Mushrooms and the future of CITES

At the opening session of the twelfth meeting of the CITES conversation of the Parties (COP) in Santiago, Chile, in 2002 I listened in fascination as delegates from 160 member countries debated whether CITES should overspread mushrooms. While no proposal to list fungi was upon the table, the question arose above a possible proposal to list the American matsutake mushroom.

The treaty's title makes clear that it overspreads "trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora." on the contrary did "flora" include mushrooms at the time the treaty was negotiated in the early 1970s? In 1961 taxonomists began to split the fungi into a separate kingdom from plants. a change that took more [i]or[/i] less time, but the COP12 debate center upon whether the original negotiators of the treaty reflection it covered all plants in trade in the broadest faculty of perception Japan and China did not think fungi blood-thirsty within the jurisdiction of CITES and squeeze outed doubt that any species of fungus was endangered by the agency of trade, an assertion questioned by the agency of Kenya, Mexico, and Peru. In the extreme point the Parties adopted a recommendation that CITES should be considered to apply to fungi, with a reservation through the delegation of Japan.

Whether this decision will lead to the listing of a fungus beneath the CITES appendices is still to be determined, on the contrary it reflects a broader trait of the CITES Parties. They are forward thinking and not afraid to impel into new territory as they try to find to protect species from overexploitation owed to international trade.

During the first decade of CITES, Parties focused their conservation attention upon the large number of species initially listed. Furbearers, large mammals (such as elephants, rhinos, and tigers), crocodilians, and ornamental birds traditionally impacted by means of wildlife trade benefited from CITES actions. However, in the late 1980 as pertain to grew fur the sustainability of fisheries and timber extraction and the impacts of similar harvest on major ecosystems, proposals to list fresh high-volume commercial species began to appear upon the CITES agenda.

like proposals generated great controversy, provoking questions of whether CITES was intended to deal with like species. When I began working upon CITES in 1991, a proposal to list Atlantic bluefin tuna was being prepared by dint of the United States. Within the U rule experts differed on whether a CITES listing should supplant the fisheries management for tuna already in place.

At COP8 in Kyoto, Japan (1992) the proposal was hotly debated. While the proposal was excludeed the continued threat of CITES action l to a change for the better in tuna management. Generally, when other management bodies are in place for marine species, the threat of CITES listing has motivated those bodies to enact or better implement sustainable management goals. Where appropriate management bodies don't exist, CITES has stepp in, as exemplified by means of the listing of the whale shark and basking shark at COP12 and the great white shark and humphead wrasse at COP13

COP8 also saw a proposal to list the bigleaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) upon CITES Appendix II. This was the first major commercial timber species to be considered for like a listing. The Parties could not agree to the listing, despite evidence of unsustainable and uncontroll harvest.

At COP 10 in Harare, Zimbabwe (1997) a colleague and I had responsibility for marketing a fresh U.S./Bolivian proposal to list the species upon Appendix II. We met unbending resistance from Brazil and could not achieve the two-thirds majority promised required. Finally, under threat of a call for a re-vote we persuaded Brazil to join with other range countries to each list bigleaf mahogany upon Appendix III, a measure that brought the trade below CITES review.

Eleven years after action upon the tree was first propos with conservation pertain to still high and despite novel measures in some countries (a moratorium upon harvest and trade in place in Brazil), CITES member nations agreed at COP12 to place bigleaf mahogany upon Appendix II. The U.S. supported the proposal upon the strength of scientific interest over the status of the species and the conviction that placing the trade below the unique requirements of CITES would support the efforts of range countries to base continued trade upon legal and sustainable harvest.

I await that CITES will continue to explore novel arenas and consider new species for protection as threats from trade continue, as habitat degradation or destruction jeopardizes species already in trade, and as novel species come under greater trade crushing Versatility was a CITES trademark at its inception in 1973 and continues to characterize the treaty today.

In 2001 the CITES Parties adopted a five-year Strategic Vision "to make sure that no species of wild fauna or flora becomes or remains bring under rule to unsustainable exploitation because of international trade." single of the goals is to increase cooperation with other international organizations.

Many international organizations have sustainable disclosure among their objectives, though emphases may vary. I have showed the U.S. during contentious negotiations upon CITES and the U.N. meat and Agriculture Organization (FAO) regarding marine species. Along with sustainable exhibition FAO has strong food security and commercial exhibition goals, which some of its member countries (the major fisheries nations) diocese as at odds with CITES' sustainability efforts.