CMS Sharks MOU
First global agreement for the conservation of migratory sharks What is CMS?
UN Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
A Framework for countries for: The conservation of migratory species throughout their entire range CMS – a global Convention CMS Parties in the LAC region
• Antigua & Barbuda • Argentina • Bolivia • Chile • Costa Rica • Cuba • Ecuador • Honduras • Panama • Paraguay • Peru • Uruguay In process of joining: Brazil & Colombia CMS presence world wide
CMS Secretariat: Bonn, Germany
Bangkok, Thailand: • IOSEA Turtle MOU Abu Dhabi, UAE: • Raptors MOU • Dugong MOU
Apia, Samoa: • Pacific Islands Cetaceans MOU Hobart, Australia: • ACAP What is a migratory Species under CMS?
“Significant proportion” of the population of a species crosses national jurisdictional boundaries “cyclically and predictably” or “periodically” Migratory Species Threats to Migratory Species
Habitat loss Overexploitation • Hunting & fishing • Degradation • Bycatch • Fragmentation
Barriers to migration Threatening processes • Climate change • Dams • Wildlife diseases • Fences • Desertification • Transport infrastructure • Alien invasive species • Energy infrastructure • Pollution • Underwater noise Why do migratory Species need special protection?
• One country alone cannot conserve a species crossing international borders
• Migratory species must be conserved throughout their entire range
An international approach is needed Which Species are protected?
Appendix I: Endangered Species
• In danger of extinction in all or most of their range • Taking prohibited (exceptions: e.g. science, breeding & traditional subsistence usage) Appendix II
• Unfavourable conservation status, or • Would benefit significantly from an international Agreement Favourable Conservation Status “favourable conservation status" if: o population dynamics data indicate that migratory sharks are sustainable on a long term basis as a viable component of their ecosystems o the distributional range and habitats of migratory sharks are not currently being reduced, nor are they likely to be reduced in the future to levels that affect the viability of their populations in the long term o the abundance and structure of populations of migratory sharks remains at levels adequate to maintain ecosystem integrity Agreements and MOUs – legally non-binding MOUs Aquatic Bukhara Deer Dugong Great Warbler Bustard Agreements – legally binding
Pacific Raptors Ruddy Saiga Cetaceans Headed Antelope Goose
Wadden Sea ACAP EUROBATS ACCOBAMS Seals
Sharks Siberian Slender- West African Crane billed Curlew Aquatic Mammals ASCOBANS Gorilla AEWA
High Andean Marine IOSEA Mediterranean Flamingo Turtles Africa Monk Seal
West African Grassland Birds Huemul Elephants of South America Sharks MOU
45 % of all migratory sharks assessed are endangered (IUCN 2007) General charachteristics of the Sharks MOU
• Concluded in 2010 • 3 Annexes: I: Species List II: Regions III: Conservation Plan Main objective of the Sharks MOU
Achieve and maintain a favourable conservation status for migratory sharks • based on the best available scientific information • taking into account the socio-economic and other values of these species for the people of the Signatory States Species in Appendix I CMS
• White Shark (C. carcharias ) • Basking Shark (C. maximus ) • Giant Manta Ray (M. birostris ) not covered by the MOU yet
CMS Appendix I: NO TAKING ALLOWED Species covered by the MOU
• White Shark (C. carcharias ) • Basking Shark (C. maximus ) • Whale Shark (R. typus ) • Porbeagle (L. nasus ) • Spiny Dogfish (S. acanthias ) northern hemnisphere • Longfin Mako (I. paucus ) • Shortfin Mako (I. oxyrinchus ) Range of Species protected under CMS
Basking shark White shark Whale shark Porbeagle
Longfin mako Shortfin mako Giant manta ray
Spiny dogfish maps: IUCN, The Emirr/MapLab/Cypron Conservation Plan
Five Objectives
A. Improving scientific knowledge B. Applying Sustainable Fisheries C. Protecting critical habitats, migratory corridors and critical life stages of sharks D. Increasing public awareness and participation in conservation E. Enhancing national, regional and international cooperation Conservation Plan
Objective A
Improving understanding of migratory shark populations through research, monitoring and information exchange Conservation Plan
Objective B Ensuring that directed and non-directed fisheries for sharks are sustainable • Fisheries-related research and data collection • Ecologically sustainable management of shark populations, including monitoring, control and surveillance • Bycatch • Policy, legislation and law enforcement – Review of domestic Policy – International Trade – Finning – Law Enforcement – Economic incentives Conservation Plan
Objective C Ensuring to the extent practicable the protection of critical habitats and migratory corridors and critical life stages of sharks – Conservation activities – Legislation – Economic Incentives Conservation Plan
Objective D Increasing public awareness of threats to sharks and their habitats, and enhance public participation in conservation activities – Awareness Raising – Stakeholder Participation Conservation Plan
Objective E Enhancing national, regional and international cooperation – Cooperation among governments – Cooperation with existing instruments and organizations related to shark conservation – Accession to international instruments relevant for the conservation and management of sharks General Principles
• Successful shark conservation and management require the fullest possible cooperation: – Governments – IGOs, including relevant MEAs (CITES, CBD, UNCLOS) – NGOs – Fishing industry – Local communities General Principles
Sharks should be managed allowing for sustainable harvest – Signatories should apply • Ecosystem approach • Precautionary approach – Establishment of • bilateral • sub-regional • regional management plans 26 Signatories
Asia Philippines
Oceania South & Central Australia, America and the Nauru, Caribbean Africa Palau, Chile, Congo (Rep.), Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Tuvalu, Costa Rica Kenya, South Africa, Senegal, Togo Vanuatu Bodies of the MOU
Interim Secretariat Cooperating • Assists MOS and AC Partners: • non-Range States • IGOs • NGOs • or other relevant bodies and entities
Meeting of the Advisory Signatories Committee • Provides scientific • Decision making body MOU Implementation Advice Meeting of the Signatories (MOS)
• Decision making body • Decisions should be taken by consensus • Assessment of – Progress in implementing the MOU – Amendments to the MOU • Frequency: 3 Years Advisory Committee
Tasks of the Advisory Committee • Provide expert advice and information • Make recommendations on • new initiatives • the implementation of the MOU and the Conservation Plan • Analyze scientific assessments • Review listing proposals and listing criteria Advisory Committee
Membership
• Experts in migratory shark science and management • Members of the Advisory Committee serve in their individual capacity • Regional representation Advisory Committee
Europe (2) Asia (2) • James Ellis • To be identified • Mariano Vacchi
North America (1) • John Carlson
South & Central America Africa (2) and the Caribbean (2) • Mika Samba Diop • Jairo Sancho Rodríguez • Boaz Kaunda-Arara Oceania (1) • Enzo Acuña • Lesley Giddings Secretariat
• Convention Secretariat in Bonn: Interim Secretariat • Clearinghouse between – Signatories – Advisory Committee Secretariat
Tasks of the Interim Secretariat
• Organization of Meetings • Facilitate and promote implementation of co-operative activities • Consult and share information with: – IGOs, NGOs, FAO, relevant RFMOs, CITES, CBD, Regional Seas Conventions, stakeholders of the fishing industry and local communities, and other relevant international organizations • Outreach (Signatories, Cooperating Partners) • Awareness raising • Fundraising Cooperating Partners
Humane Society International – Australia – USA
• IFAW • Shark Advocates International • D.E.G. • Project Aware • Shark Trust MOS 1 Bonn, Germany, Sept 2012 MOS 1 Bonn, Germany, Sept 2012
• 100 participants from 20 Signatories and 25 Range States • 20 Organizations – IGOs (e.g. CITES, FAO, UNEP, INTERPOL) – NGOs (e.g. IFAW, PEW, HSI) – Scientists (e.g. IUCN SSG, BfN) MOS 1 Bonn, Germany, Sept 2012
Side event: Fin Identification Becoming a Signatory to the MOU • Legally non-binding! • Open for Signature by all Range States and REIOs of the Shark Species listed in Annex I Any State, that exercises jurisdiction over any part of the range of migratory sharks, or A State, flag vessels of which are engaged outside its national jurisdictional limits in taking, or which have the potential to take migratory sharks • Contacts for information: – [email protected] – [email protected] Prospects of the MOU
• Increase number of Signatories and Cooperating partners • Enhance cooperation with the Fisheries Sector, RFMOs, RSCs, and relevant MEAs • Grow Awareness on Shark conservation and threats to sharks • Improve knowledge about sharks • Make use of sharks sustainable to maintain healthy ecosystems for future generations Thank you very much!
"I am the sea. In my depths all treasures dwell?" Muhammad Hafiz Ibrahim