Shark Finning Report Wildaid

8/14/2019 Shark Finning Report Wildaid

1/16

SHARK

unrecorded wastage

on a global scale

finning


2/16

2

SHARK FINNING: Unrecorded

Wastage on a Global Scale

September 2003

A report by WildAid and Co-Habitat

This report was researched and written

by Susie Watts

Acknowledgements

Our thanks go to:

Scott Radway

Jeff Rotman

Kanchai Taechawanwakin

Joe Richard

Warren N. Joyce

Aaron Henderson

Juan Carlos Cantu

Sarah Fowler

Averil Bones

Environmental Investigation Agency

Becky Zug

Stephanie Carnow

Erica Knie

Randall Arauz

Cecilia Falconi

Godfrey Merlen

Sonja Fordham

Merry Camhi

Rachel Cavanagh

The Homeland Foundation

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation

Stefan Schmidheiny

Stephen Wong

WildAid also acknowledges the

immense contribution made by two

of its investigators

Front cover pic:

A diver discovers finned sharks

jeffrotman.com (jeffrotman.com)

Back cover pic:

Blue shark being finned on a Costa Rican

longliner (taken from video)

Vargas/STRP

SHARK STOCKS COLLAPSE

Recent research has shown precipitous declines in many coastal

and oceanic shark species in the Northwest Atlantic. It has been

estimated that, since 1986, hammerheads have declined by 89%,

thresher sharks by 80%, white sharks by 79% and tiger sharks by

65%. All recorded shark species, with the exception of makos,

have declined by more than 50% in the past 8 to 15 years1

.

Stocks of kitefin shark (Dalatias licha) in the Azores and

thornback ray (Raja clavata) in the North Sea have shown

severe declines and may be depleted. For the spiny dogfish

(Squalus acanthias) in the Northeast Atlantic, there is an

estimated decline in biomass since 1977 of over 5,000,000 to

well below 100,000 in 2001, representing a 98% decline2.

Research published in May 2003 reveals that these steep

declines in shark stocks are echoed across a much wider range

of predatory fish species. Trajectories of community biomass

and composition of large predatory fishes were constructed for

four continental shelf and nine oceanic systems, using datafrom the beginning of exploitation. Results of this research

showed that industrialised fisheries typically reduced

community biomass by 80% within 15 years of the start of

exploitation. The Gulf of Thailand lost 60% of large finfish,

sharks and skates during the first five years of industrialised

trawl fishing3.


3/16

SHARK FINNING: UNRECORDED WASTAGE ON A GLOBAL SCALE

3

Shark finning can be

defined as the on-board

removal of a sharks fins

and the discarding at

sea of the remainder of

the shark. The animal is

sometimes alive during

this process

BACKGROUND

The widespread practice of shark finning is

the result of a combination of factors:

increasing demand for shark fin, the

industrialisation of fishing techniques and

the changing economics of catching andtransporting fish products.

It is likely that the volume of whole

sharks landed by fishing vessels around the

world once provided sufficient fins to

supply the fin markets of east Asia and

amongst east Asian communities world-

wide. However, as shark meat is inferior to

that of most commercially-exploited fish

species, particularly tuna and billfish, the

profits to be made from shark meat are

naturally much lower. Limited on-board

storage space,combined with the increasing

value of shark fin, has made it economically

advantageous to discard the bulky shark

bodies while retaining the valuable fins,

which can be sun dried and stored very

compactly without refrigeration.

The prevalence of shark finning is

serious enough for the UN Food and

Agriculture Oranisation (FAO) to have

made recommendations for ending it. For

the FAO, with its strong emphasis on global

food security, the decline in sharkpopulations has become a cause of concern.

In its 1999 International Plan of Action

for the Conservation and Management of

Sharks, the FAO recommended that

Member States implement National Plans

of Action for sharks.The plan recommends

that Member States seek to minimize

waste and discards from shark catches in

accordance with article 7.2.2.(g) of the

Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries

(for example, requiring the retention of

sharks from which fins are removed)4.

A ban on shark finning, not only within

individuals nations own waters but also on

the high seas would therefore be entirely

consistent with the FAOs

recommendations.

Data on shark finning are hard to find: it

is not a practice that the fishing industry is

particularly proud of and, since the practice

occurs at sea, the only witnesses are

generally crew members, who benefit from

the income from the fins.However, there is

enough evidence to suggest that finning is

widespread in numerous fisheries, that

huge numbers of sharks are finned every

year and that the vast majority of these

mortalities go unreported.

A combination of two factors has led to

an explosion in the demand for shark fin

soup.Firstly, the rapid expansion of east Asian

economies, particularly that of mainland

China, has created a vastly increased middle-

class sector with disposable income.What

began as a rare and expensive delicacy is nowstandard fare at most weddings and corporate

functions.Secondly, the consumption of

shark fin soup in China, previously frowned-

upon as an elitist practice, was politically

rehabilitated in 19875.The result was a

massive upswing in the international fin

trade, prompting fishermen worldwide to

target sharks for their fins and to remove the

fins from sharks caught as bycatch in other

fisheries. Fin traders have systematically

spread the word that fins are valuable tofishermen the world over, often providing

equipment and monetary advances in order

to secure fins.Sharks are increasingly targeted

Above: Finned shark in the Surin Archipelago, Andaman sea

It is impossible to establish how many

sharks are finned annually, as few

fishers admit to finning sharks. Only

occasionally, when large quantities of

fins without corresponding carcasses are

seized, is the event recorded. However,

the IUCN Shark Specialist Group has

made the following assessment:

An initial comparison of some national

shark landings data and Hong Kong fin

import data from these countries

indicate a significant mismatch (based

on widely-employed fin to body ratios

for shark carcasses). The conclusion we

draw is that the fins of tens of millions

of sharks missing from the landings

data of many nations are appearing in

Hong Kong. Some of this mismatch may

be due to underreporting of shark

landings, but observer data from high

seas fisheries and reports of fin fisheries

in some developing countries indicate

that many millions of sharks are being

finned and discarded at sea2.

THE EXTENT OF SHARK FINNING

KanchaiTaechawanwakin

for their fins in marine reserves, where a

relatively small vessel can quickly decimate

shark populations.

AUSTRALIAN FINNING

Few governments have studied, let alone

published data on, the prevalence of

finning on board their vessels.Australia is

one of the very few countries, possibly the

only one, that has systematically


4/16

SHARK FINNING

4

researched finning in its own fisheries.

A recent report on shark finning

published by the Australian Government6

analyses the prevalence of finning in each of

the countrys fisheries where sharks are

taken.The frequency of shark finning varies

widely across the different fisheries, ranging

from hardly ever to almost always.

In the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery,

an estimated 70% of all captured sharks

were being finned prior to a ban imposed

in October 2000.The total number of

sharks caught in 1998 and 1999 is estimated

to be 150,000,which suggests that around

105,000 sharks taken in this fishery during

those two years were finned.

In the Southern and Western Tuna and

Billfish Fishery, it is reported that the

majority of vesselswere finning mostsharks that they caught prior to the 2000

ban. Out of 40 vessels currently operating,

only 3 or 4 were reported to be releasing all

sharks. In 1999, an estimated 28,000 sharks

were caught in this fishery.

In the Northern Prawn Fishery, some

fishers are reported to have finned all sharks,

while others finned only large specimens.

The level of finning in this fishery is

estimated by weight: research suggests that

450 tonnes of sharks were finned per year,

representing tens of thousands of sharks,

prior to an industry-initiated ban on finning

that came into force in 2001.

In the Torres Strait Fisheries, the weight

of sharks estimated to be finned every year

is 287 tonnes. No finning regulations

currently exist for this fishery.

In the Northern Shark Fishery, finning

is prevalent. One fisher reported finning

approximately 50% of his annual shark

catch.As the report points out, this may

not be the norm but even if an average ofonly 20% of sharks had been finned, this

would represent tens of thousands of

animals, given that the annual catch of

sharks from 1994 to 1999 fluctuated

between 315 and 759 tonnes. No finning

regulations currently exist for this fishery.

Finning is less prevalent in other

fisheries and almost non-existent in some.

However, using the figures that exist, it

can be concluded that hundreds of

thousands of sharks have been finned

annually in Australian fisheries.Where

finning has been banned, however, many

thousands more have escaped that fate.

Illegal Fishing for Sharks

REVILLAGIGEDOS ISLANDS

Situated to the south-west of Cabo San

Lucas,Mexico, these islands became a

marine reserve in 1997. In 2000, a fleet ofdrift gillnetters surrounded one of the

islands and fished intensively for five days,

killing an estimated 2,000-4,000 sharks.

In most cases the sharks were finned and

discarded5.

COCOS ISLANDS

One of the worlds top diving venues, this

area is a World Heritage Site, but it is

frequently subject to night-time

incursions by vessels targeting sharks for

their fins.The author of Jaws,Peter

Benchley, has reported seeing a shark

graveyard littered with dozens of finned

sharks while diving in the area5.

THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

In May 2003 it was reported that a Hong

Kong fishing company had been

discovered fishing illegally in the Pacific

Marshall Islands.The activities of five

vessels owned by Edgewater Fisheries Inc.

have been documented over a long period

by local conservationists.

Scuba divers provided video footage

and eyewitness accounts of the vessels

fishing close to the reefs of Bikini and

Jaluit, in violation of fishing agreements.

Reef sharks were seen entangled on the

hooks abandoned by the vessels once

they had realised that their activities had

been seen and videotaped. The vesselswere also seen fishing at Shark Pass,

renowned for its populations of grey reef

and silvertip sharks, where local

conservationists estimate that numbers

are down by 50% since 20027.

COSTA RICA

On 19th May 2002 a Taiwanese vessel,

Shen 1 Tsay 3, was filmed fishing illegally

within the Costa Rican Exclusive

Economic Zone. It had docked at

Puntarenas twice in the space of threemonths.The Coast Guard was informed,

but the vessel was thought to be too far

out for any action to be taken.The vessel

docked in Puntarenas again shortly

thereafter. Local conservationists believe

that the vessel was fishing for sharks 8.

AUSTRALIA

Australia has a long-standing problem

with incursions into its northern and

north-western waters by vessels illegally

fishing for shark fins but these incursions

have recently been reported to be at their

highest for five years9.

Australian authorities intercepted a total

of 111 vessels in 2002, of which 108 were

Shen 1 Tsay19/05/02

8700 8540 8440 8330

920

810

700

550

CostaRica

Isla del Coco

Left: Position of

the Shen 1 Tsay 3

when filmed.


5/16

ILLEGAL FISHING FOR SHARKS

5

Indonesian.The other three were a Sri

Lankan vessel caught off the coast of

Western Australia and two Russian vessels9.

It has been reported that captured

shark-finner crews have become a

permanent feature in the quarantine

zone in Darwin harbour. In late

December 2002 it was estimated that 15

boats and 58 men were awaiting their fate

within the zone and that twelve boats had

already been torched by the Australian

authorities. Mick Munn of the Fisheries

Management Authority stated that almost

all are targeting shark fin.Any shark that

gets on that line is gone, theyre not fussy.

They like to target the big shovel-nose

shark, but if they cant get them theyll

take anything10.

The year 2003 has seen many more such

incursions by Indonesian vessels:

JANUARY 24TH: the Australian

authorities were reported to have

apprehended an illegal Indonesian fishing

boat 105 km inside the Australian Fishing

Zone. Seven crew members and a quantity

of shark fins were found on board.11

FEBRUARY 6TH: five fishing boats

detained. Four of the five boats had shark

or shark fins aboard12. One trawler wasfound with 30 shark fins and seven crew

on board and a second vessel with two sets

of shark fins13.

MARCH 24TH: an Australian Navy patrol

boat intercepted three vessels fishing more

than 50 nautical miles inside the Australian

Fishing Zone. Each had large quantities of

either fish or shark fins on board.This was

reported to have raised the years current

total of vessels apprehended for illegal

fishing in northern Australian waters totwenty14.The captain of one of the vessels

was later given a five-month jail sentence14.

APRIL 9TH: The vessel Bintang Timur was

caught 35 nautical miles inside the

Australian fishing zone on April 9. Five

other Indonesian vessels were also

apprehended in April and all of them were

reported to be fishing for shark fin15.

MAY 2ND: a magistrate jailed three

Indonesian fishermen for a total of 18

months after they had been caught fishing

illegally for shark fins in April16.

MAY 14TH: Eight illegal fishing boats were

being escorted to Darwin by navy patrol

boats after being caught poaching offAustralias northern coast over the previous

three days.The boats had come from the

port of Merauke in the Indonesian

province of Papua and Dobo.All had been

targeting shark fin17.

LATE MAY/EARLY JUNE: a further five

foreign fishing vessels were seized in

northern Australian waters.All were

targeting sharks for their fins. In response

to increasing illegal incursions into

Australian waters, the government allocateda further A$75 million to fund the efforts

of enforcement agencies18.

JULY 2ND: it was reported that the Royal

Australian Navy and Customs were catching

one illegal fishing boat in north Australian

waters every three days and that a Customs

patrol boat had just intercepted an illegalvessel with seven crew members and 160

pieces of shark fin aboard.This brought the

total of vessels seized in the first seven

months of 2003 to seventy-one19.

AUGUST 21ST: it is reported that five more

Indonesian vessels have been apprehended

in the past week, all containing fishing

equipment and shark fin20.

SEPTEMBER 12TH & 13TH: five Indonesian

boats were apprehended in two separate

incidents.Three of the boats, caught fishing

illegally off Arnhem Land,were carrying

40kg of shark fin.21 These incidents raised

the number of boats caught fishing illegally

in Australian waters in 2003 to ninety.22

Above: The Shen 1 Tsay 3

Below: These fishermen in Kupang, Indonesia, have been arrested in Australia but insist that

they will keep returning.

WildAid

Pretoma


6/16

6

Caught red-handed

CANADA

In 1997, the captain of a Japanese fishing

vessel, Shoshin Maru 38, was found

guilty of shark finning by a court inHalifax, after admitting that his crew had

finned ten sharks.An on-board observer

had witnessed the crew cutting the fins

off ten blue sharks and throwing the

bodies back overboard.The observer had

also witnessed 895 blue sharks being

landed on deck but when Fisheries

officials visited the vessel, only 520

carcasses were found, raising questions as

to the missing 375 carcasses.The captain

admitted throwing 10 carcasses

overboard but claimed that at least 90

carcasses had been washed overboard

during a storm. Inspectors also found

430 sets of fins on board23.

THE GALAPAGOS ISLANDS

The Galapagos Islands and the Marine

Reserve are subject to constant illegal

fishing raids,with vessels frequently

targeting sharks for their fins. Some vessels

are local, while others arrive from as far

away as Japan to fish illegally for sharks24.Since 1998, a minimum of 19,128 shark

fins have been seized25.

In 1998, 8,000 fins were discovered on

the Nio Dios, an Ecuadorian vessel

apprehended on the north coast of Santa

Cruz that had been collecting fins from a

wide area26.

In March 2001 the industrial long liner

Maria Canella II was found fishing inside

the Marine Reserve. On board were 78sharks and 1,044 shark fins. On average,

shark species produce four useable fins.

The 78 sharks found on board would

have accounted for only 312 of the 1,044

fins.The remaining fins represent the

bodies of a further 180 sharks that were

presumably discarded.Twenty-five miles

(40 km) of long line had been laid across

the Reserve27.

In July 2001,The Galapagos NationalPark Service (GNPS) discovered two

vessels fishing illegally in the Reserve.

One was Costa Rican, the other

Colombian.An inspection uncovered 619

shark fins and 100 shark bodies on board.

The species were thought to be

hammerheads and blacktip sharks but

accurate identification was difficult as the

heads and fins had been removed.28

In 2003, a pick-up truck was

apprehended on Isabela island, and foundto be carrying 4,000 shark fins25.

In September 2003, the Ecuadorian

Navy and Park officials seized 815 shark

fins from an illegal fishing operation on

Isabela island, within the Reserve. Four

men, including a Korean salesman,

were arrested.29

COSTA RICA

In July 2003, video evidence was

obtained of 20-30 bags of shark fins at a

private dock where Taiwanese fishingvessels habitually land shark fins.The

bags were photographed alongside a

Taiwanese vessel, Ho Tsai Fa No. 18.

The easewith which

foreignvesselsviolateCosta Ricanfinningregulationsis appalling

Randall Arauz,Pretoma, Costa Rica,

May 2003.

Below: Part of a seizure of 8,000 fins, Isabela Island, Galapagos

ParqueNacionalGalpagos

Right: Finned tiger

shark caught by

angler, Florida, USA


7/16

CAUGHT RED-HANDED

7

The Coast Guard was informed and the

fisheries authority, INCOPESCA, agreed

to raid the premises. However,

INCOPESCA later reported that the fins

were from a different vessel.A legal

authority was consulted, but was unable

to issue a search warrant without the

agreement of INCOPESCA, who argued

that video evidence of the fins alone was

insufficient and that there needed to be

evidence of the fins actually being

offloaded from the vessel. It later

transpired that the official cargo

declaration from Ho Tsai Fa No.18 was

for 60,000kg of shark fins.The

declaration had been signed by all the

appropriate authorities.8

On 31 May 2003, a Coast Guard

official conducted an off-duty check at aprivate dock. He discovered a cache of

fins weighing approximately 30 tonnes

that had been landed by a Taiwanese

vessel, the Goidau Roey No.1, which

was flying a Panamanian flag. It had

docked outside the legal landing hours in

an attempt to avoid being seen. No

carcasses were present8.

The captain, Mr Huang Chih Chiang,

had declared 53,000kg of frozen fish on

the official landing documents but no

frozen fish were found8.

Although the Coast Guard verified that

30 tonnes of fins had indeed been landed

at the private dock, the whereabouts of the

cache is now unknown8.

THE USA

In August 2002 the US Coast Guard

escorted into San Diego the King

Diamond II, an 82-foot fishing vessel,

with 12 tons of prohibited shark fins on

board. On arrival in San Diego, Fisheriesofficials took possession of the fins and

interviewed the captain and crew as part

of an ongoing investigation30.

The King Diamond II did not have

any fishing gear on board when it was

seized. It was a collection vessel that had

picked up products on the high seas

from more than 20 Korean longliners.

The crew claimed that they had not

actually caught the sharks and finned

them, and that therefore they had not

acted illegally31. However, while

possession of fins is not illegal, it was the

act of trans-shipping them on the high

seas that had violated US law.

Twenty per cent of the cargo was

examined with a view to species

identification. Ninety percent of the fins

were thought to be from blue sharks, the

remainder being from silky sharks and

other species31.

PALAU

In May 2003, the government of Palau

incinerated 800 shark fins, confiscated

from a Taiwanese longliner fishing

illegally in Palaus waters.The seizure

weighed almost one tonne. President

Remengesau stated that the blaze was

intended as a warning to foreign fishing

vessels that he would not tolerate shark

fishing in Palaus waters32.

Press reports indicate that shark fishing

is becoming increasingly common in Palau,

and that this is detrimental to the success

of Palaus dive tourism industry33.

While the usual practice in Palau is to

sell catches confiscated from illegal fishing

operations, the President resisted

suggestions that these fins should be sold,

saying Palau is not in the business of

selling shark fins, nor do we want to be.33

AUSTRALIA

In January 2002, two snorkellers in theShoalhaven River, New South Wales,

discovered hundreds of juvenile sharks on

the river bed with their fins sliced off34.

Above: Confiscated shark fins torched in Palau

Above: Some of the bags containing 8,000

seized fins

Palau isnot in thebusinessof selling

shark fins,nor dowe wantto bePalaus President

Tommy Remengesau,May 2003.

ScottR

adway,

freelancejournalist

ParqueNacionalGalpagos


8/16

8

A Case Study: Costa Rica

Despite a ban on shark finning in its

waters, huge quantities of fins are landed

in Costa Rica without the corresponding

carcasses. Recent cases, such as the

discovery of 30 tonnes of fins without

carcasses, are described elsewhere in this

report. The large number of foreign,

particularly Taiwanese, vessels finning

sharks just outside Costa Ricas Exclusive

Economic Zone is blamed by local fishers

for declines in their shark catches.There

are also vessels from Korea, Portugal,

Spain, Mexico, Ecuador and Venezuela,

some of which are reported to be finning

sharks caught by tuna longliners. Some

foreign vessels land their catches at privatedocks: others return home without ever

docking in Costa Rica.

SHARK FISHING

Puntarenas is Costa Ricas largest fishing

port and a centre for fin trading.A local

fisherman stated that the huge influx of

foreign fishing fleets had seriously impacted

local fisheries. He was one of a number of

fishermen who said that all blue sharks are

automatically finned and that all shark

bycatch caught on tuna longliners is finned.

Local fishermen have become

extremely frustrated by the number of

foreign vessels finning sharks. Interviews

with four of them revealed that:

Local fleets are having to go further outbecause the near shore waters are

depleted and local fishers are having to

spend more money on gasoline and

equipment;

Thirty years ago, their boats were fullafter two days: now the catch is verysmall, even after 15 days. Fishers believe

some species are virtually extinct in

local waters and they anticipate a local

collapse of shark stocks if trends

continue;

Depleted near-shore waters will result infishers targeting marine reserves such as

Cocos Island;

A Taiwanese businessman, who owns

numerous vessels in Puntarenas and exportslarge quantities of fins, reported that his

companys vessels target sharks for their fins

and can land a few tonnes of fins,minus

the carcasses, on each three-month trip.He

admitted that shark numbers are decreasing

in the waters around Costa Rica, but that

enough remain to make it worth while

staying on. Seventy percent of his catch is

described as black sharks while 20% are

blue sharks. He estimated that there are

around 200 Taiwanese vessels operating

from Costa Rica but only half of them are

based there permanently.The rest remain at

sea for long periods and go straight home

with their catch.

An official with the Costa Rican Coast

Guard stated that incidents such as the

30-tonne fin landing probably happened

regularly. He reported that, while nationalfleets sometimes fin sharks, their capacity is

limited. It is the international fleets,with

sophisticated technology and a large

carrying capacity, that engage in extensive

finning operations.

THE FIN TRADE

Numerous foreign-owned fin trading

companies operate in Puntarenas. Some

own fishing vessels and market their fins

internationally.Others simply collect fins

and sell to the larger companies for export.

One trader, who exports large quantities of

frozen fins, reported that his shark fins are

all pre-ordered by traders in east Asia.

Not all fins are exported directly to the

main markets, however.A dealer in

Indonesia told researchers that he had

recently purchased 20 tonnes of trans-

shipped fins from Costa Rica.

PRIVATE DOCKS

Despite laws forbidding the landing of

fishery products at private docks, all the

foreign-owned fishing vessels land their

catches at secure, barricaded docks.

Hidden from view, fishing vessels are

known to unload huge volumes of shark

fins, often late at night, with few or no

corresponding carcasses.

Following recent local concerns about

the lack of transparency about landings,

new legislation (16th July 2003) now

requires fishing vessels to undergo

inspection at nearby Caldera port beforeproceeding to their private docks.

However, there remain deep concerns

about the inspection procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Costa Rica, like many of the smallercountries that play host to foreign,

industrialised fishing fleets, is losing a

valuable resource to a relatively small

number of wealthy foreign business interests.

The ban on shark finning is not being

enforced in Costa Rica because of a lack of

resources and, it would seem,a lack of

political will.The high level political

relationship between Costa Rica and

Taiwan may also be compromising efforts

to enforce the finning ban.

The use of privately-owned docks in

Costa Rica facilitates illegal activity and

precludes both monitoring of fisheries and

law enforcement.The new laws may

address this problem, but fin traders the

world over are known for their ability to

remain one step ahead of the law.

Costa Ricas well-deserved reputation as

a prime eco-tourism destination indicates

that successive administrations have

recognised the immense value of the

tourism industry. However, if shark finningcontinues at current levels, its marine

ecosystem will be greatly impoverished and

a major attraction for tourists will be lost. 35

Top: Sacks of shark fins found on quayside

next to Taiwanese vessel Ho Tsai Fa No.18 in

Puntarenas, Costa Rica, July 2003.

Above: Taiwanese fishing vessel, Puntarenas,

Costa Rica

Pretoma

WildAid


9/16

9

A murky business

Over the past ten years a series of gangland

murders has been carried out by

individuals engaged in the shark fin trade,

highlighting the lengths to which some fintraders will go to ensure continuing profits.

FIJI

On August 25th 2003, it was reported that

Fiji police had enlisted the help of Interpol

in investigations into the gangland-style

killing of three Hong Kong nationals and a

Fijian.While the Fiji police would not

comment on a possible motive for the

attack, a report in Hong Kong's South

China Sunday Morning Post quoted police

in the Pacific nation as saying the crimewas connected to the shark-fin industry.

A police spokesman expressed fears

about the sophistication of the weapons

used in the murders36.

It was later reported that a Chinese

businessman was being questioned by the

police,who speculated that the incident

could have been the result of a business deal

gone wrong.It was reported that Asian

businessmen can buy shark fins for as little as

six Fiji (three US) dollars a kilo,whichfisheries officials say are then usually sold for

more than 20 US dollars a kilo. Police

suggested that rivals could have been fighting

for space in the lucrative fin trade sector37.

HAWAII

In April 2002, a Chinese cook accused of

stabbing to death the captain and first

mate aboard a Taiwanese fishing vessel was

brought to trial in Honolulu on charges

of mutiny on the high seas. Shi Lei was

accused of killing the two men during anargument aboard the Full Means II, while

the vessel was in international waters.The

first mates body was found in the ships

freezer; the captains body had been

thrown overboard.

The reason for the killings had not

been established at the time of the arrest

but human rights abuses at sea and the

practice of catching sharks and slicing off

their fins were cited in the press as being

connected to the case38

.In December 1999, shark fin dealer

Hung Van Huynh appeared in a Hawaii

court accused of hiring a hit man to

eliminate a rival in the shark fin business.

Huynh had control of the shark-fin

business at Pier 17 where fins could be

purchased from returning longliners when another dealer tried to move in on

his turf. Huynh offered a friend US$5,000

to shoot the man39.

SOUTH AFRICA

In the early 1990s the Endangered Species

Protection Unit of the South African Police

arrested a Taiwanese man, Michael Shen, for

possession of rhino horn40.

Shen later became involved in the shark

fin trade. In May 1994 Shen was kidnapped

and his body was later found in bushes, inan incident believed to have been connected

to his activities in the fin trade41.

In December 1996 two Taiwanese

businessmen Shin Yi and Li Ko Wei

office-bearers in a major shark fin

syndicate died in a hail of bullets at

Cape Town harbour41. This left the

syndicate vulnerable to a take-over by a

rival gang, so remaining members decided

to bring in a fixer from Taiwan, a man

named Cheng Cheng-Chi, alias WhiteMonkey, who already had a fearsome

reputation in Taiwan. It was believed that

he would be able to see off any rivals and

maintain total control of the trade41.

In May 1999 South African police were

given a tip-off about a gangland murder,

which led to the discovery of the bodies of

a Taiwanese businessman and his son, each

killed with a single shot to the head.

Liao Shing-Hsiung Hsiung and his son,

Liao Jen-wu, were the owners of the

Eternity Shipping and Chandling company42.

A Police spokesman said that they were

investigating a possible link between the

deaths and the lucrative trade in smuggling

shark fin and abalone from South Africa to

East Asia, adding that Chinese Triad gangs

had moved in force into what was previously

a local cottage industry42.Three years later,

White Monkey was arrested in Cape

Town for the murder of the Taiwanese father

and son, and was repatriated to Taiwan43.

In February 2001, the owner of a CapeTown shark-fin exporting business was

robbed of 7,000 Rand, plus shark fins

valued at 40,000 Rand, by four men

posing as shark fin salesmen.The owner

was bound hand and foot, while a worker

was stabbed in the arm and back by the

escaping robbers44.

In February 2003, a warrant was issued

for the arrest of a Chinese woman,Zhu

Jing,who went into hiding after witnessing

a murder connected to what the South

African press referred to as the Chinese

Mafia sharkfin war45.

A shootout at the Taiwan City Karaoke

Bar in Cape Town resulted in charges of

attempted murder and the illegal possession

of firearms and ammunition.One of theaccused,Su Chan Chun,was sentenced to

house arrest and was subsequently murdered

at his home,witnessed by Jing45.

Above: Fins drying at Cape Town Docks

McCoubrey/WildAid

There is quite a lot ofTaiwanese, Hong Kongand Chinese and Koreanfishing vessels that plyFiji waters and they bringin quite a lot of shark

fins . . . and they re-exportthem to China and HongKong at very lucrative

prices indeed.

Fiji Police spokesperson Mesake Koroi, speaking

about a gangland murder, August 2003.


10/16

10

A Case Study: Indonesia

Many of the 6,000 inhabited islands of

Indonesia are home to extensive shark

fishing and finning operations.There is

a handful of shark fin trading hotspots,where fins from surrounding islands are

collected for export to east Asia.There are

at least two starting-off points for illegal

incursions into Australian waters, where

sharks are routinely finned.

Indonesia is unusual in that there are

fin traders who process shark fins before

exporting them. Normally, traders in

Hong Kong and Taiwan prefer to import

whole dried or frozen fins and do the

processing themselves.

ROTE

Rote is a small island to the west of Timor

and is reputed (along with Kupang) to be

one of the main starting points for illegal

fishing incursions into Australian waters.

Papela is the largest fishing village on Rote,

where sharks are the main target catch and

shark fin is the main marine item traded from

the village.Papela has around 100 longline

boats that target sharks, sixty of which are

owned by one individual.He holds most ofthe fin stocks and can supply up to 300kg of

dried fins per month during the season from

his own boats and up to 500kg if he collects

from other traders.Most of the fins landed in

Rote are taken to Surabaya,which has a large

Chinese population and is one of the main

centres for fins.

Australias waters are a popular

destination for the fishermen, as they can be

reached in a day and a night and are

described as having plentiful shark stocks.

Initial investigations reveal that some, but by

no means all, sharks that are caught locally

are landed whole. However, reports from

Australia indicate that shark finning is

prevalent in the illegal fisheries operated by

Indonesian vessels and the Indonesian

fishers themselves admit to finning sharks

on these incursions.

Despite repeated arrests by the Australian

Coast Guard, and the subsequent

destruction of their fishing boats, fishermen

have later returned to Australia to catchsharks and insist that they will continue to

do so, since the penalties are light.A

fisherman who had been arrested twice in

Australia claimed that even those fishers

sentenced to prison terms were given a

small wage for working, and were allowed

to play football and attend English classes.

KUPANG

Kupang is a local fin collection centre, from

where fins are sent to Surabaya or Ujung

Pandang.Wooden longliner and seine boats

fish the waters around this area but they

also go further afield, to Australia.On a

good trip, each boat can land 100kg of

fins and one of the fin dealers reported

being able to supply between 500 and

1,000 kgs of fin per month.

BALI

Bali is a major fishing centre and home

port for many of the commercial fisheries

operating throughout eastern Indonesia.

Many of the boats are longliners, but there

are also extensive seine operations.The

main fisheries are for tuna, swordfish and

mahi-mahi and the Ministry of Fisheries in

Indonesia has recently issued new fishing

licenses to Taiwanese and Japanese

companies.These are believed by locals to

take huge quantities of fins.A Taiwanese

boat owner in Bali reported that sharks are

always finned on his fleet.

Indonesian law requires that even wholly

foreign-owned fishing boats must be given

Indonesian names and fly the Indonesian

flag, but a fin dealer in Bali reported thatthere were 200 Taiwanese-owned longliners

stationed there.An unknown number of

longliners in Bali are Japanese-owned.

Balis longline fleet is stationed at Tanjong

Benoa.A fisherman there admitted that shark

carcasses were all thrown away.Three fin

dealers claimed to be able to provide around

4-5 tonnes per month between them.One

dealer had 200-300 kgs of very large, frozen

fins and a further tonne of dried fin, some of

which was being processed on the spot. He

described them as being from oceanic white

tips, threshers, blacktips and blue sharks.His

fins are all sent through Surabaya.A visit to a

shark fin warehouse revealed that another

dealer,who exports directly to Singapore,

also processes fins on the premises.He had

3-4 tonnes of dried fins at the time.

It was reported in Bali that shark

cartilage is now increasingly in demand.

After fin removal, shark bodies are often

filleted and the cartilage removed.The rest

of the body is then thrown out.

Much of Balis fin trade is controlled by

Taiwanese interests and it is they who

control shark fin prices in Bali.There is a

local Taiwan Town in Bali, known as

Sesetan, where all the Taiwanese fishermen

and businessmen reside.However, Bali is

also home to a large number of

Singaporean Triad members.

Researchers were informed by a

Taiwanese dealer that traders could buy fins

directly from the very large companies.

However, if buying on a smaller scale, they

needed to buy from representatives of thepolice as did all of the Taiwanese and

Japanese companies.

The dealer also reported that, although

Left: A fishing harbour, Indonesia

WildAid


11/16

SHARK FINNING REGULATIONS

11

A CASE STUDY: INDONESIA

mainland China is the principal

destination for shark fins, local dealers

needed the assistance of Hong Kong

traders to get the fins to the mainland

market. Mainland Chinas tax laws on

shark fins are very stringent and only the

Hong Kong dealers know how to

smuggle fins into mainland China.

SURABAYA

One of the four main fin dealers in

Surabaya hires collectors to gather up fins

for him throughout Indonesia.He trades in

both processed and raw fins and produces

2-3 tonnes per month. He admitted that,

while some shark meat is retained and sold

as salted fish, sharks are finned extensively in

fisheries operating out of Surabaya.Another

Surabaya-based businessman told researchers

that supplies of shark fin were dwindling

and that he could now obtain only a

quarter of the volume of the fins available

several years ago.

CONCLUSIONS

Research in only a handful of fishing villages

and towns in Indonesia reveals that the fin

trade is highly lucrative, totally uncontrolled

and firmly in the hands of local and foreign

mafia-type organisations.Shark finning is

routine,both in Indonesian waters and onincursions into Australian waters.

Trade statistics reveal that, during 2000

and 2001,Hong Kong imported 1,400

tonnes of shark fins, (both with and

without cartilage) from Indonesia.

Singapore does not record shark fin imports

from Indonesia but a number of traders in

Indonesia have reported that they export

large quantities directly to Singapore.

Taiwans official statistics record

extremely small volumes of fin imports

from Indonesia which is initially surprising,

given the number of Taiwanese fin traders

in Indonesia.However, many of them

reported exporting their fins through Hong

Kong in order to reach the main market,

mainland China.This may explain the low

levels of recorded trade with Taiwan.

The geography of Indonesia and the

fact that shark fishing is unregulated

suggests that finning and trading in fins

will continue at high levels until shark

depletion makes it uneconomic.Indications are that fins are becoming

more difficult to obtain, but conditions

have not yet reached a critical point.35

A number of individual nations and

one region have enacted legislation

on shark finning:

BRAZIL: fins and carcasses may be

landed separately, provided that thefins weigh no more than 5% of the

whole weight of the body. It is illegal

to unload, trade, keep, process or

transport fins whose weight does not

conform to this ratio. Fins and

carcasses must be weighed upon

arrival at port and all fins must be

unloaded. It is illegal to keep on board

any shark fins from a previous trip.

COSTA RICA: sharks must be landed

with fins attached. Moves are underway

in Costa Rica to amend this law so that

fins may be landed separately within a

certain weight ratio but conservationists

are opposed to this.

ECUADOR: shark finning is totally

prohibited in the Ecuador.

OMAN: it is strictly forbidden to

throw any shark part or shark waste in

the sea or on the shore. It is also

prohibited to separate shark fins and

tails unless this is done according to

the conditions set by the competent

authority. No shark part may be

handled or marketed or exportedwithout a license from the competent

authority.

SOUTH AFRICA: sharks must be

landed with fins attached if they have

been caught in South Africas waters.

However, fins from sharks caught in

international waters may be landed

separately from carcasses. This presents

some enforcement difficulties, since

there is no way of knowing where the

sharks were caught.

THE USA: fins and carcasses may be

landed separately but the fins mustweigh no more than 5% of the

dressed weight of the shark, that is,

headless and gutted. In cases where the

5% ratio is inappropriate (presumably

where the species is exceptional), there

is a derogation allowing the

correspondence of fins to carcasses to

be measured in terms of the number of

fins per carcass, rather than weight.

THE EU: sharks should be landed

with fins attached, but masters of

vessels can apply for a special fishing

permit to allow on-board removal of

fins. In such cases, vessels may land fins

separately even at different ports

provided that the fins weigh no more

than 5% of the whole weight of the

shark. These regulations will be

reviewed in early 2005.MEXICO: a ban on shark finning is

under consideration. Current

discussions are centred on a possible

requirement that only whole sharks

should be landed.

AUSTRALIA States and Territories

are responsible for regulations

governing their own waters out

to three nautical miles offshore.

Central government deals with

Commonwealth (Federal) waters,

from three to 200 nautical miles

offshore.

New South Wales: since June 1999

the law requires that all sharks be

landed with fins attached, even when

the shark has been cut into portions.

All portions other than head, gills and

guts must remain on board until the

vessel berths.

Northern Territory: there is no ban

on finning, although a total ban on the

incidental take of sharks or shark

products in a range of commercial

fisheries will probably have had the effectof restricting finning to some extent.

Queensland: a finning ban came

into force in December 2002. No sharks

may be taken by the Trawl Fishery.

Possession of sharks in other fisheries

requires sharks to be divided in a

manner that allows an inspector to

count the number of sharks. It is

prohibited to take, possess or sell shark

fin unless authorised.

South Australia: no finning

legislation yet exists but they are under

consideration.Tasmania: shark finning was banned

in November 2001. All shark fins must be

landed with the corresponding body.

Western Australia: since October

2000, possession and landing of any

shark other than a whole shark has

been prohibited.

Victoria: in 1972, Victoria

introduced a requirement that sharks

be landed with all fins attached.

Commonwealth: finning is banned

in tuna longline fisheries, as well as in

all Commonwealth fisheries where

sharks are incidentally caught.

EXISTING SHARK FINNING REGULATIONS


12/16

SHARK FIN SEIZURES

12

The EU in denialThere is undoubtedly a great deal of

finning on board EU vessels, particularlythose of Spain. No EU Member State

has yet admitted that vessels flying its flag

are finning sharks but a simple

calculation reveals that the EUs exports

of shark fin to the major east Asian

centres cannot be accounted for by the

declared landings of shark in the EU.

A great deal of this discrepancy can be

attributed to Spanish vessels.

MAINLAND CHINA: Between 1995 and

2002 inclusive, EU Member States

exported a total of 6,542,835 kgs dried

shark fins to mainland China, of which

Spain's contribution was 6,254,936 kgs.

These weights appear in the category

0305.5920, Dried sharks fins,not smoked52.

HONG KONG: During the period

1997- 2001 inclusive, total EU exports to

Hong Kong in category 0305.5950, Shark

fins,with or without skin, with cartilage,

amounted to 1, 921,246 kgs, of which

Spains contribution was 1,865,236 kgs52.

During the period 1997-2001 inclusive,Spain was the only EU Member State to

export fins to Hong Kong in category

0305.5960, Shark fins, with or without

skin,without cartilage.The total exported

by Spain to Hong Kong was 801,604 kgs52.

SINGAPORE: According to

Singapores Trade Development Board, thetop two exporters to Singapore in 2001 of

prepared fins, ready for use,were the UK

and Spain, each exporting over 60,000 kgs

in that year.

After some months of denial that EU

vessels are engaged in finning, the EU

Fisheries Commission has finally reacted

to pressure by enacting finning regulations

that cover not only EU-registered vessels

fishing in EU waters but also those which

fish all over the world as part of an

extensive range of fishing agreements,

particularly with developing countries.

However, the scope of these new

regulations is severely restricted, giving

rise to serious doubt about their likely

effectiveness. Masters of vessels who wish

to continue removing sharks fins on

board may apply for a special fishing

permit to do so53.

Furthermore, fins and carcasses may be

landed and traded at different ports.The

sole stipulation is that Masters should enterinto their logbooks detailed records of the

volume of carcasses and fins landed and

sold at each port. In theory, officials at all

the ports of landing will weigh the carcasses

and fins to ensure that the fins weigh no

more than 5% of the whole weight of the

shark53. Even if accurate logbook records are

kept,which is highly doubtful, and even if

the fins and carcasses are weighed, this 5%

ratio will allow EU crews to fin two out ofevery three sharks that they catch, while still

appearing to abide by the rules (see section

on fin weight ratios).

Above: Basking shark fin on display in

Singapore

WildAid

NAMIBIAIn February 2003 Namibian Police

confiscated more than 800 boxes of

contraband cigarettes from two Chinese

nationals. Hidden with the cigaretteswere large quantities of shark fins and

65 kgs of abalone, reported to have

come from South Africa46.

THAILANDIn January 2002, a Taiwanese

fisherman was arrested in possession

of 42 shark fins. After a tip-off,

Phuket Marine Police arrested the

man as he moored his boat,

Jufusun, at Rassada Port.

The man, subsequently identified by

police as Chua Teng Juan, left the boat

carrying a large, white, bloodstained

bag. When police asked him to open it,

they found the shark fins47. Less than a

month later, another tip-off led to the

arrest of a second Taiwanese fisherman

in possession of 115 shark fins weighing

80 kilograms. Chern Whan Yee was charged

with avoiding customs duty48.

GUAMIn 2002, the U.S. Coast Guard conducting

a routine port patrol seized thousands of

pounds of shark fins from foreign fishing

companies operating at Guamscommercial port. The fins were stored in

containers at the port. In one container

alone, there were 4,400 pounds (c. two

metric tonnes) of fins. This seizure was

one of a series that has occurred since the

US shark finning regulations came into

force in 2000.

Although Guam does not itself have

any large-scale commercial fishing

companies, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan

and Indonesia are known to operate

commercial fishing vessels in the region49.

CHINAIn March 2001, three aquatic processing

workshops in Nanhai City, south China,

were discovered by Customs officials to

have smuggled a large quantity of shark

fins. The three companies were found to

have smuggled 2.3 tons of fins into

China and to have sold them on the

domestic market for a huge profit50.

The Chinese government has

imposed heavy tariffs on shark fins to

restrain imports. Fins may be imported

tax-free, but only on condition thatthey are then re-exported. Fins

imported into China for domestic sale

are subject to heavy tariffs.

The estimated value of the smuggled

fin was US$500,000, representing an

evasion of US$35,000 of tax 50.

SOUTH AFRICAIn July 2001, three containers of

illegal fish and fish products were

offloaded from a Taiwanese fishing

vessel and seized in Port Elizabeth,

South Africa. One of the containers

held four million Rands worth ofshark fins. In total there were 80

sacks, each weighing 100 kilograms,

filled with shark fins. The cargo was

falsely declared as comprising 80 tons

of Albacore or skipjack tuna51.

SHARK FIN SEIZURES


13/16

SHARK FIN TRADERS

13

Shark fin traders more denialPress conferences and workshops held in east

Asia to highlight the problem of shark

finning have occasionally been characterised

by a denial on the part of fin traders thatfinning even occurs.One such trader

claimed that film footage of a shark being

finned had been faked.

A brief glance at the profits being made

from the shark fin trade may help to explain

this apparent unwillingness to take

responsibility for current trends.

A recently-published report on the dried

seafood trade in Asia has revealed that one

trader,who considers himself a medium-sized

operator,had a turnover of $771,000 US per

month. Given a profit margin of between

10-15%, one of Hong Kongs largest dealers,

rumoured to have a turnover of $129 million

US per year, could be making an annual

profit of at least $12 million US54.

To say that shark fin traders have no

immediate economic incentive to conserve

sharks would seem a truism. However,while

many of them deny that supply is becoming

more problematic54, it seems clear that the

decline in shark stocks will soon have a

negative effect on the trade, if it has notdone so already.

Between 1996 and 2000, the shark fin

trade grew by more than five percent a year

in Hong Kong, while the 2001 figures show

significant decreases in both the Hong Kong

and the global trade volume54, which may be

a result of declining shark stocks.This may

not be of concern to those who have already

made many millions from the depletion of

the worlds shark stocks but it could signal

trouble for newcomers and smaller operators.

Above: Shark fins are often served whole in

order to prove that they are the real thing

WildAid

WildAid

In 2000, WildAid was informed that

the notorious Poon family had

become involved in the shark fin

trade in Hong Kong55. The Poons are

alleged to have been responsible

for smuggling vast quantities of

illegal ivory from Africa, through

the UAE and on to Hong Kong inthe 1980s56. One of the Poon

brothers, Tat Wah (George), is

reputed to be one of Hong Kongs

main fin dealers55. The fin trade is

conducted mainly in cash and

would-be dealers are required to

have large amounts of ready cash at

their disposal in order to enter the

fin trade. Poon, using the enormous

wealth he had amassed from the

slaughter of thousands of

elephants, was easily able to placehimself at the centre of the shark

fin business in Hong Kong55.

The ruthless nature of the illegal

international ivory trade and the

speed with which a handful of Hong

Kong ivory dealers managed to

decimate the elephant populations

of both Africa and Asia should serve

as an ominous warning of things to

come. Unless the global communityacts immediately to prevent it, Poon

and his like will continue to amass

their private fortunes at the

expense not only of the worlds

shark stocks but of the many

developing and developed countries

that are making a concerted effort

to conserve their shark stocks. These

efforts, as has been witnessed on

the African savannah and in the

forests of Asia, will inevitably be

undermined by the greed andselfishness of such individuals unless

action is taken now.

HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?

Above: George Poon

(taken from video)

Above: The Poons shark fin shop,

Hong Kong

EnvironmentalInvestigationAgency

Right: Dried shark

fins on sale in

Taiwan

WildAid


14/16

HOW TO BAN SHARK FINNING

14

WildAids recent research in the

consumer markets reveals that sharkfin is going down-market. Havinggained a reputation over centuries as

a symbol of wealth and success, soupand other products made from sharkfin are now becoming commonplace.

Singapore now boasts $8.99All-You-Can-Eat shark fin buffets59.

Japanese consumers can now buyshark fin bread, sweet shark fincookies, shark fin sushi, instant shark

fin noodles at US$4.20 per servingand, perhaps most alarming of all,shark fin cat food60.

In a restaurant in Quingdao on mainlandChina, a set menu consisting of abalone,

birds nest and shark fin soup wasadvertised at a cost of just US$2460.

Dried shark fin retailers in Quingdaoand Shanghai sell 12-gramme boxes

of fin fibre for US$6.5060.

Press reports from Singapore revealthat the economic recession hasprompted consumers to opt for

cheaper, mass produced shark fins61.

While it may be argued that this

development will reduce the mystiqueof shark fin and, thereby, its consumption,

it seems far more likely that it will simply

THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME

encourage consumers to believe thatthey can still buy into the symbolism of

shark fin but at a price affordable to all.

How to ban sharkfinningThe most effective requirement would be

for all sharks to be landed whole, with no

exceptions.This would not only simplify

enforcement and eliminate cheating but itwould also provide very good fisheries data,

since sharks with their fins attached are far

easier to identify by species. Of all the

countries known to have enacted finning

regulations,only Costa Rica requires whole

landings, along with some States and

Territories of Australia. Mexico looks set to

require whole shark landings but the

legislation is not yet in place.

Landing fins and carcasses separately

allows room for cheating and it also

hampers the collection of much-needed

data on shark catches.Most countries have

failed to monitor their shark catches at all,

let alone by species, despite the 1999 UN

FAOs International Plan of Action for

Sharks, which recommends that they do so.

Landing fins and carcasses separately makes

species identification difficult and, in some

cases, impossible.

Because of the highly migratory nature

of many shark species (particularly those

species which are most commonly finned,such as the blue shark), the best way to

ensure protection from finning for the

maximum number of sharks would be to

enact a ban on finning not only within the

waters of individual nations but on the high

seas as well.The efforts of many nations to

prohibit finning, particularly those in the

developing world whose resources are

limited, are being compromised by the fact

that sharks can still be finned on the high

seas and within the Exclusive Economic

Zones and coastal waters of many

individual nations.

Would a finningban protect sharks?It has been argued that a ban on shark

finning would be pointless because the

sharks, once caught in nets or on lines, will

die anyway, regardless of whether or not

they are finned.

However, data from the Hawaii-based

tuna and swordfish longline fleet showed

that 86% of sharks caught as bycatch were

still alive when they arrived on deck57.

Research carried out in Brazil showedthat, from a total of 508 sharks of different

species observed in longline fisheries, 88%

were still alive when they landed on deck58.

Taking into account some post-release

mortality resulting from stress or injury, it is

clear that a very large percentage of sharks

caught on longlines would survive if they

were not finned.

Above: Shark fin catfood, Japan

Above: A favourite for finning: blue shark

Michael Bjornbak

WildAid

In some countries where fins may

be landed separately fromcarcasses, shark landings data

have led to a requirement that

fins should weigh no more than

5% of the dressed weight of

the shark, that is, the body minus

the head and guts. Data from

Australia, Costa Rica and the USA

show that this is a reasonable

ratio, given that the weight of a

sharks fins across a wide range

of species rarely reaches, let

alone exceeds, 5% of thedressed weight .

A reasonable ratio of fins to whole

weight would be only 2-3%.

Sharks heads and, in particular,

their livers are very heavy in

proportion to the rest of their

carcasses, so this distinction is

critical. Regulations in place in the

EU and in Brazil, stipulating that

the weight of the fins should not

exceed 5% of the whole weight ofthe shark, are therefore

inadequate. They will allow millions

more sharks to be finned, while

crews will still be able to produce

the correct ratio of fins to

carcasses on the quayside.

HOW MUCH DOA SHARKS FINSWEIGH?


15/16

15

Conclusions and recommendations

ConclusionsWhile there are many factors influencing the

global decline in shark populations, there isno doubt that shark finning is a major and

entirely unnecessary contributor.The shark

fin trade has become so lucrative that the

practice of finning is now no longer

confined to sharks taken as bycatch. Sharks

are increasingly being caught for their fins

alone and,because the meat is of far lesser

value,the shark is often dumped at sea.

Shark finning is contrary to the

principles of the UN FAO Code of

Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (Article

7.2.2(g)) and to the guiding principles and

aims of the UN FAO International Plan for

the Conservation and Management of

Sharks (IPOA-Sharks).

Shark finning is also contrary to the spirit

of the preamble to the UN Law of the Sea,

which stresses the need for an equitable

international economic order which takes

into account the interests and needs of

mankind as a whole and, in particular, the

special interests and needs of developing

countries.The dumping of millions ofsharks at sea has resulted in significantly

decreased shark catches in many developing

countries. Fishers in eastern India and on

the east and west coasts of Africa have

reported serious declines in their catches,

dating back to the arrival of large, industrial

(and usually foreign) fishing vessels off their

coastlines. Many of these vessels breach

fishing agreements by operating well within

the area set aside for local fishers. Food

security among many coastal communities

in the developing world is being

compromised by the increasing demand for

shark fin soup, a symbol of luxury wealth

and generosity among east Asian

communities worldwide. It is a luxury that

sharks and those who depend upon them

for protein cannot afford.

Sharks are becoming increasingly

attractive to recreational divers,bringing

millions of dollars in foreign exchange to

countries in both the developed and

developing world.By contrast,while thetrade in shark fins has created a handful of

millionaires in Hong Kong and Taiwan as a

result of inflated profit margins, it has not

contributed in any meaningful way to

development in the poorer shark fishing

nations.In recent years, divers have reported

a perceptible decline in shark sightings in

many parts of the world and some have

reported seeing the sea-bed litteredwith

the carcasses of finned sharks.

Shark finning does not discriminate by

species or by age/size.While species and

stocks vary in abundance and distribution,

those of the greatest conservation concern

and least widespread distribution will

continue to be taken in diminishing

numbers as bycatch in fisheries for more

abundant fish species and,as a result, could

be driven to extremely low levels, if not to

extinction.

Shark finning precludes the collection of

the species-specific data that are urgentlyneeded if global shark landings are to be

monitored in any meaningful way.Without

such data, it will be impossible to implement

sustainable shark fisheries management as

required under various international

agreements.

Recent research using computer

modelling has shown that the removal of

sharks from their ecosystems could have

devastating and unpredictable consequences

for the abundance of commercially-

important fish stocks. Sharks, as apex

predators, regulate the abundance of other

fish and are therefore keystone species in the

health of our ocean ecosystems.The practice

of shark finning is capable of removing

entire stocks of sharks within a very short

space of time.

Many species of shark are highly

migratory by nature.They are a truly global

resource.The efforts of a growing number

of nations to enforce laws prohibiting shark

finning in their own waters are consistentlyundermined by the fact that sharks can

travel many thousands of kilometres into

waters where finning is legal.

RecommendationsMany steps need to be taken globally to

conserve sharks, including stock

assessments, research on landings and

species composition, bycatch reduction,

the imposition of strict catch quotas and

seasonal and area closures wherenecessary, as well as trade restrictions,

where appropriate, and improved

Customs data at species level. However,

action on shark finning cannot wait for

these steps to be taken. For some species

it may already be too late, but for many

others there is still time. Shark finning is

a global problem and only a concerted

international effort will bring about a

global solution.

In a world where growing human

populations are facing declining fish

stocks, throwing away 95% of a valuable

source of protein for the sake of an

unnecessary luxury is not, or should not

be, an option.

The United Nations General Assemblyshould vote to impose an immediate

prohibition on shark finning and the

trans-shipment of fins on the high seas.

Individual nations should enactdomestic legislation prohibiting shark

finning and trans-shipment within their

own jurisdictions and this legislation

must be rigorously enforced.

It is imperative that more countriesimplement the FAOs International Plan

of Action for Sharks. Countries in the

developing world with significant

shark fisheries should be given every

encouragement and funding where

needed to carry out research on their

shark fisheries as a first step towards

devising Plans of Action.

The IUCN Shark Specialist Group considers that sharkfinning threatens many shark stocks, the stability of

marine ecosystems, sustainable traditional fisheries,food security and socio-economically importantrecreational fisheries. SSG Finning Position Statement, May 2003


16/16

450 Pacific Avenue, Suite 201, San Francisco CA 94133

Tel 415- 834-3174 Fax 415- 834-1759

[email protected] www.wildaid.org

References

Reportsunconfirm

edatthetimeofgoi

ngto

presssaythatM.Br

unoSandras,Ministerofthe

EnvironmentinFrenc

hPolynesia,hasannou

nced

thatsharkfinningwi

llsoonbeprohibited

.In

future,sharkswillhav

etobelandedintact.

This

announcementissaid

toreflectagrowingc

oncern

intheregionthatsha

rkfinningisonthein

crease.

STOPPRESS

1. Collapse and conservation of sharkpopulations in the Northwest Atlantic, Julia.K Baum, Ransom A. Myers,Daniel G. Kehler,Boris Worm, Shelton J. Harley, Penny A.Doherty, Science,Vol.299,17th January2003

2. Heessen, H.J.L. (editor) 2003.Developmentof Elasmobranch Assessments. DELASS.European Commission DG Fish Study

Contract 99/055, Final Report, January 20033. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory

fish communities, Ransom A. Myers & BorisWorm,Nature Vol 423,15th May 2003

4. Report of the Consultation on theManagement of Fishing Capacity, SharkFisheries and Incidental Catch of Seabirdsin Longline Fisheries, Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations Rome,Italy, 26-30 October 1998

5. The End of the Line? WildAid 20016. Review of Shark Finning in Australian

Waters, Bureau of Rural Sciences forAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry-Australia, Nov. 2001.

7. Pers.comm. Dr Silvia Pinca, Marine ScienceProgram Coordinator, College of theMarshall Islands

8. Pers. Comm. Randall Arauz, Pretoma,Costa Rica

9. The Australian, 17th February 200310. The Australian, 30th December 200211. Northern Territory News,24th January 200312. ABC News, 6th February 200313. Northern Territory News,6th February 200314. ABC Regional News, 31st March 200315. Cairns Post, 15th May 2003

16. ABC News, 2nd May 200317. Australian Associated Press,14th May 200318. Adelaide Advertiser, 2nd June 200319. Northern Territory News, 2nd July, 200320. Australian Broadcasting Corporation,

21st August 200321. ABC News, 16th September 2003.22. Sunday Territorian, 17th September 2003.23. The Daily News,5th July 199724. Channelnews Asia, 6th October 200225. Pers.comm. Cecilia Falconi, Ecuador26. Pers.comm. Godfrey Merlen, Ecuador27. ENS, 19th June 200128. Charles Darwin Foundation, 20th July

2001 29. Reuters Limited, 13th September2003.

30. Lloyds Information Casualty Report, 26thAugust 2002

31. Pers. comm.Paul Ortiz,General Counsel forNOAA,and Dale Jones, Chief of Enforcementfor NOAA Fisheries to Marie Levine, SharkResearch Institute, 13th January 2003

32. BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific, 8th May2003

33. Pacific Daily News, 12th May 200334. Sunday Telegraph, 6th January 200235. WildAid shark fin trade report, in litt.

36. Agence France Presse, 25th August 200337. Agence France Presse, 26th August 200338. Associated Press Online, 10th April 200239. Star-Bulletin, Hawaii, 3rd December 199940. Under Fire: Elephants in the Front Line,

EIA 199241. Cape Dragons, Carte Blanche TV, South

Africa, 5th May 200242. Reuters, 21st May 199943. CNA, South Africa, undated 200244. SAPA, 23rd February 200145. SAPA 13th February 200346. The Namibian, 6th February 200347. The Nation, 17th January 200248. The Nation, 8th February 200249. Pacific Daily News, Hagatna,

16th August 200250. South China Morning Post, 27th March 2001

51. Dispatch Online, 5th July 200152. World Trade Atlas53. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1185/200354. Clarke, Shelley. Trade in Asian Dried

Seafood: Characterization, Estimation andImplications for Conservation. WCSWorking Paper No. 22, December 2002

55. Pers.comm. Taiwanese fin trader toWildAid, 2000

56. A System of Extinction, EnvironmentalInvestigation Agency 1989

57. Russell Dunn, M.M.A,Assistant Director,Ocean Wildlife Campaign, Washington, DC.Testimony before the House ofRepresentatives Subcommittee onFisheries Conservation, Wildlife andOceans, 21st October 1999

58.Amorim,A.F., Arfelli, C.A.,and Fagundes, L.1998. Pelagic elasmobranchs caught bylongliners off southern Brazil during 1974 97; an overview. Marine & FreshwaterResearch 49:621-32

59. Pers.comm.Tony Wu, Singapore60. WildAid internal report, March 200361. Lian He Zao Bao, Singapore,

9th February 2003

Shark Finning Report Wildaid

Documents

Transcript of Shark Finning Report Wildaid