end of the line 2007 us••.qxd:– - oceanaa survey conducted by wildaid and china wildlife...

The END of the LINE ?The END of the LINE ?global threats

to sharksglobal threats

to sharks

End Of The Line 2007 US••.qxd:– 11/6/07 5:26 PM Page a

T H E E N D O F T H E L I N E ? 1

About WildAidWildAid’s Shark Conservation Program aims to:

� Raise awareness globally about threats to sharks

� Promote sustainable management of shark populations

� End the practice of finning globally

� Reduce excess demand for shark fin

In addition, WildAid is providing financial and technical support to theGalápagos Islands for patrolling and enforcing the Marine Reserves.

Through the WildAid 100% Direct Fund all public donations can gostraight to field protection with no administrative or overhead deductions.

WildAid is a US registered public charity based in San Francisco withrepresentation in London, the Galápagos Islands, Beijing and New Delhi.

WildAid-s mission is to end the illegal wildlife trade in our lifetimes.

WildAid focuses on reducing the demand for unsustainable and illegalwildlife products through public and policy maker education.

To learn more visit www.wildaid.org

ContentsFOREWORD 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

AN INTRODUCTION TO SHARKS 6

HOW WE USE SHARKS 8

WHY WE NEED SHARKS 12

THREATS TO SHARKS 15

INCREASING FISHING 16

OVERFISHING 18

BYCATCH 19

THE SHARK FIN TRADE 21

LACK OF MANAGEMENT 24

ILLEGAL FISHING 26

OTHER THREATS TO SHARKS 28

SPECIES AT RISK 30

HONG KONG – THE GLOBAL HUB 37

CHINA 38

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 41

ANNEX: ADDITIONAL DATA 43

REFERENCES 44

The End of the Line? (second edition)© 2007 WildAid All rights reserved.

Written, edited and produced by WildAid

special thanks toLouis BuckleyJennifer Hile

Photos: cover © Jeff Rotman back cover © Santiago Moran this page © Bruce McCoubrey

Design by Beowulf Grimbly & Xiaoxiao Sun

In memoriam of Peter Benchley, author andconservationist

WildAid would like to thank the following (whosegenerous assistance in no way implies their agreementwith or endorsement of the contents, conclusions orrecommendations in this report):

for supporting WildAid’s Shark Conservation ProgramAnonymous DonorAVINABarbara Delano FoundationDavid and Lucile Packard FoundationDisney Wildlife Conservation FundErika KnieFiredoll FoundationHelaine LernerOceanaRichard and Rhoda Goldman FundDan RiceDr. Stephan SchmidheinyRobert StephensSave Our Seas FoundationThornton FoundationWallace Global FundWendy P. McCaw FoundationWildlifelineWilson, Sonsini, Goodrich and Rosati Foundation

for their assistance with information, photos, and supportChristopher AngellMr Abdulrazak, KenyaWendy BenchleyNicola BeynonGeorge BurgessMerry CamhiShelley ClarkeAndy CobbLeonard CompagnoMathieu DucrocqBob EndresonMark ErdmannSonja FordhamSarah FowlerMalcom FrancisSuwanna GauntlettCharles GoodfellowMr Ishmael, KenyaClive JamesKelly KokLeena KumarappanMr K.H. KwongJerome ManningRick MartinBruce McCoubreyNeal MyerbergWai Yee NgJulie PackardLinda PaulClare RobertsonJeff RotmanAmadou SaineMr. Shafi, IndiaHoward ShawAlex SmailesMalcolm SmaleColin SpeedieJohn StevensCarol StimsonMichael SuttonTony Wu

Columbia TristarDiscovery Channel AsiaOcean Wildlife CampaignThe Shark TrustUniversal Home Video

Printed on recycled paper.

Oceana campaigns to protect and restore theworld’s oceans. Our teams of marine

scientists, economists, lawyers and advocateswin specific and concrete policy changes to

reduce pollution and to prevent theirreversible collapse of fish populations,marine mammals and other sea life. Globalin scope and dedicated to conservation,Oceana has campaigners based in NorthAmerica (Washington, DC; Juneau, AK;Portland, OR; Monterey, CA; Santa Monica,CA), Europe (Madrid, Spain; Brussels,Belgium) and South America (Santiago,Chile). More than 300,000 members ande-activists in over 150 countries have alreadyjoined Oceana.

www.oceana.org

End Of The Line 2007 US••.qxd:– 11/6/07 5:26 PM Page b

S ince earliest times, human beings have relied on wildresources. For most of our history, we were justanother link in the food chain, another predator.

Increasingly our ever-expanding populations, our technology andorganization mean we have become a superpredator with few ofnature’s checks and balances. We now farm resources to producethem on the scale we desire—and fisheries are one of the world’slast great wild harvests. Yet, in the last fifty years humanity hasproven beyond a doubt that the oceans are not infinite. Whatseemed to be an inexhaustible supply as recently as twenty yearsago has, in many areas, been taken to its limits and beyond.Leading marine biologists recently warned that we had beenwrong to suppose that we could not cause the extinction of amarine fish species—we are already doing this.

Sharks are likely to be in the first round of marine extinctionscaused by human activity. As top predators they are naturallyrelatively scarce, but also highly vulnerable. Some have gestationperiods longer than an elephant, produce only ahandful of young and take up to 25 years to mature.When they have faced directed fishing pressure, somepopulations have crashed, taking decades for a stockto recover, if ever.

Though they have swum the oceans since beforethe dinosaurs, they have never faced a predator asvoracious as industrialized humanity. Traditionallythey have been seen as more of a nuisance byfishermen than a saleable commodity and so wererelatively little impacted on a global scale. Many ofthe poorest fishing communities consume shark meat themselvesas it has so little market value.

But in the last few decades the situation has dramaticallychanged. As other fisheries have been depleted, fishermen havecompensated with sharks. A relatively obscure custom of thewealthy from southern China—using the needles of shark fins insoup as an ingredient to add texture, but not flavor—hasburgeoned to the point where shark fin soup has become an almostubiquitous dish at weddings, banquets and business dinnersthroughout the Chinese world. What was once eaten on a specialoccasion by the privileged few is now regularly eaten by hundredsof millions of people.

The word has gone out to fishermen far and wide that sharkfins mean money, regardless of whether the rest of the body isdumped overboard. The shark fin trade has gone global, fisheriesmanagement for sharks has been left at the starting blocks. Onlya handful of countries have any management of shark fisheries atall, and only three species are protected internationally. There islittle data and monitoring of catches to alert us to populationcrashes. The consequences are easy to predict, but hard todocument, as so little reliable data is available.

This report is not a scientific study or a systematic global tradereview. Rather it is an attempt to assemble a broad overview inlay terms of the factors likely to affect the survival of sharks. Andit is a call to action.

Using sharks sustainably is not just an option for the poorfishing communities that depend on shark meat as a proteinsource, it is a necessity. Nor is it an option for those who wish tocontinue eating shark fin soup. No sharks, no shark fin soup. It issadly ironic that in countries such as Kenya and Brazil peopleare losing their subsistence food to supply one of the world’s mostexpensive culinary items.

As well as being a food security issue, it is likely that removingsharks will have serious repercussions for many other species,which may ultimately disrupt fisheries with far greater economicvalue. We may only discover this when it is too late.

What hope then for sharks, and ultimately the oceans?The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO) has recognized the crisis and asked its 190members to devise management plans by February2001. However, the response of member states hasbeen poor to date and other international bodies havebeen slow to play their role in conserving shark stocks.

Solutions will come only from a combination ofactions: learning more about sharks, reducing fishingpressure, stopping unnecessary bycatch, monitoringshark fishing and trade, and more effectiveenforcement of regulations. However, none of thesemeasures will be effective if the demand for shark

products— and in particular the fins—is not reduced tosustainable levels.

This requires a truly global effort, but also strong leadershipfrom Asia, where a dramatic leap in awareness, concern and self-restraint among consumers is needed. There is nothing wrongwith eating shark fin soup, there are just too many of us doing it.The industry needs regulating to prevent stock depletions and thewastage of “finning”. Those who wish to maintain the tradition ofshark fin soup should be the loudest voices calling for regulation.

We still have an irrational fear of sharks which may explainour lack of will to conserve them. Perhaps because we fear theunknown and so much about sharks is still a mystery. Yetincreasingly the well-informed are developing a respect for thesemagnificent predators, some of nature’s most successful designs.Divers now cherish encounters with sharks, as terrestrial touristsdo with elephants and gorillas, suggesting new ways for us toprofit from sharks without destroying them.

Peter KnightsExecutive Director, WILDAID

Steve TrentPresident, WILDAID


Foreword

Hammerhead sharksin the Galápagos

© C

. P

. H

UM

AN

N /

IN

NE

RSP

AC

E V

ISIO

NS

“Sharks arelikely to be inthe first round

of marineextinctions”

End Of The Line 2007 US••.qxd:– 11/6/07 5:26 PM Page 2

� Artisanal fishermen in the developing world are losing theircatches to modern technology. In many areas, sharkabundance has declined due to the arrival of modernlongliners and trawlers, many foreign-owned and fishingillegally. With human populations increasing and sharkstocks decreasing, poor countries are being deprived of anessential source of protein.

� The demand for shark fin soup is at an all-time high. Asaffluence grows in Asia, and in China particularly, so doesthe market for luxury items. One recent study estimated thatfins from between 26 and 73 million sharks are tradedglobally each year, while reported world trade in fins hasnearly tripled from 4,900 metric tons in 1987 to 13,600 mt in2004. Shark fin is one of the most expensive seafoodproducts: at up to US$100 per bowl for shark fin soup,demand – and profit – are greatly increasing pressure onshark pop ula tions. Now sharks in all regions of the globe aresought solely for their fins.

� A survey conducted by WildAid and China WildlifeConservation Association (CWCA) in 16 Chinese cities foundthat 8,400 people out of 24,000 surveyed (35%) had eaten

shark fin soup. 2,200 (9%) reported eating it three times ormore.

� During the finning process, a shark is hauled up on deck, itsfins sliced off, and the animal – sometimes still alive – isthrown back into the sea to bleed to death. This practice isnot only cruel, it is incredibly wasteful as finning onlyutilizes 1–5% of the shark’s body-weight.

� Consumers are largely unaware of the origins of shark fin.Studies in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan showthat consumers have little understanding of where shark finsoup comes from (as shark fin soup in Chinese is “fish wingsoup”), of overfishing, of illegal shark fishing, or of thepractice of finning. They wrongly believe in some cases thatfins grow back, that shark fin is flavorsome and nutritious,and that it has medicinal properties. In fact, as apex predators,sharks accumulate the toxic load of the animals below themin the food chain and their long life-spans exacerbate thiseffect. Shark meat and fins have been found to containdangerous levels of methylmercury, a potent neurotoxin inhumans, which if ingested can be particularly hazardous tofetal development and is linked to male infertility.

� Sharks have been swimming the world’s oceans for over 400million years – 100 million years before the first dinosaursappeared on land. They inhabit every ocean and play a vitalrole in maintaining the health of marine ecosystems. Weutilize them for a number of products, such as meat,cartilage and fins and they are a critical food source for manyin developing countries. They are an increasingly importantrevenue source for dive tourism around the world.

� Yet sharks are being overfished in many parts of the globe,and many populations have declined by as much as 90%. Asother fish stocks have dwindled due to overfishing, anddemand for fins has expanded, sharks are increasinglytargeted. Reported world catches rose from around 625,000metric tons (mt) in 1985 to over 810,000 mt in 2004. Thesefigures are likely to be a gross underestimate, however, withone recent study claiming that shark catches are at least fourtimes higher. Of the 546 shark species assessed by the WorldConservation Union (IUCN), 110 (20%) are classified asendangered, threatened or vulnerable.

� Despite declines, only great white, basking and whale sharks,covered under CITES regulations, are protected inter -nationally. Other than that, only a handful of countriesmanage shark fisheries.

� Effective conservation and management are hindered bymeager insight into the biology, distribution, migration andexploitation of most shark species.

� Sharks are highly vulnerable to overfishing because they aregenerally slow-growing and long-lived. Females reproducelate in life, and have few offspring. This makes theminherently unable to withstand heavy, protractedexploitation – and slow to recover following declines. As aresult, shark fisheries often follow a “boom and bust”pattern.

� As shark populations plummet worldwide, Marine Reservesare the new target of illegal fisheries. Many of the world’smarine protected areas, such as the Galápagos Islands andCocos Island, are now regularly fished illegally for in creas ing lyvaluable shark fins.

4 T H E E N D O F T H E L I N E ? T H E E N D O F T H E L I N E ? 5

Executive Summary

© ULLSTEIN-LANGE / STILL PICTURES

Cat shark, the Philippines.

End Of The Line 2007 US••.qxd:– 11/6/07 5:26 PM

� Sharks range from the world’s largest fish, the plankton-eating whale shark, which can reach 14 m in length, tothe 15 cm spined pygmy shark, Squaliolus laticaudus.

� Most shark species are small and harmless to humans.Half of them reach less than 1 m in length and 80% aresmaller than an adult human.1

� Some shark species lay eggs and others give birth to livepups, sometimes after lengthy gestation (pregnancy)periods.

� Sharks have seven senses: hearing, sight, touch, smell(which can range for several miles), taste, electrosense,

and lateral line and pit organs (which pick up weakvibrations).1

� Sharks are capable of learning and can display complexsocial behavior. They have brain-to-body ratios wellwithin the range of birds and mammals.3

� Sharks diverged from bony fish 400 million years ago,evolving without swim bladders or lungs, and with teethnot in sockets but attached to the jaw by soft tissue andcontinually replaced. Sharks have no gill covers, bony finspines or prominent scales. Shark skin is covered withtiny tooth-like projections called “denticles”, whichchannel water to reduce friction.1


WHAT IS A SHARK?

Sharks comprise about seven percent ofliving fish species. They inhabit almostevery marine ecosystem on earth and arefound in all the world’s oceans, as well asmany inland waterways. Unlike mostfish, shark skeletons are composed ofcartilage.1

Sharks and their close relatives,skates, rays and chimaeras – knowncollectively as chondrichthyans – fall intotwo main groups. Elasmobranchsinclude the 490 or so species whichpeople generally recognize as “sharks,”along with around 630 species of skatesand rays. Chimaeras, such as elephantfish and ghost sharks, are thought tocomprise 50 species.

2

EVOLUTIONARY SUCCESS

In evolutionary terms, sharks are one ofthe most successful families of animals,thriving in the world’s oceans forhundreds of millions of years. Theearliest shark species predate the firstdinosaurs by 100 million years. Theysurvived mass extinction events withtheir diversity relatively intact and maytherefore make excellent indicatorspecies in gauging the effects of humanactivity on marine ecosystems.

ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE

Since they are often the “apex”, or toppredators in their ecosystems, thedepletion or removal of sharks is likely toaffect marine ecosystems and theabundance of other fish species in waysthat cannot currently be predicted. Manymarine experts believe that sharks arevital in maintaining marine biodiversityand are concerned that some species maybecome extinct before their ecologicalrole is fully understood.

LEARNING FROM SHARKS

Scientists are still discovering the uniquecharacteristics of shark biology. It isknown that they have extra senses, liketheir electrosense (which picks up electri -cal fields), and that some species cangenerate body heat for greater mus cle effi -ciency. The hydrodynamics of their skinhas even inspired the swim wear indus try.Fastskin, a swimsuit devel oped by theAustralian manufacturer Speedo, repli -cates the microscopic tooth like struc-tures on shark skin to reduce drag andturbulence, increasing swim ming speeds.The US Navy is reported to study sharkskin and propulsion in con sid er ing a newgen er ation of submarines, whilst NASA isreported to consider using shark skin as amodel for the hull of the Space Shuttle.

MIGRATION

Some shark species migrate vastdistances to find food or to reproduce:

� In 2000, a blue shark, Prionace glauca,tagged off Tasmania was caught offthe coast of southwest Africa, 9,500kilometers (km) away.3

� A spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias,tagged off Washington State, US,appeared in Japan seven years later, ajourney of 6,000 km.4

� In 2003–2004, researchers tracked afemale great white shark (Carcharodoncarcharias) across the Indian Oceanfrom South Africa to Australia andback again in just nine months – adistance of more than 20,000 km.This makes it one of the fastest long-distance journeys for any swimminganimal – only tuna come close.5

� Whale sharks (Rhincodon typus)undertake very long distancemigrations. Studies off the Malaysianand Philippine coastline indicate thatwhale sharks swim an average of 24km/day and have a minimum range of2,000 km. One tagged whale sharktraveled 13,000 km over 37 months asit migrated from the Sea of Cortez,Mexico, to the western Pacific Ocean.6

The fact that sharks can cross entire oceansmakes it imperative that shark man age -ment becomes a global issue, not one regu -lated in just a handful of countries.

SHARK FACTS

© M

ICH

AE

L B

JOR

NB

AK

ILLU

STR

AT

ION

© B

AR

BA

RA

HO

OP

ES

/ W

ILD

LIFE

ED

UC

AT

ION

LT

D.

BASKING SHARKCetorhinus maximus

BLUE SHARKPrionace glauca

FRILLED SHARKChlamydoselachus anguineus

GOBLIN SHARKMitsukurina owstoni

GREAT HAMMERHEADSphyrna mokarran

GREAT WHITE SHARKCarcharodon carcharias

HORN SHARKHetereodontus francisci

LEOPARD SHARKTriakis semifasciata

MAKO SHARKIsurus oxyrinchus

SAND TIGER SHARKOdontaspis taurus

WOBBEGONGOrectolobus ornatus

WHALE SHARKRhincodon typus

Note on terminology

In this report, “shark” refers to all chondrichthyans except in citations, verbatim quotations, or where explicitlystated otherwise. The term “fishermen” refers to individuals of either gender engaged in fishing activity.

All weights have been converted into metric tons (mt) and all values to US dollars.

An Introduction to Sharks

THRESHER SHARKAlopias vulpinas

TIGER SHARKGaleocerdo cuvieri


Fins on sharks


shark fin soup continues to escalate. Inrecent years, it is rumoured thatrestaurants are putting less and lessshark fin into the soup, or in some cases,to mixing real shark fin with artificialfibers.15 Far from turning their backs onshark fin, consumers are opting insteadfor a dish that contains a wholeunbroken fin – evidence that it is theauthentic product.13

IS SHARK FIN GOING DOWN-MARKET?

WildAid’s recent research in theconsumer markets reveals that shark finis going down-market. Having gainedreputation over the centuries as a symbolof wealth and success, soup and otherproducts made from shark fin are nowbecoming commonplace.16

� Singapore now boasts US$8.99 All-You-Can-Eat shark fin buffets.

� 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 catfood.

� In a restaurant in Qingdao onMainland China, a set menuconsisting of abalone, bird’s nest andshark fin soup was advertised at a costof just US$24.

� Dried shark fin retailers in Qingdaoand Shanghai sell 12-gram boxes offin fiber for US$6.50.

� Press reports from Shanghai revealthat the economic recession hasprompted consumers to opt forcheaper, mass produced shark fins.

While it maybe argued that this develop -ment will reduce the “mystique” of sharkfin and, thereby, its consump tion, itseems far more likely that it will simplyencourage consumers to believe that theycan still buy into the symbolism of sharkfin but at a price affordable to all.

In Asia many types of shark are eaten.The Japanese, for instance, consider meatfrom the mako shark to be highlypalatable and it can fetch pricescomparable to swordfish (Xiphias gladius).9

Both blue shark and spiny dogfish meatare also eaten, although the former needsto be processed quickly to avoiddeterioration.Shark meat is oftenground into a paste called “surimi”9 .

Other shark parts are eaten in variouscountries: shark skin is eaten in Japan,Taiwan, the Solomon Islands and theMaldives; liver in Japan, China and theSolomon Islands; and shark stomach isconsumed in the Solomon Islands,Uruguay and Taiwan.7

SHARK FIN SOUP

Shark fin, known as yu chi in China (“fishwing” in English), has been considered adelicacy in Chinese cuisine since theSung dynasty (AD 960–1279), and sharkfin soup was established as a traditionalcomponent of formal banquets by theMing dynasty (AD 1368–1644).10

Although originally a southern Chinesedish, shark fin has spread throughoutChinese communities in Asia and therest of the world, and is now standardfare at weddings, banquets and corporatefunctions.

The processing of raw shark fins hasmultiple stages and involves removal ofthe skin, cartilage and any attached meatto leave only the fine collagenous fibersknown as “needles”. First, the fins areblanched in very hot water and the skinscraped off. Next, they are placed in ice

How We UseSharksSharks are used worldwide for a varietyof purposes. The many products derivedfrom sharks include meat and fins forhuman consumption; liver oil to producelubricants, cosmetics and vitamin A;cartilage as a purported (but unproven)medicinal treatment; skin for leather;and jaws and teeth for curios andtrinkets.7

MEAT

Shark meat is eaten in most, if not all,countries of the world, althoughconsumption is much lower than that ofbony fish species. Unless quicklyprocessed, the high urea content canrender some shark meat inedible. Insome countries in the developing world,such as Sri Lanka, Mexico and parts ofAfrica, shark meat is a significant part ofthe human diet and provides much ofthe protein requirements of poorercommunities.

In the west, however, shark meat istraditionally viewed as inferior. To makeit more appealing the spiny dogfish, awidely eaten shark species, is marketedunder names like rock salmon in the UK,saumonette (“little salmon”) in France,and Schillerlocken (“locks of Schiller”)and seeaal (“sea eel”) in Germany.8

Recently, mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) andthresher (Alopias vulpinus) meat has begunto increase in popularity.

water to aid removal of cartilage, andthen sun-dried on racks. Once this iscomplete, they are transferred to a cooldrying room to prevent softening and,finally, refrigerated. Fins are also usuallybleached to give them a desirable whitishcolor – methods involve smoking withsulphur overnight or treatment withhydrogen peroxide.11 At the cookingstage, the fins are soaked again, this timeto remove their fishy odor. After theyhave softened, further preparation is upto the chef.12

Because of its association withprivilege and social rank, shark fin soupis served to celebrate important eventssuch as weddings, birthdays, or corporatefunctions. There is also the issue of “face”(respect), which is of paramountimportance in the Chinese culture. As aleading chef in Singapore explained, “Ifyou don’t serve shark fin soup atweddings, or at important dinners, thehost will look very cheap and that is notgiving face to your guests”.13 This displayof wealth and generosity is measured bythe cost of the food and reflects on theefforts of hosts to provide their besthospitality to guests.

For many superstitious Chinese, eventhe words for shark fin have a bounteousring. In the famous Chinese saying Niannian you yu, meaning “yearly prosperity”,yu means “plentiful” (in terms ofmaterial wealth) and because it has thesame tone as yu (fish), it is importantthat a fish dish is served at Chinese NewYear meals to represent and welcomeprosperity. Although steamed fish isoften used symbolically, consumers nowoften eat shark fin as well.14

Shark fin soup can be very expensive.Depending on the amount of fin in thesoup, the price can range from US$10 toas high as US$100 per bowl. Althoughthe quality and texture of shark fin isimportant in making the soup (thelonger and thicker the strands, the betterand costlier they are), the fins are essen -tially tasteless. The flavor of shark finsoup lies entirely on the preparation ofthe broth, which is usually chicken soup.The broth is prepared separately fromthe fins and they are combined justbefore serving. As a leading chef inSingapore explained, “The fins with theirnoodle-like tissues have no taste inthemselves and are used only as a soupthickener”.13

Even though it is widely known thatshark fins lack flavor, the demand for

© B

. M

CC

OU

BR

EY/

WIL

DA

ID©

M.

ER

DM

AN

N

Above & Upper left: Shark meat is eatenin most countries around the worldand is an important source of proteinin many developing countries.

Left: “Rock salmon” in British “fishand chips” is spiny dogfish, a species ofshark.

The most coveted fins on a shark’s body are the first dorsal, pectorals and lowerlobe of the caudal fin, and these are usually sold as a set from each shark. Thesmaller second dorsal and pelvic fins – known as “chips” – are also taken, but aremuch lower value and many fins are mixed from several sharks.17 The upper lobeof the caudal fin contains no fin needles17, but is still frequently harvested.18

© W

ILD

AID

© W

ILD

AID

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

first dorsal finsecond dorsal fin

pectoral finventral fin

anal fin

lower partof the tail

FIRST GRADE:

1. first dorsal fin2. pair of pectorals3. lower lobe of the tail

LOWER GRADE:

4. second dorsal fin5. pair of ventral fins6. anal fin

1

2 3

4

5

6


The flesh of large, slow-growingpredatory fish, like sharks, is known tocontain high levels of mercury. This isbecause mercury is stored in themuscle tissues of fish, and when apredatory fish eats another fish, itassumes all of the mercury stored inthe body of its prey. Therefore, thehigher up the food chain a fish ispositioned, and the older it gets, thegreater the concentraion of mercurystored in its body.25

Mercury enters the environment inboth organic and inorganic formsfrom natural (volcanoes, mercurydeposits, etc) and man-made (coalcombustion, metal processing, etc)sources. In the ocean, inorganicmercury is converted into organicmethylmercury by micro-organisms,which are fed upon by plankton.Methylmercury thus enters the foodchain and gradually accumulates inapex predators like sharks, swordfishand tuna.25

Methylmercury is a potentneurotoxin that affects the brain,spinal cord, kidneys and liver.26 In mildcases of poisoning, adults complain ofreductions in motor skills and dulledsenses of touch, taste and sight.27

Developing fetuses are at greatest riskfrom mercury exposure as methyl -mercury can pass through the placentaand adversely affect the developingbrain,28,29 and high mercury levels havealso been linked to infertility inmen.30,31,32

Numerous studies have confirmedthat shark meat contains methyl -mercury at levels that exceed the safelimits for humans.33,34,35 As a result,various health advisory bodies haverecommended lowering or avoidingthe consumption of shark meat andother large predatory fish: youngchildren and women of childbearingage are advised to avoid shark by theFood Standards Agency (UK), US Foodand Drug Administration and USEnviron mental Protection Agency.36,37

However, it is not just shark meatthat can contain dangerous levels ofmercury. Tests commissioned byWildAid and carried out at the state-run Thai Institute of Scientific andTechnological Research in 2001 showedshark fins to contain mercuryconcentrations up to 42 times higherthan the safe limit for humans.38


CARTILAGE

Shark cartilage is increasingly marketedas a health supplement and alternativecure for certain diseases, includingasthma, eczema, arthritis and even cancer– claims which have little or no scientificbasis (see box below). Chondroitin,derived from shark cartilage, has beenused as an ingredient in artificial skin forburn victims.7

LIVER OIL

The use of shark liver oil as a lubricantand source of vitamin A in the 1930s and1940s sparked a boom in several sharkfisheries. However, the development ofsynthetic substitutes caused the sharkliver oil market to collapse and althoughit is still used in the production ofpharmaceuticals and cosmetics, reportedproduction is now extremely low.7

Other traditional uses include aswood preservative on boat hulls, fuel forstreet lamps, and in the manufacture ofskin healing products.7

The promotion of crude shark cartilage as a cure forcancer has contributed to at least two significantnegative out comes: a decline in shark popula tions, and adiversion of patients from effect ive cancer treatments.19

The idea was popularized in the best-selling book“Sharks Don’t Get Cancer” by William Lane, publishedin 1992 in the United States, which justifies using crudecartilage extracts on the (false) basis that sharks veryrarely get cancer.19 A survey carried out by WildAid lastyear in China confirmed that it is a widely held beliefthat sharks are immune to cancer and that eating sharkfin soup or crude extracts of shark cartilage can preventand even cure the disease.20

Research has shown that shark cartilage does containsome “anti-angiogenic” properties – that is, it can stopthe blood supply necessary for the growth of a tumor –

and this has led to the development of various potentialcancer therapy drugs, currently under going clinicaltrials.21,22 However, there is absolutely no scientificevidence that consump tion of raw shark cartilage or itscrude extracts has any effect in pre vent ing tumorgrowth19, and in 2004, William Lane’s company, LaneLabs-USA Inc., was ordered to refund money topurchasers of illegally marketed, unapproved sharkcartilage-based drugs.23

The idea that sharks don’t get cancer is also incorrect,as illustrated by a 2004 study that described benign andmalignant tumors in 21 chondrichthyan species. Tumorsof the skin, blood, nervous, digestive, excretory,reproductive and endocrine systems, as well as thecartilage itself, were all found.19

Mercury health effects

� Deteriorates nervous system

� Impairs hearing, speech, visionand gait

� Causes involuntary musclemovements

� Corrodes skin and mucousmembranes

� Causes chewing andswallowing to become difficult

SKIN

Tanned skin is used to make leather, themain markets for which are the USA,Germany, France and Japan. Stingrayskin is also used in luxury leatherproducts in the USA.24 Untanned skin,called Shagreen, is used as sandpaper inthe woodworking industry.

JAWS AND TEETH

The jaws and sharp pointed teeth ofsharks are used to make traditionalweapons and jewellery, trinkets, curiosand souvenirs for tourists.

© D

. P

ER

RIN

E/I

NN

ER

SPA

CE

VIS

ION

S

© D

. P

ER

RIN

E/I

NN

ER

SPA

CE

VIS

ION

S

© S

USI

E W

AT

TS

© D

. P

ER

RIN

E/I

NN

ER

SPA

CE

VIS

ION

S

Sharks and Cancer

Mercury poisoning



KENYA

6,500 artisanalfishermen accountfor 80% of Kenya’smarine catches.Sharks are valued asa source of meatand are usuallydried, salted andconsumed locally.42

Fishermen andfish dealers in Kenyahave report edserious declines inshark catches and,without ex cep tion,they blame this onthe appearance ofindustrial longliners and shrimp trawlersover the past decade.43 A spokesman forthe shark-fishing village of Ngomeni innorthern Kenya reported that, before thearrival of the longliners, a night’s catchwould feed the village and provideenough meat for sale outside the village.Now it does not provide enough for thevillage.44

At least 20 trawlers were reported tobe in the immediate vicinity of Ngomeni,each using 3–5cm mesh nets, which were“sweeping the sea clean” and leavingvirtually nothing for the shark fishermenof Ngomeni (who have always used20–23 cm mesh nets). Malindi, atraditional fishing village for generations,has experienced severely reducedlandings and now sharks and other fishare trucked in from Mombasa, 90-minutes away.45

MEXICO

Sharks are described as a resource vital tothe Mexican economy46 and many poorMexicans subsist on a diet of sharkmeat47. The bull shark, Carcharhinus leucas,is widely eaten in Mexico and is probablythe most important species from acommercial point of view.46

A MAJOR SOURCE OF PROTEINFOR POOR COAS TALCOMMUNITIES

Many coastal communities in thedeveloping world depend on shark meatas an important source of protein. Themeat is often sun-dried or salted topreserve it. For some communities inIndia, Africa, Mexico and Sri Lanka, forexample, shark meat is the primary – andsometimes only – source of protein. Thereliance on sharks has increased as over -fishing has depleted stocks of other fish.

WildAid’s research has shown thatshark catches in a number of traditionalshark fisheries have declined – sometimesdrastically. The declines have oftencoincided with the arrival of industrial(and often foreign) fishing vessels in thearea, which frequently operate in flagrantbreach of local fishing regulations. Suchdeclines are poorly documented at localor national level, as few developingcountries have active fisheriesmanagement or systems for collectingeven basic data.

INDIA

Research conducted by WildAid hasrevealed the extent of shark catchdeclines and their impact on artisanalfishermen. Coastal communities in theStates of Andhra Pradesh and TamilNadu have reported a significant declinein shark catches over the past six years.In 1999, WildAid visited 15 fishingcommunities on the east coast andinterviewed a number of traditionalfishermen. Although unable to makeassessments of individual species’declines, locals suggested that overallshark catches had declined by between50–70% over the previous five years.41

Fishermen in Chennai (Madras) havereported to WildAid that commercialvessels operating within India’s coastalwaters are posing a serious threat toartisanal catches. Shark finning on thesecommercial vessels is viewed as a majorreason for the apparent declines.41

Why We Need SharksGUARDIANS OF OUR OCEANS

Although research on the ecological role of sharks is scarce, it isknown that some shark species play a vital role in marineecosystems and are therefore crucial indicators of marine health.The depletion or removal of sharks may lead to increases ordeclines in other species, with unpredictable consequences forecosystems. Sharks maintain the “genetic fitness” of their preyby removing the sick and the weak and help to keep theirpopulation sizes in check.48 It is likely that the removal of asignificant number of sharks will affect numerous species belowthem in the food chain. This should be of special concern tofishermen and others who make their livelihoods from the sea.

One recent study in the tropical Pacific Ocean identifiedconsiderable declines in large predators (sharks, billfish andtunas) since the start of industrial fishing in the 1950s.49

Conversely, several smaller species of fish were found to haveincreased in abundance over the same time period, probablybecause of the reduction in number of their predators.Similar results were found in the northern Gulf of Mexicowhere large coastal sharks (dusky, Carcharhinus obscurus; tiger,Galeocerdo cuvier; great white; and hammerhead, Sphyrna spp.)have declined precipitously due to overfishing.50 As a result,several small shark species (Atlantic angel shark, Squatinadumeril; smooth dogfish, Mustelis canis), previously preyedupon by their larger cousins, have been able to thrive.50

The significance of these changes for the functioning ofthe marine ecosystem and biodiversity are unclear. However,in another recent experiment carried out in the Caribbean, itwas suggested that overfishing of sharks can have a dominoeffect, ultimately leading to the degradation of entire coralreef ecosystems.51 Overfishing means that there are fewersharks to feed on carnivorous fish such as groupers (familySerranidae) – causing an increase in their numbers and theirability to prey on herbivorous parrotfishes (family Scaridae).The removal of plant-eating parrotfish in turn allows algae tothrive on the reef, smothering the coral and increasing itsvulnerability to human disturbances.51

A 2004 study on a Fijian reef fish community alsoobserved that the removal of large predatory fishes can havedisastrous effects on coral ecosystems. A decrease in theabundance of top predators led to an increase in theabundance of coral-eating starfish, and consequently a 35%decline in corals and replacement by algae.52

SHARK ATTACKS: FACT & F ICTION

Sharks always get bad press. They are seen as monsters of thedeep, waiting to devour any human who dares to ventureinto the water. Books and films, such as Jaws, are oftenblamed for this myth, but sharks have been people’s worstnightmares for centuries. Lurid headlines reinforce this onthe rare occasions that an attack takes place.

Resort developers have been known to employ sharkexperts to remove any possible predators from the area.52

Hawaii maintained a shark eradication program for decadesafter the death of a schoolchild in 1959, and in some parts ofthe world concern for shark attacks is so great thatswimming areas are cordoned off by massive shark nets.53

Only three (white, tiger and bull) species account for morethan half of all atacks on humans, and when sharks doattack, it is likely that they have mistaken humans for theirnormal prey. It is believed that many shark attacks areactually attempts by the shark to identify whether or not anobject in the water is edible: there are numerous examples ofsharks biting a human and then, realizing its mistake,swimming away.54

According to the International Shark Attack File (ISAF),the number of shark attacks in 2005 fell for the fifth year in arow, with 58 unprovoked attacks and four fatalities recordedworldwide.55 However, the longer-term trend reveals a steadyincrease in attacks over the past century. Overall, the 1990’shad the highest attack total (470 with 61 fatalities) of anydecade, and the first decade of the 21st century looks to becontinuing that upward trend. In the first half of this decadethere have so far been 310 attacks.55

George Burgess, Director of the ISAF, points out that theincrease in attacks is “a reflection of human populationgrowth and increased interest in aquatic recreation ratherthan a rise in the rate of attacks”. In fact, all other factorsbeing equal, there are likely to be more attacks each year ashuman population grows and we spend increased leisuretime in the sea. However, “the attack rate is not increasing –in fact it is likely decreasing as a result of diminished sharkstocks and large increases in human utilization of ournearshore waters”.56

Shark attack is undoubtedly a potential danger that mustbe acknowledged by anyone who frequents marine waters,but it should be kept in perspective. It is statistically moredangerous to get into a car and drive to the beach than it isto get into the water. More people are killed each year bylightning, by bee stings, by dog bites or by slipping in thebath than are killed by sharks.54

SPIRITUAL ASPECT OF SHARKS

Sharks retain a spiritual importance innumerous beliefs around the world:

� In Hawaii, the shark is an animal deitystill revered today as the greatestAumakua (guardian angel). Storiesexist of canoe paddlers getting intodifficulties at sea, only to be guided toa safe place by a shark.39

� In Vietnam, the whale shark wasknown as Lord Fish. Its remains weregiven sacred burials.

� In Fiji, the shark god was known asDakuwaqa, from whom the highchiefs were believed to be directdescendants.

� In Japan, the shark was an importantmythological figure worshipped as theGod of Storms.

� In parts of Senegal, sharks are believedto be harmless to humans. If a sharkdoes attack, it is said to be “invaded”by an evil spirit. In the village of Ngor,there is a sage who claims to removeevil spirits from invaded sharks andrender them harmless.40

© M

AR

K E

DW

AR

DS

/ ST

ILL

PIC

TU

RE

S

© R

ICH

AR

D H

ER

RM

AN

N /

SE

AP

ICS.

CO

M

© P

ET

ER

FR

ISC

HM

UT

H /

ST

ILL

PIC

TU

RE

S

Artisanal fisherman in the Banc d’Arguin National Park, WestAfrica. Many (shark) fisheries in the developing world are decliningfollowing the arrival of industrial fishing vessels, often from abroad.

Top right: Universal studios theme park. Despite theirfearsome reputation, on average less than six people arekilled by sharks each year.

Above: The depletion of sharks could have catastrophiceffects for marine ecosystems and mean lower catches ofother fish in the future.



BIOLOGICAL VULNERABILIT Y

As apex predators, sharks are notdesigned for heavy predation, either byother marine species or by humans.Whether caught in directed fisheries oras bycatch, most shark species are unableto withstand protracted periods of heavyexploitation.

Shark species are generally slow-growing and long-lived, breeding late inlife, with long breaks betweenreproductive cycles. They produce verylimited numbers of live young or eggs.This makes them inherently vulnerableto overexploitation and slow to recoverfrom decline.

Unlike most fish, sharks invest heavilyin a small number of well-developedyoung. Most sharks feed their younginside their bodies with a yolk, whileothers provide embryonic nutritionthrough a placenta. Shark mothers oftengive birth in nursery areas which areseparated from the rest of thepopulation.

Unlike sharks, most fish species areadapted to a fluctuating environmentand are referred to as “r-selected” species.They are usually small, mature quickly,mate early, and produce large numbers ofsmall offspring which receive little or noparental care.62

NOT DESIGNED FOR HEAVYPREDATION

Sharks are completely different. They aregenerally described as “k-selected”species. That is, they grow slowly to alarge size, mature late in life, reproduceseasonally (year after year), and producea few large offspring – either as eggs or aslive young – which experience a lowernatural mortality rate. They may havebeen the first vertebrate group to evolve ak-selected life history. While predationlevels on sharks were low the k strategyserved them well.62

The spiny dogfish is perhaps the mostextreme example of the k-selected lifehistory. Living up to 70 years, the femaledoes not breed until she is over twelveyears of age. Gestation can be up to two

years and she will produce a maximumof 20 live pups at a time.

Lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris)pups develop over a twelve-monthperiod, and their mothers requireanother year before mating again. Thus,a mating pair of lemon sharks barelyreproduce themselves over the 24-monthreproductive cycle. Typically 8–12 pupsare born every other year, with a first yearmortality approaching 50%. At birth, alemon shark pup averages 60 cm inlength and weighs around one kilogram.It grows less than 10 cm in its first yearof life and requires 13–15 years tobecome sexually active.62

SEGREGATING BY AGE AND SEX

A further characteristic makes sharksvulnerable to overfishing. Most sharkssegregate by sex and size. This meansthere are groups consisting solely ofmature females, and if targeted byfishermen, the effect on breeding can bedevastating.

FEWER SHARKS CAN MEANLOWER BREEDING RATES

If overfished most species of fish cancompensate by increasing eggproduction to take advantage ofdecreased competition for food. Becausesharks produce relatively few eggs orpups, they are not capable of doing this,

though increased growth rate andjuvenile survival may provide somecompensatory mechanisms.

Classical models of fisheriesmanagement assume that recruitmentrate (the number of fish added to thepopulation each year due toreproduction and migration) is virtuallyindependent of stock size. These modelsare less applicable to sharks becausegenerally recruitment rate and stock sizeare positively related.63 That is, the moresharks, the higher the birth rate.Conversely, a reduction in the number ofsharks causes a reduction in birth rate.

ABSENT FROM THE ABYSS

Whilst most fish thrive to depths ofaround 9,000 m, marine biologistsrecently discovered that sharks havefailed to colonize depths greater than3,000 m, possibly due to a lack of food inthese remote regions.

This means that they are confined tojust 30% of the world’s oceans: surfacewaters, ocean margins, around oceanicislands, mid-ocean ridges andseamounts. All shark populations aretherefore within reach of humanfisheries, a fact that raises furtherconcerns about the vulnerability of thisgroup to overexploitation, as unlikemost fish, there is no hidden reserve ofsharks in the deep sea.64

local dive operators. Today, dive tourismis expanding and markets sharks as themain attraction. A single live reef shark isestimated to be worth US$250,000because of dive tourism, whereas a deadreef shark has a one-time value ofUS$50–60 to a fisherman.59

THE PHILIPPINES

In the Philippines, fishermen who oncetargeted whale sharks in the Donsolregion have been retrained as tour guidesfor whale shark-watchers. Business isbooming, with over 7,000 touristsvisiting Donsol’s whale sharks in 2005 –up from 867 tourists in 2002.60 This hascreated more than 300 jobs and in 2005contributed more than US$620,000 tothe Filipino economy.60 Some groupscontend, however, that this is only afraction of what could be earned ifcorrect management and financialassistance were put in place.60

THE MALDIVES

Tourism is the largest industry in theMaldives and is a significant source ofincome to the country. Diving withsharks is a major attraction, drawing

SHARK TOURISM

The realization that sharks are worth farmore alive than dead is gradually takinghold around the world. During the pastdecade, shark-based ecotourismoperations have developed in numerouslocations, and today some of the mostvociferous calls for global sharkconservation come from nations thathave a developed or developing marinetourism industry. Tourists are preparedto pay huge sums of money to view andeven dive with sharks.

AUS TRALIA

Ningaloo Marine Park in WesternAustralia is an example of a whale sharktourism success story. It has beenprospering since the early 1990s andwhale shark tourism in Ningaloo reef isnow estimated to be worth in excess ofUS$10 million.57 The area probably hostsmore whale shark observers thananywhere else in the world.58

BAHAMAS

In the Bahamas, longlining was outlawedin the mid-1990s following campaigns by

US$2.3 million every year – 100 timesmore than the export value of sharkmeat.57 In 1993, a study found that asingle reef shark had a renewable value ofUS$35,500 per year from diving, whilethe same shark brought only US$32 to afisherman.58

BELIZE

In Belize, divers from all around theworld visit the town of Placencia toobserve whale sharks in Gladden SpitMarine Reserve. The number of whaleshark tour operators in Placencia hasgrown from just one in 1997 to 22 in200461 and a study in 2002 concludedthat over a six-week peak tourist period,the industry was worth US$3.7 millionto the town.57 From national tourismstatistics, it is calculated that each livewhale shark is worth around US$35,000annually. If a shark lives for 60 years,each individual would therefore be worthover US$2 million if it repeatedly visitsecotourism sites through out theMesoamerican Barrier Reef.57

14 T H E E N D O F T H E L I N E ?

Threats to Sharks

Top: Somesharks produceelaborate eggcases.

Left: Manysharks, like thisspiny dogfish,have longpregnancies andgive birth tosmall numbers oflive young.

© B

OB

EV

AN

S /

STIL

L P

ICT

UR

ES

© J

EFF

RO

TM

AN

/ S

TIL

L P

ICT

UR

ES

©D

AN

I-JE

SKE

/ S

TIL

L P

ICT

UR

ES

Ecotourism industries based on viewing whale sharks generate at least US$47.5million annually – significantly more than they are worth as meat and other products.



With the introduction of commercialrefrigeration in the 1950s, consumptionof shark meat gained in popularity, andtoday, the greatest quantity of inter -national trade in shark products is in theform of fresh, chilled or frozen meat69 –imports totaled more than 90,000 metrictons in 2004.65 However, the price ofshark meat is generally low and sharksare targeted specifically for their meat inonly a small number of fisheries,primarily in temperate waters. Examplesinclude trawl fisheries for spiny dogfishin the North Sea and off the northerncoasts of the USA and Canada; and trawland gill net fisheries for soupfin shark(Galeorhinus galeus), gummy shark(Mustelus antarcticus) and spotted estuarysmooth-hound (Mustelus lenticulatus) offAustralia and New Zealand69. In warmerwaters, directed harpoon fisheries forwhale sharks are banned in India and thePhilippines, but are still pursued inseveral other countries.69

Markets for shark meat sufficientlyvaluable to warrant inter nation al tradeare generally centered in Europe, forexample in Spain, France, Italy and theUK, and are based on rays and smallsharks. However, international trade inwhale shark meat is believed to supportthe market in Taiwan and anec dotalevidence from the Philippines sug geststhere are markets for whale shark meatin Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan.69

FAO statistics show a considerableincrease in the production of shark meatworldwide. Over the period 1985–2004,reported production of chondrichthyanmeat grew by more than 150%, from40,000 mt to around 103,000 mt.65

Nevertheless, these figures still onlyrepres ent around 10% of reported catches(see below), which suggests, assumingboth sets of figures are accurate lyreported, that a large propor tion ofshark meat is either used domestically(for example for subsistence or localmarket use), or discarded at sea.69

Despite their known vulnerability tooverfishing, sharks have beenincreasingly exploited in recent decades.A number of factors are responsible forthis trend, including improvements infishing technology, processing andconsumer marketing, expanding humanpopulations, and declines in other fishstocks, all of which have made sharks amore valuable fisheries resource. Sharkfisheries have experienced rapid growthsince the mid-1980s due to an increaseddemand for shark products (fins inparticular, but also meat, skin, cartilage,etc), especially in Asian markets. Between1984 and 2004, world catches of sharks,rays and chimaeras (chondrichthyans)grew from 600,000 to over 810,000metric tons.65 In addition, manythousands of sharks have been takenaccidentally in tuna longline fisheriesevery year since their introduction in the1960s.

Increasing Fishing

between 2000 and 2003 and negligiblequantities in prior years.65 However,Chinese distant-water fleets onlyrecently began reporting sharkbycatches in areas controlled byRegional Fisheries ManagementOrganizations (RFMOs) and have nologbook requirements for sharks inother areas.69 Hong Kong reportssimilarly low catches.65

Although global catches ofchondrichthyans have remained fairlystable up to now, this is the productof considerable regional variation,with declining catches in heavilyfished regions masked by increasingcatches as fishermen move into newareas.7 For example, there have beensignificant declines in the catch ofcountries such as Pakistan, Brazil,Mexico and Korea since the 1980s,whilst the catches of Indonesia havesky-rocketed – virtually doubling since1988. In Pakistan, catches for 2004 of27,000 mt are the lowest reported for20 years and 50% lower than thecountry’s peak catch in 199965.

Global exploitation of sharks is verydifficult to quantify, as catch reportingis often unreliable and can be mislead -ing. Member countries of the UnitedNations Food and Agriculture Organ -isation (FAO) report their sharkcatches in different ways and with vary -ing degrees of detail, and vast amountsof shark catch are not recorded at all.

However, from the data available, itis clear that the exploita tion of sharksand related species has increaseddramatically since the onset ofcommercial fishing. Global reportedlandings of chondrichthyans havegrown by almost 300%, from around270,000 mt in 1950 to over 810,000 mtin 2004.65 Assuming each animalweighs on average 15 kg, this meansthat total reported catches in 2004represent over 50 million sharks, raysand chimaeras.

However, actual catches are likelyto be much higher – possibly doublethe reported catch rate66 (i.e. 100million) – once other factors are takeninto con sidera tion. For instance,thousands of metric tons of sharks arediscarded at sea, either whole or withtheir fins removed, and the weights ofthese discards are unaccounted for infishery logbooks7. Many landings arealso taken in countries that don’tmonitor their fishing industry, or arecaught and consumed locally, therebybypass ing official record keeping.7

In the absence of reliable catchstatistics, an alternative method ofidentifying the true level of exploita -tion is to examine the quantities ofshark products in trade. Datagathered during a recent study of theshark fin trade in Hong Kong revealedthat the total catch of sharks must bebetween 1.1 and 2.3 million metrictons per year, which equates tobetween 26 and 73 million sharks67. Asshark landings (excluding skates, raysand chimaeras) reported to the FAOare in the region of 400,000 metrictons annually67, this means thatbetween 65% and 85% of the totalcatch is therefore unreported, worthan estimated US$292–476 million inshark fin value alone.68

The top three shark fishing nationsof the world are Indonesia, India andSpain, which between them accountedfor 25–40% of reported global catchesbetween 2000–2004.65 Other majorshark fishing nations includeArgentina, Brazil, France, Iran, Japan,Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand,Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand,the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates. These countries each reportcatches of more than 15,000 mtannually.65

While the People’s Republic ofChina is by far the world's largestconsumer of shark fin, it reportedshark catches of only 100–300 mt

WORLD CHONDRICHTHYAN CATCHES 1950-2004

IndonesiaIndiaSpainTaiwanMexicoArgentinaUSAThailandPakistanJapanMalaysiaFranceBrazilSri LankaIranNew ZealandUnited KingdomNigeriaPortugalYemenKorea, Republic ofCanadaAustraliaVenezuelaMaldivesSenegalPeruUruguayOtherTotal

121,75061,31451,07143,79732,24532,03930,73227,94427,36327,15025,15421,61320,04119,51018,31816,64716,06613,56012,76512,75012,26511,80411,39211,294

9,4758,8878,6406,172

98,564810,322

CHONDRICHTHYAN CATCHES BYCOUNTRY, 2004

How many sharks are caught every year?

© J

UST

IN E

BE

RT

© J

EFF

RO

TM

AN

/ J

EFF

RO

TM

AN

.CO

M

Above & opposite page: Tens of millionsof sharks are killed in fisheries aroundthe world every year.

SHARK MEAT PRODUCTION AND TRADE

figures in metric tons

met

ric

tons

met

ric

tons

SOU

RC

E: FA

O FISH

STA

T

SOURCE: FAO FISHSTAT

GLOBAL PRODUCTION AND TRADE OF SHARK MEAT 1976-2004




Bycatch is a term used to refer to anyspecies caught accidentally while fishingfor other “target” species. It is respon siblefor mortality in a wide range of species:non-target fish, seabirds, whales, dolphins,turtles and sharks. A great deal of bycatchis discarded at sea and never appears inthe records. Where bycatch must bereported, it is often under-reported.

According to the FAO, there are fewfisheries that do not result in bycatch ofsharks, skates and rays. Indeed, much ofthe difficulty in monitoring shark stocksarises because the majority of sharks arecaught as bycatch, which is almostentirely undocumented and totallyunregulated.

In cases where bycatch is recorded, thenumbers are significant, sometimes evengreater than the targeted catch. Previously,in many fisheries sharks caught accident -ally were thrown back, sometimes stillliving, or the lines cut. But now, withdemand for shark fin growing, sharks

caught as bycatch are often finned, withthe distinction between target and sharkbycatch species in creas ing ly disappearing.

Rates of shark bycatch depend to agreat extent on the fishing gear used:

� In coastal areas, trawl fisheries arethought to be responsible for thelargest bycatch of sharks, skates andrays, amounting to hundreds ofthousands of metric tons annually.76

� Tuna purse-seine nets occasionallyresult in large-scale shark bycatch andgillnets are also considered to be thecause of heavy shark bycatch.77

� While less indiscriminate than someother fishing methods, the widespreaduse of longlines, combined with thesheer length of lines and number ofhooks, means that more ocean-going(pelagic) sharks are caught as bycatchin longline fisheries than in any otherfisheries on the high seas.76

BycatchOverfishingBOOM AND BUS T SHARKFISHERIES

Shark populations are generally fragilewhen targeted by unregulated fisheries,resulting in a pattern of “boom andbust”. Rising catches are followed byrapid declines and very slow recoveries –when stocks are protected. Somepopulations do not recover.

Industrial shark fisheries have grownsteadily since the 1920s and havefrequently involved the targeting of newshark populations or species, as catchesfrom established shark fisheries decline.66

� The collapse of the soupfin sharkfishery in the US Pacific is typical. Thefishery expanded spectacularly in1938 with the discovery that liver oilwas rich in vitamin A. Catches peakedat 4,000 metric tons (mt) in 1940,crashed in 1942 and by 1944 weredown to only 300 mt. More than 50years on, and despite the lack offishing, the population has still notrecovered to its former level.17,70

� Landings of spiny dogfish in theNortheast Atlantic peaked at almost70,000 metric tons in the 1960s, whenNorwegian and UK vessels targetedthe species. However, the stock is nowdepleted – possibly down to 5% of itsoriginal size – with landings at theirlowest levels since World War 2(around 6,000 mt).71

� Catches of porbeagle sharks (Lamnanasus) in the Northeast Atlanticpeaked in 1947 then declineddramatically. This collapse led tointensive target fishing by theNorwegians and Danes in theNorthwest Atlantic in the 1960s;between 1961 and 1964 their catchrose from 1,800 mt to 9,300 mt andthen declined to less than 200 mt.Renewed target fishing in the 1990sled to a further population decline of83–89% within three generations.72

� A harpoon fishery for the baskingshark (Cetorhinus maximus) off the westcoast of Ireland began in 1770 andlasted until the 1830s, when thespecies became scarce. The stockssubsequent ly recovered and thefishery was revived in the 1940s, butthe catch quickly peaked and declinedby the end of the 1950s.6

� US Pacific angel shark (Squatinacalifornia) catches peaked in 1985–86at 560 mt but decreased quickly to120 mt three years later. A ban in 1994“likely averted population collapse”.72

� A fishery for bluntnose sixgill sharks(Hexanchus griseus) began in theMaldives in 1980, peaked in 1982–84and collapsed by 1996. Other fisheriesfor this species, in Australia, NewZealand, France, Brazil and possiblyArgentina, are all reported to havedeclined.73

� The common skate (Dipturus batis), asthe name implies, was historically oneof the most abundant skates and rays

in the Northeast Atlan -tic. It was widely dis trib -uted in the seas sur -round ing the BritishIsles, though catch ratesof this species declinedduring the 20th centurydue to over fishing. By the1970s the common skatewas considered extinct inthe Irish Sea, and theyalso dis ap peared fromthe English Channel andthe south ern and centralNorth Sea.72

� North Atlantic populations ofleafscale gulper shark (Centrophorussquamosus) and Portuguese dogfish(Centroscymnus coelolepis) have crashedby 80% in just ten years, since thedevelopment of an unregulated gillnetfishery in the mid-1990s. These deep-sea sharks are targeted by Spanishvessels for their oil which is sold tocosmetic and health companies, andalso for their meat. Deep-sea sharksreproduce very slowly and accordingto ICES – the organization responsiblefor marine research in the NorthAtlantic – are in extreme decline.71,74

Many more shark fisheries are likely to bein serious decline, but are not formallydocumented. However, anecdotal reportsfrom artisanal fishermen, divers,researchers and recreational fishermen inmany parts of the world reveal that areaswhere sharks were once abundant havebecome depleted. WildAid research inCosta Rica, Ecuador, India, Kenya, Mexicoand Senegal confirms this.

Another indication of declines is thewidespread illegal fishing of sharks inmarine reserves and the large-scaleincursions into Australian waters byIndonesian boats. It seems unlikely thatfishermen would risk loss of their boatsand gear unless legal sources wereseriously depleted.

Can sharks be

sustainably harvested?

Thirty years ago it was unclear whetherlong-term sustainable fisheries forsharks could ever be possible. Today, itis thought that economically viableand biologically sustainable yields canbe taken from more productive speciesunder careful management, forexample the gummy shark caught offsouthern Australia.75

However, the majority of shark fish -eries are still unregulated and the highcatches of a number of coun tries arealmost certainly un sustain able. Apreliminary evaluation of shark speciesworld wide by the FAO identified severepop ula tion declines for nearly all the26 shark species for which catch orlanding data was available for morethan ten years.73

TALES OF DISAS TER:

� Research surveys in the Gulf ofMexico (1972–2002) demonstrateprecipitous declines in coastal sharksand rays taken as bycatch in areas ofintensive shrimp trawling. Smoothbutterfly rays (Gymnura micrura) havedeclined by more than 99%, bancroftnumbfish (Narcine bancroftii) by 98%and bonnethead sharks (Sphyrnatiburo) by 96%.50

� A recent study of the Moroccandriftnet fleet found that pelagic sharkspecies are suffering massive bycatchrates, with blue shark, shortfin makoand thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus)num ber ing half the target catch(sword fish). In excess of 100,000 ofthese ocean-going sharks areestimated to be caught by the fleetannually – a level of fishing pressurewell beyond the repro duc tive capacityfor these species.78

© W

AT

TS

/ W

ILD

AID

© R

. A

ND

V.

TA

YLO

R /

IN

NE

RSP

AC

E V

ISIO

NS

Left: Fishermen inmany parts of Indiahave seen catches ofsharks decline rapidly.

Sharks are caught as bycatch in most of the world’s fisheries



The Shark FinTradeA combination of two factors led to anexplosion in the demand for shark finsoup over the past twenty years. Firstly,the rapid expansion of East Asianeconomies, particularly that of MainlandChina, creat ed a vastly increased middleclass sector with disposable income, andwhat began as a rare and expensive del i -cacy is now standard fare at most wed -dings and corporate functions. Secondly,the con sump tion of shark fin soup inChina, discouraged under Mao Tse-tungas an elitist practice, was politically“rehabil itated” in the late 1980s. Theresult is a massive surge in the inter -national fin trade, prompt ing fisher menworldwide to target sharks for their finsand to remove the fins from sharkscaught as bycatch in other fisheries. Fintraders systematically spread the wordthat fins are valuable to fishermen theworld over, often provid ing equipmentand monetary advances in order tosecure fins.

Today the rapidly expanding andlargely unregulated shark fin traderepresents one of the most seriousthreats to shark populations worldwide,and shark fins are now among the mostexpensive seafood products in the world,commonly retailing at US$400 per kg10,with the most expensive selling forUS$1,000 per kg87. To put this inperspective, shrimp or prawns retail ataround US$6 per kg.

A recently published report on thedried seafood trade in Asia revealed thatone shark fin trader, who considershimself a medium sized operator, had a

turnover of US$771,000 per month.Given a profit margin of between10–15%, one of Hong Kong’s largestdealers, rumored to have a turnover ofUS$129 million per year, could bemaking an annual profit of at leastUS$12 million.10

The lucrative and unregulated natureof the trade attracts involvement bycriminal elements, with fiercecompetition for shark fins leading towidespread corruption, gangland warsand contract killings.16 In Colombia, forexample, drug dealers became involved inthe shark fin trade as a way of launderingdrug money.88

HOW MANY SHARKS AREFINNED EACH YEAR?

During the finning process, a shark ishauled up on deck, its fins sliced off, andthe animal - sometimes still alive – isthrown back into the sea to bleed to

death. This practice is not only cruel, it isalso incredibly wasteful, as finning onlyutilises 1-5% of the shark’s body-weight.89

It is impossible to establish the precisenumber of sharks slaughtered in this wayannually, as few fishermen will openlyadmit to finning sharks and the practiceoccurs at sea where there are no otherwitnesses. However, there is enoughevidence to suggest that finning iswidespread in numerous fish eries, thathuge numbers of sharks are finned everyyear, and that the vast major i ty of thesemortalities go unreported. The WorldConservation Union’s (IUCN) SharkSpecialist Group estimates that tens ofmillions of sharks are finned worldwideevery year,89 while one recent studyestimated that fins of between 26 and 73million sharks are traded globally eachyear (although this figure includes bothfinned sharks and those whose bodiesare retained for other purposes)67.

bycatch.86 Allowing for some post-releasemortality, it is clear that a very largeproportion of sharks caught on longlinessurvive if released rather than finned.

respectively, since the onset ofindustrialized offshore fisheries fortuna and billfish, in which they arecaught as bycatch. Oceanic whitetipsharks comprised about 60% of sharkbycatches in the 1950s but by the1990s this figure was only 2%.80

UNNECESSARY WAS TE

Some shark species are able to survive forlong periods on hooks. Research in Brazilfound that from a total of 508 sharks ofdifferent species observed in longlinefisheries, 88% arrived alive on deck.85 InHawaii, it is estimated that 86% of bluesharks are alive when landed on deck as

� Sharks represent a large bycatch ofglobal high-seas longline fisheriestargeting tuna and swordfish(dominated by vessels from Taiwan,Japan and Spain) and are retainedprimarily for their fins. The bycatch iscomprised mainly of blue, oceanicwhitetip (Carcharhinus longimanus) andsilky sharks (Carcharhinus falciformis).In 2000, it was estimated that up to470,000 metric tons of these threespecies were caught accidentally in thePacific Ocean in just one year.79

� Populations of oceanic whitetip andsilky sharks in the Gulf of Mexicoplummeted by 99% and 90%,

More than seven million metric tons of marine life isdiscarded by the world’s fisheries every year.81

International concern at this massive wastage has led tothe development (but not always the implementation)of methods and technological innovations to minimizethese bycatches. Significant focus has been placed onreducing the numbers of endangered species such aswhales, dolphins, sea turtles and seabirds caught infishing gears82, but sharks, despite being frequentbycatch species, important in marine ecosystems, andextremely vulnerable to overexploitation, have receivedrelatively little attention.

Several promising new methods are currently now indevelopment. In 2006, an invention that involves placingstrong magnets just above the baited hooks on longlinegear won first prize in the 2006 WWF InternationalSmart Gear Competi tion. The design utilizes the factthat sharks are able to detect and are repelled bymagnetic fields, meaning fewer sharks are capturedaccidentally and less fishing gear is lost to non-targetspecies.83 Other fish do not respond to these magnets,so catch of targeted species, like tuna, is un affect ed.Chem ical repellents are an other app roach also be ingtest ed.84 Sadly, many fishermen are likely to reject suchinnovations, because sharks, or at least their fins, havebecome such valuable bycatch.

LEADING SHARK FIN IMPORTERS 2004GLOBAL PRODUCTION AND TRADE OF SHARK FIN 1976-2004

© M

AR

CE

L B

IGU

E /

WIL

DA

ID

Left: Many sharks caught onlonglines would survive ifreleased rather than finned.

Reducing shark bycatch

Above: Shark fins are among the most expensive seafood products in the world,retailing at up to US$1,000 per kilogram

© C

HE

N /

WIL

DA

ID©

CH

EN

/ W

ILD

AID

Note: all shark fin statistics are taken from the FAO, butfrozen shark fins have been corrected by a factor of 0.25as they are believed to be four times heavier than theirdried equivalents.10

met

ric

tons





internationally traded, although it seemsthe large size of these fins renders themmore appealing as trophies than forconsumption.69 Traders in Hong Kongclaim that the fins of basking and whalesharks are “coarse and taste of ash”, andgreat white fins are considered to be ofsimilarly poor quality.69 However therecent seizure of fins from 21 juvenilegreat whites indicates that they may havesome value as food, since small fins areunsuitable for display purposes.93 Tradershave been shown to deliberately mislabelfins from CITES listed shark species asother, unprotected species; but evenwithout deliberate subterfuge, rare finsmay be mixed within large volumes ofother similar fins and thus becomenearly impossible to detect.92

“The trade in shark fins throughHong Kong, which is likely to be

indicative of the volume of the globaltrade, is growing at an annual rate

of six per cent and appears to belinked to increases in disposableincome in Mainland China.” 69

HOW TO BAN SHARK FINNING

The simplest way to implement a banwould be require all sharks to be landedwhole, making the possession of detach -ed fins on board vessels an offence.95 Thiswould simplify enforce ment andeliminate cheating and also providemuch-needed data about the numberand species of sharks being taken, sincesharks with their fins attach ed are fareasier to identify by species. However,relatively few countries that prohibitfinning (Costa Rica is an example)require sharks to be landed whole; most

opt instead for regulations requiring thatshark fins must not total more than 5%of the weight of sharks on board.95

Although some nations haveintroduced legislation to control sharkfinning (see below), the highly migratorynature of many shark species means theonly way to ensure full protection is toenact a ban on finning not only withinthe waters of individual nations, but onthe high seas as well.

“Finning causes the death of tens ofmillions of sharks. This potentiallythreatens the survival of rare and

vulnerable species and, by removinglarge numbers of top predators from

the oceanic system, may havedramatic and undesirable ecological

impacts that could potentiallythreaten yields of other species.” 89

FINNING BECOMES UNACCEPTABLE

� In December 2000 the US adoptedlegislation to prohibit shark finningin all US waters. Finning waspreviously banned on the Atlanticcoast and in Californian waters.

� The European Union banned sharkfinning in 2003 for all vesselsoperating in EU waters and all EUvessels, wherever they fish.

� In 2003 the UN General Assemblyrecommended that Member Statesban shark finning.

� In November 2004, the IUCN, madeup of over 1,000 governmental andnon-govern mental organizations from

over 140 countries, passed aresolution re commend ing that allStates require shark fins to be landedattached to their bodies.

� The first international ban on sharkfinning was introduced by theInternational Commission for theConservation of Atlantic Tunas(ICCAT) in 2004. This was followed in2005 by the Inter-American TropicalTuna Commission (IATTC), theIndian Ocean Tuna Commission(IOTC) and the Northwest AtlanticFisheries Organization (NAFO).

� Shark finning is prohibited in allAustralian States (out to threenautical miles) and in Common -wealth-managed (federal) fisheries(which cover the area from 3–200 nmfrom the shore).

� In February 2006, the Seychellesbanned finning by all foreign-ownedvessels, including those registeredunder or flying the Seychelles flag.The ban does not apply, however, toSeychellois-owned fishing boats.

� Shark finning has also been outlawedby several other major shark fishingnations, including Brazil, Canada,Costa Rica, Ecuador, Oman andSouth Africa.

� Finning is responsible for thedeaths of tens of millions ofsharks every year.

� The removal of the ocean’s toppredators may have serious,widespread effects for marineecosystems and potentiallythreaten yields of othercommercially important species.

� Finning is hugely wasteful –throwing away 95% of a valuableprotein source should not be anoption in a world where fishstocks are declining and millionsof people face chronic hunger.

� Finning prevents species-specificcatch data from being collected.Without such information,sustainable management ofshark fisheries is not possible.

Estimating the scale of the global tradein shark fin products is also ex treme lycom pli cated and data on im ports,exports and production figures rarelymatch.7 The industry is still largelyconducted in the “grey mar ket” and finschange hands for cash in many cases,and often transactions go unrecorded.

The only available global database onthe shark fin trade, held by the FAO,shows that the trade has escalated enor -mously in the past two decades. In 1987,a total of 4,907 mt of shark fins were im -port ed world wide. By 1994 this had risento 10,652 mt, and ten years on, reportedworld imports peaked at 13,614 mt.90

More than 90% of shark fin importsreported to the FAO in 2004 were toHong Kong (57%) and China (36%).Other notable importers are Malaysia,Indonesia, Taiwan and Thailand.90

There are, however, problems with theaccuracy of these figures, the main issuebeing that any given shipment of finsmay be recorded as an import in everycountry it passes through, meaning thatthere is almost certainly double (ortriple) counting. With export figures thisis less of a problem as most countriesdistinguish between exports and re-exports (exports of a product that didnot originate within the country) and asa result the exaggeration in export datais not so large.90

Export statistics do nonethelessindicate an expanding market, withexports doubling since the late-1980s toreach 6,220 metric tons in 2004. Chinaaccounts for 40% of reported exports,followed by Indonesia, Taiwan, theUnited Arab Emirates, Malaysia andJapan.91

An alternative estimate, whichaccounts for double counting and isbased on national customs statistics, putthe total quantity of shark fins in trade ataround 10,000 metric tons in 2000, andgrowing at a rate of 6% a year. However,the authors state that this figure is likelyto be an underestimate for a number ofreasons: fins harvested illegally are notincluded in official record keeping, sharkfins produced and consumed within thesame country are absent from tradestatistics, and only the largest shark finmarkets (Hong Kong, China, Taiwan,Japan and Singapore) – not all markets –were included in the study.10

The dumping of millions of sharks atsea results in significantly decreasedshark catches in many developingcountries. Fishers in eastern India andon the east and west coasts of Africa havereported serious declines in their catches,dating back to the arrival of large,industrial (and usually foreign) fishingvessels off their coastlines. Many coastalfishing communities in low-incomecountries rely on traditional sharkfisheries to provide a vital source ofprotein, and wastage on this scaleincreasingly threatens their livelihoodsand food security.89

Furthermore, as it is extremelydifficult to identify many shark speciesfrom their fins alone, finning impedesthe collection of vital species-specificcatch, bycatch and landings data.Without such information, shark stockscannot be accurately assessed andsustainable management is therefore notpossible.89

FAVORITES FOR FINNING

Which shark species are most commonlyused for finning? DNA-based speciesidentification on samples from HongKong – the world’s largest shark finmarket – found that between 34–45% offins belong to only 14 shark species.92

Blue sharks form a particularly largecomponent of the market (17%), possiblybecause they are the most commonbycatch species in high seas longlinefisheries targeting tuna and swordfish.Other species, including thehammerhead, shortfin mako, silky,sandbar, bull, and thresher sharksrepresent at least 2–6% of the trade.92

Fins of all three CITES listed sharks –great white, basking and whale – are

Reported world production of sharkfins in 2004 totaled 3,909 metric tons,but as many countries do not recordshark fin production (e.g. China), thisfigure must be considered anunderestimate.90 Nevertheless, reportedproduction of shark fins would stillaccount for catches of more than260,000 metric tons*, which isequivalent to around a third of reportedglobal chondrichthyan catches. However,if sharks caught for the fin trade werefinned and discarded, the 260,000 mtwould not be included in the catch figureand would therefore represent anadditional take.7

In 2004, Indonesia was the worldleader in shark fin production(1,660 mt), followed by Singapore(1,000 mt) and India (455 mt). Thesethree collectively account for 80% ofshark fin production reported to theFAO90. China has never reported anyshark fin production to the FAO.90

FINNING: A CRUEL WAS TE

At one time, it is likely that globalcatches of whole sharks providedsufficient fins to supply the markets ofEast Asia and East Asian communitiesworldwide. However, as shark meat isconsidered to be inferior to that of mostcommercially exploited fish species,particularly tuna and swordfish, theprofits to be made from shark meat arenaturally much lower. Limited space on-board fishing vessels, combined with theincreasing value of shark fin, has made iteconomically advantageous for somecommercial vessels to discard the bulkyshark bodies while retaining the valuablefins, which can be sun dried and storedcompactly without refrigeration.

After fierce criticism from conserv a -tion ists, the Walt Disney Company –creator of the blockbuster FindingNemo, an aquatic adventure storywith the tagline: “fish are friends, notfood” – bowed to pressure andremoved shark fin soup fromrestaurant menus inside the newHong Kong Disneyland theme park.The dish was to be served at expensive“Fairytale” wedding banquets.94

"After careful consideration anda thorough review process, wewere not able to identify anenviron ment ally sustainablefishing source, leaving us noalternative except to remove

shark’s fin soup from our weddingbanquet menu."

I R E N E C H A N , D I S N E Y H O N G K O N G V I C E -P R E S I D E N T F O R P U B L I C A F F A I R S . 9 4

A Growing Recognition of the Shark Fin Soup Problem©

JEFF

RO

TM

AN

/ J

EFF

RO

TM

AN

.CO

M

Above: Shark finning wastes 95-99% of the animal. It is now a common practice infisheries around the world.

The case for a finning ban

* Applying a dried fin-to-body-weight ratioof 1.5%.



UNMANAGED FISHERIES

Shark fishing on the whole is widelyunmanaged. In the past, sharks lackedcommercial value, so comparatively littleis known about many species’ abund -ance, range, distribution, reproductivebehavior and response to externalstresses. Records of shark catches arevague and few countries break downtheir shark catch by species.75

Today, sharks continue to be a lowpriority for conservation and research inmany nations because of their low overalleconomic value (considering flesh and finstogether) and the fact that sharks consti -tute a small proportion of marine fish -eries.75 The FAO’s latest catch statis ticsshow that chondrichthyan landingsaccounted for only around 1% of the totalworld fish catch in 2004, with sharks com -prising approximately half of this total.65

There are currently no bindinginternational agreements for the protec -tion of sharks (with the exception ofCITES, which deals with issues of trade,not directly with shark manage ment –see opposite), and at the national level,only Australia, Canada, New Zealand,Japan, the UK and the US have developedspecific shark management programs.

Some countries, such as Brazil, CostaRica, Ecuador, Israel, Malta, Mexico,Namibia, Oman, the Philippines, andSouth Africa, have restrictions rangingfrom a ban on finning in national waters,to a prohibition on the catching ofspecific species, to the closure of directedshark fisheries during certain seasons.And in a few areas, shark fishing isbanned completely – for example, inEgypt there is a total ban on shark fish ingin the Red Sea96, and shark fishing isprohibited in all Congolese waters.97

But considering that well over 100different nations report shark catches tothe FAO, and 24 boast annual catches inexcess of 10,000 metric tons65, it is clearthat there is a serious lack of compre hen -sive management.

A major problem with the manage -ment of shark fishing is that compre -hensive shark management plans aremainly being created in developed

countries, even though more than twothirds of reported chondrichthyanlandings occur in developing countrieswhere management is often weakened bya lack of funding for research andenforcement of regulations. In additionto unrestricted fishing by domestic fleets,poor enforcement means that industrialfleets from other nations are often foundfishing illegally in the waters of develop -ing countries, catching sharks andfurther decimating fish stocks.75

Domestic initiatives are vital for theconservation and management of sharkpopulations, particularly for thosespecies with restricted distributions.How ever, it is important to recognizethat many species and populations ofshark are distributed widely, or undergolong migrations between the waters ofmultiple States and on the high seas.Therefore, for many shark species, inter -national initiatives are essential foreffective management.98

The rising demand for shark finscontinues to fuel their exploitation,but paradoxically they continue tobe a low priority for conservationand research because of their loweconomic value (considering flesh

and fins together). 75

LACK OF CATCH, BYCATCH ANDTRADE DATA

As sharks were historically regarded aslow-value “trash” fish, there was littleincentive to collect catch, bycatch andtrade data. A significant portion ofglobal shark catches still go unrecordedand, when they are documented, species-specific information is sparse or non-existent and shark species are frequentlycategorized together, or even as“unidentified marine fish”.75

The only source of information onglobal shark catches is the FAO, whichrelies on data collected from nationsindividually and so is restricted to thesame limitations noted above. Somenations fail to report any catch data(they may be discarding sharks at seaafter taking their fins, or intentionallywithholding information), leaving theFAO to extrapolate data from previousyears.

Species-specific (and ideally stock-specific) catch, bycatch and biologicaldata is fundamental if shark populationsare to be managed sustainably and globalshark landings monitored in anymeaningful way. Without knowledge ofthe level true of exploitation, it isimpossible to accurately assess the statusof shark populations, meaningmanagement is likely to fail.

International trade in shark productsis also very poorly documented. Customscodes are often unspecific and species of

shark are frequently onlycategorized under a heading of“dogfish and other sharks”.7

Some countries have a separatecategory for shark fin (althoughnot by species), but customs’records for shark skin, liver oiland jaws are rarely documented,and trade of shark cartilage goestotally unreported.7,69 Severalcountries simply do not reporttheir statistics on trade in sharkproducts at all. These numerousshortcomings mean thataccurately assessing the volumeof international trade in sharkproducts in general, let alone byspecies, is virtually impossible.

Lack ofManagement

FAO International Plan of Action forSharks (IPOA)

In 1999, the FAO adopted anInternational Plan of Action for Sharks(IPOA), with the overall objective ofensuring the conservation andmanagement of sharks and their long-term sustainable use. The initiative,which is voluntary, calls on States toproduce a Shark Assessment Report(SAR) and, if they have shark fisheries,to draw up a National Plan of Action(NPOA) identifying research,monitoring and management needs forall shark species in their waters.98

Progress by 2001 – the year by whichNPOAs were to be completed – wasvery disappointing, with only 29 Statesreporting to the FAO on progress withIPOA implementation. By September2002, none of the major shark fishingnations had produced a SAR, and areview of draft and completed NPOAsshowed nearly all to be inadequate.98

Thirteen States have now reportedthat they have completed either a SAR,NPOA, or both, including eight majorshark fishing nations – Australia, Brazil,Japan, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, theUK and the USA – although Thailand’sand Brazil’s are not available for reviewand their status is uncertain.99 Atpresent, only the NPOAs of Japan, theUK, Australia and the USA are availableto view on the FAO Fisheries website.

Five States – the EU, Indonesia, Italy,Malaysia and South Africa – have draftSARs or NPOAs, while a further 47States report that they are workingtowards implementation, includingeight major shark fishing nations. Twoof the latter – Canada and New Zealand– are already implementing sharkfisheries management independently ofthe IPOA-Sharks.99

Worryingly, however, 32 States,including three major shark fishingnations – Nigeria, Sri Lanka andTaiwan, which collectively account foralmost 10% of global catches – statethat they have not or will not beimplementing the IPOA-Sharks.99 Andin 2005, an expert consult ation thatassessed the effective ness andachievements of the IPOA-Sharksconcluded that despite the great benefitit could bring to the conservation ofshark populations, it is constrained bythe lack of priority given to the issue.100

Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species (CITES)

CITES was established in 1975 to en -sure that international trade in wildanimals and plants does not threatentheir survival. It provides an inter -nation al legal framework for the pre -ven tion of trade in endangered species,and for the regulation of trade inspecies that may otherwise becomethreat ened.98 Participation is vol un -tary, but countries that agree to theCon ven tion are legally bound by it. Atpresent, 169 countries are Party toCITES.101

Currently, only three species ofshark – the basking shark, whale sharkand great white shark – are listed byCITES. All are listed on Appendix II,which means that Parties to CITESmust strictly regulate and monitortrade in these species. Export permitscan only be granted if it will not bedetrimental to the survival of thespecies, and that the products werenot obtained illegally.101

The Convention on Migratory Species(CMS)

The Bonn Convention on theConservation of Migratory Species ofWild Animals (CMS) recognizes theneed for countries to cooperate in theconservation of animals that migrateacross national boundaries, or betweenareas of national jurisdiction and thehigh seas. Its membership has grownsteadily and now incorporates 97Parties. The CMS provides a frameworkfor setting up protection measures forendangered migratory species.102

The basking shark and the greatwhite shark, listed in 2005 and 2002respectively, are registered on bothAppendix I and II of the Convention,while the whale shark, added in 1999,is listed solely on Appendix II.102

Regional Fisheries ManagementOrganizations

Regional Fisheries ManagementOrganizations (RFMOs), createdunder international agreements, areresponsible for the management ofhigh seas fisheries and fish stocks thatmigrate through the waters of multiplecountries. Many RFMOs are solelyconcerned with management ofparticular species (often tuna and theirrelatives) and shark populations areusually not covered.

Several RFMOs* have, however, inthe past two years, agreed toresolutions banning shark finning andencouraging data collection, research,and the development of bycatchmitigation measures for sharks.Nevertheless, such actions fall wellshort of the requirements of the IPOA-Sharks100 and, at present, ICES andICCAT are the only RFMOs known tobe utilizing shark fisheries and/orbycatch data to develop stockassessments.98

Other agreements and bodies thatcould help in the conservation ofsharks include the UN Agreement onStraddling and Highly Migratory, andFish Stocks the Convention onBiological Diversity.©

WIL

DA

ID

Left: The results of a finningoperation in Costa Rica

International Agreements

* The International Commission for the Conservationof Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the Inter-AmericanTropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), the IndianOcean Tuna Commission (IOTC), and theNorthwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO).

A basking shark fin on display inSingapore. Basking sharks are nowprotected internationally under CITESand the CMS.

© P

. K

RA

GH

/ I

NN

ER

SPA

CE

VIS

ION

S


26 T H E E N D O F T H E L I N E ?

The Park Service and Coast Guard areaware of the situation around CocosIsland, but lack the resources to combatillegal fishing. The Save Our SeasFoundation provided a fast patrol boatto the Parks authority in 2003 to provideyear round enforcement of the 12-milefishing exclusion zone surrounding theisland. However, some illegal fishingcontinues and local dive operators arebecoming increasingly concerned that itwill seriously impact their operations.107

COIBA NATIONAL PARK,PANAMA

Situated 70 km off the Pacific coast ofPanama, this newly designated WorldHeritage Site is attracting a growingnumber of tourists drawn by itsremarkable biodiversity and pristinenatural environment. Coiba NationalPark is one of the largest marine parks inthe world and contains the secondlargest coral reef in the Central-EasternPacific Ocean.108

Despite stepping up patrols, illegalfishing around Coiba is rampant andincreasing. Commercial fishing boats,both local and from Costa Rica, targetsharks along the island’s coast usinglonglines and gillnets. In 2002, citing theproblem of shark fin soup, the thenDirector of Coiba National Park,Clemente Nunez, reported that around100 boats come to fish around Coibaevery month.88

Although larger scale operatorspresent a persistent law enforcementproblem both around Coiba and inPanamanian territorial waters generally,a local NGO has warned that a moreserious long term threat comes from

small artisanal fishing boats from thepoverty stricken communities along thenearby Veraguas coast.88

Dive operators have reported amarked decrease in the number ofsharks, rays, and other large fish ascommercial fishing increased over thelast five years. The longline and nylongillnets widely employed by thefishermen also create unintendedbycatch of sea turtles. Scientists fromOregon State University recentlyreported seeing no sharks at all whilediving around Coiba.88

POACHING EPIDEMIC HITS AUSTRALIA

Even when countries are able and willingto invest hundreds of millions of dollarsinto fighting illegal fishing, protectionfor sharks cannot be guaranteed. InAustralia, increasing numbers ofIndonesian fishermen are encroachinginto the country’s tropical northernwaters as overfishing has depleted sharkpopulations in many other parts ofSoutheast Asia. With shark fin worth upto US$700 per kilogram on the Chinesemarket, Indonesian fishers are preparedto take huge risks, including hefty finesand jail terms, to pursue these lucrativecatches. If they are not caught, a singletrip can provide the same economicreturn as a year of fishing in Indonesianwaters.

According to government sources, upto 25,000 metric tons, or more than 1million sharks, are poached annuallyfrom Australia’s territorial waters 109

which is more than double Australia’sreported shark catches in 2004.65 Sharksare finned and their carcasses discarded –illegal in all Australian waters.

The situation has got so bad that theMinster of Defence recently authorizedthe Navy to shoot at boats that do notsubmit to inspection, and there arereports of the Navy being attacked withsamurai swords when boarding illegalfishing vessels.110

MARINE RESERVES UNDERSIEGE

While only three shark species enjoy anydegree of international protection underCITES, some sharks are protected inmarine reserves, which are usually “notake” or restricted fishing areas.

Because of the difficulty and expenseof patrolling large areas of ocean, marinereserves are often poorly protected indeveloping countries. WildAid has foundthat they are increasingly under pressurefrom illegal fishing, shark fin being oneof the most lucrative targets. In someprotected areas, illegal fishing nowthreatens dive tourism and divers arereporting reductions in shark numbers.

To maximize profits while fishingillegally, fishermen will often take onlyfins, dumping carcasses overboard. Inthis way, a relatively small boat can catchthousands of sharks in a short period,effectively fishing out an entire area.

GALÁPAGOS ISLANDS

The Galápagos Islands, designated aUNESCO World Heritage Site in 1978,suffer extensive illegal fishing incursionsfrom both local and foreign boats(mostly from Costa Rica and Colombia),specifically targeting sharks for theirfins.88

Local residents report that fishing forsharks began in the 1950s, but growingdemand for fins resulted in intensivefishing in the 1980s, which hascontinued at a high level despite a banon large-scale shark fishing in 1998.88

Until recently, Ecuador was a majorexporter of shark fins to East Asianmarkets. According to the World TradeAtlas, between 1997–2003 Ecuadorexported 850 metric tons of shark fins toChina, Hong Kong, Singapore andTaiwan – an amount estimated to haverequired the lives of 1.7 million sharks88.Despite a prohibition on the export ofshark fins since October 2004, finscontinue to be harvested and exportedillegally104.

Most of these fins – an estimated 80%of Ecuador’s exports – are taken fromsharks in Galápagos waters, where theyare officially protected. Scant environ -mental monitoring and enforce mentmeans reliable estimates of sharks killedin the Galápagos are hard to come by,but the volume of dried shark finproduced from the Island of Isabela (thelargest island in the archipelago) isestimated to be as much as 1,500 kg permonth, represent ing approximately3,000 sharks.88

Shark fins are smuggled out of theGalápagos in a variety of ways. Somecompanies use large “mother ships”,which are stationed just outside theMarine Reserve and are regularlysupplied with fins by small, fast movingboats, usually at night. In other cases,fins are packed into suitcases andsmuggled from the Galápagos by plane.Shark fins have been found hidden infuel-transport vessels and also on boardcargo ships, concealed in coffee sacksand petrol containers.88

The Galápagos Islands are famed forproviding opportunities to dive with

large groups of hammerheads and the 42other resident species of shark. Accord -ing to a local scientist: “Diving heredepends on sharks. If you reduce theirnumbers or make them aggressive, youhave ruined dive tourism.” 105

Despite a general lack of informationon shark populations, anecdotalinformation points to a worrying decline.The owner of a diving company in thearchipelago reported that “huge schoolsof hammerheads, often numbering up to300, could be seen in the area 15 yearsago. Nowadays tourists are lucky to see20 or 30.” 88

More than 80,000 internationaltourists, worth US$140 million, areattracted to the Galápagos Islands everyyear, representing around a third ofEcuador’s US$430 million tourismbusiness. By contrast, Ecuador isreported to earn just US$1.5 millionfrom the shark fin trade, accounting forthe death of 200,000 sharks.88

COCOS ISLAND MARINERESERVE, COS TA RICA

Cocos Island is famed as one of theworld’s top dive sites and is billed as“The Island of Sharks.” Fishing within12-miles of the island, a World HeritageSite, is prohibited, but commercialfishers routinely ignore the ban andillegally catch and fin sharks at night,according to the authorities.88

Local shark populations, mainly greathammerheads inshore and silky sharksoffshore, are suspected to be dwindling.Currently there are more than 80 localboats that are formally accused of fishingillegally, and several foreign operatorshave been arrested. One Ecuadorianvessel, the San Jose 1, was captured andconfiscated and the captain imprisoned.A Colombian vessel was also impoundedand forced to pay a US$18,000 fine.Pirate fishing is a great problem in CostaRican waters and in cludes Taiwanesevessels. Similar situa tions are known toexist in other central American nations;for example, there is evidence of CostaRican vessels in Guate malan andNicuaraguan waters, all long lining andcatching sharks.106

Illegal Fishing

© W

ILD

AID

© D

OU

G P

ER

RIN

E

© P

AR

QU

E N

AC

ION

AL

GA

LÁP

AG

OS

Left: Galápagos park rangers intercepta suitcase full of shark fins.

Top right: Marine reserves in developingcountries seldom have resources toenforce their regulations. The mainpatrol vessel for the Galápagos hasonly been kept in service with outsidesupport.

Above: Sharks caught in an illegally-setnet in the Galápagos Marine Reserve.

Breaking othercountries’ laws

Although very few countries havedirect protection for sharks, manyhave fishing regulations designed toprotect traditional and domesticfisheries. However, develop ingcountries rarely have the resources toenforce these regulations and so un -scrupu lous fishermen, often fromabroad, take advantage of this to fishillegally.

In West Africa, for example,countries such as Guinea, SierraLeone, and Liberia suffer from someof the highest levels of illegal fishingin the world, as foreign industrialvessels from Europe and the Far Eastplunder their precious marineresources, upon which millions ofpeople depend for food andlivelihoods.111

Guinea is estimated to loseUS$110 million worth of fish to so-called “pirate” fishing every year,Sierra Leone US$29 million, andLiberia US$10 million – a potentialsource of income these impoverishedStates can ill-afford to be without.Across the whole of sub-SaharanAfrica, losses to pirate fishing areestimated at around US$1 billion,which is roughly equivalent to aquarter of Africa’s total annual fishexports.68

Flags of Convenience

One common way in whichfishermen circumvent managementand conser va tion measures andavoid penalties for illegal fishing is byregistering under a “Flag of Conven i -ence” (FOC). Although internationallaw specifies that the count ry whoseflag a vessel flies is respon sible forcontrolling its activities, certaincoun tries allow vessels of anynationality to fly their flag for a fewhundred or thousand dollars, andthen ignore any offences committed.These so-called FOC coun tries areoften devel op ing States, and so lackthe resources (or the will) to monitorand control vessels flying their flag,especially when the fish eries beingplundered do not belong to them.112



Coastal development threatensshark breeding and nursery grounds.


Other Threats toSharksPOLLUTION

Sharks, as predators at the top of manyfood chains, are known to accumulatehigh concentrations of toxic compoundsdumped in the ocean.

Heavy metals, such as cadmium,mercury and lead, are highly toxic inanimal tissues even at low concentrationsand research carried out on heavy metalpollution in sharks shows that they caninhibit DNA synthesis, alter heart func -tion, disrupt sperm production and alterblood parameters.113

Among the heavy metals found insharks, mercury is known to reach parti-cularly high levels. Mercury is responsiblefor causing severe neuro logical damage inmany organisms, and although the dan -gers posed to humans from consum ingshark meat are well documented, its eff ectson sharks themselves are poorly known.

Organochlorine contaminants (OC)also accumulate at high levels in sharks. Arecent measurement of OCs in Greenlandsharks (Somniosus microcephalus) showedthem to be one of the most contaminatedorganisms in the Canadian Arctic. Thereis almost no information on the effects ofOC contamination in sharks, but it hasbeen associated with hormone disruptionand low fertility in bonnetheads.114

Concentrations of Tributylin (TBT), acompound used in anti-fouling paints onboats, was detected in the kidneys of bluesharks caught off the Italian coast115 andcadmium, lead and arsenic have beenfound in tissue samples of several sharkspecies in the eastern Mediterranean35.The presence of these substances is likelyto cause severe damage to basicbiological functions.

More than two million metric tons ofoil enter the marine environment eachyear from a mixture of natural sources,terrestrial runoff, discharges fromtankers and ships, oil refineries, oil spillsand the rupture of oil pipelines.Hydrocarbons and other toxicants in oilcan contaminate the flesh of sharks, butthe impacts from oil spills are most likelyfelt through the effects on sensitivecoastal habitats.116

MARINE DEBRIS

Every year an estimated 10 million metrictons of plastic ends up in the ocean.117

This detritus is known to harm manymarine species, including sharks,through entanglement or choking.118

Discarded commercial fishing gear isa big factor, with devastating affects formarine wildlife. Modern fishing gear isconstructed from synthetic fibers thatare non-biodegradable. This means thatsnagged or lost gear and torn fragmentsof net may continue to catch fishindefinitely – a phenomenon known as“ghost-fishing”. Smaller fish caught inthe net act as bait and attract larger fish,such as sharks, that get entangled anddie due to injury or asphyxiation. Theimpact of ghost fishing and other marinedebris on shark populations isunknown.116

RECREATIONAL FISHING

Recreational shark fishing is a popularpastime whose proponents have oftensounded the alarm on declining catchesand lobbied for protective measures.However, recreational fisheries cancontribute significantly to sharkmortality.116,119

Data from the US National MarineFisheries Service for 2004 shows thatover 12 million sharks, skates and rayswere caught by anglers in US waters, ofwhich 359,000 were retained.120 In fact,estimated recreational catches of largecoastal sharks were higher thancommercial landings in 15 of 21 yearsbetween 1981 and 2001.116 Off California,shortfin mako and leopard sharks(Triakis semifasciata) are the primarytargets, with the recreational catch ofleopard sharks six times the commercialcatch.116

Parts of the US East Coast may wellhost more recreational fishing for largesharks than anywhere else in the world.One annual shark fishing tournament inMassachusetts awards extra points forcatching 250 lb (113 kg) or more mako,thresher or porbeagle sharks.121 Porbeaglesharks are classified as Endangered by theIUCN in the Northwest Atlanticfollowing serious declines. In 2005, 2,500different sharks were caught at thistournament in just two days.

In Australia, where large numbers ofsharks are caught by recreational fishing,spearfishing has had a negative effect onAustralian populations of the CriticallyEndangered grey nurse shark (Carchariastaurus), leading to a voluntary fishingban in 1979. The species is nowprotected in all Australian waters.116

Increasingly, recreational fishermenare moving towards a catch-and-releasepolicy for most large species. However,this practice is not without problems, asrecreational fishermen usually allowsharks to “run with the bait” beforehooking them, which results in more gut-hooked animals. Virtually all recreationalreleases of large fishes involve cutting theleader, leaving animals with hooks in thegut, throat, or moving mouth partswhich can cause serious injury or death.This could be solved by the use of de-hooking tools, allowing even gut-hookremoval.119

BEACH MESHING

Netting of popular bathing beaches as aprotective measure against shark attackhas been practiced for more than 50years, mainly in Australia, South Africaand New Zealand, and is thus a localizedthreat to certain shark populations.116

Beach meshing programs do seem tohave been successful in reducing thenumber of attacks, but it is a commonmisconception that they physicallyprevent sharks from entering bathingwaters. The nets, which are set on thebottom, often do not reach the surfaceand are open at both ends, so sharks canswim over and around them. However,those sharks that swim into thembecome entangled and “drown” – this is

the purpose of shark nets: they reducethe local population size of sharks andthus the threat to swimmers.

On average, some 1,500 sharks arecaught in the Australian program eachyear and about 1,200 in South Africa,including a large proportion of speciesthat are not considered dangerous tohumans. In Australia, grey nurse andgreat white sharks, both protected undernational law, are caught in beach meshesalong with many other marine animalssuch as whales, dolphins, dugongs, seals,turtles, rays and bony fishes.122

Analysis of data from all programsindicates that beach meshing causessignificant declines in the abundance ofmost shark species that are regularlycaptured.7

HABITAT LOSS ANDDEGRADATION

Little is known about precisely howaltered and contaminated habitats affectthe health and productivity of sharks.However, considering the rapid rate atwhich coastal habitats are beingdestroyed around the world by humanactivities, shark species that rely oninshore waters for nursery grounds, orinhabit coastal or estuarine habitats,would appear to be the most likely to beaffected by habitat change.116

Some of the most threatened sharkspecies are those restricted to freshwaterand estuarine habitats. The Gangesshark (Glyphis gangeticus), for example, hasalmost completely disappeared from itslimited range due to human-inducedhabitat changes. Freshwater areas aremuch more accessible to humanexploitation than marine areas, and thetropical rivers and lakes where freshwatershark species occur are mostly in

developing countries with large andexpanding human populations.116

Many species of shark are primarilyassociated with coral reefs. Thewidespread destruction of these habitats– due to sedimentation and pollution,rising sea temperatures associated withglobal warming, and destructive fishingpractices – undoubtedly has majorimpacts for sharks.116

Mangrove forests are another coastalhabitat critical to many sharks, servingas a nursery ground for both them andtheir prey species.116 Like coral reefs,mangroves are among the mostthreatened habitats in the world today,with massive losses due to aquaculture,agriculture, coastal development,mining, pollution, and damming ofrivers.123

SUB-SEA CABLES

Sharks possess acute “electro-reception”and “magneto-reception” capabilities fornavigation and hunting purposes.Communications cables runningbeneath the seabed produce a complexarray of electric and magnetic fields thatare likely to affect shark behavior.116

CLIMATE CHANGE AND OZONETHINNING

Climate change is expected to alter themarine environment through changes inweather patterns, water temperature, sealevel, tidal and current patterns, coastalerosion and storm frequency. This couldaffect the food supply, migration routes,and distribution of shark species, and thestability of ecosystems. Ozone depletionalso has the potential to alter sharkhabitats through its effects on wholeecosystems.116

© K

EV

IN S

CH

AFE

R /

ST

ILL

PIC

TU

RE

S

© S

. G

RU

BE

R /

IN

NE

RSP

AC

E V

ISIO

NS

© J

EFF

RO

TM

AN

/ J

EFF

RO

TM

AN

.CO

M

© W

OLC

OT

T H

EN

RY

Left: Sharks accumulate highconcentrations of toxic compoundsdumped in the ocean.

Above: Discards from a fishing tournament.

Above: A three meter tiger shark caughtin an anti-shark net off Durban Beach,Natal Coast – South Africa.

Coastal development threatensshark breeding and nursery grounds.


ANGEL SHARK Squatina squatina

IUCN Classification: Critically Endangered.

Max. size: Length 2.5 m, weight 80 kg,longevity not known.

Distribution: Eastern Atlantic: fromScandinavia to northwest Africa;Mediterranean and Black Seas.

Reproduction: Age at maturity unknown,males mature at 80–132cm and females at128–169cm. Litter size: 7–25.

Threats: Bycatch.

Notes: Formerly a common and importantdemersal predator in coastal areas of theNortheast Atlantic, Mediterranean andBlack Seas during the 19th and early 20thcenturies. Most of this region is nowsubject to intensive demersal fisheries, andthe species is highly vulnerable from birthonwards to bycatch in bottom-trawls, set-nets and longlines. Abundance has declineddramatically in the past 50 years; is nowdeclared extinct in the North Sea,extirpated from large areas of northernMediterranean and uncommon throughoutmost of remainder of its range.

BRAZILIAN GUITARFISHRhinobatos horkeli


Max. size: Length 1.4 m.

Distribution: Western Atlantic: LesserAntilles to Southern Brazil.

Reproduction: Not known.

Threats: Overfishing.

Notes: Extremely vulnerable to over-exploitation because inshore breeding andnursery grounds are fished heavily.Population off southern Brazil decreased by96% from 1984–94; the species facesextinction in the near future if fishingcontinues.

The IUCN Red List

The IUCN Red List is the most comprehensive inventory of the globalconservation status of plant and animal species. Species are assessed on a formalset of criteria and placed in one of nine categories: Extinct, Extinct in the Wild,Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable, Near Threatened, Least Concern,Data Deficient and Not Evaluated.

Unless stated otherwise, all information in the following section is taken from theIUCN Red List 200672 and Fishbase126.Species at risk

SHARKS IN DECLINE

While there is still very littlecomprehensive global data on the declineof shark species, research carried out inthe past few years in specific regions andon specific shark populations hasrevealed dramatic declines. Some sharkpopulations have declined by more than80% in the past 50 years:

89% decline in hammerhead sharks inthe NW Atlantic in the past 15 years;124

80% decline in thresher sharks in the NWAtlantic;124

79% decline in great white sharks in theNW Atlantic;124

65% decline in tiger sharks in the NWAtlantic;124

60% decline in blue sharks in the NWAtlantic;124

87% decline in blue sharks in the tropicalPacific;49

99% decline in oceanic white tip sharks inthe Gulf of Mexico since the 1950s;

90% decline in oceanic silky sharks inGulf of Mexico since the 1950s;80

88% decline in angel sharks in Brazilianwaters;72

It is important to note that theseshark populations are not exposed tounusual levels of fishing mortality –there is no reason not to assume thatpopulation declines of this magnitudeare not replicated in other species andpopulations worldwide. In fact, globalpopulations of large predatory fish(excluding sharks) have already beenshown to have declined by 90% since theonset of industrial fishing.125 Consideringthat sharks are more vulnerable tooverexploitation than other fish, declinesof at least the same magnitude seemhighly likely.

IUCN’s Red List of ThreatenedSpecies 2006 contains assessments of547 sharks and related species. Of these,20% (110) are classified as “CriticallyEndangered,” “Endangered” or“Vulnerable”, whilst a further 37% (205species) are classified as “Data Deficient”,meaning that insufficient information isavailable to assess a species’ risk ofextinction. Many species have not beenassessed at all, however. 72


GANGES SHARKGlyphis gangeticus


Max. size: Length 3 m.

Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: HooghlyRiver, Ganges system, West Bengal, India,and likely from the vicinity of Karachi,Pakistan. Reported from Taiwan. Probablyconfined to turbid waters of rivers,estuaries and inshore waters in this area.


Threats: Caught as incidental catch in otherfisheries.

Notes: The Ganges Shark is known fromonly three museum specimens, all collectedin the 19th Century. After an extensivesearch in the Ganges River over the pastdecade, a few additional specimens werecaught in 1996.

PORBEAGLE SHARK Lamna nasus

IUCN Classification: Vulnerable; NorthwestAtlantic subpopulation Endangered;Northeast Atlantic subpopulation CriticallyEndangered; Mediterranean subpopulationCritically Endangered.

Max. size: Length 3.5 m, weight 230 kg,longevity 30 years.

Distribution: Cold waters of North andSouth Atlantic, South Pacific.

Reproduction: Males mature at eight yearsand females at 13. Females give birth to liveyoung, with 1–6 pups per litter.

Threats: Porbeagle sharks are targeted formeat, oil, fishmeal and fins for shark-finsoup. Also a popular gamefish.

Notes: The eastern and western NorthAtlantic populations have both been serious -ly over-exploited by directed longline fish -eries. Found singly and in schools, por beaglefeed on small pelagic schooling fishes, othersharks and squid. With a mini mum popu la -tion doubling time of more than 14 years,they are very susceptible to over fishing.

BLUE SHARKPrionace glauca

IUCN Classification: Lower Risk/NearThreatened.

Max. size: Length 4 m, weight 205 kg,longevity 20 years.

Distribution: Worldwide in open ocean –probably the widest rangingchondrichthyan.

Reproduction: Males mature at 1.8–2.8mlength and 4–5 years and females at2.2–3.2m length and 5–6 years. Gestationperiod is 9–12 months and internallyhatched eggs are nourished by a placentalyolk sac. Pups are about 40 cm in lengthand 4–135 are produced per litter.

Threats: Bycatch and finning: usuallycaught with pelagic longlines (targetingtuna and billfish) but also hook-and-lines,pelagic trawls, and even bottom trawls nearcoasts. It is utilized fresh, smoked, anddried-salted for human consumption; itshides are used for leather; fins for shark-finsoup; and also for fishmeal and liver oil.Also considered a game fish and taken bysports anglers with rod and reel.

Notes: While blue sharks are among themost abundant, widespread, fecund andfaster growing of all the sharks, and apelagic species that is widely distributedthroughout the world’s oceans, they arealso the most heavily fished sharks in theworld. The impact of annual fisheriesmortality (mainly of bycatch), estimated at10 to 20 million individuals, is likely to behaving an effect on the world population,but monitoring data are inadequate toassess the scale of any population decline.However a recent study the longline fisheryin the tropical Pacific Ocean found thatblue sharks have declined by 87% since the1950s and that the mean mass ofindividuals caught has dropped from 52 kgto 22 kg.49

GIANT FRESHWATERSTINGRAY

Himantura chaophraya

IUCN Classification: Vulnerable; Thailandsub-population Critically Endangered.

Max. size: Length 5 m, width 2.4 m, weight600 kg.

Distribution: Asia and Oceania: Mekongand Chao Phraya river basins; also fromeastern Borneo, New Guinea and northernAustralia.


Threats: Habitat alteration anddegradation of the Thai riverine systems(human induced) and overfishing.

Protection: Thai government trying toimplement an experimental captivebreeding program.

Notes: H. chaophraya has a characteristicrounded disk with a prominent snout andsmall eyes, and possesses a venomous stingon a large whip-like tail. Inhabits sandybottoms of estuaries and large rivers,feeding on invertebrates and fishes.Possibility of biological extinction in thewild considered extremely high in somehabitats although status in Australia isprobably favorable.


SMALLTOOTH SAWFISH Pristis p ectinata

IUCN Classification: Critically Endangered;North and Southwest Atlanticsubpopulation Critically Endangered.

Max. size: Length 7.6 m, weight 350 kg,longevity 40–70 years.

Distribution: Western and eastern Atlantic;Indo-West Pacific; possibly Mediterraneanand eastern Pacific.

Reproduction: Slow growing and latematuring: large females produce between15 and 20 young per year; the young areborn at 70–80 cm. Size at maturity isestimated as 3.2 m.

Threats: The principal threat to allsawfishes is fishing, both targeted andbycatch, because their long tooth-studdedsaw makes them extraordinarily vulnerableto entanglement in any sort of net gear,and habitat destruction. Eradicated fromthe majority of its former range in the US.

Notes: Targeted for food, liver oil andsport; saws are sold as tourist souvenirsand adult fish stuffed for display. Sawfishhave been wholly or nearly extirpated fromlarge areas of their former range in theNorth Atlantic and the Southwest Atlanticcoast by fishing and habitat modification.Remaining populations are now small andfragmented. It is apparently extinct in theMediterranean and likely also in theNortheast Atlantic.

PONDICHERRY SHARKCarcharhinus hemiodon

IUCN classification: Critically Endangered.

Max. size: Length 2 m.

Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: Gulf ofOman to Pakistan, India, and possibly SriLanka.


Threats: Fishing for meat.

Notes: An extremely rare inshore shark,known only from around 20 specimens inmuseum collections. Subject to expandingwidespread and unregulated fishing, lastrecorded from market surveys in 1979.Subsequent market surveys in 1982,1996/97 and 1999/2000 in India, Malaysiaand Philippines failed to find any specimens.


Max. size: Length 2.8 m, weight 97 kg,longevity 50 years.

Distribution: Eastern Atlantic: Norway,Iceland, the Faroes to Senegal, includingwestern Mediterranean and western Baltic.

Reproduction: Attain sexual maturity at 1.2 m and around 10 years of age.Common skate are egg-layers and femalesproduce about 40 eggs annually.

Threats: Overfishing: caught by bottomtrawlers and traditionally landed due to itslarge size, D. batis is taken in targetedfisheries where/when abundant, and as abycatch elsewhere within its range. Its slowgrowth and reproductive rate makes it veryvulnerable to over-exploitation.

Notes: Once abundant in NorthwestEurope, now extirpated from much offormer range. Populations around UKextremely depleted.

DUSKY SHARK Carcharhinus obscurus

IUCN Classification: Lower Risk/NearThreatened; Vulnerable in western NorthAtlantic and Gulf of Mexico.

Max. size: Length 4 m, weight 180 kg,longevity 45 years.

Distribution: East, West and NorthAtlantic, western Indian Ocean and westernand eastern Pacific.

Reproduction: Among the slowest-growing,latest-maturing of known sharks, bearingsmall litters after a long gestation, and oneof the most vulnerable of vertebrates todepletion by man because of its very lowintrinsic rate of increase. Mature at the ageof 20 years (2.8 m in length), havegestation period of 16 months, produceeight young per litter.

Threats: Overfished in western Atlantic.Taken on commercial longline as a bycatchin swordfish/tuna fishery.

Protection: Protected in US Atlantic afterserious declines.

Notes: Found in coastal and offshorewaters but not oceanic. Adults arecommonly found at depths of 200–400 m,young in shallower waters. Feeds onbottom and pelagic bony fish, sharks,skates, rays, cephalopods, gastropods,crustaceans, sometimes human refuse. It isutilized fresh, dried-salted, frozen andsmoked for human consumption; hides forleather; fins for shark fin soup; and liver oilextracted for vitamins. A 2004 study foundthat the dusky shark population of the Gulfof Mexico declined by 79% between the1950s and the late 1990s.80 Similar declinesare expected to have occurred worldwide.


GREY NURSE SHARKCarcharias taurus

Also known as sandtiger shark and spottedragged-tooth shark.

IUCN classification: Vulnerable.


Distribution: Widespread in inshore watersaround the main continental landmasses insubtropical and cool temperate areas,except for the eastern Pacific.

Reproduction: This large coastal specieshas one of the lowest reproductive ratesknown among sharks, giving birth to one ortwo large young every two years. Malesreach sexual maturity at around 10 years ofage, females at around 15 years.

Threats: Populations in several areas havebeen severely depleted by commercialfishing, protective beach-meshing andspear fishing. Recovery is hindered byintrinsically low reproductive rate.Australian populations, which amount tono more than 500 individuals, are alsoextremely isolated and as a result have verylow genetic diversity. This makes themsusceptible to disease and less able to cope

with environmental change such as globalwarming.127

Protection: Protected in Australian Statesof New South Wales (NSW), Queenslandand Tasmania. Listed as Vulnerable inAustralia, recently proposed forEndangered. Fully protected in SouthAfrica, Namibia and the Maldives. Receivesfull protection on the Atlantic and Gulfcoasts of the USA.

Notes:

1. Overfishing: Grey nurse sharks have beenfished throughout their range in the past.They are utilized fresh, frozen, smoked anddried for human consumption, and also forfishmeal, liver oil, fins, and hides forleather. Its flesh is highly appreciated inJapan. No directed fishery since 1984, butbycatch in other fisheries has causedconcern, although full impact is unknown.In Australia accidentally caught on baitedlines targeting wobbegong sharks(Orectolobus spp).128

2. Beach meshing: The Australian States ofNew South Wales and Queensland haveintroduced beach meshing to protectbathers from potentially dangerous sharks.These nets are thought to be one of themajor threats to grey nurse shark

populations. In the period 1962–1972, 180sharks were caught in beach meshingaround New South Wales and Queensland,but in recent years (1993–2003) there havebeen only 11 mortalities. This decrease hasbeen attributed to the declining grey nurseshark population.129

3. Recreational fishing: Between 1961 and1980, 405 Carcharias taurus were landed byfishing clubs on the NSW coast.Recreational fishermen noted a declineduring 1960s and 1970s and implementeda voluntary fishing ban in 1979. Never the -less, the main current threat to grey nursesharks in southeast Australia is probablythe accidental capture of juveniles byrecreational line fishers, and current figuresindicate no subsequent recovery. Until1980s, was perceived as “man-eater” owingto fierce appearance; many killed by spear-fishers and scuba divers and also caughtlive to sell to aquaria. Today, withprotection and increased public awareness,there are very few reports of kills bydivers.128

© J

. D

. W

AT

T/I

NN

ER

SPA

CE

VIS

ION

S

COMMON SKATEDipturus batis

Below: Fewer than 500 grey nursesharks are estimated to remain inAustralian waters.


land (probably bycatch). The Norwegianfishery dates from 16th century but expan -d ed in 1960s owing to increased demandfor liver oil. Norwegian catches peaked in1970 and 1975 at around 18,000 mt buthave since declined to only 181 mt in 2004.According to ICES, this fishery has nowceased.

2. Bycatch: Basking sharks are sometimeslanded and sold after becoming entangledin gillnets or pot lines or caught in trawls,but bycatch is rarely reported. Wherereports do exist, bycatches in coastal areasare relatively high: for example, up to 120basking sharks are taken each year in thebottom gillnet fishery of the Celtic Sea.

BASKING SHARKCetorhinus maximus

IUCN Classification: Vulnerable;Endangered in Northeast Atlantic andNorth Pacific.

Max. size: Length 12 m, weight 4,000 kg,longevity 50 years.

Distribution: Found throughout the world’ssub-arctic and temperate waters: thewestern and eastern Atlantic, westernIndian Ocean and western and easternPacific.

Reproduction: Males and females attainsexual maturity between the ages of 12–16and 16–20 years, respectively. Six pups areproduced per litter with a 2–4 year intervalbetween litters.

Threats: Targeted for liver oil, fins, skin andmeat.

Protection: Strictly protected in British andUS Atlantic waters; listed on Appendix II ofthe Bonn Convention; listed on Appendix IIof CITES.

Notes: Second largest fish after whaleshark; plankton feeder.


1. Overfishing: Basking sharks have beenhunted for several centuries to supply liveroil for lighting and industry, skin forleather, and flesh for food and fishmeal.Modern fisheries yield liver oil, meat,cartilage and fins, which due to their largesize attain extremely high prices in inter -national trade to East Asia. In the past,basking sharks have been fished using netsor harpoons in Norway, Ireland, Scotland,Spain, Iceland, Canada, Japan, China,California, Peru, and Ecuador.

Most basking shark fisheries appear tohave collapsed after initial high yields andthis species is considered to be extremelyvulnerable to overfishing. For example,between 1947 and 1975, basking sharkswere netted and harpoonedoff the west coast of Irelandwith peak annual catchesreaching over 1,000 animals.By the 1970s catches haddeclined by over 90% due toover fishing. Similar stockcrashes have occurred infisheries in California, Canadaand Japan.

In recent years, the FAOonly received reports ofcatches in the NortheastAtlantic from Norway andoccasional catches fromPortugal, Spain and New Zea -

Basking shark total catches 1950–96SO

UR

CE

: FAO

FISHST

AT

with relatively low natural mortality.Females do not reproduce until in excess of4.5m. Owing to low reproductive potential,recover slowly from overexploitation.

1. Trophy fishing and trade in jaws andfins: Due to its reputation as a dangerousfish, largely blamed on the 1975 film Jaws,it is popular as a game fish amongenthusiasts and has been targeted for itsteeth and jawbones since the 1920’s. InSouth Africa offers of up toUS$20,000–50,000 have been made forgreat white jaws and US$600–800 forindividual teeth. A fin set from a largeindividual may be valued at over US$1,000.The high value of great white sharkproducts encourages poaching, clandestinetrade and flouting of protective laws.However, many dive operators are catchingon to the idea that great white shark cagediving can be extremely lucrative and thistype of ecotourism is continuing to expandand develop around this species.

2. Bycatch: The majority of great whites arecaught accidentally in commercial fisheriesoperating longlines, gillnets, trawls etc.They rarely survive if returned to the oceanand are often killed by fishermen. A recentstudy of shark populations caught asbycatch in the Northwest Atlantic longlinefishery (targeting swordfish and tuna)found that great white sharks have declinedby 79% the Northwest Atlantic in the past15 years.124 Similar declines in other areasare likely.

GREAT WHITE SHARKCarcharadon carcharias

IUCN Classification: Vulnerable.

Max. size: Length 6 m, weight 3,400 kg;longevity around 30 years.

Distribution: Worldwide, along continentalmargins of all temperate seas and enteringtropics.

Reproduction: Males mature at about 3.5 m (8–9 years) and females 4.5 m(12–15 years). Females give birth to a litterof 2–10 pups every 2–3 years.

Threats: Sport fishing, bycatch, trade injaws and fins.

Protection: From the perspective ofdomestic management, is the most widelyprotected shark in the world, with captureand trade in this species prohibited inSouth Africa, Namibia, Maldives, Malta,the USA, and Australia (except beachmeshing). Listed on CITES Appendix IIsince 2004, it was also listed on bothAppendices I and II of the Convention onMigratory Species in 2002.

Notes: Most famous (and feared) of allsharks, gained global notoriety fromblockbuster movie and book Jaws. Perceivedas unstoppable “killing machine” but inreality, this supreme predator is highlyvulnerable. Naturally scarce, it is long-lived

SPINY DOGFISHSqualus acanthias

Also known as piked dogfish and spurdog.

IUCN Classification: Vulnerable; NortheastAtlantic subpopulation CriticallyEndangered; Mediterranean, NorthwestAtlantic and Northwest Pacificsubpopulations Endangered; Black Sea,Northeast Pacific and South Americasubpopulations Vulnerable.


Distribution: Spiny dogfish are found intemperate and sub-arctic waters; principlepopulations are in the North Atlantic, theeastern South Pacific, the South Atlantic offSouth America, the Cape coast of SouthAfrica, the southern coasts of Australia andNew Zealand and the North Pacific. Littlemixing occurs between populations.

Reproduction: Females reach sexualmaturity at 12 years, males at six.Pregnancy of up to two years – thought tobe the longest of any vertebrate. Litter sizesaverage between 6–7 pups, but may be upto as many as 20 pups per litter.

Threats: Overfishing.

Protection: None.

Notes: Possibly the most abundant sharkworldwide, supporting fishing industry ofglobal importance, but highly vulnerable tooverfishing due to exceptionally slowgrowth and reproduction. Spiny dogfish arehighly migratory, traveling in large, dense“packs”, segregated by age and sex. Maturefemales are targeted by fishermen due totheir size, with devastating effects onbreeding population.

1. Overfishing: The principle threat to spinydogfish worldwide is overfishing from directand indirect commercial fisheries. Spinydogfish meat is eaten in Europe, Australia,New Zealand, South America and Japan,but they are often regarded as “trash fish”and discarded.

Most large-scale spiny dogfish fisheries,though initially yielding high catches, havedepleted populations and collapsed. In theNortheast Atlantic, where catch effort iseffectively unlimited, stocks have declinedby 95%. Mediterranean and Black Seastocks are also unmanaged, with a declineof more than 60% reported in a Black Seastock assessment for 1981–1992. Maturefemales have declined by 75% in just 10years in the Northwest Atlantic, where USfederal efforts to manage the stock arehampered by high bycatch, continued

© T

. C

AM

PB

ELL

/ I

NN

ER

SPA

CE

VIS

ION

S

© K

ELV

IN A

ITK

EN

/ S

TIL

L P

ICT

UR

ES

A number of fisheries for the secondlargest fish in the world, the baskingshark, have collapsed.

The great white shark is targeted asa trophy and for its jaws and fins.


WHALE SHARKRhincodon typus

IUCN Classification: Vulnerable.

Max. size: Length 14–20 m, weight 34metric tons, longevity 60–100 years.

Distribution: All tropical and warmtemperate seas, oceans and coastal areasaround the globe.

Reproduction: Litter size may be up to 300.Gestation period is unknown, but averagereproductive age is 35–63 years.

Threats: Targeted for meat and fins.

Protection: Listed on Appendix II of theConvention on Migratory Species in 1999and Appendix II of CITES in 2003. It hasbeen legally protected in the Philippinessince 1988 and in India the whale sharkbecame the first fish to be protected underthe Wildlife Protection Act. It is also illegalto fish for whale sharks in Australia,Honduras, the Maldives and the USA.

Notes: The world’s largest fish is wellknown for being a gentle giant; like thebasking shark, whale sharks filter-feed on avariety of planktonic organisms.Ecotourism industries based on viewingwhale sharks are now developing in severallocations. These generate at least US$47.5million worldwide annually – significantlymore than it is worth as meat and otherproducts.57

1. Overfishing: Small harpoon andentanglement fisheries for whale sharkshave taken place in India (banned in 2001),Pakistan, Taiwan, the Philippines (bannedin 1998), and the Maldives (prior toprotection in 1995). These took whalesharks primarily for their meat, liver oiland/or fins. The huge fins are low quality


and unsuitable for soup but are highlyvalued as restaurant signboards in eastAsia, whilst the soft meat (known as “tofushark”) is in great demand in Taiwan andmay fetch prices up to US$17 per kg.69 A10-ton shark recently sold for US$21,400on the Taiwanese market.57

Today, whale sharks continue to betargeted in Pakistan, where recent landingsare unknown, and Taiwan. Taiwanesecatches appear to have declined since the1980s, with annual landings from oneparticular site decreasing from 50–60sharks per year in the mid-1980s, to 10 orless in the 1990s. In 1995, landingsthroughout Taiwan were approximately250–272, but between 2001 and March2002 it was reported that 113 whale sharkswere taken. The domestic catch hasapparently decreased by 60–70% sincesurveys ten years ago.

There are now serious concerns thatwhale shark populations are decreasing inmany regions as a result of unregulatedfisheries, and despite being protected inseveral countries, it is suspected that illegalhunting of whale sharks still continues withimpunity. The species’ low reproductiverate, highly migratory nature, and lowabundance make it particularly vulnerableto exploitation. Scientists recently foundthat the average size of whale sharksspotted off the Australian coast has shrunkin the past decade from 7 m to 5 m – anextremely worrying sign considering whalesharks do not reach sexual maturity untilthey are 6–7 m in length. The researcherssuspect that the decline in size is asymptom of overfishing and due to thecapture of the largest sharks.130

exploitation in Canadian Atlantic waters,and regular defiance of scientific advice byUS Atlantic States.

European demand continues to fuelmarkets around the world. Fisheries andpopulation trend data indicate that thesouthern part of the Northeast Pacificstock has also declined through overfishing,but stocks appear stable off Alaska. Theonly data identified from the NorthwestPacific are from Japan, where landings ofspurdog declined around 80% in1952–1965, and inshore spurdog catchesdeclined 80–90% from the mid-1970s tolate 1990s. Unregulated and expandingtarget and bycatch fisheries take spinydogfish in South America (Europe reportsimports from this region), wherepopulation declines are reported. NewZealand manages the species, which istaken in target and bycatch fisheries,through its Quota Management System.There is only limited fishing pressure inAustralia and South Africa, with mostcatches discarded.

metric tons between 1998 and 2002.67 In2004, imports reported to the FAOamounted to 11,000 mt, although thisfigure includes both processed andunprocessed fins.90

Shark fins (in unprocessed form)arrive in Hong Kong by sea from allaround the world, and are then shippedacross the border to processing factoriesin Guangdong Province (MainlandChina). Once processing is complete,some of the fins are re-imported to HongKong for consumption or re-export, forexample to overseas Chinese com mu ni -ties69. The remainder of the processedprod uct is sold within Main land China,primarily for domestic consumption.69

With the continued liberalization ofthe Mainland market, it is believed thatshark fins are increasingly bypassingHong Kong and instead traveling directlyto the Chinese mainland69. However,declared imports to Hong Kong show nosign of declining – in fact they continueto grow – and the mainland pro por tionof reported fin imports is not increas -ing69. Nevertheless, other signs provideevidence of the expected trend: trade inshark fins between key Southeast Asiantrading centers (e.g. Singapore, Malaysiaand Thailand) and Mainland China hasnoticeably expanded in recent years.69

Hong Kong –The Global HubHong Kong, as the gateway to China andwith its international trading status, hasbeen the center of the global shark fintrade for many years, with a largeproportion of the remaining tradetransiting Singapore and, increasingly,Mainland China. Just as it had been forthe global ivory trade (both legal andillegal) prior to 1989, Hong Kong acts asan entrepôt, with some fins consumeddomestically but a great deal re-exportedto other parts of the Chinese-speakingworld.

A recent analysis of national customsstatistics for the major trading centersfor shark fin – Hong Kong, MainlandChina, Singapore, Taiwan and Japan –showed that 50% of the global tradepasses through Hong Kong. Between1991 and 2000, the trade in fins throughHong Kong, which is likely to beindicative of the volume of the globaltrade, grew at an annual rate of sixpercent, most likely due to increases indisposable income in Mainland China.69

Declared imports of unprocessed finsto Hong Kong rose from 6,900 to 9,800

SOURCES OF F INS

Sharks are finned in all the oceans of theworld to feed the markets of East Asia. In2004, Hong Kong imported unprocessedshark fins from 80 countries131. This is aslight decrease from the 85 and 86countries exporting shark fins to HongKong in 1999 and 2000, respectively, anda major reduction from the 125countries recorded in 1995.69

Topping the list of countriesimporting shark fin into Hong Kong in2004 were China, Taiwan, Spain,Singapore and Indonesia. Theseexporters represent a mixture ofproducers (for example, Taiwan, Spainand Indonesia) and countries tradingfins for processing and consumption(China and Singapore).131

Changes since 1998-2000 includeexpanding production in Brazil andCosta Rica, and a reduction in exportsfrom India, Yemen and the USA, whichdropped outside the top ten exporters toHong Kong in 2002131, possibly as a resultof the Shark Finning Prohibition Act.69

© K

ELV

IN A

ITK

EN

/ S

TIL

L P

ICT

UR

ES

Hong Kong is the center ofthe world’s shark fin trade.

Top: The spiny dogfish is sold as “rocksalmon” in fish and chip shops. With agestation period longer than anelephant, it is vulnerable to overfishing.

Right: The meat and fins of whalesharks are highly valued in many Asianmarkets. A 10-ton shark recently soldfor over US$21,000 in Taiwan. ©

JU

RG

EN

FR

EU

ND

ww

w.s

cub

ayo

gi.d

e



ChinaUntil twenty years ago, China was a rela-tively small player in the inter nationaltrade in shark fins. But in the late 1980s,the Chinese authorities relaxed the long-held official attitude to shark fin soup asan unacceptable sym bol of wealth andprivilege, thereby open ing the door to avast new market. Rapid economic deve-lopment, especially in southern Chinaand the cities of Beijing and Shanghai,led to huge increases in disposableincome and the creation of a new middleclass. New found wealth could be demon-strated to friends and business associatesby serving shark fin soup.

The precise level of shark fin con sump -tion in China is almost impossible toquantify. China does not report the volu-me or species com po si tion of its sharkcatches, and for reasons that remainunclear, Chinese import statistics do notappear to reflect the true quantity ofshark fins in trade.69 Declared imports ofshark fin into Mainland China rose fromaround 3,000 mt in 1992 to 4,400 mt in1996, but have fluctuated at around 4,000metric tons ever since, showing no realgrowth.90 Imports in 2004 peaked at4,776 mt, representing 36% of globalimports and second only to Hong Kong.90

Chinese import figures are thought tobe inaccurate for a number of reasons. Alarge proportion of China’s shark finimports are under-reported or smuggledinto the country to avoid high taxes leviedon imports. Furthermore, since 2000,Chinese customs codes have required thatimports of fresh, chilled and frozen sharkfins be recorded under the broad categoryof “shark meat”.69 Together, these factorsrender compilation of accurate figures onChina’s share of the global shark fin tradevirtually impossible.69

Examination of declared imports ofshark meat into Mainland China reveals amassive increase since 1998 – from around300 mt to over 5,000 mt – which wouldsuggest either an increasing trend ofdeclaring shark fins as shark meat, or anexpanding market for frozen shark meat(or both).90 Interestingly, Main land China’sbiggest reported sup pliers of shark meatare also the coun try’s biggest suppliers offin, namely Singapore, Japan and Spain.69

The vast majority (90%) of shark finsimported by Mainland China are des -tined for processing plants in Guang -dong Province.69 China does not reportproduction figures to the FAO, butexports have been around 2,000 mt peryear since 1996; in 2004 China’s exportsamounted to 2,476 mt, making it thebiggest exporter of shark fin worldwidewith a 40% share of the reported total.90

Regardless of any ambiguities sur-rounding China’s exact share of the glo-bal fin trade, it is unquestionable thatMainland China has become the world’slargest consumer of shark fin. With amiddle-class estimated to number inexcess of 100 million, the number of

potential consumers of shark fin soup inMainland China exceeds the populationsof all the other markets in the worldcombined. Given the con tin u ing econo-mic development and rising standards ofliving, it is expected that demand forshark fin will continue to grow overtime,7 with potentially devastating conse-quences for shark populations worldwide.

“Hong Kong’s hold on the shark finmarket is weakening as the trade in

China expands, but Hong Kong is stilla major center, with at least 50

wholesale or retail shops selling sharkfins, and approximately 20-30

medium-to-large importing traders.”131

“Worldwide, based on an averageunit price and estimates of volumefrom customs data, the [shark fin]

trade is probably worth US$400-550million.” 131

SHARK CONSUMPTION SURVEY

Between October 2005 and January 2006,WildAid and the China WildlifeConservation Association (CWCA)conducted a survey of restaurants,grocery stores and wholesale markets in16 major Chinese cities, includingShanghai, Beijing, and Guangzhou, tostudy the amount, price and attitudestowards shark fin on sale.

The study also included a ques tion -naire to gauge consumer attitudestowards shark fin soup and awareness ofshark ecology. A brief summary follows:

� Of the 472 restaurants surveyed, 124(26%) sold shark fin dishes. These weremid to high-end range restaurants.

� Of the 144 grocery stores surveyed, 20(14%) sold shark fin, indicating thatshark fin is now more accessible thanever to the average consumer.

� Only three of the 101 wholesalemarkets surveyed sold shark fin.

� 80% of interviewees did not knowwhat shark fin (known as “fish wing”in Chinese) is made from. Althoughthe average man on the street is notthe main consumer of shark fin, thistrend may be shifting as restaurantsprovide “economy” shark fin dishes toappeal to more customers. Somegrocery stores have also started sellingshark fin.

� 35% of those interviewed hadconsumed shark fin. 41–60-year-oldmen were the main consumers and, asexpected, consumption was mostprevalent among those with a higherincome and standard of education.

� 31% of shark fin consumers chose toeat shark fin for its nutritional valueand 49% said potential health riskswould stop them eating it.

� Other reasons for eating shark finsoup were curiosity (27%), taste (23%)and social status (19%).

� Deep-sea fish were commonly believedto be subject to less pollution andthus more nutritious. Shark fin is alsobelieved to balance yin and yang.

CHINA’S GDP PER CAPITA VS. GLOBAL SHARK FIN IMPORTS 1976-2004

© W

ILD

AID

© W

ILD

AID

© M

AR

K H

EN

LEY

/ P

AN

OS

Above & Right: China is the world’sbiggest consumer of shark fin.

Above: Shopping crowds on Nanjing Lu, Shanghai. As China’s economy continues togrow, shark populations will be increasingly threatened unless consumer habits change.

met

ric

tons



WildAid & Oceana recommends

Marine Reserves must be protected as a matter of urgency withinternational financing if necessary. If properly patrolled, they areamong the few areas where sharks are assured of protection.Establishing which areas need closing during particular seasons andidentifying and protecting shark pupping and nursery grounds shouldalso be priorities. It will also be necessary to police such restrictions.Developed fishing nations should support these efforts financially.

Basic research is urgently to be carried out on catch levels, effort andcomposition. In the interim, a highly precautionary approach mustbe taken to quota-setting, area closure, bycatch reduction, speciesprotection, and other management measures. Sharks will faceincreasing environmental pressures from pollution, global warming,ozone depletion, etc. Allowances should be made for these factorswhen using a precautionary approach to shark management.

The UN should enact an immediate ban on shark finning ininternational waters. Some shark species migrate many thousands ofmiles. Only an international ban would make sense for these species.Some nations already prohibit finning nationally; while similar bansdo not exist in other countries’ waters and on the high seas, theirattempts to conserve sharks are compromised.

Governments should enact immediate bans on finning in nationalwaters. Enforcement could be made appropriate to the needs andresources of developing countries. Specific ports could be designatedfor shark landings, and on-board and beach-side observers couldalso be used.

Data collection must be vastly improved in almost all countries.Catch and landings data should be species-specific. On-boardobservers could be used more extensively in monitoring catch effort,volumes and composition.


Common views expressed by consumers during the survey: Conclusions & Recommendations

FAO recommends WildAid & Oceana concludes

Control access offishing vessels toshark stocks.

There is an urgent need to assist somedeveloping countries in preventingillegal fishing within their coastalwaters, as few have the resources tomonitor and control the waters undertheir jurisdiction which can extend200-miles out to sea.

Decrease fishingeffort for anyshark fisherywhere catch isunsustainable.

Many fisheries managers lack basicinformation to establish whether ornot a fishery is sustainable. Evidenceoften clearly indicates sharks arebeing overfished. The “boom andbust” history of directed sharkfisheries and the fact that sharks’ lifehistory makes them extremelyvulnerable to overexploitation meansthat sustainability should be assumedthe exception, not the rule.

Improve theutilization ofsharks caught.

Finning not only wastes 95–99% ofthe shark, but also makes accuratemonitoring of shark catchesimpossible. The burgeoning demandfor shark fin over the past 20 years isvery likely to continue. If it does, thepractice of taking sharks for their finswill become even more widespread.As human populations grow, thisconstitutes a truly shameful waste ofthe world’s resources.

Improve datacollection andmonitoring ofshark fisheries.

Few countries record accurate catchdata by species, which is the first steptoward ensuring sustainable fisheries.

© W

ILD

AID

PERCEPTION

Shark fin soup is a status symbol

and serving it shows respect to

one’s guests.

Shark fin soup is highly nutritious.

Shark fin has many medicinal

properties.

Sharks are vicious killers – they

would eat us if given the chance.

RESPONSE

“I order shark fin in entertaining very

important clients.”

“Deep sea fishes are safer because they

are less affected by environmental

pollution.”

“It must be nutritious, as it is low fat and

is expensive.”

“Helps fight cancer.”

“Shark fin soup has anti-aging

properties.”

“Good for skin and boosts energy levels.”

“If you don’t kill others, others will kill

you. It’s a natural law.”

“Sharks are ferocious animals that attack

humans.”

FACT:

Many shark species are being hunted to extinction for the

luxury of a bowl of soup. Finning wastes up to 99% of the

shark and this wastage is jeopardizing food security and

livelihoods around the world. Declining shark populations

could also have catastrophic effects for marine ecosystems

and mean lower catches of other fish in the future. Fierce

competition for shark fins among criminal gangs has led to

widespread corruption, gangland wars and contract

killings.

Sharks, like other long-lived predatory fish, accumulate

high levels of mercury in their tissues, and tests have shown

shark fins to contain mercury at concentrations harmful to

humans. Mercury is highly toxic and causes damage

primarily to the brain and spinal chord, especially in

developing foetuses. It can also cause male infertility.

Shark fin soup is indisputably high in protein and low in

fat; however, nutritional analysis shows that in comparison

with other common – and far cheaper – foodstuffs, it is

nothing special. For example, a bowl of chicken soup

contains more fat and less iron than an equivalent serving

of shark fin soup, but more calcium, carbohydrate, protein

and energy .

It is widely believed that sharks don’t get cancer and eating

shark fin soup or crude extracts of shark cartilage can

prevent and even cure cancer. Recent research has shown

that sharks do get cancer (including in their cartilage) and

eating shark cartilage or fin has absolutely no effects

among cancer sufferers.

Of the 490 species of sharks, fewer than 30 (just 6%) are

known to attack humans. So far this century, an average of

5.5 people have been killed by sharks each year; in

comparison, more than 100 million sharks are killed by

humans every year – tens of millions for their fins alone.

WildAid & Oceana concludes WildAid & Oceana recommends

Measures to conserve sharks to date have focused entirely onmanaging the supply. As long as the high prices and highlevels of demand for shark products, fins in particular, are notaddressed, such measures are likely to have limited success.WildAid found there is little or no awareness of the threats tosharks among consumers or of the waste involved in finningor the extent of illegal fishing for sharks.

To assist in shark management, demand reduction programs areneeded now in key consumer countries. China, as the world’s biggestmarket for shark fin, is best placed to influence this situation. Inaddition, there should be a major international effort to raiseawareness of the threats to sharks and to discourage the ongoingexpansion of consumption of shark products. Alternatives to sharkfin soup should be actively promoted.

More than a third of people interviewed by WildAidhad eaten shark fin soup



WildAid & Oceana concludesFAO recommends WildAid & Oceana recommends

Obtain utilizationand trade data onshark species.

Numerous factors hamper thisprocess: poor reporting, the cashbasis of many transactions, complexexport and re-export arrangementsand aggregation of data. These dataare not compiled on a national (letalone an international) basis.

Trade and utilization data should be species-specific and should besubmitted to the FAO and to CITES in a timely manner. TheConvention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources(CCAMLR) has designed a plan to track toothfish shipments ininternational trade. The system is based on certificates of origin andcould equally be applied to the international fin trade. The FAO shouldbe more pro-active in its data-gathering. Many nations keep detailedimport and export data, in some cases making it available to the public.

Ban or restrictcertain destructivefishing practices,e.g. limit length oflonglines, etc.

Unnecessary shark bycatch is causedby inappropriate fishing gear and/ordestructive deployment of fishinggear.

Highly damaging fishing methods must be limited or prohibited ifthe goals of fisheries managers are to ensure sustainable fisheriesand maintain employment in the fishing industry. There should beconsiderable reduction of shark bycatch through the use ofappropriate and selective fishing gear and fishing techniques.

Many developing nations currentlylack the resources to manage theirshark fisheries sustainably.

States thatcontribute tofishing mortalityon a species or astock shouldparticipate in itsmanagement.

Wealthier nations, particularly those that have benefitedconsiderably from trade in shark products, should support thesecountries’ research and management efforts financially. For example,Hong Kong has undoubtedly profited more than any other city ornation from the shark fin trade and yet has put few, or no, resourcesinto sustainable management of sharks. It is in the long-term interestof consumers that sharks are managed sustainably.

Annex: Additional data

Shark fin Shark meat1992 3,023 1721993 3,080 5411994 3,375 5471995 Not reported 7721996 4,363 4851997 4,389 5771998 4,236 3131999 4,062 1,2152000 4,646 3,9532001 3,129 2,8012002 3,555 5,1982003 3,818 4,7132004 4,776 5,135

China’s shark fin andmeat imports

WORLD IMPORTS OFSHARK FIN 1976-2004

WORLD EXPORTS OFSHARK FIN 1976-2004

WORLDWIDE PRODUCTION OFSHARK FIN 1976-2004

LEADING SHARK FINIMPORTERS 2004

LEADING SHARK FINEXPORTERS 2004

LEADING SHARK FINPRODUCERS 2004

met

ric

tons

met

ric

tons

met

ric

tons

figures in metric tons

All fisheries should, at the very least, use species identification cards.Simple, inexpensive, waterproof cards showing the main species inthe area with local names have been produced by Taiwan, forexample.

Research at all levels is an urgent priority, and not only for littleknown species. Governments of major shark-fishing nations shouldput far more resources into research on species and stockabundance, shark biology, reproductive behavior, migration patternsand responses to fishing pressure. Further research should also bedone on predator-prey relationships and potential ecosystemchanges following shark declines.

Train all concernedin identification ofshark species.

Many fishing communities have theirown local names for shark species.There is no provision for these to betranslated into commonly recognizednames.

Facilitate andencourageresearch on littleknown sharkspecies.

Top shark specialists are concerned bythe paucity of data on individualspecies, particularly those known tobe heavily fished.

Finned whitetip reef shark

© M

.ST

RIC

KLA

ND

/ I

NN

ER

SPA

CE

VIS

ION

S


70. National Marine Fisheries Service (2001) UnitedStates National Plan of Action for the Conservationand Management of Sharks.

71. ICES (2006) Sharks in trouble?http://www.ices.dk

72. IUCN (2006). 2006 Red List of Threatened Specieswww.redlist.org

73. Castro, J.I, Woodley, C.M. Brudek, R.R. 1999. Apreliminary evaluation of the status of shark species.FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 380, Food andAgriculture Organisation of the United Nations,Rome.

74. Hareide, N-R. et al. (2005) A preliminary Investigationon Shelf Edge and Deepwater Fixed Net Fisheries tothe West and North of Great Britain, Ireland, aroundRockall and Hatton Bank. ICES CM 2005/ N:07.

75. Schleussel, V. & Barker, M.J. (2005) Managing globalshark fisheries: suggestions for prioritisingmanagement strategies. Aquatic Conservation:Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15: 325-347.

76. Bonfil, R. (2000) The problem of incidental catches ofsharks and rays, its likely consequences and somepossible solutions. Sharks 2000 Conference, Hawaii,21-24 February.

77. Ferreira, C. (1998) to Bruce McCoubrey, PersonalCommunication.

78. Tudela, S., Abdelouahed, K.K. Maynou, F., ElAndalossi, M. & Guglielmi, P. 2005. Driftnet fishingand biodiversity conservation: the case study of thelarge-scale Moroccan driftnet fleet operating in theAlboran Sea. Biological Conservation 121: 65-78.

79. Stevens, J.D., Bonfil, R., Dulvy, N.K. & Walker, P.A.(2000) The effect of fishing on sharks, rays, andchimaeras (chondrichthyans), and the implicationsfor marine ecosystems. ICES Journal of MarineScience, 57: 476-494

80. Baum, J.K. & Myers, R.A. (2004) Shifting baselinesand the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf ofMexico. Ecology Letters, 7: 135-145.

81. Kelleher, K. (2004) Discards in the world’s marinefisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 470. Foodand Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations,Rome.

82. EJF (2005) What’s the Catch? Reducing Bycatch inEU Distant Water Fisheries. Environmental JusticeFoundation, London, UK.

83. WWF (2006) Shark-Saving Magnets Pull in $25,000Prize for American from International Smart GearCompetition. WWF Newsroom.http://www.worldwildlife.org/news/displayPR.cfm?prID=281

84. Le Page, M. (2005) Beware – shark repellent testing inprogress. New Scientist, 26 February 2005.

85. Amorim, A.F., Arfelli, C.A., & Fagundes, L. (1998)Pelagic elasmobranchs caught by longliners offsouthern Brazil during 1974–97; an overview. Marine& Freshwater Research 49:621-32

86. Dunn, R. (1999) Transcript of the testimony ofRussell Dunn, Asst. Director, Ocean WildlifeCampaign, before the House of RepresentativesSubcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlifeand Oceans. 21 October 1999.

87. SEAFDEC (2006) Shark Production, utilization andmanagement in the ASEAN region (2003-2004),Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center,Bangkok, Thailand.

88. WildAid (2005) At Rock Bottom: the declining sharksof the Eastern tropical Pacific. WildAid, SanFrancisco, USA.

89. IUCN Shark Specialist Group (2003) IUCN SharkSpecialist Group Finning Statement.http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/organizations/ssg/ssgfinstatementfinal2june.pdf

90. FAO (2006) Fisheries commodities production andtrade 1976-2004

91. Clarke, S. (2006) Personal Communication.


92. Clarke, S.C., Magnussen, J.E., Abercrombie, D.L.,McAllister, M.K. & Shivji, M.S. (2006) Identificationof Shark Species Composition and Proposition andProportion in the Hong Kong Shark Fin MarketBased on Molecular Genetics and Trade Records.Conservation Biology Volume 20, No. 1, 201-211

93. Shivji, M.S., Chapman, D.D., Pikitch, E.K. &Raymond, P.W. (2005) Genetic profiling reveals illegaltrade in fins of the great white shark, Carcharodoncarcharias. Conservation Genetics 6: 1035-1039

94. New Scientist, 2 July 2005. Shark fin soup droppedfrom Disney’s menu.

95. IUCN (2003) Shark Finning. Information Paper, June2003.

96. Hurghada Environmental Protection andConservation Association (HEPCA) (2006)www.hepca.com

97. WildAid The End of the Line? Shark News Update.WildAid, San Francisco, USA.

98. Fowler, S.L. & Cavanagh, R.D. (2005) “InternationalConservation and Management Initiatives forChondrichthyan Fish”, in Fowler, S.L. et al. (comp.and ed.) 2005. Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: TheStatus of Chondrichthyan Fishes. Status Survey.IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp 58-69.

99. CITES (2004) “Conservation and Management ofSharks”, Thirteenth meeting of the Conference of theParties, Bangkok, 2-14 October 2004.

100. United Nations General Assembly (2005) Oceans andthe law of the sea – Sustainable fisheries, includingthrough the 1995 Agreement for the Implementationof the Provisions of the United Nations Conventionon the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relatingto the Conservation and Management of StraddlingFish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, andrelated instruments – Report of the Secretary-General

101. CITES, viewed May 2006, http://www.cites.org

102. CMS, viewed May 2006, http://www.cms.int

103. Willock, A. & Lack, M. (2006) Follow the leader:Learning from experience and best practice inregional fisheries management organizations. WWFInternational and TRAFFIC International.

104. Alvaro, M. (2006) Soccer Star Weighs in to SaveSharks. EcoAmericas, 24 January.

105 Tye, A. (2000) Acting Director of the Charles DarwinFoundation. In Larry Rohter. New York Times NewsService. In The Oregonian 28 December 2000.

106 Cailliet, G.M. & Camhi, M. (2005) “NortheastPacific”, in Fowler, S.L. et al (comp. and ed.) 2005.Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status ofChondrichthyan Fishes. Status Survey. IUCN/SSCShark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerlandand Cambridge, UK. Chapter 7, pp 172-186.

107. Ambiente Ecologico (2003) Modern-Day PiratesPlunder Saltwater Booty near Costa Rica’s FabledCocos Island, http://www.ambiente-ecologico.com/ediciones/2003/086_01.2003/086_Publicaciones_AmbienTema-in.php3

108. UNEP-WCMC. Coiba National Park, World HeritageSites, viewed May 2006. http://www.unep-wcmc.org/index.html?http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/sites/wh/coiba.html~main

109. Government of Western Australia (2005) Illegal shark-fin boats coming too close for comfort. MediaStatement, 28 September 2005,http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au

110. McCloughlin, R. (2007) Australian FisheriesManagement Authority, Personal Communication.

111. EJF (2005) Party to the Plunder: Illegal fishing inGuinea and its links to the EU. Environmental JusticeFoundation, London, UK.

112. EJF (2005) Pirates and Profiteers: How Pirate FishingFleets are Robbing People and Oceans.Environmental Justice Foundation, London, UK.

113. Simpfendorfer, C. (2000) “Environmental threats tosharks”, Sharks Conference 2000. 21-24 February.

24. Boncompagni, T. (2003) Details: For Fashionistas anew skin game. Wall Street Journal, 1 August 2003.

25. Ferreira, A.G, Faria, V.V., de Carvalho, C.E.V., Lessa,R.P.T. & da Silva, F.M.S. (2004) Total mercury in thenight shark, Carcharhinus signatus in the WesternEquatorial Atlantic Ocean. Brazilian Archives of Biol.and Tech. 47(4): 629-634.

26. Järup, L. (2003) Hazards of heavy metalcontamination. British Medical Bulletin 68(1): 167-182.

27. Knobeloch, L., Steenport, D., Schrank, C., &Anderson, H. (2006) Methylmercury exposure inWisconsin: A case study series. EnvironmentalResearch 101: 113-122.

28. Grandjean P., Weihe, P., White, R.F., Debes, F., Araki,S., Yokoyama, K. (1997) Cognitive deficit in 7-year-oldchildren with prenatal exposure to methylmercury.Neurotoxicology and Teratology.19: 417–428.

29. Oken, E., Wright, R.O., Kleiman, K.P., Bellinger, D.Amarasiriwardena, C.J. Hu, H., Rich-Edwards, J.W. &Gillman, M.W. (2005) Maternal fish consumption,hair mercury, and infant cognition in a US cohort.Environmental Health Perspectives 113(10): 1376-1380.

30. Dickman, M.D. & Leung, K.M.C. (1998) Mercury andorganochlorine exposure from fish consumption inHong Kong. Chemosphere 37(5): 991-1015.

31. Leung, T.Y., Choy, C.M., Yim, S.F., Lam, C.W. &Haines, C.J. (2001) Whole blood mercuryconcentrations in sub-fertile men in Hong Kong.Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetricsand Gynaecology 41(1): 75-77.

32. Choy, C.M.Y., Lam, C.W.K., Cheung, L.T.F., Briton-Jones, C.M., Cheung, L.P., Haines. C.J. (2002)Infertility, blood mercury concentrations and dietaryseafood consumption: a case-control study.International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology109: 1121-1125.

33. Adams, D.H. & McMichael, R.H. (1999) Mercurylevels in four species of sharks from the Atlantic coastof Florida. Fishery Bulletin 97(2): 372-379

34. de Pinho, A.P., Guimaraes, J.R.D., Martins, A.S.,Costa, P.A.S., Olavo, G., Valentin, J. (2002) TotalMercury in Muscle Tissue of Five Shark Species fromBrazilian Offshore Waters: Effects of Feeding Habit,Sex, and Length. Environmental Research 89(3): 250-258.

35. Storelli, M.M., Ceci, E., Storelli, A., Marcotrigiano,G.O. (2003) Polychlorinated biphenyl, heavy metaland methylmercury residues in hammerhead sharks:contaminant status and assessment. MarinePollution Bulletin 46: 1035-1048.

36. Food Standards Agency (2006) www.food.gov.uk

37. US Food and Drug Administration & USEnvironmental Protection Agency (2006) What YouNeed to Know about Mercury in Fish and Shellfish,http://www.epa.gov/ost/fishadvice/advice.html

38. Menasveta, P., Inkong, S. & Charoensri, P. (2002)Mercury Contents in Dried Shark Fins in BangkokMarkets. Journal of the Royal Institute of Thailand

39. Maxwell Sr., Kauluwehi, C. (2000) “The culturalaspects of sharks”, Sharks 2000 Conference, Hawaii,21-24 February.

40. Âme, Senegalese fisher, Ngor, Senegal, October 2000.Personal communication.

41. WildAid (1999) Shark Fisheries in the UAE and India.WildAid Internal Report. April 1999.

42. Comagno et al. (2005) “Subequatorial Africa” inFowler, S.L. et al (comp. and ed.) 2005. Sharks, Raysand Chimaeras: The Status of ChondrichthyanFishes. Status Survey. IUCN/SSC Shark SpecialistGroup. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,UK, Chapter 7, pp 113-131.

43. WildAid (1999) Shark Fisheries in Kenya. WildAidInternal Report. July 1999.

44. Ismael, O. (1999) Beach leader, Ngomeni village,Kenya. Personal communication.

45. Abdulrazak, M., Fishmonger, Malindi, Kenya (1999)Personal communication.

1. Taylor, L. ed. (1999) Sharks, Weldon Owen.

2. Compagno, L.J.V. (2000) “Sharks, fisheries andbiodiversity”, Sharks 2000 Conference. Hawaii. 21-24February.

3. Stevens, J. January 2001. Personal communication.

4. Fowler, S. June 2000. Personal communication.

5. Bonfil, R. et al. (2005) Transoceanic Migration, SpatialDynamics, and Population Linkages of White Sharks.Science Vol. 310 No. 5745: 100-103

6. Fowler, S.L. & Cavanagh, R.D. (2005) “Species StatusReports”, in Fowler, S.L. et al (comp. and ed.) 2005.Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status ofChondrichthyan Fishes. Status Survey. IUCN/SSCShark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerlandand Cambridge, UK. Chapter 8, pp 213-392.

7. Clarke, S. et al. (2005) “Socio-economic Significanceof Chondrichthyan Fish”, in Fowler, S.L. et al (comp.and ed.) 2005. Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: TheStatus of Chondrichthyan Fishes. Status Survey.IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp 19-47.

8. TRAFFIC (1996) The World Trade in Sharks: ACompendium of TRAFFIC’s Regional Studies.TRAFFIC International.

9. Kanda, Mayuri (2000) Personal communication.

10. Clarke, S. (2004) Understanding pressures on fisheryresources through trade statistics: a pilot study offour products in the Chinese seafood market. Fishand Fisheries 5: 53-74

11. Vannuccini, S. (1999) Shark utilization, marketingand trade, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 389, Foodand Agriculture Organisation of the UN, Rome, 1999.

12. Anon (1999) Mr X, Confidential fin trade source.Personal Communication.

13. Anon (2000) Confidential Singapore chef, November2000. Personal Communication.

14. Wu, Victor. January 2000. Personal Communication

15. Brawand, E. (2000) “Bite Into Shark’s Fin”. TaipeiTimes Online Edition, 10 November 2000.

16. WildAid, 2003. Shark Finning: Unrecorded Wastageon a Global Scale. WildAid, San Francisco, USA.

17. Musick, J.A. & Bonfil, R. (2005) Managementtechniques for elasmobranch fisheries. FAO FisheriesTechnical Paper 474. Food and AgricultureOrganisation of the UN, Rome, 2005.

18. Clarke, S. (2007) Personal Communication.

19. Ostrander, G.K., Cheng, K.C., Wolf, J.C., Wolfe, M.J.(2004) Shark cartilage, cancer and the growing threaof pseudoscience. Cancer Research 64: 8485-8491.

20. WildAid & China Wildlife Conservation Association(2006) Wildlife Consumption Survey & PublicAttitude to Wildlife Consumption, Report in China.WildAid Internal Report. February 2006.

21. Gingras D., Boivin, D., Deckers, C., Gendron, S.,Barthomeuf, C., Beliveau, R. (2003) Neovastat - anovel antiangiogenic drug for cancer therapy. Anti-Cancer Drugs 14(2): 91-96.

22. Æterna Laboratories. 2003. Æterna Laboratoriesreports Phase III trial results in renal cell carcinomawith Neovastat. Æterna Laboratories News Release,24 September 2003.http://www.aeternazentaris.com/en/page.php?p=60&q=46

23. Food and Drug Administration (2004) U.S. DistrictJudge issues permanent injunction against Lane Labs-USA, Inc. and orders firm to refund money topurchasers of illegally marketed unapproved drugs.FDA News Release, July 13, 2004.http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01086.html

46. Applegate, S.P., F. Soltelo-Macias and L. Espinosa-Arrubarrena (1993) An Overview of Mexican SharkFisheries with Suggestions for Shark Conservation inMexico. US Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. NOAA Tech.Rep.NMFS 115: 31–37.

47. Rose, D. (1998) Shark Fisheries and Trade in theAmericas. Vol.1. TRAFFIC North America.

48. Last, P.R. & Stevens, J.D. (1994) Shark and rays ofAustralia. CSIRO Australia. Melbourne, Australia.

49. Ward, P. & Myers, R.A. (2005) Shifts in open-oceanfish communities coinciding with the commencementof commercial fishing. Ecology 86: 835-847.

50. Shepherd, T.D. & Myers, R.A. (2005) Direct andindirect fishery effects on small coastalelasmobranches in the northern Gulf of Mexico.Ecology Letters, 8: 1095-1104

51. Bascompte, J., Melián, C.J. & Sala, E. (2005)Interaction strength combinations and theoverfishing of a marine food web. Proc. Natl. Acad.Sci. USA 102: 5443-5447.

52. Dulvy, N.K., Freckleton, R.P., & Polunin, N.V.C.(2004) Coral reef cascades and the indirect effects ofpredator removal by exploitation. Ecology Letters 7:410-416.

53. Gaffney, R. (2000) “Tourism and jaws”, Sharks 2000Conference. Hawaii. 21-24 February.

54. International Shark Attack Filehttp://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/ISAF/ISAF.htm

55. International Shark Attack File (2005) WorldwideShark Attack Summaryhttp://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/statistics/2005attacksummary.htm

56. Burgess, G. (2000) Personal Communication.

57. Wildlife Conservation Society (2005) Largest FishRequires Global Protection.http://www.placenciabreeze.com/archives/2005_Archive/June_05/june_05_conserva.htm

58. Burgess, G.H. (2005) “Ecotourism”, in Fowler, S.L. etal (comp. and ed.) 2005. Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras:The Status of Chondrichthyan Fishes. Status Survey.IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Chapter 4, pp 32-34.

59. Shark Specialist Group (2002) A Statement by theIUCN Species Survival Commission’s Shark SpecialistGroup (SSG), March 2002http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/organizations/ssg/galaplat.htm

60. WWF (2005) Whale shark ecotourism contributes toFilipino economyhttp://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/news/index.cfm?uNewsID=23534

61. Quiros, A. (2005) Whale Shark “Ecotourism” in thePhilippines and Belize: Evaluating Conservation andCommunity Benefits. Tropical Resources Bulletin,Volume 24, Spring 2005. Yale Tropical ResourcesInstitute.

62. Gruber, S. H. (2000) “Life style of sharks”, Sharks2000 Conference. Hawaii, 21-24 February.

63. Compagno, L.J.V. (1990) “Shark exploitation andconservation”, in US National Marine FisheriesService, NOAA Technical Report, NMFS 90, pp 391-414.

64. Priede, I.G. et al. (2006) The Absence of Sharks fromAbyssal Regions of the World’s Oceans. Proceedingsof the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Volume273, Number 1592 / June 07, 2006. Pages 1435 - 1441.

65. FAO (2006) Capture production 1950-2004

66. Bonfil, R. (1994) Overview of World ElasmobranchFisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 341. FAO ofthe United Nations, Rome.

67. Clarke, S. et al. Global estimates of shark catchesusing trade records from commercial markets.Ecology Letters, 9: 1115-1126

68. MRAG (2005) IUU Fishing on the High Seas: Impactson Ecosystems and Future Science Needs

69. Clarke, S. (2004) Shark Product Trade in Hong Kongand Mainland China and Implementation of theCITES Shark Listings. TRAFFIC East Asia, HongKong, China.

References114. Manire, C.A., Gelsleichter, J., Rasmussen, L.E.L. &

Cortes, E. (2001) “Infertility in Bonnethead shark,Sphyrna tibura, in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico may becaused by endocrine disrupting chemicals in theenvironment”. American Elasmobranch SocietyMeeting 2001.

115. Carsolini, S., Focardi, S., Kannan, K., Tanabe, S.,Borrell, A. & Tatsukawa, R. (1995) Congener Profileand Toxicity Assessment of Polychlorinated Biphenylsin dolphins, Sharks and Tuna collected from ItalianCoastal Waters. Marine Environmental Research Vol.40 (1): 33-53.

116. Stevens, J.D., Walker, T.I., Cook, S.F., Fordham, S.V.(2005) “Threats Faced by Chondrichthyan Fish”, inFowler, S.L., R.D. Cavanagh, M.Camhi, G. H. Burgess,G.M. Cailliet, S.V. Fordham, C.A. Simpfendorfer andJ.A. Musick.(comp. and ed.). 2005. Sharks, Rays andChimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes.Status Survey. IUCN/SSC shark Specialist group.IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.Chapter 5, pp 48-57.

117. Greenpeace (2006) The Trash Vortex,http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/our-oceans/pollution/trash-vortex

118. Sazima, I., Gadig, O.B.F., Namora, R.C. & Motta, F.S.(2002) Plastic debris collars on juvenile carcharhinidsharks (Rhizoprionodon lalandii) in southwestAtlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44: 1147-1149

119. Safina, C. (1998) “Recreational fishing andconservation”. Living Oceans Program, NationalAudubon Society, USA, in Shark News 11. Newsletterof The IUCN Shark Specialist Group, July 1998.

120. Pritchard, E.S. (2005) Fisheries of the United States –2004. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office ofScience and Technologyhttp://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/fus/fus04/index.html

121. Grandy, J.W. (2005) The Shark Killers. The BostonGlobe, August 3, 2005.

122. Paxton, J. (2003) Shark meshing program in need ofurgent review. Nature Australia, Spring 2003.http://www.ids.org.au/~cnevill/marineSharkMeshNSW_Paxton.htm

123. EJF (2004) Farming the Sea, Costing the Earth: Whywe must green the blue revolution EnvironmentalJustice Foundation, London, UK.

124. Baum, J.K., Myers, R.A., Kehler, D.G., Worm, B.,Harley, S.J. & Doherty, P.A. (2003) Collapse andConservation of Shark Populations in the NorthwestAtlantic. Science Vol. 299: 389-392

125. Myers, R.A. & Worm, B. (2003) Rapid worldwidedepletion of predatory fish communities. Nature Vol.423: 280-283

126. Fishbase, viewed June 2006, http://www.fishbase.org

127. Stow, A. et al. (2006) Isolation and genetic diversity ofendangered grey nurse shark (Carcharias taurus)populations. Biology Letters. 1:1, -1

128. The Marine Group, Environment Australia (2000)Draft Recovery Plan for Grey Nurse Sharks inAustralia.

129. Australian Goverment, Department of theEnvironment and Heritage (2005) Death or injury tomarine species following capture in beach meshing(nets) and drum lines used in Shark ControlProgramshttp://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/nominations/shark-control-programs.html

130. Black, R. (2006) World’s biggest fish shrinking. BBCNews Website, Tuesday 17 Janaury 2006.

131. Clarke, S. (2006) The World Shark Fin Trade &China’s Role. Presentation for the International SharkConservation Meeting, Beijing, 7th November 20


end of the line 2007 us••.qxd:– - oceanaa survey conducted by wildaid and china wildlife...

Documents