Shibani Mahtani Asian Wall Street Journal 21 Feb 12;
Just as the tides seem to be turning against the consumption of shark fin soup – even in Asia, where the delicacy has long been a staple on banquet menus – some marine life experts are arguing that banning the sale of shark fins is pointless.
Speaking at a seminar organized by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, Dr. Giam Choo Hoo, a member of a United Nations body on endangered species, said that media hype is responsible for “misconceptions” about the shark-fishing industry. Arguing against widely-circulated images showing bloodied sharks struggling as their fins are hacked off – popularized by the likes of celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay – Dr. Giam said a vast majority of sharks are not killed to feed the tastes of increasingly-affluent Chinese consumers who consider the dish a status symbol.
He cited research showing 80% of the 73 million sharks killed each year are in fact caught accidentally, and overwhelmingly in developing countries. According to Dr. Giam’s research, 25% of the shark catch comes from India and Indonesia – countries, he says, that are home to “mostly poor” fishermen who will eat every part of the shark, and then sell off the fin to eager buyers.
“Most fins are humanely taken from landed, dead sharks,” said Dr. Giam, who is a committee member on the U.N. Conventional on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and once Singapore’s chief veterinary officer.
The consumption of shark fin, usually in a soup, is most common in East Asia, with 95% of all shark fin consumed within China, according to marine conservation group WildAid. Recent campaigns have netted support from high-profile figures like Richard Branson and Yao Ming, as well as hotels like Shangri-La and some of Singapore’s biggest supermarket chains, which have all discouraged consumption of the dish, in some cases removing it from their shelves and menus.
Many critics of the dish have argued that the fins do not really taste of anything in particular, and are consumed primarily as a status symbol, with many consumers believing it improves sexual potency and skin quality.
Still, some consumers have argued that stopping the sale of the dish is at root a form of Sinophobia, with activists unfairly targeting Chinese consumers rather than European or North American consumers who consume large quantities of bluefin tuna, caviar and other potentially “unsustainable” foods. Under-regulated fishing practices have depleted tuna stocks in many parts of the world, for example.
Dr. Giam raised this point, too, arguing that many countries such as Germany, France, Australia and Iceland have long killed sharks for their meat. Sharks, he says, are not endangered – of the 400 species of the animal, only six have been considered endangered by the U.N.’s CITES.
“Shark’s fin soup is culturally discriminatory,” said Dr. Giam, noting that there have not been similar high-profile movements against caviar, which is highly endangered according to CITES, or Atlantic blue fin tuna, which is also considered to be endangered.
Other speakers on the panel – notably Steve Oakley, chairman of Shark Savers Malaysia, and Hank Jenkins, the president of conservation group Species Management Specialists – broadly agreed with Dr. Giam’s premise. While each adopted slightly different arguments, they were of the increasingly-rare opinion that banning shark fin itself will not lead to a vast drop in the number of sharks fished and killed.
While admitting the need for stepped-up regulation of the industry, the three agreed that “live finning” – the process of cutting off the sharks’ fins, then throwing the animals back into the sea, which has become a rallying point for many animal rights groups – is not a prevalent practice, and is widely-condemned by the industry.
Still, one voice on the ISEAS panel disagreed. Louis Ng, executive director of the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES), which has also led a campaign to free 25 bottle-nosed dolphins held by Resorts World Sentosa, maintained that it is unnecessary, cruel and harmful to continue killing sharks for their fins or otherwise.
Arguing against the view that fishing for sharks actually helps poorer communities, Mr. Ng quoted representatives from places like the Maldives and the Bahamas, who say that shark diving operations for tourists bring millions of dollars to their local economy every year.
Though he avoided blaming Asian consumers or their Western counterparts, Mr. Ng maintained the need for “humane” and “responsible” choices, encouraging at least a temporary ban on the fins until the trade is more sustainable and properly regulated before consumption is allowed again.
In a comment to this article:
Michael Skoletsky, Shark Savers wrote:
We object to the interpretation in this article (Experts Swim Against Shark Fin Debate) that Professor Oakley of Shark Savers Malaysia agrees with Dr. Giam’s and Mr. Jenkins that sharks are not in urgent need of greater protection or that the shark fin trade is a key part of the problem. Prof. Oakley argued in favor of significantly improved measures to assure sustainability and for rejecting the consumption of shark.
Stopping the shark fin trade would greatly reduce shark mortality. Worldwide, there is low demand for shark meat and high demand for shark fin. Fishery management and scientific reports confirm that demand for shark fins is the primary driver of unsustainable shark fishing. Shark fins are among the most expensive seafood items in the world, bringing 20 to 250 times the value of meat by weight.
A 2006 report from the CITES Animals Group on “Trade Related Threats to Sharks” states: “Extensive, global-scale exploitation of sharks for the fin trade with its ramifications for population sustainability and impacts of apex predator removal on marine ecosystems are issues of international concern and discussion (FAO 2000; NMFS 2001; Baum et al. 2003; Clarke 2004).”
As a result, 100% of the 14 species most prevalent in the shark fin trade (Clarke et al. 2006) are classified by the IUCN as Threatened or Near Threatened, with 71% at “High Risk” or “Very High Risk” of extinction. 17% of all shark species, and 30% of pelagic shark species are threatened with extinction. Yet there are no restrictions governing the trade of these very vulnerable species.
Shark species reproduce too slowly to overcome current levels of overfishing. The result, in many cases, has been severe population depletion or collapse. Regional losses of highly targeted species are as high as 99% in some cases.
Sharks are very important to ocean health. Current levels of shark fishing, trade, and consumption are not sustainable. Let’s all do our part now by not eating shark fins or shark meat. More information: http://www.sharksavers.org
