I tend to believe that an inadequate set of regulations, laws, or governing bodies can be worse than none at all. The reason being that we tend to trust our legislation and leaders and assume that whatever is in place is effective. Telling people that British Columbia has absolutely no endangered species laws in place garners a much greater response than explaining why the current laws are ineffective. (There aren’t any of these laws in place.)

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is one thing that, although it’s improving, continues to fail to protect sharks. This international agreement aims to “ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival”.

The goal of CITES is to protect endangered and threatened species by implementing trade controls. Each participating state assigns at least one management authority who is responsible for ensuring that any species listed by CITES is properly licensed before entry or exit. One hundred and seventy-five states (countries) voluntarily fund and abide by the CITES agreement and have adopted their own legislation to ensure their commitment is honoured.

More than 30,000 species of animal and plants are classified into three appendices—endangered, threatened, or listed—due to a request from a party that wants to prevent unsustainable or illegal exploitation.

Of the 450 species of sharks in our oceans, 11 are protected by CITES. Not only does this number seem a little low, but the collective states of CITES have turned down opportunities to protect more. One meeting in early 2010 had sharks on the agenda, with many nations pushing for increased protection for more shark species. Only one of the seven species put forward gained any protection and even that only lasted a few hours before it was removed.

CITES also has an animal committee that formed a shark working group and provides regular advice on shark fisheries management priorities, potential listings, and shark species at particular risk. Unfortunately their advice is just that—suggestions that aren’t regularly adhered to.

Powerful government influences play a role in swaying decisions in these situations, just like in the International Whaling Commission or with any country’s endangered species act. This means that there are two common problems with CITES that could result in sharks lacking protection: decisions aren’t always based on statistics or scientific findings, and it’s debatable how strongly CITES regulations are enforced.

I don’t want to say that CITES is flawed overall because I don’t know how effective it is with other species. But Canada imported 77,000 kilograms of shark fins in 2009 and most of those fins were dried, which means DNA testing would be required to identify what species of sharks they came from. A recent investigation by the Vancouver Sun found that retailers in Vancouver were selling shark products from species that are actually banned by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

What gives me even less confidence is that no one at CITES has returned my e-mails or calls for months. An experience that I’ve learned is common among those trying to determine how effective CITES is. In all of my unanswered correspondence I have simply asked if and how dried shark products are tested to determine if they are listed under CITES.

Because CITES has refused to explain how they are regulating dried shark product I’m hesitant to assume that they are—which means we’re putting our faith in a system that is not only flawed but not even in effect.

Lindsay O’Donnell is a cofounder of the Wake Project, an awareness initiative that seeks to educate people about the importance of sharks, rays, and tunas to the planet’s fragile ocean ecosystem.