Lamna nasus - Cites

Draft Proposal to list Lamna nasus in Appendix II - prepared by Germany in January 2012 

A. Proposal 

Inclusion of Lamna nasus (Bonnaterre, 1788) in Appendix II in accordance with Article II 2(a) and (b). 

Qualifying Criteria (Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP13)) 1 

Annex 2a A: It is known, or can be inferred or projected, that the regulation of trade in the species is 

necessary to avoid it becoming eligible for inclusion in Appendix I in the near future. 

North and Southwest Atlantic and Mediterranean stocks of Lamna nasus qualify for listing under this 

criterion, because their marked decline in population size meets CITES’ guidelines for the application of 

decline to commercially exploited aquatic species. The largest global stocks of this low productivity shark 

have experienced historical extent of declines to


1.3 Family: Lamnidae 

1.4 Species: Lamna nasus (Bonnaterre, 1788) 

1.5 Scientific synonyms: 

1.6 Common names: 

See Annex 2 

English: Porbeagle 

Danish: Sildehaj 

Swedish: Hábrand; sillhaj 

German: Heringshai (market name: Kalbsfisch, See-Stör) 

Italian: Talpa (market name: smeriglio) 

Spanish: Marrajo sardinero; cailón marrajo, moka, pinocho 

French: Requin-taupe commun (market name: veau de mer) 

Japanese: Mokazame 

2. Overview 

2.1 The large warm-blooded porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) occurs in temperate waters of the North 

Atlantic, with smaller stocks in the Southern Oceans. It is highly vulnerable to over-exploitation in 

fisheries and very slow to recover from depletion. It is taken in target fisheries and is also an important 

retained and utilised component of the bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries. The meat and fins are of high 

quality and high value in international trade. Trade records are generally not species-specific; 

international trade levels, patterns and trends are largely unknown. DNA tests for parts and derivatives in 

trade are available. 

2.2 Unsustainable North Atlantic target L. nasus fisheries are well documented. These have depleted stocks 

severely; landings fell from thousands of tonnes to a few hundred in less than 50 years. Joint assessments 

of North and Southwest Atlantic stocks by ICCAT and ICES scientists (2009) have identified marked 

historical extents of decline to significantly less than 30% of baseline. Mediterranean CPUE has declined 

to less than 5% of baseline. Where data are available for other Southern Hemisphere stocks, which are 

also a high value target and bycatch of longline fisheries and are biologically less resilient to fisheries 

than North Atlantic stocks, these show a significant recent rate of decline to less than 30% of baseline 

(New Zealand) or no trend (Japan southern bluefin area). 

2.3 Quota management based on stock assessment and scientific advice has been in place in the Canadian 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) since 2002 (the stock has now stabilised under a rebuilding plan), and 

in the EU since 2008 (with a zero quota since 2010). There has been unrestrictive quota management in 

the US since 1999 and in New Zealand since 2004, Argentina requires live bycatch of large sharks to be 

released alive. National management measures cannot control high seas catches, where unregulated and 

unreported fisheries jeopardize national stock recovery plans. At the time of writing, Regional Fishery 

Organisations (RFOs) have not set catch limits for high seas stocks. 

2.4 Lamna nasus meets the guidelines suggested by FAO for the listing of commercially exploited aquatic 

species. It falls into FAO’s lowest productivity category of the most vulnerable species: those with an 

intrinsic rate of population increase of 10 years (FAO 2001). Extent and 

rate of population declines of the majority of global stocks significantly exceed the qualifying levels for 

listing in Appendix II. 

2.5 An Appendix II listing is proposed for Lamna nasus in accordance with Article II.2 (a) and (b) of the 

Convention and Res.Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP15). Atlantic stock assessments describe marked historic and 

recent declines. Exploitation of smaller stocks in other oceans of the Southern Hemisphere is largely 

unmanaged and unlikely to be sustainable. 

2.6 An Appendix II listing for Lamna nasus will ensure that international trade is supplied by sustainably 

managed, accurately recorded fisheries that are not detrimental to the status of the wild populations that 

they exploit. This can be achieved if non-detriment findings require that an effective sustainable fisheries 

management programme be in place and implemented before export permits are issued, and by using 

other CITES measures for the regulation and monitoring of international trade, particularly controls upon 

Introductions from the Sea. Trade controls will complement and reinforce traditional fisheries 

management measures, thus also contributing to implementation of the UN FAO IPOA–Sharks. 

Page 2 of 14 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 2 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 

Annex / Anexo /Annexe 

(English only / únicamente en inglés / seulement en anglais)


3. Species characteristics 

3.1 Distribution 

In the Southern Hemisphere, in a circumglobal band of ~30–60 o S; in the North Atlantic Ocean and 

Mediterranean, between 30–70 o N (Compagno 2001, Figure 2). There are separate stocks in the Northeast and 

Northwest Atlantic (these were historically the largest global stocks), likely also in the Mediterranean, and in 

the Southeast and Southwest Atlantic. The latter two stocks extend into the Southwest Indian Ocean and 

Southeast Pacific, respectively. Other Indo-Pacific stocks have not been identified. Annex 3 lists Range States 

and FAO Fisheries Areas (Figure 3). 

3.2 Habitat 

Epipelagic in boreal and temperate seas of 2–18°C, but preferring 5–10 o C in the Northwest Atlantic (Campana 

and Joyce 2004, Svetlov 1978), from the surface to depths of 200m, occasionally to 350–700m. Most 

commonly reported on continental shelves and slopes from close inshore (especially in summer), to far 

offshore (where they are often associated with submerged banks and reefs). They also occur in the high seas 

outside 200 mile EEZs (Campana and Gibson 2008), where they are less abundant. Stocks segregate (at least 

in some regions) by age, reproductive stage and sex and undertake seasonal migrations within their stock area. 

(Campana et al. 1999, 2001, Campana and Joyce 2004, Compagno 2001, Jensen et al. 2002.) Mature females 

tagged off the Canadian coast appear to migrate 2000km south to give birth in deep water in the Sargasso Sea, 

Central North Atlantic; pups presumably follow the Gulf Stream to return north (Campana et al. 2010a). 

3.3 Biological characteristics 

Lamna nasus is active, warm-blooded, relatively slow growing and late maturing, long-lived, and bears only 

small numbers of young. It falls into FAO’s lowest productivity category of most vulnerable aquatic species. 

Life history characteristics vary between stocks and are summarised in Table 2. Northeast Atlantic sharks are 

slightly slower growing than the Northwestern stock. Both northern stocks are much larger, faster growing 

and have a shorter life span than the smaller, longer-lived (~65 years old) Southern Oceans porbeagles, which 

are therefore of even lower productivity and more vulnerable to overfishing than are North Atlantic stocks. 

3.4 Morphological characteristics 

Heavy cylindrical body, conical head and crescent-shaped tail (Figure 1). First dorsal fin has a distinctive 

white patch on the lower trailing edge. 

3.5 Role of the species in its ecosystem 

An apex predator, feeding on fishes, squid and some small sharks, but not on marine mammals (Compagno 

2001, Joyce et al. 2002). It has few predators other than humans, but Orcas and White Sharks may take it 

(Compagno 2001). DFO Canada (2006) could not demonstrate an ecosystem role at present low levels. 

Stevens et al. (2000) warn that the removal of top marine predators may have a disproportionate and counterintuitive 

impact on fish population dynamics, including by causing decreases in some prey species. 

4. Status and trends 

4.1 Habitat trends 

Critical habitats and threats to these habitats are largely unknown, although some North Atlantic mating 

grounds have been identified. High levels of ecosystem contaminants (PCBs, organo-chlorines and heavy 

metals) that bio-accumulate and are bio-magnified at high trophic levels are associated with infertility in 

sharks (Stevens et al. 2005), but their impacts on L. nasus is unknown. Effects of climatic changes on world 

ocean temperatures, pH and related biomass production could potentially impact populations. 

4.2 Population size 

Effective population size (as defined in Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP14) Annex 5), is best defined by the 

number of mature females in the population, particularly in heavily fished stocks dominated by immatures or 

males 2 . The only stock for which population size data are available is in the Northwest Atlantic. Recent stock 

2 

The FAO guidance for evaluating commercially aquatic species for listing in CITES (FAO 2001) stresses the 

importance of this consideration. 

Page 3 of 14 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 3 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 




assessments (DFO 2005a, Campana and Gibson 2008, Campana et al. 2010b, ICCAT/ICES 2009, Figure 13) 

estimated the total population size for this stock as 188,000–195,000 sharks (22–27% of original numbers 

prior to the fishery starting; possibly 800,000 to 900,000 individuals) but only 9,000–13,000 female spawners 

(12–16% of their original abundance and 83–103% of abundance in 2001). Stock size elsewhere is unknown. 

4.3 Population structure 

Genetic studies identified two isolated populations, in the North Atlantic and the Southern oceans (Pade et al. 

2006). Tagging studies in the Atlantic support two distinct Northwest and Northeast Atlantic stocks. Long 

distance movements occur within each stock, with fish tagged off the UK recaptured off Spain, Denmark and 

Norway, travelling up to 2,370km. ADD RESULTS FROM SOSF FUNDED TAGGING WORK IN PREP. 

Only one tagged shark crossed the Atlantic (Ireland to eastern Canada, 4,260km) (Campana et al. 1999, 

Kohler & Turner 2001, Kohler et al. 2002, Stevens 1976 & 1990). Porbeagles tagged in Canadian waters 

move onto the high seas for unknown periods of time (Campana and Gibson 2008), including to pupping 

grounds in the Sargasso Sea (Campana et al. 2010a). Stock boundaries in the Southern Hemisphere are 

unclear. The Southwest and Southeast Atlantic stocks appear to extend into the adjacent Pacific and Indian 

Oceans. The structure of exploited populations is highly unnatural, with very few large mature females 

present. This results in an extremely low reproductive capacity in heavily fished, depleted stocks (e.g. 

Campana et al. 2001). 

4.4 Population trends 

Population trends, summarised in Table 3, are presented in the context of Annex 5 of Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP15) 

and FAO (2001). The estimated generation time for L. nasus is at least 18 years in the North Atlantic, and 26 

years in the Southern Oceans (Table 2). The three-generation period against which recent declines should be 

assessed is therefore 54 to 78 years, greater than the historic baseline for most stocks. Trends in mature 

females (the effective population size 2 ) must be considered where possible. Stock assessments for this species 

usually show a correlation between declines in landings, declining catch per unit effort (CPUE), and reduced 

biomass because market demand and prices have always been high and there has, until recently, been little or 

no restrictive management. Where no stock assessments are available, CPUE, mean size and landings are 

therefore used as metrics of population trends. 

Figure 2. Available decline trends for porbeagle Lamna nasus stocks (from FAO 2010 and other sources 

cited in Section 4, Status and Trends) 

Stock declines from historic baseline are indicated in black, more recent declines that have occurred during 

the past 3 generations (50 years) in grey. A range is indicated where appropriate for some stock assessment 

model results. The coloured sections identify decline thresholds to within


Table 1. Key to index of percentage decline illustrated in Figure 2. 

Index Trend (to % of 

baseline 

Northeast Atlantic 

1 All landings 13% 

2 Norwegian landings 1% 

3 Danish landings 1% 

4 Recent French catch per unit 

effort (CPUE) 

5 Biomass (surplus production 

model) 

6 Biomass (age structured 

production model) 

7 Stock abundance (age 

structured production model) 

Mediterranean 

66% 

15-39% 

6% 

7% 

8 All observations 1% 

9 Ligurian Sea catches 1% 

10 Ionian Sea CPUE 2% 

Page 5 of 14 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 


(English only / únicamente en inglés / seulement en anglais) 

Index 

Northwest Atlantic 

Trend (to % of 

baseline 

11 All landings 4% 

12 Stock biomass (surplus production 

model) 

32% 

13 Stock abundance (age structured 


22-27% 

14 Mature female abundance (age 


12-16% 

Southwest Atlantic 

15 Stock biomass (surplus production 

model) 

18-39% 

16 Spawning Stock Biomass (age 


18% 

Southern Oceans 

17 Recent NZ landings 25% 

18 Recent NZ longline CPUE 30% 

19 Recent Japanese bluefin tuna bycatch 

CPUE 

no trend 

The IUCN Red List status assessment for porbeagle is Vulnerable globally, Critically Endangered in the 

Northeast Atlantic and the Mediterranean (past, ongoing and estimated future reductions in population size 

exceeding 90%), Endangered in the Northwest Atlantic (estimated reductions exceeding 70% that have now 

ceased through management, and Near Threatened in the Southern Ocean (Stevens et al. 2005). Table 1 

summarises available information on stock trends from historic baseline and some more recent trend data. 

The North Atlantic has historically been the major reported source of world catches, with detailed long-term 

fisheries trend data available. Landings here have exhibited marked declining trends over the past 60–70 years 

(see below) during a period of rising fishing effort and market demand for this valuable species and improved 

fisheries technology. Reported North Atlantic catches (FAO FISHSTAT) during the past decade were less 

than 10% of those during the past 50 years (only partly due to the recent introduction of restrictive catch 

quotas). Fewer Southern hemisphere data are available (reporting to FAO only commenced in the 1990s), but 

some of these also show declining trends. FAO porbeagle catch data (Figure 4) are generally lower than that 

from other sources (national landings, ICES data etc.). Under-reporting is widespread, ‘grossly’ so in the 

South Atlantic (ICES/ICCAT 2009). Landings from the NAFO Regulatory Area reported to NAFO “seldom 

resembled those reported to ICCAT... 2005–2006 catches by countries other than Canada are in doubt and 

probably under reported” (Campana and Gibson 2008). 

Stock assessments available for the Atlantic (ICCAT/ICES 2009) illustrate the correlation between steep 

declines in landings and catch per unit effort (CPUE) and declining biomass. CPUE and landings are therefore 

used as indicators of population trends for this valuable commercial species in unmanaged fisheries 

elsewhere, while recognizing that other factors may also affect catchability. 

4.4.1 North Atlantic and Mediterranean 

Most of the fisheries targeting seriously depleted shelf stocks in the Northeast and Northwest Atlantic are now 

under stringent management, but not in the Mediterranean. High seas Tuna and Swordfish longline fisheries 

also exploit these stocks (as target or retained bycatch) in the NAFO, ICCAT and GFCM regulatory areas, 

where porbeagle shark catches remain largely unregulated, except for shark finning bans. 

Northeast Atlantic 

The Northeast Atlantic age structured production model stock assessment estimated a decline from baseline of 

over 90%, to far below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), at 6% of biomass and 7% of numbers. An 

alternative surplus production model estimated that biomass had declined to between 15% and 39% of 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 5


baseline. (ICCAT SCRS/ICES 2009; Figures 10 and 11.) During this period, total landings from the Northeast 

Atlantic declined to 13% of their 1930s levels. 

Lamna nasus has been fished by many European countries, principally Denmark, France, Norway, Faroes and 

Spain (Figures 5–9). Norway’s target L. nasus longline fishery began in the 1920s and first peaked at 3,884t in 

1933. About 6,000t were landed in 1947, when the fishery reopened after the Second World War, followed by 

a decline to between 1,200–1,900t from 1953–1960. The collapse of this fishery led to the redirection of 

fishing effort by Norwegian, Faroese and Danish longline shark fishing vessels into the Northwest Atlantic 

(see below). Norwegian landings from the Northeast Atlantic subsequently decreased to a mean for the past 

decade of 20t, 99.99% during a range of time series (135 to 56 

years). FAO Fishstat (2009) records very small landings since the 1970s by Malta, in recent years also Spain. 

In the North Tyrrhenian and Ligurian Sea, Serena and Vacchi (1997) reported only 15 specimens of L. nasus 

during a few decades of observation. Soldo and Jardas (2002) reported only nine records in the Eastern 

Adriatic from the end of 19 th century until 2000. Since then there have been only a few new records (A. Soldo 

unpublished data). Newborn and juvenile L. nasus have been reported in the Western Ligurian and central 

Adriatic Seas (Orsi Relini and Garibaldi 2002, Marconi and De Maddalena 2001). No L. nasus were caught 

during research into western Mediterranean swordfish longline fishery bycatch (De La Serna et al. 2002). 

Only 15 specimens were caught during research conducted in 1998–1999 on bycatch in large pelagic fisheries 

(mainly driftnets) in the southern Adriatic and Ionian Sea (Megalofonou et al. 2000). 

Northwest Atlantic 

Detailed stock assessments and recovery projections are available (DFO 2005; Gibson and Campana 2005; 

Campana and Gibson 2008; ICCAT SCRS/ICES 2009; Campana et al. 2010b). Spawning stock biomass 

(SSB) is currently estimated to be about 22–27% of its size in 1961. The estimated number of mature females 

in 2009 is in the range of 11,000 to 14,000 individuals, or 12% to 16% of its 1961 level and just 6% of the 

total population (ICCAT/ICES 2009; Campana et al. 2010b). 

Targeted Lamna nasus fishing started in 1961, when Norwegian and subsequently Faeroese shark longline 

fleets moved from the depleted Northeast Atlantic to the coast of New England and Newfoundland. Catches 

increased rapidly from ~1,900t in 1961 to > 9,000t in 1964 (Figure 12). By 1965 many vessels had switched to 

other species or fishing grounds because of the population decline (DFO 2001a). The fishery collapsed after six 

years, landing less than 1,000t in 1970. It took 25 years for only very limited recovery to take place. Norwegian 

and Faroese fleets have been excluded from Canadian waters since 1993. Canadian and US authorities 

reported all landings after 1995. 

Three offshore and several inshore Canadian vessels entered the targeted Northwest Atlantic fishery in the 

1990s. Catches of 1,000–2,000 t/year reduced population levels to a new low in under ten years: the average 

size of sharks and catch rates were the smallest on record in 1999 and 2000, catch rates of mature sharks in 

2000 were 10% of those in 1992, and biomass estimated as 11–17% of virgin biomass and fully recruited F as 

0.26 (DFO 2001a). The annual catch quota was reduced for 2002–2007 to allow population growth (DFO 

Page 6 of 14 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 6 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 




2001a, 2001b) and reduced again in 2006. Landings have since ranged from 139t to 229t. Total population 

numbers have remained relatively stable since 2002, although female spawners may have continued to decline 

slightly. ICCAT SCRS/ICES (2009) estimated that spawning stock biomass (SSB) is now about 95–103% of 

its size in 2001 and the number of mature females 83% to 103% of the 2001 value (Figure 13), or 12–16% of 

baseline. 

Stock assessments have determined that recovery is possible, but Campana et al. (2010b) warn that the 

trajectory is extremely low and sensitive to human-induced mortality. Human-induced mortality of ~2 to 4% 

of the vulnerable biomass of 4,500t to 4,800t (equivalent to catching 185–192t in 2005) should allow recovery 

to 20% of virgin biomass (SSN20%) in 10–30 years. Recovery to maximum sustainable yield (SSNmsy) will take 

much longer: between 2030 and 2060 with no human-induced mortality, or into the 22nd century (or later) 

with an incidental harm rate of 4%. At an incidental harm rate of 7% of the vulnerable biomass, corresponding 

to a catch of 315t, the population will not recover to SSNmsy (Figures 14 and 15). Campana and Gibson (2008) 

also warned that a high seas fishery exploiting this stock jeopardizes Canada’s fisheries management and 

recovery plan – the population would crash at these exploitation rates. 

In addition to the Canadian quota of 185t, in 1999 a quota of 92t was set in the US EEZ, which is presumed to 

share the same stock. The TAC for all US fisheries was reduced to 11t, including a commercial quota of 1.7t, 

in 2008. Taiwanese, Korean and Japanese tuna longliners take a largely unknown bycatch of L. nasus on the 

high seas in the North Atlantic (ICES 2005). Most of the catch is reportedly discarded or landed at ports near 

the fishing grounds. Stocks and catches are “under investigation” (Fishery Agency of Japan 2004). Campana 

and Gibson (2008) note that the unreported porbeagle bycatch observed on Japanese vessels could have 

amounted to ~200t in 2000 and 2001. These levels of combined Northwest Atlantic landings may prevent 

stock recovery. 

4.4.2 Southern Hemisphere 

Observer data from the Uruguayan tuna and swordfish fleet were used to assess the status of the Southwest 

Atlantic stock. The assessment identified an 82% decline in biomass (SSB) since 1961, and 60% since 1982, 

to well below maximum sustainable level (BMSY) (Figure 19, ICCAT SCRS/ICES 2009), mirroring the decline 

in CPUE (Figure 18). This stock probably extends into the Southeast Pacific. Data were not available to 

support an assessment of the Southeast Atlantic/Southwest Indian Ocean stock. 

FAO FISHSTAT data have been greatly improved in recent years; southern hemisphere catch data are now 

available for several countries since the mid 1990s (Figure 20); these show a declining trend, with New 

Zealand catches dominating, followed by Spain (which now has a zero quota for porbeagle in EU and 

international waters) and Uruguay (FAO FISHSTAT). New Zealand commercial catch, discard and 

processing records are illustrated in Figure 16. Volumes processed are sometimes higher than reported 

catches. Estimates of tuna longline bycatch are not available for all years and are imprecise because of low 

observer coverage. Approximately 60% of longline bycatch is alive when retrieved. Survival of unprocessed 

discarded sharks is unknown. About 80% of the bycatch is processed, 80% of this is finned, 20% processed 

for the meat and fins (MFSC 2008). There has been a 75% decline in the total weight of L. nasus reported 

since 1998–99, to a low of 55 t in 2005-06. This decline began during a period of rapidly increasing domestic 

fishing effort in the tuna longline fishery, and has accelerated since tuna longline effort dropped during the 

last two years. Unstandardised catch per unit effort recorded by observers from 1992–93 to 2004–05 varies 

considerably, but has been extremely low in recent years (Figure 17). This may not reflect stock abundance 

because of low observer coverage and other potential sources of variation (e.g., vessel, gear, location and 

season). [An updated assessment is in preparation and will be incorporated later when available. ] 

Japanese tuna longline vessels take an unknown quantity of bycatch of L. nasus in the Southern Bluefin Tuna 

fishing grounds. Standardised CPUE has varied from 1992 to 2002 but recent stock trends were deemed to be 

stable. Current stock levels are under investigation. Most of the catch is reportedly discarded or landed at 

ports near the fishing grounds (Fishery Agency of Japan 2004), but do not appear in the FAO FISHSTAT 

database. Matsumoto (2005, cited in FAO 2007) reports an increase from very low levels during 1989–1995 

followed by a decline in annual landings to around 40% of original levels between 1997 and 2003. Matsunaga 

(2009) reported no porbeagle bycatch trend in the same fishery from 1992 to 2007. 

4.5 Geographic trends 

This species now appears to be scarce, if not absent, in areas of the Mediterranean where it was formerly 

commonly reported (Ferretti et al. 2008, Stevens et al. 2006). 

Page 7 of 14 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 7 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 




5. Threats 

The principal threat to L. nasus worldwide is over-exploitation, in target and bycatch fisheries, which depleted 

the world’s largest North Atlantic stocks over 50 years ago (Figure 5). More recently, global reported 

porbeagle landings from bycatch and directed fisheries have decreased from 1 719t in 1999 to 722t in 2009, 

with the highest catches in 2009 from France (281t), Spain (239t), Canada (63t) and New Zealand (63t) (FAO 

FishStat 2011), although ICCAT/ICES (2009) notes that reported landings “grossly underestimate actual 

landings”. Canadian catch data indicates that porbeagle landings have progressively decreased, from a peak of 

1400 t in 1995, corresponding with decreasing TAC levels (Campana and Gibson 2008, Figure 20), and an EU 

zero quota was adopted in 2010. However, other fisheries are also declining, even in the absence of restrictive 

management (for example, in the southern hemisphere (Figure 20). This species is particularly vulnerable to 

fisheries because, in the absence of management, these target adults and juveniles of all age classes (Ministry 

of Fisheries 2006, Francis et al. 2007). Furthermore, the life history characteristics of Southern Ocean 

porbeagles make this population significantly more vulnerable to overfishing than the depleted North Atlantic 

populations. 

5.1 Directed fisheries 

Intensive directed fishing for the valuable meat of L. nasus was the major cause of 20 th Century population 

declines. ICES (2005) noted: “The directed fishery for porbeagle [in the Northeast Atlantic] stopped in the 

late 1970s due to very low catch rates. Sporadic small fisheries have occurred since that time. The high market 

value of this species means that a directed fishery would develop again if abundance increased.” A target 

fishery for the meat of L. nasus still operates in Canada, and short term opportunistic target fisheries occur in 

other States, in the absence of management, as and when aggregations are located. There are no high seas 

catch quotas for porbeagles although the 2009 ICCAT SCRS/ICES stock assessment meeting recommended 

that high seas fisheries should not target porbeagle. L. nasus used to be an important target game fish species 

for recreational fishing in Ireland and UK. The recreational fisheries in Canada, the US and New Zealand are 

very small. 

5.2 Incidental fisheries 

Lamna nasus is a valuable utilised ‘bycatch’ or secondary target of many fisheries, particularly longline 

pelagic fisheries for tuna and swordfish (Buencuerpo et al. 1998), but also gill nets, driftnets, trawls and 

handlines. Bycatch is often inadequately recorded in comparison with captures in target fisheries. The high 

value of porbeagle meat means that the whole carcass is usually retained and utilised, unless the hold space of 

vessels targeting high seas tuna and billfish is limited, when the fins alone may be retained (e.g. New Zealand 

and far seas longline fisheries for Southern Bluefin Tuna, and other pelagic fishing fleets operating in the 

Southern Hemisphere, see Compagno 2001). ICES (2005) noted: “effort has increased in recent years in 

pelagic longline fisheries for Bluefin Tuna (Japan, Republic of Korea and Taiwan Province of China) in the 

North East Atlantic. These fisheries may take porbeagle as a bycatch. This fishery is likely to be efficient at 

catching considerable quantities of this species.” This was confirmed by Campana and Gibson (2008). 

ICCAT/ICES (2009) warned that increased effort on the high seas could compromise stock recovery efforts. 

Despite the large amount of oceanic fishing activity that must take a bycatch of L. nasus in the Southern 

Hemisphere, landings reported to FAO only commenced in 1994 and are relatively low, with the exception of 

New Zealand, Spain and Uruguay. Japan’s porbeagle bycatch in southern ocean fisheries is not reported to 

FAO, but must be significant: porbeagle was the second most abundant species after blue shark and comprised 

5.5% of shark catches in the Japanese tuna fishery in Australian waters (Stevens and Wayte 2008) 

Spanish vessels used to take a bycatch in their longline swordfish fisheries, and Uruguay and other countries 

(some of which do not report to FAO) have a significant bycatch in longline swordfish and tuna fisheries in 

international waters off the Atlantic coast of South America (Domingo 2000, Domingo et al. 2001, Hazin et 

al. 2008). 

Important but largely unreported bycatch fisheries include demersal longlining and trawling for Patagonian 

Toothfish and Mackerel Icefish around Heard and Macdonald Islands and in the southern Indian Ocean (van 

Wijk and Williams 2003, Compagno 2001), and the artisanal and industrial longline swordfish fishery within 

and outside the Chilean EEZ, between 26–36ºS (E. Acuña unpublished data; Acuña et al. 2002), which 

records porbeagle. Hernandez et al. (2008) found that Lamna nasus made up 1.7% of all fins tested in the 

north-central Chilean shark fin trade. Overall catches of Lamna nasus by Argentina were 30,1 - 17,7 - 19,8 - 

69,7 t between 2003 and 2006 (source: INIDEP 2009) (these data do not appear in FISHSTAT), but porbeagle 

captures by the Argentinean fleet are probably now limited to incidental captures by three Patagonian 

Page 8 of 14 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 8 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 




Toothfish fishing vessels, and with strict measures in force to protect sharks in Argentinian waters (live sharks 

greater than 1.5 m must be released if caught), catches are likely to be minimal. There are observers on all 

Argentinean fleets, and an observer report for sharks (including Lamna nasus) will be released later in 2012 

(Ramiro Sanchez, pers. comm.). 

6. Utilisation and trade 

Until recently, a lack of species-specific landings and trade data made it impossible to assess the proportions 

of global catches that supply national demand and enter international trade, although the high commercial 

value of the species has been documented through market surveys (Fleming and Papageorgiou 1997, Rose 

1996, unpublished TRAFFIC Europe 2003 market surveys). Survey findings indicated that the demand for 

fresh, frozen or processed L. nasus meat and fins is sufficiently high to justify the existence of an international 

market, while other products include dried-salted meat for human consumption, oil, and fishmeal for fertilizer 

(Compagno 2001). The extent of national consumption versus export by range States can vary considerably, 

depending upon local demand. For example, high levels of seafood consumption in Brazil, including by some 

Asian communities, makes it likely that porbeagle meat is consumed by domestic markets although fins may 

be exported. Other States with lower domestic seafood consumption, such as Uruguay, are likely to export its 

landings of porbeagle, mixed with mako, another high value shark meat (Andres Domingo pers. comm.). 

Following the introduction by the EU of new species-specific codes in 2010, some international trade data for 

this species is now becoming available (albeit only for trade involving the EU). 

6.1 National utilisation 

L. nasus has long been one of the most valuable (by weight) of marine fish species landed in Europe, similar 

in value to swordfish meat and sometimes marketed as such (Gauld 1989; Vas and Thorpe 1998; TRAFFIC 

Europe market surveys; Vannucinni 1999). Porbeagle may also be utilised nationally in some range States for 

liver oil, cartilage and skin (Vannuccini 1999). Low-value parts of the carcass may be processed into 

fishmeal. There is limited utilisation of jaws and teeth as marine curios. No significant national use of L. 

nasus parts and derivatives has been reported, partly perhaps because records at species level are not readily 

available, and partly because quantities landed are now so small, particularly in comparison with other shark 

species. 

The species is utilised for sports fishing in the USA and some EU Member States. Catches are either retained 

for meat and/or trophies, or tagged and released. Low levels of L. nasus are taken by game fishers off New 

Zealand South Island, but estimates of the recreational harvest is unavailable and probably negligible since L. 

nasus usually occur over the outer continental shelf or beyond (MFSC 2008). 

6.2 Legal trade 

All international trade in Lamna nasus products is unregulated and legal. Prior to 2010, all global trade in 

porbeagle Lamna nasus products was reported under general Customs commodity codes for shark species and 

could not be identified. In 2010, the EU introduced new species-specific Customs codes for fresh and frozen 

Lamna nasus (porbeagle) products (excluding shark fins) and amended previous codes covering most shark 

species to now exclude this species. Table 4 shows the old and new relevant Customs codes for porbeagle. 

There is a considerable market for porbeagle products within the European Union (EU), with EU Member 

States having taken 60–75% of FAO’s global records of porbeagle catch in 2006 and 2007 (prior to 

establishment of a TAC, which was reduced to zero for EU waters and EU fleets in 2010). EU market demand 

must now be met by imports. EU imports and exports of this species in 2010 and 2011, reported in 

EUROSTAT, are summarized in Tables 5 and 6 (these do not include internal EU trade). Other 

countries/territories do not have species-specific codes in place for trade in this species, and continue to report 

its trade under general shark commodity codes, preventing analysis. 

The following porbeagle range States were the principal suppliers of fresh and frozen porbeagle meat to the 

EU (excluding other EU countries) in 2010 and 2011 (EU importer shown in brackets): South Africa (Italy), 

Japan (Spain), Morocco (Spain), Norway (Germany and Denmark) and the Faroe Islands (Denmark). A total 

of 45,000kg of porbeagle meat, worth EUR 118,294, was imported during this two year period. 

South Africa does not have any directed fisheries for porbeagle, although one or two sharks per trip are 

apparently caught in the South African pelagic long-line fishery. Therefore, the high quantities imported from 

South Africa into the EU are likely to be derived from foreign flagged vessels fishing outside South Africa’s 

EEZ and discharging in South African ports. These may include by-catch of Japanese vessels targeting 

southern bluefin tuna or catches of Korean, Taiwanese or other vessels targeting tuna and tuna-like species 

Page 9 of 14 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 9 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 




(Source TRAFFIC East and Southern Africa, 2011). None of these fishing entities report porbeagle catches to 

FAO. 

Two non-range States (and previously unknown players in the market for this species) also reported exports to 

the EU: Senegal and Suriname. However, determining the origin of the meat in trade is fraught with 

difficulties (as noted above for South Africa), due to countries fishing in international waters and the 

inconsistencies in reporting between different countries (flag State versus port State exports, exports reported 

after landing or only after processing etc.). 

Average prices of imports ranged from only 1.26 EUR/kg for meat imported from Japan to 3.64 EUR/kg for 

meat imported from the Faroe Islands. This is significantly lower than prices reported in earlier years for 

porbeagle landed into European ports. 

Earlier studies had reported that Canada exports L. nasus meat to the US and the EU, Japan exports to the EU, 

and EU Member States export L. nasus to the US, where it is mainly consumed in restaurants (Vannuccini 

1999, S. Campana in litt. to IUCN Shark Specialist Group 2006). L. nasus is also imported by Japan (Sonu 

1998). The new EU trade data confirm exports from Japan to the EU. In Australia, data on exports of L. nasus 

to the US are grouped with Mako Sharks (Ian Cresswell, CITES Management Authority of Australia, in litt. to 

BMU, February 2004). Until targeted Customs control and monitoring systems or compulsory reporting 

mechanisms to FAO are established, data on non-European international trade in L. nasus products will not be 

available. 

The EU also reported significant exports of porbeagle, particularly in 2010 (68,200kg). These may have been 

exports of catches landed and frozen in 2009, before the zero quota, or re-exports. Morocco was by far the 

largest destination of porbeagle exported from the EU in 2010, followed by Afghanistan in 2011. However, 

the price of porbeagle exported to Morocco was very low (average 0.69 EUR/kg) compared to 17.81 EUR/kg 

for porbeagle exported to China and 3-4 EUR/kg for porbeagle exported to Ceuta (Spanish territory in North 

Africa), Andorra, Afghanistan and Switzerland. All exports from the EU were from Spain, except those to 

Switzerland which came from Denmark. There were no records of the EU importing porbeagle from Canada, 

or of the EU exporting (or re-exporting) to the US, as reported in earlier studies. 

EUROSTAT also records intra-EU trade – dispatches (equivalent to exports within the EU) and arrivals 

(equivalent to imports). However, due to movement of commodities between EU Member States, the 

likelihood of double-counting is high. Also there are often considerable discrepancies between quantities 

reported as “arrivals” and “dispatches” within the EU (for example if one Member State only reports value, 

and the other just weight). Total amounts of specific commodities in trade are therefore difficult to estimate, 

however intra-EU trade data can provide an indication of the most important Member States involved in the 

trade. In 2010 and 2011 Italy (72%) and Spain (21%) were the principal destinations for trade of porbeagle 

commodities (fresh and frozen) within the EU, and Portugal (45%) and Spain (39%) were the principal 

suppliers of products traded within the EU. Lamna nasus (Vitello di Mare) was on sale in Venice Fish market, 

Italy, in November 2010 for 12.80 EUR/kg (pers. comm. Mats Forslund, WWF-SE). 

The US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) holds only 20 records of US trade in Lamna species between 1998 

and 2010 (seven of these being specifically of Lamna nasus). Trade involved 13 live specimens for zoos, three 

bodies for museums and ~20,000 units of jewellery, teeth, bone or skins (source: TRAFFIC North America). 

6.3 Parts and derivatives in trade 

Meat: This can be a very high value product, one of the most palatable and valuable of shark species, and is 

traded in fresh and frozen form (see sections 6.1 and 6.2). 

Fins: Porbeagle appears in the list of preferred species for fins in Indonesia (along with Guitarfish, Tiger, 

Mako, Sawfish, Sandbar, Bull, Hammerhead, Blacktip, Thresher and Blue Shark, see Vannuccini 1999), but 

was reported to be relatively low value by McCoy and Ishihara (1999, quoting Fong and Anderson 1998). The 

large size of L. nasus fins nonetheless means that these are a relatively high value product. They have been 

identified in the fin trade in Hong Kong and are one of six species (including Makos, Blue, Dusky and Silky 

Sharks) frequently used in the global fin market (Shivji et al. 2002). The raw fins are also readily recognised 

to species level by fin traders in Chile (Hernandez et al. 2008). New Zealand has established conversion 

factors for L. nasus for wet fin (45) and dried fin (108) (equivalent to a weight ratio of 2.2% and 0.9% 

respectively) in order to monitor quota and establish the size of former catches by scaling up reported landings 

(Ministry of Fisheries, 2005). The wet fin weight ratio from the Canadian fishery is 1.8–2.8% (S. Campana 

pers. comm., DFO). 

Page 10 of 14 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 10 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 




Others: Porbeagle hides can be processed into leather, and liver oil extracted (Vannuccini 1999, Fischer et al. 

1987), but trade records are not kept. Cartilage is probably also processed and traded. Other shark parts are 

used in the production of fishmeal, which is probably not a significant product from L. nasus fisheries because 

of the high value of the species’ meat (Vannuccini 1999). 

6.4 Illegal trade 

Although no legislation has been adopted by range States or trading nations to regulate national or 

international trade in Lamna nasus, the increased application of strict quota management (including the EU 

zero quota) increases the risk of illegal trade transactions and shipments taking place, particularly in the 

absence of trade monitoring and regulation at species level. 

6.5 Actual or potential trade impacts 

The unsustainable L. nasus fisheries described above have been driven by the high value of the meat in 

national and international markets. Trade has therefore been the driving force behind the depletion of 

populations in the North Atlantic and, with the closure of the major northern fisheries, now threatens Southern 

Hemisphere populations. Southern populations are of particular concern because they are intrinsically even 

more vulnerable to over-exploitation in fisheries than are the depleted northern stocks. 

7. Legal instruments 

7.1 National 

It has been forbidden to catch and land porbeagle in Sweden since 2004. 

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) designated L. nasus as 

Endangered in 2004 (COSEWIC 2004). The Federal Government of Canada declined to list the species under 

Schedule 1 of Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA) because recovery measures were already being 

implemented. 

7.2 International 

‘Family Isurida’ (now Lamnidae, including L. nasus) is listed in Annex 1 (Highly Migratory Species) of the 

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly 

Migratory Fish Stocks, in force since 2001, establishes rules and conservation measures for high seas fisheries 

resources. It directs States to pursue co-operation in relation to listed species through appropriate sub-regional 

fisheries management organisations or arrangements, but there has not yet been any progress with 

implementation of oceanic shark fisheries management. 

Lamna nasus is listed in Annex III, ‘Species whose exploitation is regulated’ of the Barcelona Convention 

Protocol concerning specially protected areas and biological diversity in the Mediterranean. This population 

was also added in 1997 to Appendix III of the Bern Convention (the Convention on the Conservation of 

European Wildlife and Natural Habitats) as a species whose exploitation must be regulated in order to keep its 

population out of danger. No management action has yet followed these listings. 

L. nasus is included in Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS). CMS 

is currently developing an instrument for the conservation of migratory sharks, which may in due course 

stimulate conservation actions for the species. 

L. nasus is included in the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-east 

Atlantic list of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats. This list, developed under Annex V on the 

Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems and Biological Diversity of the OSPAR Maritime Area, 

identifies species and habitats in need of protection or conservation. Proposals for actions, measures and 

monitoring that should be undertaken for this species will be considered in late 2009. 

8. Species management 

8.1 Management measures 

The International Plan of Action (IPOA) for the Conservation and Management of Sharks urges all States with 

shark fisheries to implement conservation and management plans, but is voluntary. Of the top 20 shark fishing 

entities, which account for nearly 80% of the world’s shark catch, only 13 are known to have a National Shark 

Plan (Lack and Sant 2011), although FAO (2010) reported that 65% of Members that responded to a survey 

Page 11 of 14 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 11 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 




on the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries had Shark Plans in place and 11 

RFBs reported that they were assisting in the implementation of the IPOA-Sharks. Porbeagle range and/or 

fishing States with Shark Plans include Argentina, Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, New Zealand, Spain, 

Taiwan, Uruguay and USA. 

Many RFMOs have adopted shark finning bans. Some RFOs have recently adopted shark resolutions to 

support improved recording or management of pelagic sharks taken as bycatch in the fisheries they manage, 

but no science-based catch limits. ICCAT has required Parties since 2007 to reduce the mortality of porbeagle 

sharks in directed Atlantic fisheries where a peer-reviewed stock assessment is not available. In 2008 the 

NAFO Scientific Council was warned that overfishing in the high seas NAFO Regulatory Area was 

undermining Canada’s management for porbeagles and would lead to population crash (Campana and Gibson 

2008), but Parties decided that shark management was ICCAT’s remit. Although a stock assessment has been 

available since 2009, neither ICCAT nor NAFO have adopted proposals to introduce catch limits or prohibit 

the retention of porbeagles caught on the high seas. At the time of writing, ICCAT’s Ecological Risk 

Assessment for pelagic sharks is in preparation for discussion at an ICCAT meeting on 11-15 th June 2012 in 

Portugal. The management of southern porbeagle stocks will require close coordination between RFMOs for 

the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Ocean waters and CCAMLR. 

In the Northeast Atlantic, the conservation and management of sharks in EU waters falls under the European 

Common Fishery Policy (CFP), which manages fish stocks through a system of Total Allowable Catch (TAC 

or annual catch quotas) and reduction of fishing capacity. EC Regulation 40/2008 established a TAC for 

porbeagle taken in EC and international waters of I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV of 581 t 

(CEC, 2008). The initial restrictive quota was reduced by 25% in 2009 and a maximum landing size (210 cm 

fork length) introduced to protect large females (CEC 2009). In 2010, EC Regulation 23/2010 prohibited 

fishing for porbeagle in EU waters and, for EU vessels, to fish for, to retain on board, to tranship and to land 

porbeagle in international waters. EC Regulation 1185/2003 prohibits the removal of shark fins and 

subsequent discarding of the body. This regulation is binding on EC vessels in all waters and non-EC vessels 

in Community waters. 

The European Community Action Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (CPOA, 

EU COM(2009) 40 final), presented by the European Commission in 2009, sets out to rebuild depleted shark 

stocks fished by the Community fleet within and outside Community Waters, including through the 

establishment of catch limits for shark stocks in conformity with advice provided by ICES and relevant 

RFMOs, release of live unwanted bycatch, increased selectivity of fishing gear, establishment of bycatch 

reduction programmes for Critically Endangered and Endangered shark species, and international cooperation 

in CMS and CITES with a view to controlling shark fishing and trading. The CPOA’s Shark Assessment 

Report pays particular attention to Lamna nasus. These measures will be implemented at Community and 

Member State level and the Community will seek their endorsement by all relevant RFMOs. 

In 2007 Norway adopted ICES advice and banned all direct fisheries for porbeagle. From 2007–2011 

specimens taken as bycatch had to be landed and sold. From 2011, live specimens must be released, whereas 

dead specimens can (not must) be landed and sold. Reporting was extended to include the number of 

specimens landed in addition to weight. From 2011, the regulations also include recreational fishing. 

In the Northwest Atlantic, shark fisheries management is underway in Canadian and US waters. An annual 

quota of 92t was adopted in US waters in 1999, under the Highly Migratory Species Fisheries Management 

Plan. This was reduced in 2008 to a TAC of 11t for all US fisheries, including a commercial quota of 1.7t, 

which often lead to the closure of the fishery before the end of the year. Since 2008, US Atlantic sharks must 

be landed with their fins naturally attached. The 1995 Canadian fisheries management plan limits number of 

licenses, types of gear, fishing areas and seasons, prohibits finning, and restricts recreational fishing to catchand-release 

only. Fisheries management plans for pelagic sharks in Atlantic Canada established nonrestrictive 

catch guidelines of 1500t for L. nasus prior to 1997, followed by a provisional TAC of 1000t for 

the period 1997–1999, based largely on historic reported landings and the observation that recent catch rates 

had decreased (DFO 2001). Following analytical stock assessments (Campana et al. 1999, 2001), the Shark 

Management Plan for 2002–2007 reduced the TAC to 250t, followed by a further reduction to 185t (60t 

bycatch, 125t directed fishery) from 2006 (Figure 20). Population projections indicate that the population will 

eventually recover if harvest rates are kept under 4% (~185 mt, DFO 2005b), but unregulated and unreported 

catches on the high seas jeopardize recovery (Campana and Gibson 2008, Figures 14 and 15). 

In 2006, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) adopted a 

moratorium on directed shark fishing until data become available to assess the impacts of fishing on sharks in 

the Antarctic region. The live release of sharks taken as bycatch is encouraged but not mandated 

Page 12 of 14 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 12 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 




(Conservation Measure 32-18; CCAMLR 2006). The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission 

(WCPFC) will be responsible for pelagic shark management, but this is unlikely to be attempted during the 

early years of this Commission (Ministry of Fisheries 2006). Argentina requires live bycatch of large sharks to 

be released alive. Australia introduced legislation in 1991 preventing Japanese longliners fishing in the EEZ 

from landing shark fins unless accompanied by the carcass. They have not fished in the Australian EEZ since 

1996. Finning is prohibited in domestic Australian tuna longliners. New Zealand has included L. nasus in its 

Quota Management System (QMS) since 2004 with an unrestrictive TAC set at 249t (Sullivan et al. 2005), 

permitting finning and discard of carcasses. 

8.2 Population monitoring 

Routine monitoring of catches, collection of reliable data on indicators of stock biomass and good knowledge 

of biology and ecology are required. Most States do not record shark catch, bycatch, effort and discard data at 

species level or undertake fishery-independent surveys, preventing stock assessments and population 

evaluation. High seas catches are particularly poorly monitored (e.g. Campana and Gibson 2008). FAO 

FISHSTAT data are incomplete. Accurate trade data provide a means of confirming landings and an 

indication of compliance with catch levels, allow new catching and trading States to be identified, and provide 

information on trends in trade (Lack 2006). Trade data for porbeagle are, however, unreported except in the 

EU. FAO (2010) noted that a CITES listing is expected to result in better monitoring of catches entering 

international trade from all stocks and could therefore have a beneficial effect on the management of the 

species in all parts of its range. In the absence of a CITES listing there is no reliable mechanism to track 

trends in catch and trade of this species. 

8.3 Control measures 

International 

Other than sanitary regulations related to seafood products and measures that facilitate the collection of import 

duties, there are no controls or monitoring systems to regulate or assess the nature, level and characteristics of 

trade in L. nasus. 

Domestic 

The domestic fisheries management measures adopted by a few States described above cannot deliver 

sustainable harvest of L. nasus when stocks are exploited by several fleets, particularly in unregulated and 

unmonitored high seas fisheries. Even where catch quotas have been established, no trade measures prevent 

the sale or export of landings in excess of quotas. Otherwise, only the usual hygiene regulations apply to 

control of domestic trade and utilisation. STECF (2006) noted that although a CITES Appendix II listing 

alone would not be sufficient to regulate catching of porbeagle, it could be considered an ancillary measure. 

8.4 Captive breeding and artificial propagation 

No specimens are known to be bred in captivity. 

8.5 Habitat conservation 

Research in areas fished by the Canadian and French fleets and the results of tagging studies have identified 

some important L. nasus habitats, both within EEZs and on the high seas. Some habitat may be incidentally 

protected inside marine protected areas or static gear reserves, but there is no protection for critical high seas 

habitat. 

9. Information on Similar Species 

Lamna nasus is one of five species in the family Lamnidae, or mackerel sharks, which also includes the White 

Shark Carcharodon carcharias and two species of Mako, genus Isurus. Salmon Shark Lamna ditropis is 

restricted to the North Pacific. Mako Isurus oxyrinchus may be misidentified as L. nasus in Mediterranean 

fisheries, although the identification of whole sharks is straightforward using existing keys. 

10. Consultations 

Page 13 of 14 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 13 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 




11. Additional remarks 

11.1 CITES Provisions under Article IV, paragraphs 6 and 7: Introduction from the sea 

It is unclear whether introduction from the sea will be a significant issue for this species. Most target fisheries, 

even on the shelf edge, have been recorded inside EEZs. Pelagic Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese vessels, 

however, take porbeagle bycatch on the high seas, estimates for Japan ranging from 15t to 280t annually 

during 2000–2002 (DFO 2005b). A CITES Appendix II listing would require introductions from the sea to be 

accompanied by a non-detriment finding. They would have to be taken from a sustainably exploited high seas 

fishery, requiring management action by the appropriate Regional Fisheries Management Organisation. FAO 

(2010) considered that regulation of international trade through listing in CITES Appendix II could strengthen 

national efforts to keep harvesting for trade commensurate with stock rebuilding plans and improve the 

control of high seas catches through the use of certificates of introduction from the sea accompanied by non 

detriment findings. 

11.2 Implementation issues 

11.2.1 Scientific Authority 

It would be most appropriate for the Scientific Authority for this species to be advised by a fisheries expert. 

11.2.2 Identification of products in trade 

It will be important to develop species-specific commodity codes and identification guides for the meat and 

fins of this species. L. nasus meat, the product most commonly traded, is one of the highest priced shark meats 

in trade and often identified by name. The dorsal fin (with skin on) has a characteristic white rear free edge 

and a generic guide to the identification of shark fins is available (Deynat2010). Several research groups have 

developed species-specific primers and highly efficient multiplex PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) 

screening assay for L. nasus, capable of distinguishing between Southern and Northern Hemisphere stocks 

(e.g. Shivji et al. 2002; Pade et al. 2006; Testerman et al. 2007). Cost per sample processed starts from 

US$20–60, depending upon condition of sample, less for large numbers. Turn-around time is in the region of 

2–7 days from receipt of sample, depending upon urgency. These tests are available and may be used to 

confirm identification and product origin for enforcement purposes. 

11.2.3 Non-detriment findings 

CITES AC22 Doc. 17.2 provides first considerations on non-detriment findings for shark species. The 

Spanish Scientific Authority (García-Núñez 2008) reviewed the management measures and fishing 

restrictions established by international organisations related to the conservation and sustainable use of sharks, 

offering some guidelines and a guide of useful resources. It also adapted to elasmobranch species the checklist 

prepared for making NDF by IUCN (Rosser & Haywood 2002). Similarly, the outcome of the Expert 

Workshop on Non-Detriment Findings (Anonymous 2008) points to the information considered essential for 

making NDF for sharks and other fish species, and also proposes logical steps to be taken when facing this 

task. 

Management for L. nasus would ideally be based upon stock assessments and scientific advice to allow stock 

rebuilding (where necessary) and ensure sustainable fisheries (e.g. through quotas or technical measures, 

including closed areas, size limits and the release of live bycatch). This is standard fisheries management 

practice – albeit currently not widely applied for this species. Other States wishing to export L. nasus products 

would also need to develop and implement sustainable fisheries management plans if NDFs are to be 

declared, and would need to ensure that all States fishing the same stocks implement and enforce equally 

precautionary conservation and management measures. 

12. References (see Annex 5) 

Page 14 of 14 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 14 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 



Annexes to Draft Proposal to list Lamna nasus in Appendix II - January 2012 

Annex 1. 

Figures and Tables 

Table 1. Indices of percentage decline illustrated in Figure 2 (see proposal p. 5) 

Table 2. Lamna nasus life history parameters 

Table 3. Summary of population and catch trend data 

Table 4. EU Commodity codes related to trade in Lamna nasus. 

Table 5. EU imports of porbeagle Lamna nasus products, products (fresh and frozen) by source 

countries/territories, value and weight, 2010 and 2011. 

Table 6. EU exports of Lamna nasus products (fresh and frozen) by destination, value and weight, 

2010-2011. 

Figure 1. Porbeagle Lamna nasus (see proposal p. 1) 

Figure 2. Decline trends for porbeagle Lamna nasus stocks (see proposal p. 4) 

Figure 3. Global Lamna nasus distribution (Source: FAO FIGIS) 

Figure 4. FAO fishing areas 

Figure 5. Global reported landings (tonnes) of Lamna nasus by major FAO fishing areas, 1950–2009. 

(Source: FAO FishStat) (Data will be updated at a later stage) 

Figure 6. Landings (tonnes) of Lamna nasus from the Northeast Atlantic by major fishing States, 1950– 

2009. (Source: FAO Fishstat) (Data will be updated at a later stage) 

Figure 7. Landings (tonnes) of Lamna nasus from ICES Areas (Northeast Atlantic), 1973–2009. 

(Source: ICES Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes 2010) (Data will be updated at a later 

stage) 

Figure 8. Landings (tonnes) of Lamna nasus by Norway in the Northeast Atlantic, 1926–2009. (Source: 

Norwegian fisheries data & ICES WGEF) (Data will be updated at a later stage) 

Figure 9. Landings (tonnes) of Lamna nasus by Denmark in the Northeast Atlantic, 1954–2009. 

(Source: ICES Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes) (Data will be updated at a later stage) 

Figure 10. Landings (tonnes) of Lamna nasus by Faroe Islands in the Northeast Atlantic, 1973–2009. 

(Source: ICES WGEF and European Commission.) (Data will be updated at a later stage) 

Figure 11. French landings (tonnes) of Lamna nasus in the Northeast Atlantic, 1978–2009. (Source: 

ICES Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes) (Data will be updated at a later stage) 

Figure 12. Surplus production age-structured model fits to French longline CPUE indices (assuming 

virgin conditions in 1926) for northeast Atlantic porbeagle shark. Source ICCAT SCRS/ICES 

2009. 

Figure 13. Depletion in total biomass (upper panel) and numbers (lower panel) for a surplus production 

age-structured model for Northeast Atlantic porbeagle shark. The dots indicated on the line 

correspond to depletion at the beginning of the modern period (1972) and current depletion 

(2008).Source ICCAT/ICES 2009. 

Figure 14. Lamna nasus landings in the Northwest Atlantic, 1961–2008 (excluding unreported high seas 

captures). (Source: Campana et al. 2010) 

Figure 15. Estimated trends in numbers of mature females (top), age-1 recruits (centre) and total 

number of Lamna nasus in Canadian waters, 1960–2010, from four porbeagle population 

models (all show similar trajectories). (Source: Campana et al. 2010.) 

Figure 16. Comparison of recovery targets and trajectories for the Canadian porbeagle stock during 

2009–2100, obtained using Population Viability Analysis from four population models projected 

deterministically under four different exploitation rates (0% to 8% per annum). (Source: 

Campana et al. 2010.) 

Figure 17. New Zealand commercial landings of porbeagle sharks reported by fishers and processors 

(LFRR), 1989/90 to 2004/05. (Source Ministry of Fisheries 2008.) 

Figure 18. Unstandardised CPUE indices (number of Lamna nasus per 1000 hooks) for the New 

Zealand tuna longline fishery based on observer reports. 

Figure 19. Relative spawning stock biomass (SSB) trend for the catch free age structured production 

model, assuming virgin conditions in 1961, for southwest Atlantic porbeagle shark. 

Figure 20. Southern hemisphere landings of porbeagle Lamna nasus, 1990–2009 (FISHSTAT). 

Annexes p. 1 of 24 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 15 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 



Age at maturity 

(years) 


Size at maturity (total 

length cm) 

Maximum size (total 

length cm) 

Table 2. Lamna nasus life history parameters 

female: 13 years (North Atlantic); 15– 

18 years (SW Pacific) 

male: 8 years (North Atlantic); 8–11 

years (SW Pacific) 

female: 195 cm (SW Pacific), 230– 

260 cm (North Atlantic) 

male: 165 cm (SW Pacific), 180– 

215 cm (North Atlantic) 

female: 302, 357 cm (N Atlantic); 

240 cm (SW Pacific) 

male: 253, 295 cm (N Atlantic; 

240 cm (SW Pacific) 

Longevity (years) >25–46 years (Northwest Atlantic); ~65 

years (Southwest Pacific) 

Size at birth (cm) 58–77 (North Atlantic), 72–82 (Southwest 

Pacific) 

Average reproductive 

age/ generation time 

18 years (Northwest Atlantic); 26 years 

(Southwest Pacific) 

Gestation time 8–9 months 

Reproductive 

periodicity 

Annual 

Average litter size Four pups 

Annual rate of 5–7% (unfished, North Atlantic); 

population increase 2.6% (from MSY, southwestern Pacific 

Natural mortality 0.10 (immatures), 0.15 (mature males), 

0.20 (mature F) (Northwest Atlantic) 

(Data will be updated at a later stage) 


AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 16 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 



Campana et al. 2008; DFO 2005; Francis et 

al. 2007 


al. 2007 

Campana et al. 2008; Dulvy et al. 2008; 

Francis et al. 2007; Francis & Duffy 2005 

Campana et al. 2008; Dulvy et al. 2008; 

Francis et al. 2007 

Francis et al. 2008; DFO 2005; Dulvy et al. 

2008 

Francis et al. 2008; DFO 2005; Dulvy et al. 

2008 


al. 2007 

Francis et al. 2008; Dulvy et al. 2008 


al. 2007 

Campana et al. 2008; Smith et al. 2008 

Campana et al. 2001


Table 3. Summary of population and catch trend data 

Year Location Data used Trend Source 

1933/37– 

2004/08 

NE Atlantic 

1936–2007 NE Atlantic 

1950/54– 

2004/08 



All Northeast 

Atlantic landings 

Norwegian 

landings 

87% decline in 5 yr average landings 

from historic baseline 

>99 % decline from historic baseline. 

Trend is the same if 5-year averages are 

used. 

NE Atlantic Danish fishery 99% decline from historic baseline 

Spanish longline 

bycatch CPUE 

French target 

longline CPUE 

1926–2008 NE Atlantic Stock assessment 

Various, 

1800–2006 

1950–2006 

1978–1999 

Mediterranean Records of Lamna 

nasus 

Ligurian Sea, 

Mediterranean 

Ionian Sea, 

Mediterranean 

1963–1970 NW Atlantic 





Abundance &/or 

biomass of 

lamnids 

Standardised 

CPUE of lamnids 

Norwegian & 

Faroese landings 

5 year average of 

all catches 

Stock assessment 

(surplus 



(age structured 

model) 


(age structured 

model) 


SCRS (2009); FAO (2010) 

Norwegian and ICES data (Figure 7); 

SCRS (2009); FAO (2010) 

ICES data (Figure 8); SCRS (2009); FAO 

(2010) 

No trend in recent catch rates ICES WGEF (2011). 

Approximately one third decline in two 

most recent generations 

94% decline in biomass, 93% decline in 

numbers from historic baseline 

Virtual disappearance from landings and 

research survey records 

>99% decline in tuna traps Ferretti et al. 2008 

>98% decline in tuna traps Ferretti et al. 2008 

~90% decline in catch and collapse of 

fishery 

ICES WGEF (2011); Biais and Vollette 

(2009) 

Surplus production age-structured model 

ICCAT/ICES 2009 (Figure 11) 

Stevens et al. 2005 and sources cited in 

section 4.1.1. 

Landings data (Figure 12) 

~96% decline Landings data (Figure 12) 

68% decline in stock biomass from 

historic baseline 

73–78% decline in total numbers from 


84–88% decline in number of mature 

females from historic baseline 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 



Campana & Gibson 2008, ICCAT 

SCRS/ICES 2009, Campana et al. 2010b 

Campana & Gibson 2008, ICCAT 

SCRS/ICES 2009, Campana et al. 2010b 

Campana & Gibson 2008, ICCAT/ICES 

2009, Campana et al. 2010b 

1994–2003 North Atlantic Catches Decline, 1000 to near zero/year Matsunaga and Nakano 2005 

1993–2003 North Atlantic CPUE 


Decline with slope -0.6 Matsunaga and Nakano 2002 

1961–2008 SW Atlantic 

(catch free, age 

structured 


82% decline in spawning stock biomass 

(SSB) from historic baseline 


1982–2008 SW Atlantic 

SW Pacific 


(surplus 


61–82% decline in stock biomass from 



1992–2002 (New 

Zealand) 

SW Pacific 

Longline CPUE 70% decline in about 10 years NZ Ministry of Fisheries 2008 (Figure 17) 

1998–2005 (New 

Zealand) 

Weight landed 75% decline in about 10 years NZ Ministry of Fisheries 2008 (Figure 16) 

A ‘marked historical extent of decline’ is a percentage decline to 5%–30% of the baseline, depending upon the productivity of the species 

[30% for porbeagle]. A ‘marked recent rate of decline’ is a percentage decline of 50% per cent or more within the last 10 years or three 

generations, whichever is the longer 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 17


Table 4. EU Commodity codes related to trade in Lamna nasus 

Customs code Commodity Validity 

FRESH 

0302.6590 Fresh or chilled sharks (excl. dogfish of the species "Squalus 

acanthias" and "Scyliorhinus spp.") 


Up to and including 

2009 

0302.6560 Fresh or chilled porbeagle shark From 2010 

0302.6595 

FROZEN 

Fresh or chilled sharks (excl. dogfish of the species "Squalus 

acanthias", "Scyliorhinus spp. and Lamna nasus") 

From 2010 

0303.7590 Frozen sharks (excl. dogfish) Up to and including 

2009 

0303.7560 Frozen porbeagle shark From 2010 

0303.7595 

FROZEN FILLETS 

Frozen sharks (excl. dogfish of the species "Squalus acanthias", 

"Scyliorhinus spp." or Lamna nasus) 

From 2010 

0304.2069 Frozen fillets of sharks (excl. dogfish) Up to and including 

2006 

0304.2969 Frozen fillets of sharks (excl. dogfish) 2006-2009 

0304.2965 Frozen fillets of porbeagle shark From 2010 

0304.2968 Frozen fillets of sharks (excl. dogfish of the species Squalus 

acanthias, Scyliorhinus spp. or Lamna nasus) 

From 2010 

Table 5. EU imports of porbeagle Lamna nasus products, products (fresh and frozen) 

by source countries/territories, value and weight, 2010 and 2011. 

EUR kg 

Source 2010 2011 Total Source 2010 2011 Total 

SOUTH AFRICA 0 35,221 35,221 SOUTH AFRICA 0 12,600 12,600 

NORWAY 15,893 9,560 25,453 JAPAN 0 8,700 8,700 

MOROCCO 21,613 562 22,175 MOROCCO 7,300 500 7,800 

FAROE ISLANDS 15,995 0 15,995 NORWAY 5,000 2,700 7,700 

JAPAN 0 10,936 10,936 FAROE ISLANDS 4,400 0 4,400 

SENEGAL 4,486 0 4,486 SURINAME 2,500 0 2,500 

SURINAME 4,028 0 4,028 SENEGAL 1,300 0 1,300 

Total 62,015 56,279 118,294 Total 20,500 24,500 45,000 

EUR/kg 

Source 2010 2011 Average 

FAROE ISLANDS 3.64 3.64 

SENEGAL 3.45 3.45 

NORWAY 3.18 3.54 3.36 

SOUTH AFRICA 2.80 2.80 

MOROCCO 2.96 1.12 2.04 

SURINAME 1.61 1.61 

JAPAN 1.26 1.26 

Average 2.97 2.18 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 18 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 



(2011 data are based on monthly data for January to 

September only and need to be updated later in 

2012)


Table 6. EU exports of Lamna nasus products (fresh and frozen) by destination, value 

and weight, 2010-2011. 

EUR kg 

Destination 2010 2011 Total Destination 2010 2011 Total 

MOROCCO 47,068 0 47,068 MOROCCO 68,000 0 68,000 

AFGHANISTAN 0 8,208 8,208 AFGHANISTAN 0 2,300 2,300 

CHINA 0 3,562 3,562 ANDORRA 0 700 700 

ANDORRA 0 2,776 2,776 CEUTA 0 600 600 

CEUTA 0 2,460 2,460 CHINA 0 200 200 

SWITZERLAND 602 0 602 SWITZERLAND 200 0 200 

Total 47,670 17,006 64,676 Total 68,200 3,800 72,000 

EUR/kg 

Destination 2010 2011 Average 

CHINA 17.81 17.81 

CEUTA 4.10 4.10 

ANDORRA 3.97 3.97 

AFGHANISTAN 3.57 3.57 

SWITZERLAND 3.01 3.01 

MOROCCO 0.69 0.69 

Average 1.85 7.36 


AC26 Doc. 26.2 



(2011 data are based on monthly data for January 

to September only and need to be updated later in 

2012) 

Figure 3. Global Lamna nasus distribution (Source: FAO FIGIS 2004) 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 19


Figure 4. FAO fishing areas. 

Key: Lamna nasus is reported from the fishing areas underlined below. 

01 - Africa-Inland Water 

02 - America-Inland Water 

03 - America, South-Inland Water 

04 - Asia-Inland Water 

05 - Europe-Inland Water 

06 - Oceania-Inland Water 

21 - Atlantic, Northwest 

27 - Atlantic, Northeast 

31 - Atlantic, Western Central 

34 - Atlantic, Eastern Central 

37 - Mediterranean & Black seas 

41 - Atlantic, Southwest 

47 - Atlantic, Southeast 

48 - Atlantic, Antarctic 

51 - Indian Ocean, Western 

57 - Indian Ocean, Eastern 


AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 20 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 



58 - Indian Ocean, Antarctic 

61 - Pacific, Northwest 

67 - Pacific, Northeast 

71 - Pacific, Western Central 

77 - Pacific, Eastern Central 

81 - Pacific, Southwest 

87 - Pacific, Southeast 

88 - Pacific, Antarctic


Figure 5. Global reported landings (tonnes) of Lamna nasus by major FAO fishing 

areas, 1950–2009. (Source: FAO FishStat) (Data will be updated at a later stage) 

Figure 6. Landings (tonnes) of Lamna nasus from the Northeast Atlantic by major fishing 

States, 1950–2009. (Source: FAO Fishstat) (Data will be updated at a later stage) 


AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 21 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 



Tonnes 

3,500 

3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 


0 

1973 

III & IV 

1975 

1977 

1979 

VIII 

1981 

1983 

1985 

VII 

1987 

1989 

1991 

1993 

1995 


1997 

IX 

1999 

2001 

2003 

X 

2005 

XIV 

XII 

IX 

X 

VII 

VI 

V 

III & IV 

Figure 7. Landings (tonnes) of Lamna nasus from ICES Areas (Northeast Atlantic), 1973– 

2009. (Source: ICES Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes 2010) (Data will be 

updated at a later stage) 

Catch (tonnes) 

4000 

3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

1926 

1931 

1936 

1941 

1946 

1951 

1956 

1961 

1966 

1971 

1976 

1981 

1986 

1991 

1996 

2001 

Figure 8. Landings (tonnes) of Lamna nasus by Norway in the Northeast Atlantic, 1926– 

2009. (Source: Norwegian fisheries data & ICES WGEF) (Data will be updated at a later 

stage) 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 22 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 



I & II 

VIII


Figure 9. Landings (tonnes) of Lamna nasus by Denmark in the Northeast Atlantic, 1954– 

2009. (Source: ICES Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes) (Data will be updated at 

a later stage 

Figure 10. Landings (tonnes) of Lamna nasus by Faroe Islands in the Northeast Atlantic, 

1973–2009. (Source: ICES WGEF and European Commission.) (Data will be updated at 

a later stage) 


AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 23 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 



Catch (tonnes) 


1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

1978 

1980 

1982 

1984 

1986 

1988 

VII 

1990 

Figure 11. French landings (tonnes) of Lamna nasus in the Northeast Atlantic, 1978–2009. 

(Source: ICES Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes) (Data will be updated at a later 

stage) 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

1992 

French longline 

1994 


VIII 

1996 

1998 

2000 

2002 

obs pred 

1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 

Figure 12. Surplus production age-structured model fits to French longline CPUE indices 

(assuming virgin conditions in 1926) for northeast Atlantic porbeagle shark. Source ICCAT 

SCRS/ICES 2009. 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 24 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 



XII 

X 

IX 

VIII 

VII 

VI 

Vb 

II&IV 

2004


Depletion ( B/B0 ) 

Depletion ( N/N0) 

1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

1926 

1929 

1926 

1932 

1935 

1930 

1934 

1938 

1941 

1938 

1942 

1944 

1947 

1946 

1950 

1953 

1950 

1954 

1956 

1959 

1958 

1962 

1965 

1962 

Figure 13. Depletion in total biomass (upper panel) and numbers (lower panel) for a surplus 

production age-structured model for Northeast Atlantic porbeagle shark. The dots indicated on 

the line correspond to depletion at the beginning of the modern period (1972) and current 

depletion (2008).Source ICCAT/ICES 2009. 

1966 

1968 

1971 

0.15 

0.17 

1970 

1974 

1977 

1974 


1978 

1980 

1983 

1982 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 25 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 



1986 

1989 

1986 

1990 

1992 

1995 

1994 

1998 

2001 

1998 

2002 

0.06 

2004 

2007 

0.07 

2006


Figure 14. Lamna nasus landings in the Northwest Atlantic, 1961–2008 

(excluding unreported high seas captures). (Source: Campana et al. 2010) 

Figure 15. Estimated trends in numbers of mature females (top), age-1 recruits (centre) 

and total number of Lamna nasus in Canadian waters, 1960–2010, from four porbeagle 

population models (all show similar trajectories). (Source: Campana et al. 2010.) 


AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 26 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 




Figure 16. Comparison of recovery targets and trajectories for the Canadian porbeagle 

stock during 2009–2100, obtained using Population Viability Analysis from four 

population models projected deterministically under four different exploitation rates 

(0% to 8% per annum). (Source: Campana et al. 2010.) 

Figure 17. New Zealand commercial landings of porbeagle sharks reported by fishers 

and processors (LFRR), 1989/90 to 2004/05. (Source Ministry of Fisheries 2008.) 

Substantial foreign landings up to about 1992–93 have not been quantified and are not included 

here. Domestic tuna longline fishing effort rose until 2002/03, but has fallen in recent years. 


AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 27 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 




Figure 18. Unstandardised CPUE indices (number of Lamna nasus per 1000 hooks) for 

the New Zealand tuna longline fishery based on observer reports. 

Years are fishing years (1993 = October 1992 to September 1993). Confidence intervals are from 

bootstrapped data. -■- foreign and charter fleet, southern New Zealand; -□- foreign and charter fleet, 

northern New Zealand; -●- domestic fleet, southern New Zealand; -○- domestic fleet, northern New 

Zealand. (Taken from Ministry of Fisheries (2008). Source: Griggs et al. 2007.) 

1.00E+00 

8.00E-01 

6.00E-01 

4.00E-01 

2.00E-01 

0.00E+00 

SSB/SSB0 

1961 

1964 

1967 

1970 

1973 

1976 

1979 

1982 

0.46 


1985 

1988 

1991 

1994 

1997 

2000 

2003 

2006 

Figure 19. Relative spawning stock biomass (SSB) trend for the catch free age structured 

production model, assuming virgin conditions in 1961, for southwest Atlantic porbeagle 

shark. The dots indicated on the line correspond to depletion at the beginning of the modern 

period (1982) and current depletion (2008). Source ICCAT SCRS/ICES (2009). 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 28 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 



0.18


Figure 20. Southern hemisphere landings of porbeagle Lamna nasus, 1990–2009 (Source FAO 

FISHSTAT). 


AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 29 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 




Annex 2. 

Scientific synonyms of Lamna nasus 

(Source: FAO Species Identification Sheet 2003) 

Squalus glaucus Gunnerus, 1768 (not S. glaucus Linnaeus, 1758 = Prionace glauca); 

Squalus cornubicus Gmelin, 1789; 

Squalus pennanti Walbaum, 1792 (alsoLamna pennanti, Desvaux, 1851); 

Squalus monensis Shaw, 1804; 

Squalus cornubiensis Pennant, 1812; 

Squalus selanonus Walker, in Leach, 1818; 

Selanonius walkeri Fleming, 1828; 

Lamna punctata Storer, 1839; 

Oxyrhina daekayi Gill, 1862; 

Lamna philippi Perez Canto, 1886; 

Lamna whitleyi Philipps, 1935. 


AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 30 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 




Annex 3. 

Range States and Areas where Lamna nasus has been recorded 

(Source Compagno 2001) 

Albania 

Algeria 

Antarctica 

Argentina 

Australia (New South Wales; 

Queensland; South Australia; 

Tasmania; Victoria; Western 

Australia) 

Azores Is. (Portugal) 

Belgium 

Bermuda 

Brazil 

Canada (New Brunswick; 

Newfoundland; Nova Scotia; 

Prince Edward Island) 

Canary Islands 

Cape Verde 

Channel Islands (UK) 

Chile 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Egypt 

Faeroe Islands 

*Falkland/Malvinas Islands 

Finland 

France 

France (Corse) 

French Polynesia 

Germany 

Gibraltar 

Greece (East Aegean Is.; Kriti) 

Greenland 

Iceland 

Ireland 

Isle of Man 

Israel 

Italy (Sardinia; Sicilia) 

Kerguelen Is. 

Lebanon 

Libya 

Madeira Islands (Portugal) 

Malta 

*Malvinas/Falkland Islands 

Monaco 

Morocco 

FAO Fisheries Areas: 

21, 27, 31, 34, 37, 41, 47, 48, 51, 57, 58, 81 and 87 (see Figure 3). 

Oceans: 

Northwest Atlantic: Greenland, Canada, United States, and Bermuda. 


Netherlands 

New Zealand 

Norway 

Portugal 

Russian Federation 

Slovenia 

South Africa 

South Georgia and the South 

Sandwich Islands 

Spain 

Sweden 

Syria 

Tunisia 

Turkey 

United Kingdom (England, 

Wales, Scotland, Northern 

Ireland) 

United States of America 

(Maine; Massachusetts; New 

Jersey; New York; Rhode 

Island; South Carolinas?) 

Uruguay 

Yugoslavia 

Northeast Atlantic: Iceland and western Barents Sea to Baltic, North and Mediterranean Seas, 

including Russia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Holland, United Kingdom, Ireland, France, 

Portugal, Spain, and Gibraltar; Mediterranean (not Black Sea); Morocco, Madeira, and Azores. 

Southern Atlantic: southern Brazil and Uruguay to southern Argentina; Namibia and South Africa. 

Indo-West Pacific: South-central Indian Ocean from South Africa east to between Prince Edward and 

Crozet Islands, between Kerguelen and St. Paul Islands, and southern Australia, New Zealand. Sub 

Antarctic waters off South Georgia, Marion, Prince and Kerguelen Islands. 

Eastern South Pacific: southern Chile to Cape Horn. 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 



* A dispute exists between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 

Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas 

AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 31


Annex 4. 

Application of the criteria for amendment of Appendices I and II for commercially exploited aquatic 

species, with regard to Porbeagle shark Lamna nasus 

CITES Standing Committee 58 [SC58 Sum. 7 (Rev. 1) (09/07/2009)] asked Parties, as they prepared for 

CoP15, to clearly define in their listing proposals how they have interpreted and applied Resolution 

Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP14), particularly paragraph B of Annex 2a of the Resolution, which deals with the 

inclusion of species in Appendix II in accordance with Article II paragraph 2a of the Convention. This 

paragraph has been interpreted differently by the CITES and FAO Secretariats, and by Parties. 

The 15 th meeting of the Conference of Parties also discussed this issue, introduced in CoP15 Doc.63, 

adopting Decision 15.28 (addressed to the Secretariat) and 15.29 (addressed to the Animals 

Committee), and further amending Res Conf 9.24 (Rev. CoP15). The discussion on the application of 

the listing criteria within CITES and FAO has continued since then within the framework set out by 

these Decisions, with the following documents prepared and discussed by AC25 in July 2011: AC25 

Doc. 10; AC25 Inf. 10 (Germany); AC25 Inf. 12 (FAO 2011, the report of a workshop on the application 

of criterion Annex 2a B). 

Since these discussions are still underway with no recommendations available yet, this proposal has 

been developed on the basis of the EU position so far. 

Interpreting the Text of Annex 2 a with regard to Lamna nasus 

The proponents have carefully considered the FAO's views on how CITES Parties should interpret the 

criteria in Resolution Conf. 9.24 (SC 58 Inf. 6), and the interpretation suggested by the CITES 

Secretariat (SC 58 Doc. 43). In the view of the proponents, the definition of the term "decline" given 

in Annex 5 of Resolution Conf. 9.24 and the Footnote "Application of decline for commercially 

exploited aquatic species" is clearly relevant for Criterion A of Annex 2 a, and we have interpreted it 

according to the guidelines and the footnote. 

Criterion A of Annex 2 a states that a species should be included in Appendix II “to avoid it becoming 

eligible for inclusion in Appendix I in the near future". According to Article II Paragraph 1 of the 

Convention, it shall be included in Appendix I if it is "threatened with extinction". According to Annex 

1 of Res. Conf. 9.24 (Biological criteria for Appendix I), a species is threatened with extinction if it 

meets or is likely to meet at least one of the criteria A, B or C, with C specifying "a marked decline in 

the population size in the wild [...]". This term "decline" used in Criterion C for Appendix I is then 

further defined in Annex 5 (Definitions, explanations and guidelines) and specified for commercially 

exploited aquatic species in the abovementioned footnote. 

By contrast, Criterion B of Annex 2 a does not refer to Appendix I. Criterion B states that a species 

should be included in Appendix II "to ensure that the harvest of specimens from the wild is not 

reducing the wild population to a level at which its survival might be threatened by continued 

harvesting or other influences." Whether the Appendix I definition of "decline" is relevant for 

Criterion B has been subject to different interpretations. The proponents do not wish to enter into 

this general discussion through the present document. However, the proponents would like to 

underline that Criterion B represents the outcome of a rewording of the previous version of 

Paragraph B of Annex 2a in Res. Conf. 9.24, which reads as follows: 

"It is known, or can be inferred or projected, that harvesting of specimens from the wild for 

international trade has, or may have, a detrimental impact on the species by either 

i) exceeding, over an extended period, the level that can be continued in perpetuity; or 

ii) reducing it to a population level at which its survival would be threatened by other influences." 


AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 32 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 




In the criteria working group at Johannesburg (20th Animals Committee, 2004) it was recognized that 

Criterion B of Annex 2 a in its current version encompasses both meanings of the abovementioned 

original text, i.e. paragraph i) and ii). With respect to paragraph ii) of the original criterion, decline is 

relevant with respect to the special case of reducing a population to a level at which depensation 

might occur. Paragraph i) of the original criterion is a reference to long‐term unsustainable 

harvesting that is known or might be inferred or projected and to the detrimental impact that such 

harvesting has, or may have, on the species. 

This represented the understanding of European Community Parties when the revised criteria were 

adopted, and the proponents feel that this remains a valid interpretation of this criterion. 

Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP 14) also recognizes the importance of the application of the 

precautionary approach in cases of uncertainty and indicates that the definitions, explanations and 

guidelines provided in Annex 5 should be interpreted in a flexible manner, taking account of the 

specific features of each species considered. This was highlighted by the Standing Committee at its 

58th meeting, and the proponents have interpreted the Resolution accordingly in their listing 

proposal for Lamna nasus. 

On this basis, with regard to the relevant stocks of Lamna nasus referred to in the proposal, Criterion 

B of Res. Conf. 9.24 Annex 2a is regarded to be met because: 

This species is of high biological vulnerability, falling within FAO’s lowest productivity, and takes 

decades to recover from depletion, even under fisheries management; 

Exploitation in target fisheries is driven primarily by international trade demand for this species’ 

meat, while fins and meat enter international trade from target and bycatch fisheries 

Stock assessments identify serious impacts of exploitation in the North Atlantic and Southwest 

Atlantic (possibly extending into Southeast Pacific), where populations depleted by target and 

bycatch fisheries qualify for listing in the CITES Appendices; 

Data are lacking on most other southern hemisphere stocks, but these populations are of lower 

biological productivity, even more vulnerable to depletion than northern stocks, and are also 

exploited by fisheries; 

Lamna nasus is taken in high seas IUU fisheries, which undermine conservation measures 

adopted by coastal fishing states; 

Improved management of all stocks is a high priority. As also pointed out by the 2009 FAO 

expert panel (FAO 2010), regulation of international trade through CITES listing can supplement 

traditional management measures, including by strengthening national efforts to keep 

harvesting for trade commensurate with stock rebuilding plans and improving the control of 

high seas catches through the use of certificates of introduction from the sea accompanied by 

non detriment findings, thus providing a significant contribution to the conservation of this 

species. 


AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 33 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 



References 


Annex 5. 

Aasen, O. (1963). Length and growth of the porbeagle (Lamna nasus, Bonaterre) in the North West 

Atlantic. FiskDir. Skr. Serie Havundersokelser 13 (6), 20–37. 

Acuña, E., Villarroel, J.C. y Grau, R. 2002. Fauna Ictica Asociada a la Pesquería de Pez Espada 

(Xiphias gladius Linnaeus). Gayana (Concepc.), 66(2):263–267. 

Anonymous, 2002. Report of the meeting of experts for the elaboration of an Action Plan for the 

conservation of Mediterranean species of cartilaginous fish. UNEP, RAC/SPA, Tunis. 

Ayers, D.; Francis, M.P.; Griggs, L.H.; Baird, S.J. (2004). Fish bycatch in New Zealand tuna longline 

fisheries, 2000-01 and 2001-02. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2004/46. 47 pp. 

Biais G. and Vollette J. 2009. CPUE of the French porbeagle fishery. WGEF Working Document, 3 pp. 

Big Game Fishing Council, undated. Submission to New Zealand government on quota proposals. 

http://www.option4.co.nz/pdf/sharksnzbgfc04.pdf. 

Binot, M., Bless, R., Boye, P., Gruttke, H. & Pretscher, P. (ed.) 1998. Rote Liste gefährdeter Tiere 

Deutschlands. Schriftenreihe für Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz. vol. 55. Bonn-Bad 

Godesberg (Bundesamt für Naturschutz). 

Biseau, A. 2006. Untitled summary of french porbeagle fisheries and market data. Working Document, 

ICES Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes. 

Bonfil, R. 1994. Overview of world elasmobranch fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 341 

119 pp. 

Buencuerpo, V., Rios, S., Moron, J. 1998. Pelagic sharks associated with the swordfish, Xiphias 

gladius, fishery in the eastern North Atlantic Ocean and the Strait of Gibraltar. Fishery Bulletin 

(96): 667–685 

Campana, S., L. Marks., Joyce, W., Hurley, P., Showell, M., and Kulka, D.1999. An analytical 

assessment of the porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) population in the northwest Atlantic. Canadian 

Science Advisory Secretariat. CSAS. Res. Doc.99/158. 

Campana, S., Marks, L., Joyce, W. and Harley, S. 2001. Analytical assessment of the porbeagle 

(Lamna nasus) population in the Northwest Atlantic, with estimates of long-term sustainable yield. 

Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. CSAS Res. Doc. 2001/067. 17 pp. 

Campana, S.E., L.J. Natanson and S. Myklevoll. 2002. Bomb dating and age determination of large 

pelagic sharks. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59:450–455. 

Campana, S.E., W. Joyce, L. Marks, L.J. Natanson, N.E. Kohler, C.F. Jensen, J.J. Mello, H.L. Pratt 

Jr., and S. Myklevoll. 2002. Population dynamics of the porbeagle in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. 

North. Am. J. Fish. Management 22:106–121. 

Campana, S., Joyce, W., and L. Marks. 2003. Status of the Porbeagle Shark (Lamna nasus) 

population in the Northwest Atlantic in the context of species at risk. Canadian Science Advisory 

Secretariat. CSAS Res. Doc. 2003/007. 27 pp. 

Campana, S.E. and W.N. Joyce. 2004. Temperature and depth associations of porbeagle shark 

(Lamna nasus) in the northwest Atlantic. Fish. Oceanogr. 13:52–64. 

Campana S. and J. Gibson. 2008. Catch and Stock Status of Porbeagle Shark (Lamna nasus) in the 

Northwest Atlantic to 2007, NAFO Doc. 08/36. 

Campana, S. E., Joyce, W. and Fowler, M. 2010a. Subtropical pupping ground for a cold-water shark. 

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 67:769-773. 

Campana, S. E., Gibson, A. J. F., Fowler, M., Dorey, A., and Joyce, W. 2010b. Population dynamics of 

porbeagle in the northwest Atlantic, with an assessment of status to 2009 and projections for 

recovery. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 65(6): 2109-2182. 

Campana, S.E., J. Brading, and W. Joyce. 2011. Estimation of pelagic shark bycatch and associated 

mortality in Canadian Atlantic fisheries. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2011/067: vi + 19p. 

CITES 2006. Conservation and Management of Sharks: Implementation of CITES shark listings. AC22 

Doc.17.2. 5pp. www.cites.org. 


AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 34 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 




Compagno, L.J.V. 2001. Sharks of the World. Volume 2. Bullhead, mackerel and carpet sharks 

(Heterodontiformes, Lamniformes and Orectolobiformes). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of 

the shark species known to date. FAO Species Catalogue for Fisheries Purposes (1): i–v, 1–269. 

COSEWIC 2004. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the porbeagle shark Lamna nasus in 

Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. viii + 43 pp. 

(www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). 

De la Serna, J.M., Valeiras,J., Ortiz, J.M., Macias D., 2002. Large Pelagic sharks as by-catch in the 

Mediterranean Swordfish Longline Fishery : some biological aspects. NAFO SCR Doc.02/137 

Serial No. N4759. 

Deynat, P. 2010. Les requins: Identification des nageoires. Éditiones Quae. 464 pp. 

DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans – Canada). 1999. Porbeagle shark in NAFO subareas 3– 

6. DFO Science Stock Status Report B3–09 (1999).Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 

Maritimes Region, Canada. 2001a. Porbeagle Shark in NAFO Subareas 3–6. DFO Science Stock 

Status Report B3-09(2001). Pp 1–9. 

DFO. 2001a. Porbeagle shark in NAFO subareas 3–6. Scientific Stock Status Report. B3-09. 9 pp. 

DFO. 2001b. Canadian Atlantic Pelagic Shark Integrated Fishery Management Plan, 2000–2001. 

Pp. 1–72. 

DFO, 2005a. Stock assessment report on NAFO Subareas 3–6 porbeagle shark. CSAS Science 

Advisory Report 2005/044. 

DFO, 2005b. Recovery Assessment Report on NAFO Subareas 3–6 Porbeagle Shark. CSAS Science 

Advisory Report 2005/043. 

DFO 2006. Potencial Socio-economic Implications of Adding Porbeagle Shark to the List of Wildlife 

Species at Risk in the Species at Risk Act (SARA). Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Policy and 

Economics Branch – Maritimes Region, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. 

Domingo, A. , O. Mora y M. Cornes. 2001. Evolución de las capturas de elasmobranquios pelágicos 

en la pesquería de atunes de Uruguay, con énfasis en los tiburones azul (prionace glauca), moro 

(Isurus oxyrinchus) y porbeagle (Lamna nasus). Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 54(4): 1406–1420. 

Domingo, A. 2000. Los Elasmobranquios Pelágicos Capturados por la flota de longline Uruguaya. In: 

M. Rey (Editor). Consideraciones Sobre la Pesca Incidental Producida por la Actividad de la Flota 

Atunera Dirigida a Grandes Pelágicos. “Plan De Investigación Pesquera”. Inape – Pnud 

Uru/92/003. 

FAO. 2000. An appraisal of the suitability of the CITES criteria for listing commercially-exploited 

aquatic species. FAO Circulaire sur les pêches No. 954, FAO, Rome. 76pp. 

FAO. 2001. Report of the second technical consultation of the CITES criteria for listing commercially 

exploited aquatic species. FAO Fisheries Report No. 667. FAO, Rome. 

FAO–FIGIS. 2006. Capture production statistics. FAO website, downloaded 2006. 

FAO–FIGIS. 2004. Lamna nasus Species Fact Sheet. In: A world overview of species of interest to 

fisheries. FIGIS Species Fact Sheets. SIDP -Species Identification and Data Programme. FAO– 

FIGIS. downloaded 2006. 

FAO 2010. Report to COFI 29 on Progress in the implementation of the Code of Conduct for 

Responsible Fisheries and related instruments, including International Plans of Action and 

strategies, and other matters. COFI/2011/2, FAO, Rome. 

FAO 2011. 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 No.976. FAO, Rome, Italy. 

Fischer, W., Bauchot, M.-L. and Schneider, M.-L 1987. Fiches FAO d’identification des espèces pour 

les besoins de la pêche. Méditerranée et Mer Noire. Zone de peche 37. Volume 2. Vertébrés. 

FAO, Rome. 761–1530. 

Fishery Agency of Japan. 2004. Salmon Shark Lamna ditropis; Porbeagle Shark Lamna nasus, 

Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans. In: The current status of international fishery stocks 

(summarised edition). Pp. 82–83. Fishery Agency, Japan. 


AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 35 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 




Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2006. Potential Socio-economic Implications of Adding Porbeagle 

Shark to the List of Wildlife Species at Risk in the Species at Risk Act (SARA). Policy and 

Economics Branch – Maritimes Region, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada. 

Fleming, Elizabeth. H. and Papageorgiou, P.A. 1997. Shark fisheries and trade in Europe. TRAFFIC 

Europe. 78 pp. 

Fong, Q.S.W. and J.L. Anderson (1998). Assessment of Hong Kong shark fin trade. Department of 

Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, 9 pp. 

Francis, M. P. and Duffy, C. (2005). Length at maturity in three pelagic sharks (Lamna nasus, Isurus 

oxyrinchus and Prionace glauca) from New Zealand. Fishery Bulletin 103: 489–500. 

Francis, M. P., and Stevens, J. D. (2000). Reproduction, embryonic development and growth of the 

porbeagle shark, Lamna nasus, in the South-west Pacific Ocean. Fishery Bulletin 98: 41–63. 

Francis, M. P., Natanson, L. J. and Campana, S. E. 2008: The biology and ecology of the Porbeagle 

shark Lamna nasus. In: Pikitch, E. K. and M. Camhi (Eds). Sharks of the open ocean. Blackwell 

Scientific Publications. 

Gauld, J.A. (1989). Records of porbeagles landed in Scotland, with observations on the biology, 

distribution and exploitation of the species. Scottish Fisheries Research Report 45, ISSN 0308 

8022. 15 pp. 

Gibson, A.J. and S. E. Campana. 2006. Status and recovery potential of porbeagle shark in the 

Northwest Atlantic. CSAS Res. Doc.. 

Hazin, F., M. Broadhurst, A. Amorim, C. Arfelli and A. Domingo. 2008. Catch of pelagic sharks by 

subsurface longline fisheries in the South Atlantic Ocean: A review of available data with emphasis 

on Uruguay and Brazil In: “Sharks of the open Ocean” M. Camhi and E. Pikitch (Eds.) Blackwell 

Scientific, New York. 

Hernandez, S., P. A. Haye and M. S. Shivji (2008) Characterization of the pelagic shark-fin trade in 

north-central Chile by genetic identification and trader surveys, Journal of Fish Biology 73, 2293– 

2304 

Hutchings, J.A. 2001. Influence of population decline, fishing, and spawner variability on the recovery 

of marine fishes. Journal of Fish Biology (2001) 59 Supplement A 306–322. 

ICES. 2005. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management. Copenhagen, Denmark. 

Jensen, C. F., L.J. Natanson, H.L. Pratt, N.E. Kohler, and S.E. Campana. 2002. The reproductive 

biology of the porbeagle shark, Lamna nasus, in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Fish. Bull. 

100:727–738. 

Joyce, W., S.E. Campana, L.J. Natanson, N.E. Kohler, H.L. Pratt, and C.F. Jensen. 2002. Analysis of 

stomach contents of the porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) in the northwest Atlantic. ICES J. Mar. 

Sci. 59:1263–1269. 

Kohler NE, Turner PA 2001. Shark tagging: A review of conventional methods and studies. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes 60 (1–3): 191–223. 

Kohler, N.E., P.A. Turner, J.J. Hoey, L.J. Natanson, and R. Briggs. 2002. Tag and recapture data for 

three pelagic shark species, blue shark (Prionace glauca), shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus), and 

porbeagle (Lamna nasus) in the North Atlantic Ocean, ICCAT Collective Volume of Scientific 

Papers SCRS/2001/064 1231–1260. 

M. Lack and Sant G. (2011). The Future of Sharks: A Review of Action and Inaction. TRAFFIC 

International and the Pew Environment Group. 

Lallemand-Lemoine, L. 1991. Analysis of the French fishery for porbeagle Lamna nasus (Bonnaterre, 

1788). ICES-CM-1991/G:71, 10 pp. 

Marconi, M., De Maddalena, A. 2001. On the capture of a young porbeagle, Lamna nasus 

(Bonnaterre, 1788), in the western Adriatic Sea. Annales, Ser.hist.nat. 11, 2 (25): 179–184 

McCoy, M.A. and H. Ishihara (1999). The Socio-economic Importance of Sharks in the U.S. Flag 

Areas of the Western and Central Pacific (Admininstrative Report AR-SWR-99-01), prepared for 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, Long 

Beach, California, United States. 

Megalofonou, P., Damalas, D., Yannopoulos, C., De Metrio, G., Deflorio, M., De La Serna, J.M., 

Macias, D. 2000. By catches and discards of sharks in the large pelagic fisheries in the 


AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 36 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 




Mediterranean Sea. Final report of the Project No 97/50 DG XIV/C1, Comm. Of the Eu. 

Communities. 

Mejuto, J. 1985. Associated catches of sharks, Prionace glauca, Isurus oxyrinchus and Lamna nasus, 

with NW and N Spanish swordfish fishery in 1984. ICES C.M. 1985/H:42: 16pp. 

Ministry of Fisheries. 2005. New Zealand Gazette of Thursday, November 3 2005. Issue No. 184. 

Wellington, New Zealand. 

MFSC, 2008. Ministry of Fisheries, Science Group (Comps.). 2008. Report from the Mid-Year Fishery 

Assessment Plenary, November 2008: stock assessments and yield estimates. (Unpublished 

report held in NIWA Greta Point Library, Wellington, New Zealand). 

Ministry of Fisheries, Science Group (Comps.). 2006. Report from the Fishery Assessment Plenary, 

May 2006: stock assessments and yield estimates. 875pp. (Porbeagle on pp. 592–596.) 

Unpublished report held in NIWA Library, Wellington, New Zealand. 

Natanson, L. J., J.J. Mello and S.E. Campana. 2002. Validated age and growth of the porbeagle 

shark, Lamna nasus, in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Fish. Bull., U.S. 100:266–278. 

O’Boyle, R. N., Fowler, G. M., Hurley, P. C. F., Joyce, W., and Showell, M. A. (1998). Update on the 

status of NAFO SA 3–6 porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus). Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat 

Research Document 98/41: 2–58. 

Orsi Relini L. & Garibaldi F. 2002. Pups of Lamnid sharks from the Ligurian Sea: morphological and 

biometrical characteristics of taxonomic value. In M. Vacchi, G. La Mesa, F. Serena & B. Seret 

(eds.) Proc. 4th Elasm. Assoc. Meet., Livorno (Italy) 2000. ICRAM, ARPAT & SFI: 199. 

Pade, N., Sarginson, J., Antsalo, M., Graham, S., Campana, S., Francis, M., Jones, C., Sims, D., and 

Noble, L. 2006. Spatial ecology and population structure of the porbeagle (Lamna nasus) in the 

Atlantic: an integrated approach to shark conservation. Poster presented at 10 th European 

Elasmobranch Association Science Conference. 11–12 November 2006. Hamburg, Germany. 

Rose, D.A. 1996. An overview of world trade in sharks and other cartilaginous fishes. TRAFFIC 

International. 106 pp. 

Serena, F. & Vacchi, M. 1997. Attivita di studio sui grandi pesci cartilaginei dell’alto Tirreneo e Mar 

Ligure nell’ambito del programma L.E.M. (Large elasmobranchs monitoring). Quad. Civ. Staz. 

Idrobiol. N. 22: 17–21 

Shivji, M., Clarke, S., Pank, M., Natanson, L., Kohler, N., and Stanhope, M. 2002. Rapid molecular 

genetic identification of pelagic shark body-parts conservation and trade-monitoring. Conservation 

Biology 16(4): 1036–1047. 

Soldo, A. & I. Jardas. 2002. Large sharks in the Eastern Adriatic. In M. Vacchi, G. La Mesa, F. Serena 

& B. Seret (eds.) Proc. 4th Elasm. Assoc. Meet., Livorno 2000. ICRAM, ARPAT & SFI: 141–155. 

Sonu, S.C. 1998. Shark fisheries, trade, and market of Japan. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS. 

STECF 2006. Report of subgroup on porbeagle. European Scientific, Technical and Economic 

Committee on Fisheries. Brussels. 

Stevens, J.D. (1976). Preliminary results of shark tagging in the north-east Atlantic, 1972–1975. 

Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 56, 929–937. 

Stevens, J.D. (1990). Further results from a tagging study of pelagic sharks in the north-east Atlantic. 

Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 70, 707–720. 

Stevens, J.D., Bonfil, R., Dulvy, N.K. and Walker, P.A. 2000. The effects of fishing on sharks, rays, 

and chimaeras (chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems. ICES Journal of 

Marine Science, Volume 57, Issue 3, 476–494 pp. 

Stevens, J., Fowler, S.L., Soldo, A., McCord, M., Baum, J., Acuña, E., Domingo, A. & Francis, M. 

2005. Lamna nasus. In: IUCN 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 

. 

Sullivan, K. J., P. M. Mace, N. W. M. Smith, M. H. Griffiths, P. R. Todd, M. E. Livingston, S. Harley, J. 

M. Key & A. M. Connell (ed.). 2005. Report from the Fishery Assessment Plenary, May 2005: 

stock assessments and yield estimates. Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington. 792 pp. 

Svetlov, M.F. (1978). The porbeagle, Lamna nasus, in Antarctic waters. Journal of Ichthyology 18 (5), 

850–851. 


AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 37 

AC26 Doc. 26.2 




Testerman, C., Richards, V., Francis, M., Pade, N., Jones, C., Noble, L. and Shivji, M. 2007. Global 

phylogeography of the porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) reveals strong genetic separation of 

northern and southern hemisphere populations. Abstract presented at the American Elasmobranch 

Society Annual Conference 2007 

Vannuccini, S. 1999. Shark utilization, marketing and trade. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 389. 

Rome, FAO. 470 pp. 

Van Wijk, E.M. and R. Williams (2003). Fishery and invertebrate by-catch from Australian fisheries for 

D. eleginoides and C. gunnari in Division 58.5.2. CCAMLR WG-FSA 03/73. 26 pp. 

Vas, P. and Thorpe, T. 1998. Commercial landings of sharks in South-Western England. Shark News 

12: November 1998. 


AC26 Doc. 26.2, Annex 1 – p. 38 

AC26 Doc. 26.2

Lamna nasus - Cites

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?