Proposal 35

Rhincodon typus - Inclusion in Appendix II

(India, the Philippines)

Provisional assessment by the Secretariat

A proposal to include Rhincodon typus in Appendix II was first presented by the United States of America at CoP11, but was rejected. The present proposal provides important additional information on national fisheries and conservation measures, and on national and international trade. It mentions that downward population trends have occurred in some sites, although the causes of decline are not known. Current fishing effort for this species is unclear. Several range States have adopted a zero catch limit for this species or provide other forms of protection. Most catches are known from coastal waters and conservation measures within national waters are warranted. However, it is not entirely clear from the proposal to what degree international trade threatens this species. As for the proposal submitted at the previous meeting of the Conference of the Parties, the Secretariat is concerned about the complications that acceptance of this proposal would have for the control of trade. The proposal specifies that fresh meat and whole fins from adults are identifiable, but does not indicate whether other parts and derivatives, such as liver oil and cartilage, could be distinguished from that of other shark species.

FAO launched a voluntary International Plan of Action-Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) in 1999, within the framework of its Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Regrettably the implementation of the IPOA-Sharks at the national level has been inadequate. The Secretariat considers that range States should, as a matter of priority, prepare national plans for the conservation and management of this species under the IPOA-Sharks and consider adopting national conservation measures as may be required, as the proponents have done. Other measures to improve participation in the IPOA-Sharks should also be considered (see document CoP12 Doc. 41.1).

The Secretariat considers that this species may qualify for inclusion in Appendix II under Annex 2 a, of Resolution Conf. 9.24. However the control of trade in several types of specimens of this species will pose considerable enforcement problems. It remains to be seen whether the products of this species can be readily recognized, especially processed or partially processed products, or products from juveniles or subadults. If the proposal were adopted, it would therefore be important for the proponents to commit to provide identification materials to differentiate parts and derivatives, other than fins or fresh meat, that may enter international trade.

Comments from Parties

Japan: "Japan believes that stock management for sharks, like other marine fish species, should remain under the competence of FAO, as well as regional fisheries management organizations having jurisdiction in each convention area of the oceans. It is by FAO, not by CITES, that FAO International Plan of Action should be promoted and improved. Therefore, CITES's actions should be limited to requesting FAO to improve implementation and, monitoring of implementation by the Animals Committee. It is misleading to place particular shark species in the CITES Appendices without adequate biological information showing that the species is faced with the risk of extinction.

International trade in sharks does not have a serious impact on the resources. Where necessary, harvesting countries should strengthen resource management measures in accordance with the "International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks" adopted at the 23rd session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries last 2001. For this reason, Japan does not think there is any need for CITES to implement trade control measures before the current state of implementation of the plan of action and improved management measures are assessed. Therefore it is inappropriate to introduce trade measure before the effectiveness of the management measures are assessed and the proposing nations should provide their current situation of the implementation of the plan of action.

[Concerning Proposal 35]: Only limited information such as catch in certain areas, and descriptive explanations have been presented. No persuasive evidence has been presented regarding the possible impact of international trade on the state of populations of this species which is the most important element in considering listing. For this reason, we believe that this proposal is not appropriate. Furthermore, this proposal has a problem in terms of procedure because no prior consultation regarding this proposal was made with Japan, which is also a range State. Japan has never been consulted in advance of this proposal despite the fact that Japan is one of range States of this species. There seems to be some inadequacies in preparing the proposal, as is pointed out by the Secretariat. Furthermore, the proposal presents only limited information such as catch records in some restricted areas, and gives no persuasive evidence on the impact that international trade causes on the whole population of this species, which is the most important element in considering Appendix listing. From these reasons, Japan considers that this proposal does not meet the requirements for Appendix listing."

Switzerland: "As with other marine species we foresee problems with Article IV, paragraph 6 ('introduction from the sea'), whenever the specimens originate from international (and not national) waters in particular in regard to the non-detriment finding. This problem is even increased when one is dealing not with a stationary but a migrating species. Furthermore, as the Secretariat also points out, the control of trade in several types of specimens of this species will pose considerable, if not insurmountable enforcement problems. We wonder therefore if the proposals could not be combined with the existing annotation # 3 (in Appendix III) thus subjecting only whole animals, fins and parts of fins to the provisions of the Convention."

Recommendation by the Secretariat There does not seem to be sufficient information available to conclude that the species is in decline as the result of harvesting for trade, except in a few localities. However, the species does seem to meet the criteria for inclusion in Appendix II. Earlier concerns over the implementation of the proposed listing concerning some parts and derivatives may not be serious if, as noted in the IUCN/TRAFFIC analysis of this proposal, the value of specimens stems from the fact that they are marketed as specimens of whale shark. The limitation of CITES controls to only certain specimens proposed by Switzerland is not possible for animal species listed in Appendix II. It is not clear how any Party would be able to make a non-detriment finding because of the paucity of information on this species, its highly migratory nature, and the lack of specific management programmes for this species on the high seas or in national waters. These issues need to be addressed but the Secretariat recommends the adoption of the proposal.



Proposal 36

Cetorhinus maximus - Inclusion in Appendix II

(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on behalf of the Member States of the European Community)

Provisional assessment by the Secretariat

A proposal to include Cetorhinus maximus in Appendix II was first presented by the proponent at CoP11, but was rejected. The proponent listed this species in Appendix III in September 2000, annotated to apply to whole animals, fins and parts of fins only. Two of the main fishing nations for this species, Norway and Japan, entered reservations on this listing. A CITES Identification Manual sheet to assist in the identification of basking shark fins in trade was distributed to the Parties in 2001.

On the basis of what is again a complete and detailed proposal, the Secretariat considers this species to qualify for inclusion in Appendix II under Annex 2 a, of Resolution Conf. 9.24. Furthermore, the Secretariat does not consider a listing in Appendix III to be appropriate for a species that also occurs in waters beyond the jurisdiction of any State, and therefore supports the proposal. However, while the proposal notes that meat, cartilage and oil rarely enter international trade, the control of trade in these specimens could pose considerable enforcement difficulties. It is unclear whether the products of this species can be readily recognized, especially processed or partially processed products, or products from juveniles or subadults. If the proposal were adopted, it would be important to provide identification materials to differentiate parts and derivatives other than fins that may enter international trade.

Comments from Parties

Japan: "Japan opposes Proposal 36. The data on catch volume are limited to those from waters off the European Union (EU). The proponent country itself admits that there is no solid assessment on the state of the population of this species both globally and regionally. Therefore, there is very little scientific rationale to list this species. Currently, sightings of this species are not rare. No sufficient information is available to determine that the presence of international trade alone constitutes the major motive for harvesting of this species. Only one country is targeting this species in fisheries. There is little or no need to regulate the market distribution of unintended incidental catch by other countries. From the reasons given above, Japan considers this proposal is not appropriate.

Furthermore, it is Japan's understanding that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) (whose documents are also cited in the proposal) is an international organization having scientific information on this species in the North Atlantic. We consider that the views of ICES should be sought on whether or not this species is truly facing the risk of extinction. We also believe this proposal has some problems in terms of procedure because Japan, a range State, has not been consulted in advance about the proposal.

Although the Secretariat seems to strongly support this proposal, the proposal should be reviewed through full discussion of the following points:

- Catch data of the species are limited to those from the EU waters, but when considering it globally, there is inadequate scientific evidence to list this species.

- Losses of fisheries targeting this species on a global scale have resulted from economic factors such as declining demand for liver oil - the main product from this species.

- Sighting of this species is not scarce even today.

- Catch quota has been introduced for this species in EU waters, the only area where fishing activities targeting this species take place today, and additional measures could be taken if the EU authorities determine that the stock is declining.

- Insufficient information is available to determine that the presence of international trade is the principal motive of the catch of this species.

- Only one country targets this species, and there is little need to control incidental catches by other countries.

For these reasons, Japan considers that this proposal does not meet the listing criteria." (See also comments under Proposal 35).

Switzerland: (see comments under Proposal 35) United Kingdom: "The UK acknowledges the comments in respect of the UK's Appendix III listing for the basking shark and welcomes the Secretariat's support for the Appendix II listing. The UK also notes the comments on possible enforcement difficulties in relation to parts and derivatives, and the need, therefore, to provide identification materials. I should point out that in support of the CoP11 basking shark proposal the UK funded research to develop a protocol by DNA analysis for the identification of products in trade containing basking shark derivatives. The successful research indicated that even highly processed products containing basking shark derivatives (including shark-fin soup and cartilage capsules) can be identified. Using this method it would, therefore, be possible to overcome concerns about identification and enforcement. A copy of the report which was submitted in support of the UK's CoP11 proposal is attached. [The report was provided to the Secretariat but is not attached to the present document.]

I understand that there is ongoing research work on shark identification markers and that it is now possible to identify a significant number of different species using DNA analysis. Some of this work is being undertaken by Shelley Clarke at the Imperial College, London looking at the trade through Hong Kong. Mahmood Shivji at the Oceanographic Center & Guy Harvey Research Institute, Nova Southeastern University, Florida is also conducting work on using DNA markers to identify shark parts including dried fins."

Recommendation by the Secretariat

Adequate information has been presented to demonstrate that the species meets the criteria for inclusion in Appendix II, such as evidence of declines in response to targeted fisheries. While recommending that the proposal be adopted, the Secretariat remains concerned about the ability of Parties to make non-detriment findings for this species as well as the regulation of trade in some parts and derivatives.