Shark Fin and Sea Cucumber Trade - epic Paper!

Totally unsustainable marine products - proudly brought to you by the Heep Tung Hong Group!

Wow - busted again!

And by the same person!

But first.

Download the PdF in this temporary link before it goes back down - chop chop!

And then read it - and keep the PdF handy!

So there we have it.

After years of outright speculation, conflicting reports and breathy propaganda by both the Shark fin industry and conservation circles, Shelley Clarke has once again reached past all the bullshit, rummaged though the piles of data hoarded in Hong Kong and is finally presenting us with real, scientific and unbiased evidence.

In her own words, the situation boils down to this.

• Shark fin capture production has peaked, sea cucumber production is increasing.
• Sourcing networks for both products are dynamic and resilient to changing conditions.
• Conservation attention and regulatory environment differ between taxa.
• Conservation and anti-corruption campaigns may have dampened shark fin trade.
• Better tracking of traded quantities is necessary for management and conservation.

This is really as good as it gets.

On top of the above, it contains a wealth of other details and really is a must-read and must-keep - so if you haven't already, do download and do read it, the more as this time, I'm certainly not gonna paraphrase anything!

Anyway, I say bravo and thank you!

I really got the feeling that for the very first time, we are finally being shown the entire, highly nuanced picture, and this without any self serving agendas. And no I'm not gonna dwell on the bullshitters - you all know all-to-well who has asserted what and can certainly draw your own conclusions!

My personal take-away?

• Yes there have been reductions both in the trade and the consumption of Shark fins in Hong Kong and possibly also China, and this owing to a variety of factors among which the recent conservation successes but quite possibly also the fact that Shark populations continue to get depleted at unsustainable rates.
  In fact, anecdotal evidence from here in Fiji but also many other locations indicates that the price of Shark fins has fallen below a tipping point whereby it does not anymore make much commercial sense to target Sharks and then ship the fins to Asia - so bravo to the various anti-consumption advocates in Asia for a job well done!

• But looking at the evidence, it appears equally clear that Shark fishing in general and the Shark fin trade in particular ain't gonna go away anytime soon - meaning that on top of the traditional conservation work, we must also advocate full sustainability = better fisheries management in terms of quotas, monitoring, enforcement and prosecution.

• There, I strongly advocate to reverse the burden of proof for both the fishermen and the traders as it greatly helps enforcement - and I equally continue to advocate that exactly like we do for other Fishes from sustainably managed Salmon to pole-and-line-caught Skipjack to MSC-certified Lobsters from Mexico and Australia, we need to help develop a market for sustainably managed Shark (fins and meat and possibly even other products) as if it is successful, this will drive the industry towards sustainability.
  It's stuff I've advocated before, and you can re-read it e.g. here, with links.

But now to something I've so far totally neglected - my bad!

In order to achieve any meaningful results both in traditional conservation but also in fisheries management, we absolutely require better data!

Methinks those data already exist, namely with the fishermen but above all, with the comparatively few traders. 

The problem of course is that those folks continue to lie and obfuscate whenever they get a chance, meaning that most official statistics are way off due to underreporting and that only very rarely, people like Shelley get access to robust data sets and are able to report more accurately about what is really going on.

With that in mind, fisheries legislation especially at the level of licensing should include strong wording mandating detailed and meticulous reporting to the management authorities and stiff penalties for non-adherence. This must also include mandatory reporting of bycatch, including whether the animals were released alive or discarded dead.

And what about those sanctuaries? 

Yes despite of the continued sniping by some quarters, I remain convinced that they work in that they greatly reduce Shark mortality as targeted fishing and the trade are forbidden and poachers are increasingly being apprehended - but let's be clear that even with those measures in place, there's still a ton of Sharks being killed!

For one, some sanctuaries contain exemptions for subsistence fishing that is by no means irrelevant, the more as I cannot discern any bag limits that would at least somewhat contain the damage.

And then there's the mortality of all that bycatch, and of that exempted catch-and-release game fishing. Many, many Sharks die on those lines, purse seines and coastal gillnets; and even assuming  that the fishermen want to release them alive (and the majority of commercial fishermen do not as handling feisty Sharks on deck is dangerous), many die before they reach the vessel and whilst they are being handled, and many more die post release.

And as far as I know, the current sanctuary legislation contains no wording about the need to collect data on that mortality. This must change in line with the preceding paragraph about fisheries legislation, as this incidental mortality is certainly significant and needs to be known in order to ascertain the ultimate success of the sanctuary legislation but also, in order to enact better mitigation measures.

So there you have it.

At the risk of repeating myself, this is excellent and required reading.

And as an aside, it's also really interesting to find a comparison between the Shark fin trade and that for Sea Cucumbers. Like I said, here in Fiji and in the SoPac in general, the Sea Cucumber traders have diversified into Shark fins and are very much the driver of the current unsustainable slaughter of our coastal Sharks.

Well done!

Sustainable Shark Fisheries in lesser developed Countries?

Devastating - unsustainable small-scale Shark fishing. Source.

So there.

Remember this post?

Back then, it did earn me plenty of flak from the movement - but times have moved on and the concept of sustainable fishing of some (!) species of Sharks is apparently becoming more accepted, to the point that I was very happy to read this really quite excellent post on the Ocean Campus website.

I could not agree more when I read that

... countries are beginning to put measures in place to increase the sustainability of their shark fisheries, and research is constantly being done to further their efficiency. 
In my opinion, it is the development of these biologically based, best practices, concerning reproductive traits and ecology of shark species which hold the greatest potential in minimising shark stock collapses and population declines. Fragmenting the conservation effort by targeting single practices (such as implementing shark finning bans) can obstruct the development of more effective shark management tools.

But of course, there is a big BUT!

From the paper.

Abstract.
(...)
PERMANOVA analysis showed that over-exploited and depleted fisheries employed different sets of measures than fisheries with healthier stocks, and a non-metric multidimensional scaling ordination illustrated that a broad set of regulatory measures typified sustainable fisheries.
SIMPER and regression tree analyses identified that the dissimilarity was most related to enforcement capacity, number of species harvested, fleet (vessel) controls, limited entry controls and rotational closures.

The national Human Development Index was significantly lower in countries with over-exploited and depleted fisheries.
Where possible, managers should limit the number of fishers and vessel size and establish short lists of permissible commercial species in multispecies fisheries. Our findings emphasize an imperative to support the enforcement capacity in low-income countries, in which risk of biodiversity loss is exceptionally high. Solutions for greater resilience of XYZ stocks must be embedded within those for poverty reduction and alternative livelihood options.

Trends in sustainability and exploitation
(...)
Management measures
Enforcement (and compliance) capacity varied greatly among fisheries and tended to be weak in tropical fisheries in low-income countries.(...)
The PERMANOVA contrasts showed that, in terms of variables potentially controllable by the fishery manager, under-exploited, moderately exploited and fully exploited fisheries were similar, but differed significantly from management variables employed in over-exploited and depleted fisheries. The subsequent SIMPER analysis identified that enforcement capacity was the management tool most strongly related to the dissimilarity between unsustainable and sustainable fisheries.
Nonetheless, other management variables were also important and contributed only slightly less to the dissimilarity than enforcement capacity. Specifically, the other management measures important in the majority of difference between sustainable and unsustainable fisheries (in descending order of importance) were the following:

1. fleet (vessel) controls,
2. limited entry controls, 
3. rotational harvest closures, 
4. the total number of species harvested by fishers, 
5. licensing and reporting requirements, and 
6. the number of regulatory measures used by the manager

Discussion

We aimed to relate management measures to sustainability of XYZ fisheries, and our analyses indicate that resilience of social-ecological systems (SESs) of XYZ fisheries will come from strengthening enforcement capacity, allowing only a small number of species to be harvested, applying input controls, reducing the number of fishers per unit of fishing ground and improving the socio-economic state of human communities. (...)
Stocks of commercially valuable species have been depleted at a comparably fast rate over much of their distribution. Many XYZ species face a high risk of extinction through overfishing coupled with inherent biological and ecological vulnerability. Apart from an unlikely reduction in demand from Chinese consumers, we believe that sustainability and resilience of troubled XYZ fisheries will only come from the adoption of radically different approaches to management.

Enforcement drives sustainability 
While marine reserves, international trade agreements and stock assessments may be important tools for sustaining XYZ stocks, our analysis highlights the importance of enforcement capacity in fisheries sustainability.
Indeed, many fisheries struggle with deterring fishers from illegal activities by compliance measures or strict penalties. The SIMPER and RT analyses both indicated that depleted and over-exploited XYZ fisheries predominantly had weak enforcement capacity. Thus, fine-tuning management regulations or developing complex management plans are less likely to succeed in protecting minimum viable populations of XYZ than investment in compliance and enforcement. (...)  

Conclusions

Stocks of commercially valuable species have been depleted at a comparably fast rate over much of their distribution.
Many XYZ species face a high risk of extinction through overfishing coupled with inherent biological and ecological vulnerability. Apart from an unlikely reduction in demand from Chinese consumers, we believe that sustainability and resilience of troubled XYZ fisheries will only come from the adoption of radically different approaches to management.
Recent assertions about improved management of XYZ fisheries have centred on regulatory measures and management actions, marine reserves and international regulations, research, monitoring and harvest strategies.
Our findings reveal that a new paradigm is needed for managing XYZ fisheries; one in which resources are shifted from the development of complex management plans to enforcement and compliance of simple sets of regulations and to tackling the socio-economic challenges of coastal fishers that transcend fisheries. 

The best devised management plans will fail if disincentives to illegal fishing activities are not strong enough and/or if underlying poverty of fishers is not improved. We also conclude that multiple management measures are needed in XYZ fisheries but not so many that they cannot be easily understood and enforced.
In addition to compliance and enforcement, the key regulatory measures appeared to be the following:

1. a small list of permissible species for exploitation, 
2. fleet controls, especially on the size of boats in the fishery, 
3. limited entry controls to restrict the number of fishers, and 
4. licensing and reporting requirements.

Evidence of slow growth, low natural mortality and high longevity in some species underscores the need for more conservative management strategies than in the past and cautions the use of conventional fisheries science underpinned by estimations of maximum sustainable yield.  
The great variation in the scale of fishing activities, management systems and technical capacities of management bodies means that multiple, country or region-specific solutions will be needed to redress the shortcomings in collapsed fisheries.

Operationalizing an ecosystem approach to fisheries management (sensu Garcia et al. 2003) requires a greater involvement of stakeholders, consideration of alternative management systems and a higher priority of social science in management institutions.
Resilience in XYZ fisheries will come about only if fishers are part of the management system and can adapt quickly to changes in the resource. In the vast majority of global fisheries, regulations towards sustainability are commonly undermined by political pressures (Mora et al. 2009).

Transformation of the management paradigms currently undermining XYZ stocks, therefore, inevitably needs to be supported by decision-makers resolutely if these animals are to remain valuable to the livelihoods of coastal peoples and provide the eco-services that contribute to healthy marine ecosystems. 

There you have it.

The poorer the countries, the more depleted the stocks.

And if we want to establish sustainable fisheries, we have to develop simple, often country-specific management tools, we have to involve the stakeholders - but we also have to tackle poverty and above all, we have to boost compliance and enforcement.

Chances of the latter eventuating anytime soon?

The paper - have you divined the species XYZ?

It's not at all about Sharks - it is about Sea Cucumbers!

Thing is, when it comes to lesser developed countries in the tropics, I can find plenty of literature about large-scale, industrialized commercial fisheries for pelagic Sharks but nothing about those small-scale artisanal fisheries that are wreaking havoc on the coastal species.

The Sea Cucumber paper is an excellent proxy not only because it sheds a light on those coastal fisheries but also because in places like Fiji, the Sea Cucumber traders are increasingly promoting Shark fins as a high-value alternative for those depleted and ever more rare Sea Cucumbers. Both fisheries supply the same essentially Asian consumer markets, involve the same people and socio-economic issues, and follow the general trend whereby they are equally often not, or badly managed and unsustainable (e.g here), and exploit the same lack of resources (and often lack of determination and/or corruption) and resulting insufficient to nonexistent enforcement by the local authorities.

Solutions?

It's same old same old.

• Legislate Shark Sanctuaries as stop-gap measures.


• Where possible, create alternative livelihoods e.g via tourism or aquaculture.


• Eventually and where adequate, establish science-based and sustainably managed fisheries, however with much smarter, and way cheaper monitoring and enforcement.
  In the case of those small-scale commercial fisheries, monitoring every single fisherman and landing site is mission impossible - the good news being that the bottleneck are the fin traders that are both driving the fisheries and aggregating, processing and exporting the fins. They are relatively few, easy to identify and easy to monitor. Reverse the burden of proof and let them prove that the trade is sustainable and legal, and make it a condition of their license to provide the data required for management.

There you have it - not easy but not impossible, either.

Or am I missing something here?

 

Sustainable Shark Fins - encore!

Indeed!

Hah!

I totally missed this when it came out.
Please do take the time to watch it.

And now, read this op-ed by KT Tan.

Same old same old - remember this post? 

There you will also find links to excellent answers by Shark Savers to those allegations. In essence, KT's arguments once again detract from the fact that the majority of the fins originate from completely unregulated, unsustainable and often illegal fisheries.

So no need for me to dwell on a rebuttal.

But of course there's also a big kernel of truth!

It is certainly completely wrong to engage in unilateral Asia bashing. 

And from a conservation point of view, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to ban the fins of (already dead) Sharks that have been fished sustainably, let alone been certified - the more since if you watch the interview with the Singaporean fin trader at the end, there already appears to be a trade in sustainably sourced fins.

So, it's back to square one isn't it.

The various campaigns to curb the demand for Shark fin soup are laudable, and the successes are impressive - nice synopsis with excellent comments by Sam here. But like she correctly remarks, Sharks continue to be targeted for other reasons, and bycatch rates plus IUU remain a grave concern.

Solutions - and I am of course repeating myself!

• Depending on local circumstances (!), let's stop fighting for absolute bans and instead advocate full sustainability - which before you start getting agitated  does of course imply finning bans!

But to facilitate the monitoring and the enforcement, this is what we should ask for

• That anybody wanting to pursue any Shark fishing activity come up with independent proof that what he does is fully sustainable

• That anybody trading in Sharks and Shark parts come up with independent proof that his merchandise originates from sustainable and legal fisheries and has been obtained by legal means

As long as that proof is not forthcoming, the pressure on the industry should be kept up.

But once the industry shows a willingness to reform,

• Let us help establish and grow a premium market for certified Shark fins from sustainably managed Shark fisheries!

I know - not what the breathy sharktivists want to hear.

But it is the right thing to do. Like I said, you may oppose it and and then find yourselves trying to catch up later - or you can embrace it and be at the forefront of smart pragmatic conservation.

The choice is yours.

Great Post by Gary!

Source.

Well said!

But first, watch this.

And here are Gary Stoke's comments.

They very much echo what I posted quite a while ago - this with the difference that back then, I was highly skeptical of the various grassroots initiatives in Asia, and could not have foreseen the effects of the Chinese crackdown on corruption. Now I stand partly corrected - although upon seeing that enormous amount of fins it appears clear that the fin trade may be reeling but is not about to simply vanish anytime soon. And of course the other drivers for the persistent astounding Shark mortality continue, meaning that the fight is far from over.

But I'm digressing as always.

All I really wanted to say is bravo Gary!

Is the Tide turning? Maybe!

Remember?

Compared to then, things are certainly looking up.

The principal reason appears to be China's fight against corruption that along with the initiatives by those Asian activists is having a notable effect on consumption and also on prices. The latter is particularly welcome because if the Shark fin trade becomes less profitable, it may ultimately lead to less targeted Shark fishing, especially in those more distant nations where the cost of shipping the fins to Asia may eventually become prohibitive.

Good synopsis of recent developments here.

But of course the fight is far from over.

Even assuming a massive and permanent reduction of the Asian demand for Shark fins, Sharks are being targeted for the chemical industry and increasingly, for food - the latter as a consequence of the continued population growth but particularly, of the fact that many Fishes that were considered vastly preferable have been largely fished away. Remember the examples from Mexico or Mozambique, and the excellent Shiver - and far from being the exception, this is happening everywhere in the developing word all the way to the SoPac and more recently, Fiji!

Those problems are not going to be solved by a focus on Asia alone.

They will only be solved by developing, legislating and more importantly, implementing good, smart fisheries management plans that focus on sustainability, this preferably following the establishment of Shark sanctuaries as stop gap measures to allow for the fact that right now, many of those countries simply lack the resources for implementation.

May I be repeating myself?

You betcha - but when I discover shit like this (pressing global, regional and national issues my ass - shame on you Avaaz!), it becomes pathetically obvious that much more repetition is needed!

But I'm digressing as always.

Much has been achieved, so kudos to everybody involved.

And there's much more work to do!

Shark Fin Bans - Debate!

This is frustrating.

And I cite.

Those who are against ALL commercial fishing for sharks, managed or not, sustainable or not, should come out and say it, and not hide behind a feel-good but flawed position that pulls at the heartstrings of the public whilst misleading them into thinking that finning is rampant off US shores. 
It is not! 

What we should be doing is the more difficult work of telling the truth and acting wisely on it.
In my view the US should focus domestic policy on:

1. prohibiting the import of fins from countries without any finning laws and sustainable approaches to shark fisheries management
2. bolstering domestic penalties for finning violations to eliminate the last vestiges of the practice here and
3. promoting full utilization in our domestic fisheries that are managed for sustainability

Hear hear!

I totally agree with the first paragraph - but not necessarily with the conclusions!

So there, for the umpteenth time...

• NOAA's approach is deeply flawed.
  
  Those fishermen are not fishing their own ocean, they are fishing the commons.
  Those Sharks don't belong to them or to NOAA, they belong to the public i.e. YOU - to whom NOAA is fully accountable!
  
  And the public has clearly expressed its will, and this not only by democratically enacting those Shark fin bans, but also by submitting thousands upon thousands of comments that have overwhelmingly demanded that those fin bans be respected.
  Unless the Legislative or the Judiciary decide otherwise, the NOAA bureaucrats have absolutely no business in changing existing laws - the more as there is clear evidence that this shit is merely happening at the behest of the special interests within WESPAC.
  
  NOAA needs to back off - or as a minimum and only if decreed by the competent authorities, they must engage in dialogue and come up with equitable compromises, something they have so far egregiously failed to do.

• The mainland state fin bans are equally flawed.
  
  It makes no sense whatsoever -not ethically, not commercially and not in terms of conservation- to prohibit the retention of the fins of US Sharks that have been caught (and have already been killed!) perfectly legally - on the contrary, those bans of legally caught US fins merely unjustly target and punish domestic fishermen which is totally unfair.
  But at the same time, there have to be safeguards against the establishment of targeted fin fisheries for species that nobody wants to utilize otherwise, like Blues and Hammers, e.g by mandating (and not only promoting) the full utilization of those Sharks. Definitions aside, landing whole Sharks but then only retaining the fins whilst discarding the carcasses is exactly as wasteful and reprehensible as finning.
  
  If like the proponents declare, the aim of those bans is principally to curtail the import, transshipment, trade and consumption of suspect fins from other fisheries, then there should be exemptions for legal US fins and any other fins from verified sustainable and legal sources.
  The onus to prove that any Shark fins originate from sustainably managed fisheries and have been obtained by ethical and legal means should however reside squarely with who possesses them.
  
  But if the real aim of the bans is to curtail or forbid domestic shark fishing, then one needs to be honest, declare one's intentions and then openly work towards achieving those aims!

• The fin bans in those Shark Sanctuaries are a different matter altogether.
  
  Those states and territories have decided to forbid any Shark fishing, and the bans are principally an efficient and effective way to ensure compliance.
  Re-read this!

Long story short?
There are solutions that protect Sharks to the extent where they need protecting whilst at the same time safeguarding the legitimate interests of honest fishermen - so how about more cooperation and compromise, and this from both sides, instead of the current unproductive confrontation!

Or am I missing something here?

Shark Savers - full Force ahead!

Video here.

Remember this post?

Anathema!

I did raise a few (and uncharacteristically mild!) questions about some statements by Shark activists in Asia, and all hell broke lose!
I spare you the gory details - suffice to say that it earned me an earful by fellow Shark conservationists and some of my good friends. And then I had to patiently endure another helping of abuse about David when he penned his article in Scientific American!

Lemme quickly repeat where I stand on the thorny topic of public debates among conservationists.

This is when somebody will inevitably start shouting, how dare you attack fellow conservationists, and invoke global peace and harmony and-so-on and-so-forth.

I ... believe that like in science, progress in conservation is achieved via dialogue but also, via robust debate where opinions may get heated but where everybody who is legit accepts that those are just the rules of the game – and where those who do not are simply not scientists and conservationists but posers and bullshitters!

In brief, where I’m coming from is that whereas it is great that Shark conservation has become sizzling hot and is uniting many passionate voices around a great common cause, bullshit continues to be bullshit and shenanigans, shenanigans - and the great common cause is in no way an excuse for any of that.

So much for the principle.

In terms of factual information, my sources uniformly educate me that much of the confusion is due to the usual lack of transparency of both the fin trade and the Asian government sources, but also and more disturbingly, to the various agendas and resulting internecine feuds among Shark conservation researchers and orgs.

With that in mind, I applaud this post by Shark Savers.

This is good information that helps to cement the notion that the anti-Shark-fin initiatives are having an effect. We will never quite know to which extent - but they have certainly put the issue on the table and forced the authorities to take notice and very likely motivated them to expressly mention Shark fins when cracking down on corruption and excessive spending. 

And the info about price declines in Indonesia is invaluable!

And David's article?

I agree with the conclusion that the fight is far from over, this because Sharks are increasingly being killed for other products and not only for their fins. And consequently, our advocacy of better management measures (all the way to sanctuaries!) must continue. 

But  I disagree with the general gist of the piece that the best available evidence fails to substantiate an important decline in consumption (although 50-70% China-wide still "smell" suspect), and that the effect of the campaigns has been negligible.

The best available evidence, albeit far from being conclusive, actually points to the contrary.

And the other achievements by Shark Savers?

Simply stellar - but they will of course be the topic of the traditional end-of-year recap, so keep watching this space!

In the meantime, well done - again! :)

Shark Fin Trade: Facts, Speculation or BS?

 

I'm confused.

The HK Shark fin industry is whining.

Apparently, Shark fin imports to HK are down by 20-30% following the airline and shipping line fin bans, the graft crackdown and the success of the various anti-fin initiatives by the Shark activists.

At the same time, Peter Knights is shouting victory, to wit

“People said it was impossible to change China, but the evidence we are now getting says consumption of shark fin soup in China is down by 50 to 70 percent in the last two years,” said Peter Knights, executive director of WildAid, a San Francisco-based group that has promoted awareness about the shark trade. The drop is also reflected in government and industry statistics.

“It is a myth that people in Asia don’t care about wildlife,” Knights said. “Consumption is based on ignorance rather than malice. ”

Wow.

But then, I read this

Recently, we have been hearing persistent claims of declining shark fin imports into Hong Kong. But many of the reports - both in local and international media - have been guilty of peddling misinformation, which has created confusion around the real issue.

Claims from the shark fin industry of a drop in imports of some 30 per cent - and even one report of 70 per cent - are exaggerated. Data from the Census and Statistics Department clearly indicates a 19.8 per cent drop in imports from 2011 to 2012. What's more, for the 15 years up to and including 2011, shark fin imports have remained relatively constant at about 10,000 tonnes a year, albeit with some fluctuations.

That contrasts significantly with the figure of 1,162 tonnes recently reported for 2012. The exaggerated drop in the 2012 figure, which was widely reported, is probably a result of the fact that the codes under which shark fin products are reported were revised in the 2012 government data.

A large quantity of fins were recorded against a previously rarely used code and omitted from the total figure reported.

The decline also started well before major airlines, led by Cathay Pacific last December, took the bold and much welcome step of banning the carriage of shark fin. About 15 per cent of all shark fin is imported into Hong Kong by air; the majority still comes by sea.

Yet, despite the 2012 decline, Hong Kong has retained its leading and historic position representing about 50 per cent of the global total, indicating that the drop is likely to be global in nature. The good news could be that demand and consumption are falling - which has also been widely reported. The bad news could be that there are simply fewer sharks in the oceans, a very real possibility according to scientists. Or, it could be a combination of both.

Whichever way, until we see a significant downward trend that can be attributed to reduced consumption, there is much reason for concern. Overfishing is driving many shark species towards extinction and by the time we see such a trend emerge, it will probably be too late to do anything about it.

I would have to agree with Sophie.

The decline is quite possibly due to reductions at both ends, the demand side but also the supply side - the latter due to depleted Shark stocks but also, hopefully, to better Shark protection and management measures in the countries they are being sourced from.

But is it really so?

With Shark fins originating from a supply limited fishery - is the drop in demand already sufficient to have an effect on the trade? 

If so, then the inevitable consequence would be that prices must have dropped when compared to the prices of the same fins (in kind, quality and size) of the same species that were being quoted, say, last year. If so, then the reduction in demand but also the crackdown on corruption and the slower economy are having an effect.

If prices have however remained the same or even risen, then the advocacy is not (yet) having any effect on the trade (and thus the fishing), and the self congratulatory victory laps may be a tad premature.

Do we have that information?
Alex?

To eat or no to eat!

Nice!

This is an excellent opinion piece,

Jason Y Ng brings a cultural but also human perspective that none of us in the West ever could - and that's why his article is both so authentic and compelling.

Well said!

And here is another excellent one.

It may highlight another aspect of the global debate - but actually, the topic is one of the same: way too many Sharks are being killed, and way too many of the fins that are being traded originate from badly or not managed, unsustainable fisheries and have been obtained by unethical and illegal means.

Now of course that's not the full story.

There are a few relatively well managed Shark fisheries operating with sustainable quotas and where the entire animals are being landed and utilized - and from a conservation point of view, there are no valid reasons whereby the fins from those Sharks should not be consumed but rather thrown away. But once they are processed and being sold to the consumers, those legit fins are unrecognizable from the others - and as long as that is the case, the fin trade must be opposed and the soup must stay off the menu.

So it's back to square one.

If the embattled trade wants to survive, it must reform and become transparent. Developments like this and this are certainly pointing in the right direction - and let me reiterate that we in the conservation movement should not oppose but instead facilitate them. If the trade itself would be pushing for sustainability, it would undoubtedly quickly lead to huge improvements on the ground, this very much like anywhere else the trade has been forced to clean up its act.

Are they gonna be clever and do so?

We shall see shall we not!

Airline Fin Bans - remarkable Developments!

But first of all, huge congratulations!

Alex, Gary et al have booked more victories.

AeroMexico is banning Shark fins indefinitely as per the picture above - and Eva Air is doing so as of yesterday citing CITES - which is in itself interesting as CITES mandates nothing of the kind.

We'll take that anytime - and bravo guys and gals!

And Cathay?

Now this one is really interesting.

Like Airlines Fiji, Cathay has chosen the route of only allowing fins from sustainable sources - and has inevitably run into difficulties in doing so. So did Air New Zealand when first announcing the measure, and they have subsequently decided to avoid complicating their lives and opted for a full ban.

Not so Cathay.

They have delayed the implementation and are currently consulting with a team of experts about the best way forward. Duffy, Simpfendorfer and Sant are as good as it gets, and I just can't wait what they will come up with. My hope is that we will get a set of simple and practicable guidelines that will allow us to ascertain whether a Shark fishery is sustainable (beware of shifting baselines - maintaining the severely depleted status quo is not good enough!) and finally drive the conversation away from outright prohibition towards sustainability (do also read the links!) like it ought to happen in every fishery, for Sharks and otherwise.
That is the way forward and I can only applaud it

And if so, it may also finally put a lid on the pointless debates. 

Take those two MSC-certified fisheries - they are maybe not perfect-perfect but they are light years ahead of the current free-for-all that is happening elsewhere! And of course some Shark fisheries can be managed sustainably - and of course finning and sustainability are mutually exclusive!

The bitch will be tackling the issue of bycatch.

It is not a proper Shark fishery where one could assess the management.

Instead, it is the byproduct of a fishery targeting other species (and sometimes being certified as sustainable by the very same MSC!) - and because it is being declared as unwanted, inevitable and thus inherently unmanageable, it is the biggest glaring loophole accounting for a very large portion of the 97-odd million Sharks that are being killed each year. 

As an example, with Fiji not disposing of any officially declared Shark fishery, every single one of the 130 metric tons of Shark fins that are being exported out of Fiji every year is tacitly assumed to have been mere bycatch and to not have been obtained by illegal finning - and I spare you the links proving otherwise!

Solutions?

How about this?

Let the trade who wants to ship their fins conclusively prove, either by third party certification or by irrefutable evidence. that they originate from sustainably managed fisheries, and that they have been obtained by legal means!
And I they can't, don't accept the cargo!

Anyway, great stuff - to be continued no doubt!

Airline Letters - smart!

Bravo Alex!

After the success with Cathay Pacific, Korean Airlines, Asiana Airlines, Qantas, Air New Zealand and possibly (but not necessarily - this is only a beginning) Fiji Airways, he has drafted and sent out a further batch of letters to various airlines.

And I cite - links are mine.

Not all sharks are endangered.

However, due to poor regulation of the fishing industry, illegally finned and fins of endangered sharks often end up in shipments. INTERPOL’s Environmental Crime Program has advised that companies transporting these fins may be implicated in a crime.
Until the legality and sustainability of sources of shark fin can be adequately accounted for, we recommend all companies involved in logistics to suspend transport of shark fin as a precautionary measure and responsible business practice.

I like it!

Like I've said here, many Shark fins originate from poorly managed or unmanaged = unsustainable fisheries and on top of that, we know that many have been obtained unethically and/or illegally, e.g. through poaching, finning and deceit but also through corruption, smuggling and unfair trade. And as long as that is the case and the trade is unwilling to reform and to adequately demonstrate that it is legit and not linked to criminal cartels, it needs to be treated as a potential crime.

And there's already a response by Emirates.

Apparently, they have already implemented this in June but only decided to publicize it now.

Well done!

Those Sharks are not a Conservation Issue!

Oh for crying out loud!

Watch this.

Transcript here - un-f-believable!

Or maybe, not so much.

Look up Tosatto's résumé and you will discover that he's very much in cahoots with WESPAC and their indigenous mumbo jumbo.
They were all present at the Shark event, and witnesses tell me that when publicly confronted about the NMFS fiasco, they came across as, and I cite, babbling idiots that tried to evade the discussion and didn't have their facts right when pressed.

But of course public discourse is not how they operate.

They are dangerous, and they will continue pursuing their anti-conservation agenda behind closed doors and could quite possibly prevail if not firmly put in their place - and that place is to act as executors of the instructions of the legislators and the judiciary, and especially, to respect the will of the public who is paying their salaries!

Public servants - serve!

Right now, the whole thing looks at risk.

But the conservation cavalry is saddling up, and the visionary Senator Hee and Pew are leading the charge.

And you can help them

Please do sign the petition and write plenty of personalized letters as they may ultimately tip the balance in favor of Shark conservation.

Instructions here.

Thank you!

Hawaii - King Shark: From Manō to Jaws!

And talking about WESPAC.

Look what I've found on their FB page!

Think this is really about the culture, science and management of Sharks?

Or, may this be about one topic only?

To wit

Bingo.

And when it comes to covering the cultural justification for killing (but not watching!!!) the 'Aumākua - could they be going as far as to trot out the revered Uncle Charlie who will assure everybody that it's perfectly fine provided that he blesses each Shark as it is being landed, much like he does in his pseudo-cultural scam in Maui?

Questions questions! :)

Only one way to find out!

This FREE event will be held June 27, 2013 (Thurs.) from 6 P.M. to 9 P.M. at the Harbor View Center, Pier 38, Honolulu, HI. There will be informational tables, presentations, and door prizes, as well as a public discussion on the sharks role in Hawaiian culture, the science behind their study, and the issues that arise in managing sharks in local fisheries.

Yes FREE - as in paid for with you tax dollars!.

The real issue?

Listen to what Angelo has to say here!

Maybe somebody should go there.

Maybe somebody should make it a point to educate the public about the real facts and remind everybody of why, exactly, the Hawaiians overwhelmingly chose to enact the State fin ban. Depending on how the discussion is being framed and led, maybe somebody should remind WESPAC and Kitty that as government bureaucrats, their role is to serve the public impartially, and not to pander to special interests by engaging in unilateral activism - especially when it comes to enacting and interpreting the law, a privilege that is reserved for the legislative and the judiciary!

Maybe one could also take note of the identities and statements of the various speakers and interlocutors, and then publish them on some public forum - and thus make a valuable contribution to both public education and public accountability?

As always we shall see shall we not!

But one thing's for sure.

If any Hawaiian, whether Polynesian, Asian or Haole cares about Sharks, this is the moment to make a stand - yes, again!

Because if you don't, you can eventually kiss the manō, the 'Aumākua and a good part of your tourism industry goodbye.

Or is that what you want?

Are the US Fin Bans going to be overturned?

Source.

Please sign this petition.

Surprised?

Yes I generally hate petitions because they are usually so idiotic to be embarrassing all the way to actually being counter-productive - read this and then its counterpart here!

But in this case, I fully support it.
Factual and to the point, the aim is to send a strong message to NOAA not to summarily overturn the various US state fin bans, namely those in California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, Washington state, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

I hear that although there is cooperation among the NGOs on the issue itself, this does not extend to petitioning - so expect a deluge of competing products of varying content, stridence and thus credibility!

Sigh - always the same...

Anyway - this is really important.

Having started to research the issue, this appears to have nothing to do with the genuine desire to promote the sustainable management of Shark fisheries as (possibly) more naive observers appear to believe. Yours truly very much included - but contrary to others, I'm at least willing to learn!

Instead, this very much smells of a gang of bureaucrats doing the bidding of special interests - and the name that keeps creeping up is WESPAC under the highly controversial (a euphemism!) leadership of one Kitty Simonds.
I'll comment on that later but if you want a small preview, Google it and have a hard look at all the pseudo-native bullshit and outright rot that's being dragged to the surface by even the most cursory due diligence!

Revolting!

And talking of which.

Here she is trying to undermine the CNMI Shark Sanctuary!

Not threatened and not endangered huh.

As I said: rotten and revolting - the agency and its boss!

But that can wait.

Right now, the immediate issue is to prevent that those people overturn bipartisan (!!!) legislation that was enacted democratically, and with overwhelming public support. This amounts to an underhanded veritable putsch and for that reason alone it must be condemned and stopped dead in its tracks.

If the NMFS wants to discuss the issue, let them at least do so openly,

Not as an afterthought conveniently hidden somewhere (page 2 of 6 under the heading Relationship of Regulations With Current State Rules) amid the amendments of the Magnuson–Stevens Act that deal with Shark finning and are generally perceived to be pro-conservation. 

That is undemocratic, non-transparent and profoundly dishonest = typically WESPAC!

Again, please sign the petition.

This is both urgent and very much the right thing to do.

PS: and sign the Oceana petition, too - apart from the misleading under title, the arguments in the box are quite good!
PS2: you can also write a letter and send it to the Shark Defenders who will assist you and make sure that it reaches the correct people!

Demian - Shark Talk!

Demian and Debbie in Bangkok - source.

Demian Chapman is a fantastic lecturer.

I've posted his talk about GWS a while ago and if you haven't done so, I invite you to take the time to watch it as it is simply brilliant.

He is also one of the authors of the numbers paper.

But he's not only an excellent researcher but also deeply involved in Shark conservation. Together with his wife Debra Abercrombie, one of his latest endeavors has been to develop a Shark fin ID guide and he has also developed simple, cheap Shark DNA identification tests that when combined would enable e.g. customs or fisheries officers to efficiently monitor Shark fishing and fin trading activities.
Over the past year, he and Debbie have been running several fin ID workshops, and they are now at the CITES CoP where they will undoubtedly attempt to to educate a maximum of delegates.

This is his talk on the subject from last February.

Required watching!

Two Sides to a Fin - not bad at all!

Source.

Please watch this.

You must either ban Shark catching or control Shark fishing.

Absolutely correct Mr. Giam - and since we're at it, let's control the trade, too!

So here's the deal as I see it.

The tide may indeed be turning, at least when it comes to Singapore and Hong Kong, and the Shark fin industry is certainly getting increasingly nervous. Same-same for the Shark fishing industry that is being confronted by a surge of sanctuaries, bans, management plans and increased scrutiny in general.

At the same time, however, it appears equally clear that the aspirations of some quarters to completely eradicate Shark fishing and the trade and consumption of Shark fins everywhere are an illusion.

With all of that in mind, may this be the time for a smart compromise?

As a Shark lover, I'm of course against the killing of any Shark - but as a Shark conservationist and pragmatist, I advocate finding practical solutions, meaning that given that the Shark industry is a long-term reality, we need to stop combating it but instead ought to try and reform it. 

Please re-read this - this - this - this and finally this!

So what would the compromise look like.

For it to be successful, every side would have to give up something

• on our side, we would have to give up fighting for absolute bans and instead advocate full sustainability - which before you start getting agitated  does of course imply finning bans!

In exchange, this is what we should ask for

• That anybody wanting to pursue any Shark fishing activity come up with independent proof that what he does is fully sustainable

• That anybody trading in Sharks and Shark parts come up with independent proof that his merchandise originates from sustainable and legal fisheries and has been obtained by legal means

Incidentally, the latter is why the next CITES CoP is so important.

CITES II listing does not protect a species per se - that is the purview of nations and international orgs. But it does impose the obligation of showing that a species is being managed sustainably, and to create a paper trail about the trade, meaning that it leads to better management, transparency and  conservation and reduces IUU. 

With that in view, I shall always be amazed by the vehement opposition all the way to resorting to outright disinformation by Japan and its astroturf minions - are they not interested in establishing more transparent and legal markets?

But I'm digressing as always.

As long as that proof is not forthcoming, the pressure on the industry should be kept up.

But once the industry shows a willingness to reform,

• Let us help establish a premium market for certified Shark fins from sustainably managed Shark fisheries!

Too far out there?

It is not - it is happening all over the world already, for Fishes but also for other produce, and this with great success both economically but also in terms of conservation!

So why not be pragmatic and smart and give this a chance!

Yes?

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?