1.1. At the next Conference of the Parties to CITES (COP11. Nairobi, Kenya; April 2000) three globally distributed shark species have been proposed for listing on the Appendices pursuant to Resolution Conf. 9.24: Great White shark (Carcharodon carcharias) for Appendix I; Whale shark (Rhincodon typus) for Appendix II; and Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) for Appendix II.

1.2. The supporting statements for all three proposals are based on similar justifications: known or suspected local, short-term population declines; inferences about likely future impacts of trade; and, presumed high vulnerability to extinction due to characteristics of the species’ biology that are shared with other shark species.

1.3. We found the data presented in the supporting statements do not clearly establish compliance with Annex 1 and 2 of Resolution Conf. 9.24 in terms of the global populations, and the assumptions invoked for this purpose are also questionable. Similarly, the case for invoking Precautionary Measures (Annex 4) is no more compelling than it would be for many other globally distributed species which are data deficient and not on the Appendices.

1.4. Proponents are clearly concerned about possible conservation problems with all three species, but none of the species are threatened with extinction or likely to become threatened under current management practices, and it remains unclear whether the proponents can achieve what they are seeking through involving the Parties in CITES in tightening controls on international trade.

1.5. The issues of implementation are serious ones for the Parties to consider, because it is likely to be challenging and costly, but in the end largely ineffective. That is, the Parties to CITES could obligate themselves to an untenable mandate.

1.6. It remains wholly unclear whether CITES is, or should become, a vehicle for regulating and managing marine fisheries. The management problems with marine fisheries are not biological extinction nor the recovery of threatened populations so that they can fulfill some ecologically determined role. It is the deliberate and often experimental reduction of abundance in order to maximise harvests to benefit people. The problems, skills and resources needed for fisheries management are different to those required for regulating trade in species threatened with biological extinction.

1.7. Organisations such as FAO have played a lead role in fisheries management for decades, and although it may be argued that shark management has not been adequately addressed by such organisations in the past, the same criticisms can be leveled at CITES. Some species have declined dramatically while on Appendix I.

1.8. In conjunction with FAO and its "International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks", CITES may be able to assist the proponent countries and other global fisheries organisations to identify further critical research and monitoring needs, and better refine stock status at a regional level.