The international organisation TRAFFIC reports White Shark fins, jaws, teeth and meat are traded in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand and South Korea (Rose 1996). Increasing demand for White Shark products particularly fins, jaws, and teeth, has inflated their value. Recent reports have been made identifying values of up to $50,000 paid for jaws from South Africa and $600 for individual teeth, despite their current protection there (L. Compagno pers comm., in Bruce and Stevens 1998). Those who previously targeted White Sharks for sport, trophy, profit or fear largely no longer do so. However, there is evidence that deaths still occur from fishers who deliberately set out to capture and kill White Sharks for the prized jaws, other products or simply for the thrill. The number of White Sharks that continue to be taken intentionally by people prepared to break the law is unknown
There is evidence of the existence of an international trade in jaws and teeth through the Internet. The Internet makes international illegal trade easier. Frequent and regular advertisements soliciting Great White Shark parts in Australian fishing magazines and the Internet also point towards the possibility of an illegal trade within Australia, with illegal exports likely.
In Australia’s Oceans Policy (Environment Australia 1998) the Commonwealth Government stated its commitment to seek international protection for the White Shark. To this end Australia, has now listed White Shark on Appendix 111 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This listing requires Australia to issue CITES permits to allow trade and all other Parties trading in the species to issue a Certificate of Origin (stating where the specimens come from). These certificates of origin will be reported to the Secretariat each year in the Party’s annual report, enabling a trail to be built up of where exports of the species are coming from and where they were going. This will assist Australia to regulate trade in specimens and enable all Parties to gain a greater understanding of trade in the species and any parts or derivatives of the species. The CITES listing proposal can be found on http://www.ea.gov.au/coasts/species/sharks/greatwhite.html
There are several commercial fisheries in Australia that frequently take shark fins as by product. Dried shark fin can attract a high price on Asian markets. There is an increasing demand for shark fins and a subsequent rise in mean values (Stoessell 1993). Shark finning is both wasteful, when fins are removed and the carcass is discarded, and a possible inducement to fishers to actively target sharks. The humaneness and wastefulness of shark finning are not discussed in this plan.
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Shark fin exported from Australia between 1 July 1998 and 31 May 1999
Image unavailable in extracted text
The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995) identifies the need to manage resources sustainably and specifically to reduce discarding. The International Plan of Action for Sharks (FAO 1999) (IPOA – Sharks) is more explicit stating that full use should be made of dead sharks eg. particularly those that have had their fins removed.
Recently, controversy over shark finning has assumed a very high profile in Hawaii. A coalition of fishers, regulators, Congressional members, and non government environmental organisations have lobbied strongly for the discontinuation of shark finning in the western Pacific pelagic fishery based, upon the fact that the bycatch of sharks has grown from 2200 in 1991 to 60 000 in 1998. Data shows that 98.7 percent of these sharks are killed solely for their fins with the carcasses being dumped overboard. The relevant management council rejected the proposed ban and instead set an allowable ‘bycatch’ limit of 50 000 sharks.
The apparent increase in the practice of shark finning, where the fins are removed and the carcass discarded, may pose a threat to White Sharks. Effective regulation of shark finning would allow the catch to be monitored for species of interest and provide catch data for management. Without effective regulation of shark finning that applies to all shark species, there is a potential loophole to take White Sharks for trophy items in Australia. Regardless of the competency of individual fishers to recognise a protected species of shark it is even more difficult to identify species from their fins alone without the use of techniques such as DNA analysis. On this basis the retention of all shark trunks that are finned should be written into the regulations of fisheries where sharks are targeted or incidentally taken. Ideally a national ban on the activity would largely remove the threat but this may unnecessarily penalise fishers whose potential to take a protected shark is limited.
In October 2000, an interim ban was placed on the practice of shark finning at sea in the Commonwealth East Coast Tuna and Billfish Fishery and Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery and the Christmas and Cocos Tuna Fishery. In these fisheries, operators are prevented from possessing, carrying and landing shark fins that are not attached to the trunk of a shark. (AFFA) Following concerns raised about shark bycatch in the Northern Prawn Fishery (NPF), industry initiated a ban on the take of all shark products. This ban includes fins, trunks, fillets, teeth, saw shark rostrums and skate and ray products. AFMA approved the implementation of this measure from the beginning of the 2001 season (1 February 2001). The Commonwealth is currently considering longer term arrangements on the banning of at sea finning of sharks.
The states of New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania have also introduced similar bans on finning at sea in response to concerns over the sustainability of some species of shark that are finned, the need to prevent finning of protected species, and issues of waste and cruelty. The state of Queensland is also in the process of implementing a ban on shark finning. (AFFA) In those states where the practise is banned, it is prohibited to take and land any shark species mutilated in any manner other than by heading, gutting or removing gills or for any boat in State waters to possess any shark fins on board. Shark fin production is not well regulated in Australia and accurate figures on the size of the take and the species harvested are difficult to obtain. In the light of international activity and growing national pressures about the status of shark populations, as well as the animal welfare concerns associated with shark finning, it is essential that the Australian situation regarding shark finning be analysed and reported.
The Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS) ) report on shark finning (Rose and McLoughlin 2001) has:
examined the extent of shark finning in Australian waters by collating available information and identifying how finning threatens shark populations relative to other threatening practices;
described the regulatory arrangements under which shark finning occurs and how regulation provides either an incentive or disincentive to continue the practice; and
reviewed the various international mechanisms used to manage the practice and provide a guide to possible options.
Rose and McLoughlin (2001) highlight that the demand for shark fin escalated during the 1990s, with prices received for premium quality dried fin in Australia recently reaching $275/kg, making it one of the most expensive fishery products. Shark fin exports increased during the 1990s from 6.5 tons in 1992-93 to 94 tons in 1998-99 with this last year estimated to be worth $5.5 million (Rose and McLoughlin 2001) (this value is not included in official estimates of the value of the Australian shark catch). Shark fin derived in Australian waters from both target shark fisheries and non-target shark fisheries is nearly all exported, with an estimated 92 tons of the total 1998-99 exports of 94 tons coming from Australian fisheries. Around 35 per cent of the 92 tons of dried fin was potentially derived from the practice of finning, where only the fins are retained and the remainder of the shark is discarded. The majority of this comes from the tuna longline fisheries.
In light of international activity and growing national and international pressures about the status of shark populations, it would be timely that management of shark finning in Australian fisheries be addressed and be consistent across jurisdictions.
Section Trade - White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) Recovery Plan - Trade | Zoe