CITES Rejects New Protections for Eels Amid Global Decline

The world’s leading wildlife trade body, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), rejected new protections for eels on March 15, 2024, during a secret ballot at a meeting in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. This proposal faced strong opposition from major eel-consuming nations, particularly Japan, as well as concerns from countries wary of increased trade regulations.

The vote occurred during discussions among signatories of CITES, a treaty established over 50 years ago aimed at protecting endangered species and regulating trade across approximately 36,000 species. Scientific consensus indicates that eel populations are declining globally, primarily due to human activities. These include pollution of waterways, destruction of wetlands, construction of hydroelectric dams, and overfishing. European eels are classified as critically endangered, with trade restrictions implemented by CITES since 2009.

The European Union and Panama proposed that all 17 eel species be included in CITES Appendix II, which would impose stricter trade regulations. The EU’s representative warned, “Every eel we eat comes from the wild, making them vulnerable to overfishing and illegal trade.” They highlighted that the international trade of eels is a significant factor contributing to their decline.

Japan’s response to the proposal was unequivocal, dismissing it as “unscientific” and “excessive.” Their stance garnered support from several nations, including those in Africa, who expressed concerns about the potential administrative burdens such regulations would impose. The secret ballot, a relatively rare procedure at CITES meetings, resulted in nearly 75 percent of votes against the proposal, a decision that Oliver Tallowin, senior programme officer for wildlife use and trade at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, deemed “not very surprising.”

Japan’s opposition was clearly articulated in a comprehensive submission exceeding 100 pages. The debate reflected differing perspectives on the threats to various eel species, as Tallowin noted, “International trade has to be a threat to the species, and that was something we couldn’t say with any sense of certainty.”

For Andrew Kerr of the Sustainable Eel Group, the outcome represents a significant victory for short-term commercial interests over ecological concerns. Kerr characterized eel trafficking as the “greatest wildlife crime” on the planet and expressed disappointment at the missed opportunity for enhanced protections. Nonetheless, he pointed out a silver lining: a separate resolution, which includes measures for improved data collection on eels and capacity building for conservation, is set to be debated later in the meeting.

Kerr remarked, “We’ve had a missed opportunity this morning, but then the fact that everyone’s talking about eel, that’s a huge victory too.” This resolution could pave the way for future protective measures for all eel species. Tallowin reiterated, “Once something has been rejected, that doesn’t mean it’s going to go away.”

As the meeting progresses, final votes will be confirmed, although it is uncommon for decisions to be revisited. The ongoing discussions highlight the complexities surrounding the conservation of eels and the competing interests in their trade, emphasizing the need for sustained dialogue and action.