ICFA president Javier Garat has spoken out against the proposal tabled by Panama at CITES to include all species of the Carcharhinidae family on the list of threatened species, stating that this proposal has no scientific justification and lacks foundation.
The nineteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is currently discussing the Panamanian proposal, which has the support of the EU, Bangladesh , Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Gabon, Israel, the Maldives, Senegal, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Syria, and the UK, to include different shark species, including the blue shark, in Appendix II to this agreement.
The International Coalition of Fisheries Associations (ICFA), which is participating with observer status, has expressed its opposition to Panama’s proposal on scientific grounds. As set out by its president, Javier Garat, the proposal to include in the list the nearly 60 species belonging to the family Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) is not scientifically justified and is without foundation.
Specifically concerning blue shark, Javier Garat stated that the available scientific literature identifies it as the most abundant, most widely distributed, most fecund and fastest growing species among elasmobranchs, this species being one of the most tolerant to exploitation among shark species. Its reproductive pattern with average litters of approximately 30 individuals (and up to 60 or more individuals per litter) explains the high abundance of this species in different oceans, over a very wide geographical distribution.
Reiterating that the fishing industry recognises the work of CITES to ensure that international trade does not threaten the survival of species, Javier Garat, who has criticised proponents for questioning the ability of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) to manage commercial fish stocks, has noted that under all scenarios blue shark populations are neither overexploited nor overfished in any ocean, therefore it can safely be said that the status of this species is not threatened.
Clear differences
Javier Garat has defended sustainable fisheries management as the best tool to guarantee the conservation and sustainable capture of blue shark populations, the biological characteristics of which are not comparable with those of other elasmobranch species, the family specifically named in the Panama proposal.
ICFA disagrees with the statement contained in the Panamanian proposal regarding the impossibility of visually differentiating specimens of the Carcharhinidae family from blue sharks.
‘The fishing sector is surprised to learn that the authorities are seriously considering restricting the blue shark trade because they say that it can look like other sharks to the untrained eye,’ Javier Garat said.
Blue sharks have clearly distinguishable biological characteristics that can be verified by fisheries inspectors – as is the case with many other morphologically similar species.
In many parts of the world, the fins must remain attached to the shark’s body until catches have been discharged. Once in port, governments issue a catch certificate that accompanies the fish until it reaches the consumer.
As Javier Garat has explained, the fin of the blue shark (Prionace glauca) is easily distinguishable, even when separated from the body, due to its characteristic metallic blue coloration and because it lacks spines at the base of the fin. At this point, he referred to FAO-endorsed software tools such as iSharkFin which uses machine learning techniques to identify shark species.
Javier Garat stated that he trusts that sanity will prevail and Panama’s proposal, at least as regards the blue shark, will not be accepted.
‘CITES contracting parties should take notice of the conclusions of the FAO expert advisory panel, which confirm that the blue shark does not meet the criteria for listing on CITES Appendix II,’ he said.
‘In addition, they have to be aware of the socio-economic damage they will cause if they eventually approve the proposal. In conclusion, they must bear in mind that the bureaucratic burden that they would cause in the national administrations would make the application unfeasible.’
