Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Chapter 6 CITES Cooperation with Other Institutions in Relation to Commercially-exploited Fish Species

  • Chapter
Book cover The Use of CITES for Commercially-exploited Fish Species

Part of the book series: Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs ((HAMBURG,volume 35))

  • 480 Accesses

Abstract

CITES has a tradition of cooperating with other institutions, be they international organizations, MEAs secretariats or NGOs. Currently, coherency and mutual supportiveness are the explicit focus of one of its Strategic Vision’s goal. Cooperation with biodiversity-related conventions has even been the object of a Resolution adopted at CoP16, encouraging parties to continue and strengthen such synergies. In the case of marine species, the legal framework applicable is quite particular. Within this framework, collaborative work occurs at several stages: expertise is provided to CITES for specific developments of the regime, support is requested and given in relation to listing and some cooperation takes place to support the implementation of the protection under CITES.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a recent summary, see for example CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP16 Doc. 13 – Cooperation with Organizations and Multilateral Environmental Agreements’ (3–14 March 2013).

  2. 2.

    Resolution Conf. 16.3 – CITES Strategic Vision: 2008–2020 2013 goal 3.

  3. 3.

    Resolution Conf. 16.4 – Cooperation of CITES with other biodiversity-related conventions 2013.

  4. 4.

    FAO, ‘Report of the FAO ad hoc Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II of CITES Concerning Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species (Rome 13–16 July 2004)’ FAO Fisheries Report 748 (Rome 2004) 13 appendix C ‘Welcome speech by Mr. Ichiro Nomura, Assistant Director-General, FIO Fisheries Department’.

  5. 5.

    Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘Report of the Sixth Session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (Bremen, 3–6 June 1998)’ FAO Fisheries Report R589 (Rome 1998) §12. At the following COFI meeting, it was agreed that the FAO’s work regarding the CITES criteria should be continued (Committee on Fisheries, ‘Report of the Twenty-third Session of the Committee on Fisheries (Rome, 15–19 February 1999)’ FAO Fisheries Report 595 (Rome 1999) §78). On a general overview of the history of the early partnership, see Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘Item 5 of the Provisional Agenda – Historical involvement of COFI within the process of amendment to the CITES listing criteria’, presented at the Eighth Session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (Bremen, 12–16 February 2002) COFI:FT/VIII/2002/Inf.6 (2002) 6–8 §15-22; E. Franckx, ‘The Protection of Biodiversity and Fisheries Management: Issues Raised by the Relationship between CITES and LOSC’ in D. Freestone, R. Barnes and D. Ong (eds), The Law of the Sea – Progress and Prospects (Oxford University Press 2006) 214–215.

  6. 6.

    See infra Chapter 6 A. II. 2.

  7. 7.

    M. A. Young, Trading Fish, Saving Fish: The Interaction between Regimes and International Law (Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press 2011) 158–169.

  8. 8.

    WECAFC, ‘WECAFC Lesser Antilles Fisheries Committee – An overview of the FAO activities in relation to CITES and commercially-exploited species’ WECAFC/XIII/08/10 (21 October 2008) ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/014/aj252e.pdf accessed 5 July 2015, 2 §6.

  9. 9.

    Memorandum of Understanding between the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) (CITES-FAO MoU) 2006 §1.

  10. 10.

    Ibid. §2.

  11. 11.

    Ibid. §3-4.

  12. 12.

    Ibid. §6 (italics added).

  13. 13.

    Standing Committee, ‘SC53 Summary Record (Rev. 1) – Summary Record of Fifty-third meeting of the Standing Committee’ (2005) 5–6 §10.

  14. 14.

    E. Franckx and K. van den Bosche, ‘The Influence of Environmental Law on the Development of the Law of the Sea: CITES and the International Law of Fisheries’ (2011) 54 Japanese Yearbook of International Law 218, 254; M. A. Young, ‘Protecting Endangered Marine Species: Collaboration Between the Food and Agriculture Organization and the CITES Regime’ (2010) 11 Melbourne Journal of International Law 1, 44–45.

  15. 15.

    Standing Committee, ‘SC53 Summary Record (Rev. 1)’ (n 13) 5–6 §10; Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘CITES issues with respect to international fish trade and the CITES/FAO MoU’, presented at the Tenth Session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (Santiago de Compostela, 30 May – 2 June 2006) COFI:FT/X/2006/3 (2006) 4 §13-14; Young, Trading Fish, Saving Fish (n 7) 168.

  16. 16.

    Standing Committee, ‘SC53 Summary Record (Rev. 1)’ (n 13) 6 §10.

  17. 17.

    See for example the draft version presented in 2004 by Japan: Japan, ‘CoP13 Doc. 12.4 – Cooperation with other organizations – Cooperation with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ (2–14 October 2004) annex.

  18. 18.

    Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘CITES issues with respect to international fish trade and the CITES/FAO MoU’, presented at the Tenth Session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (n 15) 4 §14.

  19. 19.

    Resolution Conf. 9.17 – Status of International Trade in Shark Species 1994 (repealed).

  20. 20.

    Resolution Conf. 12.6 (Rev. CoP16) – Conservation and management of sharks (Class Chondrichthyes) 2002.

  21. 21.

    Ibid.

  22. 22.

    J. Klabbers, An introduction to international institutional law (Cambridge University Press 2009) 251, 267. Indeed, depending on the particular rules of the organizations, they can enter into treaties (‘Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations’ 1986 A/CONF.129/15 (not yet in force) article 6).

  23. 23.

    Young, Trading Fish, Saving Fish (n 7) 155–156; in favor of non-binding nature are for example R. Wolfrum and N. Matz, Conflicts in international environmental law (Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, Springer 2003) 173, while R. R. Churchill and G. Ulfstein leave this to be determined in each particular case (‘Autonomous Institutional Arrangements in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Little-Noticed Phenomenon in International Law’ (2000) 94 American Journal of International Law 623, 651).

  24. 24.

    A. Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice (Cambridge University Press 2000) 54; Klabbers, An introduction to international institutional law (n 22) 251–252. On the implied powers doctrine, see supra Chapter 3 B. II. 1.

  25. 25.

    ‘Constitution of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ 1945 article XVI(1).

  26. 26.

    CITES Secretariat, ‘SC54 Doc. 8 – Strategic and administrative matters – Legal personality of the Convention and the Secretariat’ (2–14 October 2006) 1 §7.

  27. 27.

    H. G. Schermers and N. Blokker, International institutional law: Unity within diversity (5th edn Nijhoff 2011) §38, 44; Wolfrum and Matz, Conflicts in international environmental law (n 23) 164; for the characteristics of international organizations, see supra Chapter 3 B. II. 1.

  28. 28.

    Young, Trading Fish, Saving Fish (n 7) 157 (reference omitted).

  29. 29.

    Schermers and Blokker (n 27) §38.

  30. 30.

    Churchill and Ulfstein (n 23) 647–649.

  31. 31.

    P. H. Sand, ‘Le rôle des “conférences des parties” aux conventions internationales’ (Le droit international face aux enjeux environnementaux, Aix-en-Provence, 4–6 June 2009) 102–103; G. Ulfstein, ‘Treaty Bodies’ in D. Bodansky, J. Brunnée and E. Hey (eds), Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press 2007) 881, 886.

  32. 32.

    For example ‘United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’ 1992, 1771 United Nations Treaty Series 107 article 8(2)(f), as presented in Churchill and Ulfstein (n 23) 649.

  33. 33.

    ‘Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora’ (CITES) 1973, 993 United Nations Treaty Series 243 article XII(2).

  34. 34.

    Ibid. article XII(1).

  35. 35.

    Ibid. article XII(2)(i).

  36. 36.

    Ibid. articles XII(2)(b) and XV(2)(b).

  37. 37.

    CITES Secretariat, ‘SC54 Doc. 8 – Strategic and administrative matters – Legal personality of the Convention and the Secretariat’ (n 26) 1 §6; R. Caddell, ‘Inter-Treaty Cooperation, Biodiversity Conservation and the Trade in Endangered Species’ (2013) 22 RECIEL 264, 269.

  38. 38.

    Churchill and Ulfstein (n 23) 651; Young, Trading Fish, Saving Fish (n 7) 170–171, 186.

  39. 39.

    See supra Chapter 1.

  40. 40.

    FAO/Government Cooperative Programme, ‘Cites and Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species, Including the Evaluation of Listing Proposals – Terminal Report – Japan – Project Findings and Recommendations’ FI:GCP/INT/987/JPN (Report prepared for the Government of Japan by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome 2011); FAO/Government Cooperative Programme, ‘CITES and Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species, Including the Evaluation of Listing Proposals (Phase 2) – Project Document 2010–2015: GCP/INT/104/JPN’.

  41. 41.

    Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘Report of the Ninth Session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (Bremen, 10–14 February 2004)’ FAO Fisheries Report 736 (Rome 2004) 7 §20; Committee on Fisheries, ‘Decisions and Recommendations of the Thirteenth Session of the COFI Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, Hyderabad, Hyderabad, 20–24 February 2012’ Thirtieth Session (Rome, Italy, 9–13 July 2012) COFI/2012/4 5 §37; CITES, ‘Ongoing projects and activities: EU project’ http://cites.org/eng/prog/shark/projects.php accessed 5 July 2015; CITES, ‘Strengthening capacity in developing countries for sustainable wildlife management and enhanced implementation of CITES wildlife trade regulations, with particular focus on commercially-exploited aquatic species: Project summary sheet’ http://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/prog/shark/docs/eu_project_summary.pdf accessed 5 July 2015.

  42. 42.

    United States of America, ‘CoP12 Doc. 16.2.2 – Cooperation with other organizations – CITES and FAO: FAO collaboration with CITES through a Memorandum of Understanding’ (3–15 November 2002) ‘Comments from the Secretariat’ B.1.

  43. 43.

    Terms of Reference, as found for example in FAO, ‘Report of the FAO ad hoc Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 4) appendix D 15–16. When the same information is relevant for all Expert Panels, only the 2004 one will be referred to.

  44. 44.

    CITES-FAO MoU (n 9) §5.

  45. 45.

    CITES (n 33) article XV(2)(b).

  46. 46.

    Ibid. article XIV(4).

  47. 47.

    M/V “Virginia G” (Panama/Guinea-Bissau), Judgment, 14 April 2014, ITLOS case n°19 62 §212.

  48. 48.

    W. Wijnstekers, The Evolution of CITES (9th edn CIC – International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation 2011) 459.

  49. 49.

    D. S. Favre, International Trade in Endangered Species: A Guide to CITES (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1989) 312; A. Gillespie, Conservation, biodiversity and international law (Edward Elgar 2011) 96.

  50. 50.

    Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) – Criteria for amendment of Appendices I and II (Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) – Lauderdale criteria) 1994 preamble.

  51. 51.

    Resolution Conf. 14.6 (Rev. CoP16) – Introduction from the Sea 2007 operative part.

  52. 52.

    See supra Chapter 5 B. III. 1.

  53. 53.

    CITES (n 33) article XIV(5).

  54. 54.

    Indeed, under the Convention, the Secretariat shall “perform any other function as may be entrusted to it by the Parties” (CITES (n 33) article XII(2)(i)).

  55. 55.

    To recommend is defined as to “advise as a course of action”; to invite is defined as to “request (something) formally or politely from someone”; to encourage is defined as to “give support […] to”, “help or stimulate the development of” (C. Soanes and A. Stevenson (eds), Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11th edn Oxford University Press 2008)). Note however that D. S. Calley considers that Resolution 12.4 actually “oblig[es] CITES parties to apply the CDS” (Market Denial and International Fisheries Regulation: The Targeted and Effective Use of Trade Measures Against the Flag of Convenience Fishing Industry (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2012) 180).

  56. 56.

    CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP13 Doc. 36 (Rev. 1) – Conservation of and trade in Dissostichus species’ (2–14 October 2004) 1 §3; CCAMLR, ‘CoP14 Doc. 61 – Toothfish: Report of CCAMLR’ (3–15 June 2007) 2 §8-9; CCAMLR, ‘CoP16 Doc. 63 (Rev.1) – Toothfish: Report of CCAMLR’ (3–14 March 2013) 1 §4.

  57. 57.

    Monaco, ‘CoP15 Prop. 19 – Proposal to include Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus (Linnaeus, 1758)) on Appendix I of CITES in accordance with Article II 1 of the Convention’ (13–25 March 2010) 3 summary §17; Monaco, ‘CoP15 Doc. 52 (Rev. 1) – Species Trade and Conservation, Atlantic Bluefin Tuna, Draft Resolution of the Conference of the Parties’ (13–25 March 2010) operative part.

  58. 58.

    Monaco, ‘CoP15 Doc. 52 (Rev. 1) – Species Trade and Conservation, Atlantic Bluefin Tuna, Draft Resolution of the Conference of the Parties’ (n 57) operative part.

  59. 59.

    Ibid. ‘Comments from the Secretariat’ A.

  60. 60.

    CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP16 Doc. 13 – Cooperation with Organizations and Multilateral Environmental Agreements’ (n 1) 6 §35; ICCAT – CITES CoP, ‘SC62 Doc. 14.6 – Annex Guidelines for cooperation between the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)’ http://www.cites.org/common/com/sc/62/E62-14-06-A.pdf accessed 5 July 2015; CITES Secretariat, ‘SC62 Sum. 2 (Rev. 1) – 62nd meeting of the Standing Committee – Executive Summary 23.07.2012 Afternoon’ (23 July 2012) 2 §14.6.; CITES Secretariat, ‘SC62 Doc. 14.6 – Cooperation with other organizations – International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna’ (23 July 2012) recommendation §8.

  61. 61.

    ICCAT – CITES CoP, ‘SC62 Doc. 14.6 – Annex Guidelines for cooperation between the ICCAT and the CoP to CITES’ (n 60) §1-2.

  62. 62.

    Ibid. §2.

  63. 63.

    Ibid. §3-4.

  64. 64.

    Ibid. §5.

  65. 65.

    CITES Secretariat, ‘SC61 Doc. 15.7 – Cooperation with other organizations – International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas: Proposed guidelines for cooperation between the ICCAT and CITES’ (15 August 2011) annex.

  66. 66.

    Ibid.

  67. 67.

    CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP16 Doc. 13 – Cooperation with Organizations and Multilateral Environmental Agreements’ (n 1) 6 §35.

  68. 68.

    See supra Chapter 6 A. II. 2. a).

  69. 69.

    See supra Chapter 5 B. II. 1. a).

  70. 70.

    Resolution Conf. 2.7 (Rev) – Relationship with the International Whaling Commission 1979 (repealed); Resolution Conf. 2.8 – Introduction from the Sea 1979 (repealed); Resolution Conf. 11.4 (Rev. CoP12) – Conservation of cetaceans, trade in cetacean specimens and the relationship with the International Whaling Commission 2000.

  71. 71.

    Resolution Conf. 11.4 (Rev. CoP12) – Conservation of cetaceans, trade in cetacean specimens and the relationship with the International Whaling Commission (n 70) preamble and operative part.

  72. 72.

    See infra Chapter 6 C. IV. 1. and D. IV. 1.

  73. 73.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues Associated to CITES and Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species (22–25 June 2004)’ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report 746 (Rome 2004) 6 §27.

  74. 74.

    ‘Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks’ (UNFSA) 1995, 2167 United Nations Treaty Series 3 article 8(6).

  75. 75.

    Memorandum of Understanding between the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES Secretariat) and the Secretariat of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS Secretariat) (CITES-CMS MoU) 2002 articles 2–4.

  76. 76.

    CITES Secretariat, ‘SC62 Sum. 2 (Rev. 1) – 62nd meeting of the Standing Committee – Executive Summary 23.07.2012 Afternoon’ (n 60) 2 §14.3.

  77. 77.

    CITES Secretariat and CMS Secretariat, ‘SC61 Doc. 15.4 (Rev. 1) Cooperation with other organizations – Convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals’ (15 August 2011) 12 annex 1; CITES Secretariat, ‘SC62 Doc. 14.3 – Cooperation with other organizations – Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals’ (23 July 2012).

  78. 78.

    Caddell, ‘Inter-Treaty Cooperation, Biodiversity Conservation and the Trade in Endangered Species’ (n 37) 275.

  79. 79.

    For a full list of tree species’ proposals, see T. Mulliken, ‘The Role of CITES in Controlling the International Trade in Forest Products: Implications for Sustainable Forest Management’ Non-Wood Forest Products Working Documents 7 (Rome 2009) 8.

  80. 80.

    Ibid. vi.

  81. 81.

    S. F. Oldfield, ‘The Evolving Role of CITES in Regulating the International Timber Trade’ (2013) 22 RECIEL 291, 291, 293, 297–298, 300.

  82. 82.

    J. E. Scanlon, ‘CITES at Its Best: CoP16 as a ‘Watershed Moment’ for the World’s Wildlife’ (2013) 22 RECIEL 222, 223.

  83. 83.

    United States of America, ‘CoP12 Doc. 16.2.2 – Cooperation with other organizations – CITES and FAO’ (n 42) ‘Comments from the Secretariat’ C-D, already suggesting a global instrument not only focused on fisheries or timber.

  84. 84.

    Memorandum of Cooperation between the FAO and CBD Secretariat 2005.

  85. 85.

    Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘Update on CITES related activities’ presented at the Thirteenth Session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (Hyderabad, 20–24 February 2012) COFI:FT/XIII/2012/8 (2012) 4 §13-14.

  86. 86.

    CITES Secretariat, ‘SC61 Doc. 15.5 – Cooperation with other organizations – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ (15 August 2011) annex 4 (the […] in paragraph h. are replacing the underlined text still under negotiation).

  87. 87.

    CITES-FAO MoU (n 9) §3.

  88. 88.

    FAO and CITES Secretariat, ‘SC62 Doc. 14.4 Annex 1 – Draft Memorandum for Cooperation between the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (clean version)’ (23 July 2012) item IV.

  89. 89.

    Aust (n 24) 27; P. Gautier, ‘Non-Binding Agreements’ Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law www.mpepil.com §12.

  90. 90.

    FAO and CITES Secretariat, ‘SC62 Doc. 14.4 Annex 1 – Draft Memorandum for Cooperation between the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (clean version)’ (n 88) chapeau, item IV.

  91. 91.

    See supra Chapter 6 A. I. 4.

  92. 92.

    Forestry Department of the FAO and CITES Secretariat, ‘SC62 Doc.14.4 Annex 3 – Draft Memorandum of Understanding’ (2012) http://www.cites.org/common/com/sc/62/E62-14-04-A3.pdf accessed 5 July 2015.

  93. 93.

    On this, see infra Chapter 6 D. IV. 2.

  94. 94.

    Forestry Department of the FAO and CITES Secretariat, ‘SC62 Doc.14.4 Annex 3 – Draft Memorandum of Understanding’ (n 92) 3.

  95. 95.

    ITTO, ‘About ITTO’ http://www.itto.int/about_itto/ accessed 5 July 2015.

  96. 96.

    Resolution Conf. 10.13 (Rev. CoP15) – Implementation of the Convention for timber species 1997 preamble.

  97. 97.

    Ibid. ‘Regarding international organizations’, a)-b); see infra Chapter 6 C. IV. 2.

  98. 98.

    United States of America, ‘CoP14 Doc. 18.2 – Cooperation between CITES and ITTO Regarding Trade in Tropical Timber’ (3–15 June 2007) ‘Comments from the Secretariat’ B-C.

  99. 99.

    Resolution Conf. 14.4 – Cooperation between CITES and ITTO regarding trade in tropical timber 2007 preamble and operative part.

  100. 100.

    ITTO, ‘Making the mahogany trade work: Report of the workshop on capacity-building for the implementation of the CITES Appendix-II listing of mahogany’ ITTO Technical Series 22 (2004) 14–16.

  101. 101.

    Mulliken (n 79) ix, 13–15.

  102. 102.

    M. Engler and R. Parry-Jones, ‘Opportunity or Threat: The Role of the European Union in Global Wildlife Trade’ (TRAFFIC Europe 2007) 24; Mulliken (n 79) 13.

  103. 103.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues’ (n 73) 6 §28.

  104. 104.

    Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘An analysis of the CITES listing criteria applied to commercially exploited aquatic species’, presented at the Eighth Session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (Bremen, 12–16 February 2002) COFI:FT/VIII/2002/3 (2002) §5, making reference to the FAO, ‘Second technical consultation on the suitability of the CITES criteria for listing commercially-exploited aquatic species – A background analysis and framework for evaluating the status of commercially-exploited aquatic species in a CITES context’ FI:SLC2/2001/2 (22 October 2001) http://www.fao.org/docrep/MEETING/003/Y1455E.HTM accessed 5 July 2015 §77, 80.

  105. 105.

    For the latter, see infra Chapter 6 C.

  106. 106.

    Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) – Lauderdale criteria (n 50); see supra Chapter 5 C. I.

  107. 107.

    FAO, ‘Technical consultation on the suitability of the CITES criteria for listing commercially-exploited aquatic species – The key points from an appraisal of the suitability of the CITES criteria for listing commercially-exploited aquatic species’ FI:SLC/2000/2 (28 June 2000) http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/x4894e.htm accessed 5 July 2015; FAO, ‘Report of the Technical Consultation on the Suitability of the CITES Criteria for Listing Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species (Rome, 28–30 June 2000)’ FAO Fisheries Report 629 (Rome 2000); FAO, ‘Second technical consultation on the suitability of the CITES criteria for listing commercially-exploited aquatic species – A background analysis and framework for evaluating the status of commercially-exploited aquatic species in a CITES context’ (n 104); FAO, ‘Report of the Second Technical Consultation on the Suitability of the CITES Criteria for Listing Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species (Windhoek, Namibia 22 October 2001)’ FAO Fisheries Report 667 (Rome 2002).

  108. 108.

    Committee on Fisheries, ‘Review of the CITES listing criteria for species exploited by fisheries in marine and large freshwater bodies, at the Twenty-fourth Session of the Committee on Fisheries (Rome, 26 February – 2 March 2001)’ COFI/2001/6 (Rome 2001) §11(a), (c).

  109. 109.

    Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘Report of the Eighth Session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (Bremen, 12–16 February 2002)’ FAO Fisheries Report 673 (Rome 2002) 7 §16.

  110. 110.

    WECAFC, ‘WECAFC Lesser Antilles Fisheries Committee – An overview of the FAO activities in relation to CITES and commercially-exploited species’ (n 8) 2 §4-5.

  111. 111.

    As highlighted as important in FAO, ‘Report of the Second Meeting of FAO and non-FAO regional fishery bodies or arrangements (Rome, 20–21 February 2001)’ FAO Fisheries Report 645 (Rome 2001) 8 §44. For suggested changes, see FAO, ‘Second technical consultation on the suitability of the CITES criteria for listing commercially-exploited aquatic species – A background analysis and framework for evaluating the status of commercially-exploited aquatic species in a CITES context’ (n 104); FAO, ‘Report of the Second Technical Consultation on the Suitability of the CITES Criteria for Listing Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species’ (n 107).

  112. 112.

    See supra Chapter 5 C. I. 1. c) bb).

  113. 113.

    FAO, ‘Report of the FAO Workshop to Review the Application of CITES Criterion Annex 2 a B to Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species (Rome, 19–21 April 2011)’ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report 976 (Rome 2011).

  114. 114.

    See supra Chapter 5 C. I. 1. b) bb) and c) aa).

  115. 115.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues’ (n 73) 9 §44.

  116. 116.

    See supra Chapter 5 C. I. 1. b) cc).

  117. 117.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues’ (n 73) 9–10 §46.

  118. 118.

    See supra Chapter 5 C. I. 1. b) dd) and c) bb).

  119. 119.

    FAO, ‘An Appraisal of the Suitability of the CITES Criteria for Listing Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species’ FAO Fisheries Circular 954 (Rome 2000) 33–35 §4.2.

  120. 120.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues’ (n 73) 9 §45.

  121. 121.

    See supra Chapter 5 C. I. 2.

  122. 122.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues’ (n 73) 4 §24.

  123. 123.

    Resolution Conf. 14.6 (Rev. CoP16) – Introduction from the Sea (n 51).

  124. 124.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Expert Consultation on Legal Issues’ (n 73) 3–4 §18-19; E. Franckx, ‘The Relationship between CITES, FAO and Related Agreements: Legal Issues’ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular 1062 (Rome 2011) 23–26.

  125. 125.

    CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP14 Doc. 18.1 – Cooperation with other organizations – Cooperation with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ (3–15 June 2007) 4 §25; Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘Report of the Twelfth Session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (Buenos Aires 26–30 April 2010)’ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report R939 (Rome 2010) 10 §45.

  126. 126.

    FAO, ‘Technical consultation on the suitability of the CITES criteria for listing commercially-exploited aquatic species – The key points from an appraisal of the suitability of the CITES criteria for listing commercially-exploited aquatic species’ (n 107) §23.

  127. 127.

    See infra Chapter 6 C. I. 2.

  128. 128.

    S. Young, ‘Contemporary Issues of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Debate Over Sustainable Use’ (2003) 14 Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 167, 188 (reference omitted).

  129. 129.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Second Meeting of FAO and non-FAO regional fishery bodies or arrangements’ (n 111) 8 §44.

  130. 130.

    Ibid. 8–10 §43-50.

  131. 131.

    FAO, ‘Report of the FAO ad hoc Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 4); FAO, ‘Report of the Second FAO ad hoc Expert Panel for the Assessment of Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II of CITES Concerning Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species (Rome, 26–30 March 2007)’ FAO Fisheries Report 833 (Rome 2007); FAO, ‘Report of the Third FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II of CITES Concerning Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species (Rome, 7–12 December 2009)’ FAO Fisheries Report 925 (Rome 2010).

  132. 132.

    FAO, ‘Report of the FAO ad hoc Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 4) 2 §8 and 15 appendix D ‘Terms of Reference’ §6.

  133. 133.

    Ibid. 15 appendix D ‘Terms of Reference’ §2-3.

  134. 134.

    Ibid. 15 appendix D ‘Terms of Reference’ §5.

  135. 135.

    Ibid. 3–4 §16.

  136. 136.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Second FAO ad hoc Expert Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 24, 43, 73; FAO, ‘Report of the Third FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 22, 46, 64, 91, 124; FAO, ‘Report of the Fourth FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II of CITES Concerning Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species (Rome, 3–8 December 2012)’ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report R1032 (Rome 2013) 14, 38, 70, 111.

  137. 137.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Second FAO ad hoc Expert Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 24, 43, 73; FAO, ‘Report of the Third FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 22–23, 46–47, 64–65, 91–92, 124–125; FAO, ‘Report of the Fourth FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 136) 7–8, 19, 42, 61–62, 76, 107.

  138. 138.

    FAO, ‘Report of the FAO ad hoc Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 4) 23, 37–38.

  139. 139.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Second FAO ad hoc Expert Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 25–26, 45–47, 74–75; FAO, ‘Report of the Third FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 24–25, 47–49, 66–67, 93–95, 125–127; FAO, ‘Report of the Fourth FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 136) 16–18, 41–42, 72–74, 113–114.

  140. 140.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Second FAO ad hoc Expert Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 26.

  141. 141.

    Ibid. 46.

  142. 142.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Third FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 48; FAO, ‘Report of the Fourth FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 136) 17, 41, 113.

  143. 143.

    Which was later on expressly requested by COFI Members at Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘Report of the Twelfth Session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade’ (n 125) 9 §43.

  144. 144.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Second FAO ad hoc Expert Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 27, 47–48, 76; FAO, ‘Report of the Third FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 25, 49, 67, 94, 126–127; FAO, ‘Report of the Fourth FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 136) 18, 42, 62, 74–76, 114–115.

  145. 145.

    B. Dickson, ‘International Conservation Treaties, Poverty and Development: the Case of CITES’ (2002) 74 Natural Resource perspectives http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/2069-international-conservation-treaties-poverty-development-case-cites accessed 5 July 2015, 3.

  146. 146.

    FAO, ‘Report of the FAO ad hoc Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 4) 25.

  147. 147.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Second FAO ad hoc Expert Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 5–6 §15, §18-19.

  148. 148.

    Ibid. 24–25, 45, 73–74.

  149. 149.

    Ibid. 26, 47, 75, 86, 111–112.

  150. 150.

    Ibid. 84.

  151. 151.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Third FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 124. A similar comment was made in relation to the humphead wrasse (FAO, ‘Report of the FAO ad hoc Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 4) 38).

  152. 152.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Third FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 125.

  153. 153.

    FAO, ‘Report of the FAO ad hoc Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 4) 38.

  154. 154.

    CITES (n 33) article XV(1)(2); Wijnstekers (n 48) 460.

  155. 155.

    For the presentation of this cross-reference, see supra Chapter 6 A. II. 2. a) aa).

  156. 156.

    Wijnstekers (n 48) 461.

  157. 157.

    See table in Annex 3 for an overview of the FAO Expert Panels’ pieces of advice, the CITES Secretariat recommendations and the CoP decisions.

  158. 158.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Third FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 41.

  159. 159.

    Ibid. 117.

  160. 160.

    See Annex 3.

  161. 161.

    CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP14 Inf. 26 – Correspondence between the FAO and the CITES Secretariat concerning proposals to amend the appendices’ (3–15 June 2007); see supra Chapter 6 B. I. 2.

  162. 162.

    CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP14 Inf. 26 – Correspondence between the FAO and the CITES Secretariat concerning proposals to amend the appendices’ (n 161). This concerns remains to this date (Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘Update on CITES related activities’ presented at the Fourteenth Session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (Bergen, 24–28 February 2014) COFI:FT/XIV/2014/10 (2014) 3 §7).

  163. 163.

    China, ‘CoP14 Inf. 45 – Shark Issues’ (3–15 June 2007) 2 §1(c).

  164. 164.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Second FAO ad hoc Expert Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 2 §6.

  165. 165.

    Ibid. 3 §12.

  166. 166.

    Ibid. 16 appendix C ‘Welcome speech by Ichiro Nomura, Assistant Director-General, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department’; Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘Report of the Tenth Session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (Santiago de Compostela, 30 May–2 June 2006)’ FAO Fisheries Report 807 (Rome 2006) 8 §26.

  167. 167.

    FAO, ‘Report of the FAO ad hoc Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 4) 2 §8.

  168. 168.

    SEAFDEC, ASSOCORAL and GFCM (FAO, ‘Report of the Second FAO ad hoc Expert Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 3 §12).

  169. 169.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Third FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 3 §13.

  170. 170.

    ICCAT, ‘CoP15 Doc. 68 Annex 4 – Submission of documents by ICCAT to the FAO for the Panel’ (11 January 2010).

  171. 171.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Third FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 120–122.

  172. 172.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Fourth FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 136) 3.

  173. 173.

    FAO, ‘Report of the FAO ad hoc Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 4); FAO, ‘Report of the Second FAO ad hoc Expert Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131); FAO, ‘Report of the Third FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131); FAO, ‘Report of the Fourth FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 136).

  174. 174.

    CITES, ‘CoP13 Doc. 60 – Amendments of the Appendices – Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II’ (2–14 October 2004) 1–2 §7; CITES, ‘CoP14 Doc. 68 – Amendments of the Appendices – Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II’ (3–15 June 2007) 1–2 §6; CITES, ‘CoP15 Doc. 68 – Amendments of the Appendices – Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II’ (13–25 March 2010) 1 §6; CITES, ‘CoP16 Doc. 77 – Amendments of the Appendices – Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II’ (3–14 March 2013) 1–2 §6.

  175. 175.

    CITES, ‘CoP16 Doc. 77 – Amendments of the Appendices – Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II’ (n 174) annexes.

  176. 176.

    Respectively CCAMLR, ‘CoP16 Doc. 63 (Rev.1) – Toothfish: Report of CCAMLR’ (n 56) for toothfish; and ICCAT, ‘CoP16 Inf. 42 – Measures taken by the ICCAT on Eastern Bluefin Tuna’ (3–14 March 2013) for Bluefin Tuna.

  177. 177.

    CCAMLR, ‘CoP12 Inf. 20 – Proposal from Australia (CoP12 Prop. 39)’ (3–15 November 2002) 7–8 §10.26-10.28 (only Australia, New-Zealand, and to some extent Sweden agreed on the interest of a listing); on this general opposition, see Calley (n 55) 175–181.

  178. 178.

    CCAMLR, ‘CoP12 Inf. 20 – Proposal from Australia (CoP12 Prop. 39)’ (n 177) 4 §10.4 (Japan).

  179. 179.

    Ibid. 4 §10.6 (Japan), 15–16 §10.68 (UK).

  180. 180.

    Ibid. 5 §10.13 (Norway), 14 §10.58 (Italy).

  181. 181.

    FAO, ‘CoP15 Inf. 26 – Statement from the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department on CoP15 Proposal 19 to List the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna in Appendix I’ (13–25 March 2010) annex §2–3.

  182. 182.

    Greenpeace, ‘CITES – Last Chance for Atlantic Bluefin Tuna’ (2010) http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/cites-last-chance-for-bluefin/ accessed 5 July 2015, 1.

  183. 183.

    Ibid. 2.

  184. 184.

    The Pew Environment Group, ‘CITES Proposal 19 – Atlantic Bluefin Tuna’ (2010) http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/peg/publications/fact_sheet/CITES20201020Fact20SheetsAllEnglishpdf.pdf accessed 5 July 2015, 1.

  185. 185.

    FAO, ‘CoP15 Inf. 26 – Statement from the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department on CoP15 Proposal 19 to List the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna in Appendix I’ (n 181) annex §1.

  186. 186.

    The FAO, in CoP15 Inf. 26 (ibid. annex §2 (reference omitted)), stated that “[i]n accordance with the UN Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, FAO recognises and respects the mandate of regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) for conservation and management of living resources in the areas of the high seas. Fundamentally therefore, FAO is supportive of these bodies having the primary management function for straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. At the same time, the rights granted to these bodies by international law brings with it legal obligations including, in particular, the need to ‘adopt measures to ensure the long-term sustainability of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks and promote the objective of their optimum utilization’.”

  187. 187.

    CCAMLR, ‘CoP12 Inf. 20 – Proposal from Australia (CoP12 Prop. 39)’ (n 177) 8 §10.28 (Sweden).

  188. 188.

    CITES and FAO, ‘A brief introduction to CITES listing of shark species’ http://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/prog/shark/docs/sharks_brochure_v8.pdf accessed 5 July 2015, 2 (italics added).

  189. 189.

    Australia, ‘CoP12 Prop. 12.39 – Consideration of proposals for amendment of Appendices I and II – Patagonian Toothfish’ (3–15 November 2002) 22 attachment A.

  190. 190.

    CCAMLR, ‘CoP12 Inf. 20 – Proposal from Australia (CoP12 Prop. 39)’ (n 177) 5 §10.9, 15 §10.66 (Norway).

  191. 191.

    ‘Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals’ (CMS) 1979, 1651 United Nations Treaty Series 333 article VIII(5).

  192. 192.

    CITES, ‘CoP16 Doc. 77 – Amendments of the Appendices – Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II’ (n 174) annex 4 ‘CMS comments on CITES listing proposals’ (10 January 2013).

  193. 193.

    Caddell, ‘Inter-Treaty Cooperation, Biodiversity Conservation and the Trade in Endangered Species’ (n 37) 279.

  194. 194.

    Annex 3 to the MoU on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks: Conservation Plan 27 September 2012 http://cms.eaudeweb.ro/fr/document/conservation-plan accessed 5 July 2015, 1 §1, 5 §6.3, 8 §15.1.

  195. 195.

    Resolution Conf. 11.4 (Rev. CoP12) – Conservation of cetaceans, trade in cetacean specimens and the relationship with the International Whaling Commission (n 70) preamble; C. P. Carlarne, ‘Saving the Whales in the New Millennium: International Institutions, Recent Developments and the Future of International Whaling Policies’ (2005–2006) 24 Virginia Environmental Law Journal 1, 24–25; Favre, International Trade in Endangered Species (n 49) 91.

  196. 196.

    Resolution Conf. 11.4 (Rev. CoP12) – Conservation of cetaceans, trade in cetacean specimens and the relationship with the International Whaling Commission (n 70) preamble.

  197. 197.

    M. Arbour and S. Lavallée, Droit international de l’environnement (Bruylant 2006) 411.

  198. 198.

    A. Proelß, ‘Marine Mammals’ Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law www.mpepil.com §18.

  199. 199.

    Such as the minke whale (A. Gillespie, Whaling Diplomacy: Defining Issues in International Environmental Law (New Horizons in Environmental Law, Edward Elgar 2005) 338; or in general Arbour and Lavallée (n 197) 412).

  200. 200.

    Arbour and Lavallée (n 197) 411, as recognized in Resolution Conf. 11.4 (Rev. CoP12) – Conservation of cetaceans, trade in cetacean specimens and the relationship with the International Whaling Commission (n 70) and, earlier, in Resolution Conf. 9.12 – Illegal Trade in Whale Meat 1994 (repealed), where it was said that the IWC is the main source of information regarding whales.

  201. 201.

    Norway, ‘CoP10 Prop. 10.22 – Proposal to transfer the Northeast Atlantic and North Atlantic Central stocks of minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) from Appendix I to Appendix II’ (1997).

  202. 202.

    CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP10 Doc. 10.89 (Rev) Annex 1 – Comments from the Parties and Comments and Recommendations from the Secretariat’ (9–20 June 1997) 911–912.

  203. 203.

    CITES, ‘CoP10 Com.I 10.9 – Summary Report of the Committee I Meeting’ (9–20 June 1997) 194.

  204. 204.

    Mexico, ‘CoP12 Doc. 16.4 – Cooperation between CITES and the International Whaling Commission’ (3–15 November 2002) 3 draft Resolution’s operative part.

  205. 205.

    Ibid. 1 ‘Comments from the Secretariat’ B.

  206. 206.

    Japan, ‘CoP13 Doc. 12.2 – CITES listing of whale stocks and the International Whaling Commission’ (2–14 October 2004) 2 draft Resolution.

  207. 207.

    Gillespie, Whaling Diplomacy (n 199) 340–341.

  208. 208.

    See supra Chapter 5 B. III. 1. a).

  209. 209.

    See supra Chapter 5 B. III. 2. c) aa).

  210. 210.

    The case brought by Australia against Japan in front of the ICJ was so on the basis of article 36(2) of the ‘Annex to the United Nations Charter: Statute of the International Court of Justice’ (Statute of the ICJ) 1945, 1 United Nations Treaty Series xvi, both countries having made a declaration of acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction.

  211. 211.

    Carlarne (n 195) 24.

  212. 212.

    Resolution Conf. 10.13 (Rev. CoP15) – Implementation of the Convention for timber species (n 96) ‘Regarding international organizations’, a).

  213. 213.

    Resolution Conf. 14.4 – Cooperation between CITES and ITTO regarding trade in tropical timber (n 99) operative part.

  214. 214.

    Resolution Conf. 10.13 (Rev. CoP15) – Implementation of the Convention for timber species (n 96) ‘Regarding international organizations’, b), with reference to Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) – Lauderdale criteria (n 50) first RESOLVES, h). The Secretariat did so, for example, for CoP16 (CITES, ‘CoP16 Doc. 77 – Amendments of the Appendices – Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II’ (n 174) 2 §7).

  215. 215.

    Favre, International Trade in Endangered Species (n 49) 311.

  216. 216.

    T. Polacheck, ‘Politics and independent scientific advice in RFMO processes: A case study of crossing boundaries’ (2012) 36 Marine Policy 132, 139.

  217. 217.

    O. S. Stokke, ‘Governance of High Seas Fisheries: The Role of Regime Linkages’ in D. Vidas and W. Ostreng (eds), Order for the oceans at the turn of the century (Kluwer Law International 1999) 161.

  218. 218.

    Germany (on behalf of the European Union), ‘CoP14 Inf. 48 – Comments on the FAO Assessment of the CITES Amendment – Proposals to list the porbeagle (lamna nasus) and the spiny dogfish (squalus acanthias) on Appendix II of CITES’ (3–15 June 2007).

  219. 219.

    Polacheck, ‘Politics and independent scientific advice in RFMO processes: A case study of crossing boundaries’ (n 216) 140.

  220. 220.

    M. Ivanova and J. Roy, ‘The Architecture of Global Environmental Governance: Pros and Cons of Multiplicity’ http://www.centerforunreform.org/node/251 accessed 5 July 2015, 2–3, 11.

  221. 221.

    Such as that by C. Catarci, ‘World Markets and Industry of Selected Commercially Exploited Aquatic Species with an International Conservation Profile’ FAO Fisheries Circular 990 (Rome 2004).

  222. 222.

    Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘Update on CITES related activities’ presented at the Fourteenth Session (n 162) 8 §35-36.

  223. 223.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Second Technical Consultation on the Suitability of the CITES Criteria for Listing Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species’ (n 107) §28.

  224. 224.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Second Meeting of FAO and non-FAO regional fishery bodies or arrangements’ (n 111) 9 §47.

  225. 225.

    FAO, ‘Report of the FAO ad hoc Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 4) 47–49.

  226. 226.

    Spain (on behalf of the European Union), ‘CoP15 Inf. 36 – Frequently asked questions related to the listing proposals of porbeagle and spiny dogfish’ (13–25 March 2010) 5 §16.

  227. 227.

    A. Blundell, ‘A Review of the CITES Listing of Big-leaf Mahogany’ (2004) 38 Oryx 84, 84–86.

  228. 228.

    Also noteworthy is the example of the humphead wrasse as opposed to the white great shark (T. Gehring and E. Ruffing, ‘When Arguments Prevail Over Power: The CITES Procedure for the Listing of Endangered Species’ (2008) 8 Global Environmental Politics 123, 139–141, 142–144).

  229. 229.

    CITES-FAO MoU (n 9) §2, 4.

  230. 230.

    For a review of such early activities, see CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP14 Doc. 18.1 – Cooperation with other organizations – Cooperation with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ (n 125) 2–3 §12-22.

  231. 231.

    FAO, ‘Capacity Building – Sea Cucumbers’ http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/16360/en accessed 5 July 2015.

  232. 232.

    FAO, ‘Stock Assessment Approach for the Napoleon Fish, Cheilinus Undulatus in Indonesia, A tool for quota-setting for data-poor fisheries under CITES Appendix II Non-Detriment Finding requirements’ FAO Fisheries Circular 1023 (Rome 2007).

  233. 233.

    R. Gillett, ‘Monitoring and management of the humphead wrasse, Cheilinus undulatus’ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular 1048 (Rome 2010); A. Oddone and others, ‘Estimating reef habitat coverage suitable for the humphead wrasse, Cheilinus undulatus, using remote sensing’ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular 1057 (Rome 2010).

  234. 234.

    P. Medley, ‘Manual for the monitoring and management of queen conch’ FAO Fisheries Circular 1012 (Rome 2005).

  235. 235.

    FAO, ‘Capacity Building – Caribbean Queen conch’ http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/16390/en accessed 5 July 2015.

  236. 236.

    Ibid. The 2006 workshop resulted in a report: FAO, ‘Regional Workshop on the Monitoring and Management of Queen Conch, Strombus gigas (Kingston, 1–5 May 2006)’ FAO Fisheries Report 832 (Rome 2007).

  237. 237.

    FAO, ‘Report of the FAO Expert Consultation on the Implementation of the FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (Rome, 6–8 December 2005)’ FAO Fisheries Report 795 (Rome 2006).

  238. 238.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Technical Workshop on the Status, Limitations and Opportunities for Improving the Monitoring of Shark Fisheries and Trade (Rome, 3–6 November 2008)’ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report 897 (Rome 2009).

  239. 239.

    FAO, ‘Report of the FAO/CITES workshop took place to review the application and effectiveness of international regulatory measures for the conservation and sustainable use of Elasmobranchs (Genazzano, 19–23 July 2010)’ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report R984 (Rome 2012).

  240. 240.

    CITES, CITES getting ready for sharks and rays (2013) http://www.cites.org/eng/news/pr/2013/20130914_shark_ray.php accessed 5 July 2015; Scanlon, FAO-CITES related activities on commercially exploited aquatic species, CITES Secretary General’s intervention presented at the Fourteenth Session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (Bergen, 24–28 February 2014) http://cites.org/eng/news/sg/2014/20140226_cofi-ft.php accessed 5 July 2015; CITES, ‘Strengthening capacity in developing countries for sustainable wildlife management and enhanced implementation of CITES wildlife trade regulations, with particular focus on commercially-exploited aquatic species: Project summary sheet’ (n 41).

  241. 241.

    Scanlon, FAO-CITES related activities on commercially exploited aquatic species (n 240); Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘Update on CITES related activities’ presented at the Fourteenth Session (n 162) 8 §34.

  242. 242.

    FAO and CITES, ‘Report of the FAO and CITES Technical Workshop – Stock Assessment and TAC Methodologies (Rome, 11–13 November 2008)’ TCP/INT/3101 (Rome 2008); FAO and CITES, ‘Report of the FAO and CITES Technical Workshop on Combating Illegal Sturgeon Fishing and Trade (Antalya, Turkey, 28–30 September 2009)’ TCP/INT/3101 (Rome 2010).

  243. 243.

    FAO and CITES, ‘Report of the FAO and CITES Technical Workshop on Combating Illegal Sturgeon Fishing and Trade’ (n 242) 1.

  244. 244.

    FAO/Government Cooperative Programme, ‘CITES and Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species, Including the Evaluation of Listing Proposals (Phase 2) – Project Document 2010-2015’ (n 40) 4 (on file with the author).

  245. 245.

    FAO, ‘iSharkFin’ http://www.fao.org/fishery/ipoa-sharks/iSharkFin/en accessed 5 July 2015; Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘Update on CITES related activities’ presented at the Fourteenth Session (n 162) 4 §12.

  246. 246.

    Honduras, ‘CoP16 Inf. 40 – Shark fin identification guide in English, Spanish and French: Identifying Shark Fins: Oceanic Whitetip, Porbeagle and Hammerheads by the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences and The Pew Environmental Group’ (3–14 March 2013).

  247. 247.

    Committee on Fisheries – Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, ‘Report of the Thirteenth Session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (Hyderabad, India, 20–24 February 2012)’ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report 996 (Rome 2012) 12 §53.

  248. 248.

    FAO and CITES, ‘Report of the FAO and CITES Technical Workshop on Combating Illegal Sturgeon Fishing and Trade’ (n 242) 13.

  249. 249.

    In particular since a wider range of practices are included under the term ‘aquaculture’ at the FAO than would be falling under the CITES category of captive-breeding (A. Willock, ‘Administrative and Monitoring Implications of listing and down-listing of commercially-exploited aquatic species, including the implications of Annex 4 of Resolution Conf. 9.24’ Background paper to CITES Workshop on Introduction from the Sea Issues (30 November – 2 December 2005, Geneva (Switzerland)) http://www.cites.org/eng/news/meetings/ifs-05/IFS05-TRAFFIC-paper.pdf accessed 4 July 2015, 17–18).

  250. 250.

    See supra Chapter 5 B. III. 1. a).

  251. 251.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Second FAO ad hoc Expert Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 45.

  252. 252.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Third FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals’ (n 131) 126.

  253. 253.

    CITES, ‘Resources for implementation: Legality’ http://cites.org/eng/prog/shark/legality.php accessed 5 July 2015; CITES, ‘Regional fisheries management organization measures for shark conservation and management (draft as at March 2014)’ (March 2014) http://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/prog/shark/docs/shark%20RFMO%20measures%20-%20draft%20March%202014.pdf accessed 5 July 2015.

  254. 254.

    L. Little and M. A. Orellana, ‘Can CITES Play a Role in Solving the Problem of IUU Fishing?: The Trouble with Patagonian Toothfish’ (2005) 16 Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 21, 78.

  255. 255.

    Resolution Conf. 14.6 (Rev. CoP16) – Introduction from the Sea (n 51) preamble.

  256. 256.

    FAO/Government Cooperative Programme, ‘CITES and Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species, Including the Evaluation of Listing Proposals (Phase 2) – Project Document 2010-2015’ (n 40) 4.

  257. 257.

    E. Franckx, ‘The Exercise of Jurisdiction over Vessels: Legal Issues Raised by the Relationship Between CITES, FAO and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea’ in E. Franckx and P. Gautier (eds), The Exercise of Jurisdiction over Vessels: New Developments in the Fields of Pollution, Fisheries, Crimes at Sea and Trafficking of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Bruylant 2010) 78.

  258. 258.

    A. Willock, ‘Uncharted Waters/Implementation Issues and Potential Benefits of Listing Toothfish in Appendix II of CITES’ (TRAFFIC 2002) 27–31.

  259. 259.

    International Environmental Law Project, ‘Understanding Introduction from the Sea’ (2010) http://www.lclark.edu/live/files/4356 accessed 6 July 2015, 14, 27–28.

  260. 260.

    Willock, ‘Uncharted Waters/Implementation Issues and Potential Benefits of Listing Toothfish in Appendix II of CITES’ (n 258) 31.

  261. 261.

    Resolution Conf. 12.4 – Cooperation between CITES and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources regarding trade in toothfish 2002.

  262. 262.

    CCAMLR, ‘CoP14 Doc. 61 – Toothfish: Report of CCAMLR’ (n 56) 2 §8-9; CCAMLR, ‘CoP16 Doc. 63 (Rev.1) – Toothfish: Report of CCAMLR’ (n 56) 1 §4.

  263. 263.

    CCAMLR, ‘CoP14 Doc. 61 – Toothfish: Report of CCAMLR’ (n 56) 5 ‘Comments from the Secretariat’ B.

  264. 264.

    CCAMLR, ‘CoP16 Doc. 63 (Rev.1) – Toothfish: Report of CCAMLR’ (n 56).

  265. 265.

    Willock, ‘Uncharted Waters/Implementation Issues and Potential Benefits of Listing Toothfish in Appendix II of CITES’ (n 258) 29–31.

  266. 266.

    Australia, ‘CoP12 Prop. 12.39 – Consideration of proposals for amendment of Appendices I and II – Patagonian Toothfish’ (n 189) 2 §7, 17 §6.2.

  267. 267.

    Little and Orellana are of the opinion that the CDS could not be applicable for fish caught beyond the CCAMLR area, because these fisheries are not covered by the Convention ((n 254) 102–103).

  268. 268.

    Australia, ‘CoP12 Prop. 12.39 – Consideration of proposals for amendment of Appendices I and II – Patagonian Toothfish’ (n 189) 1.

  269. 269.

    CITES Secretariat, ‘SC62 Doc. 14.3 – Cooperation with other organizations – Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals’ (n 77) annex 4.

  270. 270.

    A. D’Amato and S. K. Chopra, ‘Whales: Their Emerging Right to Life’ (1991) 85 American Journal of International Law 21, 47.

  271. 271.

    CITES (n 33) article XV(2)(b).

  272. 272.

    Resolution Conf. 11.4 (Rev. CoP12) – Conservation of cetaceans, trade in cetacean specimens and the relationship with the International Whaling Commission (n 70) operative part.

  273. 273.

    Favre, International Trade in Endangered Species (n 49) 92.

  274. 274.

    Gillespie, Whaling Diplomacy (n 199) 337; Favre, International Trade in Endangered Species (n 49) 92.

  275. 275.

    Carlarne (n 195) 24.

  276. 276.

    P. H. Sand, ‘Japan’s ‘Research Whaling’ in the Antarctic Southern Ocean and the North Pacific Ocean in the Face of the Endangered Species Convention (CITES)’ (2008) 17 RECIEL 56, 61. This is however not the conclusion reached by Gillespie who considers, in a rather vague interpretation of article XV, that the adoption of “a listing which [is] effectively different from the IWC recommendations” would fail the coordination required by the Convention and hence be an ultra vires action (Gillespie, Whaling Diplomacy (n 199) 344).

  277. 277.

    United States of America, ‘CoP14 Doc. 18.2 – Cooperation between CITES and ITTO Regarding Trade in Tropical Timber’ (n 98) 1 §3-4; ITTO, ‘Making the mahogany trade work’ (n 100) 14–16.

  278. 278.

    Blundell (n 227) 88.

  279. 279.

    J. Grogan and P. Barreto, ‘Big-Leaf Mahogany on CITES Appendix II: Big Challenge, Big Opportunity’ (2005) 19 Conservation Biology 973, 973.

  280. 280.

    ITTO, ‘Making the mahogany trade work’ (n 100) 3, 16–17.

  281. 281.

    CITES Secretariat, ‘PC17 Doc. 16.2 – Timber Issues – Progress Report on the Joint ITTO-CITES Timber Project: First Regional Meeting’ (15 April 2008) 1 §3 and annex; Phase I of the ITTO-CITES program (2006–2011) is considered to have been a success and Phase II is under development (CITES Secretariat, ‘CoP16 Doc. 13 – Cooperation with Organizations and Multilateral Environmental Agreements’ (n 1) 3–5 §16-25); ITTO, ‘ITTO-CITES Program for Implementing CITES Listings of Tropical Timber Species’ http://www.itto.int/cites_programme/ accessed 5 July 2015; CITES, ‘ITTO-CITES programme on tree species’ http://www.cites.org/eng/prog/itto.php accessed 5 July 2015; Engler and Parry-Jones (n 102) 26.

  282. 282.

    CITES, ‘Strengthening capacity in developing countries for sustainable wildlife management and enhanced implementation of CITES wildlife trade regulations, with particular focus on commercially-exploited aquatic species: Project summary sheet’ (n 41) 2.

  283. 283.

    P. H. Sand, ‘Whither CITES? The Evolution of a Treaty Regime in the Borderland of Trade and Environment’ (1997) 8 European Journal of International Law 29, 37.

  284. 284.

    R. Reeve, Policing International Trade in Endangered Species (Earthscan 2002) 238.

  285. 285.

    CITES, ‘Ongoing projects and activities: EU project’ (n 41); CITES, ‘Strengthening capacity in developing countries for sustainable wildlife management and enhanced implementation of CITES wildlife trade regulations, with particular focus on commercially-exploited aquatic species: Project summary sheet’ (n 41).

  286. 286.

    FAO, ‘CoP15 Inf. 26 – Statement from the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department on CoP15 Proposal 19 to List the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna in Appendix I’ (n 181) annex §3.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Court of Justice, Peace Palace, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Solène Guggisberg

Authors
  1. Solène Guggisberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Guggisberg, S. (2016). Chapter 6 CITES Cooperation with Other Institutions in Relation to Commercially-exploited Fish Species. In: The Use of CITES for Commercially-exploited Fish Species. Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, vol 35. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23702-2_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation