Normally I would not blog on reports/studies published by NGOs. I generally keep myself to reports by inter-governmental organisations and some academic papers. As much as I respect some NGOs, my experience doing some research for them is that they need their results to fit their narratives. And generally plain facts don't have the doom factor that they need to keep their business model going…
I’m not making a moral judgement on that attitud, I just don't take part doing research for them.
So generally, I would not be blogging on a shark report commissioned by an NGO… yet in this case, I know personally (and trust the integrity) 3 of the authors. Furthermore… the results explain the behaviour and decisions of some of the members of the WCPFC witch is the only RFMOs I have insight access to.
As always… read the original… I just quote below some findings of the report I find very revealing.
Taiwan and Spain catch as much blue shark as all other flag States globally combined. The top five blue shark fishing nations (Taiwan and Spain, along with Japan, Indonesia and Portugal) account for close to 80% of global blue shark landings.
Most blue shark catch is from targeted longline fleets, and this is evident in all sea basins; it is misleading to consider blue shark as ‘just bycatch’ in tuna and swordfish longline fisheries. In the Atlantic Southwest 5 tonnes of blue shark are caught for every 1 tonne of tuna; the majority of longliners here are targeting sharks and tuna is the bycatch.
Large-scale commercial fleets harvest 90% of blue shark catches, the overwhelming majority of which are longliners. Distant Water Fishing nations catch 74% of the global blue shark catch.
A Global ex-vessel value of tuna species (2018), and minimum global ex-vessel value of blue shark (20182019) (source: Poseidon)
The ex-vessel value of blue shark meat and fins in 2019 is estimated to be $411 million. The total value of blue shark meat is five times more than the value of the fins at this stage in the supply chain.
Although finning and dumping of carcasses has likely diminished with the rising value of shark meat globally, incentives to engage in finning remain, particularly where shark meat remains undervalued, or in fisheries where non-shark target catch (e.g. tuna and swordfish) is a lot more valuable than shark; where high-grading at sea makes financial sense at given times, and where reefers continue to accept illegal consignments of fins at sea.
The last two decades has seen the global shark meat trade increase significantly, doubling in value since the early 2000s. At the same time, shark fin exports have been relatively stable.
The blue shark meat trade is more complex than the fin trade as there are more end-user markets. It involved 177 countries in the 2017-2019 period. In 2019, the volume exported equated to 67,326 t when converted to LWE, which is 35% of the global blue shark catch.
Except for China, which gained prominence as an exporter and importer of blue shark meat, the main exporting (Spain, Portugal, Taiwan, and Indonesia) and importing countries (Brazil, Italy, Greece & Singapore) have remained stable over this period. The key bilateral trades are shown in the figure below.
Top 10 bilateral flows of blue shark meat 2017-2019 (source: ARTiS data)
When trade connections are analysed further, we find that China acts as a ‘keystone,’ connecting imports and exports to many other trading nations. Thailand, Taiwan and Vietnam were also other key trading countries in Asia, while Morocco, the USA and New Zealand (I wonder if this accounts for the Spanish “swordfish” fleet that unloads here to send to Spain), were key in Africa, America and Oceania, respectively.
Brazil is the top consumer nation of shark meat and blue shark specifically, but most consumers don’t know they are eating shark meat. More than half of Brazilian consumers of “cação” (which commonly uses blue shark meat) say they have never eaten shark in their lives (Bornatowski et al. 2015). The role of Uruguay is key in this trade, acting as a regional hub; processing and trading landings by different international fleets into Brazil, which are classified as re-exports. This situation is underpinned by a weak regulatory framework that fails to identify products down to the species level throughout the supply chain.
The lack of specific labelling in many shark meat supply chains means that consumers often do not know they are buying shark meat.
Hong Kong remains the centre of the fin trade, but shark fin consumption in Hong Kong is declining and other Asian markets (Taiwan, China and Indonesia) are increasing their share of the trade.
The blue shark has the highest known population growth rates among pelagic sharks, which explains the species’ comparative resilience to fishing pressure, but fishing effort is largely unmanaged and, in many regions, increasing. Blue shark is estimated to be declining in the Atlantic and Indian oceans and increasing in the Pacific.
Of the four t-RFMOs covered, only IOTC is constrained by its Convention to directly manage oceanic sharks. Management rules of the four t-RFMO provide for bans on shark finning, which directly benefits blue shark conservation. Many countries have also introduced measures to ban shark finning by their fleets and by their nationals, often extending these measures to trade rules. But overall, shark management plans remain fragmented and patchy, with numerous gaps as well as areas of overlapping (and conflicting) protection.
Recommendations
RFMOs should increase direct management of blue shark fisheries to properly manage fishing mortality relative to stock status.
RFMOs should improve monitoring, reporting and observer coverage on vessels targeting blue shark.
Support global and regional efforts to tackle IUU fishing by Distant Water Fleets as these will directly benefit blue shark fisheries. This includes implementation of the Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA) and governance capacity building in the regions associated with major blue shark fisheries (e.g. Southwest Pacific, Eastern Central Pacific, Southeast Atlantic).
Encourage the use of specific trade codes for the key traded shark species and improved inspection to ensure their correct use.
Prevent blue shark products from IUU fishing and endangered shark species being traded as blue shark by improving trade control through; a. development of Catch Documentation Schemes (CDS) in RFMOs; or b. listing blue shark as an Appendix II CITES species, which has a similar requirement to a CDS.
Support campaigns to improve seafood labelling and traceability requirements and raise consumer awareness in key consumer markets such as Brazil, Southern Europe and global pet food markets.
Encourage blue shark-targeted fisheries to undergo third-party certification as a driver for improved governance, e.g. to reduce the bycatch of juveniles and other shark species. (not sure about this one)
Promote sustainable, healthy shark fin alternatives to consumers in key Asian domestic markets & their expat communities overseas.
Spatial protection measures should be supported. To aid compliance, these should include mitigation for the impact of restrictions on the livelihoods of small-scale fishers.