seaturtle.org : MTN : ARCHIVES : Sign In

It will not be so long before the next round of CITES is upon us. Whether or not there will be proposals relating to sea turtles, we do not know at this stage. Nevertheless, it may be worth reflecting, in the relatively quiet period, before the sometimes adversarial atmosphere of CITES meetings develops, on whether past events at CITES have been beneficial. For those who see the absence of a Cuban CITES proposal in 2004, following on it narrowly missing the required two thirds majority on two previous occasions, as a victory for conservation, one may recall words written in 1985 by Frazer after the defeat of other CITES proposals for utilization of turtles:

... the defeat of a proposal is not a victory unless that proposal is replaced with another that is more likely to have a positive impact.... Whether we agree or disagree with ranching or farming, we must understand that the defeat of these proposals is no victory unless they are replaced by other programs with equal or better provisions for: (a) raising revenue to support the program, (b) assessing and ameliorating its socio-cultural effects on local human populations, and (c) ensuring that the intended program does, in fact, have a positive impact on sea turtles.

Has the rejection of the Cuban proposals had a positive impact? It is not evident the management and conservation of hawksbills has improved. They are still taken, illegally and legally, in many parts of the Caribbean. In Cuba itself, with its long coastline and extensive hawksbill habitat, it is not obvious that there has been better enforcement of regulations or amelioration of incidental catch. Webb and Manolis (2002) let their imagination stray to a different scenario:

Let us imagine for a moment - wild speculation - that the MTSG and the IUCN had supported Cuba in 1997. That they had welcomed Cuba’s commitment to conservation, management and sustainable use, its leadership in research, and indeed, its tight embrace of the IUCN Mission. The last 5 years would then have seen major advances in hawksbill research, conservation and management in Cuba, with increasing levels of regional cooperation and commitment.... Had the MTSG genuinely tried to help Cuba, as the CSG would have done, and indeed did do with Cuban crocodiles - a species with a global wild population perhaps less than 1% of the wild hawksbill population - how much could have been achieved? Would Cuba’s turtle program still be fighting for survival against competing needs for resources?

FRAZER, N.B. 1985. The cost of solutions: who pays? Marine Turtle Newsletter 33:15-16.

WEBB, G. & C. MANOLIS. 2002. Cuba and COP12. <http://wmi.com.au/wmi-abst.html>

N. Mrosovsky. Dept. Zoology, 25 Harbord St., University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3G5 (E-mail: mro@utoronto.ca).