Philippine Shark Fishing Ban: senator pushing legislation to protect all sharks and rays

Philippine Senator Loren Legarda is receiving considerable coverage in local news outlets for her proposal to put forth legislation that would ban the catching of all sharks and rays in Philippine waters. Her proposal goes beyond the type of shark fin ban that has been initiated elsewhere, such as in several U.S. west coast states and Hawaii. Legarda seeks "to declare as unlawful the wounding or killing of sharks and rays, unless there is threat to human life or safety. The shark’s fin soup and the selling of shark’s fin will likewise be prohibited to eliminate the demand that results in the massive killing of sharks."

This proposal, Senate Bill 2616, was actually first proposed over a year ago, in November, 2010, and mirrors similar legislation that was proposed in July, 2010 by Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo which has been languishing in committee since then.

The senator cites several arguments for pushing for this legislation, “Sharks, as predators of the sea, play a vital role in regulating the ecological balance, particularly the health of important commercial fish species, population balance, and protection of coral reefs. Being a country with about two-thirds of the known marine species of the Pacific living in its coastal waters, the Philippines plays a crucial role in protecting marine species.”

Being that Senate Bill 2616 has been on out on the floor for some time, I find this sudden attention to be of interest. This morning, I counted five different Philippine news outlets picking up the story and, as much of what I read was verbatim from one source to the next, it was clear that a press release had been circulated. News reports claim that the senator's renewed drive was a result of recent local reports of shark finning operations taking place, and there's no reason to doubt that.

“Clearly, the absence of the law forbidding the catching of sharks, gives people the courage to continue the practice, which could eventually lead to the extinction of shark species in the country, especially [sic] that they reproduce slowly,” said Legarda in a statement on Sunday.

However, the release of Legarda's statement could also be propitious as a response to recent statements made by a panel of experts at a forum held in Singapore and sponsored by the Institute for Southeast Asian Studies. Expressing their controversial views were Dr. Giam Choo Hoo, a member of the United Nations Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES), Prof. Steve Oakley of Shark Savers Malaysia and Hank Jenkins, president of Species Management Specialists. The three put forward the position that prohibiting the trade in shark fins will not dramatically reduce the number of sharks killed worldwide. They noted that many countries such as Germany, France, Australia and Iceland have long killed sharks for their meat.

“Even if shark’s fin were banned, these countries would continue to catch sharks for the meat,” said Oakley.

Giam used statistics from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to say that 70 percent of all sharks caught are done by local fishermen in developing countries who consume the entire shark, not just selling the fins. And Jenkins was critical of the statistics that are often used regarding the number of sharks caught worldwide. He questioned the accuracy of 73 million caught each year, saying that it was a manipulation of data originally research by marine scientist Shelley Clarke who put the number at 38 million in 2000 with a wide variance of 26 million to 73 million.

While the idea that shark finning is not the sole issue threatening sharks (albeit the most distasteful) or that catch numbers can be widely inaccurate and prone to manipulation are actually valid points of discussion and consideration, the manner in which they were presented in Singapore has raised the dander of many shark advocates (read here, here, here) and pro-shark organizations. The panel's most inflammatory statement was probably made when, as reported in The Jukarta Post, they insisted, "there is no evidence that live finning - cutting sharks’ fins off before throwing the sharks back into the sea - is a prevalent practice. 'Although practiced by some fishermen, it is illegal, relatively infrequent and condemned by the industry,' said Jenkins."

Just a few days following these statements, Senator Legarda reignites discussion and news buzz regarding her Senate Bill 2616. Coincidence? Perhaps, but it's not much of a stretch to imagine the Singapore news coming to the senator's attention and generating a reaction.

Definitely, the impact of shark finning and total shark consumption and the accuracy of the estimated numbers require more research. But they are not easy facts to ascertain. Extinction is the ultimate test bed for measuring the impact that sharks have on a marine ecosystem, but there is a wealth of data to date that can provide indications without going to such a ridiculously extreme approach. With more and more data, computer models can be further refined to determine impacts based on species and specific environments or locales.

Statistics regarding catch and population numbers will always be a bit elusive and subject to abuse. How many sharks are caught specifically for fins and/or meat versus how many are caught as accidental bycatch will always need to be extrapolated from sources of varying reliability. And when you add to that the number sharks that go unreported due to illegal activity, it becomes even more challenging. However, even a low end number like Clarke's estimated 38 million is an astounding toll to impose on an animal being caught in the wild whose reproductive rate is low. To reach a level of commercial "sustainability" is a lot to ask of nature when it comes to sharks.

So, we can either downplay the potential or theorized impacts on shark populations and proceed as we have been for decades, waiting for a possible negative outcome that would be irreversible; or we follow Senator Legarda's lead and move towards total protection. That would require facing stiff economic and political challenges in transitioning market demands and the direction of commercial industries, ranging from fishing to tourism, but it would be a fine testament to our ability - some would say a god-given right - to exercise true stewardship of the seas.

Source: Manila Bulletin.com
Source: GMA News
Source: Business World Online
Source: philSTAR.com
Source: Journal Online
Source: Jakarta Post

Sharks Facing Challenges: slow changes in market demand and a rise in illegal fishing

Shark conservation continues to make progress and continues to run up against serious challenges simultaneously. It's a long road that will need to be traveled to reach the ultimate goal of seeing decimated populations of iconic shark species begin to return to some level of normalcy, but it's a trip worth taking.

One of the biggest challenges the movement faces is demand for shark products, particularly shark fins. The shark fin market is centered in Asia where a long cultural history wrapped around the use of shark fin soup as a past symbol of royalty and prestige, today exists to exemplify new wealth and a growing upper middle class. Asian culture has also been a protective and sometimes isolated one and so outside admonitions, under threats of being labeled "Asia bashing", can often fall on deaf ears.

What has been encouraging is evidence of a slow change taking place within Asia itself. Fueled by conservation messages coming from Asian environmental groups, the press, and international organizations like WildAid, more and more restaurants and hotel resorts in places like Singapore and Kulala Lampur are refusing to serve shark fin soup.

Becoming a more frequent story in the Asian press, as reported by the Singapore-based AsiaOne News, "Sharks are slowly but surely winning the battle to keep their fins as the Chinese traditional dish is no longer a must-have at reunions and wedding dinners. Playing a big part is the Shangri-La chain, which declared that its 72 luxury hotels worldwide would stop serving the controversial dish from this year. [Director of communications for Shangri-La, Rosemarie] Wee said Shangri-La decided to join international efforts to stop the harvesting and trading of shark fins, which had severely depleted the population of the fish."

Addressing market demand, changing a people's taste for shark fin soup - or all shark-related products, for that matter - is a slow process and it must be done very delicately with countries that do not respond well to external pressure or influence as it is often perceived as interference. Public relations campaigns often seem to focus on a younger audience, the next generation of consumers, that seem to be more receptive to new ecological thinking ranging from shark extinctions to over-population to fossil fuels and climate change.

At the other end of the spectrum is another powerful nemesis and that is the economic incentive behind shark products and the tenacity of those involved in the business to keep things as status quo as possible. While recent political advances in anti-shark fin legislation or the designation of shark sanctuaries or protected zones has put some pressure on the commercial shark fishing distribution network, the more these businesses find it difficult to continue legally, the more we will begin to see illegal activities flourish.

According to Israel's Haaertz.com, illegal shark fishing in the Mediterranean is on the rise. With 42% of the 70 shark species found in the Mediterranean to be in danger of extinction, shark fishing is illegal in Israeli waters. The Israel Nature and Parks Authority (INPA) has been apprehending fisherman who were illegally catching sharks and selling them along the Gaza strip and in Tel Aviv. With financial temptation overpowering legality, many are concerned as to whether enforcement will be able to keep up.

Haaertz.com reported, "[INPA supervising director Ohn] Valency says that the authority doesn’t have enough supervisors to stop shark fishing. In recent weeks various organizations have accused European Mediterranean countries of failing to act forcefully to stop shark fishing."

And with Israel we are looking at only a small part of the Mediterranean coastline. There are some major European players working throughout the Mediterranean - countries like Spain, Italy, and Portugal are heavily involved in commercial shark fishing - clearing out sharks at an alarming rate from this nearly closed body of water. (European nations supply a third of all shark fins to Hong Kong, arguably the shark fin processing capital of the world.)

So, progress is being made but we can expect to see a rocky transition as market demand slowly erodes while the industry does all that it can to perpetuate the business. This will push some participants underground and enforcing state, national or international rules and regulations will be put to the test, straining available resources.

Marine biologists often talk about declining fish populations reaching a critical "tipping point' that can signal the total collapse of a population and its ability to recover. As the conservation work continues on behalf of sharks, the commercial shark fishing industry could someday face its own tipping point. Let's hope that happens before the sharks face theirs.

Source: AsiaOne News
Source: Haaretz.com

ICCAT PostScript: silky shark afforded greater protection but other species ignored

Follow up to yesterday's post, "Sharks of the Atlantic: new report cites dismal international conservation efforts" . . .

The results of the ICCAT's 22nd Regular Meeting of the Commission in Instanbul, Turkey produced a mixed bag of results, leaning towards more disappointment than satisfaction. ICCAT agreed to establish greater protection for the silky shark - one of the most sought after sharks in the Atlantic shark fishing industry - but protections for the porbeagle, blue, and shortfin mako sharks were passed over, along with other important shark conservation measures that were recommended by Oceana and other conservation groups.

Maintaining a diplomatic stiff upper lip, an Oceana press release stated, “'It is a great day for silky sharks,' said Elizabeth Griffin Wilson, senior manager of marine wildlife at Oceana. 'ICCAT should be commended for its continued effort to protect the oceans top predators. Today’s decision to protect silky sharks is a strong step forward in protecting one of the most commonly found species in the international shark fin trade.'

Oceana did voice concern that ICCAT failed to reach consensus on several important shark measures, including those to protect vulnerable porbeagle sharks, establish science-based precautionary catch limits for blue and shortfin mako sharks and improve the current finning measure by requiring that sharks be landed with their fins wholly or partially attached in a natural manner."

Also in attendance at the ICCAT meeting were representatives of the Pew Environment Group. "Protecting one shark species a year and adopting no other measures for their conservation will not be enough to ensure the survival of these animals across the Atlantic Ocean," said Max Bello, senior advisor on global shark conservation for Pew.

Progress with international organizations can be painfully slow and patience is one of the founding principals of diplomacy. However, incremental steps at this stage may not be enough to preserve endangered shark species like the porbeagle which, it has been reported by scientists, would need a minimum of several decades and possibly more than 100 years to fully recover.

Read Oceana's press release on the results of the ICCAT meeting.
Read comments from the Pew Environment Group in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Sharks of the Atlantic: new report cites dismal international conservation efforts

Over the past several years, we have been seeing progress made in conserving sharks through the establishment of shark sanctuaries or protected zones that have included entire island nations. The latest measure has been taken by the U.S. state of Florida which initiated a prohibition on the catching of tiger sharks and three species of hammerhead sharks inside Florida state waters. Additionally, we have seen legislation aimed at shark fin bans which, at best, puts pressure on the shark finning industry and, at the very least, forces them to fold up their tents and move elsewhere.

As positive as these steps are, they are regional efforts, globally-speaking, and many sharks species, particularly those considered the most endangered, are known to travel great distances whether traveling along migratory routes or randomly covering a lot of ocean territory and, in so doing, they move in and out of protected areas frequently.

Since these sharks will move in open international waters, it therefore becomes the responsibility of multinational fishery management organizations to ensure that sharks are being properly managed and, in many cases, prohibited from commercial shark fishing.

This could not be any more truer than in the Atlantic Ocean. A just-released report from Oceana cites as much as 75% of the migratory sharks in the Atlantic are classified as threatened by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) but less than 1 percent are protected by the organization that is most responsible for protecting these sharks.

The ICCAT, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, is that responsible organization. According to Oceana, "The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the primary international maritime treaty, establishes that fishing nations must cooperate to ensure the conservation of highly migratory species both within and beyond their exclusive economic zones, through appropriate international organizations."

"Because highly migratory species require international cooperation for effective management, Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) have been established to manage fisheries for these species with the goal of long-term sustainability. In the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is the most relevant and appropriate international organization to manage highly migratory species, including sharks."

Unfortunately, ICCAT's scorecard has not been a particularly winning one. Heavily influenced by commercial fishing interests, the organization has set catch limits for tuna that are consistently way below levels recommended by their own scientific advisers, and only a few species of sharks have been afforded any degree of protection.

The ICCAT has been holding its 22nd Regular Meeting of the Commission this past week in Istanbul, Turkey and Oceana is there to present the 48 member nations with the facts and to make recommendations as to actions ICCAT should be taking regarding Atlantic Ocean sharks.

Just how many sharks are being taken? Well, trying to answer that question is also part of the problem because as many as half of ICCAT's member nations did not report any shark catches in 2009 - there's no data. Based on what figures are available, combined with scientific and anecdotal observations, the current state of affairs is not good. But until there is reliable data from all member nations, the full extant of the problem can not be appreciated - which is just fine with the commercial fishing industry representatives whispering in the ears of ICCAT delegates.

In its 10-page report, Vulnerable Sharks in the Atlantic Ocean: The Need for International Management, Oceana puts forth the following recommendations to the ICCAT:

1. Prohibit retention of endangered or particularly vulnerable shark species, especially porbeagle and silky sharks.
2. Establish science-based precautionary catch limits for blue and shortfin mako sharks.
3. Require reporting of catch data as a prerequisite for landing a particular shark species.
4. Improve the ICCAT finning measure by requiring that sharks be landed with their fins wholly or partially attached in a natural manner.

I have reported on the ICCAT's dismal record in the past regarding tuna catch limits and so if the organization's history is any indication, Oceana has probably had it's hands full this past week. But it's a fight worth taking on so, as the meeting in Turkey comes to a close this weekend, let's hope that some decisive progress has been made.

Perhaps someday, with regional protections in place, a growing public awareness and clamor as to the problem, and catch levels reaching limits that are economically unsupportable, the ICCAT will live up to its environmental responsibilities. The sharks are betting their lives on it.

Download Oceana's report: Vulnerable Sharks in the Atlantic Ocean.
Read about the status of Atlantic sharks at Ocean's website.

Fiji's Sharks: study shows big business and locals are depleting a tourism and natural resource

Following on the accomplishments of island nations like Palau to establish shark sanctuaries, there is a movement developing to do the same in Fiji. While it has not yet reached the point of actual legislation or regulations for consideration by the Fijian government, it would appear to not be a moment too soon either.

According to a study just completed by Dr. Demian Chapman of the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science, Stony Brook University in New York, shark fishermen are targeting at least 10 species that are listed on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Red List. Included are sharks that make up a large part of Fiji's shark eco-tourism operations which contributes to the islands' tourism base.

Working in consort with the Fiji Fisheries Department, Dr. Chapman, who gained scientific recognition for his research in shark DNA that allowed for the tracking of hammerhead fins back to their place of origin, studied two shark fin traders in Fiji and combined his data with that of other researchers to paint an overall disturbing picture of the shark fin trade between Fiji and Hong Kong.

Three species - blue sharks, oceanic whitetips, and the silky shark were being targeted as bycatch from the tuna fisheries. However, one aspect of the study that was of particular concern was the extant to which local fishermen were involved, catching species more commonly found closer to shore. These are the sharks that divers from around the globe come to Fiji to see and so it represents a sizable lost economic value for the shark eco-tourism operators and the islands as a whole.

"I also observed a number of fins from inshore species. According to traders, these come from the coast of Fiji and are collected by local people who are paid by the dealers for shark fins and sea cucumbers," said Dr. Chapman.

This points to one of the major problems with the shark fin trade. While there is a large industrial fishing component that must be combated, there are also locals involved, merely trying to make a living. Like organized crime or the drug trade, these locals are not paid top dollar for their efforts - that's reserved for those further up in the shark fin distribution food chain - but they are tempted to participate as it could mean food on the table in a tough economy (not every Fiji citizen is employed by or benefits from the tourist trade).

And speaking of those further up the food chain, the amount of product that is being moved through Fiji alone is staggering. As reported in The Fiji Times Online, Dr. Chapman said, "I estimated the total number of fins present at each dealer by counting the number of fins visible in digital photographs taken onsite. Since most sharks produce four marketable fins (dorsal, two pectoral and lower caudal), I divided the estimated total number of fins by a factor of four to estimate the total number of individual sharks killed. One dealer had approximately 1000 fins drying, which represents at least 250 sharks killed.

"The dealer also had four large freezers full of frozen fins that were impossible to count. The other dealer had three very large piles of dried fins that I estimate contained a total of 10,000-12,000 fins and represented 2500-4000 dead sharks. The dealer indicated that they were exporting this volume on a monthly basis from Nadi International Airport to Hong Kong."

Twenty-five hundred to four thousand sharks each month, potentially coming from Fijian waters. Fiji's shark species and reef ecosystems can not withstand this kind of harvest.

The Fiji Times Online also quoted Ratu Manoa Rasigatale, who is spearheading an awareness campaign for the Coral Reef Alliance and Pew Environment Group to turn Fiji's waters into a shark sanctuary, '"It is sad to note from Dr Chapman's assessment that locals are heavily involved in the killing of reef sharks,' said Ratu Manoa, dubbed the Sharkman for his efforts to spread the gospel of shark conservation to all levels of the community in Fiji."

The only upside to a report like this is that it represents the kind of factual data needed to support a drive for establishing a shark sanctuary. No moral arguments about finning, no anecdotal evidence or stories of tradition or folklore; just the cold hard facts. Economic facts. Somebody is making a lot of money and it's not Fiji's everyday citizen; and one of the islands' major economic engines - the tourist trade - is at risk. Hopefully, that should catch the attention of government officials who are willing to look at the long-term future of Fiji's economy, its reefs and the sharks that call those reefs and the surrounding waters home.

Read about the shark fin trade in Fiji in The Fiji Times Online.

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.

High Dolphin Deaths in South Australia: Humane Society challenges fishery management

Another example of the problem with the indiscriminate nature of gill nets: ABC News reports that in South Australia, the Humane Society International is pitting itself against legally sanctioned shark fishing due to a recently high level of dolphin deaths. The commercial shark fishing operators use gill nets which are notorious for catching other marine life other than sharks. Seals, turtles, billfish, and dolphins have been known to get ensnared in gill nets and summarily discarded as bycatch.

Apparently there has been a high accumulation of baitfish in South Australian waters where the shark fishermen operate. This has attracted dolphins, thereby increasing the number accidentally caught and killed in the gill nets. Shark fishing industry officials say they are not to blame as they are operating within all legal regulations. Regardless, Humane Society officials believe action needs to be taken immediately to protect the dolphins.

"It's not only a conservation issue, potentially it's also an animal welfare issue," said Alexia Wellbelove from the Humane Society. "What we're asking AFMA, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, to do is put some measures in place to protect the dolphins. If those can't be put in place then the use of gill nets needs to be banned in that area until they can figure out what the problem is that's causing all these deaths, because it's totally unacceptable."

The Humane Society International is recommending that dolphin experts be brought in to assist the AFMA and the fishery industry in determining a solution to the problem, rather than, in essence, blame the entire situation on the dolphins.

"What we need to do is actually get some dolphin experts to give the industry some advice," Wellbelove said. "I don't believe the industry has the capability or the understanding of dolphins sufficiently to be able to give us that information with any certainty."

ICCAT & Sharks: a mixed bag of results from meeting

International organizations that actually have the power to regulate commercial activities for the benefit of ecological or conservation interests generally do so in incremental steps. The political and economic implications of their actions on behalf of the environment or endangered species can often dull the force of progressive policy proposals, and this can be a source of great frustrations to many conservationists. It's a tough and often frustrating arena to work in and if you don't have the stomach or the patience for it, it's best to steer clear and focus on regional or national initiatives - you'll probably lead a more stress-free life.

The International Commission on Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) is a worldwide group of some 48 parties (including the European Union) which meets annually to consider commercial quotas and conservation regulations for tuna, billfish, and sharks. This year, ICCAT entertained six different proposals regarding the taking of several species of shark. The end result was a mixed bag of significant progress, a few exemptions or loopholes retained, and some proposals going nowhere. Many of the proposals revolved around oceanic whitetip, porpeagle, hammerhead, mako, and thresher sharks - all listed as either globally endangered or vulnerable to extinction by the IUCN (International Unions for Conservation of Nature).

The Good News:

• The ICCAT agreed to prohibit retention of oceanic whitetip sharks (a fancy way of saying catching oceanic whitetips is no longer allowed by ICCAT-participating countries).
• The exploitation (taking of) hammerhead sharks was restricted. There is an exemption though, which is listed in The Bad News below.
• ICCAT agreed to establish a process for penalizing countries who do not accurately report shark catches. Unreported shark catches is considered a major international problem by many conservation groups.
• A reduction of fishing pressure on shortfin makos, with prohibition penalties for parties that do not accurately report catches, was agreed to. But there's a caveat (see below).

The Bad News:

• A proposal to prohibit retention of porbeagle sharks failed because of a lack of consensus from the EU, primarily due to resistance from Canada.
• Exemption to the hammerhead shark restriction: developing coastal states can catch hammerheads for food but must ensure that they do not enter the international trade.
• Due to objections from Japan, Korea, and China, the restrictions on shortfin mako sharks will not begin until 2013.
• For the second year in a row, a proposal to ban removal of shark fins at sea was tabled, with Japan opposing the ban. Many countries have or are in the process of initiating this ban within their territorial waters. But in international waters, it's shark finning as usual.

Pro-shark organizations, like Shark Advocates International (SAI), that patiently work with the ICCAT, are pleased with the good news but stand firm that more needs to be done. According to Sonja Fordham, president of SAI, "ICCAT has taken significant steps toward safeguarding sharks this week, but much more must be done to effectively conserve this highly vulnerable species. We urge ICCAT Parties to promptly implement the shark measures agreed this week and to build upon this progress by proposing complementary international safeguards for other oceans and additional shark protections at next year's ICCAT meeting."

ICCAT is one of a few worldwide bodies where international conservation policies and regulations can get hammered out. But in the world of international diplomacy, it can get ugly, with economic, political, and ecological interest groups maneuvering to exert influence. Think of it as diplomatic kickboxing - but it's the sharks that are taking all the blows.

Read PR Newswire press release.

Hawaii Shark Fin Ban: proposed bill needs your support now!

There is quite a showdown brewing regarding Hawaii's shark fin ban legislation, SB 2169, which I commented on last week. It's been through its ups and downs but has moved forward to the next step: a legislative committee which will determine this week whether the bill be brought to a vote in this session or die on the floor and have to be re-introduced all over again in the next session. As a shark conservation advocate, I favor the legislation but I am realistic in recognizing the strength of the forces that oppose it.

Money and Political Influence
In March, at the CITES conference, the political forces that were supported by Asian (particularly Japanese) commercial interests succeeded in thwarting all proposals for increased protection for seven shark species. Conservation organizations made impassioned pleas for protecting these species but, in the end, the commercial fisheries and their political influence won out.

Hawaii has the potential of being a repeat of CITES if certain politicians, who apparently have strong commercial fisheries support, get their way. One politician, Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu, has been singled out by some people as opposing the legislation and having ties to the commercial shark fishing industry. In some blogs, he has become the poster boy of the opposition and been subject to strong vitriol from some shark advocates. Whether that is productive or not is questionable. If Rep. Karamatsu is influenced or supported by lucrative commercial shark fishing interests, I suspect then that his position will not change and the best strategy would be to support the proponents of the legislation and nudge those who are fence-sitting, thereby limiting his influence on their vote.

Proponents of the legislation have been making their case with the media and soliciting support from major NGOs and even a celebrity or two. For the most part, the ecological arguments are pretty solid and have been repeated many times in this blog: tens of millions of sharks are being killed each year for the fins only; scientists are reporting definitive and severe drops in the populations of many shark species; sharks play a critical role in maintaining a healthy marine ecosystem as hunters and scavengers; because of ocean pollution, shark fins and other shark products contain high levels of mercury; while shark fin soup is considered an expensive luxury item, its demand has increased with the growth of a wealthier middle and upper class in many Asian countries; the shark fin provides little if any nutritional value in soup, and its homeopathic qualities have never been scientifically proven.

And yet it persists. Why? Money, plan and simple. The shark finning industry is an incredibly lucrative one. And with that money comes significant powers of influence.

Culture Clash
Hawaii has an interesting mix of cultures, two primarily. There is the culture of the native Hawaiians. Within that traditional culture, the shark is held with great reverence. To harm the shark is an insult to that near-sacred position. Proponents have been tapping into those beliefs to rally citizens and politicians alike of Hawaiian descent.

Then there is the Asian culture that has grown in the islands over many decades, many of Chinese descent. And within that culture there is an attitude brought from their ancestral homeland that runs counter to the mindset of many ocean conservationists: fish is food and food is survival.

This was brought to my attention at a shark conservation discussion panel I moderated and participated in at last year's BLUE Ocean Film Festival. On the panel was Dr. Greg Stone of Conservancy International. He related a discussion he had with a leading Japanese fisheries management official. The official said (and I am paraphrasing from memory) that one of the main differences between Asian and western attitudes regarding marine sealife is that "We don't play with our food." A bit caustic, but the point was that we (meaning westerners) sometimes personalize - and in some cases humanize - our relationship with sealife, whereas for many Asian cultures it's just food; it's a matter of survival.

Now this is not a totally pervasive attitude and is prone to generalization. And whenever one discusses cultural differences, it is a delicate ice of political correctness that one is skating on. However, it certainly is a component of the situation taking place in Hawaii. If shark finning is perceived as cruel (the animal is finned and often thrown overboard, left to drown), then what about the cruelty imposed on poultry or cattle? Are we not treating those animals as simply a food source? Well, that can be another debate in itself, but suffice to say that, yes, cattle and poultry are food. However, they are raised to be food and we utilize as much of the animal as possible. Whereas, shark fishing is not based on farm-raised animals (not feasible with sharks) and it is not an efficient utilization of the animal. We are pulling these animals from the wild and the marine ecosystem suffers for it.

What You Can Do
There's a lot that is in play with the proposed SB 2169: conservation, morality, political influence, economics, and cultural heritage - all working with or against each other. So, what can you do, particularly if you are not an islander? Well, the pen can be mightier than the sword. And what better time to voice your position during this week: I have read that the legislative committee will make its vote this Thursday, Earth Day 2010.

If you wish to make a brief but thoughtful and respectful statement regarding support for SB 2169, do it now. Here are a couple of key email addresses:

The entire Hawaiian House of Representatives:
reps@capitol.hawaii.gov.

Sen. Clayton Hee (proponent who introduced the bill):
senhee@capitol.hawaii.gov

Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu (opponent):
repkaramatsu@capitol.hawaii.gov

Also, here's some interesting articles to provide you with more background info:
Honolulu Advertiser - Senator pushing to get vote on shark fin ban
KHON2.com - Shark Fin Ban Uncertain
Pete Thomas' Blog - Support for Hawaii shark fin ban grows, but will it be enough
SB 2169 - the text of the proposed legislation

Celebrate Earth Day and help Hawaii set the standard in shark conservation for others to follow: let your conviction be known!