SHARK

finning
unrecorded wastage
on a global scale
SHARK FINNING: Unrecorded SHARK STOCKS COLLAPSE
Wastage on a Global Scale
September 2003 Recent research has shown precipitous declines in many coastal
A report by WildAid and Co-Habitat and oceanic shark species in the Northwest Atlantic. It has been
estimated that, since 1986, hammerheads have declined by 89%,
This report was researched and written thresher sharks by 80%, white sharks by 79% and tiger sharks by
by Susie Watts 65%. All recorded shark species, with the exception of makos,
have declined by more than 50% in the past 8 to 15 years1.
Acknowledgements
Stocks of kitefin shark (Dalatias licha) in the Azores and
Our thanks go to:
thornback ray (Raja clavata) in the North Sea have shown
Scott Radway severe declines and may be depleted. For the spiny dogfish
Jeff Rotman (Squalus acanthias) in the Northeast Atlantic, there is an
Kanchai Taechawanwakin
estimated decline in biomass since 1977 of over 5,000,000 to
Joe Richard
well below 100,000 in 2001, representing a 98% decline2.
Warren N. Joyce
Aaron Henderson Research published in May 2003 reveals that these steep
Juan Carlos Cantu declines in shark stocks are echoed across a much wider range
Sarah Fowler of predatory fish species. Trajectories of community biomass
Averil Bones and composition of large predatory fishes were constructed for
Environmental Investigation Agency
four continental shelf and nine oceanic systems, using data
Becky Zug
from the beginning of exploitation. Results of this research
Stephanie Carnow
showed that industrialised fisheries typically reduced
Erica Knie
community biomass by 80% within 15 years of the start of
Randall Arauz
exploitation. The Gulf of Thailand lost 60% of large finfish,
Cecilia Falconi
Godfrey Merlen
sharks and skates during the first five years of industrialised
Sonja Fordham trawl fishing3.
Merry Camhi
Rachel Cavanagh
The Homeland Foundation
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Stefan Schmidheiny
Stephen Wong

WildAid also acknowledges the

immense contribution made by two
of its investigators

Front cover pic:

A diver discovers finned sharks
© jeffrotman.com (jeffrotman.com)

Back cover pic:

Blue shark being finned on a Costa Rican
longliner (taken from video)
© Vargas/STRP

2
 SHARK FINNING: UNRECORDED WASTAGE ON A GLOBAL SCALE
Shark finning can be
defined as the on-board
removal of a shark’s fins
and the discarding at
sea of the remainder of
the shark. The animal is
sometimes alive during
this process
BACKGROUND
The widespread practice of shark finning is
the result of a combination of factors:
increasing demand for shark fin, the
industrialisation of fishing techniques and
the changing economics of catching and
transporting fish products.
It is likely that the volume of whole
sharks landed by fishing vessels around the
world once provided sufficient fins to
supply the fin markets of east Asia and
amongst east Asian communities world-
wide. However, as shark meat is inferior to
that of most commercially-exploited fish
species, particularly tuna and billfish, the
profits to be made from shark meat are
naturally much lower. Limited on-board
storage space, combined with the increasing
value of shark fin, has made it economically
advantageous to discard the bulky shark
bodies while retaining the valuable fins,
which can be sun dried and stored very
compactly without refrigeration.
The prevalence of shark finning is
serious enough for the UN Food and
Agriculture Oranisation (FAO) to have
made recommendations for ending it. For
the FAO, with its strong emphasis on global
food security, the decline in shark
populations has become a cause of concern.
In its 1999 International Plan of Action
for the Conservation and Management of
Sharks, the FAO recommended that
Member States implement National Plans
of Action for sharks.The plan recommends
that Member States seek to “minimize
waste and discards from shark catches in
accordance with article 7.2.2.(g) of the
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
(for example, requiring the retention of
sharks from which fins are removed)” 4.
A ban on shark finning, not only within
individuals nations’ own waters but also on
Above: Finned shark in the Surin Archipelago, Andaman sea
the high seas would therefore be entirely
consistent with the FAO’s
recommendations.
Data on shark finning are hard to find: it
is not a practice that the fishing industry is
particularly proud of and, since the practice
occurs at sea, the only witnesses are
generally crew members, who benefit from
the income from the fins. However, there is
enough evidence to suggest that finning is
widespread in numerous fisheries, that
huge numbers of sharks are finned every
year and that the vast majority of these
mortalities go unreported.
A combination of two factors has led to
an explosion in the demand for shark fin
soup. Firstly, the rapid expansion of east Asian
economies, particularly that of mainland
China, has created a vastly increased middle-
class sector with disposable income.What
began as a rare and expensive delicacy is now
standard fare at most weddings and corporate
functions. Secondly, the consumption of
shark fin soup in China, previously frowned-
upon as an elitist practice, was politically
“rehabilitated” in 19875.The result was a
massive upswing in the international fin
trade, prompting fishermen worldwide to
target sharks for their fins and to remove the
fins from sharks caught as bycatch in other
fisheries. Fin traders have systematically
spread the word that fins are valuable to
fishermen the world over, often providing
equipment and monetary advances in order
to secure fins. Sharks are increasingly targeted
© Kanchai Taechawanwakin
for their fins in marine reserves, where a
relatively small vessel can quickly decimate
shark populations.
AUSTRALIAN FINNING
Few governments have studied, let alone
published data on, the prevalence of
finning on board their vessels. Australia is
one of the very few countries, possibly the
only one, that has systematically
THE EXTENT OF SHARK FINNING
It is impossible to establish how many
sharks are finned annually, as few
fishers admit to finning sharks. Only
occasionally, when large quantities of
fins without corresponding carcasses are
seized, is the event recorded. However,
the IUCN Shark Specialist Group has
made the following assessment:
“An initial comparison of some national
shark landings data and Hong Kong fin
import data from these countries
indicate a significant mismatch (based
on widely-employed fin to body ratios
for shark carcasses). The conclusion we
draw is that the fins of tens of millions
of sharks ‘missing’ from the landings
data of many nations are appearing in
Hong Kong. Some of this mismatch may
be due to underreporting of shark
landings, but observer data from high
seas fisheries and reports of fin fisheries
in some developing countries indicate
that many millions of sharks are being
finned and discarded at sea2.”
3
SHARK FINNING

researched finning in its own fisheries.

A recent report on shark finning
published by the Australian Government6
analyses the prevalence of finning in each of
the country’s fisheries where sharks are
taken.The frequency of shark finning varies
widely across the different fisheries, ranging
from “hardly ever” to “almost always”.
In the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery,
an estimated 70% of all captured sharks
were being finned prior to a ban imposed
in October 2000.The total number of
sharks caught in 1998 and 1999 is estimated
to be 150,000, which suggests that around
105,000 sharks taken in this fishery during
those two years were finned.
In the Southern and Western Tuna and
Billfish Fishery, it is reported that “the
majority of vessels” were finning most
sharks that they caught prior to the 2000
ban. Out of 40 vessels currently operating,
only 3 or 4 were reported to be releasing all
sharks. In 1999, an estimated 28,000 sharks
were caught in this fishery.
In the Northern Prawn Fishery, some
fishers are reported to have finned all sharks,
while others finned only large specimens.
The level of finning in this fishery is
estimated by weight: research suggests that
450 tonnes of sharks were finned per year,
representing tens of thousands of sharks,
prior to an industry-initiated ban on finning
that came into force in 2001.
In the Torres Strait Fisheries, the weight
of sharks estimated to be finned every year
is 287 tonnes. No finning regulations
currently exist for this fishery.
In the Northern Shark Fishery, finning
is prevalent. One fisher reported finning
approximately 50% of his annual shark
catch. As the report points out, this may
not be the norm but even if an average of
only 20% of sharks had been finned, this
would represent tens of thousands of
animals, given that the annual catch of
sharks from 1994 to 1999 fluctuated
between 315 and 759 tonnes. No finning
regulations currently exist for this fishery.
Finning is less prevalent in other
fisheries and almost non-existent in some.
However, using the figures that exist, it
can be concluded that hundreds of
thousands of sharks have been finned
annually in Australian fisheries.Where
finning has been banned, however, many
thousands more have escaped that fate.
Illegal Fishing for Sharks
REVILLAGIGEDOS ISLANDS
Situated to the south-west of Cabo San
Lucas, Mexico, these islands became a
marine reserve in 1997. In 2000, a fleet of
drift gillnetters surrounded one of the
islands and fished intensively for five days,
killing an estimated 2,000-4,000 sharks.
In most cases the sharks were finned and
discarded5.
COCOS ISLANDS
One of the world’s top diving venues, this
area is a World Heritage Site, but it is
frequently subject to night-time
incursions by vessels targeting sharks for
their fins.The author of Jaws, Peter
Benchley, has reported seeing a “shark
graveyard” littered with dozens of finned
sharks while diving in the area5.
THE MARSHALL ISLANDS
In May 2003 it was reported that a Hong
Kong fishing company had been
discovered fishing illegally in the Pacific
Marshall Islands.The activities of five
vessels owned by Edgewater Fisheries Inc.
have been documented over a long period
by local conservationists.
Scuba divers provided video footage
and eyewitness accounts of the vessels
fishing close to the reefs of Bikini and
Jaluit, in violation of fishing agreements.
87°00 85°40 84°40
Shen 1 Tsay
19/05/02
Isla del Coco
Reef sharks were seen entangled on the
hooks abandoned by the vessels once
they had realised that their activities had
been seen and videotaped. The vessels
were also seen fishing at Shark Pass,
renowned for its populations of grey reef
and silvertip sharks, where local
conservationists estimate that numbers
are down by 50% since 20027.
COSTA RICA
On 19th May 2002 a Taiwanese vessel,
Shen 1 Tsay 3, was filmed fishing illegally
within the Costa Rican Exclusive
Economic Zone. It had docked at
Puntarenas twice in the space of three
months.The Coast Guard was informed,
but the vessel was thought to be too far
out for any action to be taken.The vessel
docked in Puntarenas again shortly
thereafter. Local conservationists believe
that the vessel was fishing for sharks 8.
AUSTRALIA
Australia has a long-standing problem
with incursions into its northern and
north-western waters by vessels illegally
fishing for shark fins but these incursions
have recently been reported to be at their
highest for five years9.
Australian authorities intercepted a total
of 111 vessels in 2002, of which 108 were
83°30
Left: Position of
9°20 the Shen 1 Tsay 3
when filmed.
Costa
Rica
8°10
7°00
5°50

4
 ILLEGAL FISHING FOR SHARKS

Indonesian.The other three were a Sri

Lankan vessel caught off the coast of
Western Australia and two Russian vessels9.
It has been reported that captured
shark-finner crews have become a
permanent feature in the “quarantine
zone” in Darwin harbour. In late
December 2002 it was estimated that 15
boats and 58 men were awaiting their fate
within the zone and that twelve boats had
already been torched by the Australian
authorities. Mick Munn of the Fisheries

© Pretoma
Management Authority stated that “almost
all are targeting shark fin. Any shark that
gets on that line is gone, they’re not fussy. Above: The Shen 1 Tsay 3
They like to target the big shovel-nose
shark, but if they can’t get them they’ll MAY 14TH: Eight illegal fishing boats were one illegal fishing boat in north Australian
take anything10. being escorted to Darwin by navy patrol waters every three days and that a Customs
boats after being caught poaching off patrol boat had just intercepted an illegal
The year 2003 has seen many more such
Australia’s northern coast over the previous vessel with seven crew members and 160
incursions by Indonesian vessels:
three days.The boats had come from the pieces of shark fin aboard.This brought the
JANUARY 24TH: the Australian port of Merauke in the Indonesian total of vessels seized in the first seven
authorities were reported to have province of Papua and Dobo. All had been months of 2003 to seventy-one19.
apprehended an illegal Indonesian fishing targeting shark fin17. AUGUST 21ST: it is reported that five more
boat 105 km inside the Australian Fishing
LATE MAY/EARLY JUNE: a further five Indonesian vessels have been apprehended
Zone. Seven crew members and a quantity
foreign fishing vessels were seized in in the past week, all containing fishing
of shark fins were found on board.11
northern Australian waters. All were equipment and shark fin20.
FEBRUARY 6TH: five fishing boats targeting sharks for their fins. In response SEPTEMBER 12TH & 13TH: five Indonesian
detained. Four of the five boats had shark to increasing illegal incursions into boats were apprehended in two separate
or shark fins aboard12. One trawler was Australian waters, the government allocated incidents.Three of the boats, caught fishing
found with 30 shark fins and seven crew a further A$75 million to fund the efforts illegally off Arnhem Land, were carrying
on board and a second vessel with two sets of enforcement agencies18. 40kg of shark fin.21 These incidents raised
of shark fins13.
JULY 2ND: it was reported that the Royal the number of boats caught fishing illegally
MARCH 24TH: an Australian Navy patrol Australian Navy and Customs were catching in Australian waters in 2003 to ninety.22
boat intercepted three vessels fishing more
than 50 nautical miles inside the Australian Below: These fishermen in Kupang, Indonesia, have been arrested in Australia but insist that
Fishing Zone. Each had large quantities of they will keep returning.
either fish or shark fins on board.This was
reported to have raised the year’s current
total of vessels apprehended for illegal
fishing in northern Australian waters to
twenty 14.The captain of one of the vessels
was later given a five-month jail sentence14.
APRIL 9TH: The vessel Bintang Timur was
caught 35 nautical miles inside the
Australian fishing zone on April 9. Five
other Indonesian vessels were also
apprehended in April and all of them were
reported to be fishing for shark fin15.
MAY 2ND: a magistrate jailed three
Indonesian fishermen for a total of 18
months after they had been caught fishing
illegally for shark fins in April16.
© WildAid

5
 Caught red-handed
CANADA
In 1997, the captain of a Japanese fishing
vessel, Shoshin Maru 38, was found
guilty of shark finning by a court in
Halifax, after admitting that his crew had
finned ten sharks. An on-board observer
had witnessed the crew cutting the fins
off ten blue sharks and throwing the
bodies back overboard. The observer had
also witnessed 895 blue sharks being
landed on deck but when Fisheries
officials visited the vessel, only 520
carcasses were found, raising questions as
to the missing 375 carcasses. The captain
admitted throwing 10 carcasses
overboard but claimed that at least 90
carcasses had been washed overboard
during a storm. Inspectors also found
430 sets of fins on board23.
THE GALAPAGOS ISLANDS
The Galapagos Islands and the Marine
Reserve are subject to constant illegal
fishing raids, with vessels frequently
targeting sharks for their fins. Some vessels
are local, while others arrive from as far
away as Japan to fish illegally for sharks24.
Since 1998, a minimum of 19,128 shark
fins have been seized25.
In 1998, 8,000 fins were discovered on
the Niño Dios, an Ecuadorian vessel
Below: Part of a seizure of 8,000 fins, Isabela Island, Galapagos
© Parque Nacional Galápagos
6
‘The ease
with which
foreign
vessels
violate
Costa Rican
finning
regulations
is appalling’
Randall Arauz,
Pretoma, Costa Rica,
May 2003.
Right: Finned tiger
shark caught by
angler, Florida, USA
apprehended on the north coast of Santa fins.The remaining fins represent the
Cruz that had been collecting fins from a bodies of a further 180 sharks that were
wide area26. presumably discarded.Twenty-five miles
In March 2001 the industrial long liner (40 km) of long line had been laid across
Maria Canella II was found fishing inside the Reserve27.
the Marine Reserve. On board were 78 In July 2001,The Galapagos National
sharks and 1,044 shark fins. On average, Park Service (GNPS) discovered two
shark species produce four useable fins. vessels fishing illegally in the Reserve.
The 78 sharks found on board would One was Costa Rican, the other
have accounted for only 312 of the 1,044 Colombian. An inspection uncovered 619
shark fins and 100 shark bodies on board.
The species were thought to be
hammerheads and blacktip sharks but
accurate identification was difficult as the
heads and fins had been removed.28
In 2003, a pick-up truck was
apprehended on Isabela island, and found
to be carrying 4,000 shark fins25.
In September 2003, the Ecuadorian
Navy and Park officials seized 815 shark
fins from an illegal fishing operation on
Isabela island, within the Reserve. Four
men, including a “Korean salesman”,
were arrested.29
COSTA RICA
In July 2003, video evidence was
obtained of 20-30 bags of shark fins at a
private dock where Taiwanese fishing
vessels habitually land shark fins. The
bags were photographed alongside a
Taiwanese vessel, Ho Tsai Fa No. 18.

The Coast Guard was informed and the
fisheries authority, INCOPESCA, agreed
to raid the premises. However,
INCOPESCA later reported that the fins
were from a different vessel. A legal
authority was consulted, but was unable
to issue a search warrant without the
agreement of INCOPESCA, who argued
that video evidence of the fins alone was
insufficient and that there needed to be
evidence of the fins actually being
offloaded from the vessel. It later
transpired that the official cargo
declaration from Ho Tsai Fa No.18 was
for 60,000kg of shark fins. The
declaration had been signed by all the
appropriate authorities.8
On 31 May 2003, a Coast Guard
official conducted an off-duty check at a
private dock. He discovered a cache of
fins weighing approximately 30 tonnes
that had been landed by a Taiwanese
vessel, the Goidau Roey No.1, which
was flying a Panamanian flag. It had
docked outside the legal landing hours in
an attempt to avoid being seen. No
carcasses were present8.
The captain, Mr Huang Chih Chiang,
had declared 53,000kg of frozen fish on
the official landing documents but no
frozen fish were found8.
Although the Coast Guard verified that
30 tonnes of fins had indeed been landed
at the private dock, the whereabouts of the
cache is now unknown8.
THE USA
In August 2002 the US Coast Guard
escorted into San Diego the King
Diamond II, an 82-foot fishing vessel,
with 12 tons of prohibited shark fins on
board. On arrival in San Diego, Fisheries
officials took possession of the fins and
interviewed the captain and crew as part
of an ongoing investigation30.
The King Diamond II did not have
any fishing gear on board when it was
seized. It was a collection vessel that had
picked up products on the high seas
from more than 20 Korean longliners.
The crew claimed that they had not
actually caught the sharks and finned
them, and that therefore they had not
acted illegally31. However, while
possession of fins is not illegal, it was the
act of trans-shipping them on the high
CAUGHT RED-HANDED
seas that had violated US law.
Twenty per cent of the cargo was
examined with a view to species
identification. Ninety percent of the fins
were thought to be from blue sharks, the
remainder being from silky sharks and
other species31.
PALAU
In May 2003, the government of Palau
incinerated 800 shark fins, confiscated
from a Taiwanese longliner fishing
illegally in Palau’s waters. The seizure
weighed almost one tonne. President
Remengesau stated that the blaze was
intended as a warning to foreign fishing
vessels that he would not tolerate shark
fishing in Palau’s waters32.
Press reports indicate that shark fishing
is becoming increasingly common in Palau,
and that this is detrimental to the success
of Palau’s dive tourism industry 33.
©Parque Nacional Galápagos
While the usual practice in Palau is to
sell catches confiscated from illegal fishing
operations, the President resisted
suggestions that these fins should be sold,
saying “Palau is not in the business of
selling shark fins, nor do we want to be”.33
Above: Some of the bags containing 8,000
AUSTRALIA
seized fins
In January 2002, two snorkellers in the
Shoalhaven River, New South Wales,
discovered hundreds of juvenile sharks on
the river bed with their fins sliced off 34.
‘Palau is
not in the
business
of selling
shark fins,
nor do
we want
to be’
Palau’s President
Tommy Remengesau,
© Scott Radway, freelance journalist
May 2003.
Above: Confiscated shark fins torched in Palau
7
A Case Study: Costa Rica
Despite a ban on shark finning in its
waters, huge quantities of fins are landed
in Costa Rica without the corresponding
carcasses. Recent cases, such as the
discovery of 30 tonnes of fins without
the carcasses, on each three-month trip. He
admitted that shark numbers are decreasing
in the waters around Costa Rica, but that
enough remain to make it worth while
staying on. Seventy percent of his catch is

carcasses, are described elsewhere in this
report. The large number of foreign,
particularly Taiwanese, vessels finning
sharks just outside Costa Rica’s Exclusive
Economic Zone is blamed by local fishers
for declines in their shark catches.There
are also vessels from Korea, Portugal,
Spain, Mexico, Ecuador and Venezuela,
some of which are reported to be finning
sharks caught by tuna longliners. Some
foreign vessels land their catches at private
© Pretoma
described as “black sharks” while 20% are
blue sharks. He estimated that there are
around 200 Taiwanese vessels operating
from Costa Rica but only half of them are
based there permanently.The rest remain at
sea for long periods and go straight home
with their catch.
An official with the Costa Rican Coast
Guard stated that incidents such as the
30-tonne fin landing probably happened
regularly. He reported that, while national

docks: others return home without ever
docking in Costa Rica.
SHARK FISHING
Puntarenas is Costa Rica’s largest fishing
port and a centre for fin trading.A local
fisherman stated that the huge influx of
foreign fishing fleets had seriously impacted
local fisheries. He was one of a number of
fishermen who said that all blue sharks are
automatically finned and that all shark
bycatch caught on tuna longliners is finned.
Local fishermen have become
extremely frustrated by the number of
foreign vessels finning sharks. Interviews
with four of them revealed that:
• Local fleets are having to go further out
because the near shore waters are
depleted and local fishers are having to
spend more money on gasoline and
equipment;
• Thirty years ago, their boats were full
after two days: now the catch is very
small, even after 15 days. Fishers believe
some species are virtually extinct in
local waters and they anticipate a local
collapse of shark stocks if trends
continue;
• Depleted near-shore waters will result in
fishers targeting marine reserves such as
Cocos Island;
A Taiwanese businessman, who owns
numerous vessels in Puntarenas and exports
large quantities of fins, reported that his
company’s vessels target sharks for their fins
and can land “a few tonnes” of fins, minus
fleets sometimes fin sharks, their capacity is
limited. It is the international fleets, with
sophisticated technology and a large
carrying capacity, that engage in extensive
finning operations.
THE FIN TRADE
Numerous foreign-owned fin trading
companies operate in Puntarenas. Some
own fishing vessels and market their fins
internationally. Others simply collect fins
and sell to the larger companies for export.
One trader, who exports large quantities of
frozen fins, reported that his shark fins are
all pre-ordered by traders in east Asia.
Not all fins are exported directly to the
main markets, however. A dealer in
Indonesia told researchers that he had
recently purchased 20 tonnes of trans-
shipped fins from Costa Rica.
PRIVATE DOCKS
Despite laws forbidding the landing of
fishery products at private docks, all the
foreign-owned fishing vessels land their
catches at secure, barricaded docks.
Hidden from view, fishing vessels are
known to unload huge volumes of shark
fins, often late at night, with few or no
corresponding carcasses.
Following recent local concerns about
the lack of transparency about landings,
new legislation (16th July 2003) now
requires fishing vessels to undergo
inspection at nearby Caldera port before
proceeding to their private docks.
However, there remain deep concerns
about the inspection procedures.
© WildAid
Top: Sacks of shark fins found on quayside
next to Taiwanese vessel Ho Tsai Fa No.18 in
Puntarenas, Costa Rica, July 2003.
Above: Taiwanese fishing vessel, Puntarenas,
Costa Rica
CONCLUSIONS
Costa Rica, like many of the smaller
countries that play host to foreign,
industrialised fishing fleets, is losing a
valuable resource to a relatively small
number of wealthy foreign business interests.
The ban on shark finning is not being
enforced in Costa Rica because of a lack of
resources and, it would seem, a lack of
political will.The high level political
relationship between Costa Rica and
Taiwan may also be compromising efforts
to enforce the finning ban.
The use of privately-owned docks in
Costa Rica facilitates illegal activity and
precludes both monitoring of fisheries and
law enforcement.The new laws may
address this problem, but fin traders the
world over are known for their ability to
remain one step ahead of the law.
Costa Rica’s well-deserved reputation as
a prime eco-tourism destination indicates
that successive administrations have
recognised the immense value of the
tourism industry. However, if shark finning
continues at current levels, its marine
ecosystem will be greatly impoverished and
a major attraction for tourists will be lost.35

8
A murky business
Over the past ten years a series of gangland
murders has been carried out by
individuals engaged in the shark fin trade,
highlighting the lengths to which some fin
traders will go to ensure continuing profits.
FIJI
On August 25th 2003, it was reported that
Fiji police had enlisted the help of Interpol
in investigations into the gangland-style
killing of three Hong Kong nationals and a
Fijian.While the Fiji police would not
eliminate a rival in the shark fin business.
Huynh had control of the shark-fin
business at Pier 17 – where fins could be
purchased from returning longliners –
when another dealer tried to move in on
his turf. Huynh offered a friend US$5,000
to shoot the man39.
SOUTH AFRICA
In the early 1990s the Endangered Species
Protection Unit of the South African Police
arrested a Taiwanese man, Michael Shen, for

comment on a possible motive for the
attack, a report in Hong Kong's South
China Sunday Morning Post quoted police
in the Pacific nation as saying the crime
was connected to the shark-fin industry.
A police spokesman expressed fears
about the sophistication of the weapons
used in the murders 36.
It was later reported that a Chinese
businessman was being questioned by the
police, who speculated that the incident
could have been the result of “a business deal
gone wrong”. It was reported that Asian
businessmen can buy shark fins for as little as
six Fiji (three US) dollars a kilo, which
fisheries officials say are then usually sold for
more than 20 US dollars a kilo. Police
suggested that rivals could have been fighting
for space in the lucrative fin trade sector37.
HAWAII
In April 2002, a Chinese cook accused of
stabbing to death the captain and first
mate aboard a Taiwanese fishing vessel was
brought to trial in Honolulu on charges
of mutiny on the high seas. Shi Lei was
accused of killing the two men during an
argument aboard the Full Means II, while
the vessel was in international waters.The
first mate’s body was found in the ship’s
freezer; the captain’s body had been
thrown overboard.
The reason for the killings had not
been established at the time of the arrest
but human rights abuses at sea and the
practice of catching sharks and slicing off
their fins were cited in the press as being
connected to the case38.
In December 1999, shark fin dealer
Hung Van Huynh appeared in a Hawaii
court accused of hiring a hit man to
possession of rhino horn40.
Shen later became involved in the shark
fin trade. In May 1994 Shen was kidnapped
and his body was later found in bushes, in
an incident believed to have been connected
to his activities in the fin trade41.
In December 1996 two Taiwanese
businessmen – Shin Yi and Li Ko Wei –
office-bearers in a major shark fin
syndicate – died in a hail of bullets at
Cape Town harbour41. This left the
syndicate vulnerable to a take-over by a
rival gang, so remaining members decided
to bring in a “fixer” from Taiwan, a man
named Cheng Cheng-Chi, alias “White
Monkey”, who already had a fearsome
reputation in Taiwan. It was believed that
he would be able to see off any rivals and
maintain total control of the trade41.
In May 1999 South African police were
given a tip-off about a gangland murder,
which led to the discovery of the bodies of
a Taiwanese businessman and his son, each
killed with a single shot to the head.
Liao Shing-Hsiung Hsiung and his son,
Liao Jen-wu, were the owners of the
Eternity Shipping and Chandling company42.
A Police spokesman said that they were
investigating a possible link between the
deaths and the lucrative trade in smuggling
shark fin and abalone from South Africa to
East Asia, adding that Chinese Triad gangs
had moved in force into what was previously
a local cottage industry42.Three years later,
“White Monkey” was arrested in Cape
Town for the murder of the Taiwanese father
and son, and was repatriated to Taiwan43.
In February 2001, the owner of a Cape
Town shark-fin exporting business was
robbed of 7,000 Rand, plus shark fins
valued at 40,000 Rand, by four men
© McCoubrey/WildAid
Above: Fins drying at Cape Town Docks
“There is quite a lot of
Taiwanese, Hong Kong
and Chinese and Korean
fishing vessels that ply
Fiji waters and they bring
in quite a lot of shark
fins . . . and they re-export
them to China and Hong
Kong at very lucrative
prices indeed”.
Fiji Police spokesperson Mesake Koroi, speaking
about a gangland murder, August 2003.
posing as shark fin salesmen.The owner
was bound hand and foot, while a worker
was stabbed in the arm and back by the
escaping robbers44.
In February 2003, a warrant was issued
for the arrest of a Chinese woman, Zhu
Jing, who went into hiding after witnessing
a murder connected to what the South
African press referred to as the “Chinese
Mafia sharkfin war”45.
A shootout at the Taiwan City Karaoke
Bar in Cape Town resulted in charges of
attempted murder and the illegal possession
of firearms and ammunition. One of the
accused, Su Chan Chun, was sentenced to
house arrest and was subsequently murdered
at his home, witnessed by Jing45.

9
A Case Study: Indonesia
Many of the 6,000 inhabited islands of
Indonesia are home to extensive shark
fishing – and finning – operations.There is
a handful of shark fin trading “hotspots”,
where fins from surrounding islands are
collected for export to east Asia.There are
at least two starting-off points for illegal
incursions into Australian waters, where
sharks are routinely finned.
Indonesia is unusual in that there are
fin traders who process shark fins before
exporting them. Normally, traders in
Hong Kong and Taiwan prefer to import
whole dried or frozen fins and do the
processing themselves.
ROTE
Rote is a small island to the west of Timor
and is reputed (along with Kupang) to be
one of the main starting points for illegal
fishing incursions into Australian waters.
Papela is the largest fishing village on Rote,
where sharks are the main target catch and
shark fin is the main marine item traded from
the village. Papela has around 100 longline
boats that target sharks, sixty of which are
owned by one individual. He holds most of
the fin stocks and can supply up to 300kg of
dried fins per month during the season from
his own boats and up to 500kg if he collects
from other traders. Most of the fins landed in
Rote are taken to Surabaya, which has a large
Chinese population and is one of the main
centres for fins.
Australia’s waters are a popular
destination for the fishermen, as they can be
reached in “a day and a night” and are
described as having plentiful shark stocks.
Initial investigations reveal that some, but by
no means all, sharks that are caught locally
are landed whole. However, reports from
Australia indicate that shark finning is
prevalent in the illegal fisheries operated by
Indonesian vessels and the Indonesian
fishers themselves admit to finning sharks
on these incursions.
Despite repeated arrests by the Australian
Coast Guard, and the subsequent
destruction of their fishing boats, fishermen
have later returned to Australia to catch
sharks and insist that they will continue to
do so, since the penalties are “light”.A
fisherman who had been arrested twice in
10
Left: A fishing harbour, Indonesia
Australia claimed that even those fishers
sentenced to prison terms were given a
small wage for working, and were allowed
to play football and attend English classes.
KUPANG
Kupang is a local fin collection centre, from
where fins are sent to Surabaya or Ujung
Pandang.Wooden longliner and seine boats
fish the waters around this area but they
also go further afield, to Australia. On a
“good” trip, each boat can land 100kg of
fins and one of the fin dealers reported
being able to supply between 500 and
1,000 kgs of fin per month.
BALI
Bali is a major fishing centre and home
port for many of the commercial fisheries
operating throughout eastern Indonesia.
Many of the boats are longliners, but there
are also extensive seine operations.The
main fisheries are for tuna, swordfish and
mahi-mahi and the Ministry of Fisheries in
Indonesia has recently issued new fishing
licenses to Taiwanese and Japanese
companies.These are believed by locals to
take huge quantities of fins.A Taiwanese
boat owner in Bali reported that sharks are
always finned on his fleet.
Indonesian law requires that even wholly
foreign-owned fishing boats must be given
Indonesian names and fly the Indonesian
flag, but a fin dealer in Bali reported that
there were 200 Taiwanese-owned longliners
stationed there.An unknown number of
longliners in Bali are Japanese-owned.
© WildAid
Bali’s longline fleet is stationed at Tanjong
Benoa.A fisherman there admitted that shark
carcasses were all thrown away.Three fin
dealers claimed to be able to provide around
4-5 tonnes per month between them. One
dealer had 200-300 kgs of very large, frozen
fins and a further tonne of dried fin, some of
which was being processed on the spot. He
described them as being from oceanic white
tips, threshers, blacktips and blue sharks. His
fins are all sent through Surabaya.A visit to a
shark fin warehouse revealed that another
dealer, who exports directly to Singapore,
also processes fins on the premises. He had
3-4 tonnes of dried fins at the time.
It was reported in Bali that shark
cartilage is now increasingly in demand.
After fin removal, shark bodies are often
filleted and the cartilage removed.The rest
of the body is then thrown out.
Much of Bali’s fin trade is controlled by
Taiwanese interests and it is they who
control shark fin prices in Bali.There is a
local ‘Taiwan Town’ in Bali, known as
‘Sesetan’, where all the Taiwanese fishermen
and businessmen reside. However, Bali is
also home to a large number of
Singaporean Triad members.
Researchers were informed by a
Taiwanese dealer that traders could buy fins
directly from the very large companies.
However, if buying on a smaller scale, they
needed to buy from “representatives of the
police” as did all of the Taiwanese and
Japanese companies.
The dealer also reported that, although
A CASE STUDY: INDONESIA
mainland China is the principal
destination for shark fins, local dealers
needed the assistance of Hong Kong
traders to get the fins to the mainland
market. Mainland China’s tax laws on
shark fins are very stringent and only the
Hong Kong dealers know how to
smuggle fins into mainland China.
SURABAYA
One of the four main fin dealers in
Surabaya hires collectors to gather up fins
for him throughout Indonesia. He trades in
both processed and raw fins and produces
2-3 tonnes per month. He admitted that,
while some shark meat is retained and sold
as salted fish, sharks are finned extensively in
fisheries operating out of Surabaya.Another
Surabaya-based businessman told researchers
that supplies of shark fin were dwindling
and that he could now obtain only a
quarter of the volume of the fins available
several years ago.
CONCLUSIONS
Research in only a handful of fishing villages
and towns in Indonesia reveals that the fin
trade is highly lucrative, totally uncontrolled
and firmly in the hands of local and foreign
mafia-type organisations. Shark finning is
routine, both in Indonesian waters and on
incursions into Australian waters.
Trade statistics reveal that, during 2000
and 2001, Hong Kong imported 1,400
tonnes of shark fins, (both with and
without cartilage) from Indonesia.
Singapore does not record shark fin imports
from Indonesia but a number of traders in
Indonesia have reported that they export
large quantities directly to Singapore.
Taiwan’s official statistics record
extremely small volumes of fin imports
from Indonesia which is initially surprising,
given the number of Taiwanese fin traders
in Indonesia. However, many of them
reported exporting their fins through Hong
Kong in order to reach the main market,
mainland China.This may explain the low
levels of recorded trade with Taiwan.
The geography of Indonesia and the
fact that shark fishing is unregulated
suggests that finning and trading in fins
will continue at high levels until shark
depletion makes it uneconomic.
Indications are that fins are becoming
more difficult to obtain, but conditions
have not yet reached a critical point.35
EXISTING SHARK FINNING REGULATIONS
A number of individual nations – and
one region – have enacted legislation
on shark finning:
BRAZIL: fins and carcasses may be
landed separately, provided that the
fins weigh no more than 5% of the
whole weight of the body. It is illegal
to unload, trade, keep, process or
transport fins whose weight does not
conform to this ratio. Fins and
carcasses must be weighed upon
arrival at port and all fins must be
unloaded. It is illegal to keep on board
any shark fins from a previous trip.
COSTA RICA: sharks must be landed
with fins attached. Moves are underway
in Costa Rica to amend this law so that
fins may be landed separately within a
certain weight ratio but conservationists
are opposed to this.
ECUADOR: shark finning is totally
prohibited in the Ecuador.
OMAN: it is strictly forbidden to
throw any shark part or shark waste in
the sea or on the shore. It is also
prohibited to separate shark fins and
tails unless this is done according to
the conditions set by the competent
authority. No shark part may be
handled or marketed or exported
without a license from the competent
authority.
SOUTH AFRICA: sharks must be
landed with fins attached if they have
been caught in South Africa’s waters.
However, fins from sharks caught in
international waters may be landed
separately from carcasses. This presents
some enforcement difficulties, since
there is no way of knowing where the
sharks were caught.
THE USA: fins and carcasses may be
landed separately but the fins must
weigh no more than 5% of the
“dressed” weight of the shark, that is,
headless and gutted. In cases where the
5% ratio is inappropriate (presumably
where the species is exceptional), there
is a derogation allowing the
correspondence of fins to carcasses to
be measured in terms of the number of
fins per carcass, rather than weight.
THE EU: sharks should be landed
with fins attached, but masters of
vessels can apply for a “special fishing
permit” to allow on-board removal of
fins. In such cases, vessels may land fins
SHARK FINNING REGULATIONS
separately – even at different ports –
provided that the fins weigh no more
than 5% of the whole weight of the
shark. These regulations will be
reviewed in early 2005.
MEXICO: a ban on shark finning is
under consideration. Current
discussions are centred on a possible
requirement that only whole sharks
should be landed.
AUSTRALIA States and Territories
are responsible for regulations
governing their own waters – out
to three nautical miles offshore.
Central government deals with
‘Commonwealth’ (Federal) waters,
from three to 200 nautical miles
offshore.
New South Wales: since June 1999
the law requires that all sharks be
landed with fins attached, even when
the shark has been cut into portions.
All portions other than head, gills and
guts must remain on board until the
vessel berths.
Northern Territory: there is no ban
on finning, although a total ban on the
incidental take of sharks or shark
products in a range of commercial
fisheries will probably have had the effect
of restricting finning to some extent.
Queensland: a finning ban came
into force in December 2002. No sharks
may be taken by the Trawl Fishery.
Possession of sharks in other fisheries
requires sharks to be divided in a
manner that allows an inspector to
count the number of sharks. It is
prohibited to take, possess or sell shark
fin unless authorised.
South Australia: no finning
legislation yet exists but they are under
consideration.
Tasmania: shark finning was banned
in November 2001. All shark fins must be
landed with the corresponding body.
Western Australia: since October
2000, possession and landing of any
shark other than a whole shark has
been prohibited.
Victoria: in 1972, Victoria
introduced a requirement that sharks
be landed with all fins attached.
Commonwealth: finning is banned
in tuna longline fisheries, as well as in
all Commonwealth fisheries where
sharks are incidentally caught.
11
SHARK FIN SEIZURES
SHARK FIN SEIZURES
NAMIBIA
In February 2003 Namibian Police
confiscated more than 800 boxes of
contraband cigarettes from two Chinese
nationals. Hidden with the cigarettes
were large quantities of shark fins and
65 kgs of abalone, reported to have
come from South Africa46.
THAILAND
In January 2002, a Taiwanese
fisherman was arrested in possession
of 42 shark fins. After a tip-off,
Phuket Marine Police arrested the
man as he moored his boat,
“Jufusun”, at Rassada Port.
The man, subsequently identified by
police as Chua Teng Juan, left the boat
carrying a large, white, bloodstained
bag. When police asked him to open it,
they found the shark fins47. Less than a
month later, another tip-off led to the
arrest of a second Taiwanese fisherman
in possession of 115 shark fins weighing
The EU in denial
There is undoubtedly a great deal of
finning on board EU vessels, particularly
those of Spain. No EU Member State
has yet admitted that vessels flying its flag
are finning sharks but a simple
calculation reveals that the EU’s exports
of shark fin to the major east Asian
centres cannot be accounted for by the
declared landings of shark in the EU.
A great deal of this discrepancy can be
attributed to Spanish vessels.
MAINLAND CHINA: Between 1995 and
2002 inclusive, EU Member States
exported a total of 6,542,835 kgs dried
shark fins to mainland China, of which
Spain's contribution was 6,254,936 kgs.
These weights appear in the category
0305.5920, Dried sharks’ fins, not smoked52.
HONG KONG: During the period
1997-2001 inclusive, total EU exports to
Hong Kong in category 0305.5950, Shark
fins, with or without skin, with cartilage,
amounted to 1, 921,246 kgs, of which
Spain’s contribution was 1,865,236 kgs52.
During the period 1997-2001 inclusive,
Spain was the only EU Member State to
export fins to Hong Kong in category
0305.5960, Shark fins, with or without
12
80 kilograms. Chern Whan Yee was charged
with avoiding customs duty48.
GUAM
In 2002, the U.S. Coast Guard conducting
a routine port patrol seized thousands of
pounds of shark fins from foreign fishing
companies operating at Guam’s
commercial port. The fins were stored in
containers at the port. In one container
alone, there were 4,400 pounds (c. two
metric tonnes) of fins. This seizure was
one of a series that has occurred since the
US shark finning regulations came into
force in 2000.
Although Guam does not itself have
any large-scale commercial fishing
companies, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan
and Indonesia are known to operate
commercial fishing vessels in the region49.
CHINA
In March 2001, three aquatic processing
workshops in Nanhai City, south China,
were discovered by Customs officials to
have smuggled a large quantity of shark
fins. The three companies were found to
skin, without cartilage.The total exported
by Spain to Hong Kong was 801,604 kgs52.
SINGAPORE: According to
Singapore’s Trade Development Board, the
top two exporters to Singapore in 2001 of
prepared fins, ready for use, were the UK
and Spain, each exporting over 60,000 kgs
in that year.
After some months of denial that EU
vessels are engaged in finning, the EU
Fisheries Commission has finally reacted
to pressure by enacting finning regulations
that cover not only EU-registered vessels
fishing in EU waters but also those which
fish all over the world as part of an
extensive range of fishing agreements,
particularly with developing countries.
However, the scope of these new
regulations is severely restricted, giving
rise to serious doubt about their likely
effectiveness. Masters of vessels who wish
to continue removing sharks’ fins on
board may apply for a “special fishing
permit” to do so53.
Furthermore, fins and carcasses may be
landed and traded at different ports.The
sole stipulation is that Masters should enter
into their logbooks detailed records of the
volume of carcasses and fins landed and
sold at each port. In theory, officials at all
have smuggled 2.3 tons of fins into
China and to have sold them on the
domestic market for a huge profit 50.
The Chinese government has
imposed heavy tariffs on shark fins to
restrain imports. Fins may be imported
tax-free, but only on condition that
they are then re-exported. Fins
imported into China for domestic sale
are subject to heavy tariffs.
The estimated value of the smuggled
fin was US$500,000, representing an
evasion of US$35,000 of tax 50.
SOUTH AFRICA
In July 2001, three containers of
illegal fish and fish products were
offloaded from a Taiwanese fishing
vessel and seized in Port Elizabeth,
South Africa. One of the containers
held four million Rands’ worth of
shark fins. In total there were 80
sacks, each weighing 100 kilograms,
filled with shark fins. The cargo was
falsely declared as comprising 80 tons
of Albacore or skipjack tuna51.
© WildAid
Above: Basking shark fin on display in
Singapore
the ports of landing will weigh the carcasses
and fins to ensure that the fins weigh no
more than 5% of the whole weight of the
shark53. Even if accurate logbook records are
kept, which is highly doubtful, and even if
the fins and carcasses are weighed, this 5%
ratio will allow EU crews to fin two out of
every three sharks that they catch, while still
appearing to abide by the rules (see section
on fin weight ratios).
 SHARK FIN TRADERS

Shark fin traders – Right: Dried shark

fins on sale in

more denial Taiwan

Press conferences and workshops held in east

Asia to highlight the problem of shark
finning have occasionally been characterised
by a denial on the part of fin traders that
finning even occurs. One such trader
claimed that film footage of a shark being
finned had been faked.
A brief glance at the profits being made
from the shark fin trade may help to explain
this apparent unwillingness to take

© WildAid
responsibility for current trends.
A recently-published report on the dried
seafood trade in Asia has revealed that one
trader, who considers himself a medium-sized
operator, had a turnover of $771,000 US per HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?
month. Given a profit margin of between
10-15%, one of Hong Kong’s largest dealers,

© WildAid
rumoured to have a turnover of $129 million
US per year, could be making an annual
profit of at least $12 million US54.
© Environmental Investigation Agency

To say that shark fin traders have no

immediate economic incentive to conserve
sharks would seem a truism. However, while
many of them deny that supply is becoming
more problematic54, it seems clear that the
decline in shark stocks will soon have a
negative effect on the trade, if it has not
done so already.
Between 1996 and 2000, the shark fin Above: George Poon Above: The Poons’ shark fin shop,
trade grew by more than five percent a year (taken from video) Hong Kong

in Hong Kong, while the 2001 figures show

significant decreases in both the Hong Kong In 2000, WildAid was informed that
and the global trade volume54, which may be the notorious Poon family had
a result of declining shark stocks.This may become involved in the shark fin
not be of concern to those who have already trade in Hong Kong55. The Poons are
made many millions from the depletion of alleged to have been responsible
for smuggling vast quantities of
the world’s shark stocks but it could signal
illegal ivory from Africa, through
trouble for newcomers and smaller operators.
the UAE and on to Hong Kong in
the 1980s56. One of the Poon
brothers, Tat Wah (“George”), is
reputed to be one of Hong Kong’s
main fin dealers55. The fin trade is
conducted mainly in cash and
would-be dealers are required to
have large amounts of ready cash at
their disposal in order to enter the
fin trade. Poon, using the enormous
wealth he had amassed from the
slaughter of thousands of
© WildAid
The ruthless nature of the illegal
international ivory trade and the
speed with which a handful of Hong
Kong ivory dealers managed to
decimate the elephant populations
of both Africa and Asia should serve
as an ominous warning of things to
come. Unless the global community
acts immediately to prevent it, Poon
and his like will continue to amass
their private fortunes – at the
expense not only of the world’s
shark stocks but of the many
developing and developed countries
that are making a concerted effort
to conserve their shark stocks. These
efforts, as has been witnessed on
the African savannah and in the
forests of Asia, will inevitably be

elephants, was easily able to place undermined by the greed and

himself at the centre of the shark selfishness of such individuals unless
fin business in Hong Kong55. action is taken now.
Above: Shark fins are often served whole in
order to prove that they are the real thing

13
HOW TO BAN SHARK FINNING

© Michael Bjornbak

How to ban shark

HOW MUCH DO
A SHARK’S FINS
WEIGH?
In some countries where fins may
be landed separately from
carcasses, shark landings data
have led to a requirement that
fins should weigh no more than
5% of the “dressed” weight of
the shark, that is, the body minus
the head and guts. Data from
Australia, Costa Rica and the USA
show that this is a reasonable
ratio, given that the weight of a
shark’s fins across a wide range
of species rarely reaches, let
alone exceeds, 5% of the
dressed weight .
A reasonable ratio of fins to whole
weight would be only 2-3%.
Sharks’ heads and, in particular,
their livers are very heavy in
proportion to the rest of their
carcasses, so this distinction is
critical. Regulations in place in the
EU and in Brazil, stipulating that
the weight of the fins should not
exceed 5% of the whole weight of
the shark, are therefore
inadequate. They will allow millions
more sharks to be finned, while
crews will still be able to produce
the “correct” ratio of fins to
carcasses on the quayside.
finning
The most effective requirement would be
for all sharks to be landed whole, with no
exceptions.This would not only simplify
enforcement and eliminate cheating but it
would also provide very good fisheries data,
since sharks with their fins attached are far
easier to identify by species. Of all the
countries known to have enacted finning
regulations, only Costa Rica requires whole
landings, along with some States and
Territories of Australia. Mexico looks set to
require whole shark landings but the
legislation is not yet in place.
Landing fins and carcasses separately
allows room for cheating and it also
hampers the collection of much-needed
data on shark catches. Most countries have
failed to monitor their shark catches at all,
let alone by species, despite the 1999 UN
FAO’s International Plan of Action for
Sharks, which recommends that they do so.
Landing fins and carcasses separately makes
species identification difficult and, in some
cases, impossible.
Because of the highly migratory nature
of many shark species (particularly those
species which are most commonly finned,
such as the blue shark), the best way to
ensure protection from finning for the
maximum number of sharks would be to
enact a ban on finning not only within the
waters of individual nations but on the high
seas as well.The efforts of many nations to
prohibit finning, particularly those in the
developing world whose resources are
Above: A favourite for finning: blue shark
limited, are being compromised by the fact
that sharks can still be finned on the high
seas and within the Exclusive Economic
Zones and coastal waters of many
individual nations.
Would a finning
ban protect sharks?
It has been argued that a ban on shark
finning would be pointless because the
sharks, once caught in nets or on lines, will
die anyway, regardless of whether or not
they are finned.
However, data from the Hawaii-based
tuna and swordfish longline fleet showed
that 86% of sharks caught as bycatch were
still alive when they arrived on deck57.
Research carried out in Brazil showed
that, from a total of 508 sharks of different
species observed in longline fisheries, 88%
were still alive when they landed on deck58.
Taking into account some post-release
mortality resulting from stress or injury, it is
clear that a very large percentage of sharks
caught on longlines would survive if they
were not finned.

THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME

WildAid’s recent research in the
consumer markets reveals that shark
fin is going down-market. Having
gained a reputation over centuries as
a symbol of wealth and success, soup
• In a restaurant in Quingdao on mainland
China, a set menu consisting of abalone,
bird’s nest and shark fin soup was
advertised at a cost of just US$2460.
• Dried shark fin retailers in Quingdao
© WildAid

and other products made from shark
fin are now becoming commonplace.
• Singapore now boasts $8.99
All-You-Can-Eat shark fin buffets59.
• Japanese consumers can now buy
shark fin bread, sweet shark fin
cookies, shark fin sushi, instant shark
fin noodles at US$4.20 per serving
and, perhaps most alarming of all,
shark fin cat food60.
and Shanghai sell 12-gramme boxes
of fin fibre for US$6.5060.
• Press reports from Singapore reveal
that the economic recession has
prompted consumers to opt for
cheaper, mass produced shark fins61. Above: Shark fin catfood, Japan
While it may be argued that this
development will reduce the “mystique” encourage consumers to believe that
of shark fin and, thereby, its consumption, they can still buy into the symbolism of
it seems far more likely that it will simply shark fin but at a price affordable to all.

14
Conclusions and recommendations
Conclusions
While there are many factors influencing the
global decline in shark populations, there is
no doubt that shark finning is a major – and
entirely unnecessary – contributor.The shark
fin trade has become so lucrative that the
practice of finning is now no longer
confined to sharks taken as bycatch. Sharks
are increasingly being caught for their fins
alone and, because the meat is of far lesser
value, the shark is often dumped at sea.
Shark finning is contrary to the
principles of the UN FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (Article
7.2.2(g)) and to the guiding principles and
aims of the UN FAO International Plan for
the Conservation and Management of
Sharks (IPOA-Sharks).
Shark finning is also contrary to the spirit
of the preamble to the UN Law of the Sea,
which stresses the need for “an equitable
international economic order which takes
into account the interests and needs of
mankind as a whole and, in particular, the
special interests and needs of developing
countries”.The dumping of millions of
sharks at sea has resulted in significantly
decreased shark catches in many developing
countries. Fishers in eastern India and on
the east and west coasts of Africa have
reported serious declines in their catches,
dating back to the arrival of large, industrial
(and usually foreign) fishing vessels off their
coastlines. Many of these vessels breach
fishing agreements by operating well within
the area set aside for local fishers. Food
security among many coastal communities
in the developing world is being
compromised by the increasing demand for
shark fin soup, a symbol of luxury wealth
and generosity among east Asian
communities worldwide. It is a luxury that
sharks – and those who depend upon them
for protein – cannot afford.
Sharks are becoming increasingly
attractive to recreational divers, bringing
millions of dollars in foreign exchange to
countries in both the developed and
developing world. By contrast, while the
trade in shark fins has created a handful of
millionaires in Hong Kong and Taiwan as a
result of inflated profit margins, it has not
“The IUCN Shark Specialist Group considers that shark
finning threatens many shark stocks, the stability of
marine ecosystems, sustainable traditional fisheries,
food security and socio-economically important
recreational fisheries.” SSG Finning Position Statement, May 2003
contributed in any meaningful way to
development in the poorer shark fishing
nations. In recent years, divers have reported
a perceptible decline in shark sightings in
many parts of the world and some have
reported seeing the sea-bed “littered” with
the carcasses of finned sharks.
Shark finning does not discriminate by
species or by age/size.While species and
stocks vary in abundance and distribution,
those of the greatest conservation concern
and least widespread distribution will
continue to be taken in diminishing
numbers as bycatch in fisheries for more
abundant fish species and, as a result, could
be driven to extremely low levels, if not to
extinction.
Shark finning precludes the collection of
the species-specific data that are urgently
needed if global shark landings are to be
monitored in any meaningful way.Without
such data, it will be impossible to implement
sustainable shark fisheries management as
required under various international
agreements.
Recent research using computer
modelling has shown that the removal of
sharks from their ecosystems could have
devastating and unpredictable consequences
for the abundance of commercially-
important fish stocks. Sharks, as apex
predators, regulate the abundance of other
fish and are therefore keystone species in the
health of our ocean ecosystems.The practice
of shark finning is capable of removing
entire stocks of sharks within a very short
space of time.
Many species of shark are highly
migratory by nature.They are a truly global
resource.The efforts of a growing number
of nations to enforce laws prohibiting shark
finning in their own waters are consistently
undermined by the fact that sharks can
travel many thousands of kilometres into
waters where finning is legal.
Recommendations
Many steps need to be taken globally to
conserve sharks, including stock
assessments, research on landings and
species composition, bycatch reduction,
the imposition of strict catch quotas and
seasonal and area closures where
necessary, as well as trade restrictions,
where appropriate, and improved
Customs data at species level. However,
action on shark finning cannot wait for
these steps to be taken. For some species
it may already be too late, but for many
others there is still time. Shark finning is
a global problem and only a concerted
international effort will bring about a
global solution.
In a world where growing human
populations are facing declining fish
stocks, throwing away 95% of a valuable
source of protein for the sake of an
unnecessary luxury is not, or should not
be, an option.
• The United Nations General Assembly
should vote to impose an immediate
prohibition on shark finning and the
trans-shipment of fins on the high seas.
• Individual nations should enact
domestic legislation prohibiting shark
finning and trans-shipment within their
own jurisdictions and this legislation
must be rigorously enforced.
• It is imperative that more countries
implement the FAO’s International Plan
of Action for Sharks. Countries in the
developing world with significant
shark fisheries should be given every
encouragement – and funding where
needed – to carry out research on their
shark fisheries as a first step towards
devising Plans of Action.
15
References
1. Collapse and conservation of shark
populations in the Northwest Atlantic, Julia.
K Baum, Ransom A. Myers, Daniel G. Kehler,
Boris Worm, Shelton J. Harley, Penny A.
Doherty, Science, Vol. 299, 17th January
2003
2. Heessen, H.J.L. (editor) 2003. Development
of Elasmobranch Assessments. DELASS.
European Commission DG Fish Study
Contract 99/055, Final Report, January 2003
3. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory
fish communities, Ransom A. Myers & Boris
Worm, Nature Vol 423, 15th May 2003
4. Report of the Consultation on the
Management of Fishing Capacity, Shark
Fisheries and Incidental Catch of Seabirds
in Longline Fisheries, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations Rome,
Italy, 26-30 October 1998
5. The End of the Line? WildAid 2001
6. Review of Shark Finning in Australian
Waters, Bureau of Rural Sciences for
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry-
Australia, Nov. 2001.
7. Pers.comm. Dr Silvia Pinca, Marine Science
Program Coordinator, College of the
Marshall Islands
8. Pers. Comm. Randall Arauz, Pretoma,
Costa Rica
9. The Australian, 17th February 2003
10. The Australian, 30th December 2002
11. Northern Territory News, 24th January 2003
12. ABC News, 6th February 2003
13. Northern Territory News, 6th February 2003
14. ABC Regional News, 31st March 2003
15. Cairns Post, 15th May 2003
16. ABC News, 2nd May 2003
17. Australian Associated Press, 14th May 2003
18. Adelaide Advertiser, 2nd June 2003
19. Northern Territory News, 2nd July, 2003
20. Australian Broadcasting Corporation,
21st August 2003
21. ABC News, 16th September 2003.
22. Sunday Territorian, 17th September 2003.
23. The Daily News, 5th July 1997
24. Channelnews Asia, 6th October 2002
25. Pers.comm. Cecilia Falconi, Ecuador
26. Pers.comm. Godfrey Merlen, Ecuador
27. ENS, 19th June 2001
28. Charles Darwin Foundation, 20th July
2001 29. Reuters Limited, 13th September
2003.
30. Lloyds Information Casualty Report, 26th
August 2002
31. Pers. comm. Paul Ortiz, General Counsel for
NOAA, and Dale Jones, Chief of Enforcement
for NOAA Fisheries to Marie Levine, Shark
Research Institute, 13th January 2003
32. BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific, 8th May
2003
33. Pacific Daily News, 12th May 2003
34. Sunday Telegraph, 6th January 2002
35. WildAid shark fin trade report, in litt.
36. Agence France Presse, 25th August 2003
37. Agence France Presse, 26th August 2003
38. Associated Press Online, 10th April 2002
39. Star-Bulletin, Hawaii, 3rd December 1999
40. Under Fire: Elephants in the Front Line,
EIA 1992
41. Cape Dragons, Carte Blanche TV, South
Africa, 5th May 2002
42. Reuters, 21st May 1999
43. CNA, South Africa, undated 2002
44. SAPA, 23rd February 2001
45. SAPA 13th February 2003
46. The Namibian, 6th February 2003
47. The Nation, 17th January 2002
48. The Nation, 8th February 2002
49. Pacific Daily News, Hagatna,
16th August 2002
50. South China Morning Post, 27th March 2001
51. Dispatch Online, 5th July 2001
52. World Trade Atlas
53. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1185/2003
54. Clarke, Shelley. Trade in Asian Dried
Seafood: Characterization, Estimation and
Implications for Conservation. WCS
Working Paper No. 22, December 2002
55. Pers.comm. Taiwanese fin trader to
WildAid, 2000
56. A System of Extinction, Environmental
Investigation Agency 1989
57. Russell Dunn, M.M.A, Assistant Director,
Ocean Wildlife Campaign, Washington, DC.
Testimony before the House of
Representatives Subcommittee on
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and
Oceans, 21st October 1999
58. Amorim, A.F., Arfelli, C.A., and Fagundes, L.
1998. Pelagic elasmobranchs caught by
longliners off southern Brazil during 1974
– 97; an overview. Marine & Freshwater
Research 49:621-32
59. Pers.comm.Tony Wu, Singapore
60. WildAid internal report, March 2003
61. Lian He Zao Bao, Singapore,
9th February 2003

STOP PREedSatSthe time of going to

nconfirm r of the
Reports – u ras, Ministe
th at M . Bruno Sand n o unced
press – say ch Polynes
ia, has an
t in Fr en ed . In
Environmen w ill soon be
prohibit
fin ning tact . This
that shark ave to be la
nded in
ks w ill h in g concern
future, shar to re flect a grow
ent is sa id increase.
announcem ar k finn ing is on the
n that sh
in the regio

450 Pacific Avenue, Suite 201, San Francisco CA 94133

Tel 415 - 834 -3174 Fax 415 - 834 -1759
info@wildaid.org www.wildaid.org

16