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?

The Numbers - could they be lower?

Read the article - they are finning even the pups!

Back to those 38 million.
I really did like this article about how Shelley Clarke had to beg and cajole in order to get access to the data of the Shark fin traders, and about how difficult it is to get to those numbers and make the proper estimates when working in the real word and away from the desks and couches of the armchair statisticians.

But now comes this.
Listen carefully at 02:25 - the demand has likely gone up but due to the fact that too many Sharks are being caught and are thus becoming more scarce, it may well be that the number of Sharks that are being killed has gone down! And may there already be an effect from having established those sanctuaries and fin trading bans? I wish!
But worry not - in isolation, the numbers mean nothing anyway!

Anyway, check it out!



And if this is true?
Then the trade may have become even more supply limited, with the consequences I continue to talk about, i.e. here, here and here!
Solutions?

Seriously, do read the links and think about it!

Is the Tide turning?

Pro-Shark advocacy in Asia - good enough?

Check this out!



Great Job!
Good factual information, no hyperbole and especially, no mention of the dreaded phytoplankton - plus, good comments re finning vs fishing bans! And, I even discern the logo of our friends of Matava who must have done something right! :)

Quick comment.
Fiji has issued a statement of intent but is not a Sanctuary quite yet - like I fear Raja Ampat where the MPA is being advocated but not quite yet legislated. Correct?

But overall, yes, progress so far has been fabulous!
Which begs the question, where do we go from here?

Activism in Asia?

I must say, I'm quite impressed.
We host many Asian divers and although those people are certainly not mainstream insofar as they all love the ocean and probably even Sharks, it is good to hear first hand about the notable developments in Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. These changes are most certainly the result of the relentless advocacy by grassroots activist organisations like the HK Shark Foundation that have achieved much with little financial means but with a lot of passion and also inventiveness to compensate for it.
Kudos!

Will it be enough to ultimately save Sharks?
I frankly remain skeptical for the usual reasons. I fear that the bulk of the consumers does not hail from the educated elite and that hundreds of millions of potential consumers in the hinterlands, in mainland China, Taiwan and Japan are either not being reached or will not be swayed and will thus continue to drive the demand and thus the business of killing Sharks. The track record of trying to save animals by educating the Asian consumers sure sucks as witnessed by the latest appalling news for Rhinos from Vietnam and Africa.

But who am I to say.
There is always hope, and I'm also hearing about other strategies which I'm not at liberty to disclose but where chances for making a real impact appear higher. As long as these grassroots initiatives are local and thus locally credible, and as long as they don't detract from what I consider to be the principal job, ie to protect the Sharks where they are being fished, I cannot but applaud!

Fin Bans?

Apparently, this is the next big thing.
Pioneered by Stefanie and Senator Hee in Hawaii, initiatives aimed at banning the possession of Shark fins are popping up all over the US and its Territories, and Canada. I generally support them - but like Patric, I do question the way this has led to a ground swell of anti Asian statements among the more rabid activists. The leaders of those projects do have a responsibility here and they would be well served to publicly and unequivocally condemn those undertones. After all, we are claiming to be walking the high road here - correct?

And then there's this.
Copy/paste, and this badly, is not good enough I fear. When I speak to the most prominent advocates in this field, the one word that keeps popping up is clusterf8%K: sloppy legislation, ridiculous fines (California: USD 100 - 1,000 - WTF?), total lack of coordination, ego wars.
We can and need to do better!

Note: compare to this brand new post on Shark Defenders!

But the party may well be over..
If the Californian law suit against the ban succeeds, the whole concept risks crumbling like a house of cards or Colliers dreaded domino effect, meaning that once a precedent has been set, other existing bans may be affected as well!

Yes the cultural argument is pure hogwash, this is purely about the money.
But, it is an argument - and do we really know whether the bankrupt State, its Governor and its AG have any wish to invest money, time and passion into mounting a vigorous defense?
I'm sure I'm stating the obvious here: the Shark conservationists must provide for an amicus curiae and if so and after the frothiness of self promotion following the ban: who will take the lead in what promises to be a tedious protracted and costly undertaking and above all, who will fork out the necessary dollars?
Crowdfunding? Show me!

Finning Bans?

Please re-read this.
Those bans are difficult to enforce and increasingly, they do not save Sharks, or certainly not enough of them to make a difference. Also, they are being abused by the authorities in order not to do what really needs doing but is much more politically difficult: to enact the necessary Shark fishing bans.
Which brings me straight over to

Legislation?

That's the way to go.
Whether partial or total, fishing bans do save Sharks.
I was happy to see the partial successes in Europe and in the RFMOs like ICCAT but of course, more needs to be done. I am also very impressed by the successes in Florida and am frankly dismayed at the lack of any according activities in the other coastal states - or am I missing something here?
Yes it's tedious, difficult and requires being willing to compromise - but it saves Sharks and isn't this what we're all aiming for?
Any takers?

Sanctuaries?

Well that's obviously by far my preferred solution.
But... and without wanting to in any way detract from the spectacular successes: so far the going has been relatively easy and may continue to be just that in some additional island countries that are dependent on tourism but above all, where there is no important and thus powerful fishing industry. But the number of those countries is limited and beyond that, there will be significant push-back, meaning that positive results will be less easy to achieve.

Fiji?
Fiji is proving to be the first test case of whether rock solid conservation and economic arguments will ultimately prevail over those interests - and lemme tell 'ya, the jury is still very much out on that one, and this despite of a Fisheries Department that understands and is very much in favor of sustainability and marine conservation!
Fingers crossed!

Marine Protected Areas?

Absolutely - the bigger the better!

Policing, Enforcement and Prosecution?

Once again, please read this.
This where the rubber will hit the road in the long term: it is costly, difficult and frustrating and I fear that it will be an ongoing commitment for a very, very long time indeed as 7 billion people, and counting, will continue to exert relentless pressure on global resources and ecosystems.
Yes there's a glimmer of hope and good people are looking for solutions - or I wouldn't be doing this, the more as I'm not personally invested in the future.

But let there be no doubt that it's gonna be hard so let us all develop some over-arching game plan - or we will be running like headless chickens from one flash point to the other without ever tackling the underlying problems!

Other?

Shark Free Marinas anybody????
Remember?

That was two years ago and really, nothing has changed.
Seriously, how pathetic is that! Where are all those thousands upon thousands of advocates and sharktivists that populate all those pages? Having done it many a time: this is easy, all you have to do is walk to one of the marinas around where you live and start talking! Anybody can do it and for the marinas, it's free, it's easy and confers brownie points - and it does save Sharks!
Not a single listing for Oz and NZ - are you kidding me???

Anyway.
Just my 2¢ as always - do with it whatever you want!

Manta Rays - the next Battlefield!

Heartbreaking - dead Mobula, pic by Shawn Heinrichs

Good on these people.
They are finally shining a light on a massacre that has been happening away from the public eye and in the shadow of Shark fishing, the indiscriminate slaughter of Mantas (yes that would be a plural!) and Mobulas.
The project is called Manta Ray of Hope and you can learn about it here.

Shame on me, actually.
The fact is, I've known about it for many years but have frankly totally underestimated its scope.
I've actually even eaten Manta Ray (and not liked it) back in the 80ies in La Paz, Baja where it was being served in all of the restaurants - and apparently still is. Back then, I've also witnessed alot of Mobulas being landed by the native Sperm Whale fishermen of Lamalera and more recently, I've discovered it in a Filipino recipe for a faux Shark dish, and I've even posted disheartening Elasmobranch fishing statistics from 2009 featuring a marked rise in Manta Ray and Mobula landings.
Totally mea culpa for not having caught on to it.

Now, it appears, things have escalated to new dimensions.
Watch this.



More here in an interview with Shawn.

So, apparently, Manta gill rakers are the new fad in Chinese medicine.
I really know way too little about this to venture an educated opinion, apart from the fact that it behooves us all to do whatever we can to try and save these wonderful animals.
I have learned that Mantas only have a single offspring every several years and from that fact alone, it appears unequivocal that any commercial fishing for them is undoubtedly completely unsustainable and simply devastating - maybe even more so than that for Sharks!

Being my usual me, I still would like to raise a couple of points.

• Big Kudos for this initiative!
  BUT, is this more than a mere media-based awareness campaign, i.e. are there real people on the ground pursuing real, tangible pro-Manta conservation measures - and how successful has that been so far?
  Strategies?
  How can we help?


• Is the gill raker trade really driving the fishing, or is it merely a by-product of it?
  I'm asking this because of the shocking population explosion in the lesser developed countries where millions, if not billions of small subsistence fishermen are wiping out the marine resources through veritable protein mining all the way down through the trophic levels and laterally, by consuming what were previously considered to be "junk fish", like Sharks (and here). The answer to this question will likely determine the best way to proceed, see below.
  


• This is most certainly a supply limited fishery.
  Like in the Elephant ivory trade (and that for Shark fins!) where the Asian demand will always be high enough to justify poaching the last Elephant, the demand for those damn gill rakers will always be high enough to wipe out the last Manta. Yes the demand for gill rakers may be a recent, and maybe reversible fad - but let me warn against only trying to re-educate the consumer via a media campaign.
  Like I never cease to repeat, supply limited fisheries need to be tackled where the fishing takes place, i.e. through local fishing bans, MPAs and Sanctuaries.


• One suggestion.
  What about expanding the current Shark sanctuaries to include the protection of Mantas and Mobulas. As far as I know, none of those countries has any active Manta Ray fishery so it should be relatively uncontroversial? Anybody talking to the unequaled team at Pew?

OK, enough wisdom, or whatever.
This is really a great undertaking and timely wake up call, and I totally support it and will do whatever I can to be of assistance.
Seriously, anytime - just say the world.
Again: Kudos!

And because they are so lovely, here's another video.
It depicts Mantas being cleaned by the beautiful endemic Mexican Clarion Angelfish. Hat tip: DNS.
Enjoy!

Conservation - Asia Bashing?

Click for detail.

STOP FINNING ASSHOLE?
Think the badge will really impact the international Shark fin trade?
The bad news: think again! The good news: at least it was produced by PangeaSeed, a Japanese (as opposed to Western) Shark conservation org!

Which brings me straight over to this most excellent post by Patric.
Indeed, who are we to tell the Asians what to eat, or how to manage their very own resources - the more as we have, and continue to amply prove how bad we are at doing the same in our own back yard! Baltic Sea anybody? Mediterranean? Bears, Wolves, Otters, Lynxes, let alone Wisent in Western Europe? Virgin forests in the US and Europe? And the list goes on and on and on and on!
Here's a small reminder of what we have done to our oceans!



But I'm digressing as usual.
The fact is that in all those conservation initiatives, terrestrial and marine, it always boils down to the same basic points:

• Sustainability not Prohibition
• Legislation but also Enforcement - flanked by Mitigation and Education
• our absolute willingness not to demonize the "other" side, but to engage in Dialogue and to accept pragmatic Compromises instead

Is that so difficult to comprehend?

When it comes to Asia in particular.
Yes, the bulk of the demand for many endangered species originates there - but the perpetrators are others and the ecological damage happens elsewhere!
Please re-read this with respect to the Northern Bluefin! And when it comes to Sharks, if you haven't already, check out this report by TRAFFIC and Pew about who are the biggest killers of Sharks!

And then, there's this - and yes I will never stop repeating myself!
You gotta differentiate between markets that are demand limited and those that are supply limited.

The poster child for the former is whaling.
The demand for Whale meat by the Japanese and Korean consumers is already low, and dwindling. With that in mind, there really is no commercial justification for sending those expensive fleets to Antarctica, nor is there really any remaining strong commercial incentive for killing those Dolphins in Taji. Instead of the strident and uncompromising activism that many, even within the most passionate conservation circles define as unacceptable eco-terrorism and that has led to a nationalistic counter push by the Japanese authorities, the most promising strategy is to target the last remaining demand - whilst at the same time, appeasing the Japanese by granting them a face saving official quota of non-endangered Whales like Minkes and yes, Dolphins.
In that regard, I was totally impressed when I read this statement by Ady Gil of ex Sea Shepherd affiliation

Ecorazzi: Can you tell us a bit more about what you’re doing in Taiji?
The reports I’ve read is that your intent on “building bridges”. Many have asked how that might be different as opposed to what SS has done there over the last several months.

Ady Gil: The only way to make a change in Japan is to have the Japanese people want a change. We can not come here to their country and TELL them what to do. As horrible as the dolphin hunt is, and I have seen it with my own eyes, it is what they do. No different than factory farming in the US. If there was a culture of “Cow Loving”, if we thought that cows are “cute”, if cows played with balls and hoops, we would feel the same about cow slaughter.

The fact is that the majority of the people in Japan love dolphins. Tangalooma in Australia offers its guests a better way to interact with dolphins, other people only get to see them in aquariums. Japan has 100 of the 500 aquariums world wide, (data that I got from an official person in Japan).

We have posted statistics about Taiji. Fisheries are a declining business here.
It just went down from about 12% to about 8%, in 5 short years, of total business revenue in the city. Building the bridges will possibly open their eyes to use the treasure that they have, hundreds of dolphins in the oceans, to bring people here, to watch and swim with dolphins, and revive the economy in Taiji.

Amazing - and totally agree that this is the way forward!

Not so when it comes to supply limited markets!
Examples? Shark fins, Tuna but also, Tigers, Bear gall bladders and especially, Elephant Ivory!
I've added the latter three as perfect examples of how useless it is to try and address the problem by trying to curb the demand by re-educating the consumers. The fight for Tigers and Elephants is among the oldest of conservation initiatives, with all species listed under CITES I - and yet and despite a plethora of initiatives, celebrity endorsements and petitions, and even public condemnation by China itself, Asian demand continues to drive the species to the brink of extinction.

Why?
Because to be successful, one would have to re-educate hundreds of millions (!!!!) of consumers!
Please re-visit this and watch the following video posted by Patric: THIS is the scope of what we're up against when it comes to Sharks - do you really think that a few hundred posters, those celebrity endorsements and those "stop finning" initiatives will make a difference?
Why do some continue to insist on those very same failed strategies?



Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

The solution, as practiced today in terrestrial conservation?
Protect the animals where they are being hunted - along with, yes you guessed it, mitigation (like that of compensating would be poachers, establishing tourism ventures that provide for jobs, etc) and education!
Sound familiar?

Yes, that too is gonna be bloody hard!
The trade in endangered species, whether legal or not, is highly lucrative and there will always be obstacles, push backs and setbacks.
But that's precisely why I so strongly believe that we need to pool and prioritize ALL of our resources and focus ALL of our energies on those local initiatives - and that at the same time, we need to stop squandering them elsewhere!

Please, give it some serious thought - it really is the only way forward.

PS Richard's take here: always the elder statesman!

Shark Fin Soup – nothing but a Myth?

From the website of Wild Aid.
Demand for shark fin soup, an expensive delicacy in Chinese culture, has skyrocketed in the last twenty years due to growing Chinese economy.

Not so fast! says this article in the Guy Harvey Magazine.
Apparently, Shark Fin soup hasn’t got anything to do with centennial Chinese culture, nor is it some status symbol originally reserved for the Ming emperors, nor is it particularly expensive nor is the increasing consumption in any way linked to the advent of a wealthy middle class in China.
Instead, the article says, the load of bull surrounding the international regulation, historical legacy, and modern demand for shark fin soup got too big and smelly for me to ignore. It turns out that what you believe about shark fin soup is largely a matter of what lie you’re willing to swallow.

So, why do they eat the tasteless slimy stuff?
Because they can: because it’s there, because it’s actually cheap and because they couldn’t care less about its provenience:

…as Fuchsia Dunlop noted in Shark’s Fin and Sichuan Pepper, “The Chinese don’t generally divide the animal world into the separate realms of pets and edible creatures.” “When I was living in China, animal cruelty was just not an issue,” Dunlop told me. “There was no kind of emotional identification with animals at all.
“For most Chinese, there’s no difference between eating a wild animal or a domesticated one. A shark might as well be a cow, or a hamster. As travel writer Maarten Troost notes: “The Chinese have an expression: ‘We eat everything with four legs except the table, and everything with two legs except the person.’ They mean it, too.”
So, the Chinese are hungry, numerous, unsentimental, subject to the same insidious, aspirational marketing forces as everyone else.

And all those campaigns targeting the Asian consumers?
Frankly, dunno – meaning that I remain unconvinced: the article itself contains statements by the Mary and conflicting statements by a representative of the Pew. And when I interview our numerous Asian customers, most of which are of Chinese origin, the picture remains equally ambiguous and equally bleak: from what I’m being told, whereas consumption may be dropping among the younger urban generation in places like Hong Kong, Singapore and KL, it remains high elsewhere, especially in mainland China – and that would mean that tens, if not hundreds of millions would still need to be reformed before a single Shark would be spared!
And yes, I’m rather stubbornly repeating myself, check out the above link!

Plus, there’s this.
Assuming that the usual volunteer bleeding hearts are going to step up and stop the shark carnage simply isn’t realistic.
There are lots of volunteer bleeding hearts doing that already and their efforts have difficulty competing against commercial concerns that can spend tens of millions of dollars lobbying in order to protect hundreds of millions of dollars in profits.
Probably true!

Solutions?

• If the trade is supply limited, one must target the supply side: you protect African Elephants and Rhinos in Africa, not by trying to curb the demand for ivory and Rhino horn in Asia – by the same token, you gotta protect Sharks (and e.g. Tuna) where they are being harvested! Conversely, as there really is no real demand for Whale meat in Japan and whaling is thus demand limited: you protect Whales by eliminating the remaining tiny demand in Japan, not by targeting the whalers in Antarctica: let go of the ideology so they can let go of their nationalistic phobia, give them a quota - and then let them try to justify whaling from a purely commercial POW!

• We got to focus on sustainability, not on prohibition, meaning that we must be willing to compromise! Who are we anyway to tell anybody what to eat as long as that is being done sustainably! Granted, for most species of large Sharks, sustainable harvesting appears unrealistic – but at least in theory, some of the smaller species are adequately plentiful and fecund to warrant a quota.

• Finning is wasteful and cruel and needs to be stopped.

• Any strategy will only be successful if on top of legislation, it includes enforcement, mitigation and education. The latter require adequate resources that are generally lacking in third word countries, meaning that we must contribute with more than mere rhetoric. I have no doubt that every single fisheries official is acutely aware of the problems and of the need to fish sustainably, and that given the adequate support (including the eradication of corruption where necessary), he will be eager to implement forward looking policies. So, let’s not only lecture and petition, let’s be part of the solution and the implementation as well!

• In order to be credible, we gotta be rational, goal oriented and smart – and fact based, see above!

• And finally, since I’m at it: we must avoid duplication of efforts and prioritize our resources, the latter meaning that we must strive to attain a maximum of results, measured in less Sharks being killed, for the resources we invest.

It always boils down to the same rules, doesn’t it.
Let’s go do it!

PS bravo Patric for having written this. As to whether the Asian mafia controls the Shark fin trade: as the trade has greatly expanded and gone mainstream, they probably do not control it anymore - but they sure use it for money laundering!

Conservation Conundrums

Two apparently different topics dominate the headlines.

One one side you have the battle to protect the Whales.
Much loved and even glorified, they are at the center of a bitter feud that has led to the collapse of the latest Whaling Conference. Once nearly extinct, some species have miraculously come back from the brink, to the point that some Countries want to resume hunting them - and actually do, often in very unethical ways. The anti-whaling activists are dead set against it and the fight is turning increasingly violent.



On the other side you have the ongoing decline of the Tuna.
Everybody wants to eat them and stocks have been depleted to the point where many species are severely threatened and the Northern Bluefin Tuna is all but extinct. Once romanticized as some kind of heroic feat by intrepid fishermen, the killing is increasingly depicted as what it really is, the extermination of a species.



Whereas the Fisheries Agencies are finally trying to limit the catches, the fishermen have started to fight back as their existence is being threatened. Once again, violence is on the rise.

But really, these are just two examples of the same conundrum.
I've blogged about it a while ago when talking about the Shark fin industry: in order to protect the animals we love, we will have to accept that some of them are killed.

What I'm talking about is sustainable fishing.
Provided that the stocks are sufficiently plentiful (or after a moratorium, once we have allowed them to recover), we will have to accept a compromise: in exchange for agreeing to preserve the species, fishermen will have to be allowed to harvest sustainable quotas.

If that is true - and assuming that ethically speaking, all life has the same value regardless of personal preferences (and assumed cognitive faculties, etc.)

• some species of Tuna can probably be harvested sustainably. Other species, like the Northern Bluefin should be fully protected until stocks replenish (tho from what I hear, it may already be too late)
• some species of Shark can probably be harvested sustainably. Other species like the Hammerheads (please read the link) should be fully protected.
• most probably, the same applies to the Cetaceans where the populations of some Dolphins and e.g. Minke Whales appear quite robust, whilst other species warrant full protection.

Do I like it? Hell, No!

But pragmatically speaking, it's probably the only way forward - as long as we cannot curb the demand . And when it comes to Sharks and Tuna, chances for that are very slim indeed.

The sooner we accept that, the sooner we will work towards achieving tangible and hopefully, long lasting results - which is ultimately the only thing that counts.

Gone

I've followed my own advice and browsed the Website of The End of the Line.
Kudos to the authors for having followed up by posting a lot of pertinent information.

There's a really interesting News section and that's where I learned that the Atlantic , or Northern Bluefin Tuna is all but gone. Roberto Mielgo Bregazzi has researched the topic and I invite everybody to read this shocking synopsis of his findings. Nothing new really, but what had been depicted as imminent in 2006, 2007 and 2008 has apparently eventuated - basically, it's over.

Barring a miracle that is - but alas, I'm not hopeful.
The very much not aptly named International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) has only one track record - and that is, to continue applying unsustainable quotas despite all evidence pointing to the imminent catastrophe. It's the bloody same farce every time they meet: politicians and functionaries trying to "negotiate" against scientific facts - last time in November where they didn't adopt the recommendations by their own scientists and then managed to congratulate themselves for the fiasco!

Want to know the full extent of the debacle - involving mismanagement, fraud and piracy?
Read this!

Like in the case of Sharks, we are faced with a supply limited fisheries with zero price elasticity where the Tragedy of the Commons is preventing any useful consensus about applying sustainable quotas, let alone a fishing moratorium where stocks would be allowed to replenish. Contrary to Sharks which are extremely slow breeders, Tuna reach sexual maturity between 3 and 5 years and such a strategy could really lead to positive results within a comparatively short period of time.

Alas, it's not likely to happen.
The policy makers will continue to drag their feet and Bluefin Tuna will become a prized delicacy for the rich, then the very rich and finally, only the select few.
And then, it'll be gone for good. Forever.

Oh well.
Back to the Sharks.

Desperately seeking Change!

As promised, back to the Sharks.

If this is true, many of us got to seriously re-think our approach to Shark Conservation.

It says that many fisheries, Shark fishing included, are completely supply limited.
In a nutshell, it would mean that the demand for Shark fins greatly outweighs the supply and that consequently, even if we managed to convince a lot of people not to consume Shark fins, it would have little to no effect on the market and thus, on the supply side represented by the size of the Shark fishing industry.
Couple that with the fact that price elasticity for Shark Fins is probably very close to zero (meaning that demand is not likely to decrease with increasing prices, and that prices will thus rise as stocks get depleted and always balance, or even outpace the rising cost of having to find increasingly rare Sharks in an increasingly empty Ocean) and that fishermen are perfect examples for the Tragedy of the Commons, and we are faced with a problem of truly epic proportions.

From that point of view and assuming (probably correctly) that the total sum of money available for Shark Conservation is finite, the answer to this particular debate is clearly No, go invest your money into more effective projects instead!

So, should we now re-focus all of our energy onto disrupting the supply side?
Declare Shark fishing to be immoral and illegal and prosecute anybody engaging in it?
As much as I would like to do that because I really do love Sharks and hate seeing them killed, I'm convinced that such an approach would not only utterly fail, but create a whole new set of problems on top of that.
Just think of the drug trade (and incidentally, the drug mafia is already part and parcel of the Shark fin trade) and you see where I'm coming from. Prices would skyrocket, violent conflicts would escalate and the slaughter of Sharks would continue unabated.
Plus, it would mean persecuting and criminalizing the fishermen, many of which are poor and are just trying to eke out a meager living in order to feed their families. That just can't be right, can it.
And they will not just take it laying down. Again, think of the coca farmers. Or the purported reasons for the piracy on the Horn of Africa.

Like it or not, any viable solution will have to end up being a pragmatic compromise.
The Asians and their predilection for Shark fin soup are a fact and no amount of rhetoric is going to change that in the foreseeable future - certainly not to the extent of significantly impacting the trade. Plus, and yes I'm repeating myself, who are we to dictate what they may, or may not eat!
And at the same time, fishermen need to be allowed to fish.

What to do?

The solution lays in trying to steer the discussion towards Sustainability.
And that means that we cannot just demand that the other side embrace our point of view: like it or not, we must be willing to engage in dialogue about killing some of the very animals we love and are trying to protect!
If we succeed, we can at least influence how many get killed, how and when - but the battle about keeping alive all of them is a lost cause.

Like in the case of Tuna, Billfish and actually, many Fishes that are currently being targeted commercially (want a current overview of the extent of the debacle? Read, this!), Sharks are being overfished to the point where some species are severely threatened.
Short-term (whatever that may mean, as some estimates talk about centuries), stocks need to be allowed to replenish and the fisheries targeting those species need to be pulled back accordingly.
But long term, there needs to be a consensus for allowing fishermen to harvest sustainable quotas.
Yes, of Sharks, too!

Thankfully, many of the principal NGOs and Government Agencies have embarked on this pragmatic and solution-oriented route. It's a complicated and multi-pronged process that is often polarizing and controversial (read this!). But I like agree with the general direction, and those who take it onto themselves to see it through deserve our respect and gratitude.
Well, most of the time.

Alas, the sheer magnitude and complexity of the task at hand implies that it will always be slow-moving - and time is of the essence!

This is where we, the small guys, can be of value.
Smallness can be a huge advantage - the main one being: No Committees!
Nothing gets watered down to the smallest common denominator but instead, we can create a positive ground swell that will ultimately benefit the "big boys", too, by being fast and nimble, vocal and irreverent, out-of-the box and politically un-correct, sometimes even visionary.
Or outright crazy, like wanting to base a Shark Conservation Project on the premise that it's perfectly OK to exploit Sharks commercially - and even -anathema!- to hand-feed them! What are the chances of that ever being approved by consensus?

And what about the fundamentalist and dogmatic zealot fringe, be it the idealistic Huggers or the Eco-Terrorists? They sure make a lot of headlines and some might say, they do so at the expense and to the detriment of the "movement".
But then again, is there such a thing as bad publicity? Plus, they will always remain the fringe, with the advantage that the majority will appear reasonable and moderate in comparison!

In a way, this is a true democratic process, where knowledge and opinions circulate freely via the electronic media and extremism, propaganda and disinformation are quickly identified, exposed and eliminated along with the fraudsters. And where like in Science, an open and often, robust dialogue will mostly lead to the right conclusions.
Don't we all wish that this would happen everywhere?

So yes, the task is daunting indeed!
But all together, big and small, cold realists and hopeless idealists, we can turn this thing around!
Looking for a Sea Change? Literally?
That would be us!

Let's get it done!