CITES and Solomon Islands

By William Rossiter

Here's a test: Can you tell these two species apart? Both these images were taken by Dr. Ingrid Visser in Papua New Guinea.

These are bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus.

These are mother and calf Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops aduncus.

Yes, there are visual differences, such as the longer beak in most T. aduncus, the DNA and bones show differences, and the two species are reproductively isolated, but T. aduncus was not widely accepted among scientists until 2000. On the water few people can make the distinction. But the distinction is extremely significant for management purposes, for example to define the vulnerability of populations.

And that brings us to the dolphin trade by Solomon Islands, to Mexico in 2003 and to Dubai last October 18th (see October's Whales Alive! newsletter on CSI's web site). CSI has contacted the world's experts on this species and every one shares our concern:

The Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins found in Solomon Island waters live in small, isolated groups, usually as year-round residents using a variety of coastal habitats near home islands. Individuals born to one population very rarely migrate to others; if a population suffers a major calamity it is not likely that other dolphins will fill the void.

However, Solomon Islands officially permit 100 dolphins to be exported per year. To fill that quota local people using primitive methods injure or kill hundreds of dolphins, and many social units are destroyed. Selected survivors are transported long distances in open boats to a captivity facility, where they are further culled by illness, death, or just by being released in waters too far from their home waters to survive. From the moment of capture all these dolphins are as good as dead as far as the survival of their populations in concerned.

None of the scientific authorities CSI has contacted knew of any minimally adequate research published on these dolphin populations; much of the populations' structure is implied from research on similar populations elsewhere in the region. We particularly thank Dr. John Y. Wang, co-author of the species chapter in the 2nd Edition of the Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, now being printed, for his earnest expertise and certainty about the research that has been accomplished.

But while the world's best scientists confirm that no one knows how many Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins live in Solomon Island waters, or what the local populations are like, Solomon Islanders say they know. That traditional, local "knowledge" has convinced the government that these captures are sustainable. In truth, they do not care; the species is considered a pest in many areas, and has almost none of the value that spinner, spotted and other cetaceans have as meat, and for teeth valued for bridal dowries. One source panned the bottlenose dolphin as "tasting bad."

So everyone was astonished when some entrepreneurs showed up with big promises of lots of money, just for selling this pest species on the international captive display market. The first shipment, to Mexico in 2003, did not fulfill the promises, but with the skillful manipulations of a supportive minister the government waited out international condemnation, joined CITES, learned how to say the right things, and firmed expectations of lots of income from this amazing trade opportunity.

Who can blame them? We are not wasting your time or our space with details of how the Solomon Islands dolphin market got where it is today, much less the government turnovers and intrigue, but it has been a sad, fascinating experience for us to study the struggles of a society plagued by social violence and unrest, three government upheavals since 2003, and the corrupting influence of outsiders with promises of lots of money for a locally worthless animal. Why should they care if their new market threatens the core of CITES?

CSI must admit that, along with many other NGOs and associates, the considerable effort since 2003 to try to convince the Solomon Islands government not to allow the captures or exports seems to have been wasted. Some in our coalition braved violent security to uncover the doings of the company making all this happen, Marine Mammal Education Centre and Exporters Limited, and the dark history and connections of the people involved. We all tried to alert the Mexican and recently the Dubai authorities about the questionable aspects of the trade, including the significant issue of disease transmission.

The raw power of money both separates and links Dubai and Solomon Islands. Solomon Islands is resource-rich and money-poor, while Dubai is so oil-rich the nation's explosive development to date proves that anything is possible if the cost is irrelevant. Both nations are equally unfazed by international concerns and equally efficient at keeping prying eyes away from their dolphins. Little did we know that the Solomon Islands_Dubai trade had been planned since 2004! We suspect shipments to Dubai and China are due, but have no clue when or where the dolphins will end up. And so we turned to the real authorities:

We pleaded with the CITES Secretariat and other international entities to communicate to Solomon Islands several questions about the clear absence of scientific evidence supposedly necessary to substantiate key CITES requirements. All we had asked for was a quiet, diplomatic query to the Solomon Islands CITES Management Authority, well within the Secretariat's purview. Instead the response by the CITES Secretariat may have been the prime reason for the trade succeeding. Because of apparent misconceptions the Secretariat not only did not communicate any hesitancy about the impending trade, and certainly not any recommendation against the export, as we mistakenly reported in October's Whales Alive!, but instead made statements and comments in tacit support of the trade!

Comments from the Secretariat included several alarming misconceptions about this trade, appearing, for example, to ignore at least two formal CITES Resolutions, and to minimize the trade of 100 by lumping together all dolphins in the region, discounting the CSG scientific expertise, adding in the killing of other species in bycatches or for food, and confusing the population detriment issue with concerns by animal welfare organizations over captive display. It must be noted that CSI knows of no concerns communicated to the Secretariat by any organization relating this issue to captive display issues.

These comments and statements so alarmed scientists, governments and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that, in addition to behind-the-scenes responses, a formal rebuttal was published by the Species Survival Network (SSN) and WWF International. As a member of SSN, a coalition of over 80 international NGOs, CSI helped to draft the rebuttal. The "Statement of the Species Survival Network and WWF International on Solomon Islands Dolphin Exports" was very carefully worded and fully vetted, yet unavoidably concluded that: "We are concerned that, in this instance, the Secretary-General's misunderstandings have caused the CITES Secretariat to issue judgments and statements that ignore the specific context of this trade, and the intent of CITES Resolutions regarding the need for science as a basis for decisions regarding sustainable exports. We fully support the CITES treaty, whose very essence is the scientifically-based issuance of non-detriment findings. We urge the Parties to address this issue."

For the full text see: http://www.ssn.org/Documents/news_articles_SI_exports_EN.htm, or downloaded as a PDF at: http://www.ssn.org/Documents/SSN_WWF_SI_Rebuttal.pdf.

It is meaty stuff crammed into eight pages, but well worth your time, because this issue is much more important than just the trade of dolphins: to CSI and many others it represents a violation of the spirit and intent of CITES, by weakening the degree of protection supposedly afforded by CITES to many species of plants and animals. It is a signal to other nations and entrepreneurs that they also can get away with trading exotic animals and plants from vulnerable, endangered and CITES-listed populations; it is also likely to be detrimental to the isolated populations of these dolphins from which the captures are made, as there is no scientific evidence that these captures are sustainable; and of course it is also an animal welfare issue to CSI, with hundreds of dolphins dying, injured or lost to their populations, while the survivors suffer in captivity.

Without hyperbole CSI believes that the door has been flung open for an expansion of dolphin captures from many Pacific island nations for sale to captive display facilities worldwide, as well as detrimental trades of many vulnerable species. While we wait for the Secretariat's reportedly furious rebuttal of our rebuttal, we must ask why no CITES Parties, no member nations, have started the process of repairing the damage done by the Secretariat.