A Thesis. In Partial Fulfillment of. In Requirements for the Degree of. Master of Science

Transcription

1 Conservation Solutions to Shark Finning: Insights from Past Efforts A Thesis Submitted to the University at Albany, State University of New York In Partial Fulfillment of In Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science College of Arts & Sciences Department of Biology 2014

2 UMI Number: All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI

3 Abstract: Globally, shark species are in decline, largely due to shark finning. This practice has an adverse effect on shark populations and could result in fishery and ecosystem collapses. Past conservation efforts, including the dolphin-safe tuna campaign, large mammal poaching, sea turtle conservation and the anti-whaling campaign, have used various approaches to mitigate impacts on wildlife, including political, consumer and public awareness, and science or evidence-based approaches. By examining and drawing from these processes we can determine the most effective strategy to reduce the effects of finning on shark populations around the world. A feasible conservation strategy for shark conservation in the face of shark finning would involve identifying stakeholders and creating an international forum to facilitate cooperation between nations and enforce a multi-pronged approach to mitigate the negative effects of shark finning. The first part of the approach would focus on increasing and expanding research on all shark species, their stocks and ecology as well as using that information to create appropriate management plans that are based on shark life histories instead of boney fish management. That second part would include political reforms and templates for global regulations, as well as the creation of internationally protected areas. The last part would use education and tourism to promote a boycott of shark fin products, a reduction in finning efforts, and an increase in community-led shark ecotourism efforts. Using this three-pronged approach and international cooperation, we can save sharks from the dangers of overharvest. ii

4 Acknowledgements: I would like to thank the University at Albany, SUNY for accepting me into their Biodiversity, Conservation and Policy program and the Animal Welfare Institute whose internship led me down the path of shark conservation. I also want to thank my committee members Dr. Gary Kleppel, Dr. Katy Gonder, Jeff Zappieri and Dr. Joshua Drew for their constant advice throughout the thesis-writing process. I also want to thank my family and friends for their support of me and my goals, and of course the rest of the BCP students, especially Jill Bonitatibus, for taking the journey with me and Caroline B. Girard Cartier and Liz Coffey for being my unofficial mentors throughout my time in Albany. And lastly I want to thank Joanne Baronner for all her advice and help in my thesis process. iii

5 Table of Contents: I. Background on sharks and shark finning A. Shark species are in decline globally B. Effects of shark decline 1. Loss of species and fisheries collapse 2. Loss of apex predator and ecological effects C History of Finning Legislation 1. National 2. International D. Shark Management 1. National 2. International II. Analysis of conservation strategies in other commercially-relatable taxa A. Dolphin-Safe tuna B. Sea turtle egg consumption C. Large mammal poaching D. Whaling and the IWC E. Apex Predators and Human-Wildlife Conflict III. A Conservation Plan for Shark Finning A. Identifying Stakeholders 1. Governing bodies 2. Fisherfolk 3. General public B. Three-Pronged Approach 1. Scientific approach a. Increase research b. Create appropriate management plans 2. Political approach a. Create regulations to be followed by all members b. Encourage national legislation reform c. Create protected areas 3. Consumer/Public awareness approach a. Create a database of products and companies to avoid b. Create education programs c. Promote sustainable and safe ecotourism IV. Goals V. Conclusion iv

6 List of Tables: TABLE PAGE Most Finned Shark Species Shark species declines over the last few decades Countries and regions with a National Plan of Action for Sharks developed under the FAO IPOA for the Conservation and Management of Sharks Appendices for Listing Species under CITES and Shark Species Included Appendices for Listing Species under CMS and Shark Species Included 18 v

7 I. Background on Sharks and Shark Finning Fishes in the Class Chondrichthyes include sharks, skates, rays, and chimaeras and total about 1,000 species. They are one of the oldest extant vertebrate groups on the planet and have existed for at least 400 million years (Worm et al. 2013). Sharks comprise about half of all extant chondrichthyans and show considerable diversity in ecology, feeding habits and body size. They occupy coastal, demersal, and pelagic habitats in every ocean (Feretti et al. 2010). Sharks range from scavengers to apex predators and play important roles in most marine ecosystems. Despite their significance, there is not enough data on most shark species (Techera and Klein 2011). Historically, sharks had low commercial value and were not regularly recorded in fisheries statistics. Industrial fisheries that began before the 1950 s had the highest initial catches in the Northwest Pacific, Northeast Atlantic, and Mediterranean Seas. Over time commercial shark fishing expanded and increased into other areas. Although sharks are also threatened by habitat destruction and pollution, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Shark Specialist Group determined that the main threat (96.1%) to elasmobranches (sharks, rays, and skates) is fishing (including directed commercial, by-catch, recreational, and artisanal/subsistence) (Feretti et al. 2010). Finning in particular is an incredible threat to sharks today. Shark finning is the process of capturing a shark (usually by bottom longlines, mid-water longlines, and large-mesh drift-nets) and removing one of more of its fins. In many cases, the rest of the shark s body is dumped into the ocean. The shark dies from suffocation, blood loss, or predation. Shark meat is usually considered low value, while a 1

8 shark s fins are some of the most expensive fish products globally and are used for shark fin soup, a delicacy mainly served in East Asia (NMFS 2012). Shark fins first became popular at formal Chinese events during the Ming Dynasty ( AD) and are sometimes (incorrectly) advertised as aphrodisiacs or tonics for general ailments. Despite the fact that artificial shark fins exist, they are not commonly used because of the status symbol equated with real shark fins. From 1985 to 2004 the production of fresh, frozen, and salted chondrichthyan products more than doubled (Clarke et al. 2007). The global shark fishery is driven primarily by Indonesia, India, Spain, Taiwan, and Argentina (Liu et al. 2013). Despite increasing legislation to protect sharks, there does not appear to be a significant decline in global fin trade (Worm et al. 2013). This thesis examines the threat that finning poses to shark species worldwide and how we are managing sharks currently. It will then examine conservation efforts in other taxa and determine which strategies worked and failed for them and which can be applied to the issue of shark conservation. Conserving shark populations in the face of shark finning will take a multi-pronged approach that combines scientific, political, and consumer-based action. A. Shark Species are in Decline Globally Many shark populations are in various statues of decline throughout all of the world s oceans. For example, in 2011, four of 34 (12%) shark stocks or stock complexes were being overfished while five of 34 (15%) were already overfished. 20 (59%) did not have enough data to determine a status with regard to current overfishing rates and 19 2

9 (56%) did not have enough data to determine their status as to whether or not they were already overfished (NMFS 2012). It s estimated that anywhere from 63 to 273 million sharks are killed each year with an estimate of about 97 million in 2010 alone (Worm et al. 2013). According to Worm et al. (2013), 48% of exploited shark populations were fished above their rebound rate, and 68% of species had rebound rates that were below the median global exploitation rate (6.7%). Various studies have shown that shark species may be severely constrained when it comes to their potential to increase population growth rates (McAuley et al. 2007). These data are reason for concern because even if finning is stopped altogether, it may be too late for some species of shark. All of the 14 most commonly finned shark species (Table 1) are now at risk of extinction (Shark Savers 2014). Table 1: All 14 species of shark most prevalent in the fin trade are at risk of extinction (Shark Savers 2014). 14 Most Finned Shark Species Bull shark (Carcharhinus leuca) Tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) Smooth Hammerhead (Sphyrna zygaena) Sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) Great Hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran) Bigeye Thresher (Alopias superciliosus) Dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus) Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) Shortfin Mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) Blue shark (Prionace glauca) Scalloped Hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) Oceanic Whitetip (Carcharhinus longimanus) Common Thresher (Alopias vulpinus) Pelagic Thresher (Alopias pelagicus) 3

10 Many different species of sharks are currently facing threats. Both Carcharhinus longimanus (oceanic whitetip sharks) and Prionace glauca (blue sharks) in the North Pacific are experiencing declines in abundance (Clarke et al. 2013). Galeocerdo cuvier (tiger sharks) are being fished at rates considered unsustainable, as shown by catch rate data from the Queensland Shark Control Program (Holmes 2012). A study by Baum et al. (2003) found that large oceanic and coastal shark populations (all species recorded with the exception of mako sharks, genus Isurus) in the Northwest Atlantic are experiencing a rapid decline. Their findings are presented in the table below: Shark Species % Decline Since Sphyrna lewini Carcharodon carcharias Galeocerdo cuvier Alopias genus Prionace glauca Carcharhinus longimanus Coastal Species* 61 (average) 1992 Table 2. Shark species declines over the last few decades (Baum et al. 2003). *Carcharhinus altimus, C. brevipinna, C. falciformis, C. limbatus, C. obscurus, C. signatus In 2013, the IUCN Shark Specialist Group (SSG) identified 73 species (15%) of sharks that are threatened in some way while almost half (214 or 44%) are data 4

11 deficient, meaning there is not enough data to determine their conservation status (IUCN 2013). B. The Effects of Shark Decline 1. Loss of Shark Species and Fisheries Collapse Overfishing and finning of sharks have wide-ranging negative effects for shark species, ecosystems, and even our own welfare. Perhaps the most obvious effect of overfishing is species decline. Unfortunately, the Indo-West Pacific region not only has the highest chondricthyan biodiversity but also the highest catch rates. This will lead to a higher than average extinction rate and is indicative of the necessity of shark protection. Fishing that targets large sharks can lead to changes in those species population dynamics. There will most likely be a decrease in abundance, especially for larger size classes. Size-selection exploitation can also lead to changes in length compositions with the population shifting to smaller sizes for many species having been observed. This can have a significant impact on the species reproductive output. This has already been observed in Mustelus antarcticus (gummy shark) where lengthselective fishing mortality has resulted in a decrease in mature individuals. Community structure can also be altered by overexploitation since productivity correlates with age at maturity. This means that some species of sharks, such as those that are smaller with earlier maturity, have higher rebound rates (Stevens et al. 2000). 5

12 The loss of certain shark and ray populations can be detrimental to developing communities which rely on them for food and other products. Most shark fisheries are harvested above recommended levels (Simpfendorfer et al 2011). Shark fisheries are not the only ones that will suffer a collapse with degraded shark population numbers. When large sharks are removed from the ecosystem and mesopredators (such as smaller sharks and large fish) become more abundant, those mesopredators will in turn overharvest certain prey species that we harvest for our own food such as clams, scallops and oysters (Myers et al. 2007). 2. Loss of Apex Predators and Ecosystem Collapse Food webs are intricate parts of ecosystems and if they fall apart then the entire ecosystem can as well, resulting in unnatural species declines. Apex predators are an important part of any food web and ecosystem and their removal can cause a top-down cascade. Being that large sharks (including many of the species overharvested for their fins) are apex predators, their ecosystems are at risk of collapse if their numbers are depleted. The loss of sharks has already proven to be disruptive to marine ecosystems. Myers et al. (2007) documented the cascading effects of losing 11 large sharks species on the US Eastern Seaboard between 1970 and 2005, including an increase in 12 mesopredator species including smaller sharks, rays, and skates. This increase in mesopredators led to an increase in predation on the lower trophic levels. Using the University of North Carolina Shark Survey (the longest continuous shark-targeted survey 6

13 on the Eastern seaboard) the authors were able to identify not only a loss in these large shark species, but also a specific loss of the largest individuals (indicating that few mature individuals are left in the overexploited populations). As a result of the apex predators being removed from the ecosystem the increase in mesopredators, especially Rhinoptera bonasus (cownose ray), led to an increase in consumption of lower trophic levels. The cownose ray s overconsumption of bivalves led to not only a decrease in those taxa, but that of seagrass as well, which was detrimental to nursery habitat. Thus, the removal of apex shark predators caused major shifts and degradation in the entire ecosystem. Many other studies have shown specific trophic cascades related to shark decline. A study by Bascompte et al. (2005) revealed that shark overfishing may have led to a depletion of herbivorous fishes in Caribbean reefs. Ferretti et al. (2012) also supports this hypothesis. In this study, they examined the elasmobranch community of the Adriatic Sea and discovered a highly depleted elasmobranch community with an increase in mesopredators and an overall exploited community. A study by Ferretti et al. (2012) shows that elasmobranchs can decline both in abundance and diversity after only a short time of being harvested. Since large sharks are the main predators of smaller sharks and rays, their decline has led to an increase in these mesopredators. Ferretti et al. studied long-term changes in elasmobranches in the Adriatic Sea and noted a depleted elasmobranch community with 25 species recorded in 1948 now missing. Of the species they detected, most had declined over time. They noted a difference in elasmobranch abundance and diversity between the eastern and 7

14 western parts of the Adriatic which correlated with different amounts of fishing. They also observed that this gradient may be useful if there is spillover from the less-fished side to the more-fished side. There are other ways that shark population depletion can hurt an ecosystem. According to a study by Frid et al. (2008) fishery removal of sharks can indirectly alter predation pressure on different fish species via the behavioral responses of mesoconsumers released from predator intimidation. Since mesopredators alter their behaviors to avoid their own predators (namely larger sharks) the removal of those predators would change the mesopredators feeding behavior. These results indicate stronger and perhaps previously unconsidered ecological effects of shark declines. This has also been observed in mesopredators populations in Shark Bay, Australia. To avoid seasonal Galeocerdo cuvier; dolphins, dugongs, and cormorants switch from their preferred shallow seagrass habitats to deeper habitats. This way, Galeocerdo cuvier indirectly reduce grazing on seagrass and their loss will shift the behavior of prey species and change seagrass spatial patterns (Heithaus et al. 2012). Ecosystem collapse through food web disruption is especially dangerous in reef habitats where overfishing of larger predators was found to coincide with an increase in creatures that eat coral such as, starfish, and subsequently with reductions in the most important part of the reef itself; reef-building corals and coralline algae (Heithaus et al. 2007). Fish community structure is often changed due to overexploitation, with the largest fish being removed and the smaller faster-growing ones becoming dominant in 8

15 the community (Stevens et al. 2000). The Carcharhinus tilstoni (Australian blacktip) and C. sorrah (spottail) shark populations in northern Australia have experienced changes in size distribution over the past 25 years after being heavily exploited (Field et al. 2012). This not only decreases diversity of the ecosystem but can upset the balance of its food web as well. Stevens at al. (2000) analyzed three published ECOPATH ecosystem models to infer general trends that occur with the loss of shark species from an ecosystem. In some trials, models showed a strong and permanent change while others showed steadier, temporary changes in the ecosystems. These results may not be conclusive but they help to show that we cannot truly predict what will happen to an ecosystem if its shark population is severely decreased or removed. C. A History of Shark Finning Legislation 1. National There are several different avenues for wildlife conservation nationally. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed in 1973 to protect and recover imperiled species in the United States. A species listed as Endangered or Threatened is offered protection from exploitation by law, as well as a specific recovery plan. Although there have been petitions submitted for some species, including Carcharodon carcharias (great white shark) and Sphyrna lewini (scalloped hammerhead), no shark species is currently listed under the ESA. 9

16 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA), also known as the Magnuson Stevens Act was first created in 1976 and amended many times through the years. The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 was created to amend the MFCMA in order to add the promotion of catch and release programs to conservation and management principles as well as essential fish habitat protection. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 amended the MFCMA to authorize activities to promote improved monitoring and compliance for high seas fisheries, or fisheries governed by international fishery management agreements, and for other purposes, (H.R th Congress: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006). The Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000 (SFPA) was signed by President Clinton on December 21, It served to amend the MFCMA to eliminate shark finning in United States waters. The SFPA not only made it illegal to remove a shark s fins and dump its body into the water but also made it illegal to possess or land fins without their respective carcasses. The act also included initiatives to establish research programs and promote international shark conservation (H.R th Congress: Shark Finning Prohibition Act 2010). Another stipulation of the SFPA was to require the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to implement the act, initiate discussion with other nations, and collect data through research programs (NMFS 2012). 10

17 The 2010 Shark Conservation Act or International Fisheries Agreement Clarification Act was signed on January 4, 2011 by President Obama to close the loopholes of the 2000 SFPA. Specifically, this was created in order to increase shark conservation efforts by amending the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act (a bill that prohibits the US from entering into any international agreement which would prevent full implementation of the United Nations moratorium on large-scale driftnet fishing on the high seas) and the MFCMA. The law directs the Secretary of Commerce to urge international fishery management to adopt shark conservation and anti-finning practices. The law also amends the MFCMA to make it illegal to: (1) remove any shark fin (including the tail) at sea; (2) have a fin aboard a fishing vessel unless the fin is naturally attached to the carcass; (3) transfer a fin from one vessel to another or receive a fin unless it is naturally attached; or (4) land a fin that is not naturally attached to a carcass or land a carcass without fins naturally attached, (H.R th Congress: International Fisheries Agreement Clarification Act 2009). In May of 2010, Senator Clayton Hee sponsored legislation making Hawaii the first state (and place in the world) to ban the possession of shark fins. In 2011, Washington, California, and Oregon followed suit as did Illinois and American Samoa in 2012 (Losing the taste for shark fins 2013). In 2013 New York joined the ban as well. Unfortunately, NOAA s 2013 Proposed Rule to Implement the Shark Conservation Act of 2010 does not offer complete protection. The act includes language that not only overturns state laws on shark fins but overrules any future ones as well in an effort to not only create streamlined protection across the nation, but to not restrict fisherman as well. This language is highly controversial and states with extra protection 11

18 are fighting it. So far, NOAA has agreed that California, Washington, and Maryland s individual state laws are already consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and is still discussing the issue with other states (FIS 2014). While that is good news for states with existing bans, the ruining makes it difficult for states to create bans in the future. This is going to be an issue that United States conservationists will need to deal with in the coming years while fighting the battle against shark finning. 2. International There are varying types of international protection afforded to sharks as well. Several countries, such as India, have adopted a fins attached policy requires fisheries to land sharks with their fins attached. This helps in identification of species but can also limit the amount of sharks killed in zones with a catch weight limit. This policy has been adopted in countries such as India (the world s second-largest shark catching nation), the United States, and much of Europe; and is recommended by the IUCN World Conservation Congress (Godin and Worm 2010). In 2010 the Philippines became the first place outside of the United States to ban the sale of shark by-products. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Canadian city of Toronto adopted similar legislation in In 2012 multiple municipalities in British Columbia, The Cook Islands, and French Polynesia banned the shark fin product trade. French Polynesia even banned fishing for all shark species in their economic zone, thereby creating the world s largest shark sanctuary. 12

19 That same year the Chinese government declared that they would no longer serve shark fin dishes at official functions (Losing the taste for shark fins 2013). Ecuador has the strongest anti-finning legislation and has prohibited the sale and export of fins completely since 2004 (Godin and Worm 2010). The European Union banned shark finning in 2003 and closed dangerous loopholes to tighten legislation in 2013 (Heimbuch 2013). Banning shark finning does not mean that all fishing for sharks itself is banned, however. Fin to weight ratios were created to regulate finning and allow for a more sustainable rate of shark finning, ensuring that landed fins correspond to landed carcasses rather than ones discarded at sea. The five percent fin to dressed carcass ratio was introduced in the U.S. Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Sharks of the Atlantic Ocean (NMFS) in 1993 in hopes of reducing the pressure of finning on shark species (Cortés and Neer 2006). There is much speculation about the validity of the five percent fin to carcass weight ratio for shark finning management. A study by Cortés and Neer (2006) found that a shark s fin to carcass ratio is in fact highly variable and suggest that the best way to set fin to carcass weight ratios should be on a species specific (or group specific) basis and that if this is not feasible, then landing sharks with all fins attached is the best way to protect against finning. 13

20 D. Shark Management 1. National Sharks are managed by both state and federal governments in the United States. State waters extend from the shoreline to three miles off the coast (nine nautical miles off Texas, the west coast of Florida, and Puerto Rico). Federal waters begin where state waters end, extending 200 miles offshore. States generally manage sharks in their own waters with their own set of regulations. The NMFS manages sharks in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Three councils manage sharks in the Pacific: Pacific, North Pacific, and Western Pacific. If a fishery occurs in two or more jurisdictions, management may be coordinated by a commission. There are three interstate commissions: Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC). Eight out of 12 of the United States Regional Fishery Management Organization and Programs have adopted finning prohibitions (NMFS 2012). The 2011 NMFS report included annual U.S. import and export of shark fin data collected from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Census Bureau. In 2011 shark fins were imported through ports in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, Seattle, and New York from Hong Kong, New Zealand, China and in small numbers from Australia and India. Fins from United States were mostly exported to Hong Kong, China, Poland, and Canada and small amounts to Germany and Japan. Hong Kong remains the biggest importer and exporter of shark fins by far (NMFS 2012). 14

21 The American Fisheries Society (AFS) recommends that shark and ray management be given high priority by regulatory agencies because of their vulnerability to overfishing. Their policy statement also advises against mixed-species fisheries because sharks life histories are so different from those of teleost fishes and, therefore, should be managed differently. The most effective management should also include integration between federal and state agencies and for some species, between multiple nations (Musick et al. 2000). 2. International Each country is responsible for the management of marine resources within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (Moore et al. 2009). Countries report catch to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) voluntarily; for the most part, catches are thought to be underestimates (NMFS 2012). The FAO has an International Plan of Action (IPOA) for the Conservation and Management of Sharks that developed in The United States follows and works to encourage other countries to follow the IPOA. The IPOA s aims include improving data collection and research, implementing action plans to mitigate threats to sharks, identifying priority species, developing education, and increasing collaboration. The IPOA is a guideline for countries to create their own national plans and suggests that they review the plan every four years and report their findings to the FAO. Only 13 countries have National POAs (Table 3; Techera and Klein 2011). 15

22 Table 3: Countries and regions with a National Plan of Action for Sharks developed under the FAO IPOA for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (Techera and Klein 2011). Countries/Regions with a National Plan of Action for Sharks (2011) Argentina Ecuador Uruguay Taiwan Mediterranean Sea Australia Japan Mexico United Kingdom Canada Malaysia Seychelles United States Unfortunately, most countries NPOAs do not completely adopt FAO s recommendations (Davis and Worm 2012). While the IPOA is a useful framework for regulatory action, it does not create strict rules that states are bound to (Techera and Klein 2011). Furthermore, having an NPOA also does not assure that finning is being reduced. Taiwan has an NPOA, yet their fleet has the 4 th largest shark catch in the world (Liu et al. 2013). The FAO is an extremely helpful tool for guiding states in creating their own shark conservation plan. It is essential that more countries not only participate, but do so more thoroughly. It is also extremely important that countries include issues specific to finning in their reports, plans, and legislation. A case study by Davis and Worm (2012) examined and reviewed Canada s National Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) and compared it to the original FAO guidelines. Canada developed and implemented their plan in 2007 and included nine action categories. Each category was reviewed by the authors to determine both its implementation and how it matched up to FAO s guidelines. They determined that Canada had achieved 61% of its proposed goals. They found that while Canada s NPOA attempts to address eight out of the ten IPOA objectives, it does not provide any 16

23 timelines for completion or address Canada s role in the shark fin trade. Improving Canada s shark fishery policy is important because Canada is ranked 27 out of the 87 countries that export fins to Hong Kong. Canada s plan also does not include actions to mitigate threats to non-commercial or threated shark species. Despite its shortcomings, Canada is one of one of only 13 of the 130 states who report shark landings to the FAO that actually participates in the IPOA-Sharks (Godin and Worm 2010). There are other international organizations that address shark conservation as well. The International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean (ISC) created a shark working group in 2011 (NMFS 2012). The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an international treaty that allows states to control international trade of threatened and endangered species. Participants of CITES can list species under one of three appendices (Table 4). Table 4: Appendices for Listing Species Under CITES and Shark Species Included (Techera and Klein 2011). Appendix Reasoning Specifications Shark Species Listed Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Species threatened with extinction Species traded with regulations Alert parties to concern over a species and its trade International trade in these species and their parts is prohibited Permit system used to prevent species from becoming threatened Trade in these species permitted with permit and certificate of origin only None Great white, whale, and basking shark None 17

24 The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals is another mechanism for listing species (Techera and Klein 2011). Shark species listed under the CMS are listed below in Table 5; Table 5: Appendices for Listing Species Under CMS and Shark Species Included (Techera and Klein 2011). Appendix Reasoning Specifications Shark Species Listed Appendix I Any migratory species endangered throughout all or a significant portion of their range States with jurisdiction over any part of said species range are prohibited from taking the species Great white, whale, and basking shark Appendix II Migratory species that need or would benefit from international cooperation Requires range states to create agreements with each other to benefit the species Spiny dogfish, porbeagle, shortfin mako, and longfin mako The Conservation on Biological Diversity uses an ecosystem approach to establish protected areas. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can be useful in protecting fish stocks and their entire habitat, especially because it is easier to restrict access to an area than it is to control fishing activity. However, it can be difficult to create effective MPAs if you are restricted by jurisdictions. International fisheries regulation is done through the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). According to UNCLOS, state sovereignty over fisheries extends out 12 nautical miles and their right to conserve, manage, and exploit the living resources of the EEZ which extends up to 200 nautical miles. Within the EEZ, states must set maximum sustainable yields. UNCLOS also imposes on states to cooperate with international organizations regarding highly 18

25 migratory species. On the high seas states are required to cooperate in conservation efforts by exercising authority over vessels flagged to them. Unfortunately, the US is not a signatory to UNCLOS (Techera and Klein 2011). II. Analysis of conservation strategies in other relatable taxa There is ample evidence that shark finning is devastating species worldwide. Although there are various sorts of national and international policies in place to protect sharks, nothing is fully effective and we are still losing sharks at a worrying rate. In order to find new ways to protect sharks, I analyzed past conservation efforts of different taxa to determine what worked for them and which strategies can be successfully applied to shark conservation. A. Dolphin-Safe Tuna The dolphin-safe tuna movement can serve as a template for an anti-shark fin soup movement. Yellowfin tuna are often preyed upon by dolphins. Fisherman have exploited this knowledge and used dolphins as their targets to lead them to their prey. During the process of capturing tuna, many dolphins were accidently killed as well. From 1960 to 1972 it was estimated by the National Research Council that an average of over 100,000 dolphins were killed every year by US tuna fishermen. After the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and its subsequent amendments the tuna fleet was forced to begin preventive measures to reduce dolphin fatalities and tuna fishing 19

26 related dolphin deaths dropped to a quarter of its previous estimates by 1991 (Teisl et al. 2002). During the 1980 s the media began to focus on these tuna-related dolphin deaths. Calls for boycotts of canned tuna (led by the Earth Island Institute and their infamous Sam La Budde video which exposed the killing of dolphins during tuna fishing operations) led the three biggest tuna canners in the US market to agree to a dolphinsafe labeling policy in Soon other canners followed suit and the US government passed the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act of 1990 which mandated that dolphin-safe labels be verified and sanctioned by an official observer (Teisl et al. 2002). The aim of eco-labels is to educate consumers about the environmental impacts of the product as well as to encourage better practices by changing supply and demand. Eco-labels will only work, however, if consumers care about the issues at hand. Despite canned tuna being the most important seafood product in the US, consumers cared enough about the welfare of dolphins to support eco-labels, thereby supporting more sustainable fishing practices. Teisl et al. (2002) asked whether or not dolphin-safe tuna labels dictated consumer purchasing. Their results support the idea that consumers can and will respond to eco-labels by showing the increase in market share of canned tuna that is labelled dolphin-safe. Society is willing to pay for environmentally-friendly products if they can get behind the cause. As we have seen with dolphin-safe tuna, people will use their purchasing power to support businesses that support their causes and boycott those that have practices they disagree with. This can be useful to shark conservation if a 20

27 mandated labeling system is created for businesses that sell shark fin products. Most businesses in the United States already do not sell fins; however, this labeling system would put pressure on those establishments that do still sell fins, as well as those conglomerates that sell shark products internationally. A labeling system would not only help to educate the public about the issues but it would give them an easy way to contribute to the anti-finning cause and be a creative way to put pressure on establishments with national and international investments in shark finning to put an end to the behavior, since it could lead to a decrease in customer support. B. Sea Turtle Egg Consumption Many parallels can be drawn between shark consumption and harvest and that of sea turtles. Both are large marine vertebrates vulnerable to overexploitation because of their life history traits such as their highly migratory lifestyle and their slow maturation. As marine species, they are both difficult to manage because of international jurisdiction issues. Sea turtles, like sharks, play an important role in their ecosystems as both consumers and prey species and also like sharks; their consumption is symbolic of wealth and power (Senko et al. 2011). All seven species of sea turtle are in decline and six are classified somewhere between critically endangered and vulnerable on the IUCN Red List (Hart et al. 2013). In Pacific Mexico sea turtles are becoming extinct commercially and ecologically. Egg harvesting and increased commercial fishing caused sea turtle populations to decline in the 1950 s and then to crash in the 1970 s. In 1978 the Mexican government 21

28 implemented a recovery program that included closing nesting beaches and in 1980 they issued a quota for commercial sea turtle collection. Populations continued to drop and in 1990 a complete moratorium on sea turtle use in Mexico was issued. Despite these protections, various problems still exist that are still contributing to sea turtle decline including inadequate funding and staffing of federal environmental agencies, lack of protection in important coastal foraging areas and the black market (Senko et al. 2011). The Baja Magdalena and Baja California Sur regions of Mexico have created the conservation organization Grupo Tortuguero to provide coastal communities access to training, funding, and support for sea turtle conservation. Being a member of the organization has benefits, including ease of access to biological monitoring permits. The communities that are part of the organization not only monitor sea turtles in the water but also implement education programs, social marketing, and even festivals celebrating sea turtles in order to raise awareness and appreciation for these creatures (Senko et al. 2011). A study by Senko et al. (2011) sought to gain an understanding of regional attitudes toward these community conservation measures. They surveyed community members and found that almost all of them were willing to participate in a sea turtle conservation programs or attend educational meetings or workshops. However, only three percent of them had ever been invited to participate in these meetings held by the Center for Coastal Studies in Puerto San Carlos. This is clear evidence that while these programs are useful, there has to be an increase in outreach to go along with 22

29 them. The survey also showed that fisherfolk who responded were all willing to share locations of sea turtle by-catch. They genuinely seemed interested in stopping accidental by-catch and helping to conserve these species. Despite these positive responses, the authors did identify key issues in community attitudes towards sea turtle conservation. Some respondents said they felt peer pressure to consume sea turtles from community members. Another issue they noticed was that many did not really believe or understand that sea turtle populations were in danger. Respondents also noted challenges associated with community conservation issues including conflict within the community, discrepancies with transient fisherfolk and the unavailability of meeting places for educational seminars (Senko et al. 2011). What this shows us is that communities do care about wildlife and are willing to protect local habitats and species if they have the means to do so. Communities with local shark populations (specifically those with reef ecosystems where sharks reside) have the power to protect those populations by designating protected habitat either for conservation and/or ecotourism reasons. This way, members of the community will appreciate and value that habitat and its species, including sharks, and will be less likely to harvest them. Ecotourism is another thing that sea turtles have in common with sharks. Ecotourism is defined as environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features-both past and present) that promotes conservation, has 23

30 lower visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local populations (Hart et al. 2013). Sea turtles are also attractive for voluntourism. Both ecotourism and voluntourism can bring jobs and revenue to communities as well as promote the importance of sea turtle conservation. The majority of responders in Senko s et al. (2011) survey believe that voluntourism would benefit their community. There have already been positive outcomes from sea turtle voluntourism. SEEturtles and RED Sustainable Tourism have provided local communities and sea turtle conservation efforts with money, training, and jobs. Sea turtle poachers have a variety of motives, and understanding the major motives of each area is essential when it comes to designing conservation plans. A marine protected area in the Seychelles experiences poaching primarily because of economic factors, while areas of limited resources and employment opportunities lead to poaching for sustenance (Hart et al. 2013). Tortuguero, Costa Rica has recorded a decrease in illegal poaching as a result of ecotourism on sea turtle nesting beaches (Senko et al. 2011). As tourism increases, sea turtles become valued more as nonconsumptive resources rather than a consumptive one (Hart et al. 2013). A study by Hart et al. (2013) evaluated stakeholder perceptions about sea turtle sustainability in three different communities near Cahuita National Park, Costa Rica. They found that Cahuita Town was the most dependent on tourism with the greatest awareness of the local sea turtle conservation project and the highest degree of social cohesion. The second community, Home Creek, had limited social cohesion and little awareness of the sea turtle conservation project. The third community, Playa Negra, had 24

31 the lowest amount of social cohesion and the lowest level of awareness. These results support the idea that a community must first be stable in resources before they will be willing to care about conservation. Despite these differences, a majority of respondents in each community said they would be willing to participate in sea turtle conservation. Sea turtle egg consumption and conservation is an issue similar to that of shark fin consumption and conservation. Both taxa include migratory marine species both include many endangered or threatened species, and both are threatened by human consumption of individuals that result in complete mortality. By examining the ways communities and organizations seek to prevent the consumption of see turtle eggs, we can apply these successful strategies to sharks. Communities are clearly willing to participate in the conservation of local species. While older generations continue to eat turtle eggs, younger generations tend to be more educated about conservation issues and less conformed to culture. This is a similar situation to shark fin soup in many societies. When communities are provided with more education on a topic, as well as given more opportunities to participate in workshops, they are more willing to invest in conservation, not only for the species itself, but to allow for sustainable levels of future harvest. From studying sea turtle conservation efforts we also notice that by creating a sustainable ecotourism market in a community, we can eliminate some of the need for harvest of animals. Like sea turtles, sharks are attractive subjects for ecotourism and if managed correctly, could bring in more revenue to a community as a renewable and sustainable resource than harvesting would. 25

32 C. Large Mammal Poaching Elephant ivory and rhinoceros horns are similar products to shark fins in that they are illegal or fairly unused in many countries, highly coveted in others, and their harvest results in the death of the animals they are taken from. Despite the CITES ivory trade ban since 1990, elephant poaching remains a problem throughout much of Africa. There has been debate about whether an ivory ban alone can reduce elephant poaching and studies have yielded varying results. A study by Heltberg (2001) determined that a trade ban can result in reduced poaching if paired with actions that intercept smuggled goods, reduce official production and do not negatively affect law enforcement efforts. Despite the ivory trade ban, African elephants (Loxodonta africana and L. cyclotis) are still in decline. A recent study on forest elephants in central Asia determines that population size decreased by 62% from 2002 to 2011 due to the combination of habitat loss and illegal poaching despite previous thoughts that they are well-protected. An increasing demand for ivory (especially from China) combined with a lack of effective governance has given poachers the means and motivations to illegally hunt these forest elephants (Maisels et al. 2013). A study by Burn et al. (2011) used a hierarchical Bayesian analysis of elephant carcass data to determine global trends and factors associated with poaching. Similar to other studies they found that poor governance was an important driver of illegal killing. This study showed that a trade ban on products alone is not enough to stop illegal poaching of animals and that other actions including enforcing anti-poaching laws 26

33 through monitoring and policing, as well as decreasing demand for products must also be implemented for it to truly be effective. One of the biggest issues with ivory trade is that inability to properly determine the geographic origin of ivory being traded. A study by Wasser at al. (2007) attempted to infer the geographic origin of African elephant DNA from the largest seizure of contraband elephant ivory since the ban in Using this method the researchers could identity with near certainty whether an individual elephant was from the savanna or forest. By identifying where these elephants were killed, law-enforcement efforts can be focused on these areas as well as smuggling routes. Just as conservationists are using elephant DNA from ivory to trace poaching routes, scientists are also using DNA barcoding from shark meat to identify species composition. Liu et al. (2013) did this for markets in Taiwan and found that Alopias pelagicus (pelagic thresher sharks), Carcharhinus falciformis (silky sharks), Isurus oxyrinchus (shortfin mako sharks), and Prionace glauca make up 80% of samples. They also found that 5% of the tissue samples belonged to Sphyrna species, Carcharhinus longimanus, and Carcharodon carcharias sharks; all species listed in CITES Appendix II. Rhincodon typus, or whale shark, was not identified in any samples, possibly because they are the only shark species with a restricted ban on fishing and trading in Taiwan. This is a good sign that bans may actually be useful in reducing harvest. The authors suggest similar bans for Appendix II species and reduced quota for the other highly consumed shark species. 27

34 Another example of poaching-induced population decline in large mammals is Diceros bicornis (black rhinoceros). By the mid-1990 s the population dropped by 95% from its 1960 levels. Rhinos are poached for their horns which are used in traditional remedies and in crafts, such as dagger-making. Diceros bicornis were listed under CITES s Appendix A in 1977 which banned trade in rhinoceros horn but did not actually reduce the number of rhinos being killed. Some studies suggested that illegal Diceros bicornis killing actually increased after the ban (Bulte 2003). Rhinos have also been the center of some ecotourism efforts. The Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust in Botswana was created as a type of community-based natural resource management. Ideally, this would protect habitats and species while simultaneously benefiting local communities. A study by Sebele (2010) sought to investigate the benefits and setbacks of the program and found some of both. The program was successful initially in providing employment for local citizens. However, the number of employees did not increase concurrent with the number of tourists. The program was also successful in assisting the needy within the community with funds, although long-term benefits are not established. The program also assists the community by providing them with sourcing of goods and services. As for conservation, the program was successful in facilitating the introduction of rhinos in an area where they did not previously occur. Setbacks in the program include poor management, lack of community involvement due to lack of interaction with community members, reliance on donor funding and an imbalance in board representation. This study tells us 28