Rachel Cavanagh, Programme Officer, and Sarah Fowler, Co-Chair,

IUCN Shark Specialist Group

Sharks have been the subject of debate at meetings of Parties to CITES since 1994, when Conference Resolution 9.17 ‘The Status of International Trade in Shark Species’ drew attention to the problems faced by these vulnerable but unlisted species. Subsequent proposals to include shark species on CITES Appendices I and II were debated and rejected at CoP 10 and 11. Resolution 9.17 was repealed at CoP 11, having largely been implemented. Prior to CoP12, debates of the Parties on sharks have been characterised by opposition from a blocking minority to the inclusion in CITES of any commercial fish species. CoP 12 was therefore particularly important in that, for the first time, this minority was reduced sufficiently to enable two species of commercially important sharks to be listed on Appendix II and to enable a new Shark Resolution to be agreed, continuing the active involvement of CITES in shark conservation and management issues for unlisted species at least until CoP13.

The Appendix II listing proposals for the Whale Shark Rhincodon typus (12.P35), co-proposed by the Philippines and India (also separately by Madagascar), and the Basking Shark Cetorhinus maximus (12.P36) proposed by the UK on behalf of EC member states, initially failed by just two votes each to achieve a two-thirds majority during secret ballots in Committee 1. Both debates were reopened during the final Plenary session of the Conference, where the blocking minority was overturned by two and three votes, respectively, also by secret ballot. Powerful arguments regarding the economic importance of community-led whale shark ecotourism in developing countries, the importance of international cooperation for the sustainable management of these highly migratory but currently largely unmanaged species, and the value of an Appendix II listing as complementary to traditional fisheries management measures and to FAO’s purely advisory mandate will have been important considerations for Parties. Opposing arguments regarding the overarching management role of FAO and Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, the importance of domestic consumption, low levels of international trade, bycatch issues and product identification problems appeared not to carry the same weight as has been the case at earlier Conferences. It is also possible that the earlier rejection of a proposal to list the Patagonian Toothfish on Appendix II may have resulted in some states taking a more relaxed approach to the shark listings proposals when reopened in Plenary.

Perhaps more important than the species listings, a new Resolution on the Conservation of Sharks, proposed jointly by Australia and Ecuador (12.41.2 addendum) and incorporating recommendations from the 18^th Animals Committee meeting, was accepted by a margin of two votes. This Resolution will ensure that CITES continues to take an active role in monitoring and encouraging improved management of all shark populations and fisheries under the voluntary FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA–Sharks). The joint papers by IUCN and TRAFFIC describing the poor performance of states in implementing the IPOA–Sharks, prepared for the 18^th Animals Committee, and analysing the effectiveness of implementation of the repealed Conf. Res. 9.17 and subsequent Decisions, circulated by the CITES Secretariat as a notification, will have helped to influence the outcome of this debate. The Conference Decision on FAO collaboration with CITES through a Memorandum of Understanding (CoP12 Doc. 16.1 Annex (Rev.1) will also be of relevance to future activities of CITES on shark conservation issues.

It was emphasised in Committee 1 that the biggest threat to this Vulnerable species is international trade, primarily in high value meat, and that the species provides revenue to local communities through ecotourism. The proposal was supported by interventions from Bahamas, Canada, EU, Honduras, Mexico, Romania and Tunisia, also from IUCN/TRAFFIC and the Shark Research Institution. These noted that Appendix II criteria were met, that CITES has successfully protected other marine species, and that international cooperation is needed to ensure the continued success of ecotourism in many range states. FAO stated that the Organization would not be commenting on any proposals at this CoP. Interventions in opposition were made by China, Greenland, Iceland and Singapore, also the Shark Fin and Marine Producers Association. Key points included arguments that FAO is the appropriate body for the management of marine species, that there is no or only minimal international trade (the main use being for domestic consumption), problems with product identification other than meat and fins and that, since this species is often caught as bycatch, a CITES listing will have a negative effect in terms of loss of data (by providing an incentive to discard, rather than retain by-caught animals). A secret ballot was called and the proposal failed to obtain a two-thirds majority of 64 (62 in favour, 34 against and 9 abstentions). Because this narrow defeat occurred during a late Committee session with Parties absent, Philippines reopened the debate in Plenary. Following detailed discussion, (supporting interventions from Australia, Costa Rica [on behalf of 6 Mesoamerican countries], Germany, India, Philippines, South Africa, the Shark Research Institute, Swan International and WildAid; and opposing interventions from Japan, Malaysia, Norway, Republic of Korea and IWMC- World Conservation Trust) and a secret ballot, the two-thirds majority of 79 was exceeded by two votes (81 votes for, 37 against).

The species’ decline from overfishing, demand for the high value and distinctive fins in international trade (which encourages targeting) and the lack of any management system were emphasised during the UK’s introduction in Committee 1. The proposal was supported by interventions from Ireland (on behalf of the EU), India, New Zealand and Tunisia, also the Humane Society International. Points made mainly reiterated those made by the UK in its detailed introduction, with stress on the fact that the species clearly meets the criteria for Appendix II. Interventions against the proposal came from China, Iceland, Japan, Malaysia and Norway, also the High North Alliance. Switzerland questioned some aspects of the proposal but did not voice support or opposition. Many arguments against listing echoed those against the whale shark proposal (FAO, not CITES, is the competent body; identification problems would cause enforcement difficulties; and the species is mainly taken as bycatch). More than one Party stated that there was little scientific basis to support the claim that the species’ decline is due to international trade demand. A secret ballot was held and failed to yield a two-thirds majority of 74, with 72 in favour, 38 against, and 2 abstentions. Because the vote was so close and some Parties had been absent, the debate was reopened in the final Plenary session. Supporting interventions were made by Czech Republic, Kenya, Peru, IFAW, IUCN, Defenders of Wildlife,

International Wildlife Coalition and TRAFFIC. Opposing interventions were made by China, Norway, Iceland, Japan and IWMC-World Conservation Trust. In a secret ballot, 82 Parties voted in favour and 36 against, exceeding the two-thirds majority of 79 by three votes.

Australia introduced the Resolution, explaining that it was drafted in response to overall lack of progress with the FAO IPOA-Sharks. It contains recommendations for CITES Parties to improve the process of IPOA implementation, directs the Animals Committee to maintain active involvement in monitoring and encouraging the process, and urges FAO and Regional Fisheries Management Organisations to encourage and assist states with implementation. The observer from FAO acknowledged the negligible progress with the IPOA-Sharks, mentioning their budgetary constraints and the need for the Parties’ CITES Authorities to work with their National Fisheries Departments to improve the situation. The EU, Switzerland and USA intervened in support of the Resolution, with IUCN and TRAFFIC. Iceland, Japan, Norway and St Lucia spoke against, arguing that the role of CITES should not be expanded into fisheries management, as this is the responsibility of FAO and RFMOs. Some minor suggested amendments, including a request for efforts to be taken by CITES Parties to contribute financially and technically to the IPOA-Sharks, were accepted. The vote, via secret ballot, was 63 in favour, 28 against and 13 abstentions, two votes more than the required two-thirds majority of 61. The Resolution was also adopted in Plenary. Inter alia, it instructs the CITES Secretariat to raise concerns with FAO regarding the significant lack of progress with the IPOA-Sharks; urges FAO to take steps to actively encourage relevant States to develop National Plans of Action; directs the Animals Committee to review progress towards IPOA implementation; encourages Parties to take greater efforts to implement the IPOA-Sharks; and requests Management Authorities to collaborate with their national customs authorities in order to improve collection of data on trade in shark products.