Shark-Finning: An International Affair ©
Michelle Cho
December 14, 2002
Coastal Policy Class
Professor Steffen Schmidt
© Michelle Cho, 2002. Any quotations from theis paper must be attributed to the author.
1
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
1
2
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.
2
3
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
3
4
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
4
5
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 multimillion 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 reexport 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
5
6
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 costeffective 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.
6
7
•
•
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.
7
8
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.
8
9
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).
Sharks have a history of getting caught in tuna and swordfish nets, and also on longlines.
These sharks were considered bycatch in the late ‘80’s, and were presumably released, in
accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
which states, “Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable,
(A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the
mortality of such bycatch.” (11) Currently, research is being done on a type of fishing
gear that will not be as detrimental to sharks.
For the present, according to the NMFS in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and the
Caribbean Sea, large coastal sharks are overfished. This group of sharks includes the
sandbar, blacktip, bull, tiger, and hammerhead sharks. Small coastal sharks are fully
fished, and these include the Atlantic sharpnose, finetooth, and bonnethead sharks, and
the population of pelagic sharks is unknown. Pelagic sharks include blue, shortfin mako,
longfin mako, porbeagle, and thresher sharks. 19 species of sharks, including the whale
shark, basking shark, and white shark may not be retained by fishermen at all.
Commercial fishermen must obtain permits to retain sharks and once the semi-annual
quotas are met, there are not more permits available to fish sharks. Recreational
fishermen are regulated by a minimum size that they are allowed to keep, and a bag limit.
NMFS has also designated certain areas as essential fish habitats, where shark fishing is
prohibited (12).
In 1997, NMFS put three Atlantic species of shark on the list of candidates for listing
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This list of candidates calls for voluntary
protection of the species listed. It is a way for NMFS to let the public know that these
species will soon need the protection given to species listed as endangered or threatened.
It also helps managers draw up conservation plans that will not have to be radically
changed in the future, if or when these species appear on the Endangered Species list, to
9
10
be federally protected under the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act
provides protection to endangered and threatened species. To be listed as one of these
species, one of the following five factors must be true:
•
•
•
•
•
Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range;
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
Disease or predation;
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and
Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. (14)
The three species are: the dusky shark, night shark, and sand tiger shark. Dusky shark
population in the northwestern Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico is probably currently at 1520% of its abundance in the mid-1970’s. The dusky shark falls under the management
plans for Atlantic highly migratory species (Atlantic HMS FMP). The sand tiger shark is
currently managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Act and the Atlantic HMS
FMP. The night shark is a deepwater species, and so very little information is known
about it. The main threat to night sharks is longline mortality. It is managed under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act (15).
In the Pacific, there is even less information known about shark populations. Recent
assessments show the common thresher and Pacific angel shark populations are in
recovery, and the blue shark population is healthy. Currently, a Pacific Highly Migratory
FMP is under development, which will cover migratory sharks. Sharks in the North
Pacific (salmon, sleeper, and dogfish sharks) are covered under the Groundfish FMP, and
the Western Pacific, which includes Hawaii, American Samoa, and Guam, covers blue,
mako, and thresher sharks under the Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries FMP (12).
In the U.S., the issue of shark-finning has been a controversial and sensitive issue. Since
1989, the passing of a shark-finning ban has been under discussion, and on December 21,
2000, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act (SFPA) was signed into law. The act amended
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to prohibit any person
under U.S. jurisdiction from engaging in shark-finning, possessing shark fins on a fishing
vessel without the corresponding carcass, and landing fins without corresponding
10
11
carcasses. H.S. 3535, the amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act that prohibits sharkfinning, defines finning as “the taking of a shark, removing the fin or fins (whether or not
including the tail) of a shark, and returning the remainder of the shark to the sea.” (7).
The bill then states, “Shark fins comprise approximately 5 percent of the weight of a
shark, and disposing of the carcass of a finned shark does not utilize, or wastes, about 95
percent (by weight) of each shark.” The final rule, which finally came out in February,
2002 also prohibits any foreign fishing vessel from shark-finning in the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ), from landing fins without carcasses in any U.S. port, and from
transshipping shark fins in the U.S. EEZ. If the total wet weight of the shark fins is more
than 5% of the total carcass weight found aboard the vessel, the final rule also establishes
a rebuttable presumption that the fins were taken in violation of this act (16).
The passing of the SFPA was the result of many years of work. In 1989, NMFS first
drafted a FMP for sharks in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. This
was met with an outcry from the fishermen, many of whom claimed to have been
convinced to turn to shark fishing by NMFS just a few years before (1). It was not until
1993 that the shark FMP was implemented with a finning ban in federal waters. In 1999,
a resolution was passed in Congress for a shark finning law. In 2000, a bill passed
through Congress, and finally in 2002, the law was extended to all U.S. waters. This
follows the general trend of the creation of law. Management plans are drafted first, and
not passed until years later, when Congress finally steps in and passes a law. With an
estimated 100-200 million sharks dying annually from this wasteful practice, and with the
increase of finning each year, 13 years of debate seems completely unaffordable. Many
people are of the opinion that there is no such thing as a sustainable shark fishery, mainly
because of their slow rate of maturity and reproduction, as well as the reasons stated
above.
In 1991, the number of sharks recorded as being killed by U.S. vessels was 2,289. By
1998, that figure had shot up to 60,857, and more than 200 tons of fins were taken by
Asian fishing vessels in waters near Hawaii, and then transshipped through Hawaii (17).
Hawaiian fishermen called for a ban on finning, as Hawaii as a state was not gaining
11
12
economically from this practice, since individual fishermen were pocketing the cash
bonus they received for the fins. A spokesperson for the Hawaiian Fishermen’s
Foundation states, “Hawaii….has been dubbed ‘Fin Central’….since tons of shark fins
are landed and transshipped through Hawaii annually and has created a black market with
no economic value to the state.” (18)
Hawaii has traditionally been known as a leader in conservation and fishery management
plans, with the fishermen of Hawaii priding themselves on being known as the Ocean
State, the Eco-tourism State, and the Seafood State by the Department of Business and
Economic Development, as well as the Hawaii Visitor’s Bureau (18). However, the
shark-finning issue has been a source of discontent for many Hawaiian fishermen,
because Hawaii was the last state to adopt the shark-finning ban. For this reason, many
native Hawaiians believed they were receiving negative attention, and that their tourism
industry would potentially suffer. An interesting point is that the fishermen were in
disagreement with their regional fisheries council, the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries
Council (WesPac), and put pressure on their council to adopt a stricter plan for the
management of sharks in their waters.
Hawaiian waters fall under the control of the WesPac, one of the 8 regional fish councils
as appointed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. WesPac also controls the waters
surrounding American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. These waters
comprise 48% of the U.S. EEZ (19). WesPac did not see the need for a ban on sharkfinning, stating that “finning is neither cruel nor wasteful, nor a threat to shark
conservation.” (17) In the Pacific, the majority of sharks that are caught are blue sharks.
Because the blue shark has high urea content, the meat spoils easily, and does not sell
well, either. This is the main reason that the chair of WesPac, James Cook, does not see
finning in the Pacific as a “waste” (19).
On April 13, 2000, there was a hearing to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act to eliminate
shark-finning before the subcommittee on fisheries conservation, wildlife and oceans of
Committee on Resources at the House of Representatives 106th congress, second session.
12
13
Member speakers were: Randy Cunningham, congressional representative from
California; Eni Faleomavaega, congressional representative from American Samoa;
Frank Pallone; and Jim Saxton, congressional representatives from New Jersey.
Testifying witnesses were: William Aila, harbor master of Wai’anae Small Boat Harbor;
James Cook, chair of Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council; Fred
O’Regan, President of the International Fund for Animal Welfare; and Andrew
Rosenberg, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce. The Western and Central Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council
(WesPac) was the only party in opposition of the act. An interesting point is that the
fishermen were in support of the finning ban, and stricter regulations, while their regional
fisheries council actually opposed the ban. This poses a sharp contrast to the Atlantic in
1989, when NMFS first drafted a finning ban. The fishermen in that case, strongly
opposed the ban. In this hearing, the discourse between the harbor master from Hawaii,
Mr. Aila, and Mr. Cook, the chair of WesPac was apparent. Mr. Aila had served on
WesPac’s Fisheries Pelagic Advisory panel for over 11 years. Mr. Cook and Mr. Aila
disagreed on many issues, including whether or not many Hawaiians ate shark fin soup.
Mr. Cook claimed that yes, since Hawaii had a large Asian-American population, that
Hawaii was a large consumer of shark fins. When Mr. Aila was confronted with the
same question, he answered that there is a small ethnic population that consumes shark
fin soup, but that the majority of the population does not.
Mr. Aila, in his testimony, directly accuses WesPac of ignoring one of the criteria the
council is supposed to follow, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. He states, “The
Magnuson-Stevens Act sets out three primary criteria for Regional Management Fisheries
Councils to base its fisheries-management plans or FMPs on. The WesPac…has chosen,
in my opinion to ignore at least one criteria and belittle the other two. In its proposed
shark FMP, WesPac would authorize the finning of 50,000 blue sharks per year wasting
over 95 percent of that resource.” He then points out that WesPac relied on Japanese
logbook data to create their FMP and that the Japanese fleet only consists of 30% of the
13
14
fishing effort in the Pacific. In his opinion, 30% is not the “best scientific data available”
(11).
Another part of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that WesPac is in discordance with is the
bycatch amendment. Cook claims, “current observer coverage indicates that 98% of the
sharks finned by the Hawaii longline fleet are done so after they are dead.” (19) This
would no longer define the sharks as bycatch, but as incidental catch, and actually not be
considered a wasteful practice to many. But NMFS records also show that 86% of sharks
caught by the Hawaii longline fleet are caught unintentionally and landed alive. Cook
then explains that the sharks are treated like the rest of the catch. They are landed alive,
killed by a spike to the brain or a severance of the spinal cord, then finned, and then their
carcass is tossed overboard. Once they are landed as bycatch, they are killed, and then
finned, becoming incidental catch. It seems like Cook is trying to get away with wasteful
practice on a technicality. As incidental catch, sharks would not be covered by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act bycatch amendment. The Western Pacific region has made an
effort to abide by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but has tried to bend the law to their own
benefit, disregarding the call for management decisions based on the best scientific data
available, without taking into account economic strains. The Magnuson-Stevens Act
states that “Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A)
minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the
mortality of such bycatch.” (11) By harvesting the fins of sharks, WesPac has turned
sharks into “incidental catch” instead of “bycatch”. Because the Magnuson-Stevens Act
does not call for the minimization of incidental catch, WesPac is not technically in
violation of this act. Also, WesPac asks for a definition of waste, and calls the sharkfinning prohibition act wasteful, in that it would “waste” the lucrative resource of shark
fins that are in the U.S. Western and Central Pacific waters. This takes into account
economic factors, when the Magnuson-Stevens Act states clearly that “Conservation and
management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of
fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole
purpose.” (11) Shark-finning may be considered an efficient practice, especially when
applied to blue sharks, since their meat is high in urea content and spoils easily. Also,
14
15
there is not a very high market for blue shark meat. For these reasons, it would be
impractical to keep the space-consuming meat of the shark fresh. On the other hand, this
shark meat is incidental catch. The fishermen that are catching these sharks are not
targeting sharks in the first place. For this reason, they do not have the space to keep the
shark meat fresh, and are finning the sharks only for economic purposes.
What stands out the most, is WesPac’s seemingly blatant disregard for what the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Management Act tries to enforce. It calls for the 8
regional councils to base management decisions based on the best scientific data
available, and not on economic information. The WesPac shark management proposal
states,
Conservationists likely believe that the proposed annual quotas for sharks are
insufficient. In addition, they do not believe that this measure addresses the waste
and cruelty issues. In contrast, the Council argues that the best scientific evidence
does not suggest that the particular stock being fished, north Pacific blue sharks,
is being over-exploited and does not see finning as wasteful (at least in economic
terms) since no market currently exists for blue shark meat. The proposed 50,000
annual quota for blue sharks is in some degree a compromise. It essentially caps
the practice at a level 15% below the 1999 total. (4)
Further investigation of Cook shows that this is not the first time he has challenged
fisheries management plans. He has even challenged his own. He is the largest
distributor of longline gear, bait and ice in Hawaii, and in 1994, he pleaded guilty of
taking lobsters in violation of WesPac’s own lobster regulations on minimum size and
egg-bearing lobsters. He was fined $30,000, and soon after, he led WesPac to remove all
lobster taking regulations.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
The question remains, as it does with any law, will the SFPA be enforced? In other
countries, like Canada and Brazil, enforcement has been an issue since their bans were
passed. As mentioned before, it is believed that Brazil will not be able to enforce their
finning ban without international finances. For a country like the U.S., where finances
15
16
are less of an issue, the enforcement question is still a valid one. The shark fin market is
extremely lucrative and until the market loses demand and value, enforcement will
remain an issue. As believed by the chair of WesPac, the U.S. is losing money by not
being able to participate with as few regulations as many other international fishing fleets
are able. For this reason, international trade regulations need to be equally as strict, if not
more so than fishing regulations. Only a decrease in demand, or an increase in trade
regulations will lower the incentive for the practice of shark-finning.
This past August, only 6 months after the SFPA was extended to WesPac waters, the U.S.
Coast Guard confiscated a U.S. Flag vessel with 12 tons of shark fins without
corresponding carcasses on board (20). 12 tons of shark fins in the Pacific corresponds to
roughly 20,300 sharks, assuming fins to be 1-5% of body weight, using an average
weight of 30-52 kg/blue shark (21). This is one boatload of shark fins. This is a clear
indication that enforcement of the SFPA needs as much dedication and attention as the
passing of the law itself needed.
Internationally, it is clear that controlling the trade of shark fins is the key in fighting the
practice of shark-finning. The lack of data and cooperation shows that this will not be an
easy or quick task. It is also clear that sharks may not have the time it will take for any
action to be taken. If the reported figures show 100-200 million sharks killed per year,
and many stocks depleted, it is unclear as to how shark populations can be sustained. It is
the opinion of many people that there is no such thing as a sustainable shark fishery
because of their unique life characteristics. However, increased awareness, and the
dedication of international organizations such as TRAFFIC, and the FAO to pass further
restrictions can eventually put a halt to this wasteful and unnecessary practice, and we
can give sharks time to rebuild their populations. Sharks are in dire need of management
and conservation plans that will hopefully soon be created in all shark fishing nations.
One can only hope that it is not already too late.
16
17
TABLES:
Table 1 (6): The amount of sharks caught, finned, and retained in the U.S., years 19911998
Table 2 (6): Breakdown of species finned in 1999
17
18
Table 3 (6): Amount of blue sharks caught, finned and retained in the U.S., years 19911998
Table 4 (6): Commercial landings in the U.S., 1998 and 1999
18
19
REFERENCES:
(1) Coniff, Richard. From Jaws to laws. 1993. Smithsonian, v. 24, no. 2.
(2) Fleming, Elizabeth; Philippe Papageorgiou. Shark Fisheries and Trade in Europe
(1997). TRAFFIC Europe.
(2) Rose, Debra. Shark Fisheries and Trade in the Americas, vol. 1, North America
(March 1998). TRAFFIC North America.
(4) C.R. Dahl. The Management of Shark Catches in the U.S.-Flag Islands of the
Pacific, Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council.
(5) www.sharkinfo.ch/SI2_01e/regulation.html
(6) Kirby, Alex. Global Shark-Finning Ban urged, 2002. BBC News Online.
News.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1950207.stm
(7) International Plan of Action-Sharks, Food and Agricultural Organization, United
Nations.
(8) www.sharktrust.org/cgi/main.asp?newsfirst=39
(9) www.acapworldwide.com/shark1.htm
(10) Darby, Andrew, Environmental News Service. “Australia bans shark finning”.
Oct. 9, 2000. www.ens.lycos.com/ens/oct2000/2000L-10-09-01.html
(11) The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, or the
Sustainable Fisheries Act, as amended, June 28, 2002.
(12) www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sharks/FS_management.htm
(13) www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/sfweb/sharkfin_pr.pdf
(14) www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/laws/ESA/ESA_Home.htm
(15) www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/species/fish/
(16) www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
(17)www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sharks/FS_science.htm
(18) Endreson, Bob. Hawaii Fishermen’s Foundation.
(19) Congressional Hearing April 15, 2000. Thomas.loc.gov
(20) USCG.mil/pacarea/pcp/newsreleases/2002/aug/0204sd.htm
(21) animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/prionace/p_glauca$narrative.html
(22) Tighe, Michael, Associated Press Writer. “Federal Officials Look to Curb Catch
of Asian Delicacy”. Standard Times.
19
20
(23) Endreson, Bob. The Fish Watch. Hawaii Fishing News. December 1999.
20