Shark-Finning: an International Affair

Shark-Finning: An International Affair©

Michelle Cho

December 14, 2002

Coastal Policy Class

Professor Steffen Schmidt

Shark-Finning: An International Affair

Michelle Cho

INTRODUCTION:

Because sharks have a terrible reputation for being bloodthirsty, terrifying animals, akin to the frightening creature on the cover of the video “Jaws”, there has been little done to offer them protection in the past. Indeed, the U.S. Navy has long been futilely searching for ways of effectively eliminating sharks as a potential threat to their own, and the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) even encouraged fishermen to hunt them instead of scallops, and swordfish, calling them an “underutilized resource” (1). They reportedly even gave fishermen names and fax numbers of Chinese fin dealers (1). Sharks are mostly caught as bycatch, on longlines, or in gillnets meant for some other food fish. They were seen as a relatively worthless fish compared to food fish such as tuna, or swordfish, until the 1980’s when the price of shark fins started to increase, mainly because of the demand in East Asia for shark fin soup. The value of shark fins comprises about half of the shark’s value in total (2). Because the cost of keeping the shark meat fresh on fishing boats is very high, the practice of shark-finning, which entails cutting off the fins while the sharks are still alive, and dumping the remaining carcass overboard (3), increased in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s.

Many of the sharks that are finned are still alive, and because they cannot swim without their fins, they sink to the bottom to die a prolonged death. An estimated 100-200 million sharks die per year from this practice, which is the equivalent of $240 million (2). Even with the limited information we have about many shark species, it is clear that this rate of fishing goes beyond most (if not all) targeted species’ ability to sustain their populations. This is alarming news for several reasons. Sharks have been around for about 4.5 million years. They are the apex predators of the marine environment, and by removing them, we risk unforeseeable changes. An example of such a change lies in Tasmania, where the sharks were dangerously overfished. As a result, the octopi population exploded and all but wiped out the lobster population (1). It would definitely pose a threat to the balance of the marine environment if shark populations are diminished. Shark-finning is a large cause for diminished populations. Because it is such a wasteful practice, and is considered cruel by many, finning has become a very controversial issue. The largest difficulty in controlling finning lies within the extremely lucrative market for shark fins. Current prices have already risen to $100/ kg of fins. There exists a huge international trade in shark fins, involving 87 shark fishing nations. A problem within this market is that a lot of the trade goes on in the black market. For these reasons, it is difficult to obtain exact figures and values. Keeping this in mind, we can look at recorded statistics as conservative numbers. The U.S has the most reliable monitoring methods and records. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the number of sharks that were finned jumped from 1992 to 1993. In 1992, out of 94,897 total sharks that were caught, 2,363 were finned. The next year, out of 154,608 sharks that were caught, 15,473 were finned (4). This is a jump from 2.49% finned, to 10.01% finned in one year. Every year after that, the finning percentage increased: 1994 = 13.41%; 1995 = 32.42%; 1996 = 42.69%; 1997 = 56.56%; and in 1998 = 60.13% (see Table1).

Table 1 (4):

This is a steady increase in the percentage of sharks that are killed each year just for their fins, which is considered a wasteful and inhumane practice by many. It is clear that sharks must be managed internationally, with cohesive and cooperative conservation and management plans.

SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND:

Sharks vary from species to species, but generally share a few characteristics that make them especially vulnerable to overfishing. They are all slow to mature, most species falling somewhere between 12 and 15 years at maturity, and produce few young. Parents leave their young as eggs, or when they are born, which further reduces the rate of survival after birth. Some species only produce 2-3 pups per litter every other year. This is considerably less than bony fishes, some of which produce millions of eggs per year. This slow rate of maturity and production of few young makes it difficult for shark populations to rebuild after they have been depleted, and could possibly take decades, in many cases. This is why they are so susceptible to overfishing. It is thought that many species are already close to extinction. Because information on sharks is extremely difficult to gather, and taxonomy of sharks is relatively difficult to determine, the data that we rely on is limited. Ways to monitor shark populations and shark species have been developing in the U.S. with modern technology. Recent developments include genetic testing, and satellite tagging. Genetic testing allows for an accurate record of which species are being caught, and so are in the most danger. Satellite tagging allows us to track the extremely wide distribution of some species by following their migratory routes. Also, observer programs are key in collecting information. NMFS has been developing a trained observer program to collect information on species being targeted by specific gear from different fishing fleets. Random telephone and dockside surveys are also given to fishermen to give NMFS an idea of state and regional recreational catches. For commercial catches, NMFS must rely on fishermen logbooks.

HISTORY ON SHARK FINNING AND CULTURE:

In addition to being extremely vulnerable to overfishing, the medical benefits, mythical beliefs, and research potential of shark parts create an extremely popular worldwide market. In the last 15 years, the demand for sharks has grown dramatically. Shark fin soup has always been a popular dish in Asia, especially in China, as it is mythically believed to have aphrodisiacal powers, and powers of healing. In Europe and the Middle East, as well as in other western countries, shark cartilage has become trendy in society for health reasons—believed to cure or prevent cancer, and to promote longevity. Some other benefits include shark cornea, which can be transplanted into human eyes; shark cartilage, which is used to create artificial skin for burn victims; and shark-liver oil, which is used in hemorrhoid medications (1). All of these beliefs and benefits have depleted shark populations immensely, some believe to a point beyond recovery. A further stress was added to the shark industry in 1987, when the liberalization of the People’s Republic of China lifted restrictions on eating shark fin soup. Suddenly, everyone in China could eat shark fin soup, and any restaurant could serve it. At the same time, the Pacific Rim area experienced an increase in wealth. Because shark fin soup has culturally been a status symbol, and a symbol of affluence, the demand skyrocketed. Now, shark fin soup is served at most weddings, Chinese new year celebrations, birthdays, many business dinners, and is a status symbol of wealth and affluence (5).

INTERNATIONAL TRADE INFORMATION:

Because of this increased wealth and demand in Asia, the international shark market quickly became an extremely lucrative one. However, difficulties in obtaining data on the international trade market abound. There are many ways for foreign fleets to keep unreported data a secret, and therefore keep their reported catch within quotas, so that they may regain permits each year. For example, South Africa gives 85 licenses annually to Japanese longliners, and 24 licenses to Taiwanese longliners, allowing them to fish in South Africa’s EEZ. Each fishing vessel is required to give annual catch statistics, however, it is inferred that they do not give accurate stats, and just provide numbers to renew their annual licenses, but South African officials do not have the ability to enforce their regulations and quotas. India, which lands 16% of global shark catches, the largest percentage by one country alone, issues annual shark fishing permits to Taiwan and Japan. There is unofficial evidence that catch numbers are deliberately manipulated to avoid customs taxes and duties. Taiwan ranks fifth in international trading of shark fins. The Taiwanese international fleet transships and lands fins from other fleets. Taiwanese vessels can land the fins while other countries have to pay a 42% import duty, encouraging other countries to unload their catch onto Taiwanese vessels while on the high seas. Spain and the Canary Islands are the main suppliers of shark fins to Taiwan using this method. Taiwan also has many vessels that operate under a flag of convenience (FOC) of a different country, causing further difficulties in collecting accurate numbers. These ships are registered in the country under whose flag they operate, and they can then fish without a permit in that country’s EEZ, waters regularly off-limits to Taiwanese fishermen (5). Because the international market is a multi-million dollar one, the black market is a large reason that insufficient trade information is available. Many attempts to obtain information from China, Singapore, and Hong Kong were futile. Keeping this in mind, we can consider the following reported information very conservative.

Hong Kong alone has an estimated consumption rate of 3 million kg of shark per year (2). An estimated 100-200 million sharks die per year from fishing/finning, the equivalent of about $240 million, the value of the world trade of shark products. Shark fins are traded frozen, dried, and fresh, usually whole, and the larger the fin, the higher the price. Leading exporters include Hong Kong, Japan, China, Mexico, and the U.S. In 1989, East Asia imported $133 million worth of dried shark, Hong Kong imported $5.8 million, the EEC imported $75-127 million, and the U.S. imported $5.8 million in 1990. Hong Kong customs authorities report that 6,954 tons of shark fins were cleared for re-export in 1999, mostly destined for Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Korea, and China, the latter alone importing 3,000 tons of fins from Hong Kong (2). 27% of fins imported into Hong Kong come from Europe. Europe exported a total of 2 million tons of fins in 1999. An English paper also stated the going price for a single dorsal fin from a whale shark or basking shark at $14,500 (6). Again, these are only the reported figures. The black market only adds to these figures. It is clear that a large obstacle to effective shark conservation and management is the extremely lucrative international trade market.

INTERNATIONAL PLANS:

From the above information, mainly the high value of the international trade market, coupled with the wide range of distribution of species, the importance of international cooperation in the conservation and management of sharks is apparent. Currently, there are no international management plans in effect. However, the United Nations appointed its Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to draft a suggested management plan as a guideline for member countries to follow. In 1994, CITES met and adopted the Resolution on the Biological and Trade Status of Sharks in which they requested that the FAO and other international fisheries management organizations collect biological and trade data on shark species. In 1997, the FAO organized, with extra-budgetary funds from Japan and the U.S., a plan to develop guidelines for a management plan to be submitted at their next meeting. The result was an International Plan of Action for Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks), which was drafted in 1998 and adopted in 1999. This plan of action is to be strictly used as a guideline and does not have any formal legal status. Member nations are urged to draft their own management and conservation plans using the guidelines IPOA-Sharks provides. The objective is to ensure conservation and management of sharks and their long-term sustainable use. To meet this objective, three guiding principles are as follows:

Participation: States that contribute to fishing mortality on a species or stock should participate in its management.

Sustaining stocks: Management and conservation strategies should aim to keep total fishing mortality for each stock within sustainable levels by applying the precautionary approach.

Nutritional and socio-economic considerations: Management and conservation objectives and strategies should recognize that in some low-income food-deficit regions and/or countries, shark catches are a traditional and important source of food, employment and/or income. Such catches should be managed on a sustainable basis to provide a continued source of food, employment and income to local communities. The IPOA-Sharks is voluntary….Each State and RFMO should regularly carry out a regular assessment of the status of its shark stocks subjected to fishing so as to determine whether or not there is a need to develop a Shark Plan. Once at least every four years, States and RFMOs that implement a Shark Plan should assess its implementation for the purpose of identifying cost-effective strategies for increasing its effectiveness. Each State and each RFMO should strive to have its first Shark Plan prepared for the COFI Session scheduled for February 2001. (7)

Sustainable management of shark fisheries is one of the 4 points this plan aims to address. The objectives that apply to the issue of shark finning are to:

Minimize unutilized incidental catches of sharks.
Minimize waste and discards from shark catches in accordance with… the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (for example, requiring the retention of sharks from which the fins are removed).
Encourage full use of dead sharks. (7)

To date, Argentina, Brazil, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, the Maldives, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, Portugal, Spain, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and the U.S. all catch more than 9,000 tons of sharks, annually. However, only Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the U.S. have specific fishery management plans for certain shark fisheries, and only a limited number of countries have confronted the issue of shark-finning in their fisheries. Canada imposed a shark-finning ban in 1994. The real problem afterwards, as usual was enforcement. It was not until a few years later (1997) that Canada could put together a comprehensive management plan that held people accountable to the law. Brazil imposed a shark-finning ban but, like Canada, had and still has many problems enforcing the ban. It is thought that Brazil will need international financial funding to enforce their shark-finning ban. Costa Rica and Oman also have imposed complete bans on finning. As of February 2002, the U.S has a complete finning ban, and Spain followed suit a few months later, in June of this year, becoming the first European country to do so (8). On August 6, 2002, the European Commission proposed to prohibit shark finning in all European Union waters, and for all European vessels when they fish beyond European waters. The finning ban would apply to all elasmobranchs (sharks, rays, and skates) (6). Australia has banned finning by their federal tuna fleets, and New Zealand has a similar ban for their tuna fleets (9). This is only the tip of the iceberg, however. Global production of dried shark fins was 10 times in 1994 than what it was in 1988. It was over 6,000 tons in 1997 according to the FAO (10). Because so many participating shark fishing countries do not have existing regulations and restrictions on shark-finning or fishing, the countries that do have them are afraid they will suffer in the international trade market for shark fins. This has been a big concern in the Western and Central Pacific region of the U.S.

THE U.S.

In the U.S., fisheries are managed by the Department of Commerce, who in turn delegates responsibility to NMFS. Sharks are managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or the Sustainable Fisheries Act, as amended in 2001. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides guidelines for any fisheries management plans and establishes national standards and regulations under which all fisheries management should fall. Among other things, this act aims to prevent overfishing of any fish stocks, and to establish plans based on the best scientific data available. The amended version of the act also establishes a plan to minimize bycatch, and when this is not possible, to minimize mortality of such bycatch (11). Shark management is directly affected by this act. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, overfished shark stocks are required to be rebuilt and healthy shark stocks need to be maintained.

In the mid 1980’s, the Atlantic was discovered as an untapped shark resource, as slowly, Asian nations began to realize the worth of this ocean, simply for the reason that culturally, North Americans have never had shark incorporated into their diet. As this happened, the increased demand for shark fin soup, and the increased wealth in China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan, in particular raised the value of shark fins. Between 1985 and 1994, dogfish landings increased in the Atlantic by 250%, and other shark landings increased by 300%. This rapid increase in shark landings led to the implementation of a controversial shark management plan in the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea in 1993. This plan includes a finning ban for 39 of the known 74 species occurring in the Atlantic. Of these 39, 22 are large coastal sharks: sandbar, blacktip, dusky, spinner, silky, bull, big nose, narrow tooth, Galapagos, Caribbean reef, tiger, sand tiger, big eye sand tiger, lemon, night, nurse, great hammerhead, smooth hammerhead, scalloped hammerhead, whale, basking, and white sharks. 7 are small coastal sharks: Atlantic sharp nose, Caribbean sharp nose, bonnet head, black nose, small tail, fine tooth, and Atlantic angel sharks. The remaining 10 fall into the pelagic category: short fin mako, long fin mako, thresher, big eye thresher, oceanic white tip, porbeagle, blue, seven gill, six gill, and big eye six gill sharks (12). An additional 34 species for data collection, including mostly small, deep water sharks that have a tendency to get caught in swordfish and tuna nets were marked for data collection. In 1999, the Atlantic shark FMP was replaced and the finning ban was expanded to include 33 of the 34 monitored species, with the 34th species, the spiny dogfish, being included in the finning ban in January 2000 (13).