Need + Purpose

Sharks are essential for the marine ecosystem

The oxygen in every second breath we take is produced by the oceans. The degradation of fish populations, including sharks, damages the marine ecosystem. The ocean is one of the major carbon sinks on this planet.

Protecting resilient biodiversity and ecosystems in addition to ensuring the sustainability of our blue economy and fisheries sector are high priorities of the EU Green Deal. Sharks are a key component and driving factor of ocean-based tourism, fisheries and food security.

The public is a stakeholder in this issue. Everyone on this planet depends on healthy, functioning ecosystems. The decimation of sharks is no longer solely a fisheries issue, but critical in the efforts to protect biodiversity in the oceans, and therefore a concern for all.

Overfishing of sharks

The demand for shark fins is driving fishing pressure on shark populations globally. This works directly against all conservation efforts. More than 100 million sharks are killed every year, mainly for their fins. 167 shark species are threatened with extinction. The number of sharks in the high seas has declined by more than 70% in the last 50 years — all clear signs that fisheries authorities have failed to protect sharks.

Shark Meat as a protein source

Promoting shark meat as a healthy protein source is misleading the public. It is a well-known fact that large, long-lived predators such as sharks accumulate high levels of toxins such as PCBs, Arsenic, lead, and DDTs. The WHO, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), as well as German ministries advise women of childbearing age, pregnant women and children not to consume long-lived predatory fish such as shark, swordfish and tuna.

Economic Impacts

The biggest beneficiaries from the EU’s shark fishing operations are a relatively small set of fishing operators, plus the associated supply chain actors that are based in the EU. The economics of the fishing industry cannot be seen in isolation. The gain of a few has tremendous negative impact on other sectors of the economy, such as the growing ecotourism market, coastal subsistence fishing, and human health.

Choosing long-term sustainability and regenerative practices in the ocean will strengthen climate resilience, potentially saving billions in future damages and mitigation cost. Countries outside of Europe have their resources depleted by EU shark fishing fleets, affecting their economies negatively and contributing to the decline of viable resource for coastal communities that rely on small-scale subsistence fishing.

an important distinction: “FINNING” vs “TRADE OF FINS” vs “FINS Naturally ATTACHED/landed whole”

Please make sure you understand the difference so we can stop talking about “finning”. Terminology is commonly mixed up, feeding into the opposing arguments. “Finning” is illegal in many countries, but it is an ineffective law. The conservation community has moved on to stronger measures a long time ago. “Fins naturally attached” or “landed-whole” is meant to end the practice of finning because it requires for sharks to be landed WITH their fins. In other words, no loose fins on vessels. Statements such as “ban finning” do nothing to save sharks.

Statements that say, “fin trade bans” do nothing; they created a shark meat market; and/or they caused an increase in shark mortality; this is based on a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the facts:

1. “Fins naturally attached” or “landed-whole” regulations were the reasons shark fishers switched to bringing in sharks and promoting the consumption of shark meat, not fin trade bans. This is exactly the reason why we are shifting from “fins naturally attached” to a trade ban. When fins can’t be sold or shipped, it takes away the incentive to catch sharks in the first place. Targeting sharks for their meat only is not the incentive and while the fishing industry claims this is an important market, they are also fighting fin trade bans because in reality, they are using the meat as a secondary product. Without the income from fins, the incentive decreases immensely.

2. Recently published papers that are referred to as stating that fin bans don’t work actually only cover “finning” regulations, fin-to-carcass ratio regulations, shark fishing prohibitions, and CITES implementation.

3. Many fin trade bans are relatively new. Showing proof of their effectiveness will take some years as shark recovery can take decades. But it is clear that…

SHARK FIN BANS ARE NOT A PERFECT SOLUTION

They are the best tools we have available at this time. They are stronger than finning and landed-whole laws, but weaker than a complete ban on shark fishing or establishment of fully protected areas. The reality check here is that it is easy to say that nothing except the most complete protection will work, but judging by how long and hard the road has been to get any law passed that limits fishing, this goal is extremely difficult to achieve. In the meantime, our best bet is to create laws that are easy to enforce so that the limited capacity of monitoring and enforcement in nearly every country can be maximized.

The real impact of the EU member states

While the EU Member States are not the main consumer of fins, they are part of the problem as a supplier of fins. Currently, the Member States Spain, Portugal and France are among the Top 15 shark-fishing nations of the world.

Any country supporting the trade of fins contributes to the overexploitation of sharks. Even if some of the fishers have best intentions and want to fish sustainably, the tragic fact is that the fin industry has completely ruined any chances of developing sustainable shark fishing.

~45% of fins exported to Asia come from the EU

European shark populations that are fished by EU commercial fisheries are socio-economically important for coastal communities. Overfishing endangers the food security and livelihoods of these communities, and not just in Europe. Only about 20% of the 100,000 tons of sharks fished annually by the EU are caught in European waters.

The EU is a major participant in the fin trade, catching sharks in all parts of the globe and supplying the markets in Hong Kong SAR, Singapore and Taiwan Province, where an estimated more than 50% of the global shark fin trade passes.

What regulations are most effective?

The high market value of shark fins is the main reason to fish sharks at unsustainable rates and to continue the cruel practice of “finning”, whether it’s legal or not. The difficulty has been how to effectively get a handle of this problem.

Although the EU has conservation obligations under CITES and CMS, threatened or protected shark species are entering the market due to current inadequate legislation. A legal market for shark fins creates a loophole for illegal fins, as origin and species are difficult to trace. Loose shark fins can only be identified with complex and expensive DNA tests. CITES listings are evidence that shark fishing is endangering many shark species. However, the reality is that monitoring of CITES species in all ports will be a long process, and can only be effective once every landing port can be staffed with qualified inspectors.

Many decades of regulation attempts via fisheries agencies as well as RFMOs have not shown any results and shark population numbers continue to drastically decline. This is the ultimate proof that current laws are not sufficient and that the management of sharks, and particularly the trade of fins, cannot be the exclusive domain of fisheries management any more. Sharks and rays must be managed as highly endangered wildlife. Fins must be dealt with not as a fisheries product, but a commodity that is driving a global market, that fuels criminal activities, dangerous practices for workers and even slavery at sea.

Shark “finning” regulations are not effective due to their practically unenforceable nature. To enforce such regulations, offenders need to be caught in the actual act of finning. But as soon as a shark is processed, or fins are stored without evidence of how they were obtained, it is impossible to prove “finning” or whether the shark was targeted or allowed bycatch, even if it was dead or alive when retained.

Requiring vessels to “land sharks whole” is still a good policy, but the unexpected and unintended consequence was that a shark meat market was created. “Fins naturally attached” regulations should have worked, but the motivation to sell fins has completely neutralized its effectiveness, due to the fact the industries pivoted to land sharks whole and created a meat market to make the required practice economical. This rule must be strengthened by a fin trade ban to take away the incentive to catch sharks for their fins.

Hawaiian Senator Clayton Hee, the author of the first shark-fin trade ban established in the state in 2010 — which then became the model legislation that subsequent US states adopted as well as federal bans including Canada and many Pacific Island Nations — highlights the importance of a fin trade ban. Hee emphasizes that “as a Senator, it is my responsibility to pass laws that work. And the existing law in place, ‘fins naturally attached’ wasn’t only not working but also enabled shark-finners to conduct their business in plain sight… Together with law enforcement leaders including former Prosecutors and Attorneys General, the passage of this law re-defined shark fins to be a commodity, to be regulated via trade and commerce statutory law. Furthermore, the terms of the bill needed to be simple, clear, and made effective through strong penalties. I can report that since the passing of the law, officers have been able to arrest everyone who has been caught with shark fins within the jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii, and for the first time violators have been prosecuted in State and Federal US courts."