CoP17 Prop. 44

Inclusion of all species of Devil Rays in the genus Mobula in Appendix II
Proponents: Bahamas, Bangladesh, Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Comoros,
Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, European Union, Fiji, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,
Maldives, Mauritania, Palau, Panama, Samoa, Senegal, Seychelles, Sri Lanka andUnited States of America
Summary: The genus Mobula, the Mobulas or Devil Rays, includes nine described species of marine raythat grow to wingspan or disc widths (DW) of one to over five metres. The genus is widely distributed intemperate and tropical seas. Different species may be confused with each other and precise distributions inmost cases are poorly known. All are believed to have very low productivity. Females give birth to a single
live young following a gestation period of around one year and are thought often to undergo protracted
periods, perhaps two or three years, between pregnancies. All species are believed to be largely epipelagic(i.e. occur mainly in surface waters) although some also dive deep 1. The three largest species are
Mobula japanica, M. mobular and M. tarapacana; of these, M. japanica and M. tarapacana are the mostwidespread and feature most prominently in fisheries.
Mobula japanica is circumglobal in temperate and tropical seas, but its distribution is not completely
defined. The species is usually encountered as solitary individuals but has also been recorded travelling inschools and tagged individuals have been monitored travelling long distances. In parts of the range
populations appear to make regular migratory movements and form seasonal aggregations. Elsewhere thespecies is recorded year-round. M. japanica grows to a maximum of 310cm DW, and age at maturity has
been estimated at five to six years (ca. 210cm DW). Generation time has been estimated at approximately
10 years. Pupping may take place offshore, around seamounts or islands. Population size and structure areunknown. The species was classified by IUCN as Near Threatened in 2006.
Mobula tarapacana has a circumglobal range in temperate, subtropical and tropical waters of the Indian,Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, however is patchily distributed within this range. It is primarily oceanic but isalso found in coastal waters1. As with M. japonica, individuals are known to migrate long-distances and at
least some populations make seasonal movements and form regular aggregations. Maximum verified size is314cm DW. Estimated age of maturity is five to six years, minimum life span is 14 years, and generation
length has been inferred at approximately 10 year1. Population size and structure are unknown. The species
was classified as Vulnerable by IUCN in 2016.
Mobula mobular is confined to the Mediterranean and possibly adjacent North Atlantic, although it isbelieved that records here may be of M. japanica with which it is easily confused. It appears to occur at low
densities, generally as solitary individuals or in groups of two to four, although larger seasonal aggregations
are known. The species may reach over 5m DW and generation time has been estimated at 20 years.
Recent aerial surveys estimated a population in the south central Adriatic of ca. 1600 individuals (coefficientof variation, CV, 25%), and of >12,700 individuals in the north western Mediterranean (CV 53%)2. The
species was classified as Endangered by IUCN in 2015, and a Mediterranean regional assessment classified
this population as Endangered in 2016.
Mobula thurstoni is probably circumglobal in all temperate and tropical seas, but its distribution is notcompletely defined. It is usually found in pelagic, but shallow waters (<100m), reaches a maximum DW of
180cm and maturity at 150cm DW. The species was classified as Near Threatened in 2016 by IUCN.
Mobula eregoodootenkee is locally common within its wide tropical Indo-west Pacific and northern Indian
Ocean distribution, with a DW up to 100cm3. The species was classified in 2003 as Near Threatened.
Mobula hypostoma is endemic to the western Atlantic, found from North Carolina (USA) to northern
Argentina, including the Gulf of Mexico, and Greater and Lesser Antilles. It has a DW up to 120cm andoccurs primarily in coastal waters, although it occasionally enters oceanic waters 4. The species wasclassified as Data Deficient in 2009 by IUCN.
Mobula kuhlii is an uncommon, inshore ray with a patchy distribution in the Indian Ocean and western
central Pacific, reaching 120cm DW. Of 409 mobulid rays observed at four landing sites in eastern Indonesia
from April 2001 to October 2005, M. kuhlii was the most rarely recorded and composed only 2% of the total
rays in this part of its range5. The species was classified as Data Deficient by IUCN in 2009.

1

CoP17 Prop. 44
Mobula munkiana is an inshore species occurring in the Eastern Pacific from the Gulf of California, Mexico
to Peru. It reaches 110cm DW; females mature at 97cm DW and males at ~87cm DW. It is known to form
large aggregations6. The species was assessed as Near Threatened in 2006 by IUCN.
Mobula rochebrunei has a status that is still uncertain7, although from currently available information isbelieved to be found in the eastern Atlantic from Mauritania to Angola and from two possible records off
Brazil in the Southwest Atlantic, where it is probably rare. It is known to form large aggregations; maximum
size is 133cm DW8. IUCN classified M. rochebrunei as Vulnerable in 2009.
Mobula species are closely related and similar to, though generally smaller than, Manta Rays Manta species
which were included in CITES Appendix II at CoP16 (2013). Collectively the two genera are often referred toas mobulids. Most catch and trade data do not distinguish the two.
Mobula species may be affected by various factors such as climate change, pollution and ingestion of marine
debris but by far the most important impact on populations is believed to come from targeted and incidental
catch in both artisanal and large-scale fisheries. Studies of the small-scale artisanal Mexican fishery (whichceased in 2007) concluded that fishing rates were twice as high as their estimate of maximum intrinsic rate of
population increase9.
The meat is generally not highly sought after although some artisanal fisheries do target Mobula species forfood and local products. In the past individuals caught incidentally were often discarded or released. The
principal driver for directed fisheries and retention of incidental catch is the international market for gill plates,
demand for which has increased greatly in recent years in Asia. This has led to Mobula species being
increasingly targeted and retained.
A 2015 review identified 13 fisheries (mostly artisanal) in 12 countries that specifically targeted Mobula
species and 30 fisheries in 23 countries that incidentally caught them. They were reported as incidental catchin nine large-scale fisheries in 11 countries using driftnets, trawls and purse seines, and in 21 small-scale
fisheries in 15 countries using driftnets, gillnets, traps, trawls and longlines 10. Five countries - Sri Lanka,
India, Peru, Indonesia and China (the latter fishing in international waters) – are between them believed toaccount for the great majority, perhaps as much as 95%, of worldwide Mobula catch. There are examples of
evolving/new Mobula fisheries in response to demands for gill plates for East Asian markets such as a newmechanized gillnet ﬁshery formed in India in 2005 and offshore gillnet fishing in Myanmar, which started in
2014. Individual fisheries generally catch more than one Mobula species, complicating analysis. There is asingle-species targeted fishery for M. mobular in the eastern Mediterranean - these are used for meat; gillplate export from the region is not confirmed11.
FAO catch data do not distinguish between catch of Manta and Mobula, and are apparently incomplete. FAO
fisheries data reported in the “manta/devil ray” category, is restricted mainly to Indonesia (24,059t reported
between 2004 and 2013) and Liberia (3651t between 1998 and 2006, with no reported landings since then).
Other countries report very small quantities in this specific category, but they may be reporting large
quantities under “rays, stingrays, manta nei (not elsewhere included)”. There is, however no way of
establishing the proportion of Mobula species within these more general categories. Total reported catchesof “manta/devil rays” increased from 342t in 1998 to 931t in 2000, decreasing to around 100t per year
between 2001 and 2003, and increasing again to over 4000t in 2008 and 6000t in 2013.
Mobula japanica and M. tarapacana are both known to be targeted and landed in Indonesia, Malaysia,
Sri Lanka and the Philippines, and previously Mexico. M. japanica is also landed in China, Taiwan (Provinceof China), India, Myanmar and Oman and M. tarapacana in Senegal. M. thurstoni is known to be landed inIndonesia, Philippines, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Myanmar, Guatemala, Peru and Guinea and likely
elsewhere across its range. M. eregoodootenkee is known to be fished in Philippines, India and marketed in
Thailand and probably elsewhere in Southeast Asia. In 2009, M. hypostoma was known to be caught inlongline, net and possibly other fisheries but not landed for international trade. Given trends in other species,
it is conceivable that some catch is now retained for trade. M. kuhlii is taken in fisheries in Indonesia, in small
scale fisheries in Mozambique, Tanzania, South Africa, the Arabian/Persian Gulf 12 and Gulf of Oman andlikely throughout much of its range. M. munkiana was the dominant mobulid landed round Bahía la Ventana,
Baja California Sur, Mexico in 2001 and is known to be landed in Peru. M. rochebrunei is said to be thepredominant species in mobulid catches in Guinean catches at three survey sites.
Population trend information for all Mobula species is restricted to population declines inferred from landing
data/observations, market surveys and community interviews from a few specific fishing areas, and gill plate
markets in East Asia. At Cocos Island (eastern Pacific, Costa Rica), a 78% decline in Mobula species was2

CoP17 Prop. 44
estimated from diver surveys (who reported that M. tarapacana is generally the species sighted in the area)
over 21 years13. In Sri Lanka, the overall decline in catch landings of Mobula species was 51% over three
years14. Despite an increase in fishing effort, recent declines in M. japanica and M. tarapacana landings
between 2001/2002 and 2014 of between 50 and 99% have been reported in three different regions ofIndonesia. Reported landings of Mobula species in Guinea declined by 60% between 2004 and 2008 despite
reported increase in fishing effort; landings of Mobula species at Tumbes, Peru, declined by 90% between
1999 and 2013; landings would have included both M. japanica and M. thurstoni and to a lesser extent
M. tarapacana. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) catch and bycatch data for Mobulafrom purse seine fisheries in the eastern Pacific between 1998 and 2009 show a significant increase from<1t in 1998 to >80t in 2006, and a subsequent decline over three years until 2009, when the reported catch
was 40t15.
Mobulid gill plates, used medicinally, are commonly sold under the trade names “Peng Yu Sai” (translated as“Fish Gills”). Three types of gill plates have been identified; 1) Manta species 2) M. tarapacana specificallyreferred to as “Flower Gills” (white or bi-coloured gills) and 3) smaller gill plates of M. japanica (black gillplates), M. thurstoni and possibly other mobula species.
Based on gill plate market surveys, the total estimated global market for Mobulids tripled between 2011 and2013, from ca. 48,000 individuals to ca. 130,000 individuals. Of this around 4500 per year were Manta
species and the remainder Mobula. In 2013 the global mobulid market was estimated to comprise 110,000(83%) M. japanica and other ‘black gill’ Mobula species, 17,000 (13%) M. tarapacana, and 5,000 (4%) Manta
species.
Plates of M. tarapacana and M. japanica are said to be the most important Mobula products in international
trade, with the largest plates selling for a few hundred USD per kilo 16. It can be difficult to distinguish visually
between the dried gill plates of small Manta and large M. japanica, and dried gill plates from M. japanica arevery similar in size and appearance to M. thurstoni, and M. kuhlii. Gill plates of M. tarapacana are bi-coloured
and resemble those of some M. thurstoni and M. hypostoma.
Several countries prohibit harvest of all Mobula species, but globally there is little or no protection for most
coastal and high seas habitats. There have been no stock assessments, monitoring, or management ofMobula fisheries in the range States with the largest fisheries.
All species of Mobula were recently listed in Appendices I and II of the Convention on the Conservation ofMigratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) and in July 2015 the IATTC passed a resolution to prohibit
retention, unless accidentally captured on purse seine vessels, and mandate safe release of all Mobula
species in the RFMO fisheries in the eastern Pacific Ocean. The General Fisheries Commission for theMediterranean (GFCM) has also passed a resolution to regulate catch of Mobula species. Publication of afield guide for Mobula and Manta species and increased awareness of the vulnerability of this group of
species has reportedly improved data collection in industrial tuna fisheries.
Analysis: Mobula species are widely distributed in tropical and temperate seas worldwide. All have very low
productivity and are taken in artisanal and large-scale fisheries, both as directed and incidental catch. The
major driver for retention of catch is believed to be the international trade in gill plates, which are used for
medicinal purposes in Asia, particularly in China. Market surveys indicate a significant increase in the market
in recent years, with the most important products in trade being the plates of Mobula japonica andM. tarapacana. There is very little numerical population information although there is an estimate for one
species (M. mobular) of ca. 15,000 individuals in the north western Mediterranean and south central Adriatic
combined. Population declines have generally been inferred from declining catches despite increases infishing effort in a number of locations. Some such declines have been very steep. Given the very low
productivity of these species, the marked increase in the international market and evidence of declining
catches it is possible that at least some species meet the criteria for inclusion in Appendix II in Annex 2 a ofRes. Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16).
Large gill plates of M. japanica resemble smaller plates of Appendix-II listed Manta species. This species
appears to meet the criteria in Annex 2 b of Res. Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16) (lookalike criteria). There is
general similarity between gill plates of different Mobula species although some gill plates are bi-coloured
and some are not. If any Mobula in either category (bi-coloured or black) were to be listed under the criteria
in Annex 2 a, the others in that category would meet the criteria in Annex 2 b (lookalike criteria).
Reviewers: V. Mundy; J. Kiska; L. Couturier; G. Notarbartolo di Sciara and G. Sant.
3

CoP17 Prop. 44
References:
Information not referenced in the Summary section is from the Supporting Statement.
1 Pardo, S.P., Walls, R.H.L. & Bigman, J.S. (2016) Mobula tarapacana. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016.
2 Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Lauriano, G.,Pierantonio, N., Cañadas, A., Donovan, G. & Panigada S. (2015) The Devil We

Don't Know: Investigating Habitat and Abundance of Endangered Giant Devil Rays in the North-Western Mediterranean
Sea. PLoSONE 10.
3 Pierce, S.J. and Bennett, M.B. (SSG Australia & Oceania Regional Workshop, March 2003) (2003) Mobula
eregoodootenkee. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2003.
4 Bizzarro, J., Smith, W., Baum, J., Domingo, A. & Menni, R. (2009) Mobula hypostoma. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2009.
5 Bizzarro, J., Smith, W., White, W.T. & Valenti, S.V. (2009b) Mobula kuhlii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2009.
6 Bizzarro, J.J., Smith, W.D. & Clark, T.B. (2006) Mobula munkiana. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2006.
7 Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. (2016) In litt. to the IUCN/TRAFFIC Analyses Team, Cambridge, UK.
8 Valenti, S.V. & Kyne, P.M. (2009) Mobula rochebrunei. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009.
9 Pardo, S. A., Kindsvater, H. K., Cuevas-Zimbrón, E., Sosa-Nishizaki, O., Pérez-Jiménez, J. C., & Dulvy, N. K. (2016)
Devil in the details: growth, productivity, and extinction risk of a data-sparse devil ray. bioRxix.
10 Croll, D.A., Dewar, H., Dulvy, N.K., Fernando, D., Francis M., Galván-Magaña, F., Hall, M., Heinrichs, S., Marshall, A.,
McCauley, D., Newton, K.M., Notarbartolo-Di-Sciara, G., O’Malley, M., O’Sullivan, J., Poortvliet, M., Roman, M., Stevens,G., Tershy, B.R., and White, W.T. (2015). Vulnerabilities and fisheries impacts: The Uncertain Future of Manta and Devil
Rays. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 26:562-575.
11 Abudaya, M. (2016) In litt. to the IUCN/TRAFFIC Analyses Team, Cambridge, UK.
12 Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Fernando, D., Adnet, S., Cappetta, H. & Jabado, R.W. (2016). Devil rays (Chondrichthyes:
Mobula) of the Arabian Seas, with a redescription of Mobula kuhlii (Valenciennes in Müller and Henle, 1841) Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and. Freshwater. Ecosystems.
13 White, E.R., Myers, M.C., Flemming, J.M., & Baum, J.K. (2015) Shifting elasmobranch community assemblage at
Cocos Island--an isolated marine protected area. Conservation Biology 29: 1186-1197.
14 Raje, S. G., Sivakami, S., Mohanraj, G., Manojkumar, P.P., Raju, A. & Joshi, K.K. (2007) An atlas on the
Elasmobranch fishery resources of India. CMFRI Special Publication, 95. 1-253.
15 Hall, M., and Roman, M. (2013) Bycatch and Non-Tuna Catch in the Tropical Tuna Purse Seine Fisheries of the World.
FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper.
16 O’Malley, M.P., Townsend, K.A., Hilton, P. & Heinrichs, S. (2016) Characterization of the Trade in Manta and Devil
Ray Gill Plates China and Southeast Asia Through Trader Surveys. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems, June 2016.

4