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

• 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

CMS Secretariat:

Bonn, Germany

Abu Dhabi, UAE:• Raptors MOU

• Dugong MOU

Abu Dhabi, UAE:• Raptors MOU

• Dugong MOU

Apia, Samoa:• Pacific Islands

Cetaceans MOU

Apia, Samoa:• Pacific Islands

Cetaceans MOU

Bangkok, Thailand:• IOSEA Turtle MOU

Bangkok, Thailand:• IOSEA Turtle MOU

Hobart, Australia:• ACAP

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

• Degradation

• Fragmentation

Barriers to migration

• Dams

• Fences

• Transport infrastructure

• Energy infrastructure

Overexploitation

• Hunting & fishing

• Bycatch

Threatening processes

• Climate change

• Wildlife diseases

• Desertification

• Alien invasive species

• 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

Sharks Siberian Crane

Slender-billed Curlew

West African Aquatic

Mammals

Agreements and

MOUs

Wadden Sea Seals

ACAP EUROBATS ACCOBAMS

ASCOBANS Gorilla AEWA

Agreements – legally binding

Aquatic Warbler

Bukhara Deer Dugong Great Bustard

High Andean Flamingo

Marine Turtles Africa

IOSEA Mediterranean Monk Seal

Pacific Cetaceans

Raptors Ruddy Headed Goose

Saiga Antelope

West African Elephants

Grassland Birds of South America

Huemul

MOUs – legally non-binding

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

Longfin mako

Porbeagle

Whale shark

Shortfin mako

Spiny dogfish maps: IUCN, The

Emirr/MapLab/Cypron

Giant manta ray

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

South & Central

America and the

Caribbean

Chile,

Costa Rica

Africa

Congo (Rep.), Ghana, Guinea, Liberia,

Kenya, South Africa, Senegal, Togo

Asia

Philippines

Oceania

Australia,

Nauru,

Palau,

Tuvalu,

Vanuatu

Bodies of the MOU

Interim Secretariat

• Assists MOS and AC

Advisory Committee

• Provides scientific Advice

Meeting of the Signatories

• Decision making body Imp

lem

en

tati

on

MO

UCooperating

Partners:• non-Range States

• IGOs

• NGOs

• or other relevant

bodies and

entities

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

Oceania (1)

• Lesley Giddings

Africa (2)

• Mika Samba Diop

• Boaz Kaunda-Arara

South & Central America

and the Caribbean (2)

• Jairo Sancho Rodríguez

• Enzo Acuña

Europe (2)

• James Ellis

• Mariano Vacchi

North America (1)

• John Carlson

Asia (2)

• To be identified

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: – sharks@cms.int

– apauly@cms.int

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

"I am the sea. In my depths all treasures

dwell?"

Muhammad Hafiz Ibrahim

Thank you very much!