Rampant shark trade violations exposed in new global study – Oceanographic Magazine

Report on CITES Enforcement Failures and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A collaborative study has revealed systemic failures in the implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Research indicates that despite international safeguards, critically endangered shark parts continue to be traded in large volumes. These findings highlight significant challenges in achieving key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to marine conservation, biodiversity, and institutional effectiveness.

Key Findings on International Wildlife Trade

The research underscores critical gaps in the global governance of marine wildlife trade, with major implications for species conservation.

• Persistent Illegal Trade: Critically endangered shark parts are still crossing international borders in significant quantities, circumventing protections that have been in place for over a decade.
• Hong Kong as a Trade Hub: The study confirms Hong Kong’s continuing role as a global center for the shark fin trade, including for species where international trade is prohibited.
• Systemic Reporting and Enforcement Failures: A major discrepancy exists between DNA evidence, which links traded fins to specific countries of origin, and official export data. Many of these nations report zero exports of the listed species, indicating a severe breakdown in reporting, enforcement, and traceability.

Direct Impact on Sustainable Development Goal 14: Life Below Water

The failure to enforce CITES regulations directly undermines the objectives of SDG 14, which aims to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources.

1. Target 14.4: This target aims to end overfishing and illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. The continued illicit trade in protected shark species is a clear failure to address IUU activities that drive species toward extinction.
2. Target 14.c: This target calls for enhancing the conservation and sustainable use of oceans by implementing international law. The lack of CITES enforcement demonstrates a critical failure to uphold existing international agreements designed to protect marine biodiversity.

As noted by Luke Warwick of WCS, the successful recovery of green turtle populations under CITES Appendix I illustrates the potential of the convention when properly implemented. The current situation with species like the oceanic whitetip shark demands a similar level of commitment to prevent irreversible biodiversity loss.

Broader Implications for the Global Sustainability Agenda

The report’s findings extend beyond marine conservation, impacting several interconnected SDGs.

• SDG 15 (Life on Land): The principles of protecting biodiversity are universal. The illegal shark fin trade is a direct contravention of Target 15.7, which calls for urgent action to end the poaching and trafficking of protected species.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The study reveals weak institutional capacity. The documented failures in reporting and enforcement point to a lack of effective and accountable institutions (Target 16.6) and an inability to combat organized crime associated with illicit wildlife trafficking (Target 16.4).
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): The research itself, a collaborative effort between WCS, government agencies, NGOs, and academic partners, exemplifies the multi-stakeholder partnerships (Target 17.16) required to monitor and address these complex global challenges.

Conclusion

The scientific evidence is unequivocal: CITES is a critical instrument for preventing trade-driven extinctions and achieving global conservation targets. However, its success is entirely dependent on robust enforcement and accountability from signatory nations. Without a renewed commitment to upholding these international safeguards, the world’s most threatened shark species face a high risk of extinction, representing a significant failure in the collective effort to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • The article’s primary focus is on marine species, specifically sharks, rays, and green turtles. It discusses the threat of extinction driven by international trade, directly connecting to the goal of conserving and sustainably using the oceans, seas, and marine resources. The call to protect species like the oceanic whitetip shark from vanishing from the oceans is a core tenet of SDG 14.
2. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • While the species are marine, SDG 15 is also relevant as it addresses the protection of biodiversity and aims to “take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna.” The article’s discussion of the illegal trade in shark fins, a product derived from a protected species, and the failure to enforce the CITES convention fall squarely under the anti-trafficking objectives of this goal.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article highlights a “systemic failure to uphold existing protections” and points to “major failures in reporting, enforcement, and traceability.” This critique of the implementation of the CITES agreement speaks directly to the need for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions. The call for “stronger enforcement and accountability” is a call to strengthen the institutions responsible for global wildlife governance.
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The article mentions that the research was a “collaborative study” supported by the Shark Conservation Fund and involved “WCS, government agencies, NGOs, and academic partners.” This exemplifies the multi-stakeholder partnerships that are essential for addressing complex global issues like illegal wildlife trade and achieving sustainable development.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Targets under SDG 14 (Life Below Water)
   • Target 14.4: “By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing…” The article’s focus on the trade in shark fins, which drives the harvesting of sharks, directly relates to this target. The mention of “species banned from international trade” points to the illegal and unregulated nature of this activity.
   • Target 14.c: “Enhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing international law…” The entire article is centered on the implementation (or lack thereof) of CITES, an international agreement designed to ensure that trade does not threaten the survival of species.
2. Targets under SDG 15 (Life on Land)
   • Target 15.7: “Take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna and address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products.” The article explicitly discusses the trade in “critically endangered shark parts” and Hong Kong’s role as a “global shark-fin hub,” which directly addresses the trafficking of protected species.
   • Target 15.c: “Enhance global support for efforts to combat poaching and trafficking of protected species, including by increasing the capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities.” The call for stronger enforcement of CITES is a call for enhanced global support to combat this trafficking.
3. Targets under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)
   • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The article’s finding of “major failures in reporting, enforcement, and traceability” and a “systemic failure to uphold existing protections” is a direct critique of the lack of effective and accountable institutions responsible for enforcing CITES.
4. Targets under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)
   • Target 17.16: “Enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships…” The article’s reference to the “collaborative study” involving WCS, government agencies, NGOs, and academic partners is a clear example of such a partnership in action.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Volume of illegal trade: The article states that “Critically endangered shark parts are still crossing borders in large volumes.” Measuring the volume, frequency, and value of seized illegal wildlife products would serve as a direct indicator of the scale of trafficking (relevant to Targets 14.4 and 15.7).
2. Discrepancies in trade reporting: The article points out that many nations “reported zero exports of the listed species” despite DNA evidence linking traded fins to them. The number and magnitude of such reporting discrepancies are a clear indicator of failures in enforcement and institutional accountability (relevant to Target 16.6).
3. Conservation status of species: The article provides a success story where “Green turtles were once critically endangered… but strong enforcement halted their trade, allowing populations to rebound.” It contrasts this with the current threat to the “critically endangered” oceanic whitetip shark. Therefore, changes in the conservation status of traded species on lists like the IUCN Red List can be used as an indicator of the effectiveness of conservation and anti-trafficking measures (relevant to Targets 14.4 and 15.7).
4. Level of enforcement of international agreements: The central argument is that “CITES can stop trade-driven extinctions, but only if countries enforce it.” The degree of national implementation and enforcement of conventions like CITES (e.g., number of patrols, prosecutions, and convictions for wildlife crime) is a key indicator of institutional strength and commitment (relevant to Targets 14.c and 16.6).

Summary of Findings

Source: oceanographicmagazine.com