Obama Administration Supports Protection for High-Profile Bluefin, But Will Anybody at CITES Speak out on Behalf of Equally Endangered Sharks?

Would you like an order of chips with this?

Would you like an order of chips with this?

News this week that the United States had come out in support of giving endangered Atlantic bluefin tuna protection under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) was hailed as a major victory by environmental groups. “The Obama administration’s decision to support a CITES Appendix I listing of Atlantic bluefin tuna could be a real game changer for the species,” said Susan Lieberman, director of international policy at the Pew Environmental Group.

A CITES Appendix I listing would ban international trade in bluefins, most of which are now imported by Japan. The final decision will be announced when representatives of 175 signatory countries to the convention meet in Doha, Qatar, between March 13 and 25.

But the same groups are hoping that the upcoming CITES meeting will address concerns about eight shark species that haven’t received the media attention lavished on the high-profile bluefin, but which in some cases hover even closer to extinction.

Of particular concern are three species of hammerhead sharks and oceanic whitetip sharks, whose fins are the prime ingredient in shark fin soup, an increasingly popular dish in upwardly mobile Asian countries. Some 73 million sharks are killed each year just for their fins.

Currently, shark fishing is virtually unregulated in international waters, although the United States and other countries have put controls in place in their territorial waters. “In international trade it’s anything goes—a free-for-all,” said Lieberman. “It’s the Wild West out there. The attitude is, ‘Help yourselves.’ Unfortunately there are not enough sharks out there for everyone to help themselves.”

Spiny dogfish are another shark species of concern. Having eaten their way through codfish populations, the British (primarily) have turned to dogfish as the main ingredient in their iconic fish and chips. And there are worries that demand for its meat will take the dogfish down the same road as badly depleted cod.

“This is the first time CITES is looking at a highly commercial and valuable group of shark species,” said Lieberman. “In some ecosystems the trade in sharks is reducing their numbers to the point where they are almost gone, if not gone.”

As the top predator, sharks play a crucial role in the ecosystems they inhabit. If you remove sharks, according to Lieberman, populations of other, smaller predatory fish can explode, setting off a cascading effect as they prey on other fish. “We’re seeing some coastal places where the whole ecosystem crashes.”

The petitioners are hoping that the shark species of concern will be listed under Appendix II of the convention, a less limiting measure than the Appendix I listing being sought for Atlantic bluefins. “Appendix II is what I call the sustainable-use appendix. It says that it’s fine to use a species commercially, as long as it’s sustainable and legal,” said Lieberman.

It hardly seems like an extreme step. In fact, it could be argued that all animals we consume should be taken in a sustainable and legal manner, regardless of their population status.

Now, international attention has shifted to China, a major user of shark products. It has not declared where it stands on a CITES, but Lieberman is optimistic.

Whatever the decision, it’s time these magnificent predators that have prowled the oceans for 400 million years get the fisheries management respect they deserve.

Click here for a more detailed post on the blight of Atlantic bluefins.

Post to Twitter

1 comment

  1. Aaron MacNeil says:

    Hi Bary,
    I agree totally with the thrust of your article; just wanted to add my 2 cents on sharks and cascading effects. As a research scientist who works on this stuff it’s worth mentioning that, while populations of smaller predatory fish may explode (and this is a reasonable hypothesis) evidence of this is extraordinarily thin. I suspect Lieberman is referring to articles related to shark densities in remote atolls (Palmyra, Kingman etc.) and an inferred link between shark declines, rays and scallops. This is an extremely difficult issue to tie down and these articles are more theory-generating than conclusive. I think the more important point is that “all animals we consume should be taken in a sustainable and legal manner, regardless of their population status.”
    Regards,
    MA MacNeil

Leave a Reply