CYIL 2014

166 / 532

150
KAROLINA ŽÁKOVSKÁ CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ
requiring the Secretariat to consult every listing proposal concerning marine species
with “inter-governmental bodies having a function in relation to those species especially
with a view to obtaining scientific data these bodies may be able to provide and to ensuring
co-ordination with any conservation measures enforced by such bodies”.53 Notwithstanding
the possibility to include marine species managed by RFMOs in CITES appendices,
such proposals are very rare. There is however one exception that is worth mentioning:
the proposal to include Atlantic Bluefin tuna in Appendix I, presented by Monaco
in 2009 for consideration at the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of Parties the
subsequent year.54
The Atlantic Bluefin tuna ( Thunnus thynnus) is a migratory, high value fish species
whose exploitation is managed by the International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), a regional fisheries management organisation with competence
for the whole Atlantic Ocean and 49 contracting Parties involved in tuna fishing. The
limited scope of this paper does not allow explaining the history of tuna fishing in
the Atlantic, nor describing ICCAT management efforts during the last 40 years.
It is sufficient to mention that the measures adopted in order to face the increasing
fishing effort and to protect the quickly declining populations of targeted tuna species
(including the Atlantic Bluefin tuna) were unsuccessful mainly due to their non-binding
character and their non-respect by contracting Parties and cooperating entities. 55 In this
situation, Monaco, a country having no interest in Atlantic tuna fishing, decided to
propose including the Atlantic Bluefin tuna in the CITES Appendix I.
Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) is an exception due to the fact that the ICWR is older. Article XIV
para. 4 of the CITES provides that a Party to the CITES which is also a Party to another treaty which
was in force at the time of the entry into force of the CITES and under the provisions of which
protection is afforded to marine species included in Appendix II, “shall be relieved of the obligations
imposed on it under the provisions of the … [CITES] with respect to trade in specimens of [such] species …
that are taken by ships registered in that State and in accordance with the provisions of that other treaty”. The
ICRW was the only relevant treaty that was in force at the time of the entry into force of the CITES,
thus the trade in specimens of Appendix II whale species (including introduction from the sea, it
means landing) caught in compliance with the ICRW does not require CITES documents. This rule
is, however, not applicable at present because all the whale species were transferred to Appendix I
following the moratorium on commercial whaling adopted by the International Whaling Commission
in 1982.
53 CITES, art. XV para. 2 (b). Cf. also art. XV para. 1 (a).
54 The fifteenth meeting of the Conference of Parties took place in Doha (Qatar) in March 2010.
55 Cf. the report trilingual of the independent performance review of ICCAT published in 2009 that
stated: “A simple reading of the state of the stocks under ICCAT’s purview would suggest that ICCAT
has failed in its mandate as a number of these key fish stocks are well below MSY [maximum sustainable
yield]. However, the Panel is of the view that rather than ICCAT failing in its mandate it is ICCAT that
has been failed by its members (CPCs). Most of the evidence available to the Panel is that ICCAT has with
a few exceptions, adopted in its basic texts and recommendations generally sound approaches to fisheries
management. However this has been undermined by systemic failures by CPCs to implement such rules
and recommendations …”. ICCAT. Report of the independent performance review of ICCAT [online].
Madrid, 2009, p. 2. Available at:
TRI_LINGUAL.pdf [accessed 20-06-2014].