Ecuador, Peru, Chile and Costa Rica have all opted out of an international agreement that protects five threatened shark species, a move that lets their fishing fleets keep targeting the animals despite warnings that populations are collapsing.
The measure was approved at COP15 of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) in March and took effect on 27 June 2026. The four countries announced their withdrawal in October. The species it covered — the pelagic, bigeye and common thresher sharks plus the great and smooth hammerheads — are all classified by the IUCN as ranging from Vulnerable to Critically Endangered.
Why does one treaty matter so much? These sharks are highly migratory, crossing national borders and international waters on routes that no single country can police alone. Conservation depends on every state along those routes cooperating, so four simultaneous opt-outs punch a real hole in the framework. It comes at a bad moment: global shark and ray numbers have fallen by roughly half since 1970, with overfishing — both targeted catches and accidental bycatch — the main driver. Illegal fin trafficking remains a persistent problem too.
The CMS, adopted in 1979 and in force since 1983 under the UN umbrella, works on a tiered system. Appendix I covers species in danger of extinction and obliges member states to protect habitats and remove migration barriers. Sharks and rays have been added over the years precisely because their conservation can't be solved by isolated national policies.
The wider stakes go beyond the sharks themselves. As apex predators, they keep prey populations in check and help hold marine food webs together. Their decline ripples through entire ecosystems — a concern for anyone whose holiday plans involve diving with hammerheads in the Galápagos or watching marine life off Costa Rica's Pacific coast. Weaker protections in the waters of Ecuador, Peru, Chile and Costa Rica could, over time, thin out exactly the underwater spectacles that draw divers and wildlife travellers to the region.
The four governments have framed the exit as a matter of national interest, but conservationists argue it removes a key obstacle to recovery for species already on the brink. The test now is whether regional cooperation can be rebuilt before population losses become irreversible — and whether travellers' interest in healthy oceans translates into pressure to restore these safeguards.
