SHARK

unrecorded wastage on a global scale

finning

2

SHARK FINNING: UnrecordedWastage on a Global Scale

September 2003A report by WildAid and Co-Habitat

This report was researched and written by Susie Watts

Acknowledgements

Our thanks go to:

Scott RadwayJeff RotmanKanchai TaechawanwakinJoe RichardWarren N. JoyceAaron HendersonJuan Carlos CantuSarah FowlerAveril BonesEnvironmental Investigation AgencyBecky ZugStephanie CarnowErica KnieRandall ArauzCecilia FalconiGodfrey MerlenSonja FordhamMerry CamhiRachel CavanaghThe Homeland Foundation The David and Lucile Packard FoundationStefan SchmidheinyStephen Wong

WildAid also acknowledges the immense contribution made by two of its investigators

Front cover pic:A diver discovers finned sharks© jeffrotman.com (jeffrotman.com)

Back cover pic:Blue shark being finned on a Costa Ricanlongliner (taken from video) © Vargas/STRP

SHARK STOCKS COLLAPSE

Recent research has shown precipitous declines in many coastaland oceanic shark species in the Northwest Atlantic. It has beenestimated that, since 1986, hammerheads have declined by 89%,thresher sharks by 80%, white sharks by 79% and tiger sharks by65%. All recorded shark species, with the exception of makos,have declined by more than 50% in the past 8 to 15 years1.

Stocks of kitefin shark (Dalatias licha) in the Azores andthornback ray (Raja clavata) in the North Sea have shownsevere declines and may be depleted. For the spiny dogfish(Squalus acanthias) in the Northeast Atlantic, there is anestimated decline in biomass since 1977 of over 5,000,000 towell below 100,000 in 2001, representing a 98% decline2.

Research published in May 2003 reveals that these steepdeclines in shark stocks are echoed across a much wider rangeof predatory fish species. Trajectories of community biomassand composition of large predatory fishes were constructed forfour continental shelf and nine oceanic systems, using datafrom the beginning of exploitation. Results of this researchshowed that industrialised fisheries typically reducedcommunity biomass by 80% within 15 years of the start ofexploitation. The Gulf of Thailand lost 60% of large finfish,sharks and skates during the first five years of industrialisedtrawl fishing3.

SHARK FINNING: UNRECORDED WASTAGE ON A GLOBAL SCALE

3

Shark finning can bedefined as the on-boardremoval of a shark’s finsand the discarding atsea of the remainder ofthe shark. The animal issometimes alive duringthis process

BACKGROUND

The widespread practice of shark finning isthe result of a combination of factors:increasing demand for shark fin, theindustrialisation of fishing techniques andthe changing economics of catching andtransporting fish products.

It is likely that the volume of wholesharks landed by fishing vessels around theworld once provided sufficient fins tosupply the fin markets of east Asia andamongst east Asian communities world-wide. However, as shark meat is inferior tothat of most commercially-exploited fishspecies, particularly tuna and billfish, theprofits to be made from shark meat arenaturally much lower. Limited on-boardstorage space, combined with the increasingvalue of shark fin, has made it economicallyadvantageous to discard the bulky sharkbodies while retaining the valuable fins,which can be sun dried and stored verycompactly without refrigeration.

The prevalence of shark finning isserious enough for the UN Food andAgriculture Oranisation (FAO) to havemade recommendations for ending it. Forthe FAO, with its strong emphasis on globalfood security, the decline in sharkpopulations has become a cause of concern.

In its 1999 International Plan of Actionfor the Conservation and Management ofSharks, the FAO recommended thatMember States implement National Plansof Action for sharks.The plan recommendsthat Member States seek to “minimizewaste and discards from shark catches inaccordance with article 7.2.2.(g) of theCode of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries(for example, requiring the retention ofsharks from which fins are removed)”4.A ban on shark finning, not only withinindividuals nations’ own waters but also on

the high seas would therefore be entirelyconsistent with the FAO’srecommendations.

Data on shark finning are hard to find: itis not a practice that the fishing industry isparticularly proud of and, since the practiceoccurs at sea, the only witnesses aregenerally crew members, who benefit fromthe income from the fins. However, there isenough evidence to suggest that finning iswidespread in numerous fisheries, thathuge numbers of sharks are finned everyyear and that the vast majority of thesemortalities go unreported.

A combination of two factors has led toan explosion in the demand for shark finsoup. Firstly, the rapid expansion of east Asianeconomies, particularly that of mainlandChina, has created a vastly increased middle-class sector with disposable income.Whatbegan as a rare and expensive delicacy is nowstandard fare at most weddings and corporatefunctions. Secondly, the consumption ofshark fin soup in China, previously frowned-upon as an elitist practice, was politically“rehabilitated” in 19875.The result was amassive upswing in the international fintrade, prompting fishermen worldwide totarget sharks for their fins and to remove thefins from sharks caught as bycatch in otherfisheries. Fin traders have systematicallyspread the word that fins are valuable tofishermen the world over, often providingequipment and monetary advances in orderto secure fins. Sharks are increasingly targeted

Above: Finned shark in the Surin Archipelago, Andaman sea

It is impossible to establish how manysharks are finned annually, as fewfishers admit to finning sharks. Onlyoccasionally, when large quantities offins without corresponding carcasses areseized, is the event recorded. However,the IUCN Shark Specialist Group hasmade the following assessment:

“An initial comparison of some nationalshark landings data and Hong Kong finimport data from these countriesindicate a significant mismatch (basedon widely-employed fin to body ratiosfor shark carcasses). The conclusion wedraw is that the fins of tens of millionsof sharks ‘missing’ from the landingsdata of many nations are appearing inHong Kong. Some of this mismatch maybe due to underreporting of sharklandings, but observer data from highseas fisheries and reports of fin fisheriesin some developing countries indicatethat many millions of sharks are beingfinned and discarded at sea2.”

THE EXTENT OF SHARK FINNING

© K

anch

ai T

aech

awan

wak

in

for their fins in marine reserves, where arelatively small vessel can quickly decimateshark populations.

AUSTRALIAN FINNING

Few governments have studied, let alonepublished data on, the prevalence offinning on board their vessels.Australia isone of the very few countries, possibly theonly one, that has systematically

SHARK FINNING

4

researched finning in its own fisheries.A recent report on shark finning

published by the Australian Government6

analyses the prevalence of finning in each ofthe country’s fisheries where sharks aretaken.The frequency of shark finning varieswidely across the different fisheries, rangingfrom “hardly ever” to “almost always”.

In the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery,an estimated 70% of all captured sharkswere being finned prior to a ban imposedin October 2000.The total number ofsharks caught in 1998 and 1999 is estimatedto be 150,000, which suggests that around105,000 sharks taken in this fishery duringthose two years were finned.

In the Southern and Western Tuna andBillfish Fishery, it is reported that “themajority of vessels” were finning mostsharks that they caught prior to the 2000ban. Out of 40 vessels currently operating,only 3 or 4 were reported to be releasing allsharks. In 1999, an estimated 28,000 sharkswere caught in this fishery.

In the Northern Prawn Fishery, somefishers are reported to have finned all sharks,while others finned only large specimens.The level of finning in this fishery isestimated by weight: research suggests that450 tonnes of sharks were finned per year,representing tens of thousands of sharks,prior to an industry-initiated ban on finningthat came into force in 2001.

In the Torres Strait Fisheries, the weightof sharks estimated to be finned every yearis 287 tonnes. No finning regulationscurrently exist for this fishery.

In the Northern Shark Fishery, finningis prevalent. One fisher reported finningapproximately 50% of his annual sharkcatch.As the report points out, this maynot be the norm but even if an average ofonly 20% of sharks had been finned, thiswould represent tens of thousands ofanimals, given that the annual catch ofsharks from 1994 to 1999 fluctuatedbetween 315 and 759 tonnes. No finningregulations currently exist for this fishery.

Finning is less prevalent in otherfisheries and almost non-existent in some.However, using the figures that exist, itcan be concluded that hundreds ofthousands of sharks have been finnedannually in Australian fisheries.Wherefinning has been banned, however, manythousands more have escaped that fate.

Illegal Fishing for SharksREVILLAGIGEDOS ISLANDS

Situated to the south-west of Cabo SanLucas, Mexico, these islands became amarine reserve in 1997. In 2000, a fleet ofdrift gillnetters surrounded one of theislands and fished intensively for five days,killing an estimated 2,000-4,000 sharks.In most cases the sharks were finned anddiscarded5.

COCOS ISLANDS

One of the world’s top diving venues, thisarea is a World Heritage Site, but it isfrequently subject to night-timeincursions by vessels targeting sharks fortheir fins.The author of Jaws, PeterBenchley, has reported seeing a “sharkgraveyard” littered with dozens of finnedsharks while diving in the area5.

THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

In May 2003 it was reported that a HongKong fishing company had beendiscovered fishing illegally in the PacificMarshall Islands.The activities of fivevessels owned by Edgewater Fisheries Inc.have been documented over a long periodby local conservationists.

Scuba divers provided video footageand eyewitness accounts of the vesselsfishing close to the reefs of Bikini andJaluit, in violation of fishing agreements.

Reef sharks were seen entangled on thehooks abandoned by the vessels oncethey had realised that their activities hadbeen seen and videotaped. The vesselswere also seen fishing at Shark Pass,renowned for its populations of grey reefand silvertip sharks, where localconservationists estimate that numbersare down by 50% since 20027.

COSTA RICA

On 19th May 2002 a Taiwanese vessel,Shen 1 Tsay 3, was filmed fishing illegallywithin the Costa Rican ExclusiveEconomic Zone. It had docked atPuntarenas twice in the space of threemonths.The Coast Guard was informed,but the vessel was thought to be too farout for any action to be taken.The vesseldocked in Puntarenas again shortlythereafter. Local conservationists believethat the vessel was fishing for sharks 8.

AUSTRALIA

Australia has a long-standing problemwith incursions into its northern andnorth-western waters by vessels illegallyfishing for shark fins but these incursionshave recently been reported to be at theirhighest for five years9.

Australian authorities intercepted a totalof 111 vessels in 2002, of which 108 were

Shen 1 Tsay 19/05/02

87°00 85°40 84°40 83°30

9°20

8°10

7°00

5°50

Costa Rica

Isla del Coco

Left: Position of the Shen 1 Tsay 3when filmed.

ILLEGAL FISHING FOR SHARKS

5

Indonesian.The other three were a SriLankan vessel caught off the coast ofWestern Australia and two Russian vessels9.

It has been reported that capturedshark-finner crews have become apermanent feature in the “quarantinezone” in Darwin harbour. In lateDecember 2002 it was estimated that 15boats and 58 men were awaiting their fatewithin the zone and that twelve boats hadalready been torched by the Australianauthorities. Mick Munn of the FisheriesManagement Authority stated that “almostall are targeting shark fin.Any shark thatgets on that line is gone, they’re not fussy.They like to target the big shovel-noseshark, but if they can’t get them they’lltake anything10.

The year 2003 has seen many more suchincursions by Indonesian vessels:

JANUARY 24TH: the Australianauthorities were reported to haveapprehended an illegal Indonesian fishingboat 105 km inside the Australian FishingZone. Seven crew members and a quantityof shark fins were found on board.11

FEBRUARY 6TH: five fishing boatsdetained. Four of the five boats had sharkor shark fins aboard12. One trawler wasfound with 30 shark fins and seven crewon board and a second vessel with two setsof shark fins13.

MARCH 24TH: an Australian Navy patrolboat intercepted three vessels fishing morethan 50 nautical miles inside the AustralianFishing Zone. Each had large quantities ofeither fish or shark fins on board.This wasreported to have raised the year’s currenttotal of vessels apprehended for illegalfishing in northern Australian waters totwenty14.The captain of one of the vesselswas later given a five-month jail sentence14.

APRIL 9TH: The vessel Bintang Timur wascaught 35 nautical miles inside theAustralian fishing zone on April 9. Fiveother Indonesian vessels were alsoapprehended in April and all of them werereported to be fishing for shark fin15.

MAY 2ND: a magistrate jailed threeIndonesian fishermen for a total of 18months after they had been caught fishingillegally for shark fins in April16.

MAY 14TH: Eight illegal fishing boats werebeing escorted to Darwin by navy patrolboats after being caught poaching offAustralia’s northern coast over the previousthree days.The boats had come from theport of Merauke in the Indonesianprovince of Papua and Dobo.All had beentargeting shark fin17.

LATE MAY/EARLY JUNE: a further fiveforeign fishing vessels were seized innorthern Australian waters.All weretargeting sharks for their fins. In responseto increasing illegal incursions intoAustralian waters, the government allocateda further A$75 million to fund the effortsof enforcement agencies18.

JULY 2ND: it was reported that the RoyalAustralian Navy and Customs were catching

one illegal fishing boat in north Australianwaters every three days and that a Customspatrol boat had just intercepted an illegalvessel with seven crew members and 160pieces of shark fin aboard.This brought thetotal of vessels seized in the first sevenmonths of 2003 to seventy-one19.

AUGUST 21ST: it is reported that five moreIndonesian vessels have been apprehendedin the past week, all containing fishingequipment and shark fin20.

SEPTEMBER 12TH & 13TH: five Indonesianboats were apprehended in two separateincidents.Three of the boats, caught fishingillegally off Arnhem Land, were carrying40kg of shark fin.21 These incidents raisedthe number of boats caught fishing illegallyin Australian waters in 2003 to ninety.22

Above: The Shen 1 Tsay 3

Below: These fishermen in Kupang, Indonesia, have been arrested in Australia but insist thatthey will keep returning.

© W

ildA

id©

Pre

tom

a

6

Caught red-handedCANADA

In 1997, the captain of a Japanese fishingvessel, Shoshin Maru 38, was foundguilty of shark finning by a court inHalifax, after admitting that his crew hadfinned ten sharks. An on-board observerhad witnessed the crew cutting the finsoff ten blue sharks and throwing thebodies back overboard.The observer hadalso witnessed 895 blue sharks beinglanded on deck but when Fisheriesofficials visited the vessel, only 520carcasses were found, raising questions asto the missing 375 carcasses.The captainadmitted throwing 10 carcassesoverboard but claimed that at least 90carcasses had been washed overboardduring a storm. Inspectors also found430 sets of fins on board23.

THE GALAPAGOS ISLANDS

The Galapagos Islands and the MarineReserve are subject to constant illegalfishing raids, with vessels frequentlytargeting sharks for their fins. Some vesselsare local, while others arrive from as faraway as Japan to fish illegally for sharks24.Since 1998, a minimum of 19,128 sharkfins have been seized25.

In 1998, 8,000 fins were discovered onthe Niño Dios, an Ecuadorian vessel

apprehended on the north coast of SantaCruz that had been collecting fins from awide area26.

In March 2001 the industrial long linerMaria Canella II was found fishing insidethe Marine Reserve. On board were 78sharks and 1,044 shark fins. On average,shark species produce four useable fins.The 78 sharks found on board wouldhave accounted for only 312 of the 1,044

fins.The remaining fins represent thebodies of a further 180 sharks that werepresumably discarded.Twenty-five miles(40 km) of long line had been laid acrossthe Reserve27.

In July 2001,The Galapagos NationalPark Service (GNPS) discovered twovessels fishing illegally in the Reserve.One was Costa Rican, the otherColombian.An inspection uncovered 619shark fins and 100 shark bodies on board.The species were thought to behammerheads and blacktip sharks butaccurate identification was difficult as theheads and fins had been removed.28

In 2003, a pick-up truck wasapprehended on Isabela island, and foundto be carrying 4,000 shark fins25.

In September 2003, the EcuadorianNavy and Park officials seized 815 sharkfins from an illegal fishing operation onIsabela island, within the Reserve. Fourmen, including a “Korean salesman”,were arrested.29

COSTA RICA

In July 2003, video evidence wasobtained of 20-30 bags of shark fins at aprivate dock where Taiwanese fishingvessels habitually land shark fins.Thebags were photographed alongside aTaiwanese vessel, Ho Tsai Fa No. 18.

‘The easewith whichforeignvesselsviolateCosta Ricanfinningregulationsis appalling’Randall Arauz,Pretoma, Costa Rica,May 2003.

Below: Part of a seizure of 8,000 fins, Isabela Island, Galapagos

© P

arqu

e N

acio

nal G

aláp

agos

Right: Finned tigershark caught byangler, Florida, USA

CAUGHT RED-HANDED

7

The Coast Guard was informed and thefisheries authority, INCOPESCA, agreedto raid the premises. However,INCOPESCA later reported that the finswere from a different vessel. A legalauthority was consulted, but was unableto issue a search warrant without theagreement of INCOPESCA, who arguedthat video evidence of the fins alone wasinsufficient and that there needed to beevidence of the fins actually beingoffloaded from the vessel. It latertranspired that the official cargodeclaration from Ho Tsai Fa No.18 wasfor 60,000kg of shark fins.Thedeclaration had been signed by all theappropriate authorities.8

On 31 May 2003, a Coast Guardofficial conducted an off-duty check at aprivate dock. He discovered a cache offins weighing approximately 30 tonnesthat had been landed by a Taiwanesevessel, the Goidau Roey No.1, whichwas flying a Panamanian flag. It haddocked outside the legal landing hours inan attempt to avoid being seen. Nocarcasses were present8.

The captain, Mr Huang Chih Chiang,had declared 53,000kg of frozen fish onthe official landing documents but nofrozen fish were found8.

Although the Coast Guard verified that30 tonnes of fins had indeed been landedat the private dock, the whereabouts of thecache is now unknown8.

THE USA

In August 2002 the US Coast Guardescorted into San Diego the KingDiamond II, an 82-foot fishing vessel,with 12 tons of prohibited shark fins onboard. On arrival in San Diego, Fisheriesofficials took possession of the fins andinterviewed the captain and crew as partof an ongoing investigation30.

The King Diamond II did not haveany fishing gear on board when it wasseized. It was a collection vessel that hadpicked up products on the high seasfrom more than 20 Korean longliners.The crew claimed that they had notactually caught the sharks and finnedthem, and that therefore they had notacted illegally31. However, whilepossession of fins is not illegal, it was theact of trans-shipping them on the high

seas that had violated US law.Twenty per cent of the cargo was

examined with a view to speciesidentification. Ninety percent of the finswere thought to be from blue sharks, theremainder being from silky sharks andother species31.

PALAU

In May 2003, the government of Palauincinerated 800 shark fins, confiscatedfrom a Taiwanese longliner fishingillegally in Palau’s waters.The seizureweighed almost one tonne. PresidentRemengesau stated that the blaze wasintended as a warning to foreign fishingvessels that he would not tolerate sharkfishing in Palau’s waters32.

Press reports indicate that shark fishingis becoming increasingly common in Palau,and that this is detrimental to the successof Palau’s dive tourism industry33.

While the usual practice in Palau is tosell catches confiscated from illegal fishingoperations, the President resistedsuggestions that these fins should be sold,saying “Palau is not in the business ofselling shark fins, nor do we want to be”.33

AUSTRALIA

In January 2002, two snorkellers in theShoalhaven River, New South Wales,discovered hundreds of juvenile sharks onthe river bed with their fins sliced off 34.

Above: Confiscated shark fins torched in Palau

Above: Some of the bags containing 8,000seized fins

‘Palau isnot in thebusiness of sellingshark fins,nor do we want to be’Palau’s PresidentTommy Remengesau, May 2003.

© S

cott

Rad

way

, fr

eela

nce

jour

nalis

t©

Parq

ue N

acio

nal G

aláp

agos

8

A Case Study: Costa RicaDespite a ban on shark finning in itswaters, huge quantities of fins are landedin Costa Rica without the correspondingcarcasses. Recent cases, such as thediscovery of 30 tonnes of fins withoutcarcasses, are described elsewhere in thisreport. The large number of foreign,particularly Taiwanese, vessels finningsharks just outside Costa Rica’s ExclusiveEconomic Zone is blamed by local fishersfor declines in their shark catches.Thereare also vessels from Korea, Portugal,Spain, Mexico, Ecuador and Venezuela,some of which are reported to be finningsharks caught by tuna longliners. Someforeign vessels land their catches at privatedocks: others return home without everdocking in Costa Rica.

SHARK FISHING

Puntarenas is Costa Rica’s largest fishingport and a centre for fin trading.A localfisherman stated that the huge influx offoreign fishing fleets had seriously impactedlocal fisheries. He was one of a number offishermen who said that all blue sharks areautomatically finned and that all sharkbycatch caught on tuna longliners is finned.

Local fishermen have becomeextremely frustrated by the number offoreign vessels finning sharks. Interviewswith four of them revealed that:

• Local fleets are having to go further outbecause the near shore waters aredepleted and local fishers are having tospend more money on gasoline andequipment;

•Thirty years ago, their boats were fullafter two days: now the catch is verysmall, even after 15 days. Fishers believesome species are virtually extinct inlocal waters and they anticipate a localcollapse of shark stocks if trendscontinue;

• Depleted near-shore waters will result infishers targeting marine reserves such asCocos Island;

A Taiwanese businessman, who ownsnumerous vessels in Puntarenas and exportslarge quantities of fins, reported that hiscompany’s vessels target sharks for their finsand can land “a few tonnes” of fins, minus

the carcasses, on each three-month trip. Headmitted that shark numbers are decreasingin the waters around Costa Rica, but thatenough remain to make it worth whilestaying on. Seventy percent of his catch isdescribed as “black sharks” while 20% areblue sharks. He estimated that there arearound 200 Taiwanese vessels operatingfrom Costa Rica but only half of them arebased there permanently.The rest remain atsea for long periods and go straight homewith their catch.

An official with the Costa Rican CoastGuard stated that incidents such as the 30-tonne fin landing probably happenedregularly. He reported that, while nationalfleets sometimes fin sharks, their capacity islimited. It is the international fleets, withsophisticated technology and a largecarrying capacity, that engage in extensivefinning operations.

THE FIN TRADE

Numerous foreign-owned fin tradingcompanies operate in Puntarenas. Someown fishing vessels and market their finsinternationally. Others simply collect finsand sell to the larger companies for export.One trader, who exports large quantities offrozen fins, reported that his shark fins areall pre-ordered by traders in east Asia.

Not all fins are exported directly to themain markets, however.A dealer inIndonesia told researchers that he hadrecently purchased 20 tonnes of trans-shipped fins from Costa Rica.

PRIVATE DOCKS

Despite laws forbidding the landing offishery products at private docks, all theforeign-owned fishing vessels land theircatches at secure, barricaded docks.Hidden from view, fishing vessels areknown to unload huge volumes of sharkfins, often late at night, with few or nocorresponding carcasses.

Following recent local concerns aboutthe lack of transparency about landings,new legislation (16th July 2003) nowrequires fishing vessels to undergoinspection at nearby Caldera port beforeproceeding to their private docks.However, there remain deep concernsabout the inspection procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Costa Rica, like many of the smallercountries that play host to foreign,industrialised fishing fleets, is losing avaluable resource to a relatively smallnumber of wealthy foreign business interests.

The ban on shark finning is not beingenforced in Costa Rica because of a lack ofresources and, it would seem, a lack ofpolitical will.The high level politicalrelationship between Costa Rica andTaiwan may also be compromising effortsto enforce the finning ban.

The use of privately-owned docks inCosta Rica facilitates illegal activity andprecludes both monitoring of fisheries andlaw enforcement.The new laws mayaddress this problem, but fin traders theworld over are known for their ability toremain one step ahead of the law.

Costa Rica’s well-deserved reputation asa prime eco-tourism destination indicatesthat successive administrations haverecognised the immense value of thetourism industry. However, if shark finningcontinues at current levels, its marineecosystem will be greatly impoverished anda major attraction for tourists will be lost.35

Top: Sacks of shark fins found on quaysidenext to Taiwanese vessel Ho Tsai Fa No.18 inPuntarenas, Costa Rica, July 2003.

Above: Taiwanese fishing vessel, Puntarenas,Costa Rica

© P

reto

ma

© W

ildA

id

9

A murky businessOver the past ten years a series of ganglandmurders has been carried out byindividuals engaged in the shark fin trade,highlighting the lengths to which some fintraders will go to ensure continuing profits.

FIJI

On August 25th 2003, it was reported thatFiji police had enlisted the help of Interpolin investigations into the gangland-stylekilling of three Hong Kong nationals and aFijian.While the Fiji police would notcomment on a possible motive for theattack, a report in Hong Kong's SouthChina Sunday Morning Post quoted policein the Pacific nation as saying the crimewas connected to the shark-fin industry.

A police spokesman expressed fearsabout the sophistication of the weaponsused in the murders36.

It was later reported that a Chinesebusinessman was being questioned by thepolice, who speculated that the incidentcould have been the result of “a business dealgone wrong”. It was reported that Asianbusinessmen can buy shark fins for as little assix Fiji (three US) dollars a kilo, whichfisheries officials say are then usually sold formore than 20 US dollars a kilo. Policesuggested that rivals could have been fightingfor space in the lucrative fin trade sector37.

HAWAII

In April 2002, a Chinese cook accused ofstabbing to death the captain and firstmate aboard a Taiwanese fishing vessel wasbrought to trial in Honolulu on chargesof mutiny on the high seas. Shi Lei wasaccused of killing the two men during anargument aboard the Full Means II, whilethe vessel was in international waters.Thefirst mate’s body was found in the ship’sfreezer; the captain’s body had beenthrown overboard.

The reason for the killings had notbeen established at the time of the arrestbut human rights abuses at sea and thepractice of catching sharks and slicing offtheir fins were cited in the press as beingconnected to the case38.

In December 1999, shark fin dealerHung Van Huynh appeared in a Hawaiicourt accused of hiring a hit man to

eliminate a rival in the shark fin business.Huynh had control of the shark-finbusiness at Pier 17 – where fins could bepurchased from returning longliners –when another dealer tried to move in onhis turf. Huynh offered a friend US$5,000to shoot the man39.

SOUTH AFRICA

In the early 1990s the Endangered SpeciesProtection Unit of the South African Policearrested a Taiwanese man, Michael Shen, forpossession of rhino horn40.

Shen later became involved in the sharkfin trade. In May 1994 Shen was kidnappedand his body was later found in bushes, inan incident believed to have been connectedto his activities in the fin trade41.

In December 1996 two Taiwanesebusinessmen – Shin Yi and Li Ko Wei –office-bearers in a major shark finsyndicate – died in a hail of bullets atCape Town harbour41. This left thesyndicate vulnerable to a take-over by arival gang, so remaining members decidedto bring in a “fixer” from Taiwan, a mannamed Cheng Cheng-Chi, alias “WhiteMonkey”, who already had a fearsomereputation in Taiwan. It was believed thathe would be able to see off any rivals andmaintain total control of the trade41.

In May 1999 South African police weregiven a tip-off about a gangland murder,which led to the discovery of the bodies ofa Taiwanese businessman and his son, eachkilled with a single shot to the head.Liao Shing-Hsiung Hsiung and his son,Liao Jen-wu, were the owners of theEternity Shipping and Chandling company42.

A Police spokesman said that they wereinvestigating a possible link between thedeaths and the lucrative trade in smugglingshark fin and abalone from South Africa toEast Asia, adding that Chinese Triad gangshad moved in force into what was previouslya local cottage industry42.Three years later,“White Monkey” was arrested in CapeTown for the murder of the Taiwanese fatherand son, and was repatriated to Taiwan43.

In February 2001, the owner of a CapeTown shark-fin exporting business wasrobbed of 7,000 Rand, plus shark finsvalued at 40,000 Rand, by four men

posing as shark fin salesmen.The ownerwas bound hand and foot, while a workerwas stabbed in the arm and back by theescaping robbers44.

In February 2003, a warrant was issuedfor the arrest of a Chinese woman, ZhuJing, who went into hiding after witnessinga murder connected to what the SouthAfrican press referred to as the “ChineseMafia sharkfin war”45.

A shootout at the Taiwan City KaraokeBar in Cape Town resulted in charges ofattempted murder and the illegal possessionof firearms and ammunition. One of theaccused, Su Chan Chun, was sentenced tohouse arrest and was subsequently murderedat his home, witnessed by Jing45.

Above: Fins drying at Cape Town Docks

© M

cCou

brey

/Wild

Aid

“There is quite a lot ofTaiwanese, Hong Kongand Chinese and Koreanfishing vessels that plyFiji waters and they bringin quite a lot of sharkfins . . . and they re-exportthem to China and HongKong at very lucrativeprices indeed”. Fiji Police spokesperson Mesake Koroi, speakingabout a gangland murder, August 2003.

10

A Case Study: Indonesia

Many of the 6,000 inhabited islands ofIndonesia are home to extensive sharkfishing – and finning – operations.There isa handful of shark fin trading “hotspots”,where fins from surrounding islands arecollected for export to east Asia.There areat least two starting-off points for illegalincursions into Australian waters, wheresharks are routinely finned.

Indonesia is unusual in that there arefin traders who process shark fins beforeexporting them. Normally, traders inHong Kong and Taiwan prefer to importwhole dried or frozen fins and do theprocessing themselves.

ROTE

Rote is a small island to the west of Timorand is reputed (along with Kupang) to beone of the main starting points for illegalfishing incursions into Australian waters.Papela is the largest fishing village on Rote,where sharks are the main target catch andshark fin is the main marine item traded fromthe village. Papela has around 100 longlineboats that target sharks, sixty of which areowned by one individual. He holds most ofthe fin stocks and can supply up to 300kg ofdried fins per month during the season fromhis own boats and up to 500kg if he collectsfrom other traders. Most of the fins landed inRote are taken to Surabaya, which has a largeChinese population and is one of the maincentres for fins.

Australia’s waters are a populardestination for the fishermen, as they can bereached in “a day and a night” and aredescribed as having plentiful shark stocks.Initial investigations reveal that some, but byno means all, sharks that are caught locallyare landed whole. However, reports fromAustralia indicate that shark finning isprevalent in the illegal fisheries operated byIndonesian vessels and the Indonesianfishers themselves admit to finning sharkson these incursions.

Despite repeated arrests by the AustralianCoast Guard, and the subsequentdestruction of their fishing boats, fishermenhave later returned to Australia to catchsharks and insist that they will continue todo so, since the penalties are “light”.Afisherman who had been arrested twice in

Australia claimed that even those fisherssentenced to prison terms were given asmall wage for working, and were allowedto play football and attend English classes.

KUPANG

Kupang is a local fin collection centre, fromwhere fins are sent to Surabaya or UjungPandang.Wooden longliner and seine boatsfish the waters around this area but theyalso go further afield, to Australia. On a“good” trip, each boat can land 100kg offins and one of the fin dealers reportedbeing able to supply between 500 and1,000 kgs of fin per month.

BALI

Bali is a major fishing centre and homeport for many of the commercial fisheriesoperating throughout eastern Indonesia.Many of the boats are longliners, but thereare also extensive seine operations.Themain fisheries are for tuna, swordfish andmahi-mahi and the Ministry of Fisheries inIndonesia has recently issued new fishinglicenses to Taiwanese and Japanesecompanies.These are believed by locals totake huge quantities of fins.A Taiwaneseboat owner in Bali reported that sharks arealways finned on his fleet.

Indonesian law requires that even whollyforeign-owned fishing boats must be givenIndonesian names and fly the Indonesianflag, but a fin dealer in Bali reported thatthere were 200 Taiwanese-owned longlinersstationed there.An unknown number oflongliners in Bali are Japanese-owned.

Bali’s longline fleet is stationed at TanjongBenoa.A fisherman there admitted that sharkcarcasses were all thrown away.Three findealers claimed to be able to provide around4-5 tonnes per month between them. Onedealer had 200-300 kgs of very large, frozenfins and a further tonne of dried fin, some ofwhich was being processed on the spot. Hedescribed them as being from oceanic whitetips, threshers, blacktips and blue sharks. Hisfins are all sent through Surabaya.A visit to ashark fin warehouse revealed that anotherdealer, who exports directly to Singapore,also processes fins on the premises. He had3-4 tonnes of dried fins at the time.

It was reported in Bali that sharkcartilage is now increasingly in demand.After fin removal, shark bodies are oftenfilleted and the cartilage removed.The restof the body is then thrown out.

Much of Bali’s fin trade is controlled byTaiwanese interests and it is they whocontrol shark fin prices in Bali.There is alocal ‘Taiwan Town’ in Bali, known as‘Sesetan’, where all the Taiwanese fishermenand businessmen reside. However, Bali isalso home to a large number ofSingaporean Triad members.

Researchers were informed by aTaiwanese dealer that traders could buy finsdirectly from the very large companies.However, if buying on a smaller scale, theyneeded to buy from “representatives of thepolice” as did all of the Taiwanese andJapanese companies.

The dealer also reported that, although

Left: A fishing harbour, Indonesia

© W

ildA

id

SHARK FINNING REGULATIONS

11

A CASE STUDY: INDONESIA

mainland China is the principaldestination for shark fins, local dealersneeded the assistance of Hong Kongtraders to get the fins to the mainlandmarket. Mainland China’s tax laws onshark fins are very stringent and only theHong Kong dealers know how tosmuggle fins into mainland China.

SURABAYA

One of the four main fin dealers inSurabaya hires collectors to gather up finsfor him throughout Indonesia. He trades inboth processed and raw fins and produces2-3 tonnes per month. He admitted that,while some shark meat is retained and soldas salted fish, sharks are finned extensively infisheries operating out of Surabaya.AnotherSurabaya-based businessman told researchersthat supplies of shark fin were dwindlingand that he could now obtain only aquarter of the volume of the fins availableseveral years ago.

CONCLUSIONS

Research in only a handful of fishing villagesand towns in Indonesia reveals that the fintrade is highly lucrative, totally uncontrolledand firmly in the hands of local and foreignmafia-type organisations. Shark finning isroutine, both in Indonesian waters and onincursions into Australian waters.

Trade statistics reveal that, during 2000and 2001, Hong Kong imported 1,400tonnes of shark fins, (both with andwithout cartilage) from Indonesia.Singapore does not record shark fin importsfrom Indonesia but a number of traders inIndonesia have reported that they exportlarge quantities directly to Singapore.

Taiwan’s official statistics recordextremely small volumes of fin importsfrom Indonesia which is initially surprising,given the number of Taiwanese fin tradersin Indonesia. However, many of themreported exporting their fins through HongKong in order to reach the main market,mainland China.This may explain the lowlevels of recorded trade with Taiwan.

The geography of Indonesia and thefact that shark fishing is unregulatedsuggests that finning and trading in finswill continue at high levels until sharkdepletion makes it uneconomic.Indications are that fins are becomingmore difficult to obtain, but conditionshave not yet reached a critical point.35

A number of individual nations – andone region – have enacted legislationon shark finning:

BRAZIL: fins and carcasses may belanded separately, provided that thefins weigh no more than 5% of thewhole weight of the body. It is illegalto unload, trade, keep, process ortransport fins whose weight does notconform to this ratio. Fins andcarcasses must be weighed uponarrival at port and all fins must beunloaded. It is illegal to keep on boardany shark fins from a previous trip.

COSTA RICA: sharks must be landedwith fins attached. Moves are underwayin Costa Rica to amend this law so thatfins may be landed separately within acertain weight ratio but conservationistsare opposed to this.

ECUADOR: shark finning is totallyprohibited in the Ecuador.

OMAN: it is strictly forbidden tothrow any shark part or shark waste inthe sea or on the shore. It is alsoprohibited to separate shark fins andtails unless this is done according tothe conditions set by the competentauthority. No shark part may behandled or marketed or exportedwithout a license from the competentauthority.

SOUTH AFRICA: sharks must belanded with fins attached if they havebeen caught in South Africa’s waters.However, fins from sharks caught ininternational waters may be landedseparately from carcasses. This presentssome enforcement difficulties, sincethere is no way of knowing where thesharks were caught.

THE USA: fins and carcasses may belanded separately but the fins mustweigh no more than 5% of the“dressed” weight of the shark, that is,headless and gutted. In cases where the5% ratio is inappropriate (presumablywhere the species is exceptional), thereis a derogation allowing thecorrespondence of fins to carcasses tobe measured in terms of the number offins per carcass, rather than weight.

THE EU: sharks should be landedwith fins attached, but masters ofvessels can apply for a “special fishingpermit” to allow on-board removal offins. In such cases, vessels may land fins

separately – even at different ports –provided that the fins weigh no morethan 5% of the whole weight of theshark. These regulations will bereviewed in early 2005.

MEXICO: a ban on shark finning isunder consideration. Currentdiscussions are centred on a possiblerequirement that only whole sharksshould be landed.

AUSTRALIA States and Territoriesare responsible for regulationsgoverning their own waters – out to three nautical miles offshore. Central government deals with‘Commonwealth’ (Federal) waters,from three to 200 nautical milesoffshore.

New South Wales: since June 1999the law requires that all sharks belanded with fins attached, even whenthe shark has been cut into portions.All portions other than head, gills andguts must remain on board until thevessel berths.

Northern Territory: there is no banon finning, although a total ban on theincidental take of sharks or sharkproducts in a range of commercialfisheries will probably have had the effectof restricting finning to some extent.

Queensland: a finning ban cameinto force in December 2002. No sharksmay be taken by the Trawl Fishery.Possession of sharks in other fisheriesrequires sharks to be divided in amanner that allows an inspector tocount the number of sharks. It isprohibited to take, possess or sell sharkfin unless authorised.

South Australia: no finninglegislation yet exists but they are underconsideration.

Tasmania: shark finning was bannedin November 2001. All shark fins must belanded with the corresponding body.

Western Australia: since October2000, possession and landing of anyshark other than a whole shark hasbeen prohibited.

Victoria: in 1972, Victoriaintroduced a requirement that sharksbe landed with all fins attached.

Commonwealth: finning is bannedin tuna longline fisheries, as well as inall Commonwealth fisheries wheresharks are incidentally caught.

EXISTING SHARK FINNING REGULATIONS

SHARK FIN SEIZURES

12

The EU in denialThere is undoubtedly a great deal offinning on board EU vessels, particularlythose of Spain. No EU Member Statehas yet admitted that vessels flying its flagare finning sharks but a simplecalculation reveals that the EU’s exportsof shark fin to the major east Asiancentres cannot be accounted for by thedeclared landings of shark in the EU.A great deal of this discrepancy can beattributed to Spanish vessels.

MAINLAND CHINA: Between 1995 and2002 inclusive, EU Member Statesexported a total of 6,542,835 kgs driedshark fins to mainland China, of whichSpain's contribution was 6,254,936 kgs.These weights appear in the category0305.5920, Dried sharks’ fins, not smoked52.

HONG KONG: During the period1997-2001 inclusive, total EU exports toHong Kong in category 0305.5950, Sharkfins, with or without skin, with cartilage,amounted to 1, 921,246 kgs, of whichSpain’s contribution was 1,865,236 kgs52.

During the period 1997-2001 inclusive,Spain was the only EU Member State toexport fins to Hong Kong in category0305.5960, Shark fins, with or without

skin, without cartilage.The total exportedby Spain to Hong Kong was 801,604 kgs52.

SINGAPORE: According toSingapore’s Trade Development Board, thetop two exporters to Singapore in 2001 ofprepared fins, ready for use, were the UKand Spain, each exporting over 60,000 kgsin that year.

After some months of denial that EUvessels are engaged in finning, the EUFisheries Commission has finally reactedto pressure by enacting finning regulationsthat cover not only EU-registered vesselsfishing in EU waters but also those whichfish all over the world as part of anextensive range of fishing agreements,particularly with developing countries.However, the scope of these newregulations is severely restricted, givingrise to serious doubt about their likelyeffectiveness. Masters of vessels who wishto continue removing sharks’ fins onboard may apply for a “special fishingpermit” to do so53.

Furthermore, fins and carcasses may belanded and traded at different ports.Thesole stipulation is that Masters should enterinto their logbooks detailed records of thevolume of carcasses and fins landed andsold at each port. In theory, officials at all

the ports of landing will weigh the carcassesand fins to ensure that the fins weigh nomore than 5% of the whole weight of theshark53. Even if accurate logbook records arekept, which is highly doubtful, and even ifthe fins and carcasses are weighed, this 5%ratio will allow EU crews to fin two out ofevery three sharks that they catch, while stillappearing to abide by the rules (see sectionon fin weight ratios).

Above: Basking shark fin on display inSingapore

© W

ildA

id

NAMIBIAIn February 2003 Namibian Policeconfiscated more than 800 boxes ofcontraband cigarettes from two Chinesenationals. Hidden with the cigaretteswere large quantities of shark fins and65 kgs of abalone, reported to havecome from South Africa46.

THAILANDIn January 2002, a Taiwanesefisherman was arrested in possessionof 42 shark fins. After a tip-off,Phuket Marine Police arrested theman as he moored his boat,“Jufusun”, at Rassada Port.

The man, subsequently identified bypolice as Chua Teng Juan, left the boatcarrying a large, white, bloodstainedbag. When police asked him to open it,they found the shark fins47. Less than amonth later, another tip-off led to thearrest of a second Taiwanese fishermanin possession of 115 shark fins weighing

80 kilograms. Chern Whan Yee was chargedwith avoiding customs duty48.

GUAMIn 2002, the U.S. Coast Guard conductinga routine port patrol seized thousands ofpounds of shark fins from foreign fishingcompanies operating at Guam’scommercial port. The fins were stored incontainers at the port. In one containeralone, there were 4,400 pounds (c. twometric tonnes) of fins. This seizure wasone of a series that has occurred since theUS shark finning regulations came intoforce in 2000.

Although Guam does not itself haveany large-scale commercial fishingcompanies, Japan, South Korea, Taiwanand Indonesia are known to operatecommercial fishing vessels in the region49.

CHINAIn March 2001, three aquatic processingworkshops in Nanhai City, south China,were discovered by Customs officials tohave smuggled a large quantity of sharkfins. The three companies were found to

have smuggled 2.3 tons of fins intoChina and to have sold them on thedomestic market for a huge profit50.

The Chinese government hasimposed heavy tariffs on shark fins torestrain imports. Fins may be importedtax-free, but only on condition thatthey are then re-exported. Finsimported into China for domestic saleare subject to heavy tariffs.

The estimated value of the smuggledfin was US$500,000, representing anevasion of US$35,000 of tax50.

SOUTH AFRICAIn July 2001, three containers ofillegal fish and fish products wereoffloaded from a Taiwanese fishingvessel and seized in Port Elizabeth,South Africa. One of the containersheld four million Rands’ worth ofshark fins. In total there were 80sacks, each weighing 100 kilograms,filled with shark fins. The cargo wasfalsely declared as comprising 80 tonsof Albacore or skipjack tuna51.

SHARK FIN SEIZURES

SHARK FIN TRADERS

13

Shark fin traders –more denialPress conferences and workshops held in eastAsia to highlight the problem of sharkfinning have occasionally been characterisedby a denial on the part of fin traders thatfinning even occurs. One such traderclaimed that film footage of a shark beingfinned had been faked.

A brief glance at the profits being madefrom the shark fin trade may help to explainthis apparent unwillingness to takeresponsibility for current trends.

A recently-published report on the driedseafood trade in Asia has revealed that onetrader, who considers himself a medium-sizedoperator, had a turnover of $771,000 US permonth. Given a profit margin of between 10-15%, one of Hong Kong’s largest dealers,rumoured to have a turnover of $129 millionUS per year, could be making an annualprofit of at least $12 million US54.

To say that shark fin traders have noimmediate economic incentive to conservesharks would seem a truism. However, whilemany of them deny that supply is becomingmore problematic54, it seems clear that thedecline in shark stocks will soon have anegative effect on the trade, if it has notdone so already.

Between 1996 and 2000, the shark fintrade grew by more than five percent a yearin Hong Kong, while the 2001 figures showsignificant decreases in both the Hong Kongand the global trade volume54, which may bea result of declining shark stocks.This maynot be of concern to those who have alreadymade many millions from the depletion ofthe world’s shark stocks but it could signaltrouble for newcomers and smaller operators.

Above: Shark fins are often served whole inorder to prove that they are the real thing

© W

ildA

id

© W

ildA

id

In 2000, WildAid was informed thatthe notorious Poon family hadbecome involved in the shark fintrade in Hong Kong55. The Poons arealleged to have been responsiblefor smuggling vast quantities ofillegal ivory from Africa, throughthe UAE and on to Hong Kong inthe 1980s56. One of the Poonbrothers, Tat Wah (“George”), isreputed to be one of Hong Kong’smain fin dealers55. The fin trade isconducted mainly in cash andwould-be dealers are required tohave large amounts of ready cash attheir disposal in order to enter thefin trade. Poon, using the enormouswealth he had amassed from theslaughter of thousands ofelephants, was easily able to placehimself at the centre of the sharkfin business in Hong Kong55.

The ruthless nature of the illegalinternational ivory trade and thespeed with which a handful of HongKong ivory dealers managed todecimate the elephant populationsof both Africa and Asia should serveas an ominous warning of things tocome. Unless the global communityacts immediately to prevent it, Poonand his like will continue to amasstheir private fortunes – at theexpense not only of the world’sshark stocks but of the manydeveloping and developed countriesthat are making a concerted effortto conserve their shark stocks. Theseefforts, as has been witnessed onthe African savannah and in theforests of Asia, will inevitably beundermined by the greed andselfishness of such individuals unlessaction is taken now.

HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?

Above: George Poon (taken from video)

Above: The Poons’ shark fin shop, Hong Kong

© E

nviro

nmen

tal I

nves

tigat

ion

Age

ncy

Right: Dried sharkfins on sale inTaiwan

© W

ildA

id

HOW TO BAN SHARK FINNING

14

WildAid’s recent research in theconsumer markets reveals that sharkfin is going down-market. Havinggained a reputation over centuries as a symbol of wealth and success, soupand other products made from sharkfin are now becoming commonplace.

• Singapore now boasts $8.99 All-You-Can-Eat shark fin buffets59.

• Japanese consumers can now buyshark fin bread, sweet shark fincookies, shark fin sushi, instant sharkfin noodles at US$4.20 per servingand, perhaps most alarming of all,shark fin cat food60.

• In a restaurant in Quingdao on mainlandChina, a set menu consisting of abalone,bird’s nest and shark fin soup wasadvertised at a cost of just US$2460.

• Dried shark fin retailers in Quingdaoand Shanghai sell 12-gramme boxes of fin fibre for US$6.5060.

• Press reports from Singapore reveal that the economic recession hasprompted consumers to opt forcheaper, mass produced shark fins61.

While it may be argued that thisdevelopment will reduce the “mystique” of shark fin and, thereby, its consumption,it seems far more likely that it will simply

THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME

encourage consumers to believe thatthey can still buy into the symbolism ofshark fin but at a price affordable to all.

How to ban sharkfinningThe most effective requirement would befor all sharks to be landed whole, with noexceptions.This would not only simplifyenforcement and eliminate cheating but itwould also provide very good fisheries data,since sharks with their fins attached are fareasier to identify by species. Of all thecountries known to have enacted finningregulations, only Costa Rica requires wholelandings, along with some States andTerritories of Australia. Mexico looks set torequire whole shark landings but thelegislation is not yet in place.

Landing fins and carcasses separatelyallows room for cheating and it alsohampers the collection of much-neededdata on shark catches. Most countries havefailed to monitor their shark catches at all,let alone by species, despite the 1999 UNFAO’s International Plan of Action forSharks, which recommends that they do so.Landing fins and carcasses separately makesspecies identification difficult and, in somecases, impossible.

Because of the highly migratory natureof many shark species (particularly thosespecies which are most commonly finned,such as the blue shark), the best way toensure protection from finning for themaximum number of sharks would be toenact a ban on finning not only within thewaters of individual nations but on the highseas as well.The efforts of many nations toprohibit finning, particularly those in thedeveloping world whose resources are

limited, are being compromised by the factthat sharks can still be finned on the highseas and within the Exclusive EconomicZones and coastal waters of manyindividual nations.

Would a finningban protect sharks?It has been argued that a ban on sharkfinning would be pointless because thesharks, once caught in nets or on lines, willdie anyway, regardless of whether or notthey are finned.

However, data from the Hawaii-basedtuna and swordfish longline fleet showedthat 86% of sharks caught as bycatch werestill alive when they arrived on deck57.

Research carried out in Brazil showedthat, from a total of 508 sharks of differentspecies observed in longline fisheries, 88%were still alive when they landed on deck58.

Taking into account some post-releasemortality resulting from stress or injury, it isclear that a very large percentage of sharkscaught on longlines would survive if theywere not finned.

Above: Shark fin catfood, Japan

Above: A favourite for finning: blue shark

© Michael Bjornbak

© W

ildA

id

In some countries where fins maybe landed separately fromcarcasses, shark landings datahave led to a requirement thatfins should weigh no more than5% of the “dressed” weight ofthe shark, that is, the body minusthe head and guts. Data fromAustralia, Costa Rica and the USAshow that this is a reasonableratio, given that the weight of ashark’s fins across a wide rangeof species rarely reaches, letalone exceeds, 5% of the dressed weight .

A reasonable ratio of fins to wholeweight would be only 2-3%.Sharks’ heads and, in particular,their livers are very heavy inproportion to the rest of theircarcasses, so this distinction iscritical. Regulations in place in theEU and in Brazil, stipulating thatthe weight of the fins should notexceed 5% of the whole weight ofthe shark, are thereforeinadequate. They will allow millionsmore sharks to be finned, whilecrews will still be able to producethe “correct” ratio of fins tocarcasses on the quayside.

HOW MUCH DO A SHARK’S FINSWEIGH?

15

Conclusions and recommendations

ConclusionsWhile there are many factors influencing theglobal decline in shark populations, there isno doubt that shark finning is a major – andentirely unnecessary – contributor.The sharkfin trade has become so lucrative that thepractice of finning is now no longerconfined to sharks taken as bycatch. Sharksare increasingly being caught for their finsalone and, because the meat is of far lesservalue, the shark is often dumped at sea.

Shark finning is contrary to theprinciples of the UN FAO Code ofConduct for Responsible Fisheries (Article7.2.2(g)) and to the guiding principles andaims of the UN FAO International Plan forthe Conservation and Management ofSharks (IPOA-Sharks).

Shark finning is also contrary to the spiritof the preamble to the UN Law of the Sea,which stresses the need for “an equitableinternational economic order which takesinto account the interests and needs ofmankind as a whole and, in particular, thespecial interests and needs of developingcountries”.The dumping of millions ofsharks at sea has resulted in significantlydecreased shark catches in many developingcountries. Fishers in eastern India and onthe east and west coasts of Africa havereported serious declines in their catches,dating back to the arrival of large, industrial(and usually foreign) fishing vessels off theircoastlines. Many of these vessels breachfishing agreements by operating well withinthe area set aside for local fishers. Foodsecurity among many coastal communitiesin the developing world is beingcompromised by the increasing demand forshark fin soup, a symbol of luxury wealthand generosity among east Asiancommunities worldwide. It is a luxury thatsharks – and those who depend upon themfor protein – cannot afford.

Sharks are becoming increasinglyattractive to recreational divers, bringingmillions of dollars in foreign exchange tocountries in both the developed anddeveloping world. By contrast, while thetrade in shark fins has created a handful ofmillionaires in Hong Kong and Taiwan as aresult of inflated profit margins, it has not

contributed in any meaningful way todevelopment in the poorer shark fishingnations. In recent years, divers have reporteda perceptible decline in shark sightings inmany parts of the world and some havereported seeing the sea-bed “littered” withthe carcasses of finned sharks.

Shark finning does not discriminate byspecies or by age/size.While species andstocks vary in abundance and distribution,those of the greatest conservation concernand least widespread distribution willcontinue to be taken in diminishingnumbers as bycatch in fisheries for moreabundant fish species and, as a result, couldbe driven to extremely low levels, if not toextinction.

Shark finning precludes the collection ofthe species-specific data that are urgentlyneeded if global shark landings are to bemonitored in any meaningful way.Withoutsuch data, it will be impossible to implementsustainable shark fisheries management asrequired under various internationalagreements.

Recent research using computermodelling has shown that the removal ofsharks from their ecosystems could havedevastating and unpredictable consequencesfor the abundance of commercially-important fish stocks. Sharks, as apexpredators, regulate the abundance of otherfish and are therefore keystone species in thehealth of our ocean ecosystems.The practiceof shark finning is capable of removingentire stocks of sharks within a very shortspace of time.

Many species of shark are highlymigratory by nature.They are a truly globalresource.The efforts of a growing numberof nations to enforce laws prohibiting sharkfinning in their own waters are consistentlyundermined by the fact that sharks cantravel many thousands of kilometres intowaters where finning is legal.

RecommendationsMany steps need to be taken globally toconserve sharks, including stockassessments, research on landings andspecies composition, bycatch reduction,the imposition of strict catch quotas andseasonal and area closures wherenecessary, as well as trade restrictions,where appropriate, and improvedCustoms data at species level. However,action on shark finning cannot wait forthese steps to be taken. For some speciesit may already be too late, but for manyothers there is still time. Shark finning isa global problem and only a concertedinternational effort will bring about aglobal solution.

In a world where growing humanpopulations are facing declining fishstocks, throwing away 95% of a valuablesource of protein for the sake of anunnecessary luxury is not, or should notbe, an option.

• The United Nations General Assemblyshould vote to impose an immediateprohibition on shark finning and thetrans-shipment of fins on the high seas.

• Individual nations should enactdomestic legislation prohibiting sharkfinning and trans-shipment within theirown jurisdictions and this legislationmust be rigorously enforced.

• It is imperative that more countriesimplement the FAO’s International Planof Action for Sharks. Countries in thedeveloping world with significantshark fisheries should be given everyencouragement – and funding whereneeded – to carry out research on theirshark fisheries as a first step towardsdevising Plans of Action.

“The IUCN Shark Specialist Group considers that sharkfinning threatens many shark stocks, the stability ofmarine ecosystems, sustainable traditional fisheries,food security and socio-economically importantrecreational fisheries.” SSG Finning Position Statement, May 2003

16

450 Pacific Avenue, Suite 201, San Francisco CA 94133

Tel 415-834-3174 Fax 415-834-1759

info@wildaid.org www.wildaid.org

References

Reports – unconfirmed at the time of going to

press – say that M. Bruno Sandras, Minister of the

Environment in French Polynesia, has announced

that shark finning will soon be prohibited. In

future, sharks will have to be landed intact. This

announcement is said to reflect a growing concern

in the region that shark finning is on the increase.

STOP PRESS

1. Collapse and conservation of sharkpopulations in the Northwest Atlantic, Julia.K Baum, Ransom A. Myers, Daniel G. Kehler,Boris Worm, Shelton J. Harley, Penny A.Doherty, Science, Vol. 299, 17th January2003

2. Heessen, H.J.L. (editor) 2003. Developmentof Elasmobranch Assessments. DELASS.European Commission DG Fish StudyContract 99/055, Final Report, January 2003

3. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatoryfish communities, Ransom A. Myers & BorisWorm, Nature Vol 423, 15th May 2003

4. Report of the Consultation on theManagement of Fishing Capacity, SharkFisheries and Incidental Catch of Seabirdsin Longline Fisheries, Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations Rome,Italy, 26-30 October 1998

5. The End of the Line? WildAid 20016. Review of Shark Finning in Australian

Waters, Bureau of Rural Sciences forAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry-Australia, Nov. 2001.

7. Pers.comm. Dr Silvia Pinca, Marine ScienceProgram Coordinator, College of theMarshall Islands

8. Pers. Comm. Randall Arauz, Pretoma,Costa Rica

9. The Australian, 17th February 200310. The Australian, 30th December 200211. Northern Territory News, 24th January 200312. ABC News, 6th February 200313. Northern Territory News, 6th February 200314. ABC Regional News, 31st March 200315. Cairns Post, 15th May 200316. ABC News, 2nd May 200317. Australian Associated Press, 14th May 200318. Adelaide Advertiser, 2nd June 200319. Northern Territory News, 2nd July, 200320. Australian Broadcasting Corporation,

21st August 200321. ABC News, 16th September 2003.22. Sunday Territorian, 17th September 2003.23. The Daily News, 5th July 199724. Channelnews Asia, 6th October 200225. Pers.comm. Cecilia Falconi, Ecuador26. Pers.comm. Godfrey Merlen, Ecuador27. ENS, 19th June 200128. Charles Darwin Foundation, 20th July

2001 29. Reuters Limited, 13th September2003.

30. Lloyds Information Casualty Report, 26thAugust 2002

31. Pers. comm. Paul Ortiz, General Counsel forNOAA, and Dale Jones, Chief of Enforcementfor NOAA Fisheries to Marie Levine, SharkResearch Institute, 13th January 2003

32. BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific, 8th May2003

33. Pacific Daily News, 12th May 200334. Sunday Telegraph, 6th January 200235. WildAid shark fin trade report, in litt.36. Agence France Presse, 25th August 200337. Agence France Presse, 26th August 200338. Associated Press Online, 10th April 200239. Star-Bulletin, Hawaii, 3rd December 199940. Under Fire: Elephants in the Front Line,

EIA 199241. Cape Dragons, Carte Blanche TV, South

Africa, 5th May 200242. Reuters, 21st May 199943. CNA, South Africa, undated 200244. SAPA, 23rd February 200145. SAPA 13th February 200346. The Namibian, 6th February 200347. The Nation, 17th January 200248. The Nation, 8th February 200249. Pacific Daily News, Hagatna,

16th August 200250. South China Morning Post, 27th March 2001

51. Dispatch Online, 5th July 200152. World Trade Atlas53. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1185/200354. Clarke, Shelley. Trade in Asian Dried

Seafood: Characterization, Estimation andImplications for Conservation. WCSWorking Paper No. 22, December 2002

55. Pers.comm. Taiwanese fin trader toWildAid, 2000

56. A System of Extinction, EnvironmentalInvestigation Agency 1989

57. Russell Dunn, M.M.A, Assistant Director,Ocean Wildlife Campaign, Washington, DC.Testimony before the House ofRepresentatives Subcommittee onFisheries Conservation, Wildlife andOceans, 21st October 1999

58. Amorim, A.F., Arfelli, C.A., and Fagundes, L.1998. Pelagic elasmobranchs caught bylongliners off southern Brazil during 1974– 97; an overview. Marine & FreshwaterResearch 49:621-32

59. Pers.comm.Tony Wu, Singapore60. WildAid internal report, March 200361. Lian He Zao Bao, Singapore,

9th February 2003