Iconography linked to pandas symbolizes all that is wrong in the typical human approach to nature. Animals that interest preserving are the ‘cute’, ‘huggable’ and charismatic. The species we recognize as worthy of priority attention are not necessarily those whose extinction would produce a dire unbalance on earth.

We are damning innumerable other species and entire ecosystems simply because the general public does not gravitate towards them at the zoo. The 2010 target to reduce biodiversity loss hasn’t been achieved, so, if it continues at the scale of one hundred and fifty species going extinct per day, this planet will soon be home for only a few.

Photo by Jeff Kubina

Feared like no other animal in the world, shark lives more from its sanguinary fame than a lifelike violent historic. With its wide open jaws full of sharp teeth and its half-moon-shaped caudal fin roving in the water, sharks are swimming close to extinction. According to a report of the United Nations, 100 millions of sharks are killed every year – approximately 270 thousand sharks per day –, what unbalances the sea environment.

Also, the first global study of open ocean sharks and rays released in June by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), considered the world's most comprehensive inventory of the conservation status of plants and animals, pointed out that 32 percent of the shark species are threatened with extinction. The reason: they are increasingly targeted for their meat, liver oil and because of high demand for their fins, which are used in shark fin soup, a delicacy in parts of East Asia. To grapple with that, a meeting was held in Brussels, trying to change the fact that EU countries are the main exporter of shark fins to China. However, convincing the public that an offshore menace is worthy of protection have not been easy. But why?

A clue to the answer can be found in an article from The New York Times.  The article, albeit about the baiji's extinction, started by making the claim that baiji was not a member of ‘charismatic sea mammals that have long been the focus of conservation campaigns'. It clearly condemned the animal because it lacked the ‘charisma' required by humans to be allowed to survive. And this lack of cute faces can also be applied to sharks.

Conservationists will often continue mobilising charismatics as flagships for their fundraising. The charisma of such species is vital for these political and economic endeavours. However, is it a criterion to follow?

Is it fair choosing which species we are going to put in our contemporary Noah’s ark?

Image by MFS

As you can see, it is not beautiful at all. But it also deserves our protection to say the least.

'EDGE Programme' is the best sort of answer. But that is for my next post.