International fisheries agreement: Review of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas: Case study—Shark management

Abstract

To properly manage world fisheries, especially highly migratory species, there are numerous treaties that have been implemented by specialized international fishery commissions. One of the oldest organizations is the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The main focus of this review was to summarize the history, roles and responsibilities of ICCAT, and to evaluate ICCAT's management of sharks in general and specifically for shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) shark. This review found that the Convention was established 40 years ago, but it was not until 2004 that the commission conducted its first population assessment on pelagic sharks.

Full text

Marine Policy 32 (2008) 528–533
International fisheries agreement: Review of the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
Case study—Shark management
Juan C. Levesque

Levesque Environmental and Fisheries Research, 8021 Quail Hollow Boulevard, Wesley Chapel, FL 33544, USA
Received 24 August 2007; received in revised form 21 October 2007; accepted 21 October 2007
Abstract
To properly manage world fisheries, especially highly migratory species, there are numerous treaties that have been implemented by
specialized international fishery commissions. One of the oldest organizations is the International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The main focus of this review was to summarize the history, roles and responsibilities of ICCAT, and to
evaluate ICCAT’s management of sharks in general and specifically for shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) shark. This review found that
the Convention was established 40 years ago, but it was not until 2004 that the commission conducted its first population assessment on
pelagic sharks.
r2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Environmental treaties; ICCAT; Shark management; Shortfin mako shark; Isurus oxyrinchus
1. Introduction
In 1868, one of the first environmental multilateral treaties
was implemented [1]. Today, there are approximately 502
environmental international treaties. Most treaties (60%)
were developed and implemented after 1972. To properly
manage world fisheries, especially highly migratory species,
there are numerous treaties that have been implemented by
specialized international fishery commissions such as the
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) in the
Eastern Pacific, the FAO Indian Ocean Fisheries Commis-
sion, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) Indo-Pacific Fisheries Commission and the
Southern Bluefin Trilateral Arrangement (between Australia,
Japan and New Zealand) [2]. In the Pacific Ocean, the South
Pacific Commission (SPC) conducts research on tunas
in the Commission’s area of competence and the South
Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (SPFFA) is responsible for
regulating access to tuna resources within the jurisdiction of
its Member States [2]. Presently, various agreements such
as the Eastern Pacific Tuna Fishing Agreement (EPTA),
the Eastern Pacific Ocean Tuna Organization (OAPO), the
Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organization (WIOTO), and
the FAO Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) are
continuing negotiations to formally establish additional tuna
management bodies in the world [2]. One of the oldest
organizations is the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).
The main focus of this paper is to summarize the history,
roles and responsibilities of ICCAT, and to evaluate
ICCAT’s management of sharks in general and specifically
for shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) shark. This review
evaluates ICCAT reports, reports obtained from other
international fishery organizations such as the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the Untied Nations, and other
peer-reviewed published papers.
2. ICCAT: history, purpose, and shark management
ICCAT is an inter-governmental fishery organization
responsible for the conservation of tunas and tuna-like
species in the Atlantic Ocean and its adjacent seas. ICCAT
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
0308-597X/$ - see front matter r2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2007.10.006

Present address: Geo-Marine, Inc., 2201 Avenue K, Suite A2, Plano,
TX 75074, USA. Tel.: +972 423 5480; fax: +1 972 422 2736.
E-mail address: jlevesque@geo-marine.com
Juan C. Levesque
Digitally signed by Juan C. Levesque
DN: cn=Juan C. Levesque, o=Geo-Marine Incorporated, ou=Marine Science
Department, email=jlevesque@geo-marine.com, c=US
Date: 2008.06.05 14:47:47 -05'00'

was established at the Conference of Plenipotentiaries and
signed in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1966. After an approval
process, the legally binding Convention was implemented
in 1969. As categorized in [1] by the essay Multilateral
Environmental Agreements: A summary, the Convention
can be categorized as a cluster 1 type agreement:
biodiversity-related. Through the 1969 Convention, IC-
CAT was responsible for carrying out the Articles of the
Convention and designated as the only fisheries organiza-
tion that would study and manage tunas and tuna-like
fishes in the Atlantic Ocean. Since the signing of the
Convention, the number of contracting parities continues
to rise (Fig. 1). Today, there are 43 contracting parties.
ICCAT oversees the Convention area (Fig. 2) and some of
ICCAT’s work requires the collection and analysis of
statistical information relative to current fishing conditions
and population trends [3].
Article IV of the Convention states that the Commission
shall be responsible for the study of the populations of tuna
and tuna-like fishes (the Scombriformes with the exception
of the families Trichiuridae and Gempylidae and the genus
Scomber) and such other species of fishes exploited in tuna
fishing in the Convention area that are not under
investigation by another international fishery organization
[4]. Article IV instructs that such study shall include
research on the abundance, biometry and ecology of the
fishes; the oceanography of their environment and the
effects of natural and human factors upon their abundance.
The Commission, in carrying out these responsibilities
shall, insofar as feasible, utilize the technical and scientific
services of, and information from, official agencies of the
contracting parties and their political sub-divisions and
may, when desirable, utilize the available services and
information of any public or private institution, organiza-
tion or individual, and may undertake within the limits of
its budget independent research to supplement the research
work being done by governments, national institutions or
other international organizations [4]. The Commission also
assumes work in the compilation of data for other fish
species that are caught incidentally during tuna fishing in
the Convention area and which are not investigated by
another international fishery organization.
Among various responsibilities, ICCAT (1) compiles
fishery statistics from its members and from all entities
fishing for these species in the Atlantic Ocean; (2) coordinates
research, including stock assessment, on behalf of its
members; (3) develops scientifically based management
advice; (4) provides a mechanism for contracting parties to
agree on management measures, and (5) produces relevant
publications. Contracting parties either have 6 months to
implement the requirements or to submit an objection. If an
objection is submitted, ICCAT is required to review the
objection and make a ruling [4].
Article VI of the Convention indicates that the
Commission may establish a Panel to investigate individual
species, a group of species or a geographical area. Each
Panel in such case (a) shall be responsible for keeping
under review the species, group of species, or geographic
area under its purview, and for collecting scientific and
other information relating thereto; (b) may propose to the
Commission, upon the basis of scientific investigations,
recommendations for joint action by the contracting
parties; (c) may recommend to the Commission studies
and investigations necessary for obtaining information
relating to its species, group of species or geographic area,
as well as the co-ordination of programs of investigation by
the contracting parties. In addition, the Convention
(Article XI) establishes a working relationship with FAO
in order to institute international consistency [4].
Since the Convention was implemented in 1969, ICCAT
has mostly focused on managing all the highly migratory
species, except bycatch species like sharks, sea turtles, and
birds. In reviewing all the historical ICCAT management
recommendations and resolutions for the conservation of
Atlantic tunas and tuna-like species, only five management
recommendations or resolutions have been initiated for
either Atlantic shark species or shark fisheries in general
[4]. For the other bycatch species, there has only been one
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 1. Number of ICCAT members [3].
J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 32 (2008) 528–533 529

resolution established for sea turtles and another for
sea birds. However, in contrast, there have been about
117 recommendations or resolutions that have been
made regarding species such as tunas, swordfish, billfish,
monitoring and compliance, and other ICCAT working
duties. It is difficult to ascertain why bycatch species, such
as sharks, have been valued lower in terms of management,
but it is presumable to believe that it may be a lack of
funding or resources. In addition, although sharks are a
valuable economic bycatch group, sharks are not as
economically valuable as some of the other highly
migratory teleost; therefore, it is possible that ICCAT
has been evaluating fishery stocks based on economic
importance.
It was not until 1995 that ICCAT made its first
resolution on the status of stocks and bycatch of shark
species [5]. Through the resolution, ICCAT recognized the
importance of the FAO’s Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries report [6], the work of the Study Group on
Elasmobranch Fishes of the International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea (ICES), and the Ninth Meeting of
the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES). Based on this importance, ICCAT
established the FAO as the focal organization for shark
information and it also required contracting parties to
provide shark catch information to the Commission and to
the FAO. In 2002, a resolution on Atlantic sharks required
that contracting parties implement and submit their
Nation’s International Plan of Action for the Conservation
and Management of Sharks (IPOA) [7]. The resolution also
stated that the Commission should hold an interim meeting
in 2003 regarding the Atlantic blue shark and the shortfin
mako shark, should conduct a stock assessment on the two
species in 2004, and should volunteer not to promote
the directed catch of these two species until population
stock assessments had been conducted. In 2003, ICCAT
implemented another resolution regarding Atlantic shark
fisheries. In this resolution, ICCAT required contracting
parties to provide the Commission with all available shark
fishery catch information by 2004, stressed that only a
limited number of contracting parties had developed their
Nation’s IPOA, and required that all remaining Nations
submit their IPOAs within 6 months. On 13 June 2005,
recognizing the ecological importance of sharks to the
ecosystem, two resolutions were implemented by ICCAT
regarding sharks and shark fisheries. In resolution 04-10,
among other things, ICCAT required contracting parties to
submit annual shark catch information, implemented a
maximum 5% fin to shark carcass weight ratio limit,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 2. ICCAT Convention Management Area [3].
J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 32 (2008) 528–533530

recommended shark research in various areas, and
recommended that shortfin mako shark and blue shark
assessments be conducted in 2005 and then again in 2007.
On 14 December 2005, resolution 05-05 stressed the
importance of reducing shortfin mako shark bycatch in
commercial fisheries and added the following paragraph:
‘‘Contracting Parties, Cooperating non-Contracting Par-
ties, Entities or Fishing Entities (CPCs) shall annually
report on their implementation of this Recommendation.
CPCs that have not yet implemented this recommendation
to reduce North Atlantic shortfin mako shark (Isurus
oxyrinchus) mortality, shall implement it and report to the
Commission.’’ However, a few months later ICCAT
amended the resolution to read: ‘‘Standing Committee on
Research Statistics (SCRS) shall conduct stock assessments
of, and recommend management alternatives for, shortfin
mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) and blue sharks (Prionace glauca)
in time for consideration at the 2008 annual meeting of the
Commission. A data preparatory meeting will be held in
2007 to review all relevant data on biological parameters,
catch, effort, discards, and trade, including historical data.
Parties should submit all relevant data sufficiently in
advance of the meeting to allow the SCRS adequate time
to review and incorporate the data into the assessment.’’
Recently, on 14 February 2007, ICCAT again stressed the
importance of compliance, reminded the contracting
parties of various Articles in the Convention, and highly
recommended that each Nation submit their catch data on
tuna, tuna-like species, and Atlantic sharks by the due
dates. The due date for Atlantic sharks was established as
11 June 2007.
3. Shark fisheries: Mako shark population status
Similar to most world ocean fisheries, sharks are taken in
great number in the Atlantic Ocean as a bycatch of many
inshore and offshore commercial fisheries with various
types of gear including longlines, hand-lines, trawl, and
gillnet fisheries. Not only are sharks important commercial
fisheries, but they are also targeted and taken by many
recreational fishermen throughout the world. Shark fish-
eries have continued to increase as the market for shark
meat and shark products has expanded [2].
There are few well-documented shark fisheries through-
out the world, but the major fishing nations are from Asia
and Europe and include Taiwan (Province of China),
Japan, Republic of Korea, France, Norway, Russia, Spain,
United Kingdom, and the United States. Historically,
commercial shark catch statistics have been inadequate,
unreliable, and there is virtually no species-specific catch
information available. Although, the recreational catch of
sharks is substantial, especially in some countries, the lack
of information is even greater than in commercial fisheries;
thus, the overall population status on most shark species is
uncertain.
In 1991, approximately 700,000 t of cartilaginous fishes
were landed, of which 220,000 t were identified as skate and
rays, 170,000 t as sharks, and 310,000 t remained unidenti-
fied [8]. Overall, landings of identified sharks have
increased from 148,000 t in the mid-1970s to 170,000 t in
1991. In general, shark landings, mostly demersal species,
have continued to increase while pelagic shark landings
have slightly decreased over the last 20 years [8]. The FAO
report stated that this may be a warning of global pelagic
shark overfishing and a reflection of increased utilization of
elasmobranch bycatch from demersal fisheries.
One of the most commercially valuable pelagic sharks
taken in commercial fisheries under the jurisdiction of
ICCAT is the shortfin mako shark. The shark genus Isurus
is cosmopolitan and represented by two species: shortfin
mako and longfin mako (Isurus paucus). Besides a few
cetaceans [9] and man, the adult mako shark is not prey to
any marine animal, but is considered an apex predator at
the top of the marine environment food web. The mako
shark is a pelagic shark often captured incidentally in
various offshore fisheries throughout the world [9]. The
shortfin and longfin mako shark may be vulnerable to
overfishing since the genus has a low reproductive
capability, matures late in life, and grows slower than
most shark species [10–12]. Researchers have documented
such activities and many shark populations at various
geographical locations are believed to be at critical
population levels or may have already collapsed
[11,13,14] due to direct or indirect fishing activities [16].
Sharks are long lived, slow growing, reach sexual
maturity late in their life history and produce few offspring,
thus making population recruitment slow [16]. According
to the IUCN world conservation union’s Red List of
Threatened and Endangered Species, the shortfin mako
shark was assessed and listed under the category Lower
Risk (Near Threatened (NT)) in 2002. Taxa under this
category do not qualify for Conservation Dependent, but
which are close to qualifying under the Vulnerable
category. From 14 to 18 June 2004, ICCAT conducted its
first assessment of the shortfin mako shark. Conclusions
from the assessment determined that preliminary data for
the shortfin mako shark suggested that, although catches
continue to rise, the species may have suffered 50%
depletion in the North Atlantic Ocean based on historical
catch-per-unit of effort (CPUE) trends [17]. In the South
Atlantic Ocean, the working group pointed out that stock
depletion had also occurred since 1971, but the magnitude
was less severe than in the North Atlantic [17]. Overall,
the ICCAT sub-committee on bycatch indicated that the
conclusions were preliminary and additional data was
necessary to make any final recommendations [17].
In 2005, the longfin mako shark was assessed and listed
in the Vulnerable category under the same Red List of
Threatened and Endangered Species. In 2006, the Com-
mittee on the Status of the Endangered Wildlife in Canada
(COSEWIC) recently drafted an assessment and conducted
a population status for the shortfin mako shark [18]. Based
on the review, the committee decided to list the species as
Threatened under criteria A2b. More recently, Levesque
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 32 (2008) 528–533 531

[10] conducted a comprehensive review on the shortfin
mako shark and discovered that the species is one of the
most unique ecological shark species, but due to declining
populations as a result of commercial fishing activities and
the lack of species-specific management, the species is in
need of further domestic and international protection or it
may never recover.
4. Conclusions
Since the Convention was implemented in 1969, ICCAT
has been successful at managing some highly migratory
species, but unsuccessful at others, especially the bycatch
species, such as sharks. Using the criteria established
by the essay ‘‘Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A
Summary’’ in Green Planet Blues [1], there are some
strengths and weaknesses of the Convention for the
conservation and management of Atlantic tuna-like fishes.
ICCAT has been successful at providing clustering and
opportunities for synergies, opportunities for scientific
cooperation, and in providing cooperation among different
conventions. However, as pointed out by this review, it is
evident that ICCAT has been extremely unsuccessful at
managing bycatch species (sharks, seabirds and protected
species: sea turtles and marine mammals). Overall,
ICCAT’s weaknesses include the ability to harmonize
national reporting, inadequacy at the implementation
and coordination of efforts at the national level, and
inadequacy in compliance and enforcement. More
importantly, ICCAT lacks performance indicators for
measuring the effectiveness of the Convention. Moreover,
based on the first and only stock assessment conducted on
pelagic sharks (blue shark and shortfin mako shark),
ICCAT has failed in properly addressing shark manage-
ment issues effectively. As previously stated, the Conven-
tion was established 40 years ago, but it was not until
2004, some 37 years later, that the Commission conducted
its first population assessment on pelagic sharks. Require-
ments of the Convention under several Articles direct
ICCAT to effectively manage all highly migratory species
including bycatch species such as sharks, sea turtles,
sea birds, and marine mammals. Unless, ICCAT prioritizes
sharks at the same level or even above some fishes,
shark populations will continue to decline to levels of
economic commercial collapse. Presently, ICCAT will
not be conducting another pelagic shark stock assessment
until 2008.
Many researchers have reviewed and reported that many
shark populations have already declined to critical levels
[10,11,13]. The porbeagle shark, Lamna nasus, is another
pelagic shark often captured in pelagic longline fisheries
throughout the world. Recently, the porbeagle shark stock
was assessed and based on the results, indicating the
population was about 12–15% of its 1961 size [19]; it was
recommended that the species be designated as Endangered
[20]. As of today, the Canadian government is proposing to
list the species under the protection of the Species At Risk
Act (SARA). Even the blue shark, Prionace glauca, the
most abundant pelagic shark in the world’s oceans, has
also declined due to overfishing [21]. Pelagic sharks need
additional management; most pelagic sharks share similar
life history characteristics and vast migration behavior
patterns making them vulnerable to various fisheries
throughout the world. Therefore, international shark
management is vital for their survival and recovery.
Because of shark life history biology, even with dramatic
improvements in shark management, recovery may take
many decades or may never occur at all. Thus, it is critical
that ICCAT and other fishery governing world organiza-
tions prioritize fisheries management not only on econom-
ics and politics, but also on vulnerability and conservation.
Since elasmobranchs are so diverse and unique, the
conservation of this group is essential for sustaining
biodiversity [15].
Acknowledgments
This paper is dedicated to R. Aidan Martin, who was
one of my professors at Nova Southeastern University
Oceanographic Center. The late A. Martin dedicated his
career to highlighting the diversity of elasmobranchs.
Committed to marine conservation, his enthusiasm for
elasmobranchs was addicting. I would also like to thank
the participants of the U.S. commercial pelagic longline
fishery for the friendships, memories, and their awareness
of safety during my 7 years as a fishery observer. I would
like to thank J. Dougan of Nova Southeastern University
Oceanographic Center for initially reviewing this paper and
providing suggested revisions.
References
[1] Conca K, Dabelko G. Green Planet Blues: environmental politics
from Stockholm to Johannesburg. 3rd ed., 2004, p. 372.
[2] FAO. World review of highly migratory species and straddling
stocks. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations; 1994. p. 70.
[3] ICCAT, International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas; 2007, /http://www.iccat.es/pubs_FieldManual.htmS.
[4] ICCAT. Basic texts for the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, 4th Revision. International Com-
mission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), 2005.
[5] ICCAT. Compendium management recommendation and resolutions
adapted by ICCAT for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and
Tuna-like species. International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), 2006, p. 222.
[6] FAO. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome: Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations; 1995. p. 20.
[7] FAO. International Plan of Action for the Conservation and
Management of Sharks. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization
of the United Nations; 1999. p. 33.
[8] FAO. FAO yearbook. Fishery statistics: catches and landings.
Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations;
1993. p. 654.
[9] Visser IN, Berghan J, van Meurs R, Fertl D. Killer whale (Orcinus
orca) predation on a shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus)in
New Zealand waters. Aquatic Mammals 2000;26(3):229–31.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 32 (2008) 528–533532

[10] Levesque JC. A comprehensive review of the biology and preliminary
investigation of the interactions with the US pelagic longline
fishery for the shortfin (Isurus oxyrinchus) and longfin (Isurus
paucus) mako sharks. Master of Science Capstone Thesis, Nova
Southeastern University Oceanographic Center, Dania, FL, 2007,
p. 265.
[11] Baum J, Myers R, Kehler D, Worm B, Harley S, Dohery P. Collapse
and conservation of shark populations in the northwest Atlantic.
Science 2003:389–92.
[12] ICCAT. Report of the 2004 Meeting of the Standing Committee on
Research and Statistics (SCRS). International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), 2004.
[13] Baum JK, Myers RA. Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic
sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecology Letters 2004;7:135–45.
[14] Baum JK, Kehler RA, Myers RA. Robust estimates of decline for
pelagic shark populations in the northwest Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico. Fisheries 2005;30(10):27–30.
[15] Martin A. Conservation of freshwater and euryhaline elasmobranchs:
a review. Journal of the Marine Biological Association 2005(85):
1049–73.
[16] Musick JA, editor. Life in the slow lane: ecology and conservation of
long-lived marine animals. American Fisheries Society Symposium,
Bethesda, Maryland, 1999.
[17] ICCAT. Report of the 2004 Inter-sessional Meeting of the ICCAT
subcommittee on bycatches: Shark Stock Assessment (Tokyo,Japan,
14–18 June 2004). International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 2005; 58(3): 799-890.
[18] COSEWIC. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the shortfin
mako Isurus oxyrinchus(Atlantic population) in Canada. Committee
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, 2006, p. 24.
[19] COSEWIC. Stock assessment report for on NAFO subareas 3–6,
porbeagle shark. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada, 2005, p. 11.
[20] Campana S, Joyce W, Marks L. Status of the porbeagle shark,
Lamna nasus, population in the northwest Atlantic in the context of
species at risk. Canadian Fisheries and Oceans, 2003, p. 31.
[21] ICCAT. Catch, bycatch and indices of the population status of the
blue shark, Prionace glauca, in the Canadian Atlantic. International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
2005;58(3):891–934.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 32 (2008) 528–533 533