CYIL Vol. 5, 2014

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. 63 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 63 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].

152