Threatened Species Nomination Formfor amending the list of threatened species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)

2014/15 Assessment PeriodThe purpose of this form is to provide a nomination to the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) for assessment of a non EPBC Act listed species/subspecies for inclusion on the list of threatened species or to nominate a species/subspecies for reassessment for consideration for listing in another category of threat.

For a non-EPBC Act listed species to be eligible for listing as a threatened species it must be assessed as meeting at least one of the five criteria for listing. For a species already listed as threatened under the EPBC Act to be eligible for listing in a higher or lower category of threat it must be assessed as meeting at least one of the five criteria for a particular indicative threshold. For example, for a species listed as endangered to be found eligible for listing as critically endangered, it must meet the critically endangered indicative thresholds for at least one of the listing criteria.

If there is insufficient information to enable details to be provided because of a lack of scientific data or analysis please include any information that is available or provide a statement next to the relevant question identifying that the data or analysis is not available. Please provide references in your nomination to support information provided.

If you are nominating a species for removal from the list please complete the nomination form to delist a species.

The Committee recognises that completing a nomination form is demanding as a result of the information required by the Committee to undertake an assessment to determine the eligibility for listing. Nominators are encouraged to seek expert advice where appropriate to assist in the completion of the nomination form.

Important notes for completing this form

Please complete the form as comprehensively as possible – it is important for the Committee to have as much information as possible, and the best case on which to judge a species’ eligibility against the EPBC Act criteria for listing.

Certain information in this nomination is required to be provided by Division 7.2 EPBC Regulations 2000 (www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about/index.html). Nominations that do not meet the EPBC Regulations can not be provided to the Committee for consideration. All required questions are included in this nominations form. If information to answer any of the questions in this form is NOT available please state this in your answer as this is sufficient to meet the requirements of the EPBC Regulations.

Reference all information and facts, both in the text and in a reference list at the end of the form. The opinion of appropriate scientific experts may be cited as personal communication, with their approval,

in support of your nomination. Please provide the name of the experts, their qualifications and contact details (including employment in a state agency, if relevant) in the reference list at the end of the form.

If the species is considered to be affected by climate change, please refer to the Guidelines for assessing climate change as a threat to native species (Attachment B; Part B2).

Identify any confidential material and explain the sensitivity. Note that the information in the nomination (but excluding any information specifically requested by you

to remain confidential) will be made available to the public and experts for comment. However, your details as nominator will not be released, and will remain confidential.

Figures, tables and maps can be included at the end of the form or prepared as separate electronic or hardcopy documents (referred to as appendices or attachments in your nomination).

Cross-reference relevant areas of the nomination form where needed.Note – Further detail to help you complete this form is provided at Attachment A.

If using this form in Microsoft Word, you can jump to this information by Ctrl+clicking the hyperlinks (in blue text).

Details of Nominated Species or Subspecies

1. NAME OF NOMINATED SPECIES (OR SUBSPECIES) Scientific name: Carcharhinus longimanus      Common name(s): Oceanic whitetip shark      

2. CURRENT LISTING CATEGORY What category is the species currently listed in under the EPBC Act? (If you are nominating the species for removal from the list, please complete the nomination form for removal from the list).

Not Listed Extinct Extinct in the wild Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Conservation dependent

3. 2013–2014 CONSERVATION THEMEIs the current conservation theme ‘terrestrial and marine flora and fauna that would benefit from national listing’ relevant to this nomination? If so, briefly explain how.The conservation theme ‘terrestrial and marine flora and fauna that would benefit from national listing’ is relevant to this nomination. Carcharhinus longimanus is a species of marine fauna that suffers from significant threats such as overfishing, harvesting, and trade throughout its international range. The species has undergone, and is likely to continue to undergo, a dramatic reduction in numbers. National listing could benefit the species by lessening the threats and slowing the species’ decline.

Transfer Information (for transferring of a species to another category)Note: If the nomination is to transfer a species between categories please complete questions 4-6. If the nomination is for a new listing please proceed to question 7. If the nomination is to remove a species from the list, please use the delisting form.

4. REASON FOR THE NOMINATION FOR CATEGORY CHANGE Please mark the boxes that apply by clicking them with your mouse.What is the reason for the nomination:

Genuine change of status New Knowledge Mistake Other

Taxonomic change – ‘split’ newly described ‘lumped’ no longer valid

5. INITIAL LISTING Describe the reasons for the species’ initial listing and if available the criteria under which it was formerly considered eligiblen/a

6. CHANGES IN SITUATIONWith regard to the listing criteria, how have circumstances changed since the species was listed that now makes it eligible for listing in another category?n/a

Species Information

7. TAXONOMY Provide any relevant detail on the species' taxonomy (e.g. authors of taxon or naming authority, year and reference; synonyms; Family and Order).

Scientific name: Carcharhinus longimanus (Poey, 1861)

Kingdom: AnimaliaPhylum: ChordataClass: ChondrichthyansSubclass: ElasmobranchiiOrder: CarchariniformesFamily: CarchcharhinidaeGenus: Carcharhinus Species: longimanusdocument.docx Page 2 of 32

Common names: Oceanic Whitetip shark; Brown Milbert’s sand bar shark; Brown shark; Nigarno shark; and Whitetip whaler.

There is no evidence of any cross-breeding with other species in the wild in the available literature.

8. CONVENTIONALLY ACCEPTEDIs the species conventionally accepted? If the species' taxonomy is NOT conventionally accepted, then please provide the following information required by the EPBC Regulations 2000:

a taxonomic description of the species in a form suitable for publication in conventional scientific literature; OR

evidence that a scientific institution has a specimen of the species, and a written statement signed by a person who is a taxonomist and has relevant expertise (has worked with, or is a published author on, the class of species nominated), that the species is considered to be a new species.

Yes, this species is conventionally accepted.

9. DESCRIPTIONProvide a description of the species including where relevant, distinguishing features, size and social structure How distinct is this species in its appearance from other species? How likely is it to be misidentified?C. longimanus is a stocky shark from the family Carcharhinidae. The body is greyish bronze to brown in colour with a whitish underside. Distinguishable features of C. longimanus include a large rounded first dorsal fin and very long and wide paddle-like pectoral fins; and distinctively whitish-tipped first dorsal, pectoral, pelvic, and caudal fins; a short and bluntly rounded nose; and small circular eyes with nictitating membranes. (United States and Palau, 2010). See Figures 1a and 1b.

The appearance of the C. longimanus is easily distinguished from other sharks and a variety of guides provide information about the species’ unique features (see Nakano, 1999). The stocky shark has a short head, bluntly rounded nose and small circular eyes with nictitating membranes. The first dorsal fin is very large with a rounded tip, originating just in front of the free rear tips of the pectoral fins. The second dorsal fin originates over or slightly in front of the anal fin origin. Possessing broadly rounded tips, the pectoral fins are very large and elongated. This species has unmistakable whitish-tipped first dorsal, pectoral, pelvic, and caudal fins. These white markings are sometimes accompanied by white mottling on the fins or black markings in young individuals. There may also be a dark saddle-shaped marking present between the first and second dorsal fins. The body of the oceanic whitetip shark is greyish bronze to brown in colour, depending upon geographical location. The underside is white, with a yellow tinge on some individuals. (United States and Palau, 2010). Abercrombie and Chapman (2012) have developed a guide showing that it is easy to identify the rounded fins with white parts that are characteristic of oceanic whitetip sharks.

Other distinctive features include body fusiform with low interdorsal ridge present; labial furrows short, confined to mouth corners; upper teeth serrated, broadly triangular and erect, with lowers more slender, erect and serrated; first dorsal-fin origin just anterior to pectoral-fin free rear tips; pectoral-fin anterior margin 20-30% of total length, maximum width 1.9-2.3 in anterior margin; first dorsal-fin height 9-17% of total length; and tooth count 30-31/27-29. In addition, oceanic whitetip mottled white fins mimic schools of baitfish and attract such prey as scombrids (tunas and mackerels) (Last, P.R. and Stevens, J.D., 2009, p.265).

Males mature at about 170 to 96 cm and females at 170 to 190 cm TL (Seki et al. 1998). Last and Stevens note that age at maturity is about 5-7 years in both sexes (2009, p.266). In the north Pacific, females become mature at about 168-196 cm TL and males at 175-189 cm TL corresponding to an age of 4-5 years, respectively (Seki et al. 1998). Lessa et al. (1999) found both sexes mature at 180-190 cm TL (age 6-7 years) in the western equatorial Atlantic Ocean. Although there are six other shark species of the Order Carcharhiniformes that also have white-tipped fins, including Hemitriakis leucoperiptera, Hemigaleus microstoma, Paragaleus leucolomatus, Carcharhinus albimarginatus, Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos and Triaenodon obesus, these are unlikely to be confused with oceanic whitetip sharks. These other species are rarely caught in pelagic fisheries and have not been identified in the Hong Kong SAR fin market. In addition, the oceanic whitetip shark’s white-tipped fins are significantly larger and generally more broadly rounded when compared to the fins of the other species mentioned, which are falcate (sickle-shaped) with pointed tips and white markings on the tip and the trailing edge (Abercrombie and Chapman, 2012).

document.docx Page 3 of 32

10. DISTRIBUTION Provide a succinct overview of the species’ known or estimated current and past distribution, including international/national distribution. Provide a map if available.

Is the species protected within the reserve system (e.g. national parks, Indigenous Protected Areas, or other conservation estates, private land covenants, etc.)? If so, which populations? Which reserves are actively managed for this species? Give details.

The Carcharhinus longimanus is a surface-dwelling, oceanic-epipelagic shark and is the only truly oceanic species of the Carcharhinus genus. It is one of the most widely distributed shark species, with a worldwide distribution between 30°North and 35°South latitude, depending on seasonal movements in the summer months (Baum et al., 2006; Backus et al. 1956, SSN 2010). C. longimanus is usually found offshore in the open ocean, on the outer continental shelf, or around oceanic islands in the deep water of warm epipelagic tropical and subtropical regions (Compagno 1984 in Camhi et al., 2009, p. 23). The shark has been recorded to a depth of 152m. It is commonly found in waters warmer than 20°C waters (range 18-28°C), with one record from 15°C.

The population dynamics and structure of this species are unknown. Distribution appears to depend on size and sex and the nursery areas appear to be oceanic (Seki et al. 1998). Larger individuals are caught deeper than smaller ones and there is geographic and sexual segregation (Anderson and Ahmed 1993). Longline catches in the Central Pacific show that this species definitely increases in abundance as a function of increasing distance from land, and, unlike the silky shark Carcharhinus falcifomis, it does not congregate around land masses (XXXX in prep.).

Studies by Backus et al (1956) in the western North Atlantic and Strasburg (1958) in the eastern Pacific Ocean were among the first to describe the distribution, abundance, size structure, diet, behaviours, sex segregation, and reproduction of the oceanic whitetip shark. However, nearly 30 years passed before Saika and Yoshimura (1985) further reported on the natural history of this species, and theirs was a limited analysis of the ecology and biology of populations in the western Pacific Ocean. The latest contributions to our knowledge of this species come from a pair of papers, Baum et al. (2003) and Baum and Myers (2004), describing declines in shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico (Camhi et al, 2009, p.129).

The International Union for Conservation of Nature Red Listing (Baum et al., 2009) for C. longimanus provides a full list of countries where the species range exists. The species range includes the western Atlantic Ocean from Portugal to the Gulf of Guinea and possibly the Mediterranien Sea; the Indo-Pacific from the Red Sea and the coast of East Africa to Hawaii, Saamoa, Tahiti and the Tuamoto Islands; and the eastern Pacific Ocean from southern California in the United States south to Peru (United States and Palau, 2010).

C. longimanus is also listed to range within the following FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations) Marine Fishing Areas – Atlantic (eastern central; northeast; northwest; southeast; southwest; western central), Indian Ocean (western; eastern), and Pacific (southeast; southwest; western central; eastern central; northwest; northeast) (Baum et al., 2009).

According to Ramos-Cartelle et al. (2012), the oceanic whitetip shark has been reported in the Indian Ocean as well as the Red Sea, typically as a low-prevalent bycatch of drift nets, purse seines, and longline fisheries. The species is more abundant in the northern hemisphere of the Indian Ocean (Semba and Yokawa, 2011). Although Indian area longliners targeting swordfish and tunas report relatively low prevalence of oceanic whitetip sharks among targeted and bycatch species, the shark is also the second most prevalent bycatch species in some surface longline areas with warmer waters and mean catch rates of approximately 0.11 per 1,000 hooks (Ramos-Cartelle et al., 2012). In 2005, fishermen in the Seychelles were surveyed about which shark species they caught most frequently, citing tiger sharks, oceanic whitetip sharks and hammerhead sharks, although a comparable survey of sightings by recreational divers did not document these species (Nevill, 2005).

Within the Pacific Ocean, preliminary data from Japanese research and training tuna longliners (XXXX unpublished) indicate that oceanic whitetips are most abundant in a belt between 10N and 10S, are common between 20N and 20S, and can occur up to about 30N in the northwestern Pacific. These data also show that pregnant females occur mainly in a wide area of the North Pacific between 140W and 150E, with higher concentrations in the central part of this distribution just about 10N. Tropical Pacific records of pregnant females and newborns are concentrated between 20°N and the equator, from 170°E to 140°W. The data suggests that the area between 150W and 180W and just about 10N might be a pupping ground for oceanic whitetip sharks (Camhi et al, 2009, pp.129-130). Young oceanic whitetip sharks have been found well offshore along the southeastern coast of the United States, suggesting that there may be an offshore nursery document.docx Page 4 of 32

over this continental shelf (Compagno, 1984; Fourmanoir, 1961; Last and Stevens, 1994; Bonfil et al., 2008). C. longimanus was also recently recorded in the Colombian Caribbean in oceanic longline industrial fishing catches (Caldas and Correa, 2010).

Few stock assessments have been conducted for the species, in large part because of the lack of historical catch and abundance indices. However, there are stock assessments available for the central and western Pacific Ocean where it is noted that the population is over-exploited (Rice and Harley, 2012). Population size is unknown in other areas of the world. In such instances, distribution is estimated to depend on size and sex, with nurseries appearing to be oceanic (Seki et al., 1998). Evaluation of the conservation status of this species is hampered by the limited availability of standardized catch and abundance data and the absence of stock assessment studies. The lack of population data also makes it difficult to determine the degree of species’ distribution fragmentation.

Refer to Figure 5 for a map showing global range for C. longimanus

Refer to Table 2 (removed for IP reasons) for a summary of population and abundance trend data for C. longimanus.

There is insufficient data to determine exact values for the current extent of occurrence of C. longimanus in Australia. However, data for Australia details that the oceanic whitetips extent is cosmopolitan in tropical and warm temperate seas and covers mainly northern Australian waters but recorded south to about Cape Leeuwin (western Australia) and Sydney (New South Wales). The distributional limit off southern Australia is uncertain, but a single specimen was recorded south-west of Port Lincoln (South Australia). Not yet recorded from the Torres Strait, Gulf of Carpentaria and Arafura Sea. Oceanic and pelagic from the surface to at least 150m deep; may occur close inshore where the continental shelf is narrow (Last, P.R. and Stevens, J.D., 2009, p.266).

As a pelagic shark throughout Australian waters, C. longimanus are generally restricted to warmer waters from Sydney north to central Western Australia. They are absent from Gulf of Carpentaria (DAFF, n.d.).The 2009 Shark Assessment Report shows that C. longimanus is a prominent species in the Eastern Tuna Billfish Fisheries (ETBF) (Bensley et al., 2009). Further, the oceanic whitetip occurs within line fisheries within their Australian extent of distribution (QLD DPIF, 2009). Most recent mapping (figures 2 and 3) illustrates C. longimanus extends all along all coast of Australia excluding the Gulf of Carpentaria and all but one small patch along the southern coast.

Refer to Figure 2 for the most recent distribution map available of C. longimanus in Australia; and Figure 3 for the most recent data extent mapping created for C. longimanus distribution in Australia.

In Australian waters, all reserve systems in the species range may have C. longimanus either permanently or occasionally. The map in Figure 7 shows Australia’s network of Commonwealth marine reserves of 2013, noting the zoning of these marine reserves are currently under review.

Refer to Figure 7 for map showing Australia’s network of Commonwealth marine reserves.

Due to limited knowledge about global population distributions (United States and Palau, 2010), it is difficult to determine the percentage of the global population in Australia. There is insufficient data to distinguish the relation between Australian and global populations.

As global threats to oceanic whitetips are common throughout all populations, (refer to question 13 responses for more details), it can be inferred that such threats will affect Australian populations. For example, targeted fishing and added bycatch adds to already decreasing global stocks of C. longimanus in Australia. Due to the global nature of threats such as overfishing in unregulated fisheries and the high demand for shark fins, it can be assumed that such activities also affect Australian populations.

There is no evidence in the scientific literature of any captive/propagated populations, and therefore there are unlikely to be any reintroduced populations.

Further catch data can be retrieved online through the Bureau of Rural Science’s interactive Commercial Fisheries and Coastal Communities Mapper.

Refer to Figure 4 for recent commercial catch data maps for C. longimanus in Australia (comparing 2000 and 2002 records).

It should be noted that the data available from these sources only account for reported catch, and thus exclude illegal and unreported landings, which are likely to form a substantial proportion of overall catch in many locations. document.docx Page 5 of 32

Until recent decades, the demand for shark meat/products was fairly limited, and therefore there was little commercial interest in funding research to determine biological parameters and population estimates for fisheries management. Furthermore, researchers were discouraged by logistical problems with studying sharks and as a result, most ichthyologists and fishery scientists favoured teleosts over sharks for their studies. Though the situation is changing, biological data nonetheless remains limited (Castro et al 1999).

As a result, the majority of fishing induced shark mortality occurred as bycatch, and as such a large proportion of unintended shark catch, more than 50% of estimated global catch according to Stevens et al. (2000), was discarded and never recorded (Camhi 2009).

While many gaps in bycatch data exist, Bonfil (1994) estimated that by the end of the 1980s approximately 12 million elasmobranchs (up to 300,000t) were taken as bycatch annually on the high seas alone, with 4 million taken in driftnet fisheries and over 8 million on tuna fishery longlines primarily from Asia. The species composition of these catches is virtually unknown, other than that most were sharks (Camhi 2009).

The need for improved reporting of shark catch was elucidated by increasing global reports of steep declines in shark catch following the development of targeted fisheries, primarily for shark fin, and reporting mechanisms of bycatch and directed fisheries began to be implemented. However using fisheries data to inform abundance estimates is unreliable and problematic.

Most theoretical stock assessment models are based on the life history parameters of teleosts, as such parameters large sharks are either unknown or debated (Castro et al 1999). Consequently, attempts at shark stock assessment have been few and the results have been questionable or severely flawed.

Underreporting is rife, and illegally obtained catch is not recorded at all. Where catch is recorded, it has very rarely been recorded to species level (Camhi 2009). Further, information regarding effort is frequently absent from fishery statistics, making the interpretation of landings statistics difficult. Where fisheries have maintained high quality records and statistics, they are often reluctant to publish such data, for fear it will induce restrictions on their fishing activities (Castro et al 1999). Thus the likelihood of abundance estimates informed by fisheries derived data being accurate is low, particularly in light of the lack of baseline estimates for comparison.

Where data are available, they show the species is severely depleted (see question 14).

In 1996, ICCAT began requesting that parties submit their shark data using a form that lists eight species of pelagic sharks, including the ocean whitetip shark. However, ICCAT recognized that many countries had difficulties in doing this. In the 2001 posting of the ICCAT shark database, only 5 countries reported oceanic whitetip catches (Camhi et al., 2009, p.136).

Refer to Figure 6 for catch records of C. longimanus reported to ICCAT’s shark database.

Since 1997, Japan has required a separate category for recording oceanic whitetip shark in logbooks of all pelagic fisheries. The WCPFC also requests that data be reported on sharks, including the oceanic whitetip. In 2011, the IOTC recommended that species-level catch data for longline, gill net and purse-seine net vessels be provided for the most commonly caught species, including the oceanic whitetip (IOTC, 2011).

Most states/territories in Australia, including NSW, Queensland, South Australia, and Western Australia, have a game fish tagging program run by the government fisheries department. However, these do not specifically target oceanic whitetip sharks.

There are no other known monitoring programs.

Methods for data collection have included:

Preliminary data from Japanese research and training tuna longliners in the Pacific Ocean. (Camhi et al., 2009, p.129)

Strasburg (1958) and Bonfil (1994) estimated oceanic whitetip numbers using an estimate of hooks deployed in the Pacific by longline fleets and hooking rates of 0.07 oceanic whitetips per 1000 hooks. Strasburg (1958) also used a hooking rate for the eastern equatorial Pacific of 5.46 whitetips per 1000 hooks and an estimate of total hooks fished by longliners in the area. (Camhi et al., 2009, p.134)

Catch data from fisheries. However, quantification of catch numbers or biomass is hindered by the lack of complete and accurate logbook data. (Camhi et al., 2009, p.134)

Range data provided in Figure 3 was collected using KGS and ACON mappers. Information on these mappers can be found at www.iobis.org.au

document.docx Page 6 of 32

11. BIOLOGY/ECOLOGY Provide a summary of biological and ecological information.

Include information required by the EPBC Regulations 2000 on: life cycle including age at sexual maturity, life expectancy, natural mortality rates specific biological characteristics habitat requirements for the species for Fauna: feeding behaviour and food preference and daily seasonal movement patterns for Flora: pollination and seed dispersal patterns

Despite its worldwide distribution and frequent appearance in most high-seas fishery catches in tropical areas, little attention has been paid to oceanic whitetip shark biology and ecology, with only a handful of papers focusing on the species (Camhi et al., 2009, p.129).

Refer to Figures 1a and 1b for images of C. longimanus.

C. longimanus are a surface-dwelling, oceanic-epipelagic shark that ranges from the surface to at least 150m deep in similar habitat to the blue shark, preferring water temperatures above 20C and found mostly in the open ocean but also occurring close inshore where the continental shelf is narrow (Last, P.R. and Stevens, J.D., 2009). No known refuge habitats have been identified for C.longimanus.

Oceanic whitetip sharks are high trophic level predators in open ocean ecosystems feeding mainly on teleosts and cephalopods (Backus 1956), bony fishes (including tunas, barracuda, white marlin, dolphinfish, lancetfish, oarfish, threadfish, swordfish) and, to a lesser extent, sea birds, marine mammals and others (Compagno 1984), including stingrays and flotsam, such as garbage (Baum et al., 2009). Cortes (1999) calculated the trophic level for C. longimanus, based on diet, was 4.2 (maximum=5.0). As one of the four most dangerous species to humans it is thought responsible for many open-ocean attacks after air or sea disasters (Last and Stephens, 2009).

Genetic studies have not been conducted for this species. Limited conventional tagging studies in the northwest Atlantic Ocean indicate movements between the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coast of Florida, Cuba, the mid-Atlantic Bight from the Lesser Antilles to the central Caribbean Sea, and east to west along the equatorial Atlantic Ocean (Kohler et al. 1998). The maximum distance travelled was 2,270 km. The full extent of C. longimanus movements in Australian waters is not understood.

From the few reproductive studies conducted, C. longimanus have a suggested reproductive cycle of 2 years, with a 9-12 month gestation period (Seki et al., 1998). Development is viviparous and embryos have a yolk sac placenta that attaches to the uterine wall of the mother (Bigelow and Schroeder 1948). Litter sizes range from 1 to 14 with a mean of 5-6 embryos (Seki et al., 1998; Bass et al. 1973; Stevens, 1984), although 15 foetuses were recorded from a female of 245 cm TL from the Red Sea (Gohar and Mazure 1964). Litter size was found to increase with maternal size in the northwest Atlantic Ocean, but this was based on a small sample size and there may be regional variation (Backus et al. 1956). Pups are born ranging from 55-75 cm TL (United States and Palau, 2010).

Critical habitats for oceanic whitetip sharks are not known. Birth is thought to occur in early summer in the northwest Atlantic and south west Indian Oceans (Bass et al. 1973), and January to March off New South Wales (Stevens 1984), whereas Seki et al. (1998) found that parturition was February to July in the North Pacific. Pregnant females of this species are less frequently found in the Indian Ocean than other sharks of this genus (Gubanov 1978). In the Central Pacific, females with small embryos have been found throughout the year, suggesting a less tight seasonality of birth (and presumably mating) than the Western Atlantic (XXXX in prep). Also, non-breeding adult females have been found to outnumber gravid females in the equatorial Central Pacific (XXXX in prep). The location of nurseries has not been reported, but very young oceanic whitetip sharks have been found well offshore along the southeastern United States, suggesting offshore nurseries over the continental shelves (Fourmanoir, 1961; XXXX in prep.; Last and Stevens, 1994; Bonfil et al., 2008). Data shows that pregnant females occur mainly in a wide area of the North Pacific between 150E and 140W, with higher concentrations in the central part of this distribution just about 10N. Newborn sharks occur between the equator and 20N, but mainly in a narrow strip just about 10N in the central Pacific, coincident with higher concentrations of pregnant females. This suggests that the area between 150W and 180W and just about 10N might be a pupping ground for oceanic whitetip sharks (Camhi et al, 2009, pp.129-130). Tropical Pacific records of pregnant females and newborns are concentrated between 20N and the equator, from 170E to 140W (United States and Palau, 2010, p.3). Recent information obtained from the industrial oceanic longline fishery in Colombia has shown an interaction with juveniles (Caldas and Correa, 2010) that may be impacting likely development areas for the species.

document.docx Page 7 of 32

Seki et al. (1998) studied the age, growth and reproduction of the oceanic whitetip in the north Pacific Ocean, finding that females mature at about 168-196 cm TL and males at 175-189 cm TL (age 4-5 years), with similar growth rates in both males and females found to be 0.10 yr-1 using a Von Bertalanffy equation of: Lt = 299.58 * {1 - e-0.103 x (t + 2.698)} where Lt is expressed as precaudal length in cm at age t. They used the Bass et al. (1973) transformation of TL = 1.397 x PL for conversions to total length and, using vertebral analysis, they showed that annular formation occurred in spring (Seki et al. 1998). ) In the western equatorial Atlantic Ocean, Lessa et al. (1995) found that both sexes become mature at 180-190 cm TL (age 6-7 years) (United States and Palau, 2010, p.4), with growth rates between 0.08-0.09 yr-1 (Lessa et al., 1999).

Theoretical maximum sizes range from 325 to 342 cm total length (TL) (Lessa et al. 1999; Seki et al. 1998, respectively). Using vertebral sections, a maximum age of 13 years was determined (Lessa et al. 1999). The lack of data for the species makes it difficult to determine life expectancy and natural mortality.

Refer to Table 1 (Removed for IP reasons) for life history parameters for C. longimanus.

While there is little available data on the specific ecological role, C. longimanus plays an important role as an apex predator of the open ocean. Substantial evidence indicates that large assemblages of sizeable and efficient predators exert considerable influence on food web structure, diversity and ecosystem regulation, thus performing some keystone functions (Baum and Myers, 2004; Paine, 2002; Myers et al, 2007). For instance, having few natural predators, sharks help to regulate and maintain the balance of marine ecosystems as they feed on mid-trophic level predators and omnivores, directly limiting their populations, in turn affecting the lower trophic prey species of those animals, and so on to grazers, plants and algae (Griffin et al, 2008; Bascompte et al, 2005; Stevens et al, 2000; Myers et al, 2007). ECOSIM models of the Venezuelan shelf, the Alaska Gyre and the French Frigate shoals in Hawaii indicate the removal of sharks would significantly alter the relative abundances of species from lower trophic levels (Stevens et al, 2000). As switch predators, sharks may vary their prey targets when abundance is low, thereby allowing multiple prey species’ populations to persist concurrently (Sergio et al, 2006; Griffin et al, 2008).

Furthermore, sharks tend to target the sick and the weak members of prey populations, removing weaker genes from the pool, thereby maintaining the overall genetic fitness of prey populations. Apex predators have also been documented to influence the spatial distribution of potential prey as fear of predation causes some species to alter their behaviours regarding habitat use and activity level, leading to shifts in abundance in lower trophic levels, ultimately maintaining or enhancing biodiversity. They exert additional influence by providing essential food sources for scavengers (Frid et al, 2007; Griffin et al, 2008).

This shark is often accompanied by remoras, dolphin fishes and pilot fishes, and reportedly demonstrates an unusual association with the shortfin pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) in Hawaiian waters. Although the exact reason for this shark swimming along with pods of pilot whales is unknown, it is suspected that oceanic whitetip sharks are following them to sources of squid, which the pilot whales are extremely efficient at locating (Florida Museum of Natural History, 2006) (XXXX, n.d.).

The lack of data for the species makes it difficult to determine relationships with listed threatened ecological communities or species.

From a conservation/preservation strategy perspective, each subpopulation is potentially as important as the next, since strong population structure built by a high degree of reproductive isolation suggests that regional populations, if depleted, will not replenish themselves rapidly through immigration, but rather slowly through reproduction (Duncan et al 2006). Therefore, practical management for sharks like C. longimanus should include not only population-specific protection in the adult phase, but also access to regional nurseries (Bowen and Roman 2005).

12. INDIGENOUS CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCEIs the species known to have cultural significance for Indigenous groups within Australia? If so, to which groups? Provide information on the nature of this significance if publicly available.     No information is available in the literature which has investigated or indicates that the oceanic whitetip shark has indigenous cultural significance. It is therefore recommended that the relevant groups be contacted directly on this point.

document.docx Page 8 of 32

Threats

13. KNOWN THREATS Identify any KNOWN threats to the species, and state clearly whether these are past, current or future threats and whether the threats are actual or potential. .

NB – CLIMATE CHANGE AS A THREAT. If climate change is an important threat to the nominated species it is important that you provide referenced information on exactly how climate change might significantly increase the nominated species’ vulnerability to extinction. For guidance refer to the Guidelines for assessing climate change as a threat to native species (Attachment B; Part B2).

The C. longimanus has been ranked as one of the five species with the highest degree of risk in an ecological risk assessment (IOTC, 2011). The species is particularly vulnerable to current threats and pressures and has resulted in significant impacts to populations. This formerly widespread and abundant large oceanic shark is subject to fishing pressure virtually throughout its range. It is caught in large numbers as a bycatch in pelagic fisheries, with pelagic longlines, probably pelagic gillnets, handlines and occasionally pelagic and even bottom trawls. A significant proportion of the species catch is composed of juveniles, which require a more precautionary approach in fishing management (IOTC, 2011). Its large fins are highly prized in international trade although the carcass is often discarded. Fishery pressure is likely to persist if not increase in future. This species is under similar fishing pressure from multiple pelagic fisheries and there is no data to suggest that declines would or have not also occurred in areas outside of those detailed below, given that there are similar fisheries throughout the range.

C. longimanus is widely distributed and its life history characteristics make it highly vulnerable to over-exploitation. Anthropogenic influences threaten coastal habitat utilized by C. longimanus and other coastal species through development, fisheries activities, chemical and nutrient pollution, freshwater diversion from incoming rivers, and dumping of plastic and other manmade substances, endangering marine life (Camhi 1998). Marine pollution from agriculture and industry effluents cause algal growths which smother plant life, and leach atmospheric contaminants and heavy metal deposits such as mercury, organochlorines and PCBs which can act as endocrine disruptors, cause neurological complications or interrupt other basic biological functions in sharks (Camhi 1998; WildAid 2007).

Moreover, climate change and its many associated effects (i.e. ocean acidification, water temperature rise, altered current flows, limited nutrient availability, coral bleaching etc – refer item 45) might potentially result in any number of implications for sharks; however it is inappropriate to speculate about such implications at present, as management of such potential outcomes is far beyond the scope of this document. Nevertheless, habitat is likely to face threats resulting from climate change.

1) Overfishing – targeted and bycatchOceanic whitetip sharks are harvested commercially as target catch and bycatch in Australian waters and in many fisheries throughout their range, such as tuna and swordfish fisheries, and are heavily exploited for the high value of their fins in international trade (Last and Stephens, 2009). Although they are primarily utilized for fins, the hide and liver are also utilized and their meat is consumed in local markets (Last and Stephens, 2009).

Overfishing is the most direct, immediate and serious threat to C. longimanus’ survival. Of the 166 species of sharks that occur in Australian waters, fewer than 12 are commonly caught by pelagic longliners. A recent estimate of the average catch rate of all shark species on Australia’s east coast was 5.5 per 1000 hooks (Gilman et al, 2007), including the oceanic whitetip. Based on WCPFC observer data in tuna fisheries of the western and central Pacific Ocean, it is estimated that an average of 2 million individuals each year have been caught from a group of five key species including blue, makos, oceanic whitetip, and silky sharks since the mid-1990s (Lawson, 2011).

Blue sharks are caught in greatest numbers, with oceanic whitetips, shortfin mako, bronze whaler and thresher spp. also frequently caught. Less frequently caught are hammerhead, tiger, crocodile, silky, porbeagle sharks and longfin mako sharks. There is a large amount of uncertainty in the species composition of shark catch due to identification issues that can arise due to similarities between certain species. The sharks that are captured in the ETBF in greatest numbers and discarded include: blue sharks (95%), tiger sharks (82%), oceanic whitetip sharks (77%) and bronze whalers (71%). The sharks that are captured in the WTBF in greatest numbers and discarded include: crocodile sharks (100%), dusky sharks (100%), blue sharks (90%) and shortfin makos (80%) (AFMA, 2010). Shark catch data from the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (ETBF) and the Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (WTBF) has historically been dominated by the blue shark (Prionace glauca) and oceanic whitetip (Carcharhinus longimanus) (Bensley et al., 2010, p.8).

document.docx Page 9 of 32

According to Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, oceanic whitetip shark are most commonly taken as bycatch by the purse-seine fishery in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Information on bycatch of sharks collected by observers between 1993 and 2004 indicates oceanic whitetip shark make up 20.8% of the total shark bycatch. Total observed numbers over the 11-year period indicated up to 32,000 sharks were caught in combined dolphin, unassociated, and floating object purse-seine sets. Sampling coverage of the Eastern Pacific Ocean purse-seine fishery by IATTC observers for non-mammal bycatch varied by set type, but was generally greater than 60% of the sets of large vessels since 1994 (IATTC 2002, IATTC 2004). The lowest sampling coverage for non-mammal bycatch occurred in 1993, with coverage of 41% for dolphin sets, 46% for floating-object sets, and 52% for unassociated sets. Between 1993 and 2004, IATTC observers recorded shark bycatch in 23% of all sets. Therefore, due to the incomplete sampling coverage of the purse-seine fisheries by IATTC observers and the fact that of those fisheries sampled, data from only a portion of the sets were reported, bycatch for oceanic whitetip shark in purse-seine fisheries is much larger than what observers recorded (United States and Palau, 2010, p.7).

For longline fisheries, Bonfil (1994) estimated annual catches of oceanic whitetip sharks in the Pacific Ocean using the hooking rates obtained in the 1950s (from Strasburg 1958) applied to the current fishing effort. This produced estimates of 7,253 oceanic whitetip sharks (about 145 mt) taken annually as bycatch in the North Pacific, and 539,946 sharks (1,799 mt) in the central and South Pacific.

In the equatorial region of the western and central Pacific Ocean, recent increases in longline fishery and purse-seine fishery efforts could also suggest increases in fishing mortality during the last two decades (Williams and Terawasi, 2011). Based on observer data, longline fisheries in the western and central Pacific Ocean mainly catch juvenile oceanic whitetip sharks (Rice and Harley, 2012). Bromhead et al. (2012) provide information on factors that might influence the catch and mortality rates of several shark species, including oceanic whitetips.

In the Maldives, Anderson and Ahmed (1993) reported that oceanic whitetip sharks represented 23% of all sharks taken by commercial shark longliners and as bycatch by tuna fisheries. In the Indian Ocean, Japanese longline records from 1967-68 indicate that the oceanic whitetip comprised 3.4% of the shark catch by longline tuna vessels (Taniuchi, 1990). In the western Indian Ocean, the oceanic whitetip shark is also present in 16% of French and Spanish tuna purse-seine nets (Santana et al., 1997). Yearly catch of the species in the EU-Spain longline fishery in the Indian Ocean between 1998 and 2010 is estimated to be 24.5 tons per year, with a mean prevalence for the entire period of 0.31% or 0.55%, depending on whether all landed species were considered or swordfish were excluded, respectively (Ramos-Cartelle, 2012).

There are a number of small-scale fisheries that target oceanic whitetip sharks, primarily in the Gulf of Aden and the Pacific coast of Central America (Bonfil and Abdallah, 2004).

C. longimanus are inherently vulnerable to over-exploitation and there is evidence demonstrating declines in most cases where exploited populations are monitored (TRAFFIC, 2010). Internationally, there is little to no management of oceanic whitetip (United States and Palau, 2010), and the species falls into the FAO’s lowest productivity category of the most vulnerable commercially exploited aquatic species (SSN, 2010). Ecological Risk and Productivity Assessments determined that oceanic whitetip sharks ranked 5th in their susceptibility to pelagic fisheries among 12 other Atlantic Ocean species (Cortés et al. 2008).

2) Product harvestingNumerous products are derived from oceanic whitetip sharks: meat and skin for human consumption, hides for leather production, and vitamin A derived from liver oil (Vannuccini, 1999). The primary product is the fins, with other product such as the skin, liver oil, cartilage, and teeth being considered relatively low grade and not traded in large quantities or recorded in trade statistics (Clarke, 2004).

Fins from this species are one of the most distinctive and common products in the Asian shark fin trade and compose at least 2% by weight of shark fins auctioned in Hong Kong. Because of economic and operational differences, the utilization of this species varies from fleet to fleet (Camhi et al., 2009, pp. 135-136).

A large proportion of the oceanic whitetip sharks taken as bycatch on pelagic longlines are alive when brought to the vessel. Thus, most would likely survive if released unharmed, in accordance with several Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMO) shark resolutions (Camhi et al. 2009). However, the high value of their large fins and the low value of the meat encourages finning (removal and retention of fins and discard of carcasses) rather than the release of this bycatch.

Fins from this species are one of the most distinctive and common products in the Asian shark fin trade. Fins are easily identifiable without genetic analysis and Hong Kong traders seldom mix them with other species (Clarke et al. 2006a). Clarke et al. (2004; 2006a) estimated that oceanic whitetip shark fins comprise about 2.0% by weight of the total fin trade. Molecular genetic testing of 23 fin samples that were imported from three oceans and collected from nine randomly sampled fin traders demonstrated 100% concordance document.docx Page 10 of 32

between the fin trade name “Liu Qui” and oceanic whitetip shark (Clarke et al. 2006). Wholesale prices for oceanic whitetip fin sets originating from the south Pacific ranged from US$45 to US$85 per kg (Clarke et al. 2004a). Clarke et al. (2006b) estimated that in 2000 0.6 million oceanic whitetip sharks (or 22,000 metric tons), were utilised annually for the fin trade.

3) Legal trade Oceanic whitetip sharks are caught as bycatch in high seas pelagic fisheries. As the meat is of generally low value it is often discarded to reserve space for higher-value species, such as tunas or swordfish, and the fins are retained because of their high value in international trade, due in particular to their large size.

International shark trade information is not documented to the species level for sharks in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. Therefore, species-specific information about quantity or value of imports or exports is not available through the tariff schedule. In addition, most parties do not report catches to species level to FAO or Regional Fisheries Management Organisations. However, information on the trade of oceanic whitetip shark fins can be obtained by examination of the Hong Kong Fin Market whose global trade in fins represented 65-80% from 1980 to 1990 (Clarke, 2008) and 44-59% of the market from 1996 to 2000 (Fong and Anderson 2000; Clarke, 2004). Prior to 1998, imports of fins to Hong Kong were reported as either dried or frozen (“salted”) without distinguishing between processed and unprocessed fins. To avoid double counting fins returning to Hong Kong from processing in mainland China, only unprocessed dried and frozen fins were included in total imports to Hong Kong. Hong Kong shark fin traders use 30–45 market categories for fins (Yeung et al. 2000), but the Chinese names of these categories do not correspond to the Chinese taxonomic names of shark species (Huang 1994). Instead, Chinese market categories for shark fins appear to be organized primarily by the quality of fin rays produced and secondarily by distinguishing features of dried fins. Using commercial data on traded weights and sizes of fins, the Chinese category for oceanic whitetip shark, coupled with DNA and Bayesian statistical analysis to account for missing records, Clarke et al.(2006a, 2006b) estimated between 220,000 and 1,210,000 oceanic whitetip sharks were traded globally in 2000 (United States and Palau, 2010, p.8).

4) Climate changeWhile it is recognised that climate change and global warming are likely to have serious implications for the vast majority of shark species and ecosystems (Walker 2007), in light of the lack of biological and behavioural data documented for C. longimanus, and the uncertain magnitude of the effects of climate change, it is beyond the scope of this document to attempt to speculate at length about possible changes to the species’ habitat and ecology. However it is reasonable to assume that a broad range of components will come into play, including increased water temperature, altered rainfall patterns, salinity and turbidity, rising sea level, increased storm length and frequency, coastal erosion, changed ocean currents and upwelling, increased ultraviolet light from reduced ozone, and reduced pH (Walker 2007; Harley et al 2006).

14. IMPACT OF THE THREATSIdentify how the species is affected by the threats.

Where data are available, they show the species is severely depleted. Local reports state that, once extremely common, numbers for C. longimanus are now in steep decline (NSW DPI, n.d.). Despite being described as having moderate rebound potential with relatively fast growth and early maturation for Pacific sharks (Smith et al., 1998), Castro et al. (1999) classified this species as vulnerable to overfishing on the basis of slow growth, limited reproduction and high rate of by-catch in pelagic fisheries. Precipitate population collapses in the Gulf of Mexico and NW Atlantic require explanation. More work is needed to understand growth characteristics, geographic extent and size of local populations.

The international demand for shark fins drives the retention and mortality of oceanic whitetip sharks taken as bycatch. The shark is one of the most common bycatch species in tuna fisheries in offshore tropical waters. Frequently caught in small-scale multispecies shark fisheries. Despite their abundance, quantification of catch numbers or biomass for the species is hindered by the lack of complete and accurate logbook data. Applying Strasburg’s (1958) hooking rate for the eastern equatorial Pacific of 5.46 oceanic whitetips per 1000 hooks, and an estimate of total hooks fished by Japanese, South Korean, Taiwanese and Australian longlines in that area in 1989, Bonfil (1994) estimated that another 539,946 individuals (10,799 t) were taken annually in the central and South Pacific (Camhi et al., 2009, p. 134).

On the basis of longline catch-rate data, Bonfil (1994) estimated that over 7,200 oceanic whitetips (145t) were taken annually in the North Pacific and another 540,000 (10,800t) in the Central and South Pacific in the late 1980s. These sharks were caught incidentally in the longline fisheries of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Australia. There are data to suggest that the Central Pacific (150°W to 180°W) just north of the equator (10°N) serves as a pupping ground for oceanic whitetip sharks (Bonfil et al.2008). Stevens (2000) estimated that between 52,000t and 240,000t of oceanic whitetip sharks were taken on longlines and in purse seines throughout the Pacific in 1994. By comparison, FAO landings for this species are clearly document.docx Page 11 of 32

underreported: In 2007, only 14t, all from Brazil, were recorded. Reported landings of oceanic whitetips first appeared in the FAO database in 2000 (638t) and have been declining ever since, with annual average landings of 238t (FAO 2009). (Camhi et al., 2009, p.26) Oceanic whitetip populations will suffer if this level of exploitation continues.

Declining catch rates in some regions are cause for concern, particularly because oceanic whitetips were found to suffer a moderately high level of risk of overexploitation (Simpfendorfer et al. 2008 in Camhi et al., 2009, p. 27). There is a considerable amount of data that suggests that most shark species that are impacted by fisheries will continue to be negatively impacted due to their low capacity for population rebound after consistent population decline (Camhi et al, 2007). This impact will likely spread over a wide area, impacting more populations of sharks, as demand for fisheries increases over time.

There is a considerable amount of data that suggests that most shark species that are impacted by fisheries will continue to be negatively impacted due to their low capacity for population rebound after consistent population decline (Camhi et al, 2007). This impact will likely spread over a wide area, impacting more populations of sharks, as demand for fisheries increases over time.

One significant relationship to emerge is that a higher threat classification is often associated with data–rich regions and lower threat /data deficient classification with data-poor regions, where “fisheries impacts are suspected but are unquantifiable” (Dulvey et al., 2008, p470). Sharks and rays suffer from a lack of management and low conservation priority. Undervalued previously, they have had a low priority in fishery management schemes. Australia is no exception. There has been a lack of species-specific data collected, which could mask declines and local extinctions (Dulvey et al, 2000).

There is also individual species variation in demographic rates with consequences for response to exploitation. This is a critical point for those species insufficiently understood like the oceanic white-tip. We know too they are important in the fin trade and may merit upgrading to a higher threat category when more data becomes available from our region (Dulvey et al., 2008).

Under the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, C. longimanus is already listed globally as vulnerable, and critically endangered for populations in the Northwest and Western Central Atlantic (Baum et al., 2009).

The National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (Shark plan) (2004) characterized C. longimanus as low risk-near threatened (LR-NT). It was also considered a shark of concern by the government elected Shark Advisory Group.

Due to a lack of protection and little capacity of regulatory enforcement in global and local shark fisheries, fishing pressure is likely to be of very high importance. There is little indication that restrictions on shark fisheries have been effective given a rapid increase in demand for shark products.

Commercial catch data from The Atlas of Australian Marine Fishing and Coastal Communities C. longimanus datasets indicate decreased catches from 2000 to 2002 (Figure 4). From this, and visible catch extent records seen Figure 4, it can be speculated that extent of occurrence has correspondingly been in decline.

It should be noted that the data available from these sources only account for reported catch, and thus exclude illegal and unreported landings, which are likely to form a substantial proportion of overall catch in many locations, and therefore amplifying declines in extent of occurrence. For example, catches reported to ICCAT may underestimate the actual catch of oceanic whitetips in the Atlantic Ocean by 50-fold (Clarke, 2008). In addition, oceanic whitetip shark catches may be higher than recorded in areas where catches are not reported on an individual species level.

Oceanic whitetip sharks are often still alive when they are taken as bycatch onto pelagic longline vessels. This is the case more than 75% of the time in the U.S. Atlantic longline fishery (Beerkircher et al., 2002) and 65-88% of the time in the Fijian longline fishery (Gilman et al., 2008). If released unharmed in accordance with several RFMO shark resolutions, most of these sharks would likely survive (Camhi et al., 2009). However, the high value of their fins and low value of their meat encourage finning (removal and retention of fins and discarding of carcasses) rather than release.

There is not sufficient data available to enable reliable estimates to be inferred on past declines in the extent of occurrence within Australia’s EEZ due to the lack of data establishing baseline abundances of naturally occurring populations of large sharks in Australia’s waters prior to the onset of industrialized commercial fishing (Baum and Myers 2004; Castro et al 1999; Walker 2007).

Further, as a wide-ranging semi-pelagic species capable of roaming vast distances over its lifetime, it is not likely that declines will be readily observed in a spatial or geographical context, as the steep population document.docx Page 12 of 32

declines being documented are not driven by loss of habitat as such, but rather by targeted capture and bycatch mortality. Thus declines are reflected in the density of the population occurring within its spatial/geographical extent of occurrence, rather than in the spatial extent of occurrence itself. Nonetheless, evidence reflecting declines in population density exists, but is limited within Australian waters.

For population decline in the greater Pacific, according to Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, oceanic whitetip shark are most commonly taken as bycatch by the purse-seine fishery in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Information on bycatch of sharks collected by observers between 1993 and 2004 indicates oceanic whitetip shark make up 20.8% of the total shark bycatch. Total observed numbers over the 11-year period indicated up to 32,000 sharks were caught in combined dolphin, unassociated and floating object purse-seine sets. Sampling coverage of the Eastern Pacific Ocean purse-seine fishery by IATTC observers for non-mammal bycatch varied by set type, but was generally greater than 60% of the sets of large vessels since 1994 (IATTC 2002, IATTC 2004). The lowest sampling coverage for non-mammal bycatch occurred in 1993, with coverage of 41% for dolphin sets, 46% for floating-object sets, and 52% for unassociated sets. Between 1993 and 2004, IATTC observers recorded shark bycatch in 23% of all sets. Therefore, due to the incomplete sampling coverage of the purse-seine fisheries by IATTC observers and the fact that of those fisheries sampled, data from only a portion of the sets were reported, bycatch for oceanic whitetip shark in purse-seine fisheries is much larger than what observers recorded. For longline fisheries, Bonfil (1994) estimated annual catches of oceanic whitetip sharks in the Pacific Ocean using the hooking rates obtained in the 1950s (from Strasburg 1958) applied to the current fishing effort. This produced estimates of 7,253 oceanic whitetip sharks (about 145 mt) taken annually as bycatch in the North Pacific, and 539,946 sharks (1,799 mt) in the central and South Pacific (Unites States and Palau, 2010, p.7).

Depending on the area and study, oceanic whitetip shark populations have experienced declines of 60-70% in the northwest and central Atlantic Ocean and up to a 10-fold decline in abundance from baseline in the central Pacific Ocean (United States and Palau, 2010, p.2).

Several populations of the shark appear already to meet the criteria for inclusion in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Appendix I with historical declines to <10% of baseline, which for this low-productivity species is within the guidelines in Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP14) for the application of decline to commercially exploited aquatic species. Other stocks are of unknown status, but in many areas are subject to heavy fishing pressure and may be expected to show similar changes to monitored populations. In 2010 it was suggested that the species meets the criteria for inclusion in Appendix II in that regulation of international trade is required to ensure that the species does not become eligible for inclusion in CITES Appendix I (TRAFFIC, 2010), and subsequently in March 2013 C. longimanus was listed under CITES Appendix II.

Where abundance trend analyses of catch-rate and other data are available, they show large declines in abundance for some populations and indicate that the species is severely depleted. An analysis of the U.S. pelagic longline logbook data, which covers the Northwest and Western Central Atlantic regions, led to decline estimates of 60-70% between 1992 and 2000 (Baum et al., 2003) and 57% from 1992 to 2005 (Cortés et al., 2008). However, a standardized catch-rate analysis of data from the same pelagic longline fishery and collected by on-board scientific observers resulted in a less pronounced decline than the logbook series, 9% compared to 57%, while the nominal observer series showed a 36% decline (Cortés et al., 2007).

Baum and Blanchard (2010) also completed a standardized catch-rate analysis of data from U.S. pelagic longline fishery observers in the northwest Atlantic Ocean between 1992 and 2005, estimating that oceanic whitetip sharks suffered a moderate 50% decline during this period. They found that differences in trends among the areas studied were nonsignificant (Baum and Blanchard, 2010).

A standardized catch-rate analysis of the Gulf of Mexico, using data from U.S. pelagic longline surveys in the mid-1950s and U.S. pelagic longline observer data in the late-1990s, estimated a decline of 99% of the species over four generations in this forty-year period (Baum and Myers, 2004; SSN, 2010). The mean size of oceanic whitetip shark captured in the Gulf of Mexico declined from 86.4 kg in the 1950s to 56.1 kg in the 1990s (Baum and Myers, 2004). However, there is debate as to whether failure to fully consider changes in fishing gear and practices over this period resulted in an overestimation of the magnitude of these declines (Burgess et al., 2005; Baum et al., 2005). Nonetheless, extrapolations of trends in abundance from the former analyses (1992-2000; Baum et al., 2003) back to the mid-1950s match the latter analysis (Baum and Myers, 2004) of declines in abundance of the oceanic whitetip shark (Baum et al., 2006). Therefore, it is likely that the species’ population is now only 15-20% of its 1950’s baseline in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. In the south and central Atlantic Ocean, abundance of oceanic whitetip sharks appears to be patchy, but evidence suggests that it is declining where it was once abundant.

The oceanic whitetip was the second most abundant species caught by Brazilian longline vessels In equatorial waters between 1992 and 1997 (Lessa et al., 1999). The species was present in 4.72% of tropical eastern Atlantic French and Spanish tuna purse-seine sets (Santana et al., 1997). Domingo (2004) reported document.docx Page 13 of 32

that the Uruguayan longline fleet observer program in 1998–2003 recorded catch rates of only 0.006 sharks/1,000 hooks in Uruguayan and adjacent high seas south Atlantic waters (latitude 26°-37°, 16-23°C) and 0.09 sharks/1,000 hooks in international waters off western equatorial Africa. Domingo also reported that similarly infrequent records of individuals of the species were obtained by Brazilian and Ecuadorian Atlantic longline fleets. In the Brazilian longline tuna fleet, almost 80% of the oceanic whitetip sharks caught between 2004 and 2009 were juveniles (Tolotti et al., 2010). The species comprised less than 1% of the shark bycatch of the Japanese Atlantic longline fleet during 1995-2003 (Senba and Nakano, 2004), and 0.2% of the Atlantic shark catch by the Spanish fleet in 1999 (Mejuto et al., 2001).

The United States reports that very few oceanic whitetip sharks are landed by commercial fisheries. Except for two peaks of about 1,250 and 1,800 sharks landed in 1983 and 1998, respectively, total catches never exceeded 450 individuals per year. Data from scientific observers on U.S.-flagged longline vessels in the western North Atlantic Ocean indicate that oceanic whitetips are the 8th most abundant pelagic species caught. However, the low abundance is likely influenced by the distribution of the fishery, as U.S.-flagged vessels typically fish at the northernmost part of the oceanic whitetip’ range (Beerkircher et al., 2002).

In Australia, the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (ETBF) reports show increase of 202 to 247 catches (including discards) of oceanic whitetip sharks between 1998 and 1999. For the Western/Southern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (WSTBF) records showed an increase from 25 to 331 for the same years (Bensley et al., 2009).

Tuna longline survey data from the 1950s indicated that oceanic whitetip sharks constituted 28% of the total shark catch of fisheries south of 10ºN in the central tropical Pacific (Strasburg, 1958). Catch rates ranged from 2 to 29 sharks per 1,000 hooks set (all depths combined), with a mean of 12.44 in each 10°x10° area surveyed. This corroborated the observations of Hubbs (1951), Bullis and Captiva (1955), Mather and Day (1954) and Backus et al. (1956) that the oceanic whitetip was the most abundant open-ocean tropical pelagic shark species at the time. Japanese research longline records from 1967-68 indicate that oceanic whitetips were among the most common shark species taken by tuna vessels in tropical seas. It was the second most abundant species, comprising 22.5% of the shark catch in the western Pacific. In the eastern Pacific, it was the third most abundant after silky sharks, Carcharhinus falciformis, at 21.3% of the shark catch (Taniuchi, 1990).

In the central Pacific Ocean, a comparative study of survey data from pelagic longlines from the 1950s and observer data in the 1990s indicated a 90% decline in biomass. Nominal catch rates for the oceanic whitetip shark from purse-seine sets on floating objects, unassociated sets and dolphin sets all showed decreasing trends since 1994 (Ward and Myers, 2005).

Also in the central Pacific Ocean, an examination of average size indicated a decrease in mean body mass from 36 kg to 18 kg, suggesting that overfishing may be occurring (Ward and Myers, 2005). Scientific survey data recorded by Japanese tuna longline vessels from New Guinea to Hawaii between 1967-1970 and 1992-1995 indicated significant changes in catch per unit effort (CPUE) (when corrected for changes in gear depth) between the two time periods, but only east of 180° longitude. North of the equator between 0-10°North latitude, oceanic whitetip CPUE increased by 40-80%, whereas catch rates decreased by 30% farther north between 10-20°North (Matsunaga and Nakano, 1996). In 2007, the oceanic whitetip shark was categorized as being at “medium” ecological risk for both deep and shallow longline sets in the Pacific Ocean (Kirby and Hobday, 2007).

Catch data from the Hawaii-based pelagic longline fishery during 1995-2000 and 2004-2006 indicates that the mean nominal CPUE for the oceanic whitetip shark significantly decreased between the two time periods (Walsh et al., 2009). CPUE decreased from 0.272 and 0.351 sharks per 1,000 hooks for deep and shallow sets, respectively, during 1995-2000 to 0.060 and 0.161 sharks per 1,000 hooks during 2004-2006, respectively (Walsh et al., 2009). Updated information from the Hawaii-based pelagic longline fishery indicate that the CPUE for the oceanic whitetip shark has declined by more than 90% since 1995, when the mean annual nominal CPUE decreased significantly from 0.428/1,000 hooks in 1995 to 0.036/1,000 hooks in 2010 (Walsh and Clarke, 2011). In eastern Pacific tropical tuna purse-seine fisheries, unstandardized nominal catch-rate data for the oceanic whitetip shark from purse-seine sets on floating objects, unassociated sets, and dolphin sets all show decreasing trends since 1994 (IATTC Document SAR-8-15, 2007).

There is strong evidence of a population decline in the western central Pacific Ocean, based on a recent synopsis of data from Hawaii, Japan and other longline fishing fleets on the status of the oceanic whitetip shark (Clarke, 2011). Furthermore, Clarke (2013) found that longline catch rates for oceanic whitetip sharks declined by 17% per year in the tropical Pacific Ocean from 1996 to 2009, with low uncertainty. Size trends were also examined, with the median length of female oceanic whitetip sharks from the longline fishery declining in their core tropical habitat and males and females from the purse-seine fishery declining in a more limited region (Clarke, 2013).

document.docx Page 14 of 32

In addition, Brodziak and Walsh (2013) examined different catch rate models and determined that, despite potential for error in estimating trends in relative abundance with a time series of catch rates standardized using generalized linear models, the conclusion that mean oceanic whitetip shark CPUE declined substantially in the Hawaiian-based pelagic longline fishery since the mid-1990s was robust and consistent for the models analyzed.

A recent stock assessment of the species in the western and central Pacific Ocean was performed by Rice and Harley (2012), using Stock Synthesis software to develop an age-structured, spatially aggregated two-sex model that grouped information on catch, effort and size composition of catch from four fisheries. The assessment found that the species is over-exploited and there is consistent evidence of declines in catch, CPUE, size composition, spawning biomass, recruitment and total biomass from 1995 to 2009. The assessment found that estimated fishing mortality far exceeded FMSY, the fishing mortality that can produce maximum sustainable yield (FCURRENT / FMSY = 6.5), and the entire model estimated mortality values were much higher than FMSY. The assessment found that estimated spawning biomass (SB) declined to levels far below spawning biomass at MSY (SBCURRENT / SB MSY = 0.153) and current SB was much lower than SB at MSY across the entire model.

In the northern Pacific Ocean, records from Costa Rican longline vessels between 1999 and 2012 indicate a mean catch rate of 0.031 per 1,000 hooks (Dapp et al., 2013).

With regard to the status of the oceanic whitetip shark in the Indian Ocean, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) stated, “The population dynamics and stock structure of the oceanic whitetip shark in the Indian Ocean are not known” (IOTC, 2008). The CPUE of the Japanese longline fishing fleet in the Indian Ocean declined by almost 40% from 2003 to 2009 (Semba and Yokawa, 2011). Poisson (2011) reported a bycatch mortality of 59% for oceanic whitetip sharks caught in the swordfish longline fishery in the south-western Indian Ocean. Declining abundance of oceanic whitetip shark is also seen in comparisons of longline gear data collected in 1987-1988 and 2000-2004, declining in abundance from 19.9% to 3.5% and indicating a potential depletion of the total population (Anderson et al., 2011).

Using trade records and molecular genetics, researchers estimated total species-specific catch, based on the Hong Kong fin trade, which itself controls 50-85% of the world trade in shark fins: 17% came from the pelagic blue shark, which dominated the market, 2% from the oceanic whitetip. This represented an extrapolated figure of 250,000 – 1,200,000 oceanic whitetip sharks killed per annum. Results provide the first ‘fishery-independent’ estimate of the true scale of shark catches. Up to 4 times that reported by the FAO 2000 global catch data-base. Latter is based on reported catch/bycatch by all commercial fisheries. It doesn’t include illegal or under-reported or unregulated catch. There is mounting evidence of the oceanic whitetip’s increasing vulnerability in Indian and Pacific oceans to commercial exploitation (large numbers and widely caught) with potential to follow the pattern of stock collapses seen in the northern hemisphere.

Overall, declines of 30-90% in abundance, CPUE, and biomass have been reported, primarily in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean. Taken together, it is likely this low-productivity species (r<0.14) has declined to at least 15-20% of baseline (biomass estimates from the 1950s) in northwest Atlantic and the central and eastern Pacific Oceans (United States and Palau, 2010, p.2; Rice and Harley, 2012).

Where trend data are not available, but where unregulated fisheries exist and are a source of supply for the international trade, stocks are likely to be declining rapidly. The enormous declines of 70% over 8 years in the north-west and western central Atlantic regions and 99.3% over a forty year time period in the Gulf of Mexico highlight this species’ vulnerability (Baum et al, 2009; Dunstan, A., 2008). For this reason, IUCN classifies the Northwest Atlantic and Western Central Atlantic populations (for which data exist) as Critically Endangered, while the global population (for which data are scarce) as Vulnerable. In IUCN’s estimation, if data from areas outside the Northwest and Western Central Atlantic were available, the global population would probably be shown to have experienced declines similar to those of the Northwest and Western Central Atlantic, because fisheries for the species are similar in both areas. In other words, it is likely that the species meets the definition of Critically Endangered throughout most of its range (SSN, 2010).

As global threats to oceanic whitetip are common throughout all populations, it can be inferred that such threats will affect Australian populations. Despite insufficient data on Australian populations, it can be assumed that activities posing global threats, such as overfishing in unregulated fisheries and a high demand for their fins, also affect Australian populations.

There is no readily available data that demonstrates past declines in the geographical area of the species’ occupancy within Australian waters due to the absence of reliable baseline estimates of abundances of naturally occurring populations of C. longimanus and other large sharks prior to the onset of industrialized commercial fishing. However, as the period for this decline spans over a relatively small time frame (two years) it can be inferred that, since 2002, a decline in the extent of occurrence has continued. Where data document.docx Page 15 of 32

trends are not available, but where unregulated fisheries exist and are a source of supply for the international trade (as in Australia), stocks are likely to be declining (SSN, 2010).

Despite a lack of data indicating future changes in extent of occurrence for C. longimanus, the period for this decline spans over a relatively small time frame (two years) and it can be inferred that, since 2002, a decline in the extent of occurrence has continued.

If there is no reduction in fishing exploitation of C. longimanus (targeted catch, bycatch, legal and illegal), no improvement in management processes and/or mitigation measures implemented, declines of C. longimanus can only be expected to continue until the species is eliminated.

The effects of climate change on world ocean temperatures, pH and related biomass production could potentially impact oceanic whitetip populations, but the possible consequences of such impacts are unknown.

15. THREAT ABATEMENT Give an overview of recovery and threat abatement/mitigation actions that are underway and/or proposed.

Using a demographic method that incorporates density dependence, Smith et al. (1998) found that, due to their relatively fast growth and early maturation, C. longimanus have a moderate intrinsic recovery potential when compared to 26 other species of sharks. Using a density independent demographic approach, Cortés (2008) calculated population growth rates (λ) of 1.069 yr-1 (1.029, 1.119; lower and upper 95% confidence limits, respectively) and generation times (T) of 11.1 yrs (9.4, 13.0). In this study, population growth rates were low to moderate when compared with eight other pelagic species. Furthermore, estimates of the intrinsic rate of increase for this species (r=0.09-0.07 yr-1) indicated that oceanic whitetip populations are vulnerable to depletion and will be slow to recover from over-exploitation based on FAO’s low productivity category (<0.14 yr-1) (FAO 2001; Musick et al., 2000 in United States and Palau, 2010, p.4).

There has already been considerable bureaucratic and some practical efforts (Bycatch Mitigation Workshop Report, BRS 2008) to improve recording and identification of shark bycatch and overcome problems with Bycatch Action (BAP) and Observer programs. It also seems a low cost policy since with the exception of the long line fisheries few of these sharks are caught in Australian waters and are not targeted in our own shark fisheries.

One suggestion relevant to the particular case of the oceanic white-tip is the ‘…implementation of pelagic shark catch limits, ensuring these are precautionary where sustainable catches are scientifically uncertain’ (Dulvey et al., 2008). The United States, for example, has a combined quota of 488 metric tons for oceanic whitetip sharks, common thresher, and shortfin mako. The United States and Chile also require that sharks be landed with their fins naturally attached. Shark mortality may be reduced by shark-finning bans that have been implemented by 21 countries and the European Union (EU), and most Regional Fisheries Management Organizations prohibit shark finning at sea (Camhi et al., 2009).

Shark fisheries are prohibited within the Exclusive Economic Zones of French Polynesia (2006), Palau (2003, 2009), the Maldives (2010), Honduras (2011), the Bahamas (2011), Tokelau (2011) and the Marshall Islands (2011). Targeted shark fishing is prohibited in Colombia (Archipelago of San Andrés). There are also specific protected areas where shark fishing is prohibited such as Isla del Coco in Costa Rica, Isla Malpelo in Colombia, the Galapagos Islands in Ecuador, the Banc d’Arguin National Park in Mauritania and the Marine Protected Areas in Guinea-Bissau.

Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP14) states that a species meets the criteria for listing on CITES Appendix II when “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” (Annex 2a, Paragraph A). Because the population declines for the oceanic whitetip are in large part the result of trade, they clearly qualify the species for listing in Appendix II of CITES. In addition, the FAO Ad Hoc Expert Panel assessing the shark proposals concluded that, on balance, that the available evidence supports the proposal to include C. longimanus in CITES Appendix II (Baum et al., 2010). In the development of a CITES Shark Species of Concern list in 2010, Australia agreed with prioritization of hammerheads as a group, as well as sandbar, dusky, and oceanic whitetip sharks.

Demand from international shark fin markets is the driving economic force behind the retention and mortality of oceanic whitetip sharks caught as bycatch. Proposal for the regulation of the fin trade through a CITES Appendix-II listing of this species was presented in 2010 as a necessary measure to ensure that the trade is sustainable. However, the proposal was rejected. In March 2013, the oceanic whitetip shark was ultimately included within Appendix II of CITES (proposal 42) along with four other commercially valuable shark species. Trade of the species now requires CITES permits and evidence of sustainable and legal harvest document.docx Page 16 of 32

techniques.

Oceanic whitetip sharks are listed in Annex I, Highly Migratory Species, of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UN, 1982). The oceanic whitetip is further listed as a highly migratory species under the 1995 UN Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFSA). The Agreement specifically requires coastal States and fishing States to cooperate and adopt measures to ensure the conservation of these listed species. To date, there is little progress in this regard (Baum et al., 2009). ICCAT, IATTC, WCPFC and IOTC and other RFMOs have adopted finning bans, which require full utilization of captured sharks and encourage the live release of incidentally caught sharks.

In 2010, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) adopted measures to prohibit the retention of oceanic whitetip sharks and hammerhead sharks caught in International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) fisheries (2010; Recommendation 10-07). The IATTC (2011; Resolution C-11-10) also prohibits retaining on board, transhipping, landing, storing, selling or offering for sale any part or whole carcass of oceanic whitetip sharks, and the WCPFC Convention Area (2012; Measure 2011-04) prohibits retaining on board, transhipping or landing oceanic whitetip sharks. OSCPESCA member countries in Central America have issued the OSP-05-11 regulation on finning in the region.

Although these mark important steps for shark conservation, additional management measures are required to ensure the future sustainability of these vulnerable species (PEW, n.d.). For example, Clarke (2013) asserts that found little evidence of a reduction of finning in longline fisheries.

The European Union recently submitted a proposal to the Indian Ocean Tuna commission (IOTC) to prohibit the removal of any of a shark’s fins at sea; prohibit retention, transshipment, and sale of oceanic whitetip and hammerhead sharks, and improve requirements and incentives to collect and report shark catch data. As described in their proposal, oceanic whitetip sharks are caught as by-catch in the IOTC area of competence; has been ranked as one of the five species with the highest degree of risk in an ecological risk assessment; has high at-vessel survival and constitutes a small portion of the shark catch; is one of the easiest shark species to identify; and has a significant proportion of the species catch consisting of juveniles (IOTC, 2011).

No additional species-specific international or domestic management measures are in place (United States and Palau, 2010, p.9).

Although various management plans have been launched for shark fisheries in Australia, in which fisheries are required to develop management tools such as quotas, licensing, equipment restriction and bycatch monitoring, these plans are applied as a general strategy for shark fisheries which target multiple species, as opposed to a species-specific approach (Camhi et al, 2007). Consequently there is little data to specifically reflect the success of such activities in regards to C. longimanus in particular.

Where trend data are not available, but where unregulated fisheries exist and are a source of supply for the international trade, stocks are likely to be declining rapidly. For this reason, IUCN classifies the Northwest Atlantic and Western Central Atlantic populations (for which data exist) as Critically Endangered, while the global population (for which data are scarce) as Vulnerable. In IUCN’s estimation, if data from areas outside the Northwest and Western Central Atlantic were available, the global population would probably be shown to have experienced declines similar to those of the Northwest and Western Central Atlantic, since fisheries for the species are similar in both areas. In other words, it is likely that the species meets the definition of Critically Endangered throughout most of its range (SSN, 2010).

C. longimanus is not listed under any Australian or State/Territory Government legislation.

No species specific mechanisms are currently in place to manage particular populations of C. longimanus. Nonetheless, enforcement is difficult and high levels of fishing intensity continue illegally.

Eligibility against the criteriaTo be considered eligible for listing a species must be eligible for at least one of Criteria 1-5 (Q18-22). The species does not have to be found eligible for all Criteria and information is not required for all criteria if unavailable, however an answer to all questions must be provided, if data/information is unavailable a statement to this effect is required

document.docx Page 17 of 32

16. CRITERION 1 Reduction in numbers (based on any of A1 – A4)

A1. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population very severe 90%, severe 70% substantial 50% size reduction over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, where the causes of the reduction are clearly reversible AND understood AND ceased, based on (and specifying) any of the following:(a) direct observation(b) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon(c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of habitat(d) actual or potential levels of exploitation(e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or parasites.

A2. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population very severe 80%, severe 50% substantial 30%size reduction over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, where the reduction or its causes may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based on (and specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1.

A3. A population size reduction very severe 80%, severe 50% substantial 30%, projected or suspected to be met within the next 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer (up to a maximum of 100 years), based on (and specifying) any of (b) to (e) under A1.

A4. An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population size reduction very severe 80%, severe 50% substantial 30%over any 10 year or three generation period, whichever is longer (up to a maximum of 100 years in the future), where the time period must include both the past and the future, and where the reduction or its causes may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based on (and specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1.

     Carcharhinus longimanus, together with the silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis and blue shark Prionace glauca, has often been described as one of the three most abundant species of oceanic sharks and large marine animals (Compagno 1984, Taniuchi 1990, Bonfil 1994, Castro et al. 1999). Recent observations, however, indicate that this species that was formerly nearly ubiquitous in water deeper than 180 m and above 20°C (Castro et al. 1999) is now only occasionally recorded (e.g., Baum and Myers 2004, Domingo 2004).

The population trend data provided in this document demonstrates that substantial to very severe population size reductions have been observed and projected to continue in regions across the oceanic whitetip’s range. As explained in question 13, the various causes of the reductions have not ceased.

In the Northwest and Western Central Atlantic enormous declines are estimated to have occurred. Two estimates of trends in abundance from standardized catch rate indices have been made from independent datasets. An analysis of the US pelagic longline logbook data between 1992 and 2000, which covers the Northwest and Western Central Atlantic regions, estimated declines of 70% (Baum et al. 2003). An analysis of the Gulf of Mexico, which used data from US pelagic longline surveys in the mid-1950s and US pelagic longline observer data in the late-1990s, estimated a decline of 99.3% over this forty year time period (Baum and Myers 2004). When trends in abundance from the former analysis are extrapolated back to the mid-1950s, they match the latter analysis almost exactly (99.8%). Over a period of three generations (30 years), the estimated decline is 98%. However, the latter study has recently been criticized because temporal changes in fishing gear and practices over the time period were not taken fully into account and the study may, therefore, have exaggerated or underestimated the magnitude of the declines (Burgess et al. 2005, Baum et al. 2005). (Baum et al., 2009)

Depending on the area and study, oceanic whitetip shark populations have experienced declines of 60-70% in the northwest and central Atlantic Ocean and up to a 10-fold decline in abundance from baseline in the central Pacific Ocean (United States and Palau, 2010).

There are stock assessments available for the central and western Pacific Ocean where it is noted that the population is over-exploited, with evidence of declines in catch, CPUE, size composition, spawning biomass, recruitment and total biomass between 1995 and 2009 (Rice and Harley, 2012). Estimated fishing mortality and spawning biomass were outside sustainable limits. A recent synopsis of data from Hawaii, Japan and other longline fishing fleets provides further evidence of population decline in the western central Pacific Ocean (Clarke, 2011).

The oceanic whitetip shark has also been seen to decline in the Indian Ocean. In comparisons of longline gear data collected in 1987-1988 and 2000-2004, declining in abundance from 19.9% to 3.5% and indicating a potential depletion of the total population (Anderson et al., 2011).

document.docx Page 18 of 32

Considering all evidence, it is likely this low-productivity species (r<0.14) has declined to at least 15-20% of baseline (biomass estimates from the 1950s) in northwest Atlantic and the central and eastern Pacific Oceans (United States and Palau, 2010, p.2; Rice and Harley, 2012).

There is insufficient data for Australia. However, where trend data are not available but unregulated fisheries exist and are a source of supply for the international trade, stocks are likely to be declining rapidly. The enormous declines of 70% over 8 years in the north-west and western central Atlantic regions and 99.3% over a forty year time period in the Gulf of Mexico highlight this species’ vulnerability (Baum et al, 2009; Dunstan, A., 2008). For this reason, IUCN classifies the Northwest Atlantic and Western Central Atlantic populations (for which data exist) as Critically Endangered, while the global population (for which data are scarce) as Vulnerable. In IUCN’s estimation, if data from areas outside the Northwest and Western Central Atlantic were available, the global population would probably be shown to have experienced declines similar to those of the Northwest and Western Central Atlantic, because fisheries for the species are similar in both areas. In other words, it is likely that the species meets the definition of Critically Endangered throughout most of its range (SSN, 2010).

Despite a lack of data indicating future changes in extent of occurrence for C. longimanus, the period for this decline spans over a relatively small time frame (two years) and it can be inferred that, since 2002, a decline in the extent of occurrence has continued.

If there is no reduction in fishing exploitation of the Oceanic whitetip shark (targeted catch, bycatch, legal and illegal), no improvement in management processes and/or mitigation measures implemented, declines of C. longimanus can only be expected to continue until the species is eliminated.

See question 14 for further discussion.

17. CRITERION 2: Geographic distribution (based on either of B1 or B2) B1. Extent of occurrence estimated to be very restricted <100 km2, restricted <5000 km2 or limited < 20 000 km2

B2. Area of occupancy estimated to be very restricted <10 km2, restricted <500 km2 or limited <2000 km2

ANDGeographic distribution is precarious for the survival of the species, (based on at least two of a–c)

a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at a limited location.b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the following:

(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat(iv) number of locations or subpopulations(v) number of mature individuals.

c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) number of locations or subpopulations(iv) number of mature individuals

document.docx Page 19 of 32

18. CRITERION 3The estimated total number of mature individuals is very low <250, low <2500 or limited<10 000;

and either of (A) or (B) is true A) evidence suggests that the number will continue to decline at a very high (25% in 3 years or 1 generation (up to

100 years), whichever is longer), high (20% in 5 years or 2 generations(up to 100 years), whichever is longer) or substantial (10% in 10 years or 3 generations years), whichever is longer(up to 100) rate; or

(B) the number is likely to continue to decline and its geographic distribution is precarious for its survival (based on at least two of a – c):

a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at a limited location.b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the following:

(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat(iv) number of locations or subpopulations(v) number of mature individuals.

c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) number of locations or subpopulations(iv) number of mature individuals

19. CRITERION 4 : Estimated total number of mature individuals (a) Extremely low < 50(b) Very low < 250(c) Low < 1000

20. CRITERION 5 : Probability of extinction in the wild based on quantitative analysis is at least (a) 50% in the immediate future, 10 years or three generations (whichever is longer); or(b) 20% in the near future, 20 year or five generations (whichever is longer); or(c) 10% in the medium-term future, within 100 years.

     

21. NOMINATED CATEGORY Note: after completing questions 16-20 sufficient evidence should be available to determine the category for listing. Refer to the indicative threshold criteria at Attachment B .

Vulnerable

22. CRITERIA UNDER WHICH THE SPECIES IS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING Please mark the boxes that apply by clicking them with your mouse.

Criterion 1

Criterion 2

A1 (specify at least one of the following) a) b) c) d) e); AND/OR A2 (specify at least one of the following) a) b) c) d) e); AND/OR A3 (specify at least one of the following) b) c) d) e); AND/OR A4 (specify at least one of the following) a) b) c) d) e)

A1 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) c); AND/OR

document.docx Page 20 of 32

Criterion 3

Criterion 4

Criterion 5

For conservation dependent nominations only:

A2 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) c)

A1; AND/OR A2 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) c)

Criterion 1 (refer to Q23 below) Criterion 2 (refer to Q 24below)

Conservation Dependent ConsiderationsNote: Only complete this section if nominating for consideration under the conservation dependent category, or if nominating a fish (or harvested marine species) with a management plan. Answer either Q.23 OR Q.24, whichever is more appropriate.

23. CONSERVATION PROGRAM (if species is a fish or harvested marine species, see Q.24 first)a) Give details of the conservation program for which this species is a focus.b) Provide details of how the species would become vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered should the

program cease.     

24. FISH MANAGEMENT PLANS a) Give details of the plan of management that focuses on the fish. b) Provide details of how the plan provides for management actions necessary to stop the decline of and

support the recovery of the species, so that its chances of long term survival in nature are maximised.c) Explain the effect on the fish if the plan of management ceased

25. MANAGEMENT PLAN’S LEGISLATIVE BASIS Is the plan of management (or some component/s of it) in force under Commonwealth or State/Territory law? If so, provide details.     

Reviewers and Further Information

26. REVIEWER(S)Has this nomination been peer-reviewed? Have relevant experts been consulted on this nomination? If so, please include their names, current professional positions and contact details.

This document has been internally reviewed by Humane Society International.

This nomination was drafted with the voluntary assistance of Greg Mintz on behalf of Humane Society International.

27. FURTHER INFORMATIONIdentify relevant studies or management documentation that might relate to the species (e.g. research projects, national park management plans, recovery plans, conservation plans, threat abatement plans, etc.).

Camhi, M. D., Pikitch, E. K., Babcock, E A., 2009  Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries & Conservation, Chapter 11. The Biology and Ecology of the Oceanic Whitetip Shark, Carcharhinus longimanus, Wiley-Blackwell. 

28. REFERENCE LISTPlease list key references/documentation you have referred to in your nomination.

Abercrombie, D. and Chapman, D. 2012. Identifying shark fins: Oceanic whitetip, porbeagle and hammerheads.document.docx Page 21 of 32

Anderson, R.C., Adam, M.S., and Saleem, M.R. 2011. Shark longline fishery in the northern Maldives. IOTC-2011-WPEB07-27 Rev_1. Pgs. 1-24.

Anderson, R.C. and Ahmed, H. 1993. The shark fisheries in the Maldives. FAO, Rome, and Ministry of Fisheries, Male, Maldives.

Arkive, n.d., Oceanic Whitetip shark (C. longimanus) [online fact sheet], available online at http://www.arkive.org/oceanic-whitetip-shark/carcharhinus-longimanus/#text=All

Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), 2010, Australia Tuna and Billfish Longline Fisheries: Bycatch and discarding workplan, Nov. 2008-October 2010, pp.

Backus, R.H., Springer, S., & Arnold Jr., E.L., 1956, A contribution to the natural history of the white-tip shark, Pterolamiops longimanus (Poey). Deep-Sea Research, 3, 176-188.

Bascompte J, Melian CH and Sala, E., 2005, “Interaction strength combinations and the overfishing of a marine food web”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102:5443-7.

Baum, J. K. and Blanchard, W. 2010. Inferring shark population trends from generalized linear mixed models of pelagic longline catch and effort data.Fisheries Research, 102(3), 229-239.

Baum, J. K., R. A. Myers, D. G. Kehler, B. Worm, S. J. Harley, and P. A. Doherty. 2003. Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science 299:389-392.

Baum, J.K., D. Kehler, and R.A. Myers. 2005. Robust estimates of decline for pelagic shark populations in the northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Fisheries, 30, 27-30.

Baum, J., Medina, E., Musick, J.A. & Smale, M. 2006. Carcharhinus longimanus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Consulted on 8 August 2012.

Baum, J., Medina, E., Musick, J.A. & Smale, M, IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Carcharhinus longimanus, Version 2010, available online at www.iucnredlist.org.

Baum JK and Myers RA, 2004, “Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico”, Ecology Letters 7:135-45.

Beerkircher, L.R., Cortés, E., and Shivji, M. 2002. Characteristics of Shark Bycatch Observed on Pelagic Longlines off the Southeastern United States, 1992–2000. Marine Fisheries Review, 64(4) 40–49.

Bensley, N., Woodhams, J., Patterson, HM., Rodgers, M., McLoughlin, K., Stobutzki, I. and Begg, G.A., 2010, 2009 Shark Assessment Report for the Australian National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, March, Australian Bureau of Rural Sciences.

Bonfil, R., 1994, Overview of World Elasmobranch Fisheries, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 431. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Bonfil R, and Abdallah M, 2004. Field identification guide to the sharks and rays of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. FAO Species Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes. Rome (Italy), FAO. 71 p.

Bonfil, R., S. Clarke, and H. Nakano. 2008. The biology and ecology of the Oceanic Whitetip Shark, Carcharhinus longimanus. In: Camhi, M.D., E.K. Pikitch and E.A. Babcock. Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation. Blackwell Science Publishing.

Bowen BW and Roman J, 2005, “Gaia’s handmaidens: the Orlog model for conservation”, Conservation Biology, 19:1037-43.

Brodziak, J., & Walsh, W. A. 2013. Model selection and multimodel inference for standardizing catch rates of bycatch species: a case study of oceanic whitetip shark in the Hawaii-based longline fishery. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 70(12), 1723-1740.

Bromhead, D., Clarke, S., Hoyle, S., Muller, B., Sharples, P., & S, Harley. 2012. Identification of factors influencing shark catch and mortality in the Marshall Islands tuna longline fishery and management implications. Journal of fish biology, 80(5), 1870-1894.

Bullis H.R.J., Captiva, F.J. 1955. Preliminary report on exploratory long-line fishing for tuna in the Gulf of

document.docx Page 22 of 32

Mexico and the Caribbean sea. Commercial Fisheries Review, 17, 1-20.

Burgess, G.H., L.R. Beerkircher, G.M. Cailliet, J.K. Carlson, E. Cortés, K.J. Goldman, R.D. Grubbs, J.A. Musick, M.K. Musyl, and C.A. Simpfendorfer. 2005. Is the collapse of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico real? Fisheries 30: 19–26.Castro, J.I. 1983. The Sharks of North American Waters. Texas A. and M. University Press, College Station, USA.

Caldas, J.P. and Correa, J.L. 2010. Captura de tiburones asociada a la pesca industrial com palangre oceânico en el mar Caribe colombiano. Libro de Resúmenes II Encuentro de Colombiano sobre Condrictios. Cali, Colombia. P 35.

Camhi MD, Fowler S, Musick J, Brautigam A and Fordham S, 1998, Sharks and their Relatives - Ecology and Conservation, IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK iv+39pp.

Camhi, M. D., Pikitch, E. K., Babcock, E A., 2009, Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries & Conservation, Chapter 11. The Biology and Ecology of the Oceanic Whitetip Shark, Carcharhinus longimanus, Wiley-Blackwell. 

Camhi MD, Valenti SV, Fordham SV, Fowler SL and Gibson C, 2009, The Conservation Status of Pelagic Sharks and Rays: Report of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group Pelagic Shark Red List Workshop, IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group, Newbury UK, x+78pp.

Castro JI, Woodley CM, Brudek RL, 1999, FAO “A Preliminary Evaluation of the Status of Shark Species”, Series title: FAO Fisheries Technical Paper - T380; Available: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/x3690e/x3690e0f.htm; Accessed 27 January 2010.

Clarke, S. 2011. A Status Snapshot of Key Shark Species in the Western and Central Pacific and Potential Management Options. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-04.

Clarke, S. 2008. Estimating historic shark removals in the Atlantic using shark fin trade data and Atlantic specific area, tuna catch and effort scaling factors. ICCAT SCRS 2008/139.

Clarke, S. C., Harley, S. J., Hoyle, S. D., & Rice, J. S. 2013. Population trends in Pacific oceanic sharks and the utility of regulations on shark finning.Conservation Biology, 27(1), 197-209.

Clarke, S. C., J. E. Magnussen, D. L. Abercrombie, M. K. McAllister, and M. S. Shivji, 2006a, Identification of shark species composition and proportion in the Hong Kong shark fin market based on molecular genetics and trade records. Conservation Biology 20: 201–211.

Clarke, S., M. K. McAllister, and C. G. J. Michielsens, 2004, Estimates of shark species composition and numbers associatedwith the shark fin trade based on Hong Kong auction data. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 35: 453–465.

Clarke, S. C., M.K. McAllister, E. J. Milner-Gulland, G. P. Kirkwood, C.G. J. Michielsens , D.J. Agnew, E.K. Pikitch, H. Nakano and M.S. Shivji, 2006b, Global estimates of shark catches using trade records from commercial markets. Ecology Letters 9: 1115 - 1126

Compagno, L.J.V., 1984, Sharks of the World. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species to date. Part II (Carcharhiniformes). FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125, Vol. 4, Part II. FAO, Rome.

Cortés, E., 1999, ‘Standardised diet composistions and trophic levels of sharks’, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 56:7070-17.

Cortés, E., C. Brown, and L. R. Beerkircher. 2007. Relative abundance of pelagic sharks in the western North Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Gulf Caribbean Research Report 19: 37-52.

Cortés, E., 2008, Comparative life history and demography of pelagic sharks. Pp. 309–322. In: Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation (eds M.D.Camhi, E.K. Pikitch and E.A. Babcock). Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.

Dapp, D., Arauz, R., Spotila, J. R., & O'Connor, M. P. (2013). Impact of Costa Rican longline fishery on its bycatch of sharks, stingrays, bony fish and olive ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 448, 228-239.

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), n.d., Chondrichthyan Guide for Fisheries

document.docx Page 23 of 32

Managers, available online at www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/word.../chondrichthyan-guide-part2.doc

Domingo, A. 2004. ¿Adónde fue el Longimanus?. Elasmovisor, Bol. SBEEL, July, Brazil, 6pp.

Dulvy, N.K. et al, 2000, Fishery stability, local extinctions and shifts in community structures in skates, Conservation Biology 14. 283-293.

Dulvy, N.K. et al, 2008, You can swim but you can’t hide: the global status and conservation of oceanic pelagic sharks and rays. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 18: 459-482

Duncan KM and Holland KN, 2006, “Habitat use, growth rates and dispersal patterns of juvenile scalloped hammerhead sharks Sphyrna lewini in a nursery habitat”, Marine Ecology Progress Series, 312:211-21.

Dunstan, A., 2008, Coral Sea Biodiversity Review: Sharks and Fish, May, WWF-Australia.

Florida Museum of Natural History, 2006, Ichthyology, May, available online at http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/OceanicWT/OceanicWT.html

Fourmanoir, P. 1961. Requins de la Côte Ouest de Madagascar. Memoires de L’Institut Scientifique de Madagascar. Série F. Océanographie. ORSTOM. Tome IV.

Frid A, Baker GG, and Dill LM (2007) “Do shark declines create fear-released systems?” Oikos 1-13.

Gilman, E., Clarke, S., Brothers, N., Alfaro-Shigueto-J., Mandelman, J., Mangel, J., Petersen, S., Piovano, S., Thomson, N., Dalzell, P., Donoso, M., Goren, M., Werner, T., 2007, Shark Depredation and Unwanted Bycatch in Pelagic Longline Fisheries: Industry Practices and Attitudes, and Shark Avoidance Strategies. Western Pacific Regional Fishery.

Gilman, E., S. Clarke, N. Brothers, J. Alfaro-Shigueto, J. Mandelman, J. Mangel, S. Petersen, S. Piovano, N. Thomson, P. Dalzell, M. Donoso, M. Goren and T. Werner. 2008. Shark interactions in pelagic longline fisheries. Marine Policy 32(1): 1-18.

Griffin E, Miller KL, Freitas B and Hirshfield M, 2008, Predators as Prey: why healthy oceans need sharks, Oceana, Washington DC.

Hubbs CL. 1951. Record of the shark Carcharhinus longimanus, accompanied by Naucrates and Remora, from the east-central Pacific. Pacific Science 5: 78-81.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2007. Working Group to Review Stock Assessments. Document SAR-8-15. Proposal for a Comprehensive Assessment of Key Shark Species caught in Association with Fisheries in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. 4 pp.

Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), 2011, PropI[E]: On the Conservation of Oceanic Whitetip Shark Caught in Association with Fisheries in the IOTC Area of Competence (submitted by the EU), Fifteenth Session, March 18023, Colombo, available online at http://www.iotc.org/files/proceedings/2011/s/IOTC-2011-S15-PropI%5BE%5D.pdf

Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). 2008. Report of the Eleventh Session of the Scientific Committee. Victoria, Seychelles, 1-5 December, 2008. IOTC-2008-SC-R[E]. 166 pp.

Kirby, D.S. and Hobday, A. 2007. Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean: Productivity‐Susceptibility Analysis. Third Scientific Committee Meeting of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Honolulu, USA, 13‐24 August 2007.

Kohler, N., Casey, J. G. and Turner, P. A., 1998, NMFS Cooperative Shark Tagging Program, 1962-93; An Atlas of shark tag and recapture data. Marine Fisheries Review 60, 1-87

Last, P.R. and Stevens, J.D., 2009, Sharks and Rays of Australia (2nd ed.), CSIRO Publishing, Australia.

Lawson, T. 2011. Estimation of catch rates and catches of key shark species in tuna fisheries of the western and central Pacific Ocean using observer data. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Pohnpei, Micronesia. [WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-IP-02].

Lessa, R., M.S. Francisco, and P. Renato, 1995, Age, growth and stock structure of the oceanic whitetip shark, Carcharhinus longimanus, from the southwestern equatorial Atlantic. Fisheries Research: 21-30.

document.docx Page 24 of 32

Lessa, R., R. Paglerani, and F.M. Santana, 1999, Biology and morphometry of the oceanic whitetip shark, Carcharhinus longimanus (Carcharhinidae), off north-eastern Brazil. Cybium, 23: 353–368.

Lessa, R., Santana, F.M. and Paglerani, R., 1999, Age, growth and stock structure of the oceanic whitetip shark Carcharhinus longimanus, from the southwestern equatorial Atlantic. Fisheries Research 42: 21-30.

Mather, F.J.I. and Day, C.G. 1954. Observations of pelagic fishes of the tropical Atlantic. Copeia, 1954, 179-188.

Matsunaga, H. and H. Nakano 1996. CPUE trend and species composition of pelagic shark caught by Japanese research and training vessels in the Pacific Ocean. Information paper prepared for the CITES Animals Committee, Doc. A.C. 13.6.1 Annex, 8pp.

Mejuto J., B. Garcias-Cortes, and J.M. de la Serna J.M. (2001). Preliminary scientific estimations of by- catches landed by the Spanish surface longline fleet in 1999 in the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. ICCAT SCRS/2001/049. In: Collection ICCAT Scientific Papers 54(4): 1150–1163 (2002).

Myers RA, Baum JK, Shepherd TD, Powers SP and Peterson CH, 2007, “Cascading effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean, Science 315:1846-50.

Nevill J, Robinson J, Giroux F, Isidore M (2007) Seychelles National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. Seychelles Fishing Authority, Victoria, Seychelles. 59pp.

NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI), n.d., Shark Smart: Identifying Sharks, available online at http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/sharksmart/identifying-sharks .

OBIS Australia/ C Square Mapper, Carcharhinus longimanus [data extend map], Ocean biographic Information System, available online at www.obis.org.au downloaded on September 30 2010.

Paine RT, 2002, “Trophic control of production in a rocky intertidal community”, Science 296:736-9.

PEW Environment Group (PEW), n.d., International Policy: International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), available online at http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/compilations/international-policy-international-commission-for-the-conservation-of-atlantic-tunas-iccat-328493

Poisson, F. 2011. Catch, Bycatch of Sharks, and Incidental Catch of Sea Turtles in the Reunion-Based Longline Swordfish Fishery (Southwest Indian Ocean) Between 1997 and 2000. Global Change: Mankind-Marine Environment Interactions, Part 3, pp. 163-165.

Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (QLD DPIF), 2009, Oceanic Whitetip Shark, available online at http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/28_12090.htm.

Ramos-Cartelle, A., García-Cortés, B., Ortíz de Urbina, J., Fernández-Costa, J., González-González, I., & Mejuto, J. 2012. Standardized catch rates of the oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) from observations of the Spanish longline fishery targeting swordfish in the Indian Ocean during the 1998–2011 period. IOTC–2012–WPEB08–27.

Rice, J. and S. Harley. 2012. Stock assessment of oceanic whitetip sharks in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Report for the 8th Regular Session of WCPF Scientific Committee. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-06.

Santana, J.C., A., Molina de Delgado, R., Molinda de Delgado, J. Ariz, J.M. Stretta, and G. Domalain. 1997. Lista faunistica de las especies asociadas a las capturas de atún de las flotas de cerco communitarias que faenan en las zones tropicales de los océanos Atlantico e Índico. ICCAT Collective Volume of Scientific Papers 48:129-137.

Seki, T., Taniuchi, T., Nakano, H., and Shimizu, M., 1998, ‘Age, growth and reproduction of the Oceanic Whitetip shark from the Pacific Ocean’, Fisheries Science, Tokyo, 64:14-20.

Semba, Y. And Yokawa, K. 2011. Trend of standardized CPUE of oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) caught by Japanese longline fishery in the Indian Ocean. IOTC-2011-WPEB07-35.

Senba, Y. and H. Nakano. 2004. Summary of species composition and nominal CPUE of pelagic sharks based on observer data from the Japanese longline fishery in the Atlantic Ocean from 1995 to 2003. Document to be submitted to the intersessional Meeting of the ICCATT Sub-Committee on By-catch, Tokyo, Japan, June 2004.document.docx Page 25 of 32

Sergio F, Newton I, Marchesi L, and Pedrini P, 2006, “Ecological justified charisma: preservation of top predators delivers biodiversity conservation”, Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 1049-1055.

Shark Advocates International, 2011, Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Fails Sharks – Fishing nations reject even bare minimum measures for threatened species [press release], March 22.

Smith, S.E., Au, D.W., and Show, C., 1998, ‘Intrinsic rebound potentials of 26 species of Pacific sharks’, Marine and Freshwater Research, 49(7):663-678.

Species Survival Network (SSN), 2010, ‘CITES COP 15: Oceanic Whitetip Shark Carcharhinus longimanus’ [fact sheet], available online at http://www.ssn.org/Meetings/cop/cop15/Factsheets/Whitetip_Shark_EN.pdf Downloaded on October 29, 2010

Stevens JD, Bonfil R, Dulvy NK, Walker PA, 2000, “The effects of fishing on sharks, rays and chimaeras (chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems”, ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:476-94.

Strasburg D.W. 1958. Distribution, abundance, and habits of pelagic sharks in the Central Pacific Ocean. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv., Fish. Bull., 58, 335-361.

Taniuchi, T. 1990. The role of elasmobranchs in Japanese fisheries. In H.L. Pratt Jr., S.H. Gruber and T. Taniuchi, eds. Elasmobranchs as living resources: advances in the biology, ecology, systematics, and the status of the fisheries. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 90:415–426.

Tolotti, M., Travassos, P., Lucena Fredou, F., Andrade, H., Carvalho, F., and Hazin, F. 2010. Size, distribution and relative abundance of the oceanic whitetip shark caught by the Brazilian tuna longline fleet. SCRS/2010/158. Pg 1-14.

TRAFFIC, 2010, TRAFFIC Recommendations on the Proposals to Amend the CITES Appendices at the 15th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, Doha, Qatar, 13–25 March, available online at http://bit.ly/erlPyG pp.17-18.

United Nations (UN), 1982, ‘United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, December 10, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/annex1.htm. Downloaded on September 30 2010.

United States and Palau, 2010, Considerations of proposals for amendment of Appendices I and II: Carcharhinus longimanus, Fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Doha, Qatar, 13-25 March. http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/prop/E-15-Prop-16.pdf

Vannuccini, S. 1999. Shark utilization, marketing and trade. Fisheries Technical Paper 389. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

Walker TI, 2007, “The state of research on chondrichthyan fishes”, Marine and Freshwater Research, 58:1-3.

Walsh, W.A. and Clarke, S.C. 2011. Analyses of catch data for oceanic whitetip and silky sharks reported by fishery observers in the Hawaii-based longline fishery in 1995-2010. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, PIFSC Working Paper, WP-11-010, 63 p.

Walsh, W.A., K.A. Bigelow and K.L. 2009. Decreases in Shark Catches and Mortality in the Hawaii- based Longline Fishery as Documented by Fishery Observers. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 1:270-282.

Ward, P. and Myers, R. 2005. Shifts in open ocean fish communities coinciding with the commencement of commercial fishing. Ecology 86, 835–847.

WildAid, 2007, “The end of the line? (2nd ed): global threats to sharks”

Williams, P., and P. Terawasi. 2011. Overview of tuna fisheries in the western and central Pacific Ocean, including economic conditions – 2010. WCPFC‐SC7‐2011/GN WP‐1.

29. IMAGES OF THE SPECIESPlease include images of the species if available.

document.docx Page 26 of 32

30. APPENDIXPlease place here any figures, tables or maps that you have referred to within your nomination. Alternatively, you can provide them as an attachment.Figures and Tables

Figures

XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX Figure 2 Distribution of C. longimanus in AustraliaFigure 3 Data extent map for C. longimanus (based on datasets for catch) in AustraliaFigure 4 Commercial catch data maps for C. longimanus in AustraliaFigure 5 Geographic range for C. longimanusXXXX XXXXFigure 7 Commonwealth Marine Protected Areas

Tables

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Figure 2 – Distribution of C. longimanus, Australia.Source: Queensland Government, 2009, Fisheries Queensland Shark Identification Guide: Oceanic Whitetip Shark, available online at http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/28_12090.htm

document.docx Page 27 of 32

Figure 3 – Data extent map for C. longimanus based on datasets for catch.Source: OBIS Australia/ C Square Mapper, Carcharhinus longimanus [data extent map], Ocean biographic Information System, available online at www.obis.org.au downloaded on September 30 2010.

document.docx Page 28 of 32

2000

Figure 4 – Commercial catch data maps for C. longimanus in Australia (using 2000 and 2002 datasets from The Atlas of Australian Marine Fishing and Coastal Communities)Source: Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences, 2006, Commercial Fisheries and Coastal Communities Mapper: C. longimanus, Atlas of Australian Marine Fishing and Coastal Communities, retrieved online at http://adl.brs.gov.au/mapserv/fishcoast/srchtable.phtml?srchterm=oceanic+whit

document.docx Page 29 of 32

2002

Figure 5 - Geographic range for C. longimanus Source: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 2010, Geographic Range: Carcharhinus longimanus, Available online at http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/39374/0/rangemap

document.docx Page 30 of 32

Figure 7 – Australia’s network of Commonwealth marine reserves (2013)Source: Department of Environment, 2013, Detailed map of Australia’s network of Commonwealth Marine Reserves available online at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/2ed9e96f-d06b-460b-81de-8cd11f2ea66f/files/national-map.pdf

Nominator's DetailsNote: Your details are subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 and will not be divulged to third parties if advice regarding the nomination is sought from such parties. If there are multiple nominators please include details below for all nominators.

31. TITLE (e.g. Mr/Mrs/Dr/Professor/etc.)XXXX

32. FULL NAMEXXXX XXXX

33. ORGANISATION OR COMPANY NAME (IF APPLICABLE)XXXX

34. CONTACT DETAILSXXXX XXXXXXXX

XXXX      XXXX XXXX

35. DECLARATION I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, the information in this nomination and its attachments is true and correct. Signed:      

document.docx Page 31 of 32

Date: 19th March 2014

Lodging your nominationHow to lodge your nominationCompleted nominations may be lodged either:1. by email to: epbc.nominations@environment.gov.au, or2. by mail to: The Director

Species Information and Policy SectionDepartment of the EnvironmentGPO Box 787Canberra ACT 2601

* If submitting by mail, please include an electronic copy on memory stick or CD.

Where did you find out about nominating species?The Committee would appreciate your feedback regarding how you found out about the nomination process. Your feedback will ensure that future calls for nominations can be advertised as widely as possible.

Please tick

DSEWPAC website Australian newspaper Word of mouth

Journal/society/organisation web site or email? if so which one………………………………………………………………….

Web search X Other………Previous nominator……………………………………..

Comments:

document.docx Page 32 of 32