The International Coalition of Fisheries Associations (ICFA) is calling on governments attending the 20th Conference of the Parties to CITES (COP20) to reject three species-listing proposals covering eels, sea cucumbers and certain shark species, warning that the measures are not supported by science and would create major disruptions for legitimate seafood trade.
ICFA, which represents fishing industry bodies worldwide, also urged Parties to adopt a separate proposal that would establish clearer guidance on how “look-alike species” criteria are applied – a growing point of tension between the fishing sector and CITES regulators.
At COP20, CITES Parties will vote on whether to add new aquatic species to its appendices, which trigger trade controls or trade bans. ICFA said three proposals under consideration fall short of the treaty’s scientific thresholds: Eels (Anguilla spp.); sea cucumbers; and tope shark and smooth-hound sharks
According to ICFA, each proposal risks undermining well-established fisheries management frameworks without delivering tangible conservation benefits.
Its position is reinforced by the FAO Expert Panel, which earlier this year concluded that the proposals do not meet CITES listing criteria in most cases, and that evidence for the remaining cases is weak. The CITES Secretariat, in its own Final Assessments, reached similar conclusions and recommended rejection of the shark and sea cucumber proposals, while stating that the eel proposal does not meet listing criteria for Japanese or American eel.
A major concern highlighted by ICFA is CITES’ growing reliance on the “look-alike species” provision – a clause that allows entire genera or groups of species to be listed because they resemble others already regulated.
The industry warns this approach often results in broad, genus-wide listings, disproportionate impacts on well-managed fisheries, increased illegal trade, market instability and disrupted cooperation under regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs).
ICFA is strongly supporting a proposal at COP20 to create formal guidance on the use of look-alike criteria, arguing that clearer rules are urgently needed to avoid unnecessary or premature listings.
While stressing its support for CITES’ core mission to prevent trade-related threats to marine species, ICFA said current decisions must be better aligned with fisheries science and existing management tools.
“The CITES Secretariat and FAO signed an MOU in 2006 in which CITES committed to respecting FAO’s scientific expertise on aquatic species. But it is not living up to that commitment,” said ICFA Chair Ivan Lopez Van der Veen. “We have seen this time and time again. The Parties need to reaffirm their support for the MOU.”
ICFA argues that ignoring the FAO Expert Panel’s assessments would undermine trust between CITES and the global fishing sector, and risk politicising listing decisions for commercially important species.
Delegates at COP20 will examine the proposals throughout the conference. The outcome will have direct implications for international seafood supply chains, monitoring requirements and market access for several high-value species.
ICFA has published a full resolution outlining its position and urging Parties to base decisions on sound science, proportionality and established fisheries management frameworks.
