GUIDE FOR SHARK CASE STUDIES

GUIDE FOR SHARK CASE STUDIES Worskhop on CITES and Livelihoods Cispata, Colombia, February 11-12, 2015 Introduction: For the purpose of developing a case study on the impact and mitigation measures of CITES listings on livelihoods of the poor, a group of five sharks recently included in Appendix II of CITES were selected. A review of the status of each species worldwide was done using information from IUCN and FAO primarily. The aim is to present a basic characterization of each of the species, focusing on the range description, population status, major threats and conservation measures that will serve as a foundation for the participants at the workshop to identify impacts and potential mitigation measures on small-scale fisheries and artisanal livelihoods. The species analyzed are: 1. Oceanic White tip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) 2. Poorbeagle Shark (Lamna nasus) 3. Hammerhead Shark Scalloped (Sphyrna lewini) 4. Hammerhead Shark Smooth (Sphyrna zygaena) 5. Hammerhead Shark Great (Sphyrna mokarran) 1. Oceanic White Tip Shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) 1 : Common names: English Oceanic Whitetip Shark, Whitetip Shark, White-tipped Shark, Whitetip Oceanic Shark; French Requin Océanique; Spanish Tiburón Oceanico. Synonym(s): Squalus longimanus Poey, 1861 CITES Appendix Range Description: Population: Included in Appendix II This is one of the most widespread of shark species, ranging across entire oceans in tropical and subtropical waters, usually found far offshore between about 30 N and 35 S in all oceans. This species, together with the silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis and blue shark Prionace glauca, has often been described as one of the three most abundant species of oceanic sharks and large marine animals (Compagno 1984, Taniuchi 1990, Bonfil 1994, Castro et al. 1999). Recent observations, however, indicate that this species that was formerly "nearly ubiquitous in water deeper than 180 m and above 20 C" (Castro et al. 1999) is now only occasionally recorded (e.g., Baum and Myers 2004, Domingo 2004). The population dynamics and structure of this species are unknown. Distribution appears to depend on size and sex and the nursery areas appear to be oceanic (Seki et al. 1998). Larger individuals are caught deeper than smaller ones and there is geographic and sexual segregation (Anderson and Ahmed 1993). Longline catches in the Central Pacific show that this species definitely 1 Taken from: Baum, J., Medina, E., Musick, J.A. & Smale, M. 2006. Carcharhinus longimanus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 07 February 2015. 1

increases in abundance as a function of increasing distance from land. Major Threat(s): Conservation Actions: Uses: Oceanic whitetip sharks have been caught in large numbers virtually everywhere they occur, particularly in pelagic longline and drift net fisheries and occasionally pelagic and even bottom trawls. Few data are available on the catch rate of these sharks, and this is a serious hindrance to assessing the status of this species in regions other than the Northwest Atlantic and Eastern Central Pacific. Strasburg (1958) reported that the oceanic whitetip shark constituted 28% of the total shark catch in exploratory tuna longline fishing south of 100 N latitude in the central Pacific Ocean. According to Berkeley and Campos (1988), oceanic whitetip sharks constituted 2.1% of the shark bycatch in the swordfish fishery along the east coast of Florida in 1981 to 1983. Taniuchi (1990) analysed Japanese fishery statistics and noted that this species was most commonly taken by fishery boats in the Pacific, where they made up 20 to 30% of the number of sharks taken by tuna longliners, compared to about 3 to 4% in the Indian Ocean, because the boats are fishing for southern bluefin tuna in cooler waters. Guitart Manday (1975) demonstrated a marked decline in the oceanic whitetip shark landings in Cuba from 1971 to 1973. In the Maldives, Anderson and Ahmed (1993) reported that oceanic whitetip sharks were taken commercially by pelagic shark longliners and incidentally by tuna fishermen, and that in a previous exploratory fishing survey oceanic whitetip sharks constituted 23% of all sharks caught. There is a broad, multi-species pelagic shark quota for U.S. Atlantic waters. Fishing pressure on this species must be considerably decreased through reduction in fishing effort, catch limits, measures to enhance chances of survival after capture and possibly also through the implementation of large-scale oceanic non-fishing areas. Effective conservation of this species requires international cooperation. The oceanic whitetip is listed as a highly migratory species under the 1995 UN Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFSA). The Agreement specifically requires coastal States and fishing States to cooperate and adopt measures to ensure the conservation of these listed species. To date, there is little progress in this regard. Its large fins are highly prized in international trade although the carcass is often discarded. 2. Poorbeagle Shark (Lamna nasus) 2 Common names: English Porbeagle; Spanish Marrajo Sardinero, Tiburón Sardinero, Tintorera; French Requin-taupe Commun CITES Appendix Included in Appendix II Range Description: The porbeagle shark is a wide-ranging coastal and oceanic species found in temperate and cold-temperate waters worldwide (1 to 18 C, 0 to 370 m), more common on continental shelves. Coastal and oceanic, amphitemperate, with centres of distribution in the North Atlantic and in a circumglobal band of temperate water of the southern Atlantic, southern Indian Ocean, southern Pacific 2 Information taken from Stevens, J., Fowler, S.L., Soldo, A., McCord, M., Baum, J., Acuña, E., Domingo, A. & Francis, M. 2006. Lamna nasus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on February 6 th 2015. 2

Population: Major Threat(s): Conservation Actions: Uses: and Antarctic Ocean (Compagno 2001). The porbeagle is a relatively large, highly migratory shark found on continental shelves and slopes both in coastal areas and far offshore. North Atlantic tagging studies (DFO 1999, Kohler et al. 2002, Stevens 1990) indicate only one trans- Atlantic movement (Kohler and Turner 2001), implying that the two north Atlantic populations are distinct. There is no evidence of genetic exchange between the North Atlantic and the Southern Hemisphere population(s), which are separated by warm water. The number of subpopulations in the southern oceans is unknown. The main threat to the porbeagle shark is unsustainable fisheries (target and bycatch) utilizing its very high value meat. The low reproductive capacity and high commercial value of both mature and immature age classes makes this species highly vulnerable to over-exploitation and population depletion. Porbeagles are a valuable secondary target of many fisheries, particularly longline fisheries, also gill nets, driftnets, pelagic and bottom trawls, and handlines. Despite the large amount of fishing activity capturing porbeagles in the Southern Hemisphere, New Zealand is the only country that reports landings to FAO, indicating that the southern catch is largely unreported. The high value of porbeagle shark meat means that most "bycatch" is exploited. The exception is in those high seas tuna and billfish fisheries where vessels' holding space is too limited to enable even valuable shark carcasses to be retained; in these cases the fins alone may be retained The porbeagle shark is included on Annex 1 (Highly Migratory Species) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which lists "Family Isurida" (former name for Family Lamnidae) among other oceanic sharks. The UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks establishes rules and conservation measures for high seas fisheries resources and has been in force since 2001. It directs States to pursue co-operation in relation to listed species through appropriate sub-regional fisheries management organisations or arrangements. No progress with implementation of shark fisheries management appears to have been achieved. Two Regional Fisheries Organizations, ICCAT and IATTC, have adopted finning bans, as have several range states (e.g., USA, EU, Australia, Brazil etc.). The porbeagle is a globally threatened, low-productivity shark that has been seriously overfished in major parts of its range primarily for international trade in meat and fins. Porbeagle meat is among the most prized of all shark meat, particularly in Europe. It is also a valued target game fish species for recreational fishing in Ireland and UK. The large fins of porbeagles are used in the traditional Asian celebratory dish, shark fin soup. As a result, schools of porbeagle sharks are targeted, primarily by longline fishermen, while individuals taken incidentally are often kept as a valuable secondary catch (Shark Advocates, 2015). In 2009 and 2010, France, Spain, Canada, and New Zealand reported the highest recorded porbeagle landings. Many countries, however, do not report shark landings to the proper authorities, contributing to gross under-estimates of catches. Shark import and export trade records are generally not species-specific, which hampers understanding of international trade. New species-specific codes established by the EU in 2010, however, have resulted in improved documentation of the EU market for porbeagle products. It is clear that porbeagle meat is traded internationally, in both fresh and frozen form, to markets in the EU, Switzerland, Turkey, Morocco, China, the USA, and other countries (Shark Advocates, 2013). Most porbeagle fins are exported to Asia, particularly Indonesia and China. Raw porbeagle fins are readily recognizable to species level by fin traders. 3

Common names: English Scalloped Hammerhead 3. Hammerhead Shark Scalloped (Sphyrna lewini) CITES Appendix Background: Range Description: Included in Appendix II The Scalloped Hammerhead has a circumglobal distribution in coastal warm temperate and tropical seas (Compagno in prep), from the surface and intertidal to at least 275 m depth Western Atlantic In the Western Atlantic the species ranges from New Jersey to Uruguay, including Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea (A. Domingo pers. obs. 2007, Compagno in prep). Eastern Atlantic This shark possibly occurs in the Mediterranean Sea and around the Azores. Probably present all along the western Africa coast, confirmed from Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Sierra Leone, Gabon, and Congo (Compagno in prep, M. Ducrocq pers. obs. 2006). Indian Ocean Recorded from South Africa (Western Cape to kwazulu-natal), Maldives, and Red Sea to Pakistan, India, Myanmar (Compagno in prep). Western Pacific In the Western pacific, this shark occurs from Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, China (including Taiwan, Province of China), Japan, Philippines, Australia (Queensland, Western Australia), New Caledonia (Compagno in prep). Population: Major Threat(s): Eastern Pacific In the Eastern Pacific, the Scalloped Hammerhead ranges from southern California and Gulf of California to Panama, Ecuador and possibly northern Peru (Compagno in prep). Also Hawaii and Tahiti (Compagno in prep.). Population Status IUCN classifies the scalloped, great, and smooth hammerhead shark as threatened species. The scalloped hammerhead and the great hammerhead are categorized on the IUCN Red List as globally Endangered, making them the most threatened of all the world s pelagic and semi-pelagic sharks. Smooth hammerheads are classified by IUCN as globally Vulnerable The Scalloped Hammerhead is taken as both a target and bycatch by trawls, purseseines, gillnets, fixed bottom longlines, pelagic longlines and inshore artisanal fisheries. The latter catch large numbers of pups and juveniles in some regions and adults are taken in gillnets and longlines along the shelf and offshore in oceanic waters. The species' aggregating habit makes them vulnerable to capture in large schools. This also means that they may appear more abundant in landings, where they are caught in high, localized concentrations. Intense fishing pressure can deplete regional stocks rapidly, and re-colonization of depleted areas from neighboring regions is expected to be a slow and complex process. This species is expected to have a low resilience to exploitation because of its life-history characteristics (Maguire et al. 2006). Where catch data are available, significant declines have been documented: both species-specific estimates for S. lewini and grouped estimates for Sphyrna spp combined suggest declines in abundance of 50-90% over periods of up to 32 years 4

in several areas of its range, including South Africa, the northwest and western central Atlantic and Brazil. IUCN: Endangered Conservation Actions: Uses: Scalloped hammerhead is a member of the family Sphyrnidae, which is listed on Annex I, Highly Migratory Species, of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. States are urged to cooperate over the management of these species. No such management yet exists. Precautionary adaptive collaborative management of target and bycatch fisheries is urgently needed for this highly migratory species. It is also essential to improve and sustain data collection and develop stock assessments for this species. Listing on international resource management agreements, such as the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) could help to drive improvements in national and regional management and facilitate collaboration between states, for this species and other migratory sharks. The adoption of shark finning bans by fishing states (e.g., USA, Australia), regional entities (EU) and regional fisheries organizations (e.g., ICCAT, IOTC, IATTC, WCPFC) is accelerating. Management plans, fishing regulation, and monitoring programs are needed throughout this species' range. Because of their high fin ray count, hammerhead fins are particularly prized for use in the traditional Chinese celebratory dish, shark fin soup. Fins from scalloped hammerheads are regularly exported to Asia along with those of smooth and great hammerheads. Hammerhead fins can sell for more than 100 USD per kg in Hong Kong markets. Despite data limitations, hammerheads are known to be among the shark species most frequently found in the global fin trade. Studies published in 2006 estimated that the fins of 1.3 to 2.7 million scalloped and smooth hammerhead sharks were entering the shark fin trade annually (Clarke et al. 2006b)., and that the three largest hammerheads (scalloped, great, and smooth) made up nearly 6% of the Hong Kong shark fin market. Shark fin traders in Hong Kong are able to readily identify hammerhead fins from other shark fins. 4. Hammerhead Shark Smooth (Sphyrna zygaena) 3 : Common names: English Smooth Hammerhead; French Requin-marteau commun, Requin marteau lisse CITES Appendix Included in Appendix II Range Description: Population: Major Threat(s): The Smooth Hammerhead (Sphyrna zygaena) is one of the larger hammerhead sharks, found world-wide in temperate and tropical seas, with a wider range than other members of its family. It is semipelagic and occurs on the continental shelf. Specific data on populations of this species are generally unavailable in many areas because hammerhead shark catches are often grouped to include several Sphyrnaspecies. Furthermore, this species has sometimes been confused with the Scalloped Hammerhead (S. lewini) in the tropics and these two species are probably misidentified with each other. Smooth Hammerhead is caught with a variety of gears, including with pelagic longlines, handlines, gillnets, purse-seines and pelagic and bottom trawls (Bonfil 1994, Compagno in prep, Maguire et al. 2006). Bonfil (1994) also reported that this species is caught as bycatch in a number of non-shark fisheries, particularly pelagic 3 Taken from: Casper, B.M., Domingo, A., Gaibor, N., Heupel, M.R., Kotas, E., Lamónaca, A.F., Pérez-Jimenez, J.C., Simpfendorfer, C., Smith, W.D., Stevens, J.D., Soldo, A. & Vooren, C.M. 2005.Sphyrna zygaena. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 08 February 2015. 5

longline and gillnet fisheries that operate close to temperate and subtropical continental shelves (e.g., South Pacific driftnet fishery, Mediterranean drift net fishery, Spanish longline fishery operating in the Mediterranean Sea and eastern Atlantic Ocean, and Indian Ocean tuna longline fishery). The capture of S. zygaena in many of these fisheries is infrequent (Bonfil 1994). Although size data are limited, catches in pelagic fisheries appear to be dominated by larger individuals, while juveniles are common in inshore shelf fisheries. Conservation Actions: Uses: Time series data on population trends in hammerhead sharks, including S. zygaena, are available from the Northwest and Western Central Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea. In the Northwest and Western Central Atlantic, where S. zygaena is outnumbered by S. lewini by about ten to one, analysis of U.S. pelagic longline logbook data estimated that Sphrynidae (including S. lewini, S. mokarran and S. zygaena) declined in abundance by 89% since 1986. In the Mediterranean Sea, where S. zygaena outnumbers S. lewini, compilation and metaanalysis of time series abundance indices estimated that Sphrynidae (including S. lewini, S. mokarran and S. zygaena) declined by >99% in abundance and biomass since the early 19th century. IUCN: Vulnerable Smooth hammerhead is a member of the family Sphyrnidae, which is listed on Annex I, Highly Migratory Species, of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. States are urged to cooperate over the management of these species. No such management yet exists. Precautionary adaptive collaborative management of target and bycatch fisheries is urgently needed for this highly migratory species. It is also essential to improve and sustain data collection and develop stock assessments for this species. Listing on international resource management agreements, such as the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) could help to drive improvements in national and regional management and facilitate collaboration between states, for this species and other migratory sharks. The adoption of shark finning bans by fishing states (e.g., USA, Australia, Brazil), regional entities (EU) and regional fisheries organizations (e.g. ICCAT, IOTC, IATTC, WCPFC) is accelerating and should increasingly prevent the capture of oceanic sharks for their fins alone. Strict enforcement of these bans is required if they are to be effective. Management plans, fishing regulation, and monitoring programs are needed throughout this species' range. Estimates of acceptable catch rates should be viewed with precaution until there is more certainty in age and growth parameters and further research on the species' life-history characteristics is required. Protection of known adult aggregation sites and coastal nursery areas is also recommended. In the USA, this species is included in the Large Coastal Shark complex management unit on the US Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, however there are no management measures specific to this species and no stock assessments have been undertaken for it. Enforcement of Brazilian laws restricting the length of pelagic gillnets and banning trawl fishing at a distance of less than 3 nm from shore has been difficult and therefore trawling in inshore nursery grounds has persisted. This species' fins are highly valued and they are being increasingly targeted in some areas in response to increasing demand for shark fins. 6

5. Hammerhead Shark Great (Sphyrna mokarran) 4 : Common names: English Great Hammerhead, Hammerhead Shark, Squat-headed Hammerhead Shark; French Grand Requin-marteau, Marieau Millet, Poisson Pantouflier, Sorosena; Spanish Cornuda, El Tiburon, Guardia Civil, Pez Martillo, Tiburon CITES Appendix Included in Appendix II Background: Range Description: Population: The great hammerhead ranges widely throughout the tropical waters of the world, from latitudes 40 N to 35 S (Last and Stevens 1994). It is apparently nomadic and migratory, with some populations moving polewards in the summer, as off Florida and in the South China Sea (Compagno in prep. b). Widespread in the south-west Indian Ocean but in South Africa is confined to the KwaZulu-Natal coast, where it co-exists with the scalloped hammerhead S. lewini, also an inhabitant of the tropic, and the smooth hammerhead S. zygaena, which favours cooler waters (Cliff 1995, Bass et al. 1975). There is a pupping and nursery ground in a coastal mangrove estuarine area of southern Belize (R.T. Graham pers. obs). Although there is very little species specific data available, the absence of recent records give cause to suspect a decline of at least 80% in the past 25 years. Generally regarded as solitary, and is therefore unlikely to be abundant wherever it occurs. Previously observed from Mauritania to Angola, reportedly abundant from November to January in Senegal, and in October in Mauritania, stocks have since collapsed. Given its vulnerability to depletion, low survival at capture and high value for the fin trade this species is considered to meet the criteria for Endangered globally.iucn: Endangered Major Threat(s): Conservation Actions: Due to the distinctive head shape of this genus, it is typical for catches to be reported at the genus level, Sphyrna spp. Therefore, it is rare to find fisheries statistics that are specific to one species of hammerhead shark. Due to the great hammerhead s preference for warmer waters, it can be expected to make up a greater proportion of tropical catches of hammerheads than more temperate fisheries. Sphyrna mokarran is taken by target and bycatch, fisheries (Dudley and Simpfendorfer 2006, Zeeberg et al. 2006) and is regularly caught in the tropics, with longlines, fixed bottom nets, hook-and-line, and possibly with pelagic and bottom trawls (Compagno in prep). Hammerhead sharks, S. mokarran in particular, have been noted as a favoured target species due to the size of their fins (R.T. Graham pers. comm). Fin prices are rising, driven by the Asian Fin market (R.T. Graham pers. obs). Other possible threats include sport fishing (Pepperell 1992) and capture in anti-shark measures around the beaches of Australia and South Africa (Paterson 1990, Cliff 1995). There are no known species specific conservation measures in place for S. mokarran. This species is listed on Annex I, Highly Migratory Species, of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which urges States to cooperate over the management of these species. No such management yet exists.. It is essential to improve data collection and develop stock assessments for this species. The adoption of shark finning bans by fishing states (e.g., USA, Australia), regional entities (EU) and regional fisheries organizations (ICCAT) are accelerating and should increasingly prevent the harvesting of hammerhead sharks for their fins 4 Denham, J., Stevens, J., Simpfendorfer, C.A., Heupel, M.R., Cliff, G., Morgan, A., Graham, R., Ducrocq, M., Dulvy, N.D, Seisay, M., Asber, M., Valenti, S.V., Litvinov, F., Martins, P., Lemine Ould Sidi, M. & Tous, P. and Bucal, D. 2007. Sphyrna mokarran. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 08 February 2015. 7

Uses: alone. In South Africa there is a shark bycatch limit in the tuna longline fishery of 10% of the weight of tuna landed, and a recreational line fishery Bag Limit of one shark per angler per day. Sphyrna mokarranis is highly valued for its fins (in target and incidental fisheries). It suffers very high bycatch mortality and only reproduces once every two years, making it vulnerable to over-exploitation and population depletion. Sample Conservation Case Study Whale Shark Campaing in India - 5 : Background: Shark Savers organization now merged with WildAid focuses on addressing the human threat to wildlife. Their approach includes public awareness campaigns and educational initiatives to reduce consumer demand for wildlife products, and working with communities to support and enforce key protected habitats around the world. One of the initiative of WildAid are the Shark Sanctuary Program that is working protecting sharks in Palau, the Maldives, Honduras, the Bahamas, Tokelau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Indonesian Regency of Raja Ampat establishing their waters as shark sanctuaries. WildAid has also defined a comprehensive marine enforcement model that focuses on the law enforcement chain, which encompasses the activities of detection, interception, prosecution, and the sentencing of lawbreakers. Shark Sanctuary Program supports local initiatives to protect sharks (and other marine life). It works with community-based partners to create outreach campaigns to garner community support for shark protection, produce effective proposals to establish legal protection for sharks, and generate international support for these initiatives. The social marketing campaigns include developing alternate sources of income for small-scale fisheries. who rely on income from shark fishing. These economic opportunities distinct from the consumptive use of the sharks, are consider an essential element of a successful Shark Sanctuary. Part of their theory of change they use starts by teaching community members about sharks and why it s important to protect them and their marine environment. Ultimately they aim is that communities engage with protection, take ownership of the sanctuary and make it thrive. Shark Savers wants to ensure that local communities take pride in their sanctuaries and celebrate their successes. Conservation Project: Part of the inspiration for WildAid campaigns came from a successful example of community awareness in India. In 2001, whale sharks were protected in India under Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 but fishermen continued to harvest the whale sharks. A Whale Shark Campaign was developed to increase awareness for the conservation of the species among stakeholders. The campaign was initiated by the Forest Department, Wildlife Trust of India, International Fund for Animal Welfare, and two corporate sponsors. They incorporated a popular religious leader, Shri Morari Bapu, as an ambassador of the cause. In 2002, Whale Shark Day was celebrated in Veraval, previously a major whale shark fishing port, and December 9 annual Whale Shark Day, the first day marked in honor of a wild species in India. Between 2002 and 2005, six cities adopted the whale shark as their mascot and fishermen took public pledges to protect the largest fish in the sea. In 2005 a commemorative whale shark postal cover was released. The campaign gained national attention, given the Green Governance Award in 2005, and international interest, recognized at the Whale Shark Conservation Conference in Perth, Australia. The government has 5 Information obtained from: WildAid, 2015. Alternative Livelihoods. Providing economic alternatives to those reliant on the shark fishing industry. Downloaded from: www.sharksavers.org on: February 6 th, 2015 8

since then increased the effort to conduct scientific studies on whale shark migrations along the coast of India, habitat and feeding patterns, as well as DNA and population analysis. Following these campaigns in 2006, the Gujarat government began compensating fishermen US$575 per net if damaged during the release of a whale shark. Approximately 75 whale sharks have been released since the start of the campaign in 2004. Now whale sharks are the flagship species to develop marine tourism in Gujarat. Indian officials are visiting countries that have whale shark tourism and learning from their experiences to develop a viable tourism model. This model of social marketing may well be applied to the species analyzed in this document. For instance hammerhead sharks consistently rank among the top underwater attractions (Shark Advocates 2013) which by encouraging eco-tourism companies among the communities may become an alternative income source to shark finning. Also some of the species are used as game for recreational fishing where opportunities may lie for their conservation and community livelihoods Conceptual Guidance on Small-Scale Fisheries for the Case Study Analysis 6 Most studies of shark fishing have, to date, focused on global catch at an industrial level and on associated bycatch of sharks in other fisheries, resulting in a gap of information regarding direct take in small-scale and artisanal fishing operations (Ecology and Evolution 2014) of interest to CITES and Livelihoods of the poorest. Thus describing the importance of small-scale fisheries in general for the livelihoods may give insights of impacts and benefits that fishermen may derive from sustainable use of sharks. Defining small-scale fisheries for an evaluation of the impacts of CITES listings could be challenging but necessary to undertake. What is small in one country is not necessarily small in another. Countries often have their own way of categorizing small-scale fisheries thus case by case may be appropriate in order to identify the industry and livelihoods mostly impacted (Jentoft S. et.al. 2011). FAO (2006) identified that inland and coastal small-scale fisheries can play an important role with respect to key development issues such as poverty alleviation, food security and pro-poor growth. Small-scale fisheries represent a safety valve when livelihoods in non-fishing communities, such as agriculture are under threat. Small-scale fisheries are variable (Jentoft S. et.al. 2011). Small-scale fisheries vary according to technological criteria such as boat size and gear type, and also with regards to capital use, economic performance and market links. This means that policies and development initiatives aiming to alleviate poverty or impacts from a CITES listing decision for example, need to be tailored to the particular problems, circumstances and opportunities that small-scale fisheries face. The potential contribution of small-scale fisheries in the household and local economies or even at the provincial level in geographic areas where fishing is important, can be substantial (Jentoft S. et.al. 2011).. Through direct and indirect food security mechanisms, income and employer multipliers effect, fisheries and related activities (processing and trade) play a significant role especially for the poorest households who depend more heavily on these activities. For the households with limited or not access to land and/or other factors of production (e.g. access to financial capital) small-scale fisheries, processing and trading play an extremely important role in supplementing alternative low per capita food production options and in providing one or even the main source of cash income. Small-scale fisheries play therefore extremely important economic and welfare functions at the local level (including safety-net and labour buffer mechanisms) in many rural areas of the developing world (Jentoft S. et.al. 2011). 6 Information obtained from: Jentoft S., Eide A., 2011. Poverty Mosaics: Realities and Prospects in Small- Scale Fisheries. Srpinger. 9

Besides small-scale fishermen on the production chains of shark parts you will find other type of producers and traders that also derive part of their livelihoods from the use of shark fisheries. Although shark fins are the most valuable of shark products and are used to make traditional shark fin soup (Clarke et al., 2006) in several countries in Asia and Oceania, shark skin has been used for leather. Shark leather is both attractive and very durable and used in the same kinds of products that utilize leather from other animals. Most shark leather is currently tanned in Mexico. Also shark cartilage is used for food in China and Japan but by far, the largest market for shark cartilage is the pharmaceutical industry, which uses the dried and milled cartilage powder to make pills and capsules. Shark liver, both fresh and salted, is consumed in China and elsewhere. However, the largest markets have been for liver extracts, mostly oils and other hydrocarbons, which have been used in a wide array of industries throughout history (FAO, 2006). References: Ecology and Evolution 2014; 4(12):2375 2383 Jentoft S., Eide A., 2011. Poverty Mosaics: Realities and Prospects in Small-Scale Fisheries. Srpinger. FAO. 2011. Marine and Inland Fisheries Service, Fisheries and Aquaculture Resources Use and Conservation Division. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department Review of the state of world marine fishery resources FAO FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE TECHNICAL PAPER. No. 569. Rome, Shark Advocates, 2013. Fact sheet for the 16th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP16) to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Scalloped hammerhead shark Sphyrna lewini Proposal #43. Downloaded at www.sharkadvocates.org on February 5th 2015. Baum, J., Medina, E., Musick, J.A. & Smale, M. 2006. Carcharhinus longimanus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 07 February 2015. Stevens, J., Fowler, S.L., Soldo, A., McCord, M., Baum, J., Acuña, E., Domingo, A. & Francis, M. 2006. Lamna nasus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on February 6th 2015. Baum, J., Clarke, S., Domingo, A., Ducrocq, M., Lamónaca, A.F., Gaibor, N., Graham, R., Jorgensen, S., Kotas, J.E., Medina, E., Martinez-Ortiz, J., Monzini Taccone di Sitizano, J., Morales, M.R., Navarro, S.S., Pérez-Jiménez, J.C., Ruiz, C., Smith, W., Valenti, S.V. & Vooren, C.M. 2007. Sphyrna lewini. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on February 6th 2015. Denham, J., Stevens, J., Simpfendorfer, C.A., Heupel, M.R., Cliff, G., Morgan, A., Graham, R., Ducrocq, M., Dulvy, N.D, Seisay, M., Asber, M., Valenti, S.V., Litvinov, F., Martins, P., Lemine Ould Sidi, M. & Tous, P. and Bucal, D. 2007. Sphyrna mokarran. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 08 February 2015. WildAid, 2015. Alternative Livelihoods. Providing economic alternatives to those reliant on the shark fishing industry. Downloaded from: www.sharksavers.org on: February 6 th, 2015 STEPS TO RAPIDLY ASSESS THE IMPACT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CITES LISTINGS ON LIVELIHOODS OF POOR RURAL COMMUNITIES 10

The interested Parties could consider the following general steps when implementing a rapid assessment to identify how CITES listings affect the livelihoods of economically poor local communities. Step 1: Define the current situation regarding livelihoods of poor rural community(ies) concerned and evaluate existing biological and trade data on relevant CITES-listed species. Step 2: Conduct a desk study to obtain further information on selected species Step 3: Identify communities which are potentially impacted and collect relevant information for field work Step 4: Conduct field-based participatory livelihoods assessment in potentially-impacted communities Step 5: Undertake final assessments and develop recommendations Step 6: Monitor implementation of recommendations and changes and impacts over time Step 1: Define current circumstances & collate and assess existing CITES information 1.1 Identify relevant indicators of poverty against which to assess change (in conjunction with CBD National Focal Point). You can use as reference the instruments of this guide #5. The European Commission (EC, 2006), and 16. World Bank: Impact Analysis of Poverty (Leisher et.al. 2007) 1.2 Identify whether a generic and/or a taxon based assessment is to be carried out. The steps below assume a taxon based assessment is being implemented. If a generic assessment is being undertaken, input from a NWTPR or use of the NWTPR framework will be of particular importance. 1.3 Describe existing domestic and international management processes currently in place, particularly stricter domestic measures. 1.3.1 Draw on the results of the NWTPR, if this voluntary process has been undertaken. 1.4 Prioritize species for assessment A prioritization process by Parties of species within their national jurisdiction, including, for example, the steps listed below, will help identify key species for rapid assessment. 1.4.1. Unlisted species. Review prior to the development of a proposal to list a species in the Appendices to CITES. This would provide information on the impact of existing management systems as a comparator for post-cites listing assessments. Note: the working group was not in agreement concerning review prior to CITES listing. 11

1.4.2. Prioritisation of taxa based on the CITES controls imposed, and level of trade. The following order could be considered: a) Listed in Appendix I, and: i) with no positive measures or mitigation strategies following previous extensive trade; ii) associated with strategies to provide incentives for conservation (mitigation strategies) such as ex situ artificial propagation or captive breeding, ranching, and trophy hunting quotas; b) Listed in Appendix II, and: i) subject to Significant Trade Review recommendations: http://sigtrade.cites.org/ ii) with evidence of regular/high trade Available from CITES Trade database: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/citestrade/trade.cfm) iii) with little evidence of historic trade c) Listed in Appendix III. d) In addition, taxa which have the following attributes could be prioritised: i) those whose listing has changed within the last ten years; and/or ii) for which harvesting from the wild was the major source of supply; and/or iii) for which the poor are known to be major suppliers/ domestic users; and/or iv) for which the income from trade has been reduced either through a decline in volume and price or a decline in price. 1.5 For selected species: 1.5.1 Summarize existing and previous CITES history Available from CITES Species Database http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/species.html 1.5.2. Characterize the CITES implementation measures taken with respect to the species, including methods of permit issuance, apportionment of licenses, enforcement with respect to illegal trade etc, as well as associated measures (e.g. education, capacity building). Step 2: Undertake desk based work to gather new data for selected species 2.1 Map the distribution of the species and collection areas if known; 2.2 Collate information on extraction and trade levels to assess numbers of people likely to be involved; (part of overall NDF) 2.3 Undertake trade chain analysis through targeted key informant interviews and focus group discussions, coupled with examination of available trade data to identify stakeholders and numbers involved at each stage; 12

2.4 If a NWTPR had not been implemented or has not been implemented in relation to the species under consideration, address the questions below, modified from questions included in section 3.2 of the NWTPR. Social impacts: Has the wildlife trade policy had positive social impacts on poor harvesters? Has the wildlife trade policy affected property (access, use and tenure) rights of poor indigenous and local communities engaged in harvesting? Has the wildlife trade policy affected the financial assets of poor harvesters? Has the wildlife trade policy affected poor harvesters ability to engage in and benefit from sustainable trade? Has the wildlife trade policy contributed to human development of the rural poor? What kind of impact could have been generated over women? Have women been beneficiated or disadvantaged? In higher proportion than with men? For example through the prohibition of activities that previously generated status and personal satisfaction. Economic impacts: has the wildlife trade policy had a positive economic impact on the poor? Has the wildlife trade policy caused a change in the supply structure that impacts the poor? Has the wildlife trade policy caused a change in the demand structure that impacts the poor? Has the wildlife trade policy affected the competitiveness of legal traders that impacts the poor? Has wildlife trade policy created positive incentives for, or stimulate private investments in sustainable management of resources that impacts the poor? Has wildlife trade policy created jobs and incomes for more poor people? Step 3: Obtain data from other agencies and identify key villages for field work 1.1 Contact development/ disaster/ health/ and conservation organizations access existing information is available on livelihoods, vulnerabilities and resilience. 1.2 From this initial analysis, identify a sample of key areas or villages from which to collect livelihoods information, via: participatory livelihoods assessments; documentation collected by other organizations; expert witnesses Step 4: Undertake field based participatory livelihoods assessments in key villages 13

1. Identify potential impacts and market responses through key informant interviews/ stakeholder workshop. 2. Key villages which supply a significant portion of the trade and are likely to be representative of the first stages of the supply chain (see Kuhl et al, 2009). Stories of Change methods (Wilder & Walpole, 2008) targeted at particular stakeholders may provide a means to gain some understanding of change after a CITES listing has been implemented 3. More traditional Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools may include: 3.1. Village meetings at the start and end of the data collection and assessment period coupled with Stories of Change methods, which need to be implemented as an on-going process. 3.2. Village transects and mapping to provide an inventory of all households. 3.3. Historical timelines to provide some evidence of change. 3.4. Focus group methods to assess the importance of supply of the CITES specimens. Focus groups can be used to compile information on: the livelihoods options available to the villagers (e.g. farming; supplying CITES species; fishing; hunting; ecotourism employment etc); the seasonality of different livelihood options and of hunger seasons through the use of seasonal calendars; relative income and wealth rankings. Participants can also be asked to rank the entry barriers and popularity of different livelihood options. 3.5. Household questionnaires administered to randomly selected households through semistructured interviews can be used to collect information on household demography, livelihood activities and sources of income including potential or actual changes following any modification of implementation measures (e.g. following adoption of amendments to the Appendices by the Parties), as well as on wealth indicators. 3.6. Interviews with key informants identified through focus group and other discussions as being involved with harvesting of CITES species can provide further information. Questions could be modeled according to format provided in Annex 3 of Kusters et al, (2005) (Substituted wording is in red and underlined), for example: Has implementation of CITES listing led to much worse (-2) worse (-1), better (+1), much better (+2) physical access by producer households to the target resource? Has implementation of CITES listing led to much reduced (-2); reduced (-1); increased (+1); much increased (+2) cash income for the producer households or no impact (0)? Has implementation of CITES listing led to much worse (-2); worse (-1); better (+1); much better (+2) health and nutritional status of the producer households, or no impact (0)? 14

Step 5: Final assessments A focus will need to be kept on identifying the impact of the CITES listing decision, compared to other confounding factors/management measures. 5.1. Final assessments should be undertaken through meetings with key stakeholders. groups. 5.2. These should include identification of potential impacts on different wealth/gender/cultural Step 6: Monitoring changes of impacts over time A periodic review of these assessments, including consideration of changes in poverty indicators, would allow changes of impacts over time to be monitored. Guidelines to address the impact of implementing Cites-listing decisions on the livelihoods of the poor. Draft Voluntary Guidelines for Parties to address the positive and negative impacts of implementing CITES-listing decisions on the livelihoods of economically poor local communities, used directly by the poor for commercial purposes (e.g. medicinal plants) and which represent their only source of cash income. Step 1: Preliminary activities - identify priority species in order to test the guidelines Step 2: Empowerment of economically poor local communities Step 3: Compensatory mechanisms for the shift from in situ to ex situ production Step 4: Mitigation strategies for human-wildlife conflicts Step 5: Empowerment Policies Step 6: Monitoring Impacts of means of mitigation and development Step 1: Preliminary activities - identify priority species in order to test the guidelines 1.1. Identify priority species in order to put the guidelines to the test, including: 1.1.1. Species that are used directly by the poor for commercial purposes (e.g. medicinal plants) and which represent their only source of cash income. 1.1.2. Species subject to regular or significant international trade. 1.2. Analyze the outcome of rapid assessments to report on the actions described below. Step 2: Empowerment of economically poor local communities 2.1 Equity 2.1.1 Develop policies to ensure that the benefits obtained from CITES trade are allocated to economically poor local communities and are distributed equitably. 15

2.1.2 Develop policies to ensure that those benefiting from the implementation of the listing are supportive of and assist with enforcement efforts directed at illegal trade. 2.1.3 Promulgate and encourage the use of standards for sustainability and Fair Trade. 2.2 Tenure 2.2.1Recognize resource tenure for indigenous and tribal communities, and economically poor local communities. 2.2.2 Promulgate and foster the use of standards in issues relating to tenure. 2.2.3 Promote the use of certification marks or marks of origin for products obtained legally and in a sustainable manner by local communities. 2.3 Empowerment 2.3.1 Promote transparency in all policy-making. 2.3.2 If necessary, consider postponing the effective date of the CITES listings to allow time for the development of strategies to mitigate any negative effects. 2.3.3 Encourage primary users of wildlife to form associations of harvesters, growers, managers or whatever name they use to describe themselves. 2.3.4 Support the development of socially responsible trade associations, which shall have a clear obligation to share any benefits obtained. 2.3.5 Ensure that these guidelines are updated, so that information is available on economically poor local communities. 2.4 Education and Public Awareness 2.4.1 Support public awareness campaigns and the dissemination of information among economically poor local communities on the value of their natural resources and on the potential benefits they can obtain by participating in community programmes for longterm management of natural resources. 2.4.2 Ensure that the positive aspects of CITES and CITES-related legislation are fully explained, thereby enhancing an understanding of CITES as a tool for promoting sustainable use. 2.4.3 Develop interim aid packages to provide assistance to collectors and harvesters most severely affected by the implementation of a CITES-listing decision. 2.4.4 Recommend national authorities to register the "CITES" mark, in order to disseminate the name and associate it with programmes based on sustainable use. Step 3: Compensatory mechanisms for the shift from in situ to ex situ production 3.1 Prevent economically poor local communities from being deprived of benefits due to the development of ex situ production that does not provide for benefit-sharing. 3.2 Develop market-based incentives to encourage the sharing of benefits from ex situ production with economically poor local communities. 3.3 Eliminate barriers to the development of in situ production systems. 3.4 Ensure that consumer countries work with ex situ traders and trade associations to foster positive effects and minimize any negative impact. 3.5 Develop supportive strategies through bilateral projects for conservation and development. 16

3.6 Explore the use of alternative production systems, such as ranching, artificial propagation or captive-breeding. Step 4: Mitigation strategies for human-wildlife conflicts 4.1. Mitigation strategies could include compensation mechanisms, e.g. payment for ecosystem services; jobs in ecotourism or as game rangers; authorization to grant fishing and hunting permits to tourists; the development of alternative products, to name but a few of the possibilities, taking into consideration that incentives for economically poor local communities should be related not only to the listed species but to the whole ecosystem to which such species belong. Step 5: Empowerment Policies 5.1 Ensure cross-sectoral technical support from government agencies responsible for land issues, agriculture, conservation, rural development, trade and industry, etc. 5.2 Identify increased costs arising from CITES-listing, including costs involved in the permitting procedure, and develop compensatory measures accordingly. 5.3 Encourage market mechanisms and access to micro-financing to enable economically poor local communities to participate in the development of ex situ production systems. 5.4 Establish or build on collaborative partnerships between development and conservation agencies in order to enhance aid effectiveness for wildlife conservation and eliminate duplication of efforts. 5.5 Encourage international financial institutions and cooperation agencies to assist Parties in the development of multilateral and bilateral measures, and policies to support institutions at the regional, national and local levels, in order to address any negative impact of the implementation of CITES-listings on the livelihoods of the poor. 5.6 Foster an efficient exchange of knowledge relating to programmes on community-based management of natural resources, between national stakeholders and professionals, and the international community of conservation and development agencies. Step 6: Monitoring Impacts of means of mitigation and development 6.1. Please find below questions that can help you build the monitoring framework: Has the likelihood of conservation of habitats or species of interest for the project increased? To what extent is the probability of the positive results likely to endure as a result of this project? Will this improvement be maintained? Have the successful experiences and failures of the project been shared? How have livelihoods been benefitted? Have women been benefitted? Are there any other impacts (positive or negative) of the project that have not been captured so far? References: 17