Why we need to protect sharks

B. J. Skane

 

It may seem odd that people would want to protect sharks which are more often thought of as being one of man’s most vicious enemies than anything else.
But hunting them to extinction not only poses significant threats to shark stocks and the health of marine ecosystems, it also threatens small-scale traditional fisheries and food security in low-income countries.
Existing laws need to be more heavily enforced and new, more stringent rules made if we are to protect the world’s shark population from overfishing. Hawaii has recently taken a step in the right direction.
Environmentalists in Hawaii are still pinching themselves in disbelief at winning a landmark battle in the global war to stop tens of millions of sharks being killed every year for nothing more than their fins.
On May 28, 2010 Hawaii’s Governor signed a legislation banning the possession, sale or distribution of shark fins into law. From July 1, 2011 anyone caught in Hawaii with shark fins in any form—including cooked meals containing them—will be liable for a fine between US $5,000 and $50,000 and up to a year in prison depending on the number of offences.
This is a world first for this type of legislation, designed to protect dangerously diminishing numbers of sharks.
Conservationists hope it will be the beginning of a new era in proper management of marine resources in which sharks, whether we love them, hate them or are just frightened of them, play a major role.
During deliberations by Hawaii’s lawmakers on the subject, testimony was given that sharks are being killed for their fins at a rate of 89 million per year.
A report last year by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature estimated 32 percent of open ocean shark species are in danger of becoming extinct primarily because of over fishing. Other sources report an overall global decline in shark numbers of 90% since the middle of last century.
These are amazing numbers—especially given the fact that shark meat is not highly sought after being high in urea content and thus prone to develop dangerous levels of ammonia if not bled and dealt with properly immediately after being landed.
Although huge numbers are caught by deep-sea long liner and purse seine fishing vessels, it is not commercially viable to spend the time necessary to treat the carcasses or to give them freezer space that is preferably reserved for the more highly valued tuna.
The only thing valuable about a shark is its fins, which because they can be transformed into the shark fin soup or platter so revered by Chinese, command extremely high prices on legal markets and even more on black markets.
Some people eat shark fin for supposed health benefits, claiming that it’s good for the bones, kidneys, lungs, helps treat cancer and is even an aphrodisiac. But these claims are unproved and of dubious authenticity.
Conversely, studies have shown that shark fin, like swordfish and marlin, because of the position of these fish at the top of the food chain, contains dangerously high levels of mercury absorbed from the smaller fish they eat and so may well be detrimental to health.
Shark fin doesn’t taste like much by itself – the flavour comes from the ingredients it’s cooked with, either a rich sauce when served on a plate or a savory pork and chicken base in soup.
Considered a status symbol in high-end restaurants, a dish to impress guests or celebrate milestone birthdays, a plate of shark fin in Hong Kong can cost up to US$1,000 while in the US a bowl of shark-fin soup can sell for US$70 to US$150.
For trophy species like the whale and basking shark (both endangered), a single fin can fetch US$10,000 to US$20,000.
And therein lies the problem. The lucrative market for just one part of the shark encourages ‘shark finning’, a brutal and wasteful practice that involves the removal of a shark’s fins and the discarding of the carcass at sea—mostly while the shark is still alive—condemning it to a slow and painful death from starvation or drowning because without its fins the shark cannot swim.
New Zealand considers this practice inhumane and prohibits it under animal welfare/cruelty regulations. Other countries such as Costa Rica, Colombia, El Salvador and Panama do not permit the on-board removal of fins on any commercial vessel and Palau has established a shark sanctuary over thousands of square kilometres of its territorial waters.
The various Tuna Commissions—ICCAT, IATTC, IOTC and WCPFC—dprohibit ‘finning’ and require that fins should not total more than 5% of the weight of the shark carcasses on board.
The WCPFC rules differ from the others in that fins and carcasses may be landed and transshipped separately. This allows companies such as Tuna Fishing Vanuatu to land shark carcasses at their facility in Paray Bay, Port Vila, while the fins go on to Fiji to be offloaded under the supervision of their agent there.
While on the surface, these international agreements appear to be enough to adequately control the numbers of sharks being killed, it is not proving to be the case as the statistics reveal. They fail for several reasons.
One is that even if the 5% percentage ratio of fins to carcasses is adhered to, it is not unusual for observers to see thousands of sharks landed at one time from large fishing vessels. Their fins are quickly removed and the carcasses discarded as being unworthy. So many deaths and so much waste to appease the palates of a select few is appalling.
There is also “high-grading”. This means the fishermen retain the sharks that are considered good to eat (eg Makos and Threshers) and for which they could get a decent price, and throw out their fins (not high-value). Then they’d catch and fin a load of sharks with high-value fins and throw out their low-value carcasses. Hey presto! They can “match” the high-value fins to the high-value carcasses and still be the good boys at the dock.
Tuna Fishing Vanuatu’s system of unloading shark carcasses in one place and fins in another seems, at first glance, reasonable since there is no legitimate export market for fins from Vanuatu and Chinese restaurants in Port Vila don’t feature shark fin on their menus.
However, the reality is that the practice of separating the fins from the carcasses lends itself to abuse by “high graders” during the open sea voyage from Vanuatu to Fiji.
This is why conversationalists have always said that ratios don’t prevent finning and that the only sure way to make sure it doesn’t happen is to ensure that all sharks are landed “finzon”.
Another reason the agreements don’t work in practice is that the shark fins, habitually dried on lines stretching throughout the rigging, radio masts and gantries of fishing boats, once dried are easy to store out of sight until they can be smuggled to port via trans-shipment vessels (mother ships).
These ships, often flying flags of convenience (FOC’s), roam the oceans bringing fuel, water, supplies, new crew and spare parts to the fleets of fishing vessels and taking catches back to their home ports—not always legally. It is not unusual for these vessels to travel from China or Japan via Singapore and the Indian Ocean around the southern tip of Africa into the Atlantic delivering supplies as they go and picking up the catch for the return journey. Or from China to Panama or Chile and back crisscrossing the North and South Pacific as they go.
Monitoring the activities of some of the vessels has proved that they spend far more time than necessary for the actual journey and normal transshipment to and from vessels fishing legitimately, so it is highly probable that they rendezvous with vessels operating outside the jurisdiction in which they are licenced to fish.
This kind of transshipment is known as fish ‘laundering’ with all vessels involved doctoring their logbooks to make it appear the fish (or fins) have been caught legitimately.
Then there is the fact that sharks themselves are highly vulnerable to overexploitation, owing to their low growth, late maturity, long gestation and low reproductive output. Over-exploited shark populations can take years or even decades to recover. The threat of over-exploitation is exacerbated by the lengthy migrations undertaken by many shark species. Even if they are protected in one area, they can move into areas where they are not subject to protection.
Despite the solid evidence that sharks are inherently vulnerable and that over fishing is endangering them to the point of extinction, some Chinese in Hawaii claim that their ‘food culture’ including shark fin goes back 5,000 years and should therefore not be made illegal.
It is interesting to note though, that during the Maoist years of Communist China shark fin dishes were considered elitist and therefore off the menu. It wasn’t until 1986 when China was ‘liberated’, a new more affluent class began to establish itself and more efficient fishing systems and larger fishing fleets began emerging, that the demand for shark fin boomed along with the Chinese and other Asian economies.
This growing popularity among populations that can increasingly afford the prices shark fin commands has led to the decimation of shark populations we are seeing today.
It has also placed tuna and small-scale traditional fisheries (where shark meat provides villagers with their main source of protein) in jeopardy because of an imbalance in the ecosystems.
Research carried out in Latin America, Africa and India has shown that many artisanal fishers have suffered significant reductions in their shark catches since the arrival of industrial longliners and trawlers and the globalisation of the shark fin trade—a trade that has created millionaires in Asia, but contributes little or nothing to sustainable development in low and middle-income countries.
Senator Clayton Hee, who is of Chinese and Native Hawaiian descent and was the sponsor of the Hawaii bill told Time Magazine as the legislation was passed: “It’s not a local issue. It’s an international issue”.
He rejected the argument that shark fins shouldn’t be banned because they’re an important part of Chinese culture arguing that the food is only eaten by an elite few at Chinese restaurants. “It’s a tradition of serving shark fin to those who could most afford it. It’s an indulgent activity,” he said.
Between June 29 and July 1, 2010 a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) meeting will be held in Brisbane. Conservationists hope that at that meeting and subsequent ones, the issue of protecting sharks from the decimation they are currently suffering will be discussed and that national representatives at all levels of regional and international fisheries management organisations will eventually agree to more stringently enforce existing legislation and bring into force new laws that will require all sharks to be landed whole with their fins naturally attached.
Linked to the prohibition of the trans-shipment of fins at sea, such legislation would provide a great opportunity for globally effective shark conservation.
Ideally, the goal for all of us—governments, NGOs, RFMOs and ordinary people who care about the marine environment and sustainable fishing—should be to promote awareness on the plight of the world’s sharks and work together towards following Hawaii’s lead to ban all trade, possession and consumption of shark fins.
After all, elitist Chinese still die from all the diseases the fins are said to prevent and Viagra is now freely available—even in China—to take care of their sexual problems.