Shark Depredation and Unwanted Bycatch in Pelagic Longline

Fiji Pelagic Longline Tuna Fishery
A3.6. Management Framework Relevant to Shark
Interactions and its Effect on Fishermen
Within Fiji’s EEZ, the fishery property rights belong to the
State and are administered by the Fisheries Department. As
shark is not managed as a separate fishery in Fiji there are currently
no regulations on its exploitation including no restrictions
relating to catch, processing and handling of sharks
and shark fins (Swamy, 1999, Raiwalui Pers. comm., 2006).
However, there has been a recent legal precedent whereby a vessel
licensed to fish for tuna in Fiji waters was charged for illegally targeting
shark rather than harvesting shark as by-catch. The vessel was licensed
to fish for tuna in the offshore area of Fiji’s Exclusive Economic Zone
(beyond 12 nautical miles from the coast out to the border of the EEZ)
but was targeting sharks in Archipelagic Waters (within 12 nautical
miles from the coast), its hold held a large quantity of shark fillets and
fins but no tuna. The charterer was charged FJ$30,000. The vessel and
cargo were also forfeited to the State. The cargo of shark product was
sold for FJD 42,643.92 (Nakeke, 2006).
Sharks or shark products that have been caught outside of Fiji waters
that are to be off-loaded at a Fiji port for processing or exported
require a permit (Raiwaliu Pers. comm., 2006). In 2004, a total of 652
permits were issued involving 70.7 MT of shark fin and 79.95 MT of
shark meat. No permits are required for vessels that off-load shark
by-catch that has been caught in Fiji waters (Fisheries Department,
2004).
The National Fisheries Observer Programme collects catch logs,
scientific and unloading data and real time data on fishing vessels
during fishing operations. In 2004, the observer programme is reported
as having covered 1,143 of the 1,203 vessels operating (Fisheries Dept.
Annual Report, 2004). The time period over which each vessel was
covered is unclear. However, according to the Secretariat of the Pacific
Community, in 1999 and from 2002 to 2005 observer coverage in Fiji
Waters ranged from 4.51% to 0.34% of hooks observed out of the
total fishing effort per year.
All vessels licensed to fish in Fiji Waters must operate an Automatic
Location Communicator (ALC) which is monitored by Fiji’s Vessel
Monitoring System (VMS) which is managed by the Fiji Navy. The
Fiji Navy also conducts sea and aerial patrols to detect and investigate
suspicious vessel activity (Raiwalui Pers. comm., 2006).
In addition, random dockside vessel inspections are carried out by the
Fisheries and Customs Departments to detect Illegal, Unregulated
and Unreported Fishing (IUU). These inspections focus on vessels
that have entered from outside of Fiji Waters but do include a
proportion of domestic vessels (Fisheries Department, 2004, Raiwalui
Pers. comm., 2006).
One interviewee, a company managing director commented that
if regulations were put in place that required the entire shark to be
retained on the vessel and/or taxed shark fin trading crews would be
deterred from catching sharks.
A3.7. Current Response to Shark By-Catch by Fiji
Pelagic Longliners
A3.7.1. Methods for onboard processing and discarding of
sharks
As the data in Section 5 indicates, Shark seems to form a significant
portion of the by-catch for pelagic tuna longline fisheries in Fiji
waters. Sharks are usually finned and the carcasses discarded back
into the ocean. This was reinforced in the interviews, interviewees
advised that the shark is hauled into the boat, killed if necessary, the
hook is removed, the 3 fins and tail are cut and the remaining carcass
is thrown back into the sea. The fins and tail are then sun-dried. The
shark carcasses are generally discarded because there is relatively
poor demand and market value for shark meat (Sokimi pers. comm.
1996, Swamy, 1999).
One contradiction between the SPC Observer data (Section 5) and
the interviews was that while the observer data indicated that sharks
are usually alive when they are hauled into the boat, interviewees
stated sharks are normally dead by the time they are hauled in.
Interviewees stated that as a result, dehooker type devices are not
needed to release sharks. The two Managing Directors were the only
interviewees that were of the opinion that the sharks tend to be alive
when hauled into the boat. All interviewees commented that they
never discard a shark that has been caught on the line without first
finning it.
A3.7.2. Practices employed to reduce shark capture
A Fisheries Development Officer from the Oceanic Fisheries
Programme of the SPC who works closely with boat owners and
crew in the region and has worked as a longline skipper in Fiji Waters
advised that most in the industry have accepted shark by-catch as
inevitable. Not much has been done to reduce shark interaction other
than avoiding infested areas to some extent. He added that due to the
economic hardship of crews and fishing operations, time and energy
is not available for experimenting with practices to reduce shark
interaction (Sokimi, Pers. comm., 1996).
Two interviewees commented that it is not possible to avoid catching
sharks. Other interviewees listed the following measures that are
used in some cases to avoid catching sharks:
• Avoid setting the lines/hooks in shallow water or near reefs or
seamounts;
• Ensuring that the branch line is not near floats or buoys;
• Not using a small float; and
• Not allowing the crew to use a steel wire trace on hooks (steel
wire causes more sharks to be caught as sharks can break the
alternative nylon trace).
Interviewees perceived that there are no extra costs associated with
using these methods and recommended them as effective methods
to reduce shark catch. They added that they have not used other methods
in the past nor did they recommend any additional methods
as potentially useful.
71