SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE THIRTEENTH REGULAR SESSION Rarotonga, Cook Islands 9-17 August 2017

Transcription

1 SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE THIRTEENTH REGULAR SESSION Rartnga, Ck Islands 9-17 August 2017 Develpment f a cmprehensive shark cnservatin and management measure fr the WCPFC WCPFC-SC /EB-WP-06 Shelley Clarke 1 1 Technical Crdinatr-Sharks and Bycatch, Areas Beynd Natinal Jurisdictin (ABNJ, Cmmn Oceans) Tuna Prject, Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Cmmissin, Phnpei, Federated States f Micrnesia

2 Abstract This paper respnds t WCPFC13 s tasking f the Scientific Cmmittee and the Technical and Cmpliance Cmmittee, with the supprt f the Secretariat, t wrk twards the develpment f a cmprehensive apprach t shark and ray cnservatin and management fr adptin at WCPFC15. T assist with cnsideratin f the range f issues invlved, this paper presents a summary f the WCPFC s prgress with regard t utilizatin and finning, n-retentin, safe release, mitigatin, management plans, assessment, limit reference pints and data reprting requirements. Recgnizing that recent discussins f shark-related issues have been cntentius, a bttm-up apprach based n natinally-determined cntributins is prpsed. This type f apprach wuld allw fr basic pints f agreement t be articulated and widely embraced, and fr specific natinal actins t be cunted as cntributins tward the cllective gal. SC13 is invited t cnsider whether this r anther apprach shuld be fllwed in respnding t WCPFC13 s tasking and t recmmend a prcess under which wrk can prgress. 1 Intrductin The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Cmmissin (WCPFC) adpted its first shark-specific cnservatin and management measure (CMM) in 2006 and it became binding in The fcus f the measure was t prhibit the practice f shark finning, i.e. remving and retaining the fins f a shark, whether alive r dead, and discarding the remainder f its carcass at sea. In additin t amending this measure several times t its current frm (CMMs , and nw ), the WCPFC has adpted three ther species-specific shark CMMs prhibiting the retentin f ceanic whitetip shark (CMM ), whale shark (CMM ), and silky shark (CMM ). The mst recent WCPFC shark CMM requires the banning f wire leaders r shark lines, and the submissin f shark management plans fr fisheries that target sharks (CMM ). In additin t these five shark-specific CMMs, the WCPFC has several ther guidelines, prcesses and binding decisins that are pertinent t sharks. These include, inter alia, requirements fr reprting shark catch data, standards fr bserver data cllectin n sharks, whale shark safe release guidelines and a prcess fr designating key shark species. The Cmmissin supprts an nging prgramme f shark research and assessment which since 2014 has been supplemented with funding frm the Cmmn Oceans (ABNJ) Tuna Prject. An inventry f shark-related science, cmpliance and management dcuments can be accessed thrugh the WCPFC s Shark Prtal at With this diversificatin f tls and resurces ver the past decade, a desire t ratinalize the WCPFC s apprach t shark management and cnservatin has been expressed. Sme CCMs may view such ratinalizatin primarily as an pprtunity t cnslidate previus decisins, whereas thers may seek t revisit r mve beynd the existing arrangements. After much discussin in recent years, particularly with regard t peratinalizing the requirements f CMMs and , the Cmmissin agreed the fllwing recmmendatin in December 2016 (WCPFC13 Summary Reprt, para. 507): WCPFC13 requested that SC13 and TCC13, with supprt frm the Secretariat, wrk twards the develpment f a cmprehensive apprach t shark and ray cnservatin and management with a view t adpting a new CMM at the Cmmissin s annual meeting in The new CMM shuld seek t i) unify the WCPFC s existing shark CMMs; ii) take accunt f relevant natinal and internatinal plicies and measures; and iii) prvide a framewrk fr 1

3 adpting new cmpnents as needs and datasets evlve. Elements that culd be cnsidered fr the new CMM include: - plicies n full utilizatin/prhibitin n finning; - n retentin plicies; - safe release and handling practices; - gear mitigatin, size limits r clsures; - management plans/catch limits; - key species and their assessment schedules; - species-specific limit reference pints; and - any data reprting requirements beynd thse cntained in Scientific Data t be Prvided t the Cmmissin. T facilitate discussins tward a new CMM, this paper presents a summary f the WCPFC s prgress thus far under each f the elements abve. It then prpses a new unifying cncept fr a cmprehensive shark management framewrk based n the Paris Agreement s mdel f natinally determined and reprted mitigatin measures. 2 WCPFC Prgress n Elements f a Cmprehensive Shark CMM The tpic headings discussed belw are drawn frm the WCPFC13 recmmendatin s suggested items. Other issues may, f curse, als be relevant and may be cnsidered. 2.1 Plicies n full utilizatin/prhibitin n finning Full utilizatin f retained sharks is required (binding). Waste and discards f shark catches shuld be minimized (nn-binding) Live release shuld be encuraged (nnbinding). Are fins allwed t be separated frm sharks at sea? Is a fin:carcass weight rati an apprpriate way f verifying that finning did nt ccur? Are there ther valid ways? Shuld transshipment f shark fins be permitted and if s, under what circumstances? CMM , para. 6 CMM , para. 3 CMM , para. 3 WCPFC13 has cnsidered several fins naturally attached prpsals: e.g. WCPFC DP-07 (EU) Tw CCMs have submitted papers t the SC n this issue: WCPFC-SC /EB-IP-10 (JP) WCPFC-SC /EB-IP-03 (NZ) Currently permitted (see CMM , ftnte 3); fr further discussin see als WCPFC-SC /EB-IP-02 2

4 2.2 N retentin plicies N retentin f ceanic whitetip shark; live release required as sn as pssible Ensure all reasnable steps are taken t safely release whale sharks frm purse seines N retentin f silky shark; live release required as sn as pssible Shuld ther species becme n-retentin species? What accunt shuld the WCPFC take f natinal n-retentin plicies fr all sharks (i.e. shark sanctuaries )? T what extent d n-retentin plicies reduce shark mrtality? CMM , para2. 1,2 CMM , para. 4 CMM , paras. 1,2 WCPFC13 cnsidered such a prpsal fr manta and mbulid rays: WCPFC DP- 06 (EU) Natinal/territrial legislatin f the Cmmnwealth f the Nrthern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Ck Islands, French Plynesia, Federated States f Micrnesia (FSM), Kiribati, New Calednia, Palau and Republic f the Marshall Islands (RMI) This issue was examined mst recently in WCPFC-SC /EP-WP-04 and earlier in mre detail in WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-04. Pst-release mrtality tagging studies are underway via ABNJ and EU funding. 2.3 Safe release and handling practices The existing n-retentin measures fr ceanic whitetip shark, whale shark and silky shark call fr causing as little harm t the shark as pssible, but refer t safe release guidelines rather than requirements. A number f negative ( d nt ) guidelines have been agreed fr whale sharks nly. WCPFC13 called fr develpment f safe release guidelines fr manta and mbulid rays. Is there sufficient clarity and evidence t determine what cnstitutes safe? Is cutting a shark free with a lng length f leader still attached really a safe release practice? CMM , para. 4 CMM , para. 4 CMM , para. 6 Guidelines fr the safe release f encircled whale sharks WCPFC13 Summary Reprt, para. 550(3) SC has discussed draft guidelines fr all animals ther than whale sharks fr several years, e.g. WCPFC SC11 Summary Reprt, Attachment G. The tpic will be discussed again at SC13 (see SC13-EB-IP-08). Pst-release mrtality tagging studies are underway via ABNJ and EU funding. 3

5 2.4 Gear mitigatin, size limits r clsures CCMs must ban (either by fleet r by vessel) either shark lines r wire leaders CCMs which self-identify as fish[ing] fr swrdfish in a shallw set manner must use certain types f circle hks r fish bait, r therwise btain SC apprval, in rder t mitigate sea turtle interactins (this might als effect shark interactins) CCMs using lngline gear in certain areas must apply seabird mitigatin measures, sme f which culd ptentially als serve t reduce shark interactins (e.g. night setting, management f ffal discharge) Is there infrmatin t supprt the establishment f size limits fr sme r all shark species? Is there infrmatin (e.g. lcatin f htspts) t supprt the establishment f spatial r tempral clsures fr sme r all shark species? CMM , para. 1; fr analysis f ptential effectiveness see WCPFC-2016-SC12/EB-WP-06 CMM , para. 7; fr further analysis f applicability see WCPFC-2017-SC/EB-WP-10 CMM , Table 1 Nne knwn within the Western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) Aside frm natinal shark n-retentin plicies (see Sectin 2.2), there are n knwn spatial r tempral clsures in the WCPO; see WCPFC-2017-SC13/SA- WP-11 fr identificatin f a ptential htspt fr bigeye thresher shark. 2.5 Management plans/catch limits CCMs which self-identify as targeting sharks must submit a management plan which includes an authrizatin t fish and a means f limiting shark catch t acceptable levels After these plans were submitted SC and TCC discussed the required cntents f future shark management plan submissins Varius natinal regulatins impse shark catch limits n vessels perating within the WCPF Cnventin Area Is there infrmatin t supprt the establishment f catch limits fr sme r all shark species based n reginal estimates f sustainable fishing? CMM , para. 2; shark management plans submitted under the requirement include: Management fr Lngline Fisheries Targeting Sharks (JP) and Management Plan fr Shark Lngliners in the WCPO (CT) N agreement was reached n the cntent f future shark management plans: WCPFC (see Sectin B.2.h). See inter alia, shark management plans submitted by Japan and Chinese Taipei, New Zealand s quta management system, Australia s shark regulatins fr the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery, etc. Several stck assessments have been cnducted (see Sectin 2.6) but n specific recmmendatins fr catch limits have resulted. 4

6 2.6 Key species and their assessment schedules WCPFC has a prcess fr the designatin f key shark species fr data prvisin and assessment in 2012 WCPFC key shark species designated include: blue, maks (2 spp.), silky, ceanic whitetip, threshers (3 spp.), prbeagle, hammerheads (4 spp.) and whale shark; and manta and mbulid rays (11 spp., designated fr assessment nly) Shark indicatr assessments are cnducted peridically The adpted prcess was further clarified in a paper prvided t TCC12 (2016) Paper prvided t SC9 describes the shark designatins; manta and mbulid decisin at WPCFC13 Summary Reprt, para Shark indicatrs and Status snapsht 2015 Analysis f stck status and related indicatrs Seven shark assessments have been cnducted Oceanic whitetip shark (2012) Silky shark (2013) Nrth Pacific blue shark: SPC and ISC (2014) Nrth Pacific shrtfin mak shark (2015) Suth Pacific blue shark (2016) Bigeye thresher shark (2016) Prbeagle shark (2017) Which species are pririties fr assessment? The mst recent review f the WCPFC shark research plan can be fund in the SC12 Summary Reprt, Attachment H 2.7 Species-specific limit reference pints Estimated, empirical and risk-based shark limit reference pints were reviewed and discussed at SC10 What further wrk needs t be dne n this tpic? Develpment f limit reference pints fr elasmbranchs (SC10-EB-WP-07) SC12 agreed a scpe f wrk (SC12 Summary Reprt, Attachment F); WPCFC13 allcated $25,000 fr this wrk in 2017 (WCPFC13 Summary Reprt, Attachment V) 5

7 2.8 Data reprting requirements (beynd thse cntained in Scientific Data t be Prvided t the Cmmissin ) Catch and effrt reprting requirements apply t the WCPFC key shark species designated fr data prvisin There are special reprting requirements fr nretentin species (ceanic whitetip shark, whale shark and silky shark) The Reginal Observer Prgramme s Minimum Standards and Data Fields (MSDF) cntain special reprting requirements fr species f special interest and designated shark species What data reprting requirements shuld apply t manta and mbulid rays? Scientific Data t be reprted t the Cmmissin (2016) CMM , para 3 CMM , para. 4b, 6 CMM , para. 3 Reginal Observer Prgramme Minimum Standard Data Fields; fr further analysis see SC13 paper n shark designatins WCPFC13 tasked SC13 t cnsider this questin (WCPFC13 Summary Reprt, para. 550(1) and (3)) 3 Using the Paris Agreement as a mdel fr new WCPFC shark CMM It is clear frm the past years f discussin within the Cmmissin that CCMs hld quite different views n the degree f imprtance f sharks and the tls fr managing them. This has resulted in a series f stalemates n varius issues including the apprpriate way t verify that finning has nt ccurred, the definitin f fisheries that target sharks, and the guidelines fr safe release. One ptin fr achieving cnsensus n a new measure culd be t simply re-rganize the text f the existing CMMs. While a straightfrward cut-and-paste apprach culd prduce a single shark CMM frm the current five, any variatin in wrding frm the riginal text wuld risk re-pening a debate n issues which have prved cntentius in recent years. On the ther hand, strict adherence t the riginal texts wuld nt address any f the currently simmering issues and thus appears t ffer little benefit beynd a simplified numbering system fr existing requirements. The ptential fr real prgress n shark issues in the WCPFC is likely t lie in prviding CCMs with greater flexibility in their natinal appraches t shark cnservatin and management. Rather than searching fr a ne size fits all and ptentially lwest cmmn denminatr measure t apply unifrmly t all CCMs, a mre flexible apprach culd result in a greater verall reductin in shark mrtality. By fllwing a mdel such as that used by the Paris Agreement n climate change, the WCPFC culd adpt a new apprach t shark cnservatin which allws CCMs t apply thse measures which best suit their fisheries. The Paris Agreement 1 prvides a framewrk under which each signatry cmmits t, and reprts against, a self-determined cntributin tward a cmmnly agreed gal. Advantages f this apprach include recgnitin f special requirements while at the same time ensuring inclusivity and cllective respnsibility. But this type f apprach is nt withut its drawbacks: the Paris Agreement has als been criticized because the vluntary natinal cntributins may nt 1 6

8 cllectively be sufficient t reach the gal and because there is n binding enfrcement mechanism. Nevertheless, many cmmentatrs believe that the flexibility was essential t gaining the buy-in f a wide range f States and that the nn-binding nature remves the incentive t ffer nly vague and unambitius cmmitments 2, 3. The fllwing sectins prvide an utline f hw an adaptin f the Paris Agreement apprach t sharks might wrk. 3.1 Agree Cmmn Gals The first step in a Paris-like prcess wuld be fr the WCPFC t articulate and agree cmmn gals fr shark cnservatin and management. In the case f climate change these gals were stated as hlding the increase in the glbal average temperature t well belw 2 C abve pre-industrial levels and t reach glbal peaking f greenhuse gas emissins as sn as pssible. Fr sharks, such gals might include: Reduce fishing mrtality n prtected species by X% ver the baseline by year Y (e.g. prtected species culd be ceanic whitetip, silky and whale sharks, the reductin culd be 20%, the baseline culd be 2010 and the target year 2025); and/r D nt increase fishing mrtality ver the baseline fr all key shark species; and/r While preventing any increase in shark mrtality, increase utilizatin by reducing finning and dead r dying discards; and/r Imprve verificatin f shark fishing mrtality thrugh increased bserver cverage, electrnic mnitring, reprting f transshipment/landings/exprt, etc. 3.2 Natinally Determined Cntributins (NDCs) The next step wuld invlve the preparatin f Natinally Determined Cntributins (NDCs). Under the Paris Agreement all signatries prepared these dcuments (usually 5-20 pages) t set their wn targets and describe hw these wuld be met. Many WCPFC CCMs already have Natinal Plans f Actin (NPOAs)-Sharks r shark-specific regulatins that culd frm the basis f the NDCs. It is assumed that all CCMs wuld pledge full implementatin and cmpliance with existing WCPFC shark CMMs, but as in the Paris Agreement, each CCM wuld be encuraged t make a cntributin that ges beynd the basic requirements. NDCs wuld be updated peridically (under the Paris Agreement every five years) and be prgressively mre ambitius with each submissin. Fr sharks the standards fr the NDCs culd include: A clear and explicit statement f actins and their intended effects, including underlying assumptins; A link between the actins and the WCPFC s identified shark cnservatin and management pririties, including evidence that the actins can address cncerns; An apprpriate relatinship between each CCM s impact n shark stcks and its prpsed cmmitment (i.e. prprtinality f fishing effrt and cnservatin burden); A descriptin f the existing r prpsed structures and tls t undertake the actins; A demnstratin f sufficient plitical will and/r resurces t achieve the actins; and An assessment f the likelihd f success f the actin given the pprtunities and threats. 2 David G. Victr Why Paris Wrked: A Different Apprach t Climate Diplmacy. Yale Envirnment Luke Grunbaum. Frm Kyt t Paris: Hw Bttm-Up Regulatin Culd Revitalize the UNFCCC. UCLA Jurnal f Envirnmental Law and Plicy. 7

9 As with the Paris Agreement, capacity building and supprt shuld be prvided t assist develping States with their shark NDCs. It is nted that with the exceptin f Chinese Taipei, all WCPFC member and cperating nn-member cuntries have submitted NDCs under the Paris Agreement Reprting and Review Under the Paris Agreement there is a requirement fr natinal reprting at regular intervals t track prgress against the gals. These natinal reprts are subject t a technical expert review t cnsider each party s implementatin and achievement, with due flexibility t accunt fr special circumstances and needs. Areas where further imprvements are necessary and pprtunities fr capacity building will be identified in cnjunctin with the parties. The technical expert review then feeds int a glbal stck-take designed t ccur every five years. The idea behind the Paris Agreement is t create a single accunting system fr greenhuse gas emissins and t evaluate each NDC under that system. Fr sharks, the cmmn currency culd be fishing mrtality, with thse cuntries already limiting it thrugh, fr example, n-retentin measures t get credit fr thse reductins. Cuntries catching and utilizing sharks wuld have t accunt fr that fishing mrtality against the cllective targets and demnstrate a practive cntributin in ther areas such as full utilizatin and data quality imprvements. It is understandable that there will be limited appetite fr additinal paperwrk, but it is likely that initial shark NDC dcuments culd be cmpiled frm existing natinal dcumentatin and need nt be lengthy. The advantage f the NDCs is t put each CCM s shark management practices n the table under a cmmn framewrk (e.g. fishing mrtality), and t evaluate the sum f these natinal systems, nt in terms f cmpliance with specific rules (CMMs), but in terms f the actual effects n shark stcks. This prcess culd be undertaken every few years by the WCPFC s scientific services prvider (r ther utside experts) based n bth natinal reprting and the datasets currently used fr the WCPFC shark analysis (e.g. bserver data). As under the Paris Agreement, the details f the stck-take have nt yet been develped, and are likely t evlve ver time, but if there is interest a simplified example culd be prepared as a basis fr further discussin. Additinal benefits f this new prcess are that it wuld als serve t sptlight key data gaps, as well as prvide examples f individual cuntries appraches t cmmn prblems. This wuld assist in identifying hw WCPFC shark management shuld respnd t changing fishery and stck status cnditins. 3.4 Cnclusin The gal f this paper is nt t advcate that shark cnservatin and management shuld cmmand the same level f resurces and cmmitment as glbal climate issues. Rather, it is an attempt t suggest that a scaled-dwn mdel f the Paris Agreement might be a way t mve past the deadlcks that have stymied recent WCPFC discussins f shark issues. There may be cnsensus n cnslidating the existing shark CMM texts int a single measure but that may amunt t little mre than a husekeeping exercise r be blcked by disagreements arising frm any amendments. Real prgress may require a new apprach fcused n agreeing a framewrk and cmmn gals and then allwing cuntries t wrk tward thse gals in their wn way. Such an apprach wuld maintain the current element f natinal cmmitment t implementatin f existing CMM 4 Wrld Resurces Institute, Climate Access Indicatrs Tl (CAIT), INDC Dashbard as f 24 June Accessed nline at 8

10 principles, but cmplement this with an element f cllective respnsibility fr verall effectiveness. It is after all the latter that will determine the future status f WCPO shark stcks. 4 Recmmendatin SC13 is invited t cnsider respnding t WCPFC13 s tasking with regard t a cmprehensive apprach t shark and ray cnservatin and management by making recmmendatins in three areas: Cntent: The suggested cntent f a new shark CMM, fr example, A cmpilatin f existing texts; A cmpilatin f existing texts plus amendment r further elabratin f sme tpics (and if s, which tpics); A new framewrk incrprating existing texts but als prviding fr natinal cntributins tward cmmnly agreed gals fr shark stcks; r Anther apprach. Mdality: Appintment f a crdinatr and bradly representative electrnic wrking grup t develp a draft prpsal (r anther mdality). Timeframe: A timeframe fr prductin and revisin f the draft prpsal, taking int accunt the time required t develp cnsensus-based appraches (dependent n the suggested cntent abve). 9