Shark Depredation and Unwanted Bycatch in Pelagic Longline

Shark Depredation and Unwanted Bycatch in Pelagic Longline Fisheries
A3.7.3. Distribution of revenue from sharks
Sokimi (Pers. comm., 1996) advised that in Fiji, as with most regional
tune longline operations, dried shark fin is major supplement to the
tuna longline fisherman’s earnings.
According to Swamy (1999) and the interview results, the crew is at
liberty to process shark fins and the proceeds from the sale of shark
fins do not go to the vessel owners, but are shared among the crew.
However, the two Managing Directors that were interviewed advised
that the revenue goes to the “crew and company” and that they “do
not encourage the crew to catch sharks”. They added that the proceeds
go to both the crew and the company which is contradiction of the
crews’ response.
A3.7.4. Ex-vessel value of landed sharks
There is a shark fin and meat industry operating in Fiji (Kailola,
1995). Most of the shark products are exported, a small portion of
the landings are distributed locally (Swamy, 1999).
Shark fins and tails are purchased by local shark fin traders. The value
of the fin depends on the species, the type of fin, their completeness,
and moisture content (a well-dried fin fetches a higher price). During
1997, prices paid to local fishermen ranged from FJ$20 to 140 per
kilogramme, the average price paid was FJ$60 (Swamy, 1999).
According to the fishermen interviewed for this study, the current
market value for fins and tail is FJ$60 to 200 per kilogramme. One
interviewee advised that Brown Sharks fetch the highest price
(FJ$170/kg) followed by Blue Sharks (FJ$100/kg) followed by Mako
Sharks (FJ$60/kg). Sokimi (pers. comm., 1996) reinforced that Brown
followed by Blue sharks fetch the highest price for fins, he was of the
opinion that Mako and Thresher Sharks have no value for fins.
One shark fin trader, Wellbeing Enterprise Limited states on a
webpage that they can provide a stable supply of 2 tonnes (2000 kg)
per month of dried shark fin from “black/brown sharks sourced
from Fiji waters”, its office is based in Korea (http://www.alibaba.
com/catalog/11000557/Shark_Fin.html).
It is interesting to note that Fiji is an appealing location for shark
product export operations. There are tax incentives to offload shark
products in Fiji for re-export to markets that give Fiji tax concessions.
Moreover as shark fins are primarily an export product, shark fin
exporters pay reduced taxes. Furthermore, there is no export duty on
fishery products. Due to these favourable conditions for the operation
of such agents it seems likely that the shark fin trade will continue to
grow in Fiji (Swamy 1999). The export data presented in Table 7 is the
result of a combination of shark products caught in Fiji’s waters and
shark products offloaded by foreign vessels for re-export.
A3.7.5. Revenue from catching sharks relative to economic
costs from shark depredation and gear damage
Sokimi (pers. comm., 1996) is of the opinion that as long as the shark
fin trade is in operation in Fiji, shark finning will continue to be a part
of fishermen’s activities. He added that even if legislation is put in pace
to prohibit the capture of sharks for the fins, he is of the opinion that
that this would simply lead to the creation of a black market.
According to the interviews with fishermen, the general perception
seems to be that sharks cost more due to depredation and the time that
crew spends processing them than they earn in revenue. However, all
interviewees stated that the cost in terms of gear da-mage (hook and
line), lost bait and loss of target species due to shark by-catch and
depredation is very low.
A3.8. Current Response to Shark Depredation
by Fiji Pelagic Longliners
A3.8.1. Frequency and effects of shark depredation
A 2001 study by the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the SPC that
used national observer programme data held by the SPC indicated
that observed shark predation is at fairly low levels, ranging from
0.9 to 4.2% of observed caught tuna being discarded due to shark
damage. In contrast levels of fish discarded due to whale damage
were non-existent all years apart from a single fish being discarded
in 1999 (Table A3.10). It is possible that the low percentages of
whale-damaged tuna may be due to improper reporting by national
observers. It is interesting to note that general fisherman perception
seems to be that depredation due to whales is a much bigger issue (see
Section A3.10 for more information).
The perception of interviewees is that shark depredation levels and
associated costs in terms of gear, bait and lost target species are
very low. Both Company Directors that were interviewed stressed
that they were more concerned about the loss of target species due
to Whales. A number of crew/captain interviewees commented that
they do not think that sharks cause depredation.
A3.8.2. Practices employed to reduce shark depredation
Sokimi (pers. comm., 1996) advised that not much has been done
to reduce shark depredation other than avoiding infested areas.
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. Most interviewees advised that
they do not do anything to avoid depredation nor have they done
so in the past, some said that this is because nothing can be done,
some said that this was because they do not think that sharks cause
depredation. The only exception to this result was the two Managing
Directors that were interviewed who commented that the same
methods used to avoid by-catch also apply to avoiding depredation.
72