I HAVE been interested in turtles and tortoises ever since my
step-grandmother gave me a pet tortoise when I was a child. So you can imagine
the alarm I felt on reading about the meeting in Nairobi of CITES, the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
(快猫短视频, 22 April, p 19).
Fred Pearce reports that the World Conservation Union now
judges the Caribbean hawksbill turtle as 鈥渃ritically endangered鈥�. And although
CITES had placed it under Appendix I鈥攎eaning that all international trade
in it is banned鈥擟uba wants permission to sell 500 shells a year abroad. In
Cuba鈥檚 favour, it must be said that it is probably the only Caribbean country to
have prevented illegal poaching of the creature. CITES delegates had to decide
whether regulated trade would encourage a boom in poaching or persuade other
Caribbean countries to nail their poachers in the hope of being allowed to trade
legally.
Chris Mullin, the junior environment minister, includes among his
responsibilities Britain鈥檚 interests in wildlife. I asked him for the
government鈥檚 view on Cuba鈥檚 request to CITES. He said that Cuba submitted two
proposals: the first sought to transfer those Caribbean hawksbill turtles that
inhabit Cuban waters from Appendix I to Appendix II of CITES. This would allow
Cuba to export one shipment of existing shell stocks and a subsequent quota of
up to 500 turtle shells a year. The second proposal sought agreement to allow
the one-off shipment of existing stocks with no subsequent annual quota.
Britain, Mullin said, pressed for international trade to be contemplated only in
the context of wider action to secure the future of marine turtles. This would
be done by countering threats from fisheries by-catch and preventing the
destruction of nesting and breeding sites. In the event, Cuba withdrew the first
proposal. In accordance with the agreed European Union position, Britain
abstained on the second, which failed to secure the required two-thirds majority
and was rejected.
I am told the Cubans are more receptive to worldwide ecological opinion than
Western political opinion. So there鈥檚 hope there yet.
Advertisement
ALAN JAMIESON, a 快猫短视频 reader, wrote to me about the
importance of genetic markers in fish stock management. He contends that it
would greatly help fisheries management if we better understood the genetic
identity of our fish stocks. Before retiring, Jamieson worked at the Centre for
Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS). I put his point to
Elliot Morley, junior minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food. He thoroughly agreed, and said that the current experts at CEFAS who
advise him think likewise too.
鈥淚t has long been recognised that although this knowledge alone cannot
resolve the problems of maintaining sustainable stocks, modern techniques in
molecular biology provide opportunities for rapid progress in this area,鈥� said
Morley. He went on to say that CEFAS scientists are now adapting molecular
biology techniques to many areas of their work. They are also collaborating with
scientists at the University of East Anglia, in the Republic of Ireland and in
Iceland to identify genetic markers for some of our more important stocks. As
the work progresses, the results will be applied to the practical assessment of
these stocks, he added.
MPs representing fishing communities tell me that this sort of work is vital
for the future of their industry. Here then, in more senses than one, is a sea
change for the better among politicians with responsibilities for fishing
communities, in asking their electors to face up to scientific reality.
