Improving Global Shark Conservation - Pew Environment Group

PHOTO: JIM ABERNETHY
Improving Global Shark Conservation:
The Need for Engagement by Both CITES and RFMOs
Shark populations around the world are declining, and levels
of removal are unsustainable for many species. Sharks present
a complex conservation challenge because they are highly
migratory, often caught on the high seas, and traded on the
international market. The Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and
Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) are
both needed if efforts to properly manage and protect the
world’s depleted shark populations are to succeed.

Figure 1: Species Range Maps and Existing Shark Protections in RFMOs
Key: RFMO coverage species range overlap between the two
ICCAT
Scalloped hammerhead
ICCAT protection
Hammerhead Sharks: Only
protected in the International
Commission for the Conservation
of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
convention area by Contracting
Parties. There are no protections in
place for hammerheads under the
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission,
Western and Central Pacific
Fisheries Commission (WCPFC),
or Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission (IATTC).
NEAFC
Porbeagle
NEAFC protection
Porbeagle Sharks: Only protected
in the North East Atlantic Fisheries
Commission (NEAFC) convention
area by Contracting Parties.
Oceanic whitetip
IATTC, ICCAT, WCPFC protection
WCPFC
Oceanic Whitetip Shark: Only
protected by the ICCAT, WCPFC,
and IATTC convention areas
by Contracting Parties to those
agreements.
ICCAT
IATTC
2

Combining Regional Fisheries
Management With CITES
Protections
Few international regulations currently limit
catch of sharks, allowing for tens of millions to
be caught and killed every year, largely for the
international shark fin trade. Although CITES and
RFMOs may regulate action impacting the same
species, they affect different activities and have
different geographical and jurisdictional reaches.
RFMOs are responsible for managing fish
stocks on the high seas and those that migrate
through the waters of more than a single
country. Under the United Nations Fish Stocks
Agreement (UNFSA), coastal and fishing states
agreed to work together to conserve all species
associated with or affected by their fisheries,
including sharks. 1
In contrast to RFMOs, CITES regulates
international trade in endangered, threatened,
and vulnerable species and those that may
become threatened unless their international
trade is regulated across the globe. CITES also
provides for improved tracking, enforcement,
and management of the species that would not
occur in the absence of a CITES listing.
RFMO Shark Measures
Are Absent Or Insufficient
Sharks are caught in the convention areas
of many RFMOs by vessels flagged to their
members. However, most RFMOs have taken
little to no action to manage sharks. Some are
starting to take a stronger stance in adopting
conservation and management measures
for sharks, but their sphere of influence has
limitations: RFMOs have authority over only
some of the fishing activities of vessels flagged
to member States. Each RFMO manages
specific species and fisheries in a particular
area. Therefore, if an RFMO adopts a shark
measure for a particular species, that measure
CITES and RFMO regulations
are complementary, and both
are necessary to fully protect
threatened shark species.
applies only to the ocean areas within that
RFMO’s convention boundaries, the fisheries
managed by the RFMO, and the countries that
participate in the RFMO. The geographic range
of many shark species surpasses the RFMO
boundaries (Figure 1), however, and many
fisheries and vessels catching sharks are outside
of the jurisdiction of the RFMO. As a result,
directed shark fisheries and fisheries that catch
sharks as bycatch frequently are not subject to
RFMO management.
Given that measures adopted by RMFOs do
not provide all of the tools necessary to achieve
progress in conserving sharks, the inclusion of
certain species on the CITES Appendices is a
crucial step in building an effective international
framework for the conservation of sharks.
Stronger Together
In contrast to RFMOs, which directly regulate
and manage fishing, CITES is the principal
means by which the global community regulates
international trade for a particular species. CITES
does so by using import and export permits to
regulate international trade in threatened and
endangered species and those that may become
threatened. Listing of species on one of the
CITES Appendices complements management
measures adopted by RFMOs and can improve
RFMO members’ ability to monitor compliance
with their shark fishing regulations.
Shark fisheries are primarily driven by international
trade pressure, and both fisheries and
3

trade need to be carefully monitored and controlled,
considering the high vulnerability of
shark species to overexploitation.
CITES Parties are required to maintain records
of international trade in specimens listed under
each of the Appendices, including the number,
species, size, and sex (when available) of the
specimens, and the names and addresses of
the importers and exporters. Quantified trade
data would provide crucial assistance to shark
management efforts by RFMOs by enabling
both RFMO and CITES Parties to better monitor
shark catches and extraction rates by species,
track trends in shark trade, project associated
changes in fishing effort, and assess the efficacy
of fishery management measures aimed at
conserving sharks. 2
CITES and RFMO regulations are complementary,
and both are necessary to fully protect
threatened shark species. CITES can help extend
shark conservation measures to port and market
States, because it includes Parties from more
than 90 percent of the world’s countries (176
members), and all major trading countries, and
thus has the ability to regulate shark trade across
the supply chain. While it is extremely important
to control the trade of sharks at the port of entry,
RFMOs have the ability to control both targeted
fishing for sharks and adopt measures to mitigate
shark bycatch.
Including shark species on Appendix II of CITES
would regulate international trade resulting from
fisheries catching sharks. It also would assist
enforcement of and compliance with RFMO
measures by helping to track shark shipments
and to combat illegal and unsustainable
targeting of sharks and illegal trade in
shark products.
endnotes
1
The United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to
the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory
Fish Stocks http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_
overview_fish_stocks.htm.
2
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and TRAFFIC, The Role
of CITES in the Conservation and Management of Sharks (June 2002).
http://www.cites.org/common/notif/2002/ESF042A.pdf.
Contact: international@pewtrusts.org
Philadelphia, Pa. 19103
Tel. +1 (215)575-9050
Washington, D.C. 20004
Tel. +1 (202)552-2000
1050 Brussels, Belgium
Tel. +32 (0)2 274 1620
London WC1 HBY, UK
Tel. +44 (0)20 7388 5370
www.PewEnvironment.org/CITES