Micronesia Shark Sanctuary - Bycatch Retention?

Source.

I gotta be careful with this one.

So, first things first.

Huge congrats to Pew, the Micronesia Conservation Trust and a plethora of individuals and smaller orgs for having assisted the Congress of the Federated States of Micronesia, and President Mori in finally passing the "Shark Bill" that establishes the Micronesian Shark Sanctuary. Together with the sanctuaries in the Marshall Islands, Guam, the Marianas and Palau, this represents the largest area of shark protection in the world.

But this press release irritates me, and I cite.

Importantly, the new law also allows all types of by-catch, in addition to sharks, to be utilized in the future. This provision alone has the potential to help boost the economy, while at the same time create a new industry for the local production of livestock feed, which should cut down on the import of livestock feed and create job opportunities.

Really?

The announcement years ago stated that the sanctuary would make it illegal to fish for sharks and outlaw the trade in shark fins, this release states that the law includes the prohibition of possessing, handling and selling of shark and shark fin in all of FSM’s Exclusive Economic Zone, and the Shark Defenders educate us that a shark sanctuary is a national-level fishing regulation established through decree, legislation, or regulation amendment, which bans the commercial fishing of sharks throughout a country’s full exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

And the reality, i.e. the "Shark Bill"?

I've gone digging and have found it here.

I've read it more times than I care to count and I still cannot find any explicit Shark fishing and/or trading ban. Instead, the way I read it and assuming this is the entire, final document (is it?), it does not explicitly ban the fishing of Sharks (and if so, can this be called a sanctuary?) but only mandates that if any Shark is caught alive, it must be returned to the sea alive whereas dead Sharks may not be discarded but must be instead landed whole, thus outlawing finning. And if so, at least according to what I can see, any "legal" by-caught Shark and its parts including the fins can then be possessed and traded freely.

Or am I missing something here - maybe a subsequent regulation or the like?

Here's the good news.

By mandating that all Sharks be landed whole, it is assured that managers are able to assess Shark mortality and possibly enact better management measures; and the wire leader ban offers some degree of protection against incidental bycatch.

But is that "bycatch" really gonna be accidental = unwanted?

If the FSM establishes that livestock feed industry, it will require a regular supply of by-caught Sharks and Fishes - meaning that the fishermen will be incentivized to ensure that all Sharks are being caught dead, and to lie by claiming that all landed Sharks were caught dead even when they may have been caught alive.

Yes the wire leader ban offers some degree of protection - but this only in determined situations and with determined species, see e.g. here. Plus, there's those deadly purse seines and gill nets, there are those Shark lines, soaking times can be extended to make sure the Sharks drown - in brief, there is plenty of scope for shenanigans.

And to make things worse, there will now be legal and illegal Sharks and fins that look identical and that will make enforcement practically impossible.

Long story short?

Like I said, I gotta be careful as I may have misinterpreted the document, or there may be other provisions I ignore - but if this is like I unfortunately suspect, then matters are far from ideal and the legislation presents titanic challenges.

For this Bill to result in an effective reduction of Shark mortality, there would have to be a) an explicit ban on targeting Sharks, b) a fin trading ban, to remove the biggest economic temptation, c) further reaching bycatch mitigation measures and d) full observer coverage on all vessels in order to reduce cheating.
Regarding the latter, the reality is that whereas observer coverage in the purse seine fishery is good, that in the longline fishery is dismal, see here, with no significant improvement in sight.

I trust this is not simply a cold blooded exercise in BS - but still, this smells like somebody has taken his eyes off the ball whilst at the very last minute, some fisheries interests have smuggled in language that will effectively torpedo the whole exercise. With all the above caveats - this is not even a SINO, this is just simply not a sanctuary to begin with!

Not impressed, sorry.

Or am I missing something here?

Pew - Eyes on the Seas!

Source.

Great stuff!

Watch the following.

Posted specifically for the usual naysayers that continue to assert that those Shark Sanctuaries are nothing but bullshit as nobody is enforcing the regulations. I say, SINOs my ass - yes it's hard work, yes it's frustrating and expensive but slowly slowly, the noose on those poachers is tightening!

Details here and here.

And here is an article from Palau showing how a poacher was apprehended with this technology.

Well done Pew - I'm impressed!

 

Maldives Shark Sanctuary - Case Study!

Maldives Shark Sanctuary - only a SINO? Source.

Interesting!

Remember this 2013 report by TRAFFIC?

Back then I was wondering why the Maldives were listed as exporters of Shark products despite of their designation as a Shark Sanctuary.

Now, I understand.

Read this.

The Maldives had always been an important Shark fishing nation (an here) - and when they decreed the sanctuary by forbidding Shark fishing but failed to adequately ban the possession of Shark products, the fishing and the trade did continue, this mainly due to insufficient monitoring and enforcement but also lack of awareness and compensation of the fishermen.

There are obviously lessons to be learned here.

Nothing spectacular mind you - just that those things need to be meticulously planned, and that whoever advocates them needs to take on his share in facilitating their implementation.

Remember?

Give Shark Sanctuaries a Chance!

Source.

Wow!

First it was only Juerg.

Now,  the crème de la crème of Shark research has penned a response to that idiotic letter in Science. Please also re-read this.

Re-printed without permission.

Give Shark Sanctuaries a Chance

Several developing nations have established shark sanctuaries, most commonly in the form of a moratorium on both commercial shark fi shing and the export of shark products in Exclusive Economic Zones.

In her Letter “Shark sanctuaries: Substance or spin?” (21 December 2012, p. 1538), L. N. K. Davidson raises concerns that this ambitious strategy might be doomed to exist only on paper and could discourage investments in other types of shark fisheries management.

We agree that enforcement will determine whether these shark sanctuaries live up to their promise, as is true of any new management regime.

We disagree, however, with the argument that shark sanctuaries are more challenging to enforce or are less likely to be successful than typical fisheries management strategies, especially considering that even basic information such as fishery catch is often unknown and underestimated in developing countries.

Shark fisheries management is notoriously difficult and resource intensive, owing to the extreme vulnerability of sharks to overexploitation.

The countries that have successfully managed shark fisheries all possess substantial research, assessment, monitoring, and enforcement capacity devoted to fisheries management. Developing nations typically have much smaller fisheries management capacity; what they do have is national capacity to detect illicit trade of contraband items (i.e., police, maritime authority, port authority, and customs).

By making all shark products illegal, national authorities can work with their fisheries agencies to enforce the moratorium. Enforcing catch or size limits on shark fisheries is more complicated and will generally fall almost entirely under the purview of the fisheries agency on its own.

There is cause for optimism about the conservation potential of well-enforced shark sanctuaries nested within broader international management efforts.

Smaller-scale marine protected areas have been shown to benefit certain inshore shark species, while other species tend to return to certain areas on a regular basis. These studies suggest that large protected areas may benefit these populations and match biological and governance scales.

Well-enforced shark sanctuaries clearly have great potential for shark conservation, and we suggest that the international community and funding agencies should help those developing nations that pursue this approach to ensure that this promise is realized.

DEMIAN D. CHAPMAN,1,2* MICHAEL J. FRISK,1 DEBRA L. ABERCROMBIE,2 CARL SAFINA,1,3 SAMUEL H. GRUBER,4 ELIZABETH A. BABCOCK,4 KEVIN A. FELDHEIM,5 ELLEN K. PIKITCH, 1,2 CHRISTINE WARD-PAIGE, 6 BRENDAL DAVIS,6 STEVEN KESSEL, 7 MICHAEL HEITHAUS,8 BORIS WORM6

1School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA. 2Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA. 3Center for Communicating Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA. 4Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33149, USA. 5Pritzker Laboratory for Molecular Systematics and Evolution, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL 60605, USA. 6Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada. 7University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, N9B 3P4, Canada. 8Florida International University, North Miami, FL 33181, USA. 

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: demian.chapman@stonybrook.edu

Thank you thank you thank you!

Oh - and eagerly awaiting the next round of fencing Mr. P! :)

Enforcement of Shark Sanctuaries!

Check this out.

So much for those assumed SINOs.

Yes it may not appear to be much and is distinctly different from Ms Andersen's wet dreams of playing pirate on the high seas - but especially when flanked by solid prosecution and draconian fines, it does send around the message and trust me, would-be poachers hear it loud & clear!

More information here.

PS and one more successful bust here, with 1,200 to 1,500 Sharks presumed killed.
PS2 breathy post huh! :)

Shark Sanctuaries - public Comment!

Great to see that somebody is noticing!

Even better seeing a member of the scientific community voicing an opinion in public!

Juerg Brunnschweiler 

You say that there is no scientific evidence that shark sanctuaries are effective (other people say that there is no scientific evidence for global warming). This is simply not true. If increasing numbers of sharks are a measure of effectiveness, then have a look at what happens in Fiji, for example, the Shark Reef Marine Reserve (PLoS ONE 6: e16597). There are many other examples in the peer-reviewed literature which evidence that shark sanctuaries do much more than providing hope. 

And there are examples from terrestrial apex predators too. 
For example, numbers of tigers in certain wildlife sanctuaries have been reported to increase (see http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/scattered-tiger-populations-bu...). 

I of course agree that strict monitoring and enforcement are key and often disappointing. 
But by sniping against shark sanctuaries you play right into the hands of the fishing industry which has not the slightest interest in any kind of sanctuary for whatever species or group of species. At the end of the day it’s not the people who call for shark sanctuaries and have been establishing them who have to prove that they are effective. Had the fish management intelligentsia done their job and managed our fish stocks sustainably, there would be no need for conservationists to advocate sanctuaries and bans in the first place. So let the fishing industry and the traders fund the according research and let them come up with substantiated and detailed proposals via reputable third-party certifications - much like an ecological impact assessment.

 It's obviously about this shit.

Juerg is this dude - yes he's a close friend but as a researcher, he never takes sides but says it like he sees it. And he's right, I totally forgot to mention the many unequivocal findings from the various MPAs!

Vinaka - much appreciated!

Sanctuaries in Name Only?

No no no no!

Mark this day because for once, I do not at all agree with Patric!

Prescient my ass!

That letter is about as bad as it gets, and stupid to boot!

Of course Sanctuaries work!

Claiming otherwise is just plain stupid - and you sure don't need to go squandering resources for some big peer-reviewed paper to come to the conclusion that if Shark fishing is outlawed, an overriding portion of the fishermen will stop doing so!

Yes the stereotype of the ever-cheating fisherman is certainly grounded in experience - and still, that's undoubtedly the minority! The vast majority of the local fishers are law abiding citizens and will observe the new law once they have been made aware of the changes, promise!

And the foreigners, as in distant water fleets? That's more tricky, see below.

Which brings us straight to the enforcement.

No, it won't cost millions of dollars, and this is why.

What constitutes the "best" conservation strategy is always situation- and species specific.

Here we're talking about the pros and cons of Shark Sanctuaries, i.e. generally speaking places where  the commercial exploitation of Sharks  is banned - meaning that each and every landed or traded Shark or fin is illegal by definition, a fact that greatly simplifies enforcement when compared to management plans. 

We're also talking, at least until now, about small developing countries where everybody knows everybody, and where as a consequence, hiding one's activities, at least on land, is virtually impossible.

In a simplified way, we're usually dealing with two distinct fisheries.

A. Coastal fishery targeting coastal Sharks.

Obviously, one cannot monitor every coastal fisher.

But the good news is, we don't have to! What we want to tackle is the situation whereby coastal fishermen target Sharks commercially for their fins, thus catching many more than they would ever consume in a subsistence fishery.

Inevitably, those fins get sold to intermediaries who aggregate and often dry them, and then ship them to Asia. It is those fin traders that are the bottleneck in the supply chain and consequently, it is they who need to be targeted - which is easy and cheap as they are relatively few, everybody knows who they are and the activity all but impossible to hide.

And once the demand they represent has been eliminated, the fishermen will stop killing those surplus Sharks!

B. Offshore fishery targeting pelagic Sharks

That's quite a bit more tricky - but then again, maybe not so much.

Local vessels usually land their catch locally where it once again ends up with the fin dealers. Foreign distant water vessels on the other hand are inevitably declared to be Tuna vessels and operate on licenses - and at least here in the SoPac, this implies that they have to carry observers. Once one changes the mandate of those observers to not only monitor Tuna quotas but also prevent the retention of Sharks, much of that activity can be curtailed.

Will there be shenanigans?

Undoubtedly so, namely trans-shipment at sea and poaching, the latter especially in countries close to Asia like Palau where specialized poachers can dash in and back out - but overall, I am convinced that fishing and trading volumes will be greatly reduced compared to prior to the declaration of the Sanctuary!

In brief, by being smart, creative, efficient and effective, one can shut down or at least greatly limit Shark fishing and the fin trade with very little resources indeed! 

And this especially if the enforcement is backed by good prosecution and even more so, by draconian fines - see examples of legislation here, the example on page 14ff being the failed legislation for the Fiji Shark Sanctuary Decree which would have been the most exhaustive and stringent legislation at that time.
In fact this example from the Marshals shows that enforcement can even become financially self sustaining, and this on top of the financial benefits of good PR (= tourism) and a healthier ocean yielding more Fish! 

So no, these are not SINOs as numbers are undoubtedly down and enforcement is actually happening, and no there is no need to wait before declaring further sanctuaries!

And the alternative?

What about the properly designed, implemented, and enforced fisheries management plans that David advocates in this post that I encourage everybody to read?

In theory, I cannot but agree that this is by far the best long term solution.

In practice, however, it is just wishful thinking, at least when it comes to the developing word. It just aint gonna happen, at least not in the foreseeable future - and we just cannot afford to sit by idly and wait, hence the advocacy of sanctuaries and fin bans as stop gap measures!

The reason is obviously lack of resources.

Assuming that somebody could assist in designing them, David's perfect management plans would be extremely detailed and complicated, and because of that, the implementation and especially the monitoring and enforcement would become equally complicated and above all, extremely costly. As an example, a NPoA Sharks would have to encompass different rules for different species and possibly even regions and time frames. On top of being confusing for the fishermen, this would e.g. require the enforcers to differentiate between "legal" and "illegal" Sharks and fins, and this between species but often even within the same species (e.g. think region- or vessel-specific quotas) and opening up loopholes as big as barn doors. 

Developing nations just don't have the funds and the staff to do this, at least not properly, meaning that the enforcement would be woefully inadequate and that the management goals would not be reached. 

Fiji beware - but happy to be proven wrong!

And what about sustainable fishing, the ultimate goal?

At least for me, sanctuaries are merely stop gap measures aimed at preserving what needs preserving right now before it is too late. This means that I'm fully in favor of adding provisions whereby exemptions can be grated for the establishment of sustainable fisheries for Sharks.

But let me repeat: let the fishing industry and the traders fund the according research and let them come up with substantiated and detailed proposals via reputable third-party certifications - much like an ecological impact assessment!

Long story short?

Advocating both sanctuaries and sustainable fishing is not mutually exclusive - it is about finding the best solutions for determined situations at a determined time, and to be willing to accept change whenever adequate. Right now, sanctuaries and fin bans are far cheaper and easier to implement and thus far more efficient and effective, especially in the developing word - but long-term, sustainable fishing is by far the better solution.

So let's be more practical and less dogmatic shall we?  

Shark Sanctuaries: only Spin?

Polynesia Shark Sanctuary - the latest and biggest!

Oh for crying out loud!

Have a look at this shit.

Shark Sanctuaries: Substance or Spin? 

As Shark populations collapse and public concern rises, some national governments have established shark sanctuaries. 

These countries, such as Marshall Islands, Maldives, and Venezuela, have been touted to be “safeguarding” (1) and “protecting” (2) sharks. The Marshall Islands sanctuary was hailed as the “strongest legislation to protect sharks we have seen” (3). Fiji bucked the trend recently by deciding not to declare their national waters a sanctuary, thereby attracting press attention and criticism (4). 

This raises the question: What are shark sanctuaries, and does their creation result in effective shark conservation and management? 

Given that studies show shark populations are declining mainly as a result of overfishing (5, 6), no-take marine zones might seem like a logical and effective way to curb mortality and boost populations. However, what constitutes a sanctuary varies among countries, and often is not synonymous with no-take zones. For example, the Marshall Islands bans commercial fishing yet allows small-scale fishing of sharks (7). The Maldives has banned commercial fishing only in waters out to 12 nautical miles (8), and Venezuela has banned commercial shark fishing in less than 1% of their waters (9). 

Even with sufficiently protective bans, shark sanctuary creation is only the first step; the real challenge is ensuring effectiveness through strict monitoring and enforcement (10, 11), which requires sustainable financing. 

Indeed, Fiji’s offshore fisheries officer stressed difficulties with monitoring and enforcing a total ban on shark fishing (12). Alternatively, allocating capacity toward scientific data collection would allow experts to evaluate effectiveness of management measures and inform long-term regional and global population assessments. 

Shark sanctuaries provide hope, but there is no scientific evidence that they are effective—yet. Even worse, the positive press attention surrounding shark sanctuaries may preclude more effective conservation management. 

Sanctuaries should not substitute for rigorous, science-based management. 

LINDSAY N. K. DAVIDSON Earth to Ocean Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada. E-mail: ldavidso@sfu.ca

Even worse?????

Just great isn't it.

What a fucking disaster!

Local fisheries, of Sharks and otherwise, are at a fraction of 1960ies baselines, fisheries management in most developing countries is either non-existent  or severely lacking - and this stupid chit has the audacity to go sniping against Shark sanctuaries, playing right into the hands of the fishing industry?

What is this, the bloody uprising of the nerds?

Had the bloody fish management intelligentsia done their bloody job and bloody managed our fish stocks sustainably, there would be no bloody need for us conservationists to advocate sanctuaries and bans in the first place! 

How about you get off your fat arses, stop trying to cover up your own track record of dismal failures and for once go and do the job we all pay you for with our hard earned money! How about you come up with some results instead of wasting everybody's time with your stupid uhhming and aahing! How about no more expensive and useless committees and junkets, paper shuffling and procrastination but some actual field work, hard decisions and tangible progress instead! How about finally invoking the precautionary principle everybody agrees upon in theory but nobody has the guts to implement!

If I had it my way, each and everyone of you would have been kicked out of the door a long time ago - would have been real good fun to look at you trying to survive out there in the cold, with real timelines, deliverables and personal accountability!

Ain't gonna happen is it.

Instead, we the conservationists will continue to have to allocate our time and our resources to try and clean up the mess you have caused. 

Want us to start pointing fingers and calling names?

So here's the deal.

We're all sick and tired of the continued lack of support by some quarters within the scientific community. Either become part of the solution or at least have the grace to finally shut the f up and stop trying to derail the process you have been too stupid and/or lazy and/or corrupt and/or cowardly to implement in the first place!

And start bloody earning the money you keep asking us for!

.

End of rant - Merry Xmas!