PNA - free School Skipjack Fishery certified!

Totally unsustainable - purse seining around FADs.

Bravo PNA - again!
The Parties to the Nauru Agreement are the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu, and this confederation of Tuna fishing countries have long been trailblazers in trying to manage their fishery sustainably.
The MSC certification is a well deserved recognition of those efforts - and what is even more important, it looks like the market loves it!

Free school means FAD-free.
As last posted here, FADs and the so-called Dolphin safe Tuna fishery are an ecological catastrophe and this fishery is finally completely doing away with it - incidentally, very much in spite of the strong objections of ISSF and others that I would generally file under the usual shenanigans, as recently confirmed by the arbitrator.
Coupled with their advocacy against abusing Whale Sharks as FADs, the PNA are truly showing the way forward to many other much bigger and one would think, much more progressive and enlightened countries - much like the small Pacific countries that have enacted the Shark Sanctuaries.
Kudos!

And what about the certification of Fiji's Albacore fishery?
We shall see. I read

Principle 2: Measures are in place to limit bycatch (living creatures caught unintentionally, including other fish species and marine animals such as turtles and dolphins). This could mean changing how fish trimmings are discarded so that seabirds are not drawn towards hazardous fishing gear.

Sharks are certainly other fish species.
As I said, we shall see.

Is Fiji's Tuna Industry facing Extinction?

Canned Tuna. There's heaps upon heaps of it - but is it possibly too cheap?

I was frankly dismayed by this article.
No not about the fact that the Tuna Industry wants to keep exploiting Sharks - that I knew already.
I was dismayed because apparently, Fiji's Tuna Industry is facing total collapse.

If so, fishing for Sharks will not save it.
It would merely establish a second unsustainable fishery on top of an apparently nonviable one. The result would be that Shark stocks would be quickly exhausted with devastating effects for marine ecosystems including the Tuna, meaning that in only a few years we would end up with no Sharks, no Tuna and even less Fish.
That surely cannot be the solution!

But that's not really the topic here.
I've said it before, everybody here wants the Tuna Industry to survive.
This is a vital component of Fiji's economy and everybody, and this very much including government, should lend a helping hand in assuring that both the local Tuna fishing and Tuna processing sectors can survive in the long term and continue providing for employment and opportunities for many generations to come.
This obviously mandates that the Industry be sustainable but also profitable.

For that to happen, it appears that the fishery needs to be reformed.
I really ignore the details - but if it is really true that Fiji's Tuna Industry is in such dire straights like its spokesman asserts, then the likely reasons could be.

• That Tuna stocks are depleted.
  That is highly likely.
  You may want to re-read this post about the appalling shenanigans that happen within the WCPFC where outsiders like specifically Japan are stalling any efforts to curb quotas in line with the best scientific advice. This year specifically has been particularly depressing as previously reserved regions have been opened to allow the Philippines to further exploit the already ravaged stocks of Bigeyes,
  If those foreign powers continue to interfere and sabotage the attempts to safeguard those precious stocks, Fiji should do what is best for Fiji and set its own targets and rules, very much like the PNA have already done.
  In the end, there is only one long term solution, and that is to fish sustainably, and this very much also by defining the quotas in line with the precautionary principle.
  Interestingly, this is what Mr. Southwick himself appears to be advocating here!

and/or

• That there is Overcapacity.
  There are probably already too many boats fishing for too few Fish and if so, Fiji should reduce the number of fishing licenses that are being awarded and thus increase the profit margin for individual vessels.
  There, I'm principally thinking of the licenses awarded to foreign vessels.
  Their track record is unequivocal: they have already overfished their own stocks, have zero regard for our well being but will instead catch whatever they can get their hands on, and then sail on once our stocks are equally depleted, leaving Fiji to contend with the long-term consequences - or am I to believe that the price of the licenses contains a component for mitigation? I wish!
  I say, Fiji first! If the Asians want to eat Tuna caught in Fiji, let them buy Fijian Tuna caught by Fijian fishermen and exported by Fijian processing plants!
  Did I hear, and what happens to the development aid by those countries, namely Europe, Taiwan and the US to name but a few?
  If they want to assist us by paying for poverty alleviation and development, we are certainly grateful. But to link it to an unsustainable fishery that depletes our national resources and ultimately impoverishes the nation and its population cannot possibly be acceptable, not economically and not ethically - or am I missing something here?
  

and/or

• That the fishery is not profitable.
  If so and if all costs have already been slashed, then the price of Tuna must increase. Canned Tuna is probably too cheap and the time where it was viewed as some kind of junk food must come to an end.
  One smart strategy for convincing customers to pay more, is to have the fishery certified like once again the PNA have already achieved. That of course implies that the fishery is truly sustainable, meaning that bycatch and other ecological impacts will need to be reduced, as already required by, the current MSC environmental standard. Another group, the ISSF is asking its members not to work with vessels that fin Sharks
  In fact, the Fijian Albacore longline fishery is currently being assessed and my hope is that the Industry as a whole will decide to follow that route.
  I say, let's brand our Tuna.
  With Fiji Water having already paved the way and Government facilitating the process, let's establish Fiji Tuna as being Tuna that has been caught sustainably in pristine waters by happy, friendly and fairly compensated fishermen!
  

But the current unsustainable fishing for Sharks must stop.
At best, it is a short term stop-gap measure that is merely detracting from the need to urgently tackle the real issues at hand. But it is of course much more than that: if it continues unchecked, it will lead to the collapse of all fisheries - and this very much including the local fishery for Tuna!

And that's not something anybody can possibly want.
Correct?

The Consultation - Report!

These Sharks are worth millions - great pic by Andrej Narchuk.

Interesting article about the consultation.

My thoughts on the matter in general are here.
In brief

• The local fishing industry is a vital component of Fiji's economy and it is extremely important that it be protected and kept vibrant. The blanket criticism of the fishing sector is unbecoming.
  


• For the industry to survive, it must focus on sustainability which presently means that they should probably catch less. Full sustainability also mandates bycatch mitigation.
  


• They can however compensate for the loss in volume by having the fishery certified like that of the PNA, as consumers will pay a premium for sustainably caught fish.


• After the recent fiasco at the last WCPFC meeting, I'm incresingly of the opinion that we should follow the example of the PNA and stop allowing distant nations to interfere with the management of the Pacific fish stocks - hell, were it for me I would also stop giving fishing licenses to those foreign fleets and have those nations buy the Fiji-caught Tuna from the Fijian processing plants!


• Leave those Sharks alone. At current depletion rates, this is at best a short-term fad and will certainly not save the Tuna industry. Catching them is completely unsustainable and the depletion of Shark stocks has wide ranging and largely irreversible consequences for the fishing sector as a whole but also, for tourism and the nation's overall ecological and cultural integrity. Of interest, Mr. Lagibalavu is a representative of the Bêche-de-mer industry that is wreaking havoc on our coastal Sharks.


• I would certainly not oppose (read the link before you get angry!) an independently certified sustainable food fishery for Sharks - however only once stocks have recovered and only if fully sustainable.
  

Here's to Government doing the right thing real soon!

Tuna Wars in the Pacific!

Southern Bluefin - now revealed as being Critically Endangered!

I still don't quite know what happened at the WCPFC meeting.
Probably nothing to be too happy about, if this wail by Greenpeace is anything to go by.

But then again, that's just what Greenpeace do.
They have decided to take on the Tuna industry, have published at least one rather good overview and post a lot of videos, of which the following is a more moderate example whereas this one is an unmitigated messaging disaster.



The industry is not taking it laying down.
It has countered with it's own anti-Greenpeace website and with polished videos like this one.



Personally, I find all of this rather unbecoming and little goal oriented.
If one remained rational, both sides should be able to cooperate as they should be striving for the same outcome, i.e. long term sustainability. But such is the nature of those fights: fishermen over-fish and NGOs over-dramatize and I'll certainly leave it at that.

Luckily, we don't have to care all too much.
Ultimately, neither Greenpeace nor the for Tuna fishing industry have any say in this - those who take the decisions are the members of the WCPFC.
But here is the bad news: the membership is not being limited to the owners of the resource, i.e. the countries within the boundaries of the area covered by the convention but has instead been extended to the notorious resource pillagers like Europe (=Spain!!!), the US, Japan, Taiwan and China. Can somebody please explain why those countries are being allowed to arrogate themselves the right to decide about the resources that do not belong to them? Is that the dark side of development aid?
The bad news is also, that this particular convention (Art.20) mandates decisions by consensus or failing that, by a complicated 3/4 majority, meaning that positive change is painfully hard to come by and can always be blocked by one of those countries that are not members of the Pacific Islands Forum.
The good news? The member states are free to legislate further-reaching measures within their territories, and the PNA have done just that, and this very much in favor of sustainability, and are now calling the big fishing nations to task, as do the more forward thinking and pragmatic NGOs - alas probably in vain.

Long story short?
As always, it is terribly complicated and I'm sure that I'm missing the finer points. Where I am coming from in this particular debate is that I certainly advocate preserving the Pacific's vibrant and profitable commercial fishing industry as a vital contribution to the islands' economies, this however strictly under the following guidelines.

• the absolute need to focus on sustainability in order to preserve the industry for generations to come - and by this, I mean sustainability in the widest possible sense, very much taking into consideration issues like bycatch and other more general impacts on the ecosystem, etc
  
• the absolute requirement to apply the precautionary approach (Article 6) whenever there is a debate
• and like I said before, I believe that it is high time that the burden of proof be changed so that it would be the comparatively wealthy fishing industry having to invest the resources into science and monitoring and prove that what they do is sustainable, and not the cash-strapped authorities having to prove that it is not.
• And if I really, really had it my way: I would tell those foreign fleets to just fuck off and those countries, to buy their Tuna from the Pacific Islands who own them!
  

But most urgently, those destructive practices must go.
The FADs are an ecological disaster, and I strongly invite you to read David's posts here and here and educate yourselves about just how bad they are. Seriously, read them: talk about an emotional initiative by the Dolphin geeks gone horribly wrong! And the long lining industry could do much better by finally adopting the various options for bycatch mitigation as e.g. mandated by the MSC - and incidentally, catch more Tuna in the process!

And to end this on a positive note.
This is completely bycatch-free, stunningly filmed by my pal Richard Wollocombe.
Enjoy!



PS interesting article shedding some light on the negotiations here!
PS2 Pew synopsis, finally, here!
PS3 Tuna fishing ban lifted - remember?

Whale Sharks as FADs?

Remember this video about bycatch?

Well, it gets worse.
This is so sick that I first thought that it was some urban legend - but the more I look, the more it appears to be true.
How utterly disgusting!

From Australia's Proposal to the WCPFC.

Whale sharks and cetaceans are particularly vulnerable to being encircled by purse seine nets, due to the propensity of tuna to form schools around whale sharks and baleen whales, or for toothed cetaceans to be attracted to the same prey as tunas.

Observers have recorded that 3.2% of purse seine sets are intentionally set on cetaceans or whale sharks, while logsheets only record such targeting as 0.2%.
Observer data also demonstrate that all other set types can encircle whale sharks and cetaceans unintentionally, with 60% of observed whale shark interactions occurring in sets classified as ‘unassociated’ (i.e. as free schools of tuna) and 38% of toothed cetacean interactions occurring around anchored FADs.

The paper concludes that: “It is clear that purse seine sets on whale sharks are a combination of both targeted sets and inadvertent capture".

Kudos to the Parties to the Nauru Agreement, or PNA.
They have already banned the practice and are now proposing a ban for the whole region. Since this is a proposal coming from fellow Pacific islanders and not dictated from outside, prospects for its adoption look good - that is, IF AND WHEN there will be a WCPFC meeting! Apparently Palau is experiencing severe power outages and the December 5-9 meeting has been cancelled.

Here's what you can do.
In line with their recommendations last year, Pew have started a petition aimed at convincing the US delegation to support the setting ban. And here is a similar petition by Greenpeace. And if you are a Pacific islander and have the usual contacts - how about some 1:1 talanoa and education!
This needs to be stopped!

Pacific Islands - running out of Fish!

Forget the romantic past: THIS is a typical Pacific Islands fisherman. Source.

Did you see this?

The coral fishermen of Vanuatu are facing a growing crisis: they are increasingly returning from their fishing expeditions with ever dwindling hauls. 
That‘s because the coral reefs that they travel out to are disappearing at an alarming rate as are the fish stocks near the coast that have traditionally served as the staple diet for people in the region. It‘s a similar story in the other Pacific Islands too. 

A variety of factors are responsible for the phenomenon. 
In addition to environmental pollution, rising temperatures and a creeping acidity in the ocean‘s waters – both a consequence of climate change – have taken a huge toll on the reefs. In fact, the ocean’s chemical makeup has changed more now than it has in 55 million years. That has put incredible pressure on the region’s embattled coral reefs, which have seen their rich biodiversity diminish.

Right.

Once again, the culprit is Climate Change, i.e. "others".

Nothing to do with ever increasing populations and individual ecological footprints, and the unwillingness to tackle the issue.

Nothing to do with overfishing. Nothing to do with the fact that there there is a shift from pure subsistence fishing to small scale commercial fishing whereby individual fishermen are catching many more Fish compared to before. Nothing to do with the fact that starting with those outboard engines and nylon gill nets, small-scale fishing is becoming ever more sophisticated and effective. Nothing to do with the fact that those governments are not in the slightest managing those coastal fisheries, meaning that there are no quotas, no monitoring, no enforcement let alone any prosecution!

Solutions?

• Address population growth.
  That's the best strategy for both reducing poverty and progressing towards sustainability which is the only long term solution. Contrary to Climate Change where the effects are probably already locked in, those predicted 50% in population growth are by no means inevitable but can be steered with adequate policies, foremost of which national dialogue and education!

• Manage your coastal fisheries sustainably.
  With populations growing and coral cover receding, the old traditional rules where everybody could just go out and simply catch whatever they could do not apply anymore! Management needs to comprise both MPAs and temporary closures and also management at the species level, the latter especially when it comes to the larger predators that continue to be targeted disproportionately. What it also means is that some stocks must be allowed to recover, meaning maybe slightly less now in favor of much more later!

• Reduce pollution and protect critical habitat, like the nurseries.

• Reduce the licenses and quotas of those offshore foreign vessels.
  Those industrial purse seiners should be forbidden altogether, this in favor of smaller and less "efficient" vessels - remember that any Tuna that are not being caught now are gonna be worth much more next year! The idea of forcing those vessels to retain and sell their bycatch is actually not bad - but only provided that the bycatch is legit, meaning that one must implement, enforce and continuously improve bycatch mitigation measures and strictly monitor the fishery - see the shenanigans with the so-called Shark bycatch!

• Build local capacity.
  Increase the licensing fees and use that money to build local capacity, meaning vessels but also processing and exporting facilities - and then tell those foreigners to fuck off! Ideally, all Pacific Fish should be managed sustainably, caught and processed locally, and only then sold overseas - and that for a much higher price than now!

Yeah I know I know.

Not gonna happen anytime soon.

The coastal overfishing is likely to get even worse not better, this because habitats continue to be degraded and because there is a chronic lack of resources for the implementation of any meaningful management measures - and above all, because ultimately, nobody dares to mess with those perceived sacrosanct traditional indigenous rights, see the continued shenanigans by WESPAC!

And when it comes to the offshore fisheries, the dirty business continues unabated. Only glimmer of hope: the PNA - but even there the highly profitable Pacific solidarity is being undermined by the usual liars and cheats.

But then again, who knows.

What is required are good, honest leaders that care about the well being of their people, and have the vision and also the mettle to make decisions that may initially be unpopular but will yield tremendous dividends in the longer term.

Not likely - but not impossible, either!

Anybody come to mind?

WCPFC - fail!

Dirty business. Source. Click for detail.

Nothing good to report from the WCPFC meeting in Apia.

Once again, it has been business as usual.

The depleted Tuna are getting no reprieve despite of reasonable recommendations by Pew and the WWF.  And the dirty politics have continue unabated, with the distant water fleet nations Europe, China, the United States, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan once again refusing to enter into meaningful dialogue and effectively stalling any progress.

And  the Sharks?

There, the outcome has simply been ridiculous. 

Instead of tackling the huge problem of Shark bycatch on Tuna longlines by finally banning both those Shark lines and the use of wire leaders, it is now only forbidden to use them simultaneously.

WTF!

And now?

The leveraging of their development aid by those distant water fleet nations continues to be a huge problem - but slowly slowly, the Pacific nations are recognizing that they need to take matters in their own hands if they don't want to end up losing their most precious resource. The PNA continues to be at the forefront of Tuna management, and their Vessel Day Scheme is reputed to be highly efficient whilst also being highly lucrative. And to my great satisfaction, Fiji has signed the Tokelau Arrangement that will hopefully put the management of the more Southerly Tuna fisheries back into the hands of the real resource owners - and I may add, not a minute too late, read this very interesting report!

So, here's to progress.

Yes it is frustratingly slow - and whilst the parties continue to dither, Tuna stocks continue to decline. But at least there's the hope that one day, things will really start improving.

Fingers crossed!

WCPFC - Victory for Whale Sharks!

No more of this - one hopes! BUT the issue of "unintentional bycatch" remains unresolved!

Remember?

Looks like this time, Japan has been defeated.

Great kudos to the PNA!

Story here.
The other news are not good (check out the video!) as nothing positive has been decided and the overfishing will continue, largely because the WCPFC rules requires consensus, meaning that anybody with an agenda can boycott any decision.

Shelley!

Source.

Check this out!

Yes that would be she, the one and only!

We met serendipitously a few years ago - and lemme tell you, it has been quite a revelation! Turns out that Shelley is very much one of the good ones, very impressive both professionally and as a person, and I've become a huge fan. And if you haven't read her latest papers, click on the above link and do - and above all, learn, especially that operating with faulty numbers and under faulty assumptions is doomed to fail!

We've since kept in touch and I must say that I've learned a lot, something that is very much reflected in this blog where I've gradually transitioned towards a more holistic and pragmatic definition of conservation as trying to keep mortality below sustainable levels = we need to focus not on individuals but at the (local) population level and we need to consider all causes of mortality very much including habitat loss and in the case of Sharks, the overfishing of their prey, etc - and there the situation is dire indeed!

This dive has been in the planning for as long long time.

You truly only become a real friend once we've thrown you to our Sharks - but Shelley is incredibly busy so finding an adequate time has been challenging. But finally all stars did align as the WCPCF did hold its latest meeting here in Nadi, and she was able to slip down to Pac Harbour a day in advance - and throw her to the Sharks we did.

Despite of not having dived for 25 years, she not only survived but did so admirably - so here's to continued friendship and continued collaboration!

The WCPFC meeting btw was, again, shite.

It looks like ultimately, and contrary to the ICCAT that appears to have at least saved the Atlantic Tuna where stocks appear to be recovering (and btw Patric: you owe me a bottle of vintage Chateau Petrus!), those guys don't even care about properly managing their Tuna - so don't be surprised about zero progress for the Sharks that are treated like pests and at best a side show!

Anyway, this can't go on like that. 

Methinks in a few years the WCPFC will have lost all relevance: the North Pacific with its large tracts of international waters will become a free-for all where stocks will get hammered by the Asians; the Tropical Tuna will be more or less managed by the PNA; and the Southern Pacific Tuna, by the parties to the Tokelau Arrangement.

We shall see - but that's my prediction.

To be continued!

The Shark Show!

Tony de Brum with Ratu Manoa in Suva - source: Fiji Sun.

I'm still inspired by today's Shark show.

Wame did a brilliant job.
Personable and charming as always but above all, incredibly well prepared, he knew exactly where he was going and interviewed his guests with intelligent, informed and relevant questions. Jill of course was her usual stellar self in eloquently developing a coherent, pragmatic, science- and fact-based case for the need to protect Sharks.

But who really did blow me away was Senator Tony deBrum.
The words that come to mind are Leadership and Vision - and this not only because he has been one of the key architects of the Marshall Islands Shark Sanctuary, but also because he appears to be a key player within the impressive PNA, and because of many of his other initiatives and some of his more private statements.
Very, very impressive indeed!

But of course I'm once again digressing.
DeBrum is uniquely positioned in being able to describe the effects of a strict and highly enforced Sharks Sanctuary which in essence amount to higher revenues from fishing licenses, higher revenues from the sale of Tuna and an enforcement regimen that is already more than paying for itself. In brief, smart conservation can be good business, too!
He also convincingly explained why a full, rather than a partial ban is the most efficient and effective solution, and certainly the cheapest to enforce.

The discussion then focused on the situation in Fiji.
I spare you the details about the minutiae because really, they are ultimately irrelevant. It really matters not who exactly catches exactly how many Sharks where, and for which reasons, and whether they are true bycatch or targeted, whether they are finned or not, and whether they end up as Shark fin soup or steaks or stir fry or in the lovo.
What matters is the fact that Fiji is exporting a huge amount of Shark fins and that various observers are reporting a sharp decline in Shark numbers in the wild.

The take-away message is ultimately this.
If there is one thing that defines the Pacific Islanders as a people, it is the Ocean.
For centuries it has been their home, shaped their culture, provided for their food, determined their daily life and in modern times, it has been the principal driver for the establishment of a vibrant tourism industry in many Pacific island countries. It is not by coincidence that the region is called Oceania, and its people are truly People of the Sea.

And now that Ocean is under attack.
The principal hazards are Anthropogenic Climate Change and Ocean Acidification; Overfishing; Habitat Degradation; Pollution.
Many are not caused locally but are the direct consequence of the reckless behavior of the most developed nations, and of Asia - and there, all we can aspire for is some form of smart adaptation that is especially crucial for the smallest and less elevated island states.
But reducing our own contribution to Habitat Degradation and Pollution is certainly possible!

And we can certainly address Overfishing!
Much of it is perpetrated by the same more developed nations that having exhausted their own resources, are now attacking Oceania with their distant water fleets. And let there be no doubt that despite of their rhetoric and development aid, they simply do not care but will grab what they can and then move on to greener pastures, and leave us to confront the long-term consequences.
To witness, keep an eye on the Cooks where a large Chinese fishing conglomerate is already embarking on test fishing after having treated several key fisheries officials to lavish junkets to China!
And, we must even start to manage the small scale fisheries as populations continue to grow - whilst the fishing grounds do not!
Yes it is difficult and fraught with political considerations - but this is our ocean and the obligation to nurture and protect it is ours alone!

And the Sharks?
They are the one crucial element that keeps a balance in the Ocean.
Contrary to the bony Fishes, they are essentially a non-renewable resource that needs to be protected now, as long as stocks in Oceania are still in relatively good shape when compared to the catastrophic situation elsewhere.
We simply cannot afford to procrastinate because once they are gone, our Ocean will not be healthy anymore.

And without a healthy Ocean, the islands will lose everything.
Their beauty, their food supply, their tourism and ultimately their unique culture and way of life. Look around - in some places, this is already happening.
Think about it.

Anyway, great show with great people!
Wame - can you please have it posted to YouTube - if you do, this will be seen by millions and FBC will be famous all over the world - and you, too! :)

Managing and Protecting Sharks in the Central and Western Pacific - Report!

Read this - seriously, do!

Yes it's a bloody mess!

Shelley Clarke has analyzed the status of the current Shark management and conservation measures in the WCPFC and comes to the conclusion that essentially, the current framework is not working. 

There is a lack of specific and uniform objectives, there are no adequate stock assessments and research, the fishing data are highly questionable and sketchy, there are not nearly enough observers, overfishing continues, Shark mortality is not being reduced, finning is rampant, compliance, implementation, monitoring and enforcement are inadequate - in brief, it continues to essentially be a free-for-all and even where there is a willingness to do the right thing (which is certainly not a given everywhere), the managing authorities are hopelessly outmatched and any improvements under the present regime appear highly questionable.

As just one example, take the case of finning - remember?

Here's what the report states.

Finning rates are lower than they were prior to the effective date of the cornerstone measure but they do not appear to be continually decreasing.

Furthermore, finning continues at levels of ~15‐25% in the purse seine fishery and 30‐40% in the longline fishery. Although the reduced finning rates in the purse seine fishery are encouraging, most sharks in the purse seine fishery will already be dead when they reach the vessel, therefore this reduction in finning is likely to translate into only a very small increase in survival. 

Furthermore, according to catch estimates for 2010, the longline fishery catches over ten times as many of the key shark species as the purse seine fishery does (Lawson 2011), and therefore effects in the longline fishery will be considerably more important to shark populations. With the reduction in finning rates, it appears that the percentage of observed sharks that are released alive in the longline fishery has increased, but it is not known how many of these survive and the percentage of sharks with confirmed mortality remains above 72% in all but one year (2010). 
In summary, on the basis of existing information the expected benefit of the cornerstone measure to sharks in terms of increased survival appears negligible.

Starting with ICCAT in 2004, and followed by IATTC and IOTC in 2005, and CCSBT in 2008, all of the other tuna RFMOs have adopted a 5% fins‐to-carcass ratio as a means of controlling shark finning. Most of these measures have similar provisions relating to the mitigation of fishing impacts to sharks including waste minimization and encouraging live release.

Several problems have arisen with regard to interpretation of the 5% fins-to‐carcass ratio (Fowler and Séret 2010, Biery and Pauly 2012, Santana‐Garcon et al. 2012). 
First, while provision is made in the measures for the ratio to be reviewed and modified, it is now well‐understood that the actual ratio of fins‐to‐carcass weight will vary by species, the number of fins utilized from each shark, and the type of cut used to remove the fins from the carcass. Nevertheless, none of the ratios have been amended since the measures were adopted. Second, the measures do not make clear whether the ratio applies to fresh or dried fins, and to what form of the carcass (i.e. whole weight, dressed or partially dressed carcass) the fins are to be compared. These interpretation issues, along with the difficulties of weighing fins and carcasses in an enforcement setting, have led some countries to replace fins‐to‐carcass ratios with national requirements for fins to remain attached to the carcass until landing (IUCN SSG 2013).

Although similar measures have been discussed within tuna RFMO forums for several years, to date no tuna RFMO has adopted a fins‐attached policy.

See what I mean?

Finning is certainly one of the least controversial issues insofar as everybody agrees that in theory, it must go - but look at the mess they've made when implementing the ban!

And, it does not reduce Shark mortality anyway!

And what about Clarke's other recommendations?

Check out the WCPFC members and other parties to the treaty in the link above, and then, re-read this post. Many of those members are the very countries who have obliterated their own marine resources and whose distant water fleets are now pillaging the Fish stocks in the Pacific. They have zero interest in promoting any sustainability and continue to use dirty politics in order to block any positive developments as last seen in December. And if those folks cannot adequately manage the Tuna stocks despite of knowing what needs to be done - do you really think that anybody is going to bother investing their scarce resources into the management of Sharks that in the big scheme of things are merely an afterthought?

Only glimmer of hope: the PNA members that comprise several countries that have already enacted Shark sanctuaries and that continue to show those foreign fleets who is boss whilst raking in ever increasing revenues!

And that's only the beginning!

CITES 2 compliance, i.e. the implementation of all the necessary paperwork but above all, the onus of proving that Sharks are being managed sustainably is just around the corner! Think that any of those Pacific island countries that have not declared a sanctuary will be able to meet their obligations - the more as compliance is subject to public scrutiny?
Fiji?

Oh yes we're back to square one - read this post!

Clarke's recommendations are theoretically impeccable - but let me re-iterate that in practice, they will, if at all, take years to implement whilst the indiscriminate overfishing will continue. It's the old ways and by now everybody should agree that those have been weighed, tested and found wanting.

Right now, what works are those sanctuaries.
They are the new, elegant and practicable solution - not for eternity but as stop gap measures, until adequate management measures have been implemented. And the onus for making that happen lays squarely with the fishing industry and the trade: it is they who control their own behavior, it is they who know how and where they fish and what they catch and trade, its is they who make the profits - and it is they that can easily make the necessary changes and then fork out the money in order to prove that what they do is legit!

And what about us?

Screaming is easy - following through much more difficult and certainly way less glamorous.

So what's it gonna be?

A whole lotta noise for ultimately zero outcome like the occupy movement, or in the case of Sharks, quite possibly those Canadian and US fin bans - or should we maybe tone it down a bit and advocate smart, pragmatic and hopefully, effective and efficient policies instead? 

Maybe even start thinking outside of the box?

The choice, as always, is ours!