ETEE7

Highlights Day 1: 10 March 2013 21
Mr. Sant also enumerated the types of marine species being fished and internationally traded: sea
cucumbers, sharks, various fishes, and marine turtles. He then cited examples of TRAFFIC’s regulated
marine species and the problems encountered in the course of regulating these species. First, with respect
to the Patagonian toothfish, a species in Antarctic waters under the management of the Convention for
the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, TRAFFIC discovered in 2001 that (i) 50% of the
Patagonian toothfish trade is derived from IUU fishing, which undermines the conservation measures
adopted by the members of that commission; and (ii) the actual volume of trading is four times the
amount estimated by the convention. In understanding illegal trade, Mr Sant pointed out, it is crucial to
have the ability to discern the codes used by the organization preparing the reports and to have accurate
reporting mechanisms in place. It is also important for CITES parties to recognize that some trade routes
are harder to control than others, such as in the case of trade in humphead wrasses.
For Mr. Sant, that TRAFFIC obtained different figures on how much IUU fishing was really worth
only proves that enforcement and reporting mechanisms are inaccurate because illegal fisheries trade
is not yet visible; TRAFFIC still needs to find out where the marine species are being sourced and how
big the trade really is. He ended by identifying the efforts used to reduce IUU fishing. For instance, the
European Union (EU) and the US impose regulations restricting the access of illegally sourced products
into their markets. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s Agreement on Port State
Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing limits product
access at ports and defines the responsibilities of port states either as reexport points or as final landing
states, while INTERPOL has launched Project Scale to combat fisheries crime.
Dr. Fábio Hissa Vieira Hazin, a member of the Brazilian delegation to the 16th CITES Conference of
the Parties (CoP) and former chair of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
(ICCAT), focused on sharks and manta rays, especially on shark finning and the absence of international
trade regulation on manta rays.
Dr. Hazin explained that shark finning involves removing a shark’s fins and throwing the body back
into the sea. Like the disposal of rhinoceroses and elephants after poachers get their horns and tusks, shark
finning decimates precious shark species, which have very low reproductive rates and high vulnerability.
For instance, an entire shark must be killed to get enough fins to prepare a single bowl of shark fin soup,
which is said to have an aphrodisiac effect. This practice has prompted several RFMOs and countries
worldwide to condemn and prohibit shark finning.
At present, about 70 states and 10 RFMOs have introduced regulations banning shark finning.
However, these regulations are difficult to enforce because fins landed make up only about 5% of the
shark carcasses that are thrown back into the sea. The manner by which the fins are cut off and stored,
the set of fins used, and the shark species used all affect this proportion and complicate enforcement.
This complication has compelled several states to mandate the landing of sharks with their fins attached
to remove any uncertainties in the weight proportion and kind of fins or even the shark species involved.
This mandate is necessary because without it fishers could just dry the fins at sea and therefore easily
hide the fins in their vessel, making law enforcement difficult upon landing. Some states like French
Polynesia and Palau have completely banned shark fishing, while Ecuador has banned the export of
shark fins.