ICCAT PostScript: silky shark afforded greater protection but other species ignored

Follow up to yesterday's post, "Sharks of the Atlantic: new report cites dismal international conservation efforts" . . .

The results of the ICCAT's 22nd Regular Meeting of the Commission in Instanbul, Turkey produced a mixed bag of results, leaning towards more disappointment than satisfaction. ICCAT agreed to establish greater protection for the silky shark - one of the most sought after sharks in the Atlantic shark fishing industry - but protections for the porbeagle, blue, and shortfin mako sharks were passed over, along with other important shark conservation measures that were recommended by Oceana and other conservation groups.

Maintaining a diplomatic stiff upper lip, an Oceana press release stated, “'It is a great day for silky sharks,' said Elizabeth Griffin Wilson, senior manager of marine wildlife at Oceana. 'ICCAT should be commended for its continued effort to protect the oceans top predators. Today’s decision to protect silky sharks is a strong step forward in protecting one of the most commonly found species in the international shark fin trade.'

Oceana did voice concern that ICCAT failed to reach consensus on several important shark measures, including those to protect vulnerable porbeagle sharks, establish science-based precautionary catch limits for blue and shortfin mako sharks and improve the current finning measure by requiring that sharks be landed with their fins wholly or partially attached in a natural manner."

Also in attendance at the ICCAT meeting were representatives of the Pew Environment Group. "Protecting one shark species a year and adopting no other measures for their conservation will not be enough to ensure the survival of these animals across the Atlantic Ocean," said Max Bello, senior advisor on global shark conservation for Pew.

Progress with international organizations can be painfully slow and patience is one of the founding principals of diplomacy. However, incremental steps at this stage may not be enough to preserve endangered shark species like the porbeagle which, it has been reported by scientists, would need a minimum of several decades and possibly more than 100 years to fully recover.

Read Oceana's press release on the results of the ICCAT meeting.
Read comments from the Pew Environment Group in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Sharks of the Atlantic: new report cites dismal international conservation efforts

Over the past several years, we have been seeing progress made in conserving sharks through the establishment of shark sanctuaries or protected zones that have included entire island nations. The latest measure has been taken by the U.S. state of Florida which initiated a prohibition on the catching of tiger sharks and three species of hammerhead sharks inside Florida state waters. Additionally, we have seen legislation aimed at shark fin bans which, at best, puts pressure on the shark finning industry and, at the very least, forces them to fold up their tents and move elsewhere.

As positive as these steps are, they are regional efforts, globally-speaking, and many sharks species, particularly those considered the most endangered, are known to travel great distances whether traveling along migratory routes or randomly covering a lot of ocean territory and, in so doing, they move in and out of protected areas frequently.

Since these sharks will move in open international waters, it therefore becomes the responsibility of multinational fishery management organizations to ensure that sharks are being properly managed and, in many cases, prohibited from commercial shark fishing.

This could not be any more truer than in the Atlantic Ocean. A just-released report from Oceana cites as much as 75% of the migratory sharks in the Atlantic are classified as threatened by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) but less than 1 percent are protected by the organization that is most responsible for protecting these sharks.

The ICCAT, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, is that responsible organization. According to Oceana, "The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the primary international maritime treaty, establishes that fishing nations must cooperate to ensure the conservation of highly migratory species both within and beyond their exclusive economic zones, through appropriate international organizations."

"Because highly migratory species require international cooperation for effective management, Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) have been established to manage fisheries for these species with the goal of long-term sustainability. In the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is the most relevant and appropriate international organization to manage highly migratory species, including sharks."

Unfortunately, ICCAT's scorecard has not been a particularly winning one. Heavily influenced by commercial fishing interests, the organization has set catch limits for tuna that are consistently way below levels recommended by their own scientific advisers, and only a few species of sharks have been afforded any degree of protection.
The ICCAT has been holding its 22nd Regular Meeting of the Commission this past week in Istanbul, Turkey and Oceana is there to present the 48 member nations with the facts and to make recommendations as to actions ICCAT should be taking regarding Atlantic Ocean sharks.
Just how many sharks are being taken? Well, trying to answer that question is also part of the problem because as many as half of ICCAT's member nations did not report any shark catches in 2009 - there's no data. Based on what figures are available, combined with scientific and anecdotal observations, the current state of affairs is not good. But until there is reliable data from all member nations, the full extant of the problem can not be appreciated - which is just fine with the commercial fishing industry representatives whispering in the ears of ICCAT delegates.
In its 10-page report, Vulnerable Sharks in the Atlantic Ocean: The Need for International Management, Oceana puts forth the following recommendations to the ICCAT:

1. Prohibit retention of endangered or particularly vulnerable shark species, especially porbeagle and silky sharks.
2. Establish science-based precautionary catch limits for blue and shortfin mako sharks.
3. Require reporting of catch data as a prerequisite for landing a particular shark species.
4. Improve the ICCAT finning measure by requiring that sharks be landed with their fins wholly or partially attached in a natural manner.

I have reported on the ICCAT's dismal record in the past regarding tuna catch limits and so if the organization's history is any indication, Oceana has probably had it's hands full this past week. But it's a fight worth taking on so, as the meeting in Turkey comes to a close this weekend, let's hope that some decisive progress has been made.

Perhaps someday, with regional protections in place, a growing public awareness and clamor as to the problem, and catch levels reaching limits that are economically unsupportable, the ICCAT will live up to its environmental responsibilities. The sharks are betting their lives on it.

Download Oceana's report: Vulnerable Sharks in the Atlantic Ocean.
Read about the status of Atlantic sharks at Ocean's website.

Fiji's Sharks: study shows big business and locals are depleting a tourism and natural resource

Following on the accomplishments of island nations like Palau to establish shark sanctuaries, there is a movement developing to do the same in Fiji. While it has not yet reached the point of actual legislation or regulations for consideration by the Fijian government, it would appear to not be a moment too soon either.

According to a study just completed by Dr. Demian Chapman of the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science, Stony Brook University in New York, shark fishermen are targeting at least 10 species that are listed on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Red List. Included are sharks that make up a large part of Fiji's shark eco-tourism operations which contributes to the islands' tourism base.

Working in consort with the Fiji Fisheries Department, Dr. Chapman, who gained scientific recognition for his research in shark DNA that allowed for the tracking of hammerhead fins back to their place of origin, studied two shark fin traders in Fiji and combined his data with that of other researchers to paint an overall disturbing picture of the shark fin trade between Fiji and Hong Kong.

Three species - blue sharks, oceanic whitetips, and the silky shark were being targeted as bycatch from the tuna fisheries. However, one aspect of the study that was of particular concern was the extant to which local fishermen were involved, catching species more commonly found closer to shore. These are the sharks that divers from around the globe come to Fiji to see and so it represents a sizable lost economic value for the shark eco-tourism operators and the islands as a whole.

"I also observed a number of fins from inshore species. According to traders, these come from the coast of Fiji and are collected by local people who are paid by the dealers for shark fins and sea cucumbers," said Dr. Chapman.

This points to one of the major problems with the shark fin trade. While there is a large industrial fishing component that must be combated, there are also locals involved, merely trying to make a living. Like organized crime or the drug trade, these locals are not paid top dollar for their efforts - that's reserved for those further up in the shark fin distribution food chain - but they are tempted to participate as it could mean food on the table in a tough economy (not every Fiji citizen is employed by or benefits from the tourist trade).

And speaking of those further up the food chain, the amount of product that is being moved through Fiji alone is staggering. As reported in The Fiji Times Online, Dr. Chapman said, "I estimated the total number of fins present at each dealer by counting the number of fins visible in digital photographs taken onsite. Since most sharks produce four marketable fins (dorsal, two pectoral and lower caudal), I divided the estimated total number of fins by a factor of four to estimate the total number of individual sharks killed. One dealer had approximately 1000 fins drying, which represents at least 250 sharks killed.

"The dealer also had four large freezers full of frozen fins that were impossible to count. The other dealer had three very large piles of dried fins that I estimate contained a total of 10,000-12,000 fins and represented 2500-4000 dead sharks. The dealer indicated that they were exporting this volume on a monthly basis from Nadi International Airport to Hong Kong."

Twenty-five hundred to four thousand sharks each month, potentially coming from Fijian waters. Fiji's shark species and reef ecosystems can not withstand this kind of harvest.

The Fiji Times Online also quoted Ratu Manoa Rasigatale, who is spearheading an awareness campaign for the Coral Reef Alliance and Pew Environment Group to turn Fiji's waters into a shark sanctuary, '"It is sad to note from Dr Chapman's assessment that locals are heavily involved in the killing of reef sharks,' said Ratu Manoa, dubbed the Sharkman for his efforts to spread the gospel of shark conservation to all levels of the community in Fiji."

The only upside to a report like this is that it represents the kind of factual data needed to support a drive for establishing a shark sanctuary. No moral arguments about finning, no anecdotal evidence or stories of tradition or folklore; just the cold hard facts. Economic facts. Somebody is making a lot of money and it's not Fiji's everyday citizen; and one of the islands' major economic engines - the tourist trade - is at risk. Hopefully, that should catch the attention of government officials who are willing to look at the long-term future of Fiji's economy, its reefs and the sharks that call those reefs and the surrounding waters home.

Read about the shark fin trade in Fiji in The Fiji Times Online.

Industrial Shark Fishing: shark conservation must do battle with Goliath

Shark conservation is a tough sell. I've said that before. For all it's groundswell popularity in the last few years, it continually suffers from a primal hesitation people have to fully embrace it. There are passionate advocates but in the larger scheme of things, we are still a small segment of the total population. But some progress is being made.

Over the past few years, we have seen shark sanctuaries established in a few island nations and several states in the U.S. have initiated shark fin regulations or bans. This is all good news and it represents a step in the right direction in trying to impact the market for shark fins and shark-related products.

However, the next challenge is also the most formidable one: taking it to an international level that confronts the powerful economic realities of the shark finning industry. This is where highly-placed influence peddlers work the back room deals to maintain the status quo. And from an ecological standpoint, this is where the real damage is taking place.

The Pew Environment Group has a series of photographs, freely available for media use, that are staggering in their illustration of the scope of the problem. Looking at these photos, taken in Taiwan, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that it would be literally impossible for a species whose reproductive rate is low, as is the case with sharks, to be able to survive such industrial-level harvesting. The photo at the top of this post and the two below were taken by Shawn Heinrichs for the Pew Environment Group:

According to The New York Times, four of the leading nations involved in commercial shark finning are Taiwan, Indonesia, India, and Spain. And several developing nations assist by providing some of the boats and the crew - at bare subsistence-level wages. And that brings up another challenge: if world opinion were to succeed in curtailing the practice, we would also have the responsibility of providing an alternative source of income for these low-paid workers and fishermen. For them, feeding their families is a much greater priority than preserving sharks.

Several nations that provide sanctuary protections for sharks unfortunately offer these safeguards in name only as they do not have the resources available to enforce their regulations. A recent example is the slaughter of 2,000 sharks in Colombia's Pacific marine wildlife sanctuary by commercial boats, reportedly of Costa Rican origin. With no Colombian naval vessels in sight, it was reported that up to 10 boats entered the protected waters, freely taking hammerhead, Galapagos, and whale sharks.

While generating grass roots-level advocacy is important, shark conservation must now move forcefully into the international arena, getting organizations like IUCN, CITES, ICAAT, and the United Nations to wake up to the realities of what is happening in international waters. It will not be easy. Those industrialists who benefit from the shark have a lot at stake; they will fight hard. And international diplomacy by its very nature is painfully slow. So, the reality may be that, long before we run an oil platform dry or see sea levels noticeable rise due to climate change, we may witness the extinction of many species of shark.

Therefore, shark conservation, as a movement, must focus its efforts not only on general public awareness but must also develop strategies to take on the industry directly on a global level. It may be akin to David facing Goliath, but according to legend, David won.

See more photos of industrial shark finning at the Pew Environment Group website.
Read an overview of the shark finning industry in the New York Times.
Read about the recent slaughter of sharks in Colombia in the Guardian.

High Dolphin Deaths in South Australia: Humane Society challenges fishery management

Another example of the problem with the indiscriminate nature of gill nets: ABC News reports that in South Australia, the Humane Society International is pitting itself against legally sanctioned shark fishing due to a recently high level of dolphin deaths. The commercial shark fishing operators use gill nets which are notorious for catching other marine life other than sharks. Seals, turtles, billfish, and dolphins have been known to get ensnared in gill nets and summarily discarded as bycatch.

Apparently there has been a high accumulation of baitfish in South Australian waters where the shark fishermen operate. This has attracted dolphins, thereby increasing the number accidentally caught and killed in the gill nets. Shark fishing industry officials say they are not to blame as they are operating within all legal regulations. Regardless, Humane Society officials believe action needs to be taken immediately to protect the dolphins.

"It's not only a conservation issue, potentially it's also an animal welfare issue," said Alexia Wellbelove from the Humane Society. "What we're asking AFMA, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, to do is put some measures in place to protect the dolphins. If those can't be put in place then the use of gill nets needs to be banned in that area until they can figure out what the problem is that's causing all these deaths, because it's totally unacceptable."

The Humane Society International is recommending that dolphin experts be brought in to assist the AFMA and the fishery industry in determining a solution to the problem, rather than, in essence, blame the entire situation on the dolphins.

"What we need to do is actually get some dolphin experts to give the industry some advice," Wellbelove said. "I don't believe the industry has the capability or the understanding of dolphins sufficiently to be able to give us that information with any certainty."

ICCAT & Sharks: a mixed bag of results from meeting

International organizations that actually have the power to regulate commercial activities for the benefit of ecological or conservation interests generally do so in incremental steps. The political and economic implications of their actions on behalf of the environment or endangered species can often dull the force of progressive policy proposals, and this can be a source of great frustrations to many conservationists. It's a tough and often frustrating arena to work in and if you don't have the stomach or the patience for it, it's best to steer clear and focus on regional or national initiatives - you'll probably lead a more stress-free life.

The International Commission on Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) is a worldwide group of some 48 parties (including the European Union) which meets annually to consider commercial quotas and conservation regulations for tuna, billfish, and sharks. This year, ICCAT entertained six different proposals regarding the taking of several species of shark. The end result was a mixed bag of significant progress, a few exemptions or loopholes retained, and some proposals going nowhere. Many of the proposals revolved around oceanic whitetip, porpeagle, hammerhead, mako, and thresher sharks - all listed as either globally endangered or vulnerable to extinction by the IUCN (International Unions for Conservation of Nature).

The Good News:

• The ICCAT agreed to prohibit retention of oceanic whitetip sharks (a fancy way of saying catching oceanic whitetips is no longer allowed by ICCAT-participating countries).
• The exploitation (taking of) hammerhead sharks was restricted. There is an exemption though, which is listed in The Bad News below.
• ICCAT agreed to establish a process for penalizing countries who do not accurately report shark catches. Unreported shark catches is considered a major international problem by many conservation groups.
• A reduction of fishing pressure on shortfin makos, with prohibition penalties for parties that do not accurately report catches, was agreed to. But there's a caveat (see below).

The Bad News:

• A proposal to prohibit retention of porbeagle sharks failed because of a lack of consensus from the EU, primarily due to resistance from Canada.
• Exemption to the hammerhead shark restriction: developing coastal states can catch hammerheads for food but must ensure that they do not enter the international trade.
• Due to objections from Japan, Korea, and China, the restrictions on shortfin mako sharks will not begin until 2013.
• For the second year in a row, a proposal to ban removal of shark fins at sea was tabled, with Japan opposing the ban. Many countries have or are in the process of initiating this ban within their territorial waters. But in international waters, it's shark finning as usual.

Pro-shark organizations, like Shark Advocates International (SAI), that patiently work with the ICCAT, are pleased with the good news but stand firm that more needs to be done. According to Sonja Fordham, president of SAI, "ICCAT has taken significant steps toward safeguarding sharks this week, but much more must be done to effectively conserve this highly vulnerable species. We urge ICCAT Parties to promptly implement the shark measures agreed this week and to build upon this progress by proposing complementary international safeguards for other oceans and additional shark protections at next year's ICCAT meeting."

ICCAT is one of a few worldwide bodies where international conservation policies and regulations can get hammered out. But in the world of international diplomacy, it can get ugly, with economic, political, and ecological interest groups maneuvering to exert influence. Think of it as diplomatic kickboxing - but it's the sharks that are taking all the blows.

Read PR Newswire press release.

Hawaii Shark Fin Ban: proposed bill needs your support now!

There is quite a showdown brewing regarding Hawaii's shark fin ban legislation, SB 2169, which I commented on last week. It's been through its ups and downs but has moved forward to the next step: a legislative committee which will determine this week whether the bill be brought to a vote in this session or die on the floor and have to be re-introduced all over again in the next session. As a shark conservation advocate, I favor the legislation but I am realistic in recognizing the strength of the forces that oppose it.

Money and Political Influence
In March, at the CITES conference, the political forces that were supported by Asian (particularly Japanese) commercial interests succeeded in thwarting all proposals for increased protection for seven shark species. Conservation organizations made impassioned pleas for protecting these species but, in the end, the commercial fisheries and their political influence won out.

Hawaii has the potential of being a repeat of CITES if certain politicians, who apparently have strong commercial fisheries support, get their way. One politician, Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu, has been singled out by some people as opposing the legislation and having ties to the commercial shark fishing industry. In some blogs, he has become the poster boy of the opposition and been subject to strong vitriol from some shark advocates. Whether that is productive or not is questionable. If Rep. Karamatsu is influenced or supported by lucrative commercial shark fishing interests, I suspect then that his position will not change and the best strategy would be to support the proponents of the legislation and nudge those who are fence-sitting, thereby limiting his influence on their vote.

Proponents of the legislation have been making their case with the media and soliciting support from major NGOs and even a celebrity or two. For the most part, the ecological arguments are pretty solid and have been repeated many times in this blog: tens of millions of sharks are being killed each year for the fins only; scientists are reporting definitive and severe drops in the populations of many shark species; sharks play a critical role in maintaining a healthy marine ecosystem as hunters and scavengers; because of ocean pollution, shark fins and other shark products contain high levels of mercury; while shark fin soup is considered an expensive luxury item, its demand has increased with the growth of a wealthier middle and upper class in many Asian countries; the shark fin provides little if any nutritional value in soup, and its homeopathic qualities have never been scientifically proven.

And yet it persists. Why? Money, plan and simple. The shark finning industry is an incredibly lucrative one. And with that money comes significant powers of influence.

Culture Clash
Hawaii has an interesting mix of cultures, two primarily. There is the culture of the native Hawaiians. Within that traditional culture, the shark is held with great reverence. To harm the shark is an insult to that near-sacred position. Proponents have been tapping into those beliefs to rally citizens and politicians alike of Hawaiian descent.

Then there is the Asian culture that has grown in the islands over many decades, many of Chinese descent. And within that culture there is an attitude brought from their ancestral homeland that runs counter to the mindset of many ocean conservationists: fish is food and food is survival.

This was brought to my attention at a shark conservation discussion panel I moderated and participated in at last year's BLUE Ocean Film Festival. On the panel was Dr. Greg Stone of Conservancy International. He related a discussion he had with a leading Japanese fisheries management official. The official said (and I am paraphrasing from memory) that one of the main differences between Asian and western attitudes regarding marine sealife is that "We don't play with our food." A bit caustic, but the point was that we (meaning westerners) sometimes personalize - and in some cases humanize - our relationship with sealife, whereas for many Asian cultures it's just food; it's a matter of survival.

Now this is not a totally pervasive attitude and is prone to generalization. And whenever one discusses cultural differences, it is a delicate ice of political correctness that one is skating on. However, it certainly is a component of the situation taking place in Hawaii. If shark finning is perceived as cruel (the animal is finned and often thrown overboard, left to drown), then what about the cruelty imposed on poultry or cattle? Are we not treating those animals as simply a food source? Well, that can be another debate in itself, but suffice to say that, yes, cattle and poultry are food. However, they are raised to be food and we utilize as much of the animal as possible. Whereas, shark fishing is not based on farm-raised animals (not feasible with sharks) and it is not an efficient utilization of the animal. We are pulling these animals from the wild and the marine ecosystem suffers for it.

What You Can Do
There's a lot that is in play with the proposed SB 2169: conservation, morality, political influence, economics, and cultural heritage - all working with or against each other. So, what can you do, particularly if you are not an islander? Well, the pen can be mightier than the sword. And what better time to voice your position during this week: I have read that the legislative committee will make its vote this Thursday, Earth Day 2010.

If you wish to make a brief but thoughtful and respectful statement regarding support for SB 2169, do it now. Here are a couple of key email addresses:

The entire Hawaiian House of Representatives:
reps@capitol.hawaii.gov.

Sen. Clayton Hee (proponent who introduced the bill):
senhee@capitol.hawaii.gov

Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu (opponent):
repkaramatsu@capitol.hawaii.gov

Also, here's some interesting articles to provide you with more background info:
Honolulu Advertiser - Senator pushing to get vote on shark fin ban
KHON2.com - Shark Fin Ban Uncertain
Pete Thomas' Blog - Support for Hawaii shark fin ban grows, but will it be enough
SB 2169 - the text of the proposed legislation

Celebrate Earth Day and help Hawaii set the standard in shark conservation for others to follow: let your conviction be known!