United Nations Bares its Teeth to Protect Sharks

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

United Nations Bares its Teeth to Protect Sharks

(Dec. 18, 2007) Humane Society International and other conservationists applaud the U.N. General Assembly for its decision to enhance the conservation of sharks throughout the world.

The General Assembly directly addressed one of the greatest threats to sharks-shark "finning." The decision, endorsed this week by the plenary, comes only a month after the world's shark experts identified 30 additional shark species as threatened with extinction. Throughout the world, tens of millions of sharks are caught in nets and on lines every year. Their fins are hacked off and the remainder of the shark is thrown back into the water to die a slow and painful death.

For the first time, the General Assembly recommends that countries consider a policy that is aimed at reducing shark finning by requiring shark fishing operations to retain the whole shark, not just their fins. The recommendation is included in the U.N.'s annual Sustainable Fisheries Resolution.

The policy is based on the economics of shark fishing. Shark meat has such low value that it is not worth the freezer space that it takes up. Fins, on the other hand, which can fetch up to $700 (USD) per kilogram (equivalent to 2.2 pounds), can be dried on deck and do not require freezing. Therefore, conservationists believe this move will significantly reduce the number of sharks killed.

The government of Costa Rica, which spearheaded the "fins-attached" initiative, is one of a handful of countries that already prohibits the removal of fins at sea.

"Costa Rica has done a fine job of persuading the assembly of the urgent need for shark finning to stop," said Patricia Forkan, president of Humane Society International, which has been campaigning for an end to the practice of on-board removal of fins. "This is a global response to a global problem and we heartily congratulate members of the General Assembly for their ability to see beyond their own domestic agendas."

Conservationists have become increasingly concerned about the effect that the removal of sharks will have on marine ecosystems. As "apex predators," sharks play an important role in maintaining ecosystem balance. The continued removal of large numbers of sharks already appears to be affecting other marine species.

"We're hopeful that this initiative, combined with strong measures proposed by the United States, will provide a far greater level of protection for sharks than we have so far seen from international decision-makers," said Randall Arauz, Costa Rican coordinator of the Shark Coalition, a network of nine organizations from eight countries in Latin America that have worked intensively to end shark finning.

Facts:

Recent additions to the list of shark species threatened with extinction bring the total to 140. Of these, 32 species are "critically endangered," 33 are "endangered" and 75 are "vulnerable". A further 96 species face some level of threat and there are approximately 170 species of shark or ray for which there are insufficient data to make an assessment.

Recent studies in the Northwest Atlantic have shown steep declines in shark populations, particularly among highly migratory species. Since 1986, hammerheads have declined by 89 percent, thresher sharks by 80 percent, white sharks by 79 percent and tiger sharks by 65 percent. All recorded shark species in the region, with one exception, have declined by more than 50 percent in the past 8 to 15 years. It is highly likely that similar results will be seen across the world's oceans.

Recent research indicates that the removal of sharks from their ecosystems could have devastating and unpredictable consequences for ocean ecosystems and for fisheries. In one case, a 100-year old scallop fishery in the Northwest Atlantic recently had to close down, because the removal of large shark species allowed smaller sharks and rays to proliferate, and to consume the scallops.

Reported global trade in shark fins increased from 3,011 metric tons in 1980 to 11,732 metric tons in 2000. Much of the trade is unreported because many fins do not pass through normal landing channels and because most of the fin trade is conducted in cash to avoid tax and duties.

Research in Hong Kong found that dried fins sold for as much as $744 (USD) per kilogram in 2002. In 2003 dried shark fins in China retailed for $200 - 300 (USD) per kg. In "producer" countries such as Costa Rica and Colombia, fishers make $12 - 17 (USD) per kg for their fins.

Shark fin soup can cost up to $150 (USD) per serving in Hong Kong, but there are worrying signs of a new market opening up for lower-quality fins, allowing millions more people to buy products such as shark fin sushi, shark fin cookies, shark fin cat food and canned shark fin soup.

Shark fin consists of collagen fiber and has no taste. Flavor is added to the soup by the addition of chicken or fish stock.

Unlike other fish, sharks take many years to mature, they have long gestation periods and they give birth to live young - or they lay eggs - in very small numbers. In some cases of severe overfishing, recovery of the stock, if possible at all, will take decades. The "boom and bust" pattern of shark fisheries has been repeated all over the world wherever sharks have been targeted.

-30-

Media Contact:

Jordan Crump: 301-548-7793; jcrump@humanesociety.org

The government of Costa Rica, which spearheaded the "fins-attached" initiative, is one of a handful of countries that already prohibits the removal of fins at sea.

 

"Costa Rica has done a fine job of persuading the assembly of the urgent need for shark finning to stop," said Patricia Forkan, president of Humane Society International, which has been campaigning for an end to the practice of on-board removal of fins. "This is a global response to a global problem and we heartily congratulate members of the General Assembly for their ability to see beyond their own domestic agendas."

I am currently working at the Dutch Embassy in San Jose, Costa Rica and I have been following the news regarding sharkfinning in Costa Rica closely.

Recently the landing of sharkfins in so called private docks in Puntareinas (main harbor on the Pacific side) was banned for about two weeks. Because of efforts of INCOPESCO (main fishing body) this is now again allowed, article here. Pretoma is one of the NGOs that does an excellent job in making an effort to protect sharks in Costa Rica.

I was in Punta Reinas myself a couple of weeks ago and visited many private docks (see this video from Howard Hall). There is almost NO active effort in Costa Rica to prevent sharkfinning, and the only reason I can think of why Costa Rica is now making an international effort to protect sharks, is because of the bad image they got from Sharkwater. Costa Rica is not even able to protect the Cocos Island Marine Park from sharkfinners. Also, most of the sharkfinning boats that fish around Galapagos are actually from Costa Rica.

I think the only way to protect sharks is by measuring the economic income of tourism on their presence. I also feel both visitors of Cocos Island and companies operating at Cocos can make a bigger effort (financially) to conserve Cocos.

I don't want to be too pessimistic, but Costa Rica is too much of a Latin-American country to be able to deal efficiently with these kind of problems.

Cheers

Vincent

Vincent,

Sadly you are correct. Costa Rica, like most "developing" nations has no wilingness to confront the powerful fishing lobby and protect sharks. There is just too much payoff money involved...vs. the sparse dollars that come from park fees.

I have seen this same situation throughout SE Asia as well. Laws are passed, paper parks are set up, but still the fishermen come. Often the same folks that authorized the parks have a financial interest in the fishing operations!

Money and power drive decision making in politics. Until one or the other holds enough sway with the politicians from the conservation camp, little will change. Laws will be passed, token enforcement will happen, laws will be revoked and the status quo will be maintained....until all the sharks are gone.

What we need is a massive upswell of puplic opinion within these countries. A sustained effort that doesn't let up until a new status quo is created...one of conservation and effective fisheries management. Will this happen in time...not likely. Still we must try every day and not give up.

-Shawn

Hi Shawn,

I fully agree and indeed we should never give up fighting for this cause.

I would like to share a thought with you: currently there are really only 2 places left on the planet where you can dive with large schools of Scalloped Hammerhead sharks on a regular basis: Cocos Island & Darwin/Wolf. Places like Baja California, Maldives, Red Sea, Phillipines, etc have all seen a rapid decline in hammerhead sharks and can not offer hammerheads as a reliable attraction any more.

Now obviously there is a big market for scuba divers who want to see these kind of animals and divers are paying up to 4000 USD per week for a Liveaboard to either Cocos or Galapagos. Let's try to analyze the case of Cocos Island, by only looking at the asset side of the balance sheet (since I do not know the costs that are involved).

For Cocos Island (average 3000 USD per week for a Liveaboard), this means a total revenue of somewhere around 8 million USD (which is an estimate: $3000 * 20 people * 3 boats * average of 45 weeks).

Assuming that the price of a sharkfin on the market is currently around 200 USD, this would equal to around 13.500 hammerhead sharks per year.

This example has a lot of flaws of course: we don't know about the cost, sales price to middlemen, transportation cost, maintenance, number of people working in both industries, etc. Assuming that Costa Rica export is around 294 tonnes (588.000 pounds) of sharkfins (2001), this total amount will always be more than the income from dive related tourism. However just looking at Cocos I do think there is an economic incentive (13.500 are a lot of hammerheads).

Sharks around Cocos Island can be protected by making the marine park bigger and by studying the migratory routes of these sharks. While there was a decline in sharks during the 90s, numbers are now getting back slowly (because of a proactive marine park, patrolling, etc).

Why doesn't Costa Rica spend more effort on protecting this unique marine park? Well, I guess because all three operators have (indirect) foreign owners. Would operations on Cocos Island be privatized, I am sure that the government also would make a bigger effort to protect their own 'assets'. Since there is no chance this is ever going to happen, I feel companies operating on Cocos should take a proactive position (which would include lobbying with local politicians (just like sharkfinners), bribing policemen to do their work properly and have extra boats patrol around Cocos Island). In addition also visitors should take there responsibility (or be obliged to) and make direct a donation to the Marine Park (let's say 400 USD: which is only around 10 percent of the price for a week - equal to a tip for the staff. This alone would give the marine park around 1 million dollar to spend on patrolling boats, staff, etc. The current parkfee is going to a centralized body in San Jose and is than spread evenly over all parks in Costa Rica, so Cocos Island receives very little of that sum.

In the future there will only be more and more demand for sharkfins because of a growing global population and a increasing global economy. By putting more focus on protecting marine parks like Cocos Island, Costa Rica will keep profiting from tourism and future generations will still be able to see sharks in their original numbers.

I am curious: would you be willing to donate, lets say 10 percent of the price of every dive trip you make, for the future conservation of the marine park you visit, knowing that is spend efficiently?

Cheers

Vincent

Have just watched Sharkwater on Saturday. Excellent documentary, heart wrenching though...

Divers (especially Asian/Chinese) should take the lead in the "fight" to protect sharks by not eating sharksfins! There are still many divers who continue eating sharkfins, excuse is the sharks are dead anway! Would like to remind that when there is no demand, there is no supply...

Hello Vincent,

Sorry I missed your response to my post. Yes, I would most certainly contribute 10% of each trip to conservation measures. I would be very interested to see that those contributions actually went to protection though.

Shawn

Hi Shawn,

I think a lot of people would be willing to make this kind of contribution, perhaps we can poll this at Wetpixel? Do you know if this is possible?

If it is indeed the case that a lot of people are willing to make this contribution, I feel there should be more pressure on Scuba operators to tax themselves, since they are profiting from something that is not theirs and thus they should make a contribution to the conservation of their resource (for which they are allowed to charge higher prices). Even in Economics this makes sense, because without their asset they loose their business. Patagonia is an example of a corporation that taxes itself and contributes a percentage of their net profit to NGOs.

One might argue that game theory will eventually take place; some companies will not take part and offer lower prices forcing others to follow. However, with an international recognized stewardship or recognition system, taking part in such a programme can have a competitive advantage as well.

Of course transparency of spending funds is an important issue, but with an independent, internationally recognized NGO this is not the biggest challenge.

In the end it all comes down to the moral and ethics of people. Obviously divers who eat sharkfin soup (because the sharks are dead anyway) have an enormous lack of chromosomes, a bunch of primates is what they really are (no offence to primates of course). In my opinion these people show such sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity at the same time... I am just going to stop here, before I say something too offending.

Cheers

Vincent