2. Introduction

The conservation, management and sustainable use of sharks is a complex issue in which the realities of economic development are in confrontation with the desire to maximise the known and perceived conservation needs of sharks. It is an interesting case history for those concerned with conservation and sustainable use generally.

The proposed listing of the three largest species of shark on the Appendices of CITES [the Whale shark (Rhincodon typus); the Great White shark (Carcharodon carcharias)]; and, the Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus)] brings these issues to a significant stage on the international arena. On the one hand, some Parties consider the three species to have particular conservation problems, and that part of the solution involves the intervention of CITES in their ongoing management. This position is generally supported by NGO’s with preservationist leanings and indeed, the Humane Society International has claimed credit: Following HSI’s proposal, we are pleased that Australia and the United States are co-nominating the Great White Shark (HSI February, 2000). On the other hand, there is concern that these three highly charismatic species of sharks do not meet the criteria for listing, and may be the "thin end of the wedge" in terms of involving CITES in commercial fisheries management issues. They consider this could prove counterproductive to conservation and management, and at the same time impact seriously on the benefits that people derive from these species. This position is generally held by professional fisheries organisations and some NGO’s.

This review examines some of the central issues underlying the three proposals to CITES. Each proposal is examined from the viewpoint of whether it clearly does or does not meet the technical criteria for Appendix I or II pursuant to Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Annex 1 and 2) in accordance with the recommended guidelines (Annex 5). It also examines whether a case exists for invoking the precautionary measures in Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Annex 4). Our findings are compared with those of other organisations who have reviewed these proposals.