4. Assessment of Proposals

4.1 - Proposal 11.47. Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus)
       (see Annex 1)

Currently not on the Appendices of CITES. Add global population to Appendix II pursuant to criteria A and Bi of Annex 2a (Resolution Conf. 9.24) (United States of America)

Status: The IUCN lists the global population of R. typus as Data Deficient but notes that it is considered rare (WCMC 1999). The IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group has recommend classification as Vulnerable (Criterion A2: a population reduction of at least 20% in three generations is projected to be met, based on (d) actual or potential levels of exploitation [SSG 1996]).

Trade: R. typus is reported by TRAFFIC to be in limited international trade. The case for unsustainable harvest (Bi) is unclear, because declines following harvest have been localised and short-term (3–5 years). This makes it difficult to separate the effects of exploitation versus natural variation in local abundance and dispersal patterns. There are insufficient data to show whether international trade has negatively impacted on populations, and if so, to what extent.

Population size and declines: Quantitative population estimates are not available. The proposal emphasises short-term declines in sightings and CPUE in some States, coupled with an inferred increase in demand for meat and the general increase in demand for all shark fins. It concludes that this species is likely to be affected but provides no evidence indicating the demand is any greater than for other species of shark. In terms of meeting the criteria:

Annex 2a, Criteria A: It is known, inferred or projected that unless trade in the species is subject to strict regulation, it will meet at least one of the criteria of Annex 1 in the near future.

There is no evidence indicating that the species will meet the Criteria for Appendix I in the near future –the global population size is large, and projected declines are unlikely to be of sufficient magnitude.

Annex 2, Criteria B: It is known, inferred or projected that the harvesting of specimens from the wild for international trade has, or may have, a detrimental impact on the species by: i) exceeding, over an extended period, the level that can be continued in perpetuity.

Insufficient information is provided on population size and decline rates to demonstrate that the species meets this criteria on any more than a localised scale. Until seasonal and interannual variability in abundance are known, it will be difficult to identify long-term trends or impacts (Colman 1997). The life history characteristics considered to make the species vulnerable to overexploitation can equally be considered factors which buffer the species against biological extinction.

Annex 4, Precautionary Measures. Given the data deficient status of the species, the case for transferring to Appendix II on the basis of "the best interests of the species" is no more compelling than it would be for most species. This is also the true for C. carcharias and C. maximus (see below).

Conclusion: It is possible, but by no means clear, that harvesting for international trade is having a detrimental impact on the species in some areas. However, it appears that such harvests as may be undertaken are not motivated by international trade, but rather local uses, and thus CITES may not prove to be an effective method for exerting control.