Background
This study aims to provide the further study requested in Decision 19.223 paragraph c) and includes an analysis of Elasmobranchii species listed on the CITES Appendices prior to and during the 17th meeting of the Conference of Parties (CoP17, Johannesburg, 2016) and the two Isurus species listed at the 18th meeting of the Conference of Parties (CoP18, Geneva, 2019).
Contribution
Identifying possible sources of mismatch was completed through three types of analyses:
3
• Data from pre- and post-CITES listing catch averages were compared and matched with pre- and post-CITES listing trade data. This was done for data from all sources to determine possible sources of “missing sharks”;
• Comparisons of catch, landing, and trade data reported to general categories (i.e., “shark” or “shark/ray”) pre- and post-CITES listing were compared. If reporting to general categories increased, the level of species- or genus-specific reporting over the same time period was compared.
Significance
The study identified that the possible sources of mismatch are:
• the use of different units to report shark and ray trade recorded in the CITES Trade Database and in databases managed by FAO, IOTC, IATTC and ICCAT;
• underreporting of exports and introduction from the sea of CITES-listed shark and ray species;
• lack of clarity of the requirements of reporting under various scenarios of catch in the Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ) of a Party and in ABNJ; and
• differences in reporting of catch from territories and provinces in different databases