Industrial Shark Fishing: shark conservation must do battle with Goliath

Shark conservation is a tough sell. I've said that before. For all it's groundswell popularity in the last few years, it continually suffers from a primal hesitation people have to fully embrace it. There are passionate advocates but in the larger scheme of things, we are still a small segment of the total population. But some progress is being made.

Over the past few years, we have seen shark sanctuaries established in a few island nations and several states in the U.S. have initiated shark fin regulations or bans. This is all good news and it represents a step in the right direction in trying to impact the market for shark fins and shark-related products.

However, the next challenge is also the most formidable one: taking it to an international level that confronts the powerful economic realities of the shark finning industry. This is where highly-placed influence peddlers work the back room deals to maintain the status quo. And from an ecological standpoint, this is where the real damage is taking place.

The Pew Environment Group has a series of photographs, freely available for media use, that are staggering in their illustration of the scope of the problem. Looking at these photos, taken in Taiwan, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that it would be literally impossible for a species whose reproductive rate is low, as is the case with sharks, to be able to survive such industrial-level harvesting. The photo at the top of this post and the two below were taken by Shawn Heinrichs for the Pew Environment Group:

According to The New York Times, four of the leading nations involved in commercial shark finning are Taiwan, Indonesia, India, and Spain. And several developing nations assist by providing some of the boats and the crew - at bare subsistence-level wages. And that brings up another challenge: if world opinion were to succeed in curtailing the practice, we would also have the responsibility of providing an alternative source of income for these low-paid workers and fishermen. For them, feeding their families is a much greater priority than preserving sharks.

Several nations that provide sanctuary protections for sharks unfortunately offer these safeguards in name only as they do not have the resources available to enforce their regulations. A recent example is the slaughter of 2,000 sharks in Colombia's Pacific marine wildlife sanctuary by commercial boats, reportedly of Costa Rican origin. With no Colombian naval vessels in sight, it was reported that up to 10 boats entered the protected waters, freely taking hammerhead, Galapagos, and whale sharks.

While generating grass roots-level advocacy is important, shark conservation must now move forcefully into the international arena, getting organizations like IUCN, CITES, ICAAT, and the United Nations to wake up to the realities of what is happening in international waters. It will not be easy. Those industrialists who benefit from the shark have a lot at stake; they will fight hard. And international diplomacy by its very nature is painfully slow. So, the reality may be that, long before we run an oil platform dry or see sea levels noticeable rise due to climate change, we may witness the extinction of many species of shark.

Therefore, shark conservation, as a movement, must focus its efforts not only on general public awareness but must also develop strategies to take on the industry directly on a global level. It may be akin to David facing Goliath, but according to legend, David won.

See more photos of industrial shark finning at the Pew Environment Group website.
Read an overview of the shark finning industry in the New York Times.
Read about the recent slaughter of sharks in Colombia in the Guardian.

ICCAT & Tuna: "extraordinary" meeting - depends on who you ask

One final report on ICCAT (International Convention for Conservation of Atlantic Tuna) and the conclusions from its recent annual meeting: the future of bluefin tuna in 2011. As reported earlier, bluefin tuna - particularly Atlantic and Mediterranean tuna - are on perilously shaky ground. ICCAT currently limits its members to a catch quota of 13,500 tons of tuna. This past weekend in Paris, ICCAT set a new level for next year: 12,900 tons - a reduction of only 600 tons or 4 percent.

In ICCAT's press release, the meeting was described as "extraordinary."

Here is how the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) summed it up:

"At its annual meeting last year, ICCAT decided to set catch levels so that bluefin tuna would have at least a 60% chance of recovering by 2022. In October, ICCAT's scientific advisory committee reported that this goal could be met by keeping annual catch limits at the current level of 13,500 tons. Improving the chances of recovery, they added, would require cutting catch levels to below 6000 tons. On Saturday, ICCAT member countries agreed (pdf) to a 12,900-ton ceiling for eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna."

Here is how Oceana, who was in attendance to promote a range of tuna, billfish, turtle, and shark conservation measures, described the meeting's conclusions:

"While ICCAT reduced the allowed catch for eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna to 12,900 tonnes, this four percent reduction is almost laughable. Furthermore, ICCAT failed completely to take action to establish spawning ground sanctuaries, a basic and much-needed management measure. Oceana supports a closure of the bluefin tuna fishery until a system is in place that follows scientific advice on catch levels, ensures stock recovery, stops illegal fishing, and protects spawning areas in the Gulf of Mexico and Mediterranean Sea.

'This trivial quota reduction for the eastern bluefin tuna stock is a political decision, not a science-based one,' said Maria Jose Cornax, fisheries campaigns manager for Oceana. 'Without an industrial fishing closure, it actually encourages illegal fishing and fails to ensure stock recovery. This political outcome is not good for the fish or the fisherman, and will certainly result in further stock depletion.'”

Analogous to ICCAT and the economic interests it protects, is the energy/fossil fuel industry. Oil companies could break the back of our fossil fuel addiction in relatively short order with a major commitment and shift to alternative energy sources. They could dominate that new market as surely as they dominate oil and the environment would probably be the better for it in the end. But their focus is primarily on sustaining current business models with just enough token support in alternative energy so as to appear as if they are forward-thinking. They know what the future holds in store but choose not to fully address it.

ICCAT is following the same path, sustaining a dying fishing industry at the expense of dwindling marine species. Conservation groups, to their credit, will continue to pressure ICCAT to reconsider its fundamental strategy of minimal change for the sake of short-term financial goals. But what will it take? An empty sea?

Read the ICCAT press release.
Read the AAAS Science article on the ICCAT meeting.
Read Oceana's article on the ICCAT meeting.

Arctic Industrial Fishing: hands off for now

With the effects of climate change becoming more apparent above the Arctic Circle, commercial interests - ranging from fishing, drilling, and shipping - are lining up to take advantage of reduced sea ice and more open seas year-round. But do we take a more prudent course and allow scientific research to take place first to determine what, if any, detrimental effects may occur? A step in that direction is coming to pass regarding industrial fishing (large scale commercial fishing).

The North Pacific Fishing Management Council (NPFMC), a government council affiliated with NOAA, recently voted unanimously to prevent the expansion of industrial fishing in U.S. waters north of the Bering Strait. This establishes one of the largest precautionary measures in the history of fisheries management.

Warming water temperatures are pushing many fish species northward and with the associated melting sea ice, there will be tremendous pressure from commercial fishing operations to move into these northern regions. However, we are just now seeing the effects of climate change but do not have the scientific data to accurately document the implications on indigenous human and wildlife populations or other ecosystems - particularly from the possible effects of increased commercial operations. This recommendation from the NPFMC provides time to study Pandora's box before we open it.

The NPFMC's recommendation is both prudent and bold. The National Marine Fisheries Service will need to review/approve the recommendation before submitting for federal approval by the end of the year. It is expected to move forward, based on the new political climate in Washington with a new administration, and it could serve as a template for other future policies regarding international conservation of the Arctic Circle.

Read a press release from Oceana.