(1) SSG Intervention on the Shark Agenda Item
During a CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP), reports are received from the Animals Committee on discussions and meetings that have happened since the last CoP. Prior to the beginning of CITES 16th CoP, a report was submitted by the Sharks and Stingrays Working Group of the Animals Committee that included decisions (recommendations) to Parties (countries) about how to move forward certain aspects of the international trade management of sharks and stingrays.
This afternoon (March 5th) a member of the Animals Committee verbally introduced this report to the CITES Parties. Parties then had the opportunity to give an intervention (comment) on the recommendations from this report. Intergovernmental Organisations sometimes have the opportunity to give an intervention on these items. In this case Nick Dulvy, Co-Chair of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group, was given the opportunity to provide an intervention on behalf of the IUCN and TRAFFIC.
The text is included below but to summarise (and translate the jargon), we asked parties to provide information on the type of fisheries capture production data that they provide to FAO - for example is it wet weight, dressed weight, (or what) - and for FAO to make this data publically available to aid analysis of this data. We also agreed with Colombia and Australia on the importance on maintaining focus on the family Potamotrygonidae - the Freshwater Stingrays - in South America.
Following our intervention, the discussion began on whether to include our suggested text. We hope that our intervention will have increased the strength of the Resolution (output of this discussion).
Thank you Chair,
IUCN and TRAFFIC note the valuable work that Parties have contributed towards improving the knowledge base for the conservation and management of sharks and rays since the Parties first raised their concern about this taxonomic group at CoP9 in 1994.
The IUCN Shark Specialist Group has assessed all 1,044 chondrichthyan species and 17% are listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List. Thus, the need for CITES Parties to prioritise action on sharks and rays has never been greater.
CoP16 Doc. 61 (Rev. 1) outlines some appropriate steps forward but we note a few critical areas of work that could be expanded upon:
Firstly, regarding data,
we support the suggested amendments to Res. Conf. 12.6 (Rev. CoP15) in paragraph 26. However, we note that there is a reliance on the integrity of data provided to FAO, yet it is difficult to confirm the form of the data (for example live weight, dressed weight) that is being provided to FAO and whether it is consistent with the FAO requirements for data provision.
For this reason we would like to propose an addition to the suggested text of operative paragraph 6 of the Resolution as provided in paragraph 26 of CoP16 Doc. 61 (Rev. 1). It would read “, and to report these data to the relevant national, regional and international authorities [NEW TEXT SUGGESTED BY SSG] with the information provided to FAO being accompanied by details on the form of the data (for example live weight, dressed weight). Furthermore FAO are encouraged to make that information publically available;”
Secondly, regarding freshwater stingrays, we support the comments by Colombia and Australia.
This afternoon (March 5th) a member of the Animals Committee verbally introduced this report to the CITES Parties. Parties then had the opportunity to give an intervention (comment) on the recommendations from this report. Intergovernmental Organisations sometimes have the opportunity to give an intervention on these items. In this case Nick Dulvy, Co-Chair of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group, was given the opportunity to provide an intervention on behalf of the IUCN and TRAFFIC.
The text is included below but to summarise (and translate the jargon), we asked parties to provide information on the type of fisheries capture production data that they provide to FAO - for example is it wet weight, dressed weight, (or what) - and for FAO to make this data publically available to aid analysis of this data. We also agreed with Colombia and Australia on the importance on maintaining focus on the family Potamotrygonidae - the Freshwater Stingrays - in South America.
Following our intervention, the discussion began on whether to include our suggested text. We hope that our intervention will have increased the strength of the Resolution (output of this discussion).
Thank you Chair,
IUCN and TRAFFIC note the valuable work that Parties have contributed towards improving the knowledge base for the conservation and management of sharks and rays since the Parties first raised their concern about this taxonomic group at CoP9 in 1994.
The IUCN Shark Specialist Group has assessed all 1,044 chondrichthyan species and 17% are listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List. Thus, the need for CITES Parties to prioritise action on sharks and rays has never been greater.
CoP16 Doc. 61 (Rev. 1) outlines some appropriate steps forward but we note a few critical areas of work that could be expanded upon:
Firstly, regarding data,
we support the suggested amendments to Res. Conf. 12.6 (Rev. CoP15) in paragraph 26. However, we note that there is a reliance on the integrity of data provided to FAO, yet it is difficult to confirm the form of the data (for example live weight, dressed weight) that is being provided to FAO and whether it is consistent with the FAO requirements for data provision.
For this reason we would like to propose an addition to the suggested text of operative paragraph 6 of the Resolution as provided in paragraph 26 of CoP16 Doc. 61 (Rev. 1). It would read “, and to report these data to the relevant national, regional and international authorities [NEW TEXT SUGGESTED BY SSG] with the information provided to FAO being accompanied by details on the form of the data (for example live weight, dressed weight). Furthermore FAO are encouraged to make that information publically available;”
Secondly, regarding freshwater stingrays, we support the comments by Colombia and Australia.
(2) Update on Shark Intervention
Things move fast at CITES. We ended the day yesterday with knowledge that the text we had proposed during our intervention yesterday was to be printed out and circulated to the Parties. This afternoon the inclusion of this proposed text was discussed. It seems that some Parties were unable to agree on the inclusion of this text and it was therefore removed. However, the text was updated to include extra 'encouragement' for Parties to improve their data reporting and the text will be discussed during Animals Committee Shark and Stingray Working Group meetings between now and CITES CoP17 (wherever that may be). We are happy with this outcome because the importance of our intervention was noted.
(3) Looking ahead to Shark and Ray Proposals
With the Shark Agenda Item 61 dealt with, our attention now turns to the Shark and Ray Proposals to amend Appendices I and II. There are 7 Proposals that were submitted by a Party or group of Parties (countries) to CITES in October 2012 for the following species or groups of species: Porbeagle, Hammerheads (3 species),Oceanic Whitetip, Manta Rays (2 species), Freshwater Sawfish, and 2 proposals for Freshwater Stingrays (Proposal 47 and 48) in South America.
These proposals have been analysed as to whether the species proposed meet the listing criteria for CITES Appendix II (P. microdon is proposed for uplisting to Appendix I). The IUCN, in conjunction with TRAFFIC, analysed these proposals and this analysis is described in more detail here, as is the role of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group in these discussions.
Each of the Shark and Ray Proposals (Proposal 42 - 48) will be brought to Committee 1 to be discussed and then voted upon by the Parties. The schedule indicates that these Proposals will be discussed on Thursday March 7th, however this may be delayed if discussions on other proposals runs over - this may delay discussion of the Shark and Rays Proposals until Friday March 8th or even Monday March 11th.
When each Proposal is put forward to the Parties, discussion occurs around whether the species (or group of species) should be listed or not. During these discussions the IUCN delegation (including members of the Shark Specialist Group) may be called upon to provide technical advice on the data presented in the Proposals. When the Chair of Committee 1 decides that enough discussion has occurred, the Parties are then asked to vote on the Proposal. A two thirds majority is required for a proposal to be accepted by the Parties, and therefore listed on an Appendix.
However, this is not the final decision. The proposals will also be revisited during the Plenary session on the final day. The Parties have the opportunity to re-open a Proposal to the floor again for another vote and the acceptance of the Proposal may then be changed (for example, this happened with Porbeagle at CoP15 in Doha in 2010).
We will continue to update you as things move forward with these Proposals.
These proposals have been analysed as to whether the species proposed meet the listing criteria for CITES Appendix II (P. microdon is proposed for uplisting to Appendix I). The IUCN, in conjunction with TRAFFIC, analysed these proposals and this analysis is described in more detail here, as is the role of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group in these discussions.
Each of the Shark and Ray Proposals (Proposal 42 - 48) will be brought to Committee 1 to be discussed and then voted upon by the Parties. The schedule indicates that these Proposals will be discussed on Thursday March 7th, however this may be delayed if discussions on other proposals runs over - this may delay discussion of the Shark and Rays Proposals until Friday March 8th or even Monday March 11th.
When each Proposal is put forward to the Parties, discussion occurs around whether the species (or group of species) should be listed or not. During these discussions the IUCN delegation (including members of the Shark Specialist Group) may be called upon to provide technical advice on the data presented in the Proposals. When the Chair of Committee 1 decides that enough discussion has occurred, the Parties are then asked to vote on the Proposal. A two thirds majority is required for a proposal to be accepted by the Parties, and therefore listed on an Appendix.
However, this is not the final decision. The proposals will also be revisited during the Plenary session on the final day. The Parties have the opportunity to re-open a Proposal to the floor again for another vote and the acceptance of the Proposal may then be changed (for example, this happened with Porbeagle at CoP15 in Doha in 2010).
We will continue to update you as things move forward with these Proposals.
(4) Shark and Ray votes in; now we wait for the Plenary
Strong Support of Shark and Ray Proposals | Five of the seven proposals to list sharks and rays on CITES were adopted during voting all day yesterday and first thing this morning. The outcomes of each of these votes aligned exactly with the IUCN/TRAFFIC analyses which determined if a species proposal met the CITES criteria for listing.
Accepted
Oceanic Whitetip App. II Accept 92 Reject 42 Abstain 8
Hammerhead App. II Accept 91 Reject 38 Abstain 8
Porbeagle App. II Accept 93 Reject 39 Abstain 8
Sawfish – consensus App. I
Manta Rays App. II Accept 96 Reject 23 Abstain 7
Rejected
Ceja River Stingray proposal: NOT Adopted Yes: 51 No: 51 Abstain: 19
Ocellate river stingray and rosette river stingray proposal: NOT adopted Yes: 55 No: 52 Abstain: 25
What happens next? | We want to underscore, however, that it is not all over yet. The final step of this process is for the proposals to be confirmed in Plenary on Thursday. During which Parties have the opportunity to request that the proposal be voted on for a final time. This request has to be accompanied by a reason why the Party feels that it deserves additional attention (for example: 'many delegates had the 'flu yesterday' or 'the voting system was not working' as suggested at Doha at CoP15 for the Porbeagle). If the Chair of the Plenary session feels that there is a valid reason to reopen the vote, a third of all parties must agree that they want the proposal to be reopened. If this 1/3+1 of Parties vote in support then the original vote will be reopened and the proposal will either be adopted again or rejected depending on the will of the Parties.
What will be done until Thursday? |The next couple of days will be incredibly busy for all involved, including: the Shark and Ray Listing Proponents, NGOs in support of the Shark and Ray proposals, and Parties that are against the adoption of a listing proposal. The key is to prevent or acquire the vote of 1/3+1 of Parties required to reopen the vote, depending on your view of the scientific evidence and the vote.
And then what? | If the Parties decide to officially adopt any of the shark and ray proposals at Plenary, the final hurdle will be to implement the CITES listing which in most cases is Appendix II - sustainable and legal management of international trade.
Implementation is a challenge, but no more than the challenge of assessing the sustainability and legality of national fisheries and domestic trade. To meet the challenge the EU has entered into an agreement with the CITES Secretariat to provide 1.2 million Euros to support Developing countries to implement the listings.
Critically, the CITES listings will not be implemented for 18 months to allow Parties to build capacity for implementation and enforcement.
Accepted
Oceanic Whitetip App. II Accept 92 Reject 42 Abstain 8
Hammerhead App. II Accept 91 Reject 38 Abstain 8
Porbeagle App. II Accept 93 Reject 39 Abstain 8
Sawfish – consensus App. I
Manta Rays App. II Accept 96 Reject 23 Abstain 7
Rejected
Ceja River Stingray proposal: NOT Adopted Yes: 51 No: 51 Abstain: 19
Ocellate river stingray and rosette river stingray proposal: NOT adopted Yes: 55 No: 52 Abstain: 25
What happens next? | We want to underscore, however, that it is not all over yet. The final step of this process is for the proposals to be confirmed in Plenary on Thursday. During which Parties have the opportunity to request that the proposal be voted on for a final time. This request has to be accompanied by a reason why the Party feels that it deserves additional attention (for example: 'many delegates had the 'flu yesterday' or 'the voting system was not working' as suggested at Doha at CoP15 for the Porbeagle). If the Chair of the Plenary session feels that there is a valid reason to reopen the vote, a third of all parties must agree that they want the proposal to be reopened. If this 1/3+1 of Parties vote in support then the original vote will be reopened and the proposal will either be adopted again or rejected depending on the will of the Parties.
What will be done until Thursday? |The next couple of days will be incredibly busy for all involved, including: the Shark and Ray Listing Proponents, NGOs in support of the Shark and Ray proposals, and Parties that are against the adoption of a listing proposal. The key is to prevent or acquire the vote of 1/3+1 of Parties required to reopen the vote, depending on your view of the scientific evidence and the vote.
And then what? | If the Parties decide to officially adopt any of the shark and ray proposals at Plenary, the final hurdle will be to implement the CITES listing which in most cases is Appendix II - sustainable and legal management of international trade.
Implementation is a challenge, but no more than the challenge of assessing the sustainability and legality of national fisheries and domestic trade. To meet the challenge the EU has entered into an agreement with the CITES Secretariat to provide 1.2 million Euros to support Developing countries to implement the listings.
Critically, the CITES listings will not be implemented for 18 months to allow Parties to build capacity for implementation and enforcement.
(5) The future of Sharks and Rays secured in Plenary
The Parties have spoken. Parties recognized that CITES can manage and regulate the international trade of marine species. Five species of shark, the two Manta rays and the Freshwater sawfish now have strong international protections through the regulation and management of their trade.
Now the real work begins. There is a clear need to develop capacity to identify and monitor species catch and trade and methods for determining if catch and trade are sustainable (Non Detriment Findings).
In the final Plenary session of CITES, each original vote can potentially be reopened. To do this, one Party must request that the vote be reopened and at least one-third of the Parties must agree. Votes are recast and this will then be the final vote.
Five proposals for listings on CITES were adopted in Committee I (Oceanic Whitetip, Hammerhead, Porbeagle and Manta Rays on Appendix II; Sawfish on Appendix I) and two were rejected (Ceja River Stingray, and Ocellate River Stingray and Rosette River Stingray on Appendix II). These were then brought back to Plenary to be finalised.
After a very tense morning, the final status is as follows:
Oceanic Whitetip - Appendix II
Was there a request to reopen the vote? YES (Japan – secret ballot requested)
Was the request supported by 1/3 of parties? NO (Yes: 44, No: 93, No: 4)
Final Decision: Adopted
Hammerhead sharks - Appendix II
Was there a request to reopen the vote? YES (China – secret ballot requested)
Was the request supported by 1/3 of parties? NO 40, 96, 6
Final Decision: Adopted
Porbeagle - Appendix II
Was there a request to reopen the vote? NO
Final Decision: Adopted
Freshwater Sawfish - Uplist to Appendix I
Was there a request to reopen the vote? NO
Final Decision: Adopted
Reef + Giant Manta Rays - Appendix II
Was there a request to reopen the vote? NO
Final Decision: Adopted
Ceja River Stingray; Ocellate river stingray & Rosette River Stingray - Appendix II
Final Decision: Rejected
Colombia introduced a plan of work to build capacity and gather catch and trade data in support of an Appendix II listing next CoP17. This program was welcomed, especially by South American range states and the European Union.
Now the real work begins. There is a clear need to develop capacity to identify and monitor species catch and trade and methods for determining if catch and trade are sustainable (Non Detriment Findings).
In the final Plenary session of CITES, each original vote can potentially be reopened. To do this, one Party must request that the vote be reopened and at least one-third of the Parties must agree. Votes are recast and this will then be the final vote.
Five proposals for listings on CITES were adopted in Committee I (Oceanic Whitetip, Hammerhead, Porbeagle and Manta Rays on Appendix II; Sawfish on Appendix I) and two were rejected (Ceja River Stingray, and Ocellate River Stingray and Rosette River Stingray on Appendix II). These were then brought back to Plenary to be finalised.
After a very tense morning, the final status is as follows:
Oceanic Whitetip - Appendix II
Was there a request to reopen the vote? YES (Japan – secret ballot requested)
Was the request supported by 1/3 of parties? NO (Yes: 44, No: 93, No: 4)
Final Decision: Adopted
Hammerhead sharks - Appendix II
Was there a request to reopen the vote? YES (China – secret ballot requested)
Was the request supported by 1/3 of parties? NO 40, 96, 6
Final Decision: Adopted
Porbeagle - Appendix II
Was there a request to reopen the vote? NO
Final Decision: Adopted
Freshwater Sawfish - Uplist to Appendix I
Was there a request to reopen the vote? NO
Final Decision: Adopted
Reef + Giant Manta Rays - Appendix II
Was there a request to reopen the vote? NO
Final Decision: Adopted
Ceja River Stingray; Ocellate river stingray & Rosette River Stingray - Appendix II
Final Decision: Rejected
Colombia introduced a plan of work to build capacity and gather catch and trade data in support of an Appendix II listing next CoP17. This program was welcomed, especially by South American range states and the European Union.