5. Other Assessments (CITES Secretariat, IUCN, TRAFFIC)

The criteria agreed to by the Parties for amending Appendix I and II (Resolution Conf. 9.24), do not make provision for the practicalities of implementation to be a major consideration. Yet with both the Secretariat and the Parties having finite resources, and some Parties having extremely limited resources, it is clearly an issue that needs to be considered carefully. The CITES Secretariat, the IUCN and TRAFFIC have all drawn attention to the fact that should these proposals be accepted, implementation will be difficult. A mandate for the Parties to CITES to control international trade in products of shark species, down to the level of resolution of fish meals and fertilisers comprised of multi-species, is a mandate that may simply be impossible to implement

5.1. Proposal 11.47. Whale shark (Rhincodon typus)

The CITES Secretariat found insufficient data was presented in order to draw a reasonable conclusion that the species meets the criteria for Appendix II. They found the evidence provided was largely anecdotal or unpublished, and did not constitute a compelling justification. They found no evidence to suggest trade had resulted in negative impacts now or in the near future. They also found that Range states had not been adequately consulted (Annex 6.6). The Secretariat has issued a clear warning about enforcement difficulties. (Recommendation: Originally "No support", but later changed this to "Support", after objections were raised by the proposing parties). The IUCN found that the species did not meet Annex 2a Criteria A; that compliance with Annex 2a Criterion Bi was unclear; and that the matter would rest on interpretation of precautionary measures. TRAFFIC found insufficient information on biological status, trade and whether trade was having a detrimental impact. They believed the conservative life history qualified the species for Appendix II (Recommendation: Accept), but this appears to be a mistake. The criterion concerning a high vulnerability due to a species’ biology is for Appendix I (Annex 1A,v) and is only applicable if the population size is small (as a guide less than 5000; Annex 5). As the global population size is likely to be much greater than this, the life history parameters do not constitute evidence of compliance with Annex 2.

5.2. Proposal 11.48. Great White shark (Carcharodon carcharias)

The CITES Secretariat found the proposal had little information on either population status or actual declines, other than for some local areas, and found no evidence indicating the species was facing an imminent risk of extinction. Sports fishing was a threat, but one more appropriately controlled by national legislation or an Appendix II listing, rather than by listing under Appendix I of CITES. The Secretariat considered the species may satisfy Annex 2 Criterion Bi (Appendix II), and thus recommended no support for the Appendix I listing but support if the species was to be included in Appendix II. The Secretariat has issued a clear warning about enforcement difficulties. The IUCN also determined that the species did not meet Annex 1 criterion A because the global population size was too large, and found insufficient evidence to support the level of decline required by Annex 1 criterion C. However, like the Secretariat, the IUCN felt the species could meet Annex 2a Bi (appendix II). TRAFFIC also found the species did not meet the criteria for Appendix I for the same reasons and agreed it may satisfy the those for Appendix II (Recommendation: Reject; may be eligible for Appendix II listing).

5.3. Proposal 11.49. Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus)

The CITES Secretariat determined that adequate information had been provided to indicate declines in abundance due to overexploitation that met the criteria (Annex 2a, Bi and Cii) for Appendix II, and drew attention to the fact that it may also meet Annex 1 Criteria Bi for Appendix I. (Recommendation: Support). However, the Secretariat notes that in supporting this proposal the Parties will be "presented with considerable challenges, given the wide range of raw and processed products in trade". The IUCN found that although the species is not necessarily now threatened with extinction, it appears to meet Annex 2a criterion Bi. It equally drew attention to the problems of implementation. TRAFFIC agreed that the criteria of Annex 2 had been satisfied and recommended acceptance.