85. The Expert Consultation agreed on the list of recommendations below that draws attention to actions that it considered would lead to improvements in the implementation of CITES listing of commercially-exploited aquatic species. FAO may wish to consider this list and possible follow-up action where appropriate.
1. States should, where necessary, consider and adopt protocols that lead to improved communication and coordination between national governmental agencies responsible for CITES implementation and those responsible for natural resource management, including fisheries.
2. Where appropriate, States should consider the utility of designating the government agency or agencies responsible for freshwater and marine species management as CITES Management Authority or Authorities for such species.
3. Clarification is needed of the terms “...the marine environment not under the jurisdiction of any State” and “transportation into a State” in the definition of “introduction from the sea” in Article I of CITES. It was noted that an FAO expert consultation will be addressing this in June 2004.
4. FAO may wish to request CITES to consider ways to ensure that there is sufficient responsiveness and flexibility in mechanisms for amending the Appendices with respect to commercially-exploited aquatic species.
5. FAO and CITES may want to give consideration to the nature of safeguard mechanisms for down-listing commercially-exploited aquatic species from Appendix I to Appendix II and the manner in which they might be applied.
6. States should take note of the array of initiatives that FAO and CITES have undertaken or are undertaking to assist Customs and others in identifying specimens and species, and to continue to work towards an international standard for traceability of fishery and aquaculture products.
7. FAO may wish to request CITES Parties considering the listing of species for look-alike reasons to examine alternative approaches that would effectively address enforcement and identification issues to avoid unnecessary listing of look-alike species.
8. CITES Parties may want to give consideration to FAO’s concern that inflexible adherence to the guidance on split-listing (i.e. the invocation to avoid split-listings that list some populations, but not the rest) could result in aquatic species or stocks that would not otherwise qualify for listing being placed in Appendix II.
9. States should take note that CITES permitting procedures are flexible and are able to address trade for a wide range of aquaculture systems. The aquaculture sector and CITES Authorities should strive for greater communication and coordination to ensure this flexibility is maintained.
10. Consideration of the case studies did not provide sufficient information on the costs and benefits of a CITES listing. It is, therefore, recommended that studies could be made on the following: (a) the impacts of listing commercially-exploited aquatic species on CITES Appendices, on employment, income and food security in developing countries to understand the costs and benefits to fishing communities from such listings; and (b) the costs and benefits for research associated with non-detriment findings, processing of permits and certificates, and inspections of imports and exports.
11. Where a listed species within a range State is not subject to fisheries management regulation, or where such regulation is inadequate, capacity-building within that State should be undertaken to assist it to meet its obligations under CITES. In particular, assistance should be provided to developing countries in this circumstance.
12. Implementation of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the associated international plans of action should help to reduce the incidence of listing proposals for commercially-exploited aquatic species. FAO should continue its efforts to ensure the progress in this direction, including the provision of assistance, where necessary, to developing countries.
13. States may want to consider for CITES-listed species whether to use mechanisms, such as the “user pays” principle, to recover all or part of costs associated with processing permits, conducting research studies for non-detriment findings, and inspecting import and export shipments.
