CYIL 2014

152

KAROLINA ŽÁKOVSKÁ

CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ

with an unclear mutual relationship. A situation that would very likely not benefit

the species in question.

It is possible, however, that the Atlantic Bluefin tuna proposal pursued another

goal. Monaco and its supporters could well have been aware of the impossibility of

an affirmative vote, but they could have used the proposal as a powerful alarm and a

means of pressure on the responsible actors. The proposal has been widely discussed

at the meeting of the Conference of Parties and it attracted – along with its rejection

– important media attention. ICCAT, backed up by its members, made a public

promise to improve management of the Atlantic Bluefin tuna, and its steps are since

being watched – by States, NGOs and the public. If it does not succeed, another

listing proposal will very likely appear in the future, with much larger support.

3.2 CoP 16: hope for sharks and rays?

While comprehensible as far as marine species managed by RFMOs are concerned,

the reluctance to include other marine species in CITES appendices that fulfil

the prescribed criteria seems more difficult to justify. The reasons are nevertheless

very strong: economic interests. Fishing is an important economic activity, and its

limitation by international rules implies a short-term economic loss on the side of

fishermen and, consequently, their States of origin. Moreover, the transportation

of a CITES specimen taken in areas beyond national jurisdiction always requires a

prior approval of the relevant CITES management authority as it is considered to be

a form of international trade (if the specimen is transported to the State where the

vessel is registered, the regime of introduction from the sea applies). It is thus the

exploitation itself that requires

de facto

this approval, because specimens taken in

areas beyond national jurisdiction will almost certainly be transported to the shore.

These rules differ largely from those applying to listed terrestrial species (or marine

species living in zones under national jurisdiction) whose exploitation falls within the

scope of CITES only if the specimens concerned are intended for international trade.

Proposals to include certain “orphan” marine species in CITES appendices,

meaning species that can be taken on the high seas and for which none of the existing

RFMOs is directly competent, have appeared in the last fifteen years quite regularly.

Specific attention is being paid to cartilaginous fish (sharks and rays), of which many

populations have an unfavourable conservation status due both to bycatches in the

course of fishing operations targeting other species and to direct, mostly unregulated

fishing (in the case of sharks for their fins). However, the economic interests have

long prevailed over the conservation needs, and the proposals kept being rejected.

Most remembered in this sense is the rejection of four proposals concerning eight

shark species by the above mentioned fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the

Parties in 2010. Completed by the rejection of proposals to include the Atlantic Bluefin

See the proposals for amendment of Appendices I and II presented for consideration at the Conference

of the Parties meetings: CITES.

Conference of the Parties

[online]. 2013.

Available at:

http://www.cites

org/eng/cop/index.php [

accessed

20-06-2014].