The China Mail - New protections for oceanic whitetip sharks, but not eels

USD -
AED 3.672497
AFN 66.000019
ALL 81.362068
AMD 377.819122
ANG 1.79008
AOA 917.000199
ARS 1437.756098
AUD 1.446058
AWG 1.8
AZN 1.699366
BAM 1.646476
BBD 2.010195
BDT 122.126159
BGN 1.67937
BHD 0.377036
BIF 2941.275507
BMD 1
BND 1.266594
BOB 6.911531
BRL 5.281402
BSD 0.998064
BTN 90.701844
BWP 13.135731
BYN 2.845995
BYR 19600
BZD 2.007332
CAD 1.37344
CDF 2204.999647
CHF 0.77722
CLF 0.0219
CLP 864.750481
CNY 6.95435
CNH 6.954589
COP 3689.75
CRC 493.892635
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 92.825814
CZK 20.406201
DJF 177.734564
DKK 6.287601
DOP 62.496317
DZD 129.201949
EGP 47.090298
ERN 15
ETB 155.149799
EUR 0.841891
FJD 2.21245
FKP 0.733978
GBP 0.730725
GEL 2.690159
GGP 0.733978
GHS 10.884188
GIP 0.733978
GMD 73.496211
GNF 8742.244783
GTQ 7.659929
GYD 208.819147
HKD 7.798575
HNL 26.470233
HRK 6.344194
HTG 130.800054
HUF 321.341062
IDR 16797
ILS 3.114315
IMP 0.733978
INR 91.81325
IQD 1310
IRR 42125.000158
ISK 122.349952
JEP 0.733978
JMD 157.107862
JOD 0.70897
JPY 154.520184
KES 128.999898
KGS 87.449997
KHR 4029.999975
KMF 417.49889
KPW 900.017518
KRW 1447.565008
KWD 0.30678
KYD 0.831741
KZT 501.50269
LAK 21532.478028
LBP 85549.999882
LKR 309.012695
LRD 184.649835
LSL 16.02504
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.604891
LYD 6.302746
MAD 9.127497
MDL 16.837559
MGA 4504.999743
MKD 51.882782
MMK 2099.934879
MNT 3566.068226
MOP 8.016197
MRU 39.90087
MUR 45.520031
MVR 15.45997
MWK 1733.000354
MXN 17.3283
MYR 3.9545
MZN 63.749885
NAD 16.024986
NGN 1411.999839
NIO 36.70203
NOK 9.776661
NPR 145.117896
NZD 1.67511
OMR 0.384503
PAB 0.998089
PEN 3.351499
PGK 4.331136
PHP 59.0525
PKR 279.482785
PLN 3.541325
PYG 6707.663556
QAR 3.64135
RON 4.291999
RSD 98.835023
RUB 76.52697
RWF 1453
SAR 3.750011
SBD 8.080968
SCR 14.660391
SDG 601.497294
SEK 8.937976
SGD 1.268985
SHP 0.750259
SLE 24.390224
SLL 20969.499267
SOS 569.403406
SRD 38.125049
STD 20697.981008
STN 20.65
SVC 8.733279
SYP 11059.574895
SZL 16.020045
THB 31.118981
TJS 9.317338
TMT 3.51
TND 2.86025
TOP 2.40776
TRY 43.393698
TTD 6.782729
TWD 31.469706
TZS 2541.724002
UAH 43.0298
UGX 3538.265972
UYU 37.453751
UZS 12115.000259
VES 358.21164
VND 26139
VUV 119.765789
WST 2.755589
XAF 552.198838
XAG 0.009121
XAU 0.000197
XCD 2.70255
XCG 1.798766
XDR 0.686755
XOF 552.512179
XPF 100.798224
YER 236.802223
ZAR 16.00648
ZMK 9001.196617
ZMW 19.487413
ZWL 321.999592
  • SCS

    0.0200

    16.14

    +0.12%

  • BCC

    -0.9300

    83.4

    -1.12%

  • CMSC

    0.0300

    23.78

    +0.13%

  • RBGPF

    -0.8300

    82.4

    -1.01%

  • CMSD

    0.0300

    24.16

    +0.12%

  • BCE

    -0.0500

    25.15

    -0.2%

  • BTI

    -0.1700

    58.99

    -0.29%

  • NGG

    1.0800

    82.58

    +1.31%

  • GSK

    1.1700

    50.32

    +2.33%

  • RIO

    0.0400

    90.47

    +0.04%

  • JRI

    0.0500

    13.73

    +0.36%

  • RYCEF

    0.0000

    17.12

    0%

  • RELX

    -0.3900

    39.51

    -0.99%

  • AZN

    1.2800

    94.23

    +1.36%

  • BP

    0.2300

    36.76

    +0.63%

  • VOD

    0.0600

    14.23

    +0.42%

New protections for oceanic whitetip sharks, but not eels
New protections for oceanic whitetip sharks, but not eels / Photo: © AFP/File

New protections for oceanic whitetip sharks, but not eels

The world's top wildlife trade body voted Thursday to effectively ban all international trade in the critically endangered oceanic whitetip shark but rejected a proposal to protect more species of eel.

Text size:

The decision to upgrade protection of the shark species was welcomed by conservation groups that have warned oceanic whitetips are on the brink of extinction.

"This was our last hope," said Barbara Slee, senior programme manager at the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

"This listing might just spare them from extinction."

The species has suffered dramatic declines linked to the shark fin trade, and is one of dozens of shark species proposed for greater protections at the meeting of signatories to the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

The 50-year agreement protects the world's most endangered animals and plants, and regulates trade in over 40,000 species.

Earlier, members meeting in Uzbekistan's Samarkand rejected new protections for eels that had been fiercely opposed by top consumers of the fish, led by Japan.

Eel populations are falling worldwide, scientists say, largely due to factors linked to human activity such as the pollution of waterways, destruction of wetlands, hydroelectric dams, and fishing.

European eels are considered critically endangered and their trade has been restricted by CITES since 2009.

Eels cannot be bred in captivity, so much of the trade is in wild-caught baby eels, with one species virtually indistinguishable from another.

The European Union and Panama sought to bring all 17 eel species under CITES Appendix II, placing new restrictions on trade.

The "harvest for international trade is a major cause of international decline," the EU's representative warned.

But Japan dismissed the proposal as unscientific and "excessive," backed by multiple countries including African nations who warned it would place undue administrative burdens on their authorities.

In a sign of the pressures around the issue, countries voted by secret ballot, a relatively uncommon procedure at the gathering, with nearly 75 percent of votes against.

The result was "not very surprising," said Oliver Tallowin, senior programme officer for wildlife use and trade at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

Japan's opposition had been made clear early on in a submission running over 100 pages.

There are also differing views on the pressures other eel species face, said Tallowin.

"International trade has to be a threat to the species and... that was something we couldn't say with any sense of certainty," he told AFP.

For Andrew Kerr of the Sustainable Eel Group, "the short-term commercial and financial side won the debate massively."

Kerr, who has called eel trafficking the "greatest wildlife crime" on the planet, said the vote was a "real pity," but there were some silver linings.

A separate resolution proposing measures including more data gathering on eels and conservation capacity-building was approved later in the day.

"We've had a missed opportunity this morning, but then the fact that everyone's talking about eel, that's a huge victory too," Kerr said.

The resolution means more data will be collectd that could support protection of all eel species in the future, added Tallowin.

"Once something has been rejected... that doesn't mean its going to go away."

Votes are finalised later in the meeting, though it is unusual for them to be revised.

H.Ng--ThChM