I've been following the discussion on shark finning with interest as this is
getting into the area of fisheries management and that's what I do for a
living.
The question came up. What is the U.S. doing about shark finning? The answer
is that the practice has been prohibited in various fisheries around the U.S.
(different regions of the U.S. are managed fairly autonomously). And, in
addition, there is legislation in Congress at this moment that would
permanently prohibit the practice in the U.S. EEZ and restrict imports and
exports with nations that still allow the practice. This shark finning
amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act was introduced by Sen. Olympia Snow of
Maine. I've attached the draft text to the end of this email for those who
might want to read the proposed new law. It's quite thorough (I'm sending
this email in html rather than plain text so that it doesn't line wrap and
make the attached text unreadable.)
First of all, I completely agree with the sentiments expressed against this
practice. Resource conservation isn't just about how many animals you kill.
It's also about how you use them. Here in Alaska we don't have a commercial
shark fishery. There are sharks but no commercial fishery. But the whole
controversy over shark finning is very similar to a controversy over pollock
roe stripping that we had in Alaska 12 years ago. And I think the roe
stripping saga illustrates my point about sharks.
Pollock are the most abundant fish species in Alaska. They are medium-sized
white fish in the cod family. Adult pollock might weigh about 1 kg and might
reach about 2' long but are generally a bit smaller than that. Pollock swim
in giant pelagic schools and are very easy to catch. Large trawlers using
pelagic trawl nets might be able to catch 100-150 ton hauls of pollock every
few hours when on a good school of pollock so we're talking about 500+ tons a
day. This is serious industrial fishing. The Alaska-wide pollock quota is
about 1.1 to 1.3 million metric tons depending on the year which makes it the
largest fishery in the United States and one of the largest in the world. If
you count the Russian pollock fishery on their half of the Bering Sea as part
of the same fishery, then the Bering Sea pollock fishery is by far the largest
commercial fishery in the world.
Today pollock are processed into various fillet products, minced fish, surimi,
fish meal, fish oil, and roe. In the U.S. pollock is most commonly sold in
fillet form in fast food restaurants (Skipper's, McDonalds fillet o' fish
sandwiches) and in minced form as fish sticks in school lunches. Surimi is
the product that is formed into the mock crab served in salad bars but most of
the surimi produced in Alaska is exported to Asia. But this was not always
the case.
The most valuable part of the pollock by far is the roe. Pollock roe is a
delicacy in Japan and the roe from a single gravid female is worth far more
than the rest of the fish put together. The roe prices fluctuate but top
quality roe is very expensive, more like caviar.
In any event, back in the 1980s the U.S. pollock fishery was just developing
and markets for pollock in the U.S. were pretty minimal. The fast food
industry and fish stick market relied on cod harvested in the north Atlantic
and there was really no profitable market for pollock. However the Japanese
roe market was still very strong. Several Japanese companies had built
processing plants in Kodiak and Dutch Harbor in the 1980s to process pollock
surimi and pollock roe for the Japanese market and a decent market developed
for smaller trawlers based out of those ports. They could finally start
catching pollock (for which they previously had no market) and start
delivering it to processing plants in their home towns. It was a profitable
fishery and the season lasted nearly all year long. The real limit was
processing capacity not fishing capacity and the boats would have a delivery
schedule and go to sea when it was their turn. Quite a civilized fishery.
In the late 80s, a flood of factory trawlers showed up in Alaska. While these
boats were operating under the U.S. flag, they were mostly owned and financed
by Japanese and Norwegian companies. These factory trawler companies
recognized that pollock roe was the most valuable product that could be made
from pollock and designed their factories to maximize roe production.
Basically they set up rows of mechanized roe stripping machines in their
onboard factories that would mechanically strip the roe out of female pollock.
They would have dozens of crew members who would sort the pollock by sex which
you can do by eye with experience. The males would be flipped onto one
conveyor belt which ran straight to the discard chute and all the male pollock
would be dumped overboard dead. The female pollock would run through the roe
stripping machines to extract the roe and then the gutted female carcasses
would be discarded also. Operating at peak efficiency, these factory ships
could go through between 500 and 1000 metric tons of pollock per day saving
only the roe. In 1989 one big factory trawler company, Emerald Seafoods
(owned by an international consortium) sent it's ships over to the Kodiak area
in January and with about 3 factory trawlers they blew through the entire
annual pollock quota for the Kodiak area in less than 2 weeks before many of
the small local boats were even able to get out of port due to the weather.
This was a quota that had lasted about 9 months the previous year.
About the time that the NMFS closed the Kodiak area pollock fishery due to
attainment of the quota, thousands of tons of dead pollock carcasses started
to wash up on the shores of Kodiak Island. The Emerald Seafoods factory
trawlers had long since departed back to the Bering Sea and the local
fishermen were left with no fishery and dead fish washing up along the shores
of their island.
As you can imagine, fishermen throughout Alaska were completely enraged and
the economy of Kodiak was devastated that spring. All because roe stripping
was a more economically profitable method of fishing than utilizing the entire
fish. What happened as a result was that Congress passed a prohibition on
pollock roe stripping and the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council which
is the governing body for establishing fishing management plans for Alaska
also passed a prohibition on roe stripping which NMFS implemented through
regulations. This was all happening about the time that I first started
working for NMFS and what I remember the most was that Emerald Seafoods and
some of the other factory trawler companies sued NMFS to overturn the ban on
roe stripping, arguing in court that since roe stripping was the most
economically efficient way of fishing for pollock and because there were no
good markets for pollock flesh, they should be allowed to continue. This is
the exact same argument used by the shark finning industry. Luckily the roe
stripping ban was upheld in court and remains in effect today.
What happened as a result of the ban on roe stripping? The factory trawler
fleet had to completely revamp their operations and work to develop new
markets for pollock products. A few years later NMFS passed a prohibition on
discarding pollock altogether so the current regulations prohibit discarding
of any pollock and set minimum utilization standards. What has happened is
that these companies have had to aggressively market their pollock products
throughout the U.S. and the world and as a result, pollock may be the second
most commonly eaten fish in the U.S. after tuna. (I'm not positive about that
statistic).
While these companies might not have the same windfall profits they got from
roe stripping, the industry is much more mature as a result and thousands of
additional people are employed in the processing and distribution of pollock
than would be the case if roe stripping were still allowed. Not to mention
the benefits to the American consumer who now has a wider and cheaper supply
of fish.
Either way, the same quantity of pollock end up getting killed whether you
allow roe stripping or not. The question is, which management approach
represents the best stewardship of a public resource? and which management
approach produces the greatest net benefit to the nation?
The underlying principle behind fisheries management in the United States is
that fisheries should be managed in a manner to provide the greatest overall
benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and
recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine
ecosystems. This is straight from the Magnuson-Stevens Act which is the basis
for fisheries management in the U.S.
---------------------PROPOSED SHARK FINNING
AMENDMENTS--------------------------
SECTION 202. REGULATIONS.
SHARK FINNING AMENDMENTS
No later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of Commerce shall
promulgate regulations implementing the prohibition set forth in section
307(a)(1)(P) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
1857(a)(1)(P)) that-
(1) establish shark fin landing requirements that consider species
identification needs, shark
processing methods, and the nature and availability of markets for shark
products in the region
in which the shark fins are landed.
(2) contain procedures governing release of sharks caught but not retained by
a fishing
vessel that will ensure maximum probability of survival of sharks after
release;
(3) contain documentation and other requirements necessary to assure the
timely and
adequate collection of data to support shark stock assessments and
conservation enforcement
efforts; and
(4) set forth the facts and circumstances under which a person may rebut the
presumption
established by section 307(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management
Act (16 U.S.C. 1857(b)), including the use of documentation provided through
applicable
fisheries observer programs and dockside inspection.
SEC. 203. INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS.
The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Secretary of State, shall with
respect to the
fishing practices on highly migratory sharks governed by regulations
promulgated by the Secretary
of Commerce pursuant to Section 202 of this title-
(1) notify other nations whose vessels engage in fishing on highly migratory
sharks, as soon
as possible, about the import certification procedures and regulations under
section 202 of this
title, as well as the international cooperation and assistance provisions of
section 204;
(2) initiate discussions as soon as possible for purpose of developing
bilateral or multilateral
agreements with other nations for the prohibition on shark-finning of highly
migratory sharks;
(3) initiate discussions as soon as possible with all foreign governments
which are engaged in,
or which have persons or companies engaged in shark-finning or in commercial
fishing
operations that the Secretary of Commerce determines may affect adversely such
species of
highly migratory sharks, for the purpose of entering into bilateral and
multilateral treaties with
such countries to protect such species;
(4) seek agreements calling for an international ban on shark-finning and
other fishing
practices adversely affecting these species through the United Nations, the
Food and
Agriculture Organization's Committee on Fisheries, and appropriate regional
fishery
management bodies;
(5) initiate the amendment of any existing international treaty for the
protection and
conservation of species of highly migratory sharks to which the United States
is a party in order
to make such treaty consistent with the purposes and policies of this section;
(6) provide to the Congress, by not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act-
(A) a list of each nation which conducts shark-finning or conducts commercial
fishing
operations within the geographic range of distribution of highly migratory
shark populations;
and
(B) a list of each nation which conducts shark-finning or conducts commercial
fishing
operations which may affect adversely such shark populations; and
(7) provide to the Congress, by not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act,
and every year thereafter, a full report which-
(A) describes the efforts taken to carry out this title and evaluates the
progress of those
efforts;
(B) lists the status of measures taken by each nation listed under paragraph
(5) to prohibit
shark-finning and to protect and conserve highly migratory shark populations;
(C) includes a determination by the Secretary as to whether international
trade in sharks
and shark products (including fins) is adversely affecting, or will adversely
affect, the
effectiveness of national and international measures for the conservation of
highly migratory
sharks;
(D) sets forth a plan of action for ensuring the conclusion and entry into
force of
international shark conservation agreements under this section; and
(E) includes recommendations by the Secretary for measures to ensure that
United States
actions are consistent with national, international, and regional obligations
relating to highly
migratory shark populations, including those listed under the Convention on
the International
Trade in Endangered Species.
SEC. 204. IMPORT CERTIFICATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary of Commerce shall establish a procedure,
consistent with the
provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, and
including notice and an
opportunity for comment by the governments of nations listed by the Secretary
under paragraph (6)
of section 203, for determining whether those governments-
(1) have adopted regulatory programs governing shark-finning and other
harvesting
practices adversely affecting highly migratory sharks that are comparable,
taking into account
different conditions, to those of the United States;
(2) have established management plans governing release of highly migratory
species of
sharks caught but not retained by fishing vessels that ensure maximum
probability of survival
after release; and
(3) have established a management plan containing requirements that will
assist in gathering
species-specific data to support international and regional shark stock
assessments and
conservation enforcement efforts.
(b) CERTIFICATION PROCEDURE.--
(1) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary shall determine, on the basis of the procedure
under
subsection (a), and certify to the Congress not later than 90 days after
promulgation of the
regulations under section 202, and annually thereafter whether the government
of each
harvesting nation-
(A) has provided documentary evidence of the adoption of a regulatory program
governing
shark-finning and the conservation of highly migratory sharks that is
comparable, taking into
account different conditions, to that of the United States;
(B) has established a management plan governing release of highly migratory
species of
sharks caught but not retained by a fishing vessel that will ensure maximum
probability of
survival of after release; and
(C) has established a management plan containing requirements that will assist
in
gathering species-specific data to support international and regional shark
stock assessments
and conservation enforcement efforts.
(2) ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE.-The Secretary shall establish a procedure for
certification, on a shipment-by-shipment, shipper-by-shipper, or other basis
of imports of highly
migratory sharks or products (including fins) from a vessel of a harvesting
nation not certified
under paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that such imports were
harvested by practices
that-
(A) do not adversely affect highly migratory sharks;
(B) include release of highly migratory species of sharks caught but not
retained by such
vessel in a manner that ensures maximum probability of survival after release;
(C) include the gathering of species-specific data that can be used to support
international
and regional shark stock assessments and conservation efforts; or
(D) are consistent with harvesting practices comparable, taking into account
the
circumstances, to those of the United States.
(c) UNCERTIFIED IMPORTS.-It is unlawful to import highly migratory sharks or
products
(including fins) which have been harvested by the practice of shark finning or
other commercial
practices that may affect adversely such populations of sharks more than 90
days after
promulgation of the regulations under section 202 if such sharks or products
were harvested by a
vessel of a harvesting nation not certified under Section (b)(1) unless that
vessel is certified under
subsection (b)(2).
(d) REINSTATEMENT OF UNCERTIFIED COUNTRY STATUS.-If the Secretary fails to
make the annual certification required by subsection (b)(1) with respect to a
country previously
certified under that subsection, and except as provided in subsection (b)(2),
then subsection (c)
shall apply to imports of highly migratory sharks or products (including fins)
harvested by vessels
of that nation beginning 90 days after the date in any year on which the
Secretary fails to make the
scheduled annual certification required by subsection (b).
SEC. 205. SHARK-FINNING DEFINED.
For the purposes of this title, the term "shark-finning" means the taking of a
shark, removing
the fin or fins (whether or not including the tail), and returning the
remainder of the shark to the
sea.
SEC. 206. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND ASSISTANCE.
To the greatest extent possible consistent with existing authority and the
availability of funds,
the Secretary of Commerce shall-
(1) provide appropriate technological and other assistance to nations listed
under paragraph
(6) of section 203 and regional or international organizations of which those
nations are
members to assist those nations in qualifying for certification under section
204(b)(1);
(2) undertake, where appropriate, cooperative research activities on species
statistics and
improved harvesting techniques, with those nations or organizations;
(3) encourage and facilitate the transfer of appropriate technology to those
nations or
organizations to assist those nations in qualifying for certification under
section 204(b)(1); and
improved harvesting techniques, with those nations or organizations;
(3) encourage and facilitate the transfer of appropriate technology to those
nations or
organizations to assist those nations in qualifying for certification under
section 204(b)(1); and
(4) provide assistance to those nations or organizations in designing and
implementing
appropriate shark harvesting plans.
|
