ICCAT s Unmanaged Shark Fisheries

Transcription

1 ICCAT s Unmanaged Shark Fisheries Sharks are among the key species caught in ICCAT fisheries, representing more than 15% of all reported catches by weight in They are also among the most vulnerable species to overfishing. Their biological characteristics and slow population growth rates make them inherently less able to cope with heavy fishing pressure than many of the other fish species with which they are caught. As a result, they are easily overexploited, and once depleted, their populations are slow to recover. Oceanic pelagic sharks, which are the main shark species caught in ICCAT fisheries, are particularly at risk, with 63% of assessed species considered threatened 2. Although ICCAT has traditionally viewed and classified sharks as by catch, the reality of high seas shark fisheries has changed. As noted by the Joint Tuna RFMO Technical Working Group on Bycatch, the issue of shark catches in tuna RFMO fisheries is broader than simply by catch 3. Many shark species continue to be captured incidentally, but others are targeted directly or are valuable secondary catch, sought after in response to growing demand for shark fins and meat. Despite the importance of shark catches in the Atlantic Ocean, the fact that certain species are directly targeted, and the high level of threat facing many shark species, most shark species caught in ICCAT fisheries are completely unmanaged: Important fished species, such as shortfin makos and blue sharks, are caught without any limits, despite high uncertainty about stock status. Highly threatened species such as porbeagles continue to be landed, and sold Terry Gross Declared blue shark catches in the Atlantic Ocean are almost double those of swordfish and five times higher than those of bluefin tuna. Due to the relatively lower value of blue sharks, this species remains completely unmanaged and little is known about the status of stocks. Of the 350 species of pelagic and coastal sharks captured in the ICCAT area 4, only 8 of the rarest species have specific ICCAT management measures in place. Four of the top five most vulnerable pelagic shark species have no management measures in place under ICCAT (Box 1). Reliable, accurate data on shark fisheries throughout the Atlantic are a prerequisite for proper, sciencebased management. Lack of data reporting and poor data quality remain critical problems that hinder shark species assessment and management, despite repeated Recommendations and Resolutions that have called for better shark data. ICCAT needs to ensure full compliance with ICCAT rules for shark fisheries, including proper data reporting by CPCs, but should not delay the adoption of management measures until these data are provided. A precautionary approach should necessarily apply to the management and conservation of shark species in the ICCAT Convention area.

2 Oceana urges ICCAT Contracting Parties to act on four key measures to improve shark management at the 18 th Special Meeting of the Commission: 1. Set science based, precautionary limits on catches of shortfin mako and blue sharks, which are key targeted species in ICCAT fisheries. 2. Prohibit the retention, landing, and trade of highly threatened species, such as porbeagles. 3. Close the loopholes in the ICCAT ban on shark finning, by requiring sharks to be landed with their fins attached. 4. Assess and ensure compliance with Recommendations requiring CPCs to report shark data. Box 1. Ecological Risk Assessment: Priority shark species for ICCAT In 2012, the ICCAT Shark Species Group undertook an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) of pelagic sharks caught in Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries i. The ERA assessed the relative vulnerability of sharks to being overfished, based on information about their biological productivity and their susceptibility to capture. Highly vulnerable shark species, such as the top five listed below, should be prioritised for precautionary management and research. Currently, ICCAT manages only one of these most vulnerable species. Vulnerability Species Common name ICCAT Assessment ICCAT Management Rank Status 1 Alopias superciliosus Bigeye thresher Never assessed Protected (Rec ) 2 * Isurus oxyrinchus Shortfin mako Uncertain (2012) None 2 * Isurus paucus Longfin mako Never assessed None 4 Lamna nasus Porbeagle Overfished (2009) None 5 Carcharhinus signatus Night shark Never assessed None * Tied for second most vulnerable. I Cortés, E., et al Expanded ecological risk assessment of pelagic sharks caught in Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries. SCRS/2012/ Set science based, precautionary limits on catches of shortfin mako and blue sharks, which are key targeted species in ICCAT fisheries (a) Shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) is listed by the IUCN as Vulnerable in the Atlantic Ocean and Critically Endangered in the Mediterranean Sea 5. According to the most recent ecological risk assessment (ERA; Box 1), it is the second most vulnerable species of shark to overfishing by longliners in the Atlantic 6. In 2012, conservation concerns about shortfin mako prompted Mediterranean nations to grant the species strict protection in that region, prohibiting its capture, retention, transport, and trade under Annex II of the Barcelona Convention. This protection is further strengthened by Recommendation 36/2012/3 of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, which grants strict protection to all species listed under Annex II.

3 In contrast, fishing for shortfin mako continues in the Atlantic Ocean without any form of management. Since 2001, ICCAT Recommendations and Resolutions have repeatedly stressed the need to reduce shortfin mako fishing mortality until sustainable catch levels could be determined on the basis of stock assessments 7. Yet the status of shortfin mako stocks remains unknown. The 2012 SCRS assessment of shortfin makos in the North and South Atlantic found that the current status of the stocks was highly uncertain. Inconsistencies in the available catch and effort data could not be resolved, and no management projections were made. As a result, the SCRS has recommended a precautionary management measure: fishing mortality of shortfin makos should not be permitted to increase until more reliable stock assessment results are available. Oceana urges CPCs to follow SCRS advice, by adopting a precautionary catch limit on shortfin mako sharks, based on average catch levels from recent years. (b) Blue shark (Prionace glauca) is the fourth most important fish species in ICCAT fisheries, ranked only behind skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye tunas in terms of reported catch: T in This quantity was roughly five times the reported catch of bluefin tuna, and represented 10% of all catches reported to ICCAT for that year. Yet blue sharks are fished under ICCAT without any specific management measures such as catch or size limits, temporal or spatial closures, or other technical measures. OCEANA/LX. Unloading shark carcasses in Azores. Blue shark catches in ICCAT have risen by more than 60% during the last five years 9, and concerns have been raised about the potential ecosystem impacts of such high catch volumes. The species is listed by the IUCN as Near Threatened globally, and significant declines in abundance have already occurred in the northwest Atlantic 10 and in the Mediterranean Sea, where the species is listed as Vulnerable 11. The last ICCAT assessment of this species, in 2008, indicated that the status of the stocks was highly uncertain, and results of population modelling depended strongly on the assumptions made 12. No additional ICCAT assessments are currently scheduled for blue sharks. Oceana calls upon CPCs to fulfil their management responsibilities for blue shark, beginning with the establishment of precautionary catch limits for this species.

4 2. Prohibit the retention, transhipment, landing, and trade of highly threatened species, such as porbeagles. Porbeagle sharks (Lamna nasus) are among the most threatened species of highly migratory sharks caught in ICCAT fisheries. They are listed as Critically Endangered in the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea, and Endangered in the Northwest Atlantic 13. Concerns about the status of porbeagle are echoed in ICCAT assessments. The 2012 ERA identified porbeagles as being highly vulnerable to overfishing, while the 2009 joint ICCAT/ICES porbeagle assessment found that even if all porbeagle fishing were to stop, recovery to levels that could be sustainably fished would take decades 14. Canada (the main CPC that has opposed Atlanticwide porbeagle protection) fishes this species at levels that are estimated to delay the recovery time even longer, to more than 100 years in the Northwest Atlantic 15. In response to concerns about porbeagle, the following international measures have recently been put in place for the protection of the species: European Union: prohibition on fishing for, retaining, transhipping, or landing porbeagles in EU waters, and by EU vessels worldwide North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC): prohibition on directed fishing and retention of porbeagles The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Appendix III: control of porbeagle exports from the EU, which require export permits certifying legality of the catch Barcelona Convention Annex II: prohibition on taking, possessing, killing, trading, and transporting Mediterranean porbeagles. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM): prohibition on retaining, transhipping, landing, transferring, storing, selling, or displaying porbeagles A proposal for the inclusion of porbeagles in Appendix II of CITES has also been submitted for consideration at the Sixteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, in March The SCRS has highlighted that, for sharks, precautionary management measures should be considered for stocks where there is the greatest biological vulnerability and conservation concern 16. Oceana urges ICCAT CPCs to implement precautionary management for porbeagles, by prohibiting their retention, transhipment, landing, and trade in the ICCAT Convention area.

5 3. Close the loopholes in the ICCAT ban on shark finning, by requiring sharks to be landed with their fins attached. Shark finning (i.e., cutting off shark fins onboard a vessel, and discarding the rest of the carcass at sea), has technically been prohibited in ICCAT fisheries since 2004, under ICCAT Recommendation However, illegal finning can still occur undetected, because the Recommendation contains several loopholes that make it ineffective: Enforcement relies on a 5% maximum fin to carcass weight ratio, but it is not stated whether this applies to the weight of whole sharks or to sharks that have already been processed, or dressed Rec does not specify whether it applies to wet or to dry fins, which are lighter and therefore can be kept in greater numbers without exceeding the ratio Fins and carcasses are not required to be transhipped or landed together, making it impossible to directly compare weights Actual fin to carcass weight ratios are highly variable, depending on shark species, fin set, fishing fleet, and processing techniques OCEANA/LX. Transhipment of shark carcasses into a container. The many problems with such ratio based approaches have been noted by the SCRS and by working groups within other tuna RFMOs 17. Currently, fisheries scientists recommend that the most straightforward, effective approach to banning shark finning is to land sharks with their fins still naturally attached, as supported by the United Nations General Assembly, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and the United Nations Convention on Migratory Species. Such fins attached policies have already been adopted in ICCAT CPCs such as Belize, Chinese Taipei, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, USA, and Venezuela. A fins attached policy has also been proposed within the European Union, and is scheduled to be voted upon in November Oceana calls on CPCs to strengthen the ICCAT ban on shark finning, closing the loopholes by requiring sharks to be landed with their fins still naturally attached. 4. Assess and ensure compliance with Recommendations requiring CPCs to report data on shark catches. One of the greatest challenges to the management of shark fisheries within ICCAT is the scarcity of accurate, reliable data on shark catches and fishing effort. This lack of information hampers both stock assessment and the development of management and conservation measures. To date, the SCRS has only been able to conduct stock assessments for three shark species; for all three, data quality and resulting uncertainties were noted problems.

6 Since 2001, eight Recommendations and Resolutions have emphasised the need for CPCs to provide the Commission with reliable Task I and Task II data on sharks, but compliance has been poor. The 2009 performance review of ICCAT referred to endemic levels of non reporting, and noted, with great concern, that three years after it became mandatory [Rec ] for CPCs to report Task I and Task II data for sharks [ ] most parties are still not complying with the recommendation. 18 ICCAT requirements for shark data reporting took a historic step forward in 2010, with the adoption of Recommendation on shortfin mako, which made the fishery conditional to data reporting. In 2012, faced with the possibility of being prohibited from catching shortfin makos under ICCAT, at least three CPCs submitted Task 1 data on shortfin mako stocks for the first time. This Recommendation serves as an important test case for compliance under ICCAT, and lays the basis for similar reporting requirements for Task 1 data for all shark species, under Recommendation Oceana calls upon ICCAT CPCs to ensure strict compliance with data reporting requirements, in the interest of improving shark data quality for informing management and conservation. References 1 ICCAT Task 1 data on nominal annual catches. Total nominal shark catches for 2010: T. 2 Dulvy, N.K. et al You can swim but you can t hide: the global status and conservation of oceanic pelagic sharks and rays. Aquatic Conserv.: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 18: Anonymous Report of the First Meeting of the Joint Tuna RFMO Technical Working Group on By catch. La Jolla, California, USA, July 11, pp. 4 ICCAT Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT. Madrid. 320 p. 5 Gibson, C., et al The Conservation of Northeast Atlantic Chondrichthyans: Report of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group Northeast Atlantic Red List Workshop. viii + 76 pp. Workshop. IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group. Newbury, UK. viii + 76pp; Abdul Malak, D. et al Overview of the Conservation Status of the Marine Fishes of the Mediterranean Sea. Gland, Switzerland and Malaga, Spain: IUCN. vii + 61pp. 6 Cortés, E., et al Expanded ecological risk assessment of pelagic sharks caught in Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries. SCRS/2012/ ICCAT Resolution 01 11; ICCAT Recommendations 04 10, 05 05, 06 10, 07 06, and ICCAT Task 1 data for 2010, the most recent year for which reported catches are available. 9 ICCAT Task 1 data. 10 Simpfendorfer, C.A., et al Results of a fishery independent survey for pelagic sharks in the western North Atlantic, Fish. Res. 55: Baum, J.K., et al. Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the northwest Atlantic. Science 299: Stevens, J Prionace glauca. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Abdul Malak et al ICCAT Report of the 2008 shark stock assessment meeting (Madrid, Spain, September 1 to 5, 2008). Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 64: Gibson et al. 2008; Abdul Malak et al. 2011; Stevens, J., et al Lamna nasus. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version ICCAT Report for the Biennial Period, Part II. 15 Campana, S.E., et al Population dynamics of porbeagle in the northwest Atlantic, with an assessment of status to 2009 and projections for recovery. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 65: ICCAT Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS). PLE 104/2012, p Reviewed in: Citation: Fowler, S. and Séret, B Shark fins in Europe: Implications for reforming the EU finning ban. European Elasmobranch Association and IUCN Shark Specialist Group. 49pp. 18 ICCAT Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT. Madrid, p. 53.