Banggai cardinalfish: The US introduced its proposal (CoP14 Prop.19) to list Banggai cardinalfish (Pterapogon kauderni) on Appendix II, noting that it is a major importer of this endemic Indonesian species. He highlighted recent data showing further population decline and unsustainability of current harvest levels (CoP14 Inf.37).
Opposing the proposal, INDONESIA underscored: high productivity of the species both in the wild and in captivity; ongoing conservation efforts; and implications of the proposed listing for local livelihoods. Supported by IRAN, he also expressed concern over the legality of recent research. Many others also opposed, with AUSTRALIA stressing national management measures for endemic species, JAPAN saying an Appendix-III listing would be more appropriate, and THAILAND citing the FAO Expert Panel’s opposition to the listing. Following these comments, the US withdrew its proposal.
DrHsu wrote:The proposal to list Bangaiis into CITES appendix II was withdrawn by the US on Monday following discussion by CITES delegates at COP14. This is a summary of the discussion as reported by Earth Negotiations Bulletin:Looks like high bangaii prices would have to wait!
DrHsu wrote:In any case, it still shouldn't stop us from breeding bangaiis....just that you may not be able to get the high price that was hoped for!
n the end, a great opportunity to put in place a long-term conservation project has been lost, and consequently the Banggai coral reefs ecosystems, which are relentlessly degraded by dynamite and other destructive fishing methods, the Banggai cardinalfish, and the local people are the big losers.
ALEX, I haven't even read your response yet, but I have to say WELCOME to MOFIB, glad you finally found us, and I'm sure you've just set the record straight on the Bangaii situation! Now I have to go back and read it Wink
Matt
Alex
First, I assure you that the scientific community accepts your studies. We also realize the political maneuvering that drove withdrawl of this proposal. I for one would like to congratulate your hard work.
One way or another the harvest of these and other threatened ornamental marine fish will slow. Unfortunately, with unprotected fish, that will likely be due to severe reduction of wild populations. This will drive an increase in the price of wild caught in proportion to their rarity. That increase will drive a corresponding increase in the value of captive bred. Hopefully, the techniques developed on this very website will enable the availability of captive bred to outstrip wildcaught before the populations are decimated.
Note that these thoughts do not address the environmental impact of the removal of a species/niche from the ecological system in which it exists.
Thanks for the reply.
DrHsu wrote:Hi Dr Vagelli,
Glad you found the forum and thank you for your side of the story. There are always 2 sides to a coin and it's good to know both sides of any story.
Bottom line is that data can be manipulated in many ways to support all kinds of outcomes. There is a saying: "There are 3 kinds of lies....Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics!"
I am not sure what do you mean. But if I have 40 cookies, and the next day I only can find 10, you may call that “statistics”, but I will say that I have 30 less cookies...... and I guess the other thing we learn is that politics gets into everything!
![]()
I don’t know if into everything, but it seems that plays a significant, and in my opinion, inappropriate roll in CITES.
I differ in your conclusion that:n the end, a great opportunity to put in place a long-term conservation project has been lost, and consequently the Banggai coral reefs ecosystems, which are relentlessly degraded by dynamite and other destructive fishing methods, the Banggai cardinalfish, and the local people are the big losers.
I think the opportunity is still there, and maybe even more so since the plight is now highlighted to many more NGO and govt bodies.
When I mentioned the lost of a great opportunity to put in place a conservation project, I referred to a specific project that we already have planned. It included the transfer aquaculture technology, and help with a management and conservation program in association with a local NGO, the local fisheries department, and local communities. Funding for that project was promised, but it was depending (as well as my participation) on the listing of P. kauderni.
Looking on the bright side of things, there is no option now for the Indonesian govt except to make sure whatever conservation plans they had mentioned are actually carried out - many eyes will be looking at them; and for sure this proposal will be brought up again at COP15 if nothing is done. With increased awareness of the issue, hopefully more funding will come from NGOs to make sure these plans are carried out.
I hope so. But I would not be so sure about the prospects of a new proposal at the CoP15, even if the local authorities do not put in place any protective measure.
Not meaning to argue or to be disrepectful, but just bringing up some things for discussion:
"Face" is a very asian thing, and I can't help but wonder if this proposal would have sailed through without any problems IF Indonesia (the only range state of the species) was a joint proposer......
You are not disrespectful to me. I am not working for the US CITES, and therefore I did not play any roll in how this proposal was handled. My participation was limited to a) to recommend this species to be included under an appropriate Appendix, and 2) to provide the scientific data.
However, have been witnessed such a tremendous campaign of misinformation to defeat the proposal, which intended to protect a species in a clear dire conservation situation, makes me very skeptical about the range country willingness to joint it.
At the end the question is why?, why Indonesia would have supported the proposal if it would have invited to joint it (which, by the way, I am not sure whether or not it was). What would have been the difference? The data would have been the same and consequently the proposal would have been similar; the aim would have been the same (App. II), as well as the outcomes.
Maybe “face” was more important than the species. Maybe politics, maybe economic interest groups led by the European and US lobbyists for the aquarium fish trade who did a lot of pushing to defeat the proposal, the Bali exporters, or maybe those groups using the humanitarian develop “strategy” to seek foreign funding and sociopolitical gain.
What I can tell is that upon my return from the Banggai region in March, and after became aware of some rumors regarding Indonesia having doubts about supporting the proposal, I decided to travel to Jakarta to meet the CITES Indonesian officials in order to present all my data on the Banggai cardinalfish, including latest (March 07) data on its trade, populations and habitat destruction, so they could have all the information available to better asses the species and trade situation. I spent a week meeting with many local, regional and federal Authorities, doing presentations, providing them all my (lab and field) data and publications. The most significant meeting was with the Director of CITES Indonesia and his staff. After hearing my presentation he expressed his convincement that Pterapogon kauderni should be listed in CITES, and if it were up to him, in Appendix I. Afterwards, he requested me to come back to Jakarta to present the data to the political Authorities that were planning to meet within a couple of weeks to decide Indonesian positions on all Cop14 proposals. Again, and with no objection by US CITES Authorities, I made the second trip for just that meeting, which was attended by all the Scientific and Political Indonesian Authorities, representatives from many Governmental Departments, IUCN-TRAFFIC Indonesia, several NGOs and other stakeholders. When it ended, the director of CITES Indonesia announced that the position of Indonesia will be “to support the Banggai proposal, but with a request of two years for implementing it.
It seems that between May 24 (second Jakarta meeting) and some time during the first week of June, some or all of the above-mentioned groups convinced the Political Authorities to oppose the proposal. The problem was, I guess, how to dispute the field / trade data?
....and also why did the US withdraw the proposal - many proposals go to vote even with numerous objections. The worst that can happen is that you lose the vote. Any insight into this decision, Alex?
I agree. But to be fear, it was more than just “numerous objections”. As an outside observer standpoint, politics is the first word that came to my mind.
(BTW, being a mod in this forum means I also have to do some housekeeping so I hope you don't mind if I delete your post in the sticky as it is a duplicate of this one, and this is a more appropriate forum for it. I will try to move the other posts, as well and re-direct on matt's news forum post.)
avagelli wrote:HI,
I think most of you are already aware of the good news: the Banggai cardinalfish has been included the IUCN red list of threatened species under the “Endangered” category (There is only one worst listing -except extinct-, of course).
Return to Nature & Conservation
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest