sharks of the open ocean || a global overview of commercial fisheries for open ocean sharks

Chapter 14

A Global Overview of Commercial Fisheries for Open Ocean Sharks

Merry D. Camhi, Elizabeth Lauck, Ellen K. Pikitch and Elizabeth A. Babcock

Abstract

Pelagic sharks are caught throughout the Atlantic, Pacifi c, and Indian Oceans, and total elasmobranch catches reported to the Food and Agriculture Organization averaged around 261,000 metric tons (t) per ocean basin per year from 1988 to 2002. Reported chondrich-thyan catches increased during the 1980s and 1990s, particularly in the Indian Ocean, although the increase may be partially explained by improved data collection. In 2002, only 26% of the chondrichthyan catches in the Atlantic, 11% in the Pacifi c, and 7% in the Indian Ocean were identifi ed to species. Of the identifi ed catches, 28% in the Atlantic, 23% in the Pacifi c, and 55% in the Indian Ocean were of pelagic sharks. Few fi shing nations report the species composition of their shark catches or landings, obscuring which coun-tries are engaged in pelagic shark fi shing and, thus, where management efforts are needed. However, on the basis of total reported elasmobranch landings, the size of tuna and billfi sh fi sheries, and importance in the Hong Kong shark fi n trade, as well as other factors, the fol-lowing countries are believed to be responsible for the majority of the world’s pelagic elas-mobranch landings: Brazil, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and the United States. This chapter summarizes what is known about pelagic shark fi sheries by ocean basin and for the 22 major shark-fi shing nations, which together accounted for 82% of the global elasmobranch landings (843,413 t) in 2002, and highlights gaps, problems, and inconsistencies in the shark catch data that make it diffi cult to evaluate the impact of fi sheries on open ocean sharks.

Key words: commercial fi sheries, pelagic sharks, elasmobranchs, bycatch, data collec-tion, trade, shark fi ns, Prionace, Isurus, Lamna, Carcharhinus, Alopias, Carcharodon.

Introduction

Pelagic sharks are among the world’s most cosmopolitan marine animals, occurring in every ocean basin and across most latitudes. The pelagic elasmobranch species considered in this volume are frequently encountered in open ocean fi sheries, and are probably taken

Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation. Edited by M. D. Camhi, E. K. Pikitch and E. A. Babcock

© 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-0632-05995-9

Commercial Fisheries for Open Ocean Sharks 167

intentionally or as bycatch by most fi shing nations. The shortfi n mako (Isurus oxyrinchus, Lamnidae), thresher (Alopias spp., Alopiidae), porbeagle (Lamna nasus, Lamnidae), salmon (L. ditropis, Lamnidae), silky (Carcharhinus falciformis, Carcharhinidae), oceanic whitetip (C. longimanus, Carcharhinidae), and blue (Prionace glauca, Carcharhinidae) sharks are all known to be targeted by fi sheries in various oceans of the world (Vannuccini, 1999). Fisheries that target sharks are mainly driven by markets for shark fi ns and, in some cases, shark meat, although shark skin and liver oil are also marketed (Table 14.1). In addition, all pelagic elasmobranchs, including the white shark (Carcharodon carcharias, Lamnidae) and the pelagic stingray (Pteroplatytrygon violacea, Dasyatidae), are taken as bycatch in fi sheries targeting other species, especially by high-seas longline vessels targeting tuna and swordfi sh (Bailey et al., 1996; Camhi et al., 1998).

While pelagic sharks are almost always classifi ed as bycatch, they often represent a sig-nifi cant, if not dominant, portion of a vessel’s catch. Although sharks have traditionally been discarded because of the relatively low ex-vessel value of their fl esh, growing international markets and high prices paid for shark fi ns have increased retention rates of pelagic sharks, or at least of their fi ns (Camhi, 1999; Pawson and Vince, 1999). Pelagic shark fi ns are reported to fi ll gaps in fi shing income for high-seas fi sheries when more lucrative tuna and swordfi sh catches are down or simply to provide additional revenue for fi shing crews (Bailey et al., 1996; Aires-da-Silva et al., 2008). The increasing demand and prices paid for fi ns (Clarke, 2004) may help explain stable or ongoing growth in global shark catches despite local popu-lation depletions. This chapter examines available catch and landings data for pelagic sharks, with a focus on the data limitations that undermine our ability to effectively manage shark fi sheries, and summarizes the pelagic shark fi sheries of the top shark-fi shing nations.

Data limitations and collection efforts

Although pelagic sharks may dominate the catch in many open ocean fi sheries, collecting data on these catches has been diffi cult for several reasons. First, management agencies that

Table 14.1 Pelagic shark species in the international trade in shark meat, fi ns, skin, and oil.a

Scientifi c name Common name Meat Finsb Skin Liver oil

Alopias pelagicus Pelagic thresher � �(2.3%)c �Alopias superciliosus Bigeye thresher � � �Alopias vulpinus Common thresher �+ � � �Carcharodon carcharias White � � �Isurus oxyrinchus Shortfi n mako �+ �(2.7%) �+ �Isurus paucus Longfi n mako � �+Lamna ditropis Salmon � � �Lamna nasus Porbeagle �+ � �+ �Carcharhinus falciformis Silky �(3.5%) �Carcharhinus longimanus Oceanic whitetip �(1.8%) �+ �Prionace glauca Blue � �(17.3%) �Pteroplatytrygon violacea Pelagic stingray

a�: frequently used; ��: preferred species. From Rose (1996) and Clarke et al. (2005).bPercentage of world trade (in parantheses) is based on proportions in the Hong Kong shark fi n market (Clarke et al., 2006b).cPercentage for all three thresher species.

168 Sharks of the Open Ocean

struggle to monitor and manage fi sheries for target species have been reluctant to commit management resources to bycatch species in the absence of national or international man-dates (Alverson et al., 1994), especially for species that have been traditionally of low eco-nomic importance (Bonfi l, 1994; Rose, 1996). Even where shark landings are monitored, most countries fail to record species or even groups in their landings data, often referring to sharks landed as only “large” or “small” (e.g., Taiwan and Mexico), or simply “sharks.” For developing nations, catches are diffi cult to estimate because data are frequently lacking from artisanal fi sheries, as well as for foreign longline fl eets with access rights (Barnett, 1997).

In 1994, in recognition of these data problems, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) called on member countries to begin collecting biologi-cal and fi sheries information on the trade in shark products (CITES, 1994). In 1999, to help member countries meet the requirements of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations adopted an International Plan of Action (IPOA) for Sharks (FAO, 1999), which requests that fi shing nations and regional fi shery management organizations (RFMO) voluntarily assess and manage their target and bycatch shark fi sheries (Cavanagh et al., 2008).

The FAO collects global statistics of marine fi sheries catches. Data are voluntarily sub-mitted to FAO by about 125 shark-fi shing countries. The database, however, is only as good as the data received from these countries. Although the FAO database may be the most exhaustive for global shark fi sheries, it is widely acknowledged that actual elasmo-branch catches (sharks and rays) may be twice as high as indicated by the FAO fi gures because of poor record-keeping, lack of reporting, and deliberate underreporting (Bonfi l, 1994; Watson and Pauly, 2001; Clarke et al., 2006a). Of the 100 or so chondrichthyans that are regularly encountered in commercial fi sheries, in 2002 FAO reported catches for 65 species, including 8 pelagic species (common thresher (Alopias vulpinus), bigeye thresher (A. superciliosus), silky, shortfi n mako, longfi n mako (Isurus paucus), porbeagle, white, and blue). However, only 15% of the total shark, ray, and chimaera catch in 2002 was iden-tifi ed to species (26% in the Atlantic, 11% in the Pacifi c, and 7% in the Indian Ocean; FAO, 2006). More often, elasmobranch landings are amalgamated under the general head-ing “sharks” or “sharks, rays, other.” Some major shark-fi shing nations such as Brazil, Portugal, and Spain do report at least some pelagic shark landings identifi ed to the species level. Yet these FAO landings are clearly incomplete, and can be used only to suggest rela-tive catch level by ocean for those reporting countries. For example, only 33 metric tons (t) of blue sharks were reported from the Pacifi c in 1994, whereas Stevens (2000) estimated that 140,000 t of blue sharks were taken from Pacifi c high seas in the same year. Despite these limitations, the FAO database (FAO, 2003a, 2006) is a helpful starting point for an evaluation of global fi sheries for open ocean sharks.

Landings statistics can also be supplemented by trade and market data to provide a more complete picture of shark exploitation worldwide. Hong Kong is the hub of the international trade in shark fi ns, and between 50% and 85% of the world’s shark fi ns are exported to Hong Kong from about 86 countries (Vannuccini, 1999; Clarke, 2002, 2004). An analysis of trade data from Hong Kong shark fi n auctions found that pelagic sharks represent a signifi cant proportion of sharks in the international fi n trade (Clarke, 2003; Clarke et al., 2005, 2006a, b). Using DNA forensic methodology, Clarke et al. (2006b) estimated that pelagic sharks account for about one-third of the fi ns traded in Hong Kong,


although they were unable to identify 54% of the shark fi ns in the market (implying that the actual percentage could be higher). Projections of world fi n trade data from this sur-vey also suggest that FAO data may signifi cantly underestimate global shark mortality. In addition, CITES provides data on the exploitation of listed species in international trade. In October 2004, the white shark was listed on CITES Appendix II; this listing now requires the 169 member countries to monitor trade in white shark products and to ensure that the trade is not jeopardizing the status of the species.

New elasmobranch working groups and data collection programs established by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) will serve as a helpful supple-ment to the FAO database for Atlantic fi sheries. In November 2004, ICCAT became the fi rst RFMO to adopt a recommendation (No. 04-10) requiring all member and cooperating nations to submit total catches and landings (including estimates of dead discarded catch) of pelagic sharks, especially for porbeagle, mako, and blue sharks. These data now repre-sent the most complete database currently available on pelagic shark catches by ocean basin (ICCAT, 2006). However, although Atlantic fi sheries are probably the best documented because of ICCAT’s efforts (see Babcock and Nakano, 2008), underreporting of catches remains a major challenge to pelagic shark assessments and management (ICCAT, 2005).

A similar effort to collect shark catch and bycatch data is being undertaken in the Pacifi c under the auspices of the Secretariat of the Pacifi c Community (SPC). Because the cen-tral and western Pacifi c Ocean are home to the largest industrial tuna fi shery in the world (Williams, 1999), gaining a better understanding of the number and species of sharks being killed in Pacifi c Ocean fi sheries should be a top priority for their conservation and man-agement. The newly formed Western and Central Pacifi c Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has convened a working group on ecosystems and bycatch, with a mandate to evaluate the impacts of the tuna fi sheries in the WCPFC region on nontarget species, including sharks (WCPFC, 2006). Information on shark bycatch in the eastern tropical Pacifi c is available from the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) observer program (Román-Verdesoto and Orozco-Zöller, 2005). There is no RFMO collecting data on sharks in the northern Pacifi c, although some fi shing nations in the region record shark catches.

In the Indian Ocean, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) serves as a regional data collection organization for high-seas tuna fi sheries. The IOTC Working Group on Bycatch met for the fi rst time in July 2005 and acknowledged that, despite calls for species-specifi c reporting of both catches and discards for all bycatch species (including sharks), few Indian Ocean fi shing countries submit these data (IOTC, 2005a). However, Resolution 05/05 adopted in 2005, which directs all IOTC members and cooperating parties to report shark landings to IOTC and bans the practice of fi nning, should help close the information gap in the Indian Ocean (IOTC, 2005b).

One goal of this chapter is to evaluate which nations are responsible for the majority of pelagic shark catches. However, the incomplete data on pelagic shark landings and dis-cards in most of the world’s oceans precluded a strictly quantitative analysis of the number of pelagic sharks taken annually in fi shing operations. Instead, qualitative descriptions of domestic fi sheries in the published literature informed the following country overviews and rankings. We reasoned that the major shark-fi shing nations that (1) are members of RFMOs with oversight for high-seas tuna and billfi sh fi sheries (see Camhi et al., 2008),


(2) have distant-water fl eets, (3) are among the top shark fi n exporters to Hong Kong, and/or (4) report pelagic shark landings to FAO are also likely to account for signifi cant pelagic shark catches and mortality. Where possible, we focused on catches in 2002, because these catch data should be complete in the FAO and RFMO databases, while recent data are more likely to be incomplete or subject to revision.

Global elasmobranch catches

FAO reports that 4,275,000 t of elasmobranchs were caught in the Atlantic Ocean between 1988 and 2002, for an average catch of 285,000 t/year. During the same period, 3,993,000 t were reported from the Pacifi c (266,000 t/year) and 3,466,000 t from the Indian Ocean (231,000 t/year; Fig. 14.1; FAO, 2003a, 2006). Most of these elasmobranch catch data are not species specifi c: In 2002, of reported elasmobranch landings that were identifi ed to species, 28% in the Atlantic, 23% in the Pacifi c, and 55% in the Indian Ocean were of pelagic sharks (Table 14.2).

Worldwide elasmobranch catches increased by about 2% annually between 1988 and 2002 (Fig. 14.1), although they appear to have stabilized since the mid-1990s. The total catch was 843,413 t in 2002 (FAO, 2003a, 2006). It is estimated that approximately 60% of the elasmobranch catches reported to FAO – about a half million t in 2002 – are sharks, the remainder being skates and rays (Bonfi l, 1994). Since the mid-1990s, four regions – western-central Pacifi c, western Indian Ocean, eastern Indian Ocean, and Northeast Atlantic – have been responsible for the majority of FAO-reported elasmobranch landings; together they contributed 50% of the global landings in 2002 (FAO, 2003a, 2006).

Hong Kong trade data indicate a world trade in shark fi ns of 11,000 t in 2000, which suggests that the shark biomass needed to support the global fi n trade each year ranges from 1.21 to 2.29 million t, or 26–73 million sharks (Clarke et al., 2006a). These esti-mates reveal that the shark biomass represented in the fi n trade is three to four times

0

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Year

Atlantic Indian PacificC

atch

(t)

Fig. 14.1 Reported catches of elasmobranchs by ocean basin, from FAO catch statistics (FAO, 2006).


higher than shark catch fi gures reported to FAO. Yet these numbers likely underestimate the actual mortality because fi ns that are consumed domestically are not recorded in the trade statistics, and underreporting and black markets are widespread. In the Hong Kong market sample, blue (17.3%) and silky (3.5%) sharks were the largest contributors, fol-lowed by shortfi n mako (2.7%), thresher (2.3%), and oceanic whitetip (1.8%) sharks (Clarke et al., 2006b), which suggests that 7–24 million pelagic sharks are used to sup-port the fi n trade each year (S. Clarke, personal communication). The prevalence of these species in the Hong Kong fi n market also suggests that pelagic sharks may account for a signifi cant proportion of the fi n exports from the top fi n-exporting nations.

Although extensive transshipments of fi ns make it diffi cult to trace the waters and countries of origin, fi n trade data may help corroborate a country’s importance as a pelagic shark-fi shing nation. In 1999, Spain was, by far, the top exporter of fi ns to Hong Kong, reporting exports of more than 2 million t, or 27% of the world total (Table 14.3; Clarke and Mosqueira, 2002). Other major elasmobranch-fi shing nations that ranked among the top 20 fi n exporters to Hong Kong in 1999 were the United States, Taiwan, Indonesia, Japan, India, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, and Canada. In more recent years (2001–2005), however, Mainland China has led in fi n exports to Hong Kong, followed by United Arab Emirates (UAE), Spain, Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, Japan, and Costa Rica, although UAE and Singapore are re-export sites rather than producers of fi ns (Anonymous, 2006). Fin imports into Hong Kong rose at an annual rate of 6.1% from 1991 to 2000 (Clarke, 2004).

Table 14.2 Pelagic sharks as identifi ed in the FAO database by reported landings (t) by ocean basin in 2002 (FAO, 2006).a

Species or species group Scientifi c name Atlantic Pacifi c Indian Total Ocean Ocean Ocean

Bigeye thresher Alopias superciliosus 0 0Common thresher Alopias vulpinus 58 406 464Thresher shark nei Alopias spp. 0 454 454White Carcharodon carcharias 0 0 0Shortfi n mako Isurus oxyrinchus 3,374 1,860 381 5,615Longfi n mako Isurus paucus 1 1Mako sharks nei Isurus spp. 37 80 117Porbeagle Lamna nasus 807 203 0 1,010Silky Carcharhinus falciformis 70 1,484 6,830 8,384Oceanic whitetip Carcharhinus longimanus 0 0Blue Prionace glauca 16,511 3,678 3,304 23,493

Subtotal pelagics 20,858 8,165 10,515 39,538Pelagics identifi ed to species 20,821 7,631 10,515 38,967Total elasmobranchs identifi ed 73,540 33,456 19,104 126,100 to species

Total elasmobranchs 283,155 291,071 268,559 843,413b

aAdditional pelagic landings are likely included in such amalgamated categories as “sharks, rays, skates, etc., nei” and “various sharks nei” (nei � not elsewhere indicated); these landings are included here in “total elasmo-branchs.” A reported catch of zero means that the species has been reported in that ocean, but the catch in 2002 was less than 1 t.bTotal includes 628 t of unidentifi ed sharks and rays caught in the Southern Ocean.


Table 14.3 The 22 major shark-fi shing nations in 2002, their FAO landings, and characteristics of their fi sheries, including directed or incidental fi sheries for pelagic sharks, distant-water fl eets, and importance in Hong Kong shark fi n imports.

Country 2002 FAO Pelagic Distant-water fl eets (�103 t)b Rank in fi n elasmobranch shark exports to landings (t) fi sheriesa Hong Kong (1999)c

Indonesia 106,398 D, I 4India 66,923 I 8Spain 62,996 D, I Atlantic, Med � Indian (22,860) 1Pakistan 49,904 D?, I 28Taiwan 44,412 D, I Worldwide (7,370) 3Japan 32,879 D?, I Worldwide (49,569) 6Mexico 30,888 D, I Pacifi c (89) 9New Zealand 30,208 I Pacifi c (0.176) 34Argentina 26,251 I Atlantic (4) 27Sri Lanka 25,340 D, I Indian (30) 23Malaysia 24,167 I 38United States 24,076 D, I Atlantic � Pacifi c (2,254) 2France 23,136 D, I Atlantic � Pacifi c (6,044) 69Thailand 21,736 I Indian � South China Sea 54Brazil 21,238 D, I Atlantic (14) 11United Kingdom 16,832 D, I Atlantic (696) naPeru 16,633 D?, I Pacifi c (48) 13Portugal 14,016 D, I Atlantic (7,095) 62Nigeria 13,449 D?, I Atlantic (16) 52Canada 13,144 D, I Atlantic (101) 20Korea, Republic of 11,961 D, I Worldwide (11,086) 65Maldives 11,498 D, I 66

Subtotal (82% of 2002 total) 688,085

aD: pelagic sharks are targeted; I: pelagic sharks are taken incidentally.bDefi ned as fl eets fi shing outside of country’s EEZ; cumulative catches of all fi shes from 1950 to 1994 outside of their own FAO Statistical Area are given in parentheses (Bonfi l et al., 1998).cFrom Clarke and Mosqueira (2002). na: not applicable.

Pelagic sharks in Atlantic Ocean fi sheries

In the Atlantic Ocean, pelagic sharks are caught primarily as bycatch in fi sheries for tuna and swordfi sh, although they may be increasingly targeted in some of these fi sheries (Aires-da-Silva et al., 2008). According to the FAO database, catches of all elas-mobranchs in the Atlantic were between 250,000 and 340,000 t/year between 1988 and 2002. In 2002, of the Atlantic-wide elasmobranch catch of 283,155 t, 73,540 t could be identifi ed to species, of which about 28% were pelagic sharks, primarily blue sharks (Table 14.2).

The ICCAT database includes 52 shark species, and for the period 1980–2005, pelagic sharks made up about 67% of the reported shark catches. This high percentage of pelagic sharks in part refl ects the fact that some nations do not report catches of coastal sharks to ICCAT or began reporting coastal shark catches only in the mid-1990s (ICCAT, 2005). Blue sharks represented 73% of the total catch of pelagic sharks by weight between 1980 and 2005, followed by shortfi n mako, which accounted for 17% (ICCAT, 2006). These


two species and porbeagle made up 97% of the total catch of pelagic sharks during this period (Fig. 14.2).

The ICCAT database reports a total of 347,646 t of blue shark landings, which can be divided into three distinct phases over the past 25 years (ICCAT, 2006). From 1981 through 1993, the US blue shark catch averaged 785 t/year, while France reported an aver-age catch of 106 t. In 1994, Japan started to report blue shark landings to ICCAT, dwarfi ng those of the United States (601 t) and France (350 t) with a catch of 2,596 t. In 1997, Spain started reporting blue shark landings, with a catch of more than 29,000 t in 1999. Since 1997, Spain has reported the greatest number of blue sharks, accounting for 70% of total Atlantic blue shark landings. Spain is also a leading exporter of shark meat, primarily to other European countries, as well as a leading supplier of unprocessed shark fi ns to the Hong Kong shark fi n market (Clarke and Mosqueira, 2002). Portugal accounts for 14% of reported blue shark landings from the Atlantic for the period 1997–2005, followed by Brazil (4%), Namibia (4%), and Japan (3%).

According to the ICCAT database, the shortfi n mako is the second most numerous pelagic shark in the Atlantic landings, with 80,996 t reported between 1980 and 2005, for an average of 3,115 t/year. Shortfi n mako catches have increased gradually since 1980 to a high of 7,462 t in 2004 (in Fig. 4.2, 98% of the makos reported are shortfi n makos). Over this period, Spain landed 32% of the shortfi n mako caught in the Atlantic Ocean, followed by Japan (24%), the United States (19%), and Portugal (13%).

While the fl esh and fi ns of blue, mako, thresher, and silky sharks are marketable, these species are not the primary target of most of the Atlantic fi sheries that land them. By con-trast, the highly prized fl esh of porbeagle sharks has made this species a target of inten-sive fi sheries (Castro et al., 1999). Total porbeagle landings between 1980 and 2005 in the ICCAT database were 32,955 t (1,268 t/year), or 7% of total pelagic shark landings over that period. Canada reported 36% of that catch, France 32%, the Faroe Islands 19%, Denmark 6%, and Norway 3%. Porbeagle catches steadily increased into the mid-1990s, peaking in 1994 at 2,676 t before declining to 556 t in 2005.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

1981

1986

1991

1996

2001

Year

BlueMakosPorbeagle

Other pelagic

Other and unidentified

Cat

ch (

t)

Fig. 14.2 Reported catches of pelagic sharks by species in the Atlantic Ocean, from ICCAT catch statistics (ICCAT, 2006). “Makos” includes shortfi n mako and longfi n mako shark. “Other pelagic” includes silky, oceanic whitetip, thresher and white sharks, as well as catches reported as pelagic shark not elsewhere indicated. “Other and unidentifi ed” includes sharks that were not identifi ed and sharks identifi ed as coastal taxa.


Between 1980 and 2005, ICCAT reported 3,145 t of silky shark catches, and 1,921 t of oceanic whitetip sharks. Reported catches of silky sharks ranged from 13 t (1991) to 553 t (1996) with no clear trend. Catches of oceanic whitetip sharks have been higher since 1999 than in any other period, with a maximum of 642 t in 2000. The large recent land-ings of silky and oceanic whitetip sharks are of concern given indications of their prob-able highly depleted status in the Atlantic Ocean (Baum et al., 2003; Baum and Myers, 2004).

Pelagic sharks in Pacifi c Ocean fi sheries

Pelagic sharks are captured primarily as bycatch in Pacifi c Ocean fi sheries for tunas, swordfi sh, and marlins. The Pacifi c Ocean is home to the world’s largest industrial tuna fi shery (Bailey et al., 1996) and, as in tuna fi sheries in the Atlantic, catch of pelagic sharks is common. Data collection programs to document encounters with bycatch species, such as sharks, are limited in Pacifi c Ocean fi sheries and few data are available to the species level; thus, the overall oceanwide picture is even less clear than in the Atlantic.

On a broad scale, the FAO database reveals that Pacifi c catches of all elasmobranchs fl uctuated between 250,000 and 290,000 t/year between 1988 and 2002 (Fig. 14.1). Assuming that 60% of these reported landings are sharks (Bonfi l, 1994), approximately 175,000 t of sharks were taken from Pacifi c waters in 2002. Of the shark catches reported to the FAO from the Pacifi c Ocean, more than half were taken in the western-central Pacifi c, in the area largely covered by the SPC as well as the WCPFC, with signifi cant catches also being taken in the northwest Pacifi c and the eastern-central Pacifi c (the latter area covered by the SPC and the IATTC). The FAO database, however, includes reports of just 8,165 t of pelagic shark species landed from the Pacifi c in 2002 (Table 14.2). These self-reported fi gures grossly underestimate the actual pelagic shark mortality by species when compared to other fi sheries analyses and landings based on trade data. For exam-ple, Bonfi l (1994) estimated that 38,900 t of blue, oceanic whitetip, and silky sharks were taken from the SPC zone alone in 1989, and an additional 39,000 t of blue sharks north of the SPC zone in 1988. In 1988, the entire pelagic shark landings reported to FAO were 141 t of blue sharks and 733 t of shortfi n mako sharks.

Using species-specifi c catch rates in conjunction with fi shing effort and average shark weights, Stevens (2000) estimated that a combined total of 283,100–470,400 t of pelagic sharks were taken in Pacifi c high-seas fi sheries in 1994, including blue (140,100 t), oce-anic whitetip (52,100–239,400 t), silky (84,100 t), shortfi n mako (4,100 t), and thresher (2,700 t) sharks. The Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP) of the SPC has estimated the total catch of sharks and other nontarget species in the WCPFC statistical area for all long-line and purse-seine fl eets in the SPC database; however, these estimates do not include all the fl eets that fi sh in the WCPFC area, and so may underestimate the total mortality in the region (Fig. 14.3; OFP, 2006). Estimated catches for 2002 were 57,367 t of blue, 8,650 t of silky, 7,313 t of oceanic whitetip, and 6,962 t of mako sharks. Over 99% of the pelagic shark catches were from longlines. Sharks were the second most numerous taxo-nomic group in the catch, following tunas, representing 25% of the catch on longliners and 7% on purse seiners.


Despite their frequency in the catch, sharks in the western-central Pacifi c longline fi sh-ery are generally retained at low rates. After classifying fi nned sharks as discards, Lawson (2001) calculated that 63% of sharks and rays recorded by OFP observers in the western-central Pacifi c longline fi shery were discarded, and 71% of those animals were discarded dead. Only 13% of sharks and rays were retained (the disposition of 23% of sharks and rays was not known). Nearly 93% of sharks in the OFP observer data set were pelagic sharks. A review of observer data from Japanese vessels fi shing in Australian waters dur-ing the 1980s revealed that mako, thresher, silky, and oceanic whitetip sharks were com-monly retained, while blue sharks and porbeagles were fi nned and discarded (Bailey et al., 1996). Williams (1999) reported that purse-seine vessels in the tropical western and central Pacifi c retained silky shark trunks at nearly twice the rate of other sharks, including makos.

In the eastern tropical Pacifi c, according to observer data from the IATTC, between 1993 and 2004 about 56% of purse-seine sets caught silky sharks, and 21% caught oce-anic whitetip sharks; bycatch rates of these species were higher in sets made around fl oat-ing objects than in sets associated with dolphins or unassociated with either dolphins or fl oating objects (Román-Verdesoto and Orozco-Zöller, 2005). Thus, the eastern central Pacifi c tuna fi sheries are a signifi cant source of mortality for pelagic sharks, although less so than the fi sheries farther west. Fisheries in the northern Pacifi c are discussed below in the country reports for Japan and the United States.

Pelagic sharks in Indian Ocean fi sheries

As in the Atlantic and Pacifi c Oceans, pelagic sharks in the Indian Ocean are largely caught as bycatch in tuna fi sheries, in which they are the predominant taxa of bycatch. Total elasmobranch catches reported to FAO from the Indian Ocean have been gradually increasing since the 1950s, and increased from 177,000 t in 1988 to 269,000 t in 2002 (FAO, 2006). These catches are fairly evenly split between the western and eastern Indian Ocean (Smale, 2008). If 60% of these landings were sharks (Bonfi l, 1994), then shark

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Year

Blue Makos Oceanic whitetip Silky OtherC

atch

(t)

Fig. 14.3 Estimated catches in the Western and Central Pacifi c Fisheries Commission statistical area, from observer data in the SPC database (OFP, 2006).


catches have increased from 106,000 to 161,000 t. Much of this increase may be attrib-utable to increased reporting of shark catches (Smale, 2008). In the FAO database, only 7% of the chondrichthyan catches from the Indian Ocean have been identifi ed to species, compared with 26% from the Atlantic and 11% from the Pacifi c. Of the 7% identifi ed by species, pelagic sharks comprise 55% (10,515 t). Silky sharks are the most common, fol-lowed by blue and shortfi n mako sharks (Table 14.2).

According to the IOTC landing statistics, the majority (83% in 2002) of shark catches in the Indian Ocean are taken by gill nets, with another 12% taken by longlines (IOTC, 2006). However, the total shark landings in the IOTC database in 2002 (79,000 t) are less than the shark landings reported to FAO for the Indian Ocean (269,000 t), implying that IOTC does not collect data from all fl eets in the area. Most of the gill-net elasmobranch catches in coastal areas are of coastal rather than pelagic sharks, although blue, oceanic whitetip, short-fi n mako, thresher, and silky sharks have been recorded in gill nets in the Indian Ocean. The longline fi sheries report catching the same pelagic shark species, as well as porbeagle and longfi n mako (IOTC, 2005a, 2006). Bonfi l (1994) estimated that shark bycatches in Indian Ocean fi sheries in 1989 were 75,180 t from longlines, 6,108 t from high-seas drift nets, and 1,122 t from purse seines, using an extrapolation of bycatch rates to the total effort in the region. These estimates apply to all elasmobranch species, although pelagic species would be expected to dominate the catch, at least in the high-seas gill-net and longline fi sheries. Romanov (2002) extrapolated bycatch rates for purse-seine sets and estimated a total bycatch of pelagic sharks in the western Indian Ocean of 944 t in 1985, increasing to 2,068 t in 1994, a level that is broadly consistent with Bonfi l’s (1994) estimate for purse seines.

The IOTC has some historical data on shark catches and bycatches, but the data set is incomplete. Many countries, if they report shark catches at all, report only sharks that are retained, and do not identify sharks to species (IOTC, 2005a). However, the IOTC Working Party on Bycatch, which met for the fi rst time in 2005, has requested IOTC member nations to report additional information on bycatch species, including sharks.

A catalog of pelagic-shark-fi shing nations

The following sections present brief summaries of the pelagic shark fi sheries of the major elasmobranch-fi shing nations, here defi ned as those reporting annual elasmobranch land-ings of over 10,000 t (Bonfi l, 1994). There were 22 major shark-fi shing nations in 2002, with Indonesia, India, Spain, Pakistan, and Taiwan reporting the highest elasmobranch landings (Table 14.3), which accounted for 42% of the global landings in that year.

Information on catch composition, discards, and offshore and distant-water fl eets tak-ing pelagic sharks varies widely among nations, and so the following qualitative assess-ments should be considered preliminary. Because it is currently impossible to determine the actual size of their pelagic shark landings, these countries are presented alphabetically in two subjective groups: Major and moderate pelagic-shark-fi shing nations based on a review of factors, including their fi n exports to Hong Kong, their distant-water fl eets, and their fi sheries taking pelagic sharks (Table 14.3). Bonfi l (1994), Vannuccini (1999), and Fowler et al. (2005) provided detailed summaries of the historical fl uctuations in these elasmobranch fi sheries, but are not specifi c to pelagic elasmobranchs. Chen (1999) pro-vided details about the domestic and international markets for shark products (Table 14.4).

C

omm

ercial Fisheries for O

pen Ocean Sharks

177

Table 14.4 Commercially important pelagic shark species by country and use.a

Country Blue White Makos Oceanic whitetip Porbeagle Silky Threshers Unidentifi ed

Argentina M (d) M (d); F (e)Australia M (d); F (e); sport M (d); F (e) M (e, i); F (e, i)BangladeshBelgiumBrazilCanada M (d, e) M (d, e) M (d, e)China (�Hong Kong) M (d, e, i); F (d, i, re-ex)Cuba M (d); F (e)Cyprus M (d) M (e)Fiji M (d); F (e) M (d); F (e)France M (d, e) M (d, e) F (i)Germany M (d, i) M (d, i, re-ex); F (d, e) M (d, i, re-ex) M (i, e); F (i)GreeceIndia M (d); F (e)Indonesia M (d); F (e)Ireland M (e); sport M (d) M (d) F (i)Italy M (d) M (d) M (d, i) M (d) M (i); F (i)Japanb M (d); F (e) M (d); F (e) F (e) M (e, i)Kenya M (d); F (e)Korea, Republic of M (d, e, i)Malaysia M (e, i); F (e, i)Maldives M (d); F (e) M (d); F (e) M (e)Mexico M (d); F (e) M (d, e) M (d); F (e) M (d); F (e) M (d, e); F (e)Mozambique F (d) M (d, i, re-ex); F (i)The Netherlands M (d, i, re-ex) M (e)New Zealand M (d)

(Continued )

178

Sharks of the Open O

cean

Table 14.4 (Continued).

Country Blue White Makos Oceanic whitetip Porbeagle Silky Threshers Unidentifi ed

NigeriaNorway F (e)Pakistan F (e)PeruPhilippines M (d); F (e) M (d); F (e) M (d); F (e)PortugalSeychelles M (d) M (d, e)Singapore F (d, i, e)Solomon Islands M (d); F (e)South Africa M (e, i); F (e, i)Spain M (d); F (e) M (d, i); F (e, i) M (d); F (e) M (e, i)Sri Lanka M (d); F (e) M (d); F (e) M (d); F (e) M (d); F (e)Taiwan M (d); F (d) M (e, i); F (e, i)Tanzania M (d); F (e)Thailand F (e, i)Turkey M (d); F (e) M (d); F (e)United Kingdom M (d, e) M (d, e) F (i)United States M (d, i) M (d) M (d, i) M (d, i)Uruguay M (d, e); F (e) M (d)

aMajor shark-fi shing nations are italicized. Brazil, Nigeria, Peru, and Portugal were not included in Chen (1999) but were major shark-fi shing nations in 2002. M: meat; F: fi ns; d: domestic consumption; e: exports; i: imports; re-ex: re-exported; Chen (1999).bAlso, salmon shark: M (d, heart); F (e).


Major pelagic-shark-fi shing nations

Brazil’s elasmobranch landings have exceeded 10,000 t annually since 1966 (FAO, 2003a). Three different tuna and swordfi sh longline fl eets in Brazil take sharks as bycatch. Blue, silky, and oceanic whitetip sharks, along with other Carcharhinus species, are taken in the Natal longline fi shery in the northeast. These species, plus shortfi n mako and thresher sharks, are also taken in the Santos longline fi shery off the southeast coast (Amorim et al., 1998). In 2004, Brazil reported about 5,000 t of pelagic sharks taken by about 120 tuna longline vessels in the South Atlantic (ICCAT, 2005; Hazin et al., 2008), which is about one-fourth of Brazil’s reported elasmobranch landings. At least eight pelagic shark species are taken in this region, of which 60% are blue sharks. Since the late 1970s, as markets for meat and prices paid for fi ns increased, shark landings have grown, as has the tendency to sometimes target blue sharks (Amorim et al., 1998).

Indonesia is the world’s most important elasmobranch-fi shing nation, with the highest sustained rate of fi shery growth (Bonfi l, 1994). Reporting 106,000 t in 2002, it accounts for 13% of global elasmobranch landings (FAO, 2003a, 2006). Indonesia also has the rich-est chondrichthyan fauna in the world, with an estimated 350� species (P. Last, personal communication, as cited in Keong, 1996). Since the late 1980s, Indonesian shark fi sher-ies have been driven by the demand for fi ns (Suzuki, 2002). Landings are not species spe-cifi c, but are reported at the level of “sharks” and “rays.” Although sharks still dominate the landings, the proportion dropped from 66% through the early 1990s (Bonfi l, 1994) to 55% in 1997 (SEAFDEC, 2001). Most elasmobranchs are caught opportunistically through-out Indonesian waters, mainly in coastal artisanal fi sheries and as bycatch by commercial shrimp trawlers (Keong, 1996). A few domestic fi sheries targeting sharks have resulted in localized depletions, but because they operate in coastal waters they have not involved pelagic species. However, an increasing number of foreign longline vessels (from Taiwan and Korea with Indonesian crew) are targeting sharks in Indonesian waters, taking mainly blue sharks. It was estimated that this fi shery alone, based in Bitung, North Sulawesi, prob-ably caught at least 12,900 t of blue sharks in 1993, or more than 20% of Indonesia’s shark catch in that year (Keong, 1996).

Japan may have the longest history of commercial shark fi shing – it has been exporting shark fi ns to China for more than 200 years (Nakano, 1999). Japan led in world elasmo-branch landings from the 1950s to the early 1970s (103,000 t in 1954), but annual landings fell to less than 33,000 t in 2002 (FAO, 2003a, 2006). The three Japanese fi sheries that take pelagic sharks are all tuna longline fi sheries: A coastal fl eet operating near Japan, an off-shore fl eet in the northwestern Pacifi c, and a distant-water fl eet in all three oceans (Nakano, 1999). Pelagic sharks are mostly taken as bycatch in these fi sheries (usually �10% of total catch); however, a longline fi shery off northern Japan targets salmon sharks (Simpfendorfer et al., 2005). In the 1990s, the major pelagic sharks caught in Japan’s tuna longline fi sheries were blue shark (75% of shark bycatch), bigeye thresher (15%), oceanic whitetip (4%), silky (2%), and shortfi n mako (1%). Distant-water fl eets usually retain only mako sharks and fi ns from all species. In the North Pacifi c, blue shark is also the dominant elasmobranch taken in the salmon gill-net fi shery (63% of elasmobranch bycatch), the fl ying squid drift-net fi shery (93%), and the large-mesh drift-net fi shery (84%; Nakano, 1999). Salmon sharks are also caught incidentally in coastal fi sheries. In the Atlantic, Japan’s tuna fl eet is now required to


submit logbooks reporting shark bycatch by species (ICCAT, 2005). Overall, blue sharks represent 61–79% of the Japanese tuna fl eet’s bycatch, followed by salmon (10%), shortfi n mako (10%), and thresher sharks (5%; Matsunaga et al., 2003).

Mexico has led North American elasmobranch landings nearly every year since 1950, with more than 10,000 t recorded annually since 1973 (FAO, 2003a). By the 1990s, the prices paid for fi ns were a major driver in Mexican shark fi sheries, and many pelagic sharks are currently fi nned and discarded (Sosa-Nishizaki et al., 2008), with fi ns exported to the United States for re-export to Asia (Rose, 1998). Landings are not reported by spe-cies but are classifi ed according to size: Large sharks measuring more than 150 cm are labeled “tiburon,” and small sharks less than 150 cm are “cazon,” which can include juve-niles of larger species. Shark fi shing occurs in all coastal Mexican states, and about one-third of reported elasmobranch landings are from Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean waters, and are primarily composed of coastal species (Bonfi l, 1997). The remainder of the land-ings are from the Pacifi c and Gulf of California (SAGARPA, 2000; FAO, 2003a). Virtually all of the fi sheries that catch sharks are multispecies, seasonal, and largely artisanal: 80% of catches in the Gulf of Mexico are taken by small boats (�10 m) fi shing within 20 nauti-cal miles of shore (Rose, 1998). In Mexico’s Pacifi c fi sheries, six shark species are known to be of commercial importance: Common thresher, blue, angel (Squatina californica), shortfi n mako, spiny dogfi sh (Squalus acanthias), and school (Galeorhinus galeus) sharks. Two major fi sheries target sharks within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Pacifi c Coast, where fi shers land and use virtually every size and species of shark caught: An arti-sanal, small-boat fl eet (possibly �2,000 vessels) that targets sharks close to shore and an offshore drift-net fi shery for swordfi sh and sharks that began in 1986 (Holts et al., 1998). In addition, a longline fl eet (up to 21 vessels) targeting tunas and billfi shes began operating within the EEZ in 1980, and up to 25% of their catch was pelagic sharks. In 2007, there were six permitted large-scale (�20 m) longline vessels that target sharks off Mexico’s Pacifi c Coast (L. Castillo, personal communication).

Pakistan has been a world leader in elasmobranch fi shing since the 1960s, landing nearly 50,000 t in 2002 (FAO, 2003b), yet little is known of its shark fi shery (Bonfi l, 1994; Anderson and Simpfendorfer, 2005). Landings largely consist of carcharhinid sharks, taken mainly by gill nets. In general, marine fi shing is confi ned to intensive exploitation of inshore resources (FAO, 2003b). However, Bonfi l (1994) described a pelagic gill-net fl eet that oper-ates in waters as far away as Somalia; although the catch composition is not known, the fl eet likely takes large numbers of pelagic sharks. The development and expansion of high-seas tuna longlining and other fi sheries offshore is under way (FAO, 2003b).

Republic of Korea has been a major elasmobranch-fi shing nation since at least 1968, with reported landings averaging 18,000 t (FAO, 2003a). In general, landings are recorded by gear type, with virtually none recorded by species (Bonfi l, 1994); the fi sheries taking pelagic sharks are not well described. South Korea supports directed shark fi sheries with gill nets in both adjacent and distant waters (Rose, 1996). Thresher, mako, salmon, blue, and white sharks are among the main species taken in the adjacent-water directed fi sher-ies (Parry-Jones, 1996). A marked decline in shark landings from these fi sheries over the past 30 years suggests a declining trend in shark populations, rather than a shift of market forces or fi shing effort. Although its distant-water fl eets operate in all oceans, the majority of the shark landings come from bycatch in Pacifi c-based fi sheries (Parry-Jones, 1996).


South Korea initiated an observer sampling program in 2002; in 2005, observers on long-liners found that 21% (by number) of the bycatch in the western and central Pacifi c and 19% in the eastern Pacifi c were pelagic sharks (An et al., 2006).

Spain is one of the most important elasmobranch-fi shing nations, having ranked among the top fi ve since 1997, with over 60,000 t in 2002 (Table 14.3; FAO, 2003a). It is also among the top three exporters of shark fi ns to the Hong Kong fi n market (Table 14.3; Clarke and Mosqueira, 2002; Anonymous, 2006). Spanish longline vessels take sharks largely as bycatch in the Mediterranean and in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, but some targeting of pelagic sharks also occurs. For example, the Spanish fl eet in the Mediterranean moves into deeper water in the summer to target pelagic sharks (especially shortfi n mako, blue, and thresher sharks) along with swordfi sh, and a small longline fl eet targets blue sharks in the Bay of Biscay (SGRST, 2002, in Walker et al., 2005). Blue shark and shortfi n mako com-pose the majority of the landings from the Atlantic longline and gill-net fl eets, with blue sharks accounting for 60–70% of Spain’s total shark catch (Fleming and Papageorgiou, 1996). Little is known about the size of Spain’s shark catches, discards, or species compo-sition from the distant-water fl eets before the mid-1990s (Rose, 1996), when Spain began reporting shark catches based on observer data (FAO, 2003a). Between 1995 and 2002, Spain’s Indian Ocean landings, which likely consist mainly of pelagic sharks, steadily increased and topped 16,000 t in 2002, or 25% of Spain’s elasmobranch landings.

About 80% of the marine fi sh catch in Sri Lanka consists of pelagic fi shes, with sharks second only to tunas in number (Joseph, 1999). Although the elasmobranch catch compo-sition is poorly documented (Bonfi l, 1994), all three threshers, both makos, and silky, oce-anic whitetip, and blue sharks are taken incidentally in drift gill-net and bottom longline fi sheries (Joseph, 1999). Silky sharks may account for more than 50% of the shark landings by weight; the oceanic whitetip, pelagic thresher, and shortfi n mako are also important. A drift longline fi shery targeting pelagic sharks developed in the 1980s, driven largely by the export market for fi ns. Despite increased fi shing effort offshore (in the EEZ and beyond) during the late 1980s and mid-1990s, shark landings and catch per unit effort (CPUE) declined, calling into question the sustainability of these pelagic shark resources (Joseph, 1999). Reported silky shark landings fell steadily from 9,760 t in 2000 to 2,340 t in 2005 (Sri Lanka Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Development, 2006).

Taiwan has been taking large numbers of sharks since the 1930s. Chen et al. (1996, 2002) provided a detailed discussion of Taiwan’s shark fi sheries, which target pelagic sharks in coastal, offshore (out to 200 miles), and distant waters, and take them as bycatch in all oceans (Rose, 1996). About 14% of Taiwan’s shark landings come from its off-shore fi sheries (Chen et al., 1996), and another 85% is caught by its distant-water tuna fl eet, which operates widely in the Pacifi c, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans, although the three primary shark-fi shing grounds are in the EEZs of Papua New Guinea, Mozambique, and Indonesia (Chen et al., 2002). Since at least the early 1990s, Taiwanese longline vessels have been targeting sharks in Indonesian waters and are responsible for a large proportion of the pelagic shark landings (largely silky sharks) reported from Indonesia (Keong, 1996; Rose, 1996). Pelagic sharks make up between 48% and 78% of the sharks being sold at two of Taiwan’s harbors, which together account for 85% of Taiwan’s coastal and offshore shark landings (Chen et al., 2002). Although offi cial Taiwanese statistics provide no species information, silky, oceanic whitetip, shortfi n mako, thresher, hammerhead (Sphyrna spp.),


and blue sharks are common in Taiwan’s distant-water catches, while bigeye and pelagic threshers, hammerheads, sandbar (Carcharhinus plumbeus), oceanic whitetip, silky, dusky (C. obscurus), spinner (C. brevipinna), blue, and shortfi n mako sharks are caught in the coastal and offshore fi sheries (Chen et al., 2002). Apparently, only blue sharks are fi nned at sea, with other species more fully utilized.

Pelagic fi sheries of the United States operate off the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacifi c Coasts and in the central Pacifi c (see regional summaries in Fowler et al., 2005). Total elasmobranch landings in 2002 were 24,076 t (FAO, 2003a). With the exception of a small directed porbeagle fi shery in the Atlantic and a gill-net fi shery landing mod-est numbers of thresher and mako sharks in the Pacifi c, pelagic sharks are taken almost exclusively as bycatch in US commercial fi sheries. In general, US elasmobranch fi sher-ies are well described, with mandatory species-specifi c reporting of landings and discards and catch limits placed on some species. In the Atlantic, 120 active longline vessels target tunas and swordfi sh, with shortfi n mako, thresher, and porbeagle sharks as secondary tar-gets and blue sharks discarded as bycatch. Pelagic shark commercial landings from the Atlantic (dominated by mako sharks) steadily increased through the 1990s, peaking in 1996 at 676 t (National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS, 2004). In that same year, dead discards totaled 949 t in the longline fi shery (NMFS, 2004) and 110 t in other fi sheries (NMFS, 2001). Off the Pacifi c Coast, common threshers are targeted in a drift gill-net fi shery (landings of 200–400 t/year since 1994) that also lands smaller numbers of other thresher species and shortfi n makos; blue shark discards in this fi shery exceed the target catch (PFMC, 2003). In the North Pacifi c, salmon sharks are not targeted yet account for 12% of the shark bycatch in the massive Alaskan groundfi sh fi sheries (NMFS, 2001). The Hawaii-based longline fl eet (110 vessels in 2003) targets tunas and swordfi sh, but sharks are the dominant species caught (by number) on swordfi sh trips (Ito and Machado, 1997). In 1991, most sharks were released alive, but by 1998 at least 61% of the shark catch, 90% of which were blue sharks, was fi nned (Camhi, 1999). Reported shark catches and fi nning have declined with the implementation of anti-fi nning laws in both Hawaii (2000) and at the federal level (2002). The United States was the second largest exporter of shark fi ns to Hong Kong in 1999 with 565 t (Table 14.3; Clarke and Mosqueira, 2002); most of these fi ns, however, originated outside US waters and fi sheries. Since 2001, the United States has dropped out of the top 10 fi n exporters to Hong Kong (Anonymous, 2006).

Moderate pelagic-shark-fi shing nations

The following shark-fi shing nations either land fewer pelagic elasmobranchs than the nations discussed in the preceding section or too little is known of the species composi-tion of their shark fi sheries to determine the relative size of their pelagic shark catches. Nonetheless, even a relatively low proportion of pelagic sharks in the overall elasmo-branch catch can result in signifi cant pelagic shark mortality year after year for coun-tries reporting sizable elasmobranch landings (e.g., India). These countries are reported alphabetically.

Argentina has led South America in elasmobranch landings since 1993 (FAO, 2003a), and reported over 26,000 t in 2002. Although a few sharks (e.g., Galeorhinus galeus) and rays are targeted, pelagic species (e.g., porbeagle and shortfi n mako) taken as bycatch in


longline fi sheries contribute little to total elasmobranch landings (Chiaramonte, 1998; Caro Ros, 1999).

Canada has sizable shark-fi shing operations in the Atlantic, including the directed fi shery for porbeagle sharks that began in 1961 (Campana et al., 2008). Porbeagle land-ings by all nations off the Atlantic Coast of Canada peaked at 9,281 t in 1964, but subse-quently declined to less than 600 t by the late 1970s (Campana et al., 2002). Pelagic sharks in Canadian waters have been under management since 1995, and to halt overfi shing in the porbeagle fi shery, an annual quota of 200 t was established for the period 2002–2007 (DFO, 2002). Canada also supports a small directed blue shark fi shery in the Atlantic that has a 250 t annual quota, but since 1986 reported blue shark catch and bycatch has averaged about 1,000 t/year (Campana et al., 2005). However, the total blue shark catch in the Canadian Atlantic by both domestic and foreign longline fi sheries may actually be 20 times larger. Shortfi n makos and other sharks are taken as bycatch in various longline fi sheries but are not subject to catch limits. Pelagic sharks are not targeted off Canada’s Pacifi c Coast.

Prior to the 1990s, France led European countries in elasmobranch landings (Fleming and Papageorgiou, 1996) and reported just over 23,000 t in 2002 (FAO, 2003a). French vessels fi sh in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans and in the Mediterranean Sea. The vast majority of elasmobranch landings are taken as bycatch and are benthic and coastal spe-cies. However, a targeted fi shery for porbeagles in the Atlantic reported taking 461 t in 2002, or about 2% of France’s total elasmobranch landings (FAO, 2003a).

India has been among the top fi ve elasmobranch-fi shing nations since the 1970s, with landings of almost 67,000 t in 2002 (FAO, 2003b), but the species composition of the catch is not reported. Sharks compose 55–70% of its elasmobranch landings (Hanfee, 1999; Vannuccini, 1999). They are taken mainly as bycatch from coastal Indian Ocean waters off both coasts (FAO, 2003a). Although there is no organized industrial fi shery for pelagic sharks, tuna longliners are known to take blue sharks, threshers, and shortfi n makos (Hanfee, 1999), but the size of this bycatch is not known. Although India is a major exporter of fi ns to Hong Kong, pelagic sharks are not important among these fi n exports (Anderson and Simpfendorfer, 2005). The government supports the expansion of India’s shark fi sheries, and increased mechanization in the future will allow fi shing farther from shore.

For Malaysia, which does not have a distant-water fl eet, virtually all elasmobranch land-ings are taken in the east Indian and west-central Pacifi c Oceans (Keong, 1996), largely as bycatch in demersal trawl fi sheries (Bonfi l, 1994; Ali et al., 1999). There is little infor-mation on the species composition of the elasmobranch catch; however, it is estimated that batoids account for 60–80% of the catch (Bonfi l, 1994; Ahmad, 2002). A study by TRAFFIC International does not highlight any pelagic sharks in the landings (Keong, 1996). Although there are some indications that elasmobranchs in Malaysian waters are at least fully exploited (Ahmad, 2002), there are currently no fi shery management measures for sharks or rays (Keong, 1996).

In the Maldives, at least seven pelagic sharks are caught, including shortfi n mako, silky, oceanic whitetip, blue, and all three species of threshers (Anderson and Hafi z, 2002). They are targeted in the longline fi shery (in which silky sharks account for up to 80% of the catch by numbers) for their fi ns and meat, and are taken as bycatch in the pole-and-line tuna fi shery and by handline. Two other directed shark fi sheries target reef sharks and deep demersal sharks; all are driven by export demand for fi ns and dried meat.


The offshore longline fi shery has expanded in recent years (Anderson and Simpfendorfer, 2005). However, most Maldivian tuna fi shermen are strongly opposed to pelagic long-lining for sharks: They believe that tuna follow silky sharks, and that if the sharks are removed, then the tuna will disperse (Anderson and Hafi z, 2002). Despite these confl icts and concerns over the sustainability of the oceanic shark fi shery, no management meas-ures are in place.

New Zealand’s elasmobranch fi sheries, both targeted and incidental, are well docu-mented by commercial fi shing and observer data, and elasmobranch landings between 1993 and 2002 averaged 17,597 t (FAO, 2003a). There are three directed fi sheries for elas-mobranchs, but pelagic sharks are not targeted, nor are they among the top six commer-cially important elasmobranch species (Francis and Shallard, 1998). However, the blue shark is the most common species caught (by number) in New Zealand’s tuna longline fi sh-eries, with porbeagle and mako sharks (combined) ranked fi fth (Francis et al., 1999). Other pelagic elasmobranchs caught incidentally include (in order of importance) pelagic sting-ray, common thresher, bigeye thresher, oceanic whitetip, and white sharks. In 1997–1998, 45,000 blue sharks (1,400 t), 4,000 porbeagles (150 t), and 3,000 makos (200 t) were caught on tuna longlines. Most of these sharks were immature and alive when recovered (Francis et al., 2001). The vast majority of blue sharks are fi nned and discarded, as are porbeagles, while makos are retained more often for their fi ns and meat. The recreational angling com-munity has expressed concern that surface longlining is depleting makos in New Zealand waters, and has called for a domestic ban on shark fi nning.

Nigeria is the only major elasmobranch-fi shing nation in Africa. Since 1967, reported elasmobranch landings have exceeded those of all other African nations, with annual land-ings of over 13,000 t since 1998 (FAO, 2003a). Yet relatively little is known of Nigeria’s elasmobranch fi sheries. There are no large-scale commercial longline or purse-seine fl eets fi shing legally in Nigerian waters, but shark fi nning by foreign vessels fi shing illegally has been reported. A small-scale artisanal fl eet targets sharks with drift nets, and sharks are taken as bycatch in the shrimp trawl fi shery (Walker et al., 2005). As neither Rose (1996) nor Vannuccini (1999) discuss Nigeria in their reports on elasmobranch trade, it is possi-ble that Nigeria does not report its shark exports or that its elasmobranch resources (other than fi ns) are consumed domestically. There is no information on the species composition of the catch.

Peru was a major elasmobranch-fi shing nation in the 1960s through the 1980s; land-ings fell below 10,000 t in the 1990s, but subsequently increased to 16,633 t in 2002 (FAO, 2003a, 2006). Yet sharks are of negligible importance relative to other Peruvian fi sheries resources (Bonfi l, 1994; Caro Ros, 1999). Although the majority of the reported landings are Mustelus spp. (Bonfi l et al., 2005), pelagic sharks taken as bycatch on longlines target-ing tuna include blue sharks (the most common species caught), shortfi n makos, threshers, oceanic whitetips, silky sharks, and pelagic stingrays (Cook, 1995; Caro Ros, 1999).

Portugal recorded 14,016 t of elasmobranch landings in 2002, but since 1990, land-ings have fl uctuated between 8,386 t (1998) and 30,495 t (1991) (FAO, 2003a). Portuguese landings have been reported to FAO from the Atlantic since at least 1950, and from the Indian Ocean since 1999. Despite recent efforts to describe Portugal’s elasmobranch fi sheries, there is limited information on the fi sheries catching pelagic sharks, although blue sharks are thought to be heavily targeted (Correia and Smith, 2003). Shortfi n mako,


common thresher, and porbeagle are also taken in the targeted surface longline fi sh-ery and as bycatch in gill-net, purse-seine, and bottom trawl fi sheries targeting teleosts (Correia and Smith, 2003). Blue and shortfi n mako sharks are taken as bycatch in the Portuguese swordfi sh longline fl eet operating in the Azores, where blue sharks may rep-resent up to 86% of total landings (Aires-da-Silva et al., 2008). Blue shark catch rates steadily increased between 1993 and 1998, suggesting that this Azores-based fi shery may shift effort to target blue sharks, which were previously discarded but are now retained, on a seasonal basis when swordfi sh are less available.

Thailand reported nearly 22,000 t of elasmobranch landings in 2002 (FAO, 2003a), with shark fi ns the main target for shark fi sheries (Vidthayanon, 2002). There are no directed fi sheries for pelagic elasmobranchs, but the fi ns and meat are used from virtually all sharks taken in the bycatch of the trawl and gill-net fi sheries. All three species of threshers, both species of makos, and oceanic whitetip, blue, and silky sharks are found in Thailand’s waters, but its elasmobranch landings are dominated by batoids (Vidthayanon, 2002). Depletion from overfi shing in Thailand waters (for all species) has forced Thai fl eets into international waters as far away as the South China Sea (Keong, 1996; Vidthayanon, 2002).

The large elasmobranch landings from the United Kingdom are primarily from the tar-geted and incidental take of piked (or spiny) dogfi sh (Squalus acanthias) and batoids (Pawson and Vince, 1999), which accounted for 63% and 36%, respectively, of the total elasmobranch landings during the 1970s and 1980s (Bonfi l, 1994). Blue sharks and porbea-gles are targeted in coastal waters off Cornwall (Fleming and Papageorgiou, 1996; Pawson and Vince, 1999), and are taken as bycatch with threshers and shortfi n mako in the high-seas fi sheries targeting tunas and billfi sh (Fowler et al., 2004). UK porbeagle landings remain negligible (Vannuccini, 1999).

Discussion

Global reported catches of elasmobranchs have increased over the last 50 years, partic-ularly in the Indian Ocean. Overall, only 15% of these catches have been identifi ed at the species level. Thus, an accurate, quantitative evaluation of the total number of pelagic elasmobranchs killed by fi sheries each year remains elusive. It was impossible to accu-rately determine total pelagic shark landings, the relative importance of pelagic sharks in the overall elasmobranch catch, or the catch composition of the shark fi sheries as a whole and for pelagic sharks, either by ocean basin or by country, for most of the 22 major elas-mobranch-fi shing nations.

Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States provide the most complete picture of shark bycatch in their longline and net fi sheries, in large part because they require the species-specifi c reporting of catches and support at-sea observer and research programs. The number of countries reporting species-specifi c catch data to the RFMOs and the FAO has increased over the last decade, in response to requests for better bycatch data by RFMOs such as ICCAT, IOTC, and WCPFC. However, the fraction of catches identifi ed to species remains low, and many major shark-fi shing nations have not improved their catch reporting. Where species-specifi c data are available, the vast majority of the pelagic shark catches are blue sharks, followed by silky and mako sharks.


On the basis of the foregoing assessment, the top fi ve pelagic-shark-fi shing nations are believed to be Indonesia, Japan, Spain, Sri Lanka, and Taiwan, while Brazil, Mexico, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, and the United States are also important pelagic shark fi shers. Another 12 countries – Argentina, Canada, France, India, Malaysia, the Maldives, New Zealand, Nigeria, Peru, Portugal, Thailand, and the United Kingdom – are moder-ate contributors to global pelagic elasmobranch catches because their shark landings are mainly from coastal fi sheries and consist largely of coastal sharks and/or batoids. This review evaluated only countries reporting more than 10,000 t of elasmobranchs to FAO in 2002, but it is likely, given gaps in the catch data reported to FAO, that other fi shing nations may also contribute signifi cantly to the catch of pelagic elasmobranchs.

Many countries have fi sheries that target pelagic sharks. However, the vast majority of pelagic elasmobranchs are probably taken as bycatch on longlines and nets targeting other species, especially tunas and swordfi sh in international waters. China, Japan, Republic of Korea, Spain, and Taiwan currently support the largest distant-water fl eets, which fi sh out-side their own EEZs throughout the Atlantic, Pacifi c, and Indian Oceans (Phipps, 1996; Bonfi l et al., 1998). For example, in Indonesia, pelagic shark landings soared in the mid-1980s with the introduction of Taiwanese longliners (Keong, 1996).

Expanding global markets for shark products and the growth of high-seas fi sher-ies have intensifi ed fi shing pressure on open ocean sharks. This fi sheries expansion has taken place in the absence of comprehensive data collection programs and sound fi sh-ery management regimes. Nascent efforts to evaluate the impact of high-seas fi sheries on pelagic sharks should be expanded through the commitment of scientifi c and management resources by fi shing countries and regional fi sheries management organizations, as recom-mended by FAO in the IPOA for Sharks (FAO, 1999), CITES, and IUCN (Cavanagh et al., 2008). All of the pelagic sharks examined in this chapter have been recognized as biologi-cally vulnerable to depletion. While some data collection and management regimes are being developed and implemented, regional fi sheries management organizations should take immediate steps to improve species-specifi c catch data on oceanic sharks and to eval-uate the sustainability of those catches.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank The David and Lucile Packard Foundation for support of the Marine Program of the Wildlife Conservation Society, and the Pew Charitable Trusts for support of the Pew Institute for Ocean Science. Shelley Clarke, Rachel Cavanagh, Tim Lawson, Sonja Fordham, and John Stevens provided helpful suggestions.

References

Ahmad, A. T. (2002) Elasmobranch fi sheries in peninsular Malaysia. In: Elasmobranch Biodiversity, Conservation and Management (eds. S. L. Fowler, T. M. Reed and F. A. Dipper). IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp. 86–94.

Aires-da-Silva, A., Ferreira, R. L. and Pereira, J. G. (2008) Case study: Blue shark catch rate patterns from the Portuguese swordfi sh longline fi shery in the Azores. In: Sharks of the Open


Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation (eds. M. D. Camhi, E. K. Pikitch and E. A. Babcock). Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.

Ali, A., Ali, R., Nasir, M. and Salleh, I. (1999) Management of shark fi sheries in Malaysia. In: Case Studies of the Management of Elasmobranch Fisheries (ed. R. Shotton). FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 378/1. FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. 402–424.

Alverson, D. L., Freeberg, M. H., Murawski, S. A. and Pope, J. G. (1994) A Global Assessment of Fisheries Bycatch and Discards. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 339. FAO, Rome, Italy, 233 pp.

Amorim, A. F., Arfelli, C. A. and Fagundes, L. (1998) Pelagic elasmobranchs caught by longlin-ers off southern Brazil during 1974–97: An overview. Marine and Freshwater Research 49, 621–632.

An, D. H., Kim, S. S., Moon, D. Y. and Hwang, S. J. (2006) A Summary of the Korean Tuna Fishery Observer Programme for the Pacifi c Ocean in 2005. Document WCPFC-SC2-2006/EB IP-3. Western and Central Pacifi c Fisheries Commission, Kolonia, Federated States of Micronesia.

Anderson, R. C. and Hafi z, A. (2002) Elasmobranch fi sheries in the Maldives. In: Elasmobranch Biodiversity, Conservation and Management (eds. S. L. Fowler, T. M. Reed and F. A. Dipper). IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp. 114–121.

Anderson, R. C. and Simpfendorfer, C. A. (2005) Indian Ocean regional overview. In: Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes (eds. S. L. Fowler et al.). IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp. 140–150.

Anonymous (2006) Unpublished data on Hong Kong trade statistics, 1998–2005. Hong Kong Customs and Statistics Department, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China.

Babcock, E. A. and Nakano, H. (2008) Data collection, research, and assessment efforts for pelagic sharks by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. In: Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation (eds. M. D. Camhi, E. K. Pikitch and E. A. Babcock). Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.

Bailey, K., Williams, P. G. and Itano, D. (1996) By-catch and Discards in Western Pacifi c Tuna Fisheries: A Review of SPC Data Holdings and Literature. Technical Report No. 34. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, South Pacifi c Commission, Noumea, New Caledonia.

Barnett, R. (1997) Shark fi sheries and trade in East and Southern Africa. In: World Trade in Sharks: A Compendium of TRAFFIC’s Regional Studies, Vol. I. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK, pp. 5–12.

Baum, J. K. and Myers, R. A. (2004) Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecology Letters 7, 135–145.

Baum, J. K., Myers, R. A., Kehler, D. G., Worm, B., Harley, S. J. and Doherty, P. A. (2003) Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science 299(5605), 389–392.

Bonfi l, R. (1994) Overview of World Elasmobranch Fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 341. FAO, Rome, Italy, 119 pp.

Bonfi l, R. (1997) Status of shark resources in the southern Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean: Implications for management. Fisheries Research 29, 101–117.

Bonfi l, R., Munro, G., Sumaila, U. R., Valtysson, H., Wright, M., Pitcher, T., Preikshot, D., Haggan, N. and Pauly, D. (1998) Distant Water Fleets: An Ecological, Economic and Social Assessment. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 6(6). University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 111 pp.

Bonfi l, R., Simpfendorfer, C. A. and Acuna, E. (2005) Southeast Pacifi c regional overview. In: Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes (eds. S. L. Fowler et al.). IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp. 186–193.

Camhi, M. (1999) Sharks on the Line II: An Analysis of Pacifi c State Shark Fisheries. Living Oceans Program, National Audubon Society, Islip, NY, 116 pp.


Camhi, M., Fowler, S. L., Musick, J. A., Bräutigam, A. and Fordham, S. V. (1998) Sharks and Their Relatives: Ecology and Conservation. IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 39 pp.

Camhi, M. D., Fordham, S. V. and Fowler, S. L. (2008) Domestic and international management for pelagic sharks. In: Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation (eds. M. D. Camhi, E. K. Pikitch and E. A. Babcock). Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.

Campana, S. E., Joyce, W., Marks, L., Natanson, L. J., Kohler, N. E., Jensen, C. F., Mello, J. J., Pratt Jr., H. L. and Myklevoll, S. (2002) Population dynamics of the porbeagle in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22, 106–121.

Campana, S. E., Marks, L., Joyce, W. and Kohler, N. (2005) Catch, by-catch and indices of popula-tion status of blue shark (Prionace glauca) in the Canadian Atlantic. ICCAT Collective Volume of Scientifi c Papers 58(3), 891–934.

Campana, S. E., Joyce, W., Marks, L., Hurley, P., Natanson, L. J., Kohler, N. E., Jensen, C. F., Mello, J. J., Pratt Jr., H. L., Myklevoll, S. and Harley, S. (2008) The rise and fall (again) of the porbeagle shark population in the Northwest Atlantic. In: Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation (eds. M. D. Camhi, E. K. Pikitch and E. A. Babcock). Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.

Caro Ros, S. J. (1999) Sharks and rays in Latin America. Appendix IV.5. In: Shark Utilization, Marketing, and Trade (ed. S. Vannuccini). FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 389. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Castro, J. I., Woodley, C. M. and Brudek, R. L. (1999) A Preliminary Evaluation of the Status of Shark Species. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 380. FAO, Rome, Italy, 72 pp.

Cavanagh, R. D., Fowler, S. L. and Camhi, M. D. (2008) Pelagic sharks and the FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. In: Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation (eds. M. D. Camhi, E. K. Pikitch and E. A. Babcock). Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.

Chen, C., Liu, K., Joung, S. and Phipps, M. J. (2002) Taiwan’s shark fi shery – an overview. In: Elasmobranch Biodiversity, Conservation and Management (eds. S. L. Fowler, T. M. Reed and F. A. Dipper). IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp. 95–103.

Chen, G. C. T., Liu, K., Joung, S. and Phipps, M. J. (1996) TRAFFIC report on shark fi sheries and trade in Taiwan. In: World Trade in Sharks: A Compendium of TRAFFIC’s Regional Studies, Vol. I. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK, pp. 269–322.

Chen, S. P. (1999) Commercially important shark species by country. Appendix II. In: Shark Utilization, Marketing, and Trade (ed. S. Vannuccini). FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 389. FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. 271–283.

Chiaramonte, G. E. (1998) Shark fi sheries in Argentina. Marine and Freshwater Research 49, 601–609.

CITES (1994) Status of International Trade in Shark Species, Resolution Conference 9.17. www.cites.org/eng/res/all/09/E09-17.pdf, accessed 30 January 2007.

Clarke, S. (2002) Trade in Dried Asian Seafood: Characterization, Estimation and Implications for Conservation. Working Paper No. 22. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, 88 pp.

Clarke, S. (2003) Quantifi cation of the Trade in Shark Fins. Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London, London, UK, 327 pp.

Clarke, S. (2004) Understanding pressures on fi shery resources through trade statistics: A pilot study of four products in the Chinese dried seafood market. Fish and Fisheries 5, 53–74.

Clarke, S. and Mosqueira, I. (2002) A preliminary assessment of European participation in the shark fi n trade. In: Proceedings of the 4th European Elasmobranch Association Meeting, Livorno,


Italy, 2000 (eds. M. Vacchi et al.). ICRAM, ARPAT-GEA, and Société Française d’Ichtyologie, Paris, France, pp. 65–72.

Clarke, S., Burgess, G. H., Cavanagh, R. D., Crow, G., Fordham, S. V., McDavitt, M. T., Rose, D. A., Smith, M. and Simpfendorfer, C. (2005) Socio-economic importance of elasmobranchs. In: Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes (eds. S. L. Fowler et al.). IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp. 19–47.

Clarke, S., McAllister, M. K., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Kirkwood, G. P., Michielsens, C. G. J., Agnew, D. J., Pikitch, E. K., Nakano, H. and Shivji, M. S. (2006a) Global estimates of shark catches using trade records from commercial markets. Ecology Letters 9, 1115–1126.

Clarke, S. C., Magnussen, J. E., Abercrombie, D. L., McAllister, M. K. and Shivji, M. S. (2006b) Identifi cation of shark species composition and proportion in the Hong Kong shark fi n market based on molecular genetics and trade records. Conservation Biology 20(1), 201–211.

Cook, S. F. (1995) Assessment of Environmental Impacts in the Experimental Pelagic Longline Fishery for Tunas and Sharks in Peru with Supplementary Notes on Elasmobranchs in the Peruvian Inshore Artisanal Fishery. Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC.

Correia, J. P. S. and Smith, F. L. (2003) Elasmobranch landings for the Portuguese commercial fi sh-ery from 1986 to 2001. Marine Fisheries Review 65(1), 32–40.

DFO (Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans) (2002) Canadian Atlantic Pelagic Shark Integrated Fishery Management Plan 2002–2007. DFO, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada.

FAO (1999) International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. www.fao.org/docrep/006/x3170e/x3170e03.htm, accessed 29 January 2007.

FAO (2003a) FISHSTAT Plus, Version 2.3. Capture Production Database, 1970–2002, and Commodities Trade and Production Database, 1976–2002. FAO, Rome, Italy.

FAO (2003b) Fishery country profi le: The Islamic Republic of Pakistan. FID/CP/PAK Rev. 3. www.fao.org/fi /fcp/en/PAK/profi le.htm, accessed 13 May 2005.

FAO (2006) FISHSTAT Plus, Version 2.3. Capture Production Database, 1970–2004. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Fleming, E. H. and Papageorgiou, P.A. (1996) Shark fi sheries and trade in Europe. In: The World Trade in Sharks: A Compendium of TRAFFIC’s Regional Studies, Vol. II. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK, pp. 457–604.

Fowler, S., Mogonsen, C. B. and Balsdale, T. (2004) Plan of Action for the Conservation and Man age-ment of Sharks in UK Waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK, 66 pp.

Fowler, S. L., Cavanagh, R. D., Camhi, M., Burgess, G. H., Cailliet, G. M., Fordham, S. V., Simpfendorfer, C. A. and Musick, J. A. (2005) Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes. IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 461 pp.

Francis, M. P. and Shallard, B. (1998) New Zealand shark fi shery management. In: Case Studies of the Management of Elasmobranch Fisheries (ed. R. Shotton). FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 378/1. FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. 515–551.

Francis, M. P., Griggs, L. H., Baird, S. J., Murray, T. E. and Dean, H. A. (1999) Fish Bycatch in New Zealand Tuna Longline Fisheries. NIWA Technical Report 55. Wellington, New Zealand, 18 pp.

Francis, M. P., Griggs, L. H. and Baird, S. J. (2001) Pelagic shark bycatch in the New Zealand tuna longline fi shery. Marine and Freshwater Research 52(2), 165–178.

Hanfee, F. (1999) Management of shark fi sheries in two Indian coastal states: Tamil Nadu and Kerala. In: Case Studies of the Management of Elasmobranch Fisheries (ed. R. Shotton). FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 378/1. FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. 316–338.

Hazin, H. V., Broadhurst, M. K., Amorim, A. F., Arfelli, C. A. and Domingo, A. (2008) Catches of pelagic sharks by subsurface longline fi sheries in the South Atlantic Ocean during the last


century: A review of available data with emphasis on Uruguay and Brazil. In: Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation (eds. M. D. Camhi, E. K. Pikitch and E. A. Babcock). Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.

Holts, D. B., Julian, A., Sosa-Nishizaki, O. and Bartoo, N. W. (1998) Pelagic shark fi sheries along the west coast of the United States and Baja California, Mexico. Fisheries Research 39, 115–125.

ICCAT (2005) Report of the 2004 Inter-sessional Meeting of the ICCAT Sub-committee on By-catches: Shark Stock Assessment. ICCAT Collective Volume of Scientifi c Papers 58(3), 799–880.

ICCAT (2006) Task I database. www.iccat.es/accesingdb.htm, accessed 19 December 2006.IOTC (2005a) Report of the First Session of the IOTC Working Party on Bycatch. IOTC-2005-

WPBy-R[EN]. Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, Phuket, Thailand, 20 July 2005, 16 pp.IOTC (2005b) Resolution 05/05 concerning the conservation of sharks caught in association

with fi sheries managed by IOTC. www.iotc.org/English/resolutions/reso_detail.php?reso=39, accessed 29 January 2007.

IOTC (2006) Indian Ocean Tuna Commission nominal catch database. www.iotc.org/English/data/databases.php, accessed 22 December 2006.

Ito, R. Y. and Machado, W. A. (1997) Annual Report of the Hawaii-Based Longline Fishery for 1996. Administrative Report H-97-12. Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, Honolulu, HI, 48 pp.

Joseph, L. (1999) Management of shark fi sheries in Sri Lanka. In: Case Studies of the Management of Elasmobranch Fisheries (ed. R. Shotton). FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 378/1. FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. 339–366.

Keong, C. H. (1996) Shark fi sheries and trade in sharks and shark products in Southeast Asia. In: World Trade in Sharks: A Compendium of TRAFFIC’s Regional Studies, Vol. II. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK, pp. 807–945.

Lawson, T. (2001) Observer Data Held by the Oceanic Fisheries Programme Covering Tuna Fishery Bycatches in the Western and Central Pacifi c Ocean. SCTB 14 Working Paper SWG-9. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacifi c Community, Noumea, New Caledonia.

Matsunaga, H., Nakano, H., Ishibashi, Y. and Nakayama, K. (2003) Estimation of the amount of shark landing by species in the main fi shing ports of Japan. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 69(2), 178–184.

Nakano, H. (1999) Fishery management of sharks in Japan. In: Case Studies of the Management of Elasmobranch Fisheries (ed. R. Shotton). FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 378/2. FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. 552–579.

NMFS (2001) Final United States National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. NOAA, Silver Spring, MD, 90 pp.

NMFS (2004) US National Report to ICCAT, 2004. NAT-035. NOAA, Silver Spring, MD, 65 pp.Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP), Secretariat of the Pacifi c Community (SPC) (2006) Estimates of

annual catches in the WCPFC statistical area. Western and Central Pacifi c Fisheries Commission, Scientifi c Committee, Second Regular Session, Document WCPFC-SC2-2006/ST IP-1.

Parry-Jones, R. (1996) TRAFFIC report on shark fi sheries and trade in the Republic of Korea. In: World Trade in Sharks: A Compendium of TRAFFIC’s Regional Studies, Vol. I. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK, pp. 199–268.

Pawson, M. and Vince, M. (1999) Management of shark fi sheries in the Northeast Atlantic. In: Case Studies of the Management of Elasmobranch Fisheries (ed. R. Shotton). FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 378/1. FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. 1–46.

PFMC (Pacifi c Fishery Management Council) (2003) Fishery Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for US West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species. NOAA/NMFS, Long Beach, CA.


Phipps, M. J. (1996) TRAFFIC report on shark fi sheries and trade in the East Asia region. In: World Trade in Sharks: A Compendium of TRAFFIC’s Regional Studies, Vol. I. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK, pp. 7–19.

Román-Verdesoto, M. and Orozco-Zöller, M. (2005) Bycatches of Sharks in the Tuna Purse-Seine Fishery of the Eastern Pacifi c Ocean Reported by Observers of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, 1993–2004. Data Report 11. IATTC, La Jolla, CA.

Romanov, E. V. (2002) Bycatch in the tuna purse-seine fi sheries of the western Indian Ocean. Fishery Bulletin 100(1), 90–105.

Rose, D. (1996) An Overview of World Trade in Sharks and Other Cartilaginous Fishes. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK, 106 pp.

Rose, D. (1998) Shark Fisheries and Trade in the Americas. Vol. 1. North America. TRAFFIC North America, Washington, DC, 201 pp.

SAGARPA (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Dessarollo Rural, Pesca y Alimenacíon) (2000) Anuario Estadístico de Pesca 2000. www.conapesca.sagarpa.gob.mx/wb/cona/cona_anuario_estadistico_de_pesca, accessed 22 December 2006.

SEAFDEC (Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center) (2001) Fishery Statistical Bulletin for the South China Sea Area. Bangkok, Thailand, 155 pp.

Shotton, R. (ed.) (1999) Case Studies of the Management of Elasmobranch Fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 378/1. FAO, Rome, Italy, 479 pp.

Simpfendorfer, C. A., Cavanagh, R. D., Tanaka, S. and Ishihara, H. (2005) Northwest Pacifi c regional overview. In: Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes (eds. S. L. Fowler et al.). IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp. 150–161.

Smale, M. J. (2008) Pelagic shark fi sheries in the Indian Ocean. In: Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation (eds. M. D. Camhi, E. K. Pikitch and E. A. Babcock). Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.

Sosa-Nishizaki, O., Márquez-Farías, J. F. and Villavicencio-Garayzar, C. J. (2008) Case study: Pelagic shark fi sheries along the west coast of Mexico. In: Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation (eds. M. D. Camhi, E. K. Pikitch and E. A. Babcock). Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.

Sri Lanka Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Development (2006) Table 2: Capture fi sh production by major species. www.statistics.gov.lk/agriculture/fi shery/, accessed 21 December 2006.

Stevens, J. D. (2000) The population status of highly migratory oceanic sharks. In: Getting Ahead of the Curve: Conserving the Pacifi c Ocean’s Tunas, Swordfi sh, Billfi shes and Sharks (ed. K. Hinman). National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Leesburg, VA.

Suzuki, T. (2002) Development of shark fi sheries and shark fi n export in Indonesia: Case study of Karangsong Village, Indramayu, West Java. In: Elasmobranch Biodiversity, Conservation and Management (eds. S. L. Fowler, T. M. Reed and F. A. Dipper). IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp. 149–157.

Vannuccini, S. (1999) Shark Utilization, Marketing and Trade. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 389. FAO, Rome, Italy, 470 pp.

Vidthayanon, C. (2002) Elasmobranch diversity and status in Thailand. In: Elasmobranch Biodiversity, Conservation and Management (eds. S. L. Fowler, T. M. Reed and F. A. Dipper). IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp. 104–113.

Walker, P., Cavanagh, R. D., Ducrocq, M. and Fowler, S. L. (2005) Northeast Atlantic (including Mediterranean and Black Sea) regional overview. In: Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes (eds. S. L. Fowler et al.). IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp. 71–95.


Watson, R. and Pauly, D. (2001) Systematic distortions in world fi sheries catch trends. Nature 414, 534–536.

WCPFC (2006) Review Conference on the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/reviewconf/wcpfc_reviewconference.pdf, accessed 29 January 2007.

Williams, P. G. (1999) Shark and related species catch in tuna fi sheries of the tropical Western and Central Pacifi c Ocean. In: Case Studies of the Management of Elasmobranch Fisheries (ed. R. Shotton). FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 378/2. FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. 860–879.

sharks of the open ocean || a global overview of commercial fisheries for open ocean sharks

Documents