Implementing CITES Appendix II listings for marine fishes: a novel framework and a constructive analysis
When we set out to investigate the implementation of CITES Appendix II listings for marine fishes, we thought it would be relatively straightforward. Just document what had been done, identify the gaps, and summarize it all in a primary paper like the one we had written on the early listings of marine fishes on Appendix II.
We knew the story, or so we thought. Our team is hugely experienced, all of us having led on marine fish issues in CITES for 20-30 years. We were key agents in the Appendix II listing of seahorses, sharks and humphead wrasse. We had helped drive subsequent actions that pioneered many CITES processes for marine fishes, actively engaging in marine fish issues at all 12 of the last CITES CoPs. One of us was the head of the US CITES Scientific Authority for many years. The others of us are Chairs, an ex-Chair and the Focal Point for Global Trade of IUCN SSC Specialist Groups that are trusted by CITES to offer expert technical advice on these various taxa.
The story we now tell is substantially different from the one we thought we would share. For one thing, that primary paper has grown into a massive tome. More to the point, the anticipated simple task of summarizing implementation has evolved into a truly immense challenge of trying to untangle what has been done and what needs to be done. We have all pondered, debated, argued, and struggled with the ideas and information we document in the report. We have tried really hard to tell comprehensive stories, but we know we have also missed a lot. So, our goal has become extraction of key messages.
Our main challenge has been to determine what is meaningful in all that has been done and how such efforts might be affecting the marine fishes at the centre of the story, marine fishes that we all value enormously. Meeting that challenge necessitated us parsing out the different forms of implementation, creating a framework that allows us to sort through the many activities that engage us, all while seeking evidence that these are making a difference to the fish themselves. We were determined to distinguish the critical from the helpful, the vital from the optional, the exciting from the interesting, the promised from the promising.
We now offer you our thinking on how CITES has moved to implement Appendix II listings for marine fishes in a framework that we hope will have broader value for colleagues engaged in CITES… and other forms of conservation action and resource management, too. We know from personal experience that this framework will provoke animated discussion and prove controversial at times. We also know that this framework, in all its imperfections, provides a useful lens on a complex world, forcing us to consider how much (or how little) of what we do is really relieving pressures on marine fishes and other species.
We invite you to browse this report and share your ideas. We hope our framework will highlight and even challenge underlying assumptions in the theory of change used by governments, NGOs, and other stakeholders in CITES implementation. The good news is that we were able to find encouraging progress and identify options for improvement. The bad news? This report is very, very long, but we will be turning it into more concise outputs. We welcome your thoughts, comments, and recommendations.
Amanda Vincent, Sarah Foster, Sarah Fowler, Susan Lieberman, and Yvonne Sadovy de Mitcheson
Tags: Amanda Vincent, CITES, faculty, FCRR, fish, IOF Research Associates, Project Seahorse, Publications, Research, Sarah Foster, seahorses, sharks