zones had to be closed permanently. On cue, with another federal election pending, the Fisheries Minister quickly announced the highest quota for harp seals in history: Canada would allow nearly one million seal pups to be slaughtered over three years.

Seals and politics: a lethal combination

Newfoundland, with a relatively small population of about half a million people, contains 7 out of the 308 political constituencies in Canada. Their political significance has dramatically increased in light of the current minority government situation.

The challenge politically in ending the seal hunt in Canada has not been public opinion. Rather, it is the federal government’s perception that while the majority of Canadians oppose the seal hunt, they are unlikely to vote on the issue. Conversely, on Canada’s East Coast, fisheries policies are historically vote generators. The political equation thus far has been simple—supporting the hunt will buy political support in the East, but not cost political support in practical terms elsewhere.

Conclusions

The current administrative framework of the DFO not only allows, but encourages the editing and suppression of science to achieve short term political gain. It is this situation, according to many Canadian NGOs, that has been the principal reason marine species have been and will continue to be exploited to levels from which they are unable to recover. As of 1997, fishing for twenty-two stocks remained prohibited (Canada 1997, 79-82), and in addition to northern cod; haddock, redfish, American Plaice and capelin have been over-fished to the point of commercial extinction.

The 1983 EU Directive that banned the import of whitecoat and blueback sealskins may well be the only reason the Northwest Atlantic harp seal population was not wiped out completely. But today, Canada is allowing hunting to occur at levels that far exceed those prior to the 1983 ban. The pups are hunted just days later, when they have begun to shed their white coats, and their skins are legally traded in Europe.

With new reports showing snow crab—now the foundation of Newfoundland’s fishery—on the brink of collapse, it is clear little has changed at DFO. And until environmental protection becomes a higher priority for Canadian voters, the very survival of the harp seal population in the Northwest Atlantic may well rest in the hands of European governments who can ensure the closure of seal product markets.

References

Brown, Jim. 2005. “Boycott to protest seal hunt worries Island fishermen” The Guardian (March 10).

Brubaker, Elizabeth. “Unnatural Disaster: How Politics Destroyed Canada’s Atlantic Groundfisheries,” chapter 5 in Terry Anderson, ed., Political Environmentalism (Hoover Institution, 2000)

CP (Canadian Press). 1997a. “Critics can be fired, Ottawa says.” Globe and Mail (August 6).

Harris, Michael. 1998. Lament for an Ocean: The Collapse of the Atlantic Cod Fishery: A True Crime Story. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.

Hutchings, Jeffrey A. 1996. Spatial and temporal variation in the density of northern cod and a review of hypotheses for the stock’s collapse. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53:943-962.

Hutchings, Jeffrey A. 1997. “Reopening two of the cod fisheries is a big mistake.” Globe and Mail (April 22).

Hutchings, Jeffrey A., Carl Walters, and Richard L. Haedrich. 1997. “Is scientific inquiry incompatible with government information control?” Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54: 1198-1210.

Mittelstaedt, Martin. 1998. “Massive fleets to blame for depleting fish stocks, U.S. report says.” Globe and Mail (August 20).

Neads, David. 2004. Cod, Extinction and Politics. http://www.ccconserv.org/articles-neads/dn-cod-extinction-politics.html

Rose, George A. 2003. Fisheries Resource and Science in Newfoundland and Labrador – an Independent Assessment. http://www.gov.nf.ca/publicat/royalcomm/research/Rose.pdf

Strauss, Stephen. 1997a. “Partial cod fishery set for May 1.” Globe and Mail (April 18).

Steele, D. H., R. Andersen, and J. M. Green. 1992. The Managed Commercial Annihilation of Northern Cod. Newfoundland Studies 8 (1): 34-68.

Thorne, Stephen. 1997. “Overfishing, not seals, killed cod buried Fisheries report reveals.” Globe and Mail (August 22). 

At one time, Africa’s chimpanzee population was believed to have been one million, but today, there are no more than 150,000 individuals left. Wild chimpanzees are already extinct in four of their former range countries on the continent, and their population continues to decline in the remaining 21 African nations in which they survive. Only 10 of these nations have chimpanzee populations exceeding 1000.

Guinea has one of the largest estimated populations of the western chimpanzee, at 25,000, while Sierra Leone’s chimpanzee population is believed to be less than a tenth of that.

Threats to survival

The main threats to chimpanzee survival in Africa are:

• the expansion of agricultural and living space for the human population
  
• industrial logging
  
• bush fires
  
• poaching for bush meat
  
• the live capture of young chimpanzees for the pet trade

The majority of Guineans are Muslims who observe taboos against the hunting and eating of chimpanzees. However, the forest region which borders Sierra Leone and Liberia is predominantly Christian and animist. In this zone, there are no taboos pertaining to the hunting of chimpanzees, and poaching does occur.

Communication with the public presents another set of challenges. Most of the population in both Guinea and Sierra Leone live in rural, agricultural areas with limited access to newspapers and television. High illiteracy rates in both nations also limit the effectiveness of outreach.

Legal protections and law enforcement

In Guinea, the capture, hunting, and eating of chimpanzees is already prohibited, but law enforcement authorities lack sufficient capacity to enforce such prohibitions. Since the early 1990s, the influx of refugees fleeing from the long civil war in Sierra Leone and related turmoil in Liberia, has resulted in additional pressures on chimpanzees and their habitat in Guinea.

In Sierra Leone, wildlife laws predate the advent of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) in 1972, and legal protection for chimpanzees is weak. During the 1960s and 1970s, Sierra Leone was a major exporter of chimpanzees to research institutions worldwide, until worldwide pressure organized largely by primatologist Geza Teleki led to a de facto ban on the practice that has lasted more than 30 years. Most scientists use Teleki’s estimates of 2000 from the early 1980s. However, with non-viable population clusters and the uncertain effects of Sierra Leone’s decade-long civil war, the number of surviving chimpanzees may actually be lower.

Saving chimpanzees where it counts

Only a few issues in international wildlife protection today garner more public attention than the plight of great apes. In the developed world, the animal protection community has often emphasized the strong genetic heritage and developed emotional and social capacities of chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos as part of an argument that these animals deserve heightened moral and legal consideration. 

In less developed nations, the challenge of ensuring basic protection for chimpanzees is more elemental, because they face daily threats from the human population with whom they share their environment.

The Chimpanzee Conservation and Sensitization Program (CCSP) is a collaboration between several large international chimpanzee and animal welfare organizations to aid local and national institutions in Guinea and Sierra Leone. It is one of many projects that Humane Society International is involved in. The hope is that, by involving local leaders, educators and law enforcement personnel, the plight of chimpanzees can be better understood around the world and the push to save these endangered animals will gain widespread support.

What is CITES?

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is a treaty that governs the international trade in endangered plants and animals. Signing the treaty is voluntary; over 170 nations have signed and ratified CITES to date. The treaty contains three Appendices on which species are placed. When a species is placed on Appendix I, the Parties agree to ban all international commercial trade in that species. When a species is placed on Appendix II, the Parties agree to allow trade in that species only if certain conditions are met. (For instance, before a Party is allowed to export a member of an Appendix II species, it must prove that the export will not be detrimental to wild populations of that species.) A species on Appendix III is one that is protected in at least one country, which has asked other CITES Parties for assistance in controlling the trade.

In addition to listing species on CITES Appendices, the Parties also agree to take other actions to protect species in the international commercial trade. For example, the Parties have agreed to abide by humane standards for air transport of live animals listed on CITES Appendices. Parties control trade in CITES-listed species primarily by issuing export and import permits.

The first meeting of the nations that signed and ratified CITES—the first COP—took place in 1975. The Parties meet every two and a half to three years to propose changes, such as moving a species from one Appendix to another. The upcoming COP, taking place in The Hague, the Netherlands in June 2007, is COP14.

Who administers CITES?

The CITES Secretariat, based in Geneva, is responsible for administering the treaty. The Secretariat itself is administered by the United Nations Environmental Program.

How is CITES enforced?

The CITES Secretariat does not enforce the treaty. Instead, each Party has adopted so-called CITES implementing legislation—national laws that allow the Party to implement and enforce the treaty. In the United States, CITES is implemented and enforced primarily through the Endangered Species Act.

Because international wildlife trade often involves more than one country, Parties often cooperate with one another to track illegal trade and catch poachers; they may also work with the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol). The CITES Secretariat conducts training workshops to help Parties implement the treaty.

How do species get on a CITES appendix?

At each COP, Parties submit proposals to list species on the Appendices, remove species from the Appendices, or transfer species from one Appendix to another. Fifty-four species proposals will be considered at COP12.

Species proposals are discussed and either passed or defeated by consensus or voted upon. Each Party gets one vote. It takes two-thirds of the Parties present and voting to pass a species proposal.

Parties may request a secret ballot to vote on proposals; this often happens on proposals that are highly controversial. Secret ballots prevent others from knowing how a delegate from a Party has voted; secret ballots allow a delegate to cast a vote but not be held accountable to his or her government or the people he or she represents.

Currently, it takes only eleven Parties to support a proposal to hold a secret ballot. Chile has proposed to increase that number to one-third of the Parties present and voting (approximately 50 Parties); this would make it more difficult to conduct secret ballots, thus ensuring greater accountability and transparency.

What happens at a COP?

Delegates from the Parties discuss and vote on various proposals and resolutions submitted by Parties and by the Secretariat. Many people participate in COPs: Party delegates, representatives from the CITES Secretariat, the administrators of other United Nations organizations and treaties, the international press, and observers.

Are other matters discussed at COPs?

CITES Parties and the Secretariat produce other documents to be discussed at COPs. These documents may be resolutions to change the rules of procedure, to change the status of observers, to set up working groups, to define the relationship between CITES and other international treaties, etc. Approximately 50 such documents will be discussed at COP12. These documents are discussed, modified, and either passed or defeated by consensus, or voted upon in the same manner as species proposals.

How do non-governmental organizations, such as The HSUS and HSI, participate in CITES meetings?

Non-governmental organizations participate as observers. An observer is any organization that has an interest in the treaty: animal protection, conservation or environmental organizations; scientific and technical organizations; or animal industry organizations (such as those involved in the ivory trade or pet trade). The CITES treaty gives any observer the right to participate in a COP unless one-third of the Parties object. This right was granted to observers to ensure that COPs would be held in an open, transparent, and participatory manner. Although some countries (particularly Japan) have objected to the participation of individual observers, the objections have never received the necessary number of votes to exclude an observer.

Although they may not vote, observers participate in several ways. Their main goal is to influence the ways that delegates vote or otherwise act regarding issues. Observers read the species proposals and other documents and prepare fact sheets and documents in which they make recommendations. They also participate directly in COP discussions and make formal or informal presentations.

What happens between COPs?

Three permanent CITES Committees continue to meet, once or twice a year, to carry on business and to prepare for the next COP. The Standing Committee is the governing body of CITES between the COPs. It is composed of 17 individuals, each representing one of the six CITES regions (Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, North America, Latin America and the Caribbean), the previous COP host country, the next COP host country, and Switzerland, which is where the treaty resides. The Standing Committee meets twice a year to discuss general issues such as implementation and enforcement. The Standing Committee presents a report of its activities at the next COP. The CITES Animals and Plants Committees are technical bodies that meet annually to consider issues related to particular plants or animals. Each Committee is composed of ten individuals, each elected to represent the six CITES regions. The Committees report to the Standing Committee or to the next COP.

Whales are particularly vulnerable to environmental contaminants, including organochlorines—such as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and dioxin—and heavy metals, such as methylmercury.

Each of these environmental contaminants tends to accumulate in the bodies of top predators, including sperm whales, orcas, pilot whales, and false killer whales. The most contaminated whale meat has come from those species that are fish or mammal eaters such as dolphins, porpoises, sperm whales, and beaked whales.

Baleen whales, such as minkes, feed lower on the food chain, and their tissues generally contain lower levels of contaminants. Nonetheless, tests of the blubber of minke whales from the north Pacific have shown unsafe levels of pesticides and PCBs.

Effects on humans

Whale meat or blubber is consumed in Norway, Japan, some Caribbean nations, Russia, Canada, and the state of Alaska—either for subsistence, cultural, or commercial reasons.

In Japanese markets, generic whale meat or “kujira” is said to come from the minke whales killed as part of the so-called scientific whaling program. However, tests have shown that not all kujira is minke whale meat. Some of it is dolphin, porpoise, or beaked whale meat. People who eat kujira, thinking they are avoiding unsafe levels of contaminants, may in fact be eating meat that contains very high levels of toxic substances.

PCBs can cause nerve damage, reproductive and developmental disorders, immune system suppression, liver damage, skin irritation, and endocrine disruption. DDT exposure is associated with certain cancer risks and neurological and reproductive disorders. Dioxins can cause cancer, metabolic dysfunction, and immune system disorders. Methylmercury consumption can cause neurological and developmental problems. The contaminants are often highly concentrated in blubber because they are lipophilic, meaning they bond easily and even preferentially to fat.

One study of Faroe Islanders detected developmental disorders in children whose mothers consumed pilot whale meat and blubber regularly during pregnancy. In addition, some Inuit communities in the Canadian and Alaskan Arctic—where mothers regularly consume beluga whale meat and blubber (as well as meat from bowhead whales, seals, and polar bears)—have detected health problems in children who were exposed to contaminants in utero and through breast milk.

Whales no longer live in a pristine environment; we have polluted their habitat with poisons that concentrate in their tissues. Regardless of the amount, the consumption of whale meat can expose humans to dangerous contaminants.