CITES 2013 Year of the Shark

PHOTO: JIM ABERNETHY

CITES2013YEAROF THESHARK

CITES2013YEAROF THESHARK

An AppEndIx II lISTIng regulates international

trade in species that are overexploited, and may become

threatened if their trade is not effectively regulated. It

does not constitute a trade ban or affect use of a species

within national jurisdiction. Domestic fishery management

measures and decisions are unaffected under this listing.

Appendix II allows international trade but gives depleted

or overexploited species a chance to recover by permitting

only sustainable and legal trade.

THE ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC VALUE OF SHARKSSharkS are worth more alive than dead.

Tourism involving sharks, such as recreational diving or snorkeling with sharks, is typically more sustainable and often more lucrative than shark fishing and trade. For example, the estimated lifetime value of a live reef shark to the tourism industry in Palau is US$1.9 million, while the same reef shark is worth US$108 if caught and killed.

ocean health dependS on SharkS.

Sharks help maintain balance in marine ecosystems. When their populations decline, unpredictable consequences in the ocean environment may result, including the possible collapse of commercially important fisheries.

PHOTO: DAVID BURDICK/NOAA

n Scalloped hammerheads are found along coastlines in warm, temperate waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans.

n Scientists have estimated that 1.3 million to 2.7 million scalloped and smooth hammerheads are killed annually for the fin trade.9

SCALLOpED HAMMERHEAD SHARK (Sphyrna lewini)

pORbEAGLE SHARK (Lamna nasus)

n Porbeagles, closely related to the great white shark, range along coasts and into international waters. They are found in cold-temperate waters of the north Atlantic and southern hemisphere.

n Porbeagle meat is considered high quality, particularly in Europe, notably France, Spain and Italy. Porbeagle fins are also in demand for shark fin soup in Asia.

V vulnerable E endangered

CE critically endangered

V vulnerable E endangered

The porbeagle is assessed as Vulnerable globally, Endangered in the northwest Atlantic, and Critically Endangered in the northeast Atlantic and the Mediterranean.

Scalloped hammerhead and great hammerhead sharks are assessed as Endangered, and smooth hammerhead sharks are Vulnerable globally.

PHOTO: C&M FALLOWS/OCEANWIDEIMAGES.COM

PHOTO: DOUG PERRINE/SEAPICS.COM

2

V vulnerable

V vulnerable CE critically endangered

OCEANIC wHITETIp SHARK (Carcharhinus longimanus)

n Although the oceanic whitetip is one of the most widespread shark species, found in tropical and temperate seas throughout the world, it is also one of the most threatened.

n Scientists have estimated that 250,000 to 1.3 million oceanic whitetip sharks are killed globally per year for the fin trade.25

MANTA RAy (Genus Manta)

n The oceanic manta ray (Manta birostris) is found around the world in tropical and temperate waters; the reef manta (M. alfredi) is found in tropical and sub-tropical waters of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans.

n It is estimated that gill plates from more than 4,000 manta rays are traded annually for use in Asia in a purported health tonic.40

Both the oceanic manta ray and reef manta ray are assessed as Vulnerable.

Oceanic whitetip sharks are assessed as Vulnerable globally and Critically Endangered in the northwest and western central Atlantic.


PHOTO: JEFF ROTMAN

3

> SCALLOpED HAMMERHEAD

Sponsored by Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Member States of the European Union, Ecuador,

Honduras and Mexico

The smooth hammerhead shark (Sphyrna zygaena)

and great hammerhead shark (Sphyrna mokarran)

are listed as look-alike species in the scalloped

hammerhead proposal.

SpecieS information

The scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini), one of the most recognizable shark species with

its hammer-shaped head, is also one of the most

endangered.

The scalloped hammerhead is subject to targeted

fisheries, illegal fishing, and fishery bycatch

throughout the world. It is exploited primarily to

satisfy a growing global demand for its fins, which

are some of the most valuable in the fin trade.1

Hammerheads frequently aggregate in large

numbers, which makes them even more vulnerable

to fishing efforts.2 As a result, they are assessed

on the International Union for the Conservation of

Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species as

Endangered globally and the United Nations Food

and Agriculture Organization (FAO) assigns them to

the lowest-productivity category, meaning that they

have an extremely low reproductive capacity and are

one of the ocean’s most vulnerable species.

Fisheries surveys in the northwest Atlantic have

documented hammerhead loss of up to 98 percent,3

landings in the southwest Atlantic have declined

by up to 90 percent,4 and declines of more than

99 percent have occurred in some parts of the

Mediterranean Sea.5

management and trade

Although their distinctive body shape makes

hammerheads easy to identify as a genus, it can

PHOTO: CHRIS NEWBERT/MINDEN PICTURES/NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC STOCK

PHOTO: JONATHAN BIRD/SEAPICS.COM

4

pROpOSAL 43 — VOTE yES!

be difficult to distinguish scalloped hammerheads

from the similar-looking smooth (S. zygaena) and

great (S. mokarran) hammerheads, especially

when looking only at fins. Species-specific data

are limited, but market-based scientific inquiries

have yielded important trade information.6 Dealers

have stated that hammerhead fins are some of the

most valuable.7 The three hammerhead species

combined make up approximately six percent

of the identified fins entering the Hong Kong

market.8 From this information, scientists have

estimated that 1.3 million to 2.7 million scalloped

and smooth hammerheads are exploited for the

fin trade every year.9 A few countries and only

one regional fisheries management organization

(RFMO) have conservation or management

measures for hammerheads, but RFMOs do not

regulate international trade.10 According to a 2008

assessment of illegal, unreported, and unregulated

fishing, hammerheads are among the shark species

that are most often fished illegally.11

In September 2012, the scalloped hammerhead

was included in CITES Appendix III. Appendix III

requires that an export permit be issued for parts

and products exported from the country that

included the species in Appendix III (Costa Rica and

Australia in this case). All other countries must issue

a certificate of origin showing that it is not from the

country that listed the species; but other scientific

findings are not required.

BenefitS of a citeS liSting

A proposal to include scalloped hammerheads

in Appendix II was submitted at CoP15 and was

endorsed by the FAO, the CITES Secretariat, and

TRAFFIC/IUCN. However, at that time, the proposal

narrowly missed being adopted.

Although the recent inclusion of scalloped

hammerhead sharks on CITES Appendix III is

a positive step, an Appendix II listing is vital to

ensuring that hammerhead sharks are protected

throughout their range from overexploitation

due to international trade. A CITES Appendix II

listing for scalloped hammerheads would greatly

improve the future health of populations by

regulating international commerce in their products,

ensuring trade occurs only from sustainable and

legal fisheries, and enhancing data-reporting and

enforcement efforts.

ha

mm

er

he

ad

PHOTO: SHAWN HEINRICHS/BLUE SPHERE MEDIA

5

SpecieS information

The large, warm-blooded porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) is distributed throughout the temperate

north Atlantic and southern hemisphere.

Populations of the porbeagle have been severely

depleted around the globe. The International

Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

Red List of Threatened Species assessed the

porbeagle as Vulnerable globally, Endangered in

the northwest Atlantic and Critically Endangered

in the Mediterranean and northeast Atlantic. The

porbeagle falls into the United Nations Food

and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) lowest-

productivity category, meaning it has an extremely

low reproductive capacity and thus is particularly

vulnerable to overexploitation. It is also one of the

ocean’s most vulnerable species.

This species yields significant commercial value for

both its large fins and its meat and is taken in both

targeted and bycatch fisheries.12 The international

demand for porbeagle meat and fins has driven

populations to very low levels across its range.

Recent assessments show that because porbeagle

populations have been severely depleted, it is

unable to fulfill its key role in the marine ecosystem.13

Porbeagle populations are reduced by about 70

percent of their historical levels wherever they

are found, and in some places declines are even

steeper.14 For example, porbeagles have virtually

disappeared in the Mediterranean Sea.15


Although management has improved within some of

the porbeagle’s range because of domestic fisheries

measures, such as a management plan in Canadian

waters and a retention prohibition in the European

Union, almost no international conservation or

management measures for the species are in place

on the high seas (areas beyond national jurisdiction).

> pORbEAGLE SHARK

Sponsored by Brazil, Comoros, Croatia, the Member States of the European Union and Egypt



6


The North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission

(NEAFC) has prohibited the targeting and retention

of porbeagle sharks,16 but the International

Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

(ICCAT) has still failed to act; within the porbeagle’s

southern range, there are no conservation or

management measures on the high seas whatsoever.

This adds up to huge areas where the porbeagle

has no protection. Because the species is extremely

vulnerable to both targeted shark longline fisheries

and bycatch throughout its range, further depletion

is likely to render this species at risk of extinction.

Even where retention is prohibited, such as in the

EU and in NEAFC’s area, enforcement and

compliance are often weak and significant levels

of mortality remain.

In late 2012, the porbeagle was included in CITES

Appendix III. The listing requires that an export

permit be issued for wildlife products exported from

the country that included the species in Appendix

III. In this case, 20 of the 27 EU Member States and

Australia, that included the species in Appendix

III need to issue export permits. All other CITES

Parties are required to issue a certificate of origin

confirming that the specimen is not from the country

that included the species in Appendix III, but other

scientific findings are not required.


A proposal to include the porbeagle in CITES

Appendix II was proposed at the 15th meeting of the

Conference of the Parties (CoP15) and was endorsed

by the FAO, the CITES Secretariat, and TRAFFIC/

IUCN. However, at that time, the proposal very

narrowly missed being adopted. A new Appendix

II proposal has been submitted by the EU Member

States, Brazil, Comoros, Croatia, and Egypt for

consideration by the Parties at CoP16. It is clear from

continued assessments that the population has not

recovered, and further analysis shows it is in a worse

state globally than in 2010, while international trade

is still significant. Although the recent inclusion of

porbeagle sharks on CITES Appendix III is a positive

step, an Appendix II listing is vital to ensuring that

they are managed throughout their range to prevent

overexploitation due to international trade. A CITES

Appendix II listing of the porbeagle is scientifically

justified and essential to ensuring that international

trade occurs only from fisheries that are legal and

sustainable and that trade data are recorded.

po

rB

ea

gle

7

SpecieS information

The oceanic whitetip (Carcharhinus longimanus) is an open-ocean species with a distinctive white

tip on its dorsal fin. Although it is one of the most

widespread shark species, found throughout the

world’s tropical and temperate seas, it is also one of

the most threatened.

Oceanic whitetip sharks have experienced significant

population declines due largely to overexploitation

fueled by a global demand for their large, highly

valued fins. They are assessed by the International

Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red

List of Threatened Species as critically endangered

in the northwest and western central Atlantic Ocean

and as vulnerable globally. In addition, the oceanic

whitetip falls into the United Nations Food and

Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) lowest productivity

category, meaning that it has an extremely low

reproductive capacity, making it particularly

vulnerable to overexploitation. It is also one of the

ocean’s most vulnerable species.

Several scientific studies document the drastic

decline in this shark’s populations. One population

study in the Gulf of Mexico estimated a drop of 99

percent in just four generations.17 In the northwest

Atlantic, an analysis showed declines of up to 70

percent since 1992.18 A similar analysis in the Pacific

estimated a 90 percent decline in biomass.19 Most

recently, a 2012 stock assessment in the western

and central Pacific Ocean determined that oceanic

whitetip sharks were overfished and that overfishing

is occurring.20

Several targeted fisheries exist for oceanic whitetips,

which are also frequently caught as bycatch in tuna

and swordfish fisheries.21 Although this species

experiences a high catch-survival rate on longline

fishing gear and could be released alive,22 the low

> OCEANIC wHITETIp SHARK

Sponsored by Brazil, Colombia, United States

PHOTO: BRIAN SKERRY/NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC STOCK


8


market value of its meat coupled with the high value

of its fins often leads fishermen to instead remove

the fins at sea and dispose of the carcass overboard.

Oceanic whitetip fins are easily identified

in trade by the white tips, rounded shape, and

large size, making them one of the most distinctive

products in the shark fin trade. Identification of

these unprocessed fins can be done by visual

observation alone, with a DNA study of fins showing

that fin traders can identify oceanic whitetip fins

with 100 percent accuracy.23 These sharks make

up approximately 1.8 percent of the identified

fins entering the Hong Kong market.24 From this

information, scientists have estimated that 250,000

to 1.3 million oceanic whitetips are killed worldwide

per year for the fin trade.25

Oceanic whitetips are receiving some protection

through recently agreed conservation and

management measures by some regional fisheries

management organizations (RFMOs). But these

measures do not extend to the full range of the

species, nor do they regulate international trade.

Furthermore, these measures apply only to oceanic

whitetip sharks taken in the specific fisheries

covered by those particular RFMOs and only

to the governments that are members of those

RFMOs. Three regional fisheries management

organizations—the International Commission for the

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, the Inter-American

Tropical Tuna Commission, and the Western

and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission—have

prohibited the retention onboard, transshipment,

and landing of oceanic whitetip sharks within

their fisheries.


A proposal to include the species in Appendix II was

proposed at the 15th meeting of the Conference of

the Parties (CoP15) and was endorsed by the FAO,

the CITES Secretariat, and TRAFFIC/IUCN. However,

at that time, the proposal was narrowly rejected.

Although RFMOs have taken some conservation

and management actions since CoP15, huge

gaps in regulations remain, and enforcement and

compliance are limited.

Including oceanic whitetips in CITES Appendix II will

help States enforce their domestic prohibitions and

help contracting Parties to relevant RFMOs ensure

compliance with existing management measures.

An Appendix II listing is scientifically justified and

essential to ensure that trade occurs only from legal

and sustainable fisheries, and it would help facilitate

data collection across the species’ range.

wh

itetip

9

SpecieS information

The oceanic manta (Manta birostris) and the reef

manta rays (M. alfredi) are among the ocean’s most

charismatic wildlife. Manta rays are typically found

in tropical and subtropical waters, although oceanic

manta rays can be found in temperate waters. With

oceanic and reef mantas reaching up to 9 meters26

and 5 meters27, respectively, these gentle giants have

enormous ecotourism value.28

Manta rays are assessed on the International Union

for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of

Threatened Species as Vulnerable globally. Manta

rays bear only one pup on average every two to

three years, which makes them highly vulnerable

to overexploitation.29, 30 They are killed as bycatch

and in targeted fisheries throughout the Atlantic,

Pacific, and Indian Oceans. In recent years, manta

ray fishing has expanded in many places throughout

their range, primarily in response to the emerging

international market for their gill plates.

Manta ray gill plates, which are sold in some Asian

markets in a tonic with purported health benefits,

are the part most valued in international trade, with

cartilage and skins of lesser importance.31 Population

depletion for oceanic and reef mantas is high in

several regions, with declines by more than 85

percent of the population baseline.32, 33 Alarmingly,

enormous local declines have occurred over one

generation or less in areas with targeted fisheries.34,

35, 36 For example, annual landings of manta rays in

Indonesia declined by 56 percent in nine years.37

In Mozambique, sightings of Manta alfredi declined

by 86 percent during eight years in which the

fishery expanded.38

> MANTA RAyS

Sponsored by Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador

PHOTO: GUY STEVENS

PHOTO: GUY STEVENS

10


ra

yS


The top three manta fishing countries—Indonesia,

Sri Lanka, and India—account for an estimated

90 percent of the world’s manta catch and target

mantas for their gill plates.39 Commerce in gill

plates is not well-documented, although an

estimate of the total volume of the gill plate trade

has been produced from an analysis of market

surveys in the major manta ray gill plate markets:

Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Macau in China, as

well as Singapore, with an estimated 99 percent

of the market based in Guangzhou. These surveys

estimated the annual volume of gill plate sales as

about 21,000 kilograms (46,300 pounds) of dried

manta ray gill plates and representing an estimated

4,652 manta rays.40 Virtually no management exists

of the international trade in manta products.

Several countries—including Ecuador, the Maldives,

Mexico, New Zealand, and the Philippines—have

put in place domestic measures to protect manta

rays. In addition, the oceanic manta was listed

in Appendixes I and II of the Convention on the

Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals

(CMS) in 2011. This means that the 116 Parties

to the CMS are required to work to enforce strict

protections for these animals, including a prohibition

on take, as well as to conserve or restore the habitats

in which they live, mitigate obstacles to migration,

and control other factors that might further

endanger the species. Despite the fact that mantas

are caught as bycatch in some regional fisheries

management organization (RFMO) fisheries, no

RFMO has adopted measures to specifically protect

or regulate landings of manta.


Although a number of countries, including Parties

to the CMS, have started to take steps to address

the decline in manta ray populations, these

measures do not regulate international trade in

manta products, do not have the global reach

of CITES, and often cover only one of the two

described species of manta. An Appendix II listing

for the genus Manta is necessary to ensure that

international trade does not continue to threaten

the survival of these species.

A proposal to include the genus Manta in CITES

Appendix II was submitted for consideration at

the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties

(CoP16) in 2013, by Brazil, Colombia and Ecuador.

It is clear from recent assessments that populations

are severely depleted and that international trade

is driving the declines. An Appendix II listing

would regulate international trade to ensure it

is sustainable and legal, and would thus help

populations to recover from decline.

PHOTO: GUY STEVENS

11

Scalloped hammerhead

1 Chapman, D.D., D. Pinhal, and M.S. Shivji, “Tracking the fin trade: Genetic stock identification in western Atlantic scalloped hammerhead sharks Sphyrna lewini,” Endangered Species Research, 9:221-228 (2009), www.int-res.com/articles/esr2009/9/n009p221.pdf.

2 Baum, J., et al., 2007. Sphyrna lewini. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded Aug. 2, 2012.

3 Myers, R.A., et al., “Cascading effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean,” Science, 30 315:1846–50 (March 2007), www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5820/1846.

4 Vooren, C.M., et al., “Biologia e status conservação dos tubarão-martelo Sphyrna lewini e S. zygaena,” pp. 97-112. In: C.M. Vooren and S. Klippel (eds.), Ações para a conservação detubarões e raias no sul do Brasil. Igaré, Porto Alegre (2005).

5 Ferretti, F., et al., “Loss of large predatory sharks from the Mediterranean Sea,” Conservation Biology, 22:952-96 (2008), http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00938.x/pdf.

6 Clarke, S. “Use of shark fin trade data to estimate historic total shark removals in the Atlantic Ocean,” Aquatic Living Resources, 21:373-81 (2008), http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=8207805&jid=ALR&volumeId=21&issueId=04&aid=8207803&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=.

7 Abercrombie, D.L., S.C. Clarke, and M.S. Shivji, “Global-scale genetic identification of hammerhead sharks: Application to assessment of the international fin trade and law enforcement,” Conservation Genetics, 6:775-788 (2005), www.nova.edu/ocean/ghri/forms/abercrombie05.pdf.

8 Clarke, S.C., et al., “Global estimates of shark catches using trade records from commercial markets,” Ecology Letters, 9:1115–26, (2006a), http://137.52.224.90/ocean/ghri/forms/clarke06.pdf.

9 Clarke, S.C., et al., “Identification of shark species composition and proportion in the Hong Kong shark fin market based on molecular genetics and trade records,” Conservation Biology 20(1):201-11 (2006b), http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00247.x/abstract.

10 International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, “Recommendation by ICCAT on hammerhead sharks (Family Sphyrnidae) caught in association with fisheries managed by ICCAT,” 10-08 (2010), www.iccat.es/Documents%5CRecs%5Ccompendiopdf-e%5C2010-08-e.pdf.

porBeagle

11 Lack, M., and G. Sant, “Illegal, unreported and unregulated shark catch: A review of current knowledge and action,” Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and TRAFFIC, Canberra, www.traffic.org/species-reports/traffic_species_fish30.pdf.

12 Stevens, J., et al., “Lamna nasus.” In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1 (2006), www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded Aug. 31, 2012.

13 Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), “Potential socio-economic implications of adding porbeagle shark to the list of wildlife species at risk in the Species at Risk Act (SARA),” DFO Policy and Economics Branch—Maritimes Region, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (2006), www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/reports-rapports/porbeagle-maraiche/index-eng.htm.

14 International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas/International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Report of the 2009 porbeagle stock assessments meeting (Copenhagen, June 22-27, 2009), www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2009_POR_ASSESS_ENG.pdf.

15 Ferretti, F., et al., “Loss of large predatory sharks from the Mediterranean Sea,” Conservation Biology, 22:952-964 (2008), http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00938.x/pdf.

16 North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, “Porbeagle, Recommendation 6: 2012,” www.neafc.org/system/files/Rec_6_Recommendation_porbeagle.pdf.

oceanic whitetip

17 Baum, J.K., and R.A. Myers, “Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico,” Ecology Letters, 7(3):135-45 (2004), www.fmap.ca/ramweb/papers-total/Baum_Myers_2004.pdf.

18 Baum, J.K., et al., “Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic,” Science, 299:389-92 (2003), www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5605/389.

19 Ward, P., and R. Myers, “Shifts in open ocean fish communities coinciding with the commencement of commercial fishing,” Ecology, 86:835-47 (2005), www.fmap.ca/ramweb/papers-total/Ward_Myers_2004_Ecology.pdf.

20 Rice, J., and S. Harley, “Stock assessment of oceanic whitetip sharks in the western and central Pacific Ocean,” Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Scientific Committee, Busan, South Korea, Aug. 7-15, 2012, www.wcpfc.int/system/files/documents/meetings/scientific-committee/8th-regular-session/stock-status-theme/working-papers/SA-WP-06-Oceanic-Whitetip-Stock-Assessent-WCPO-Rev-1-%283-August-2012%29.pdf.

21 Baum et al., (2003).

22 Beerkircher, L.R. , et al., “Characteristics of shark bycatch observed on pelagic longlines off the southeastern United States, 1992–2000,” Marine Fisheries Review, 64(4):40-9 (2002), http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/mfr644/mfr6443.pdf.

23 Clarke, S.C. , et al., “Identification of shark species composition and proportion in the Hong Kong shark fin market based on molecular genetics and trade records,” Conservation Biology, 20(1):201-11 (2006a), www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118564070/PDFSTART.

24 Ibid.

25 Clarke, S.C. , et al., “Global estimates of shark catches using trade records from commercial markets,” Ecology Letters, 9:1115-26, (2006b), http://137.52.224.90/ocean/ghri/forms/clarke06.pdf.

manta ray

26 Marshall, A.D., L.J.V. Compagno, and M.B. Bennett, “Redescription of the genus Manta with resurrection of Manta alfredi (Krefft, 1868) (Chondrichthyes: Myliobatoidei: Mobulidae),” Zootaxa, 2301:1-28 (2009).

27 Marshall, A.D., et al., Manta alfredi. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2011.2 (2011a), www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded Aug. 31, 2012.

28 Heinrichs, S., et al., Manta ray of hope: Global threat to manta and mobula rays. Manta Ray of Hope Project (2011), www.mantarayofhope.com/downloads/The-Global-Threat-to-Manta-and-Mobula-Rays.pdf.

29 Homma, K., et al., “Biology of the manta ray, Manta birostris, Walbaum, in the Indo-Pacific.” In: Seret, B., and Sire, J.Y. (eds.), Indo-Pacific fish biology: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indo-Pacific Fishes, Noumea, 1997. Ichthyological Society of France, Paris, pp. 209-216 (1999).

30 Marshall, et al., (2009).

31 Heinrichs et al., (2011).

32 Marshall, et al. (2011a).

33 Marshall, A., et al., “Manta birostris.” In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2 (2011b), www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded Aug. 31, 2012.

34 Dewar, H., “Preliminary report: Manta harvest in Lamakera.” Report from the Pfleger Institute of Environmental Research and the Nature Conservancy (2002).

35 White, W.T., et al., “Mobula japonica.” In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1 (2006). www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded Sept. 4, 2012.

36 Alava, E.R.Z., et al., “Fishery and trade of whale sharks and manta rays in the Bohol Sea, Philippines.” In: S.L. Fowler, T.M. Reed, and F.A. Dipper (eds.), Elasmobranch biodiversity, conservation and management: Proceedings of the International Seminar and Workshop. Sabah, Malaysia, July 1997, pp. 132-148 (2002).

37 Dewar (2002).

38 Rohner et al., in review.

39 Ibid.

40 Heinrichs et al., (2011). http://www.sharksavers.org/files/9013/3184/4869/The_Global_Threat_to_Manta_and_Mobula_Rays.pdf, Townsend et al. in prep. http://www.cites.org/common/cop/16/prop/raw/CoP16-Prop-EC-Manta.pdf.

ENDNOTES

Philadelphia, Pa. 19103 Tel. +1 (215)575-9050

Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel. +1 (202)552-2000

1050 Brussels, Belgium Tel. +32 (0)2 274 1620

London WC1 HBY, UKTel. +44 (0)20 7388 5370

contact: [email protected]

12

AppEndIx II-lISTEd SpECIES: ThE KEy To SuSTAInAblE TrAdE

WhAT doES AppEndIx II rEAlly mEAn? dEbunKIng ThE myThS:

CITES Appendix II includes species that, though not necessarily threatened with extinction, may become so unless trade is subjected to strict regulation.

To ensure that an Appendix II listing is successful in preventing a species from reaching a level at which an Appendix I listing is necessary, the extent of removals from the wild and international trade must not be detrimental to the species’ survival or its role in an ecosystem.

According to this requirement, States must certify that trade in CITES-listed species is sustainable, through the following procedures:

The Scientific Authority (SA) of each Party to the Convention shall monitor the export permits granted for Appendix II species and the actual exports of such specimens from that State.

To obtain an export permit, the SA of the State of export must issue a non-detriment finding, affirming that the export will not be detrimental to the survival of that species in the wild.

If the SA determines that the export of the species should be limited to maintain the species’ role in its ecosystem and its population above levels that could make the species eligible for Appendix I, the SA shall contact the Management Authority to institute measures to limit the number of export permits allowed for that species. Three species of sharks—great white, whale, and basking—are already listed on Appendix II. Export permits for these species are granted only after a non-detriment finding has been issued and trade is determined to be sustainable. Additional shark species and manta rays are being proposed at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP16) to CITES for inclusion in Appendix II. Adoption and implementation of these proposals will be key to ensuring that they do not become eligible for Appendix I in the near future.

WHO WE ARE

The Pew Environment Group is the conservation arm of The Pew Charitable Trusts, a nongovernmental organization that works globally to establish pragmatic, science-based policies that protect our oceans, preserve our wildlands, and promote clean energy.

www.PewEnvironment.org/CITES

Philadelphia, Pa. 19103 Tel. +1 (215)575-9050

Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel. +1 (202)552-2000

1050 Brussels, Belgium Tel. +32 (0)2 274 1620

London WC1 HBY, UKTel. +44 (0)20 7388 5370

COntACt: [email protected]

Printed on recycled paper using vegetable-based inks and 100% wind power.

CITES 2013 Year of the Shark

Documents

Transcript of CITES 2013 Year of the Shark