View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Santa Marta, Colombia. 25-27 November 2014
International CITES sharks workshop: Articulating experiences and
strategies for the implementation of the listing of species included in
Appendix II
© Copyright CITES Secretariat 2005© Copyright CITES Secretariat 2005
www.CITES.org
International commerce in the framework of CITES related to tariff codes, traceability and non‐detriment findings
CITES Parties’ concerns about sharks are not new
• Issue raised by the USA at CoP9 in 1994
• Led by Panama, the CoP adopted a Resolution which requested inter alia:
‐ FAO and other international fisheries management organizations to establish programmes to collect and assemble the necessary biological and trade data on shark species‐ all nations using and trading specimens of shark species cooperate with FAO and other international fisheries management organizations
Consistent narrative• CITES CoP10 (1997): Decisions adopted to give effect to implementation of the 1994 Resolution
• CITES CoP11 (2000): Following adoption of IPOA‐Sharks, 1994 Resolution repealed. CITES Animals Committee instructed to maintain liaison with COFI in order to monitor the implementation of the IPOA‐Sharks and to report at the CoP in 2002 on progress.
Consistent narrative• CITES CoP12 (2002): Concern that insufficient progress with implementation of the IPOA‐Sharks and NPOAs ‐ trade in sharks and their products was not sustainable. New Resolution adopted urging improvement and reporting on progress by the Animals Committee at the next CoP.Animals Committee to identify key species and examine these for possible listing under CITES.
Consistent narrative
• CoP13 (2004) Animals Committee provided a substantive report. More Parties reporting progress in implementation of the IPOA‐Sharks, but not much evidence of improved shark fisheries management. Animals Committee instructed to carry on its review work. FAO requested to convene a review of progress with IPOA‐Sharks.
Consistent narrative
• CoP14 (2007) Further extensive programme of work on sharks agreed ‐ for Parties, Secretariat and Animals Committee
• CoP15 (2010) and CoP16 (2013). Continued concern at unsustainable trade and insufficient progress with IPOA‐Sharks. Shark Resolution revised and updated.
CITES listing of sharks• In 2000, while these policies were evolving, shark species began to be listed in the CITES Appendices.
• This process has continued and 18 species are now listed in the Appendices
Sharks on the CITES Appendices
SPECIES APPENDIX EFFECTIVE DATE
Cetorhinus maximus(Basking shark)
II(previously III since 13/09/00)
13/02/03
Rhincodon typus(Whale shark)
II 13/02/03
Carcharodon carcharias(Great white shark)
II(previously III since 29/10/01)
12/01/05
Pristidae spp.(Sawfishes – 7 species)
I 13/09/07
Lamna nasus(Porbeagle shark)
II(previously III since 25/09/12)
14/09/14
Carcharinus longimanus(Oceanic whitetip shark)
II 14/09/14
Sharks on the CITES AppendicesSphyrna lewini(Scalloped hammerhead)
II(previously III since 25/09/12)
14/09/14
Sphyrna mokarran(Great hammerhead shark)
II 14/09/14
Sphyrna zygaena(Smooth hammehead shark)
II 14/09/14
Manta spp.(Manta rays)
II 14/09/14
Sharks on the CITES Appendices
Other proposals:CoP14 (2007)Squalus acanthias (Spiny dogfish)CoP15 (2010)Carcharhinus plumbeus (Sandbar shark)Carcharhinus obscurus (Dusky shark)Squalus acanthias (Spiny dogfish)
Conclusions• Concerns of CITES Parties about effects of international trade on sharks have steady increased since 1994 and continue to do so
• CITES activities have helped stimulate otheractions in the right direction ‐ especially IPOA‐Sharks
Tariff codes
• Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System: Harmonized System (HS) of tariff nomenclature
• Effective since 1988. Managed by the World Customs Organization
HS codes for sharksProposal: To insert shark fins and fish heads, tails, maws and other edible fish offal in fresh or chilled and frozen forms, with a major emphasis on shark fins, and to introduce shark fins in prepared and preserved form.HS 2012 Structure
HS 2017 Proposed Structure: Fish fins, heads, tails, maws and other edible fish offal:
HS Code Item Description0302.90 Livers and roes
HS Code Item Description0305.73 Dried, whether or not salted, fins of hammerhead sharks (Sphyrnidae), with
skin and cartilage
0305.74 Dried, whether or not salted, fins of oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinuslongimanus), with skin and cartilage
0305.75 Dried, whether or not salted, fins of blue shark (Prionace glauca), with skin and cartilage
0305.76 Dried, whether or not salted, fins of porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus), with skin and cartilage
0305.77 Other shark fins
Traceability
Traceability
• Two senses:• Reporting on permits issued/used: tradeundertaken
• Linking specimens with documentation.
• Record and trace trade from the country of origin to the country of destination, through:– Issuance of appropriate CITES permits or certificates– Inclusion of all relevant trade in national annual reports (CITES Trade Database)
– Identification/verification of specimens– collaboration between CITES Authorities and fisheries agencies
– enhancing enforcement authorities
Traceability
Traceability
• CITES uses a system of permitsand certificates to regulateinternational trade in specimens of shark species
• An appropriate permit orcertificate accompanies shark specimens, which makestheir trade traceable
Non‐detriment findings
Scientific Assessments: Non‐detriment findings (NDFs)
Parties must ensure trade will not be detrimental to the survival of the species, through scientific assessments on species status in areas under national jurisdiction/marine areas not under the jurisdiction of any State
(CITES Art. III & IV)
NDF is effectively an advice of a Scientific Authority of the exporting country that a proposed action will
not be detrimental to the survival of a species
Scientific Assessments: Non‐detriment findings (NDFs)
• NDFs are the responsibility of the competent scientific authorities in the State undertaking the export or introduction from the sea
NDFs are……
• NDFs are essentially a risk assessment– Information required should be proportionate to the potential risks
– The evaluation should be founded on the best available information available
– Try to obtain extra information if you can– Experience is very helpful
NDFs are not…
• A prescriptive ‘standard’ with specific thresholds or demands
• Determined by bodies outside the State of export/introduction from the sea
NDF considerations• Species biology, range, population, threats• Population structure, status and trends• Harvest and mortality data• Management measures in place or proposed• Population monitoring
(Resolution conf. 16.7)
NDF considerations
Recommended issues to take into account– Volume of trade vs. vulnerability of species– Correct identification of the species– Methodology reflecting origin, type, taxonomic characteristics of specimen exported
– Implementation of adaptive management
(Resolution conf. 16.7)
In making NDFs, States may use…• Scientific literature• Ecological risk assessments• Scientific surveys• Knowledge and expertise of local and indigenous communities
• Consultations with local, regional and international experts
• National and international trade information
(Resolution conf. 16.7)
Science: Non‐detriment findings (NDFs)
• Parties are encouraged to: – explore methods for making NDFs– share experiences and examples of ways of making NDFs, including through regional or subregional workshops
– maintain written records of the science‐based rationale included in the Scientific Authorities’ NDF assessments
– to offer, on request, cooperative assistance to developing countries, for improvement of capacity to make NDFs, based on nationally identified needs.
CITES Secretariat work on sharks
External funding
• European Union EUR 1.2 million [USD 1.6 million] support
• “Strengthening capacity in developing countries for sustainable wildlife management and enhanced implementation of CITES wildlife trade regulations, with particular focus on commercially‐exploited aquatic species”
• Implementation commenced October 2013 –until July 2016 (CoP17)
EU project• Working very closely with FAO on implementation
• Identification of key CITES‐shark fishing and trading States
• Regional consultative workshops on capacity assessment: Africa (February 2014), Asia (May 2014)
• Similar meeting already held separately in Latin America (December 2013) and Oceania (December 2013)
EU project
• Follow‐up activities based on needsassessment
• Engagement with RFMOs: ICCAT, WCPFC, SEAFDEC, CPPS…..
• CITES website portal and associated products
Target countries – FAO report
Range states of the species
Significant shark catches and/or trade
Developing countriesOrange: high priority countries
Yellow: priority countries
FAO/CITES Regional consultative workshop on sharks for AfricaCasablanca, Morocco. 11-13 February
FAO/CITES Regional consultative workshop on sharks for Asia Xiamen, China. 13-15 May
Contributions to other shark events• 23‐25 October 2013 Southeast Asia Fisheries Development and Education Center (SEAFDEC) Regional Workshop Data
Collection Methodology for the Assessment of Shark Stock Status, Bangkok, Thailand• 29‐30 October 2013. Comité Técnico Científico – CTC del Plan de Acción Regional – PAR para la Conservación y Manejo
de Tiburones, Rayas y Quimeras en la Región del Pacifico Sudeste. Cali, Colombia• 24‐28 November 2013. First Congreso Latinoamericano de Rayas y Quimeras, Manta, Ecuador• 18‐25 November 2013. Twenty‐third regular meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas, Cape Town, South Africa• 2‐6 December 2013. Tenth regular session of the Western & Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Cairns, Australia• 3‐4 December: 2013. Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Workshop on Sharks Listed in Appendix II of CITES ‐
Preparing for Implementation, Tamandaré, Recife, Brazil• 9‐11 December 2013. Oceania Regional Workshop: Implementation of CITES CoP16 Shark and Ray Appendix‐II Listings,
Wollongong, Australia• 24‐28 February. 14th meeting of the FAO Committee on Fisheries Sub‐Committee on Fish Trade, Bergen, Norway• 11‐12 March. Workshop to Discuss a Potential Shark CITES Non‐Detriment Finding (NDF) in Central America, Guatemala
City, Guatemala• 9‐13 June. 31st session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries, Rome, Italy• 7‐14 June. 5th meeting of the Regional Fishery Body Secretariats’ Network, Rome, Italy• 26‐28 August. Bay of Bengal Capacity Building Workshop on CITES Appendix II Listings of Shark and Manta Ray Species,
Chennai, India• 10‐17 November. 19th Special Meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, Genoa,
Italy• 25‐27 November: International workshop sharks: articulating experiences and strategies for implementation of
species included in CITES Appendix II, Santa Marta, Colombia
Results/Common main limitations
• Roadmap• Action Plan
• Lack of effective shark management measures• Limited knowledge and expertise to identify products in trade• Lack of traceability mechanisms to verify the origin and
legality of products in trade• Lack of coordinated networking and collaboration among
agencies• Insufficient prolonged and targeted funding for the
implementation of CITES requirements
What next?
• Direct support to key fishing and trading States – based on self‐assessment and consultant’s report.
• Key RFMO engagement• Opportunistic follow‐up through existing FAO activities.
• Further shark portal development• iSharkFin
CITES SecretariatGeneva
Recommended