The USA fared no better.  They had originally proposed six shark species for Appendix II listing but had already withdrawn three during the discussions.  Three hammerhead species remained but stood no chance of clearing the necessary hurdles.  Even recommendations and warnings from the FAO (the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation), which studies the status of fish stocks, fell on deaf ears.  Fish and chips (from porbeagle), shark steaks (all sharks), so-called ‘Schillerlocken’, (smoked strips of dogfish) or even shark fins,  much-loved in Asia for the soup of affluence and prestige, all are obviously far more important than the survival of endangered species so vital for the marine ecosystem.

Against every scientific recommendation and contrary to all common sense, Japan and its allies succeeded in preventing the adoption of urgently-needed protective measures for these species in the Atlantic, even for the bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus).  Monaco’s proposal for a temporary ban on international commercial trade of this coveted and threatened delicacy was also rejected.  The outcome is very disappointing given that the tuna has been struggling for sheer survival for a long time.

CITES was the last hope for sanity to prevail.  Even ICCAT (the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas), the body responsible for the management of fisheries, has been failing in its aims for more than three decades.  A catch quota for 2007 of 15,000t, for example, was proposed by scientists; eventually a quota of 29,500t was sanctioned by fisheries – and, of course, the final number caught was far higher.  No surprise there.  One specimen of this charismatic, four-metre-long fish, which weighs more than 700kg and can reach an age of 40, puts US$100,000 into the coffers.  It is the highlight of every sushi menu.

ICCAT scientists have projected that stocks in the eastern Atlantic will be reduced to 18% of those in 1970 – and only 6% of the original stocks before commercial exploitation – if the present quotas continue.  In the western Atlantic, things are looking even worse.  ICCAT scientists calculated that even with a hypothetical quota of 0 (zero), this fish icon will still have to be considered endangered in the year 2019.  For 2023 the prognosis is no better.

In addition to the already politically too highly-estimated fisheries quotas, the illegal quota must be considered.  It even has a name: IUU fishing (illegal, unreported and unregulated).  It could mean the final straw for this amazing fish.  A CITES listing could have helped by banning commercial trade – and by exposing some of the illegal trade.  Only one hope remains: that the devotees of the blue fin tunas could, in their own interest, put a temporary stop to the catch and then allocate future quotas with far more care.  A continuation of the present mismanagement could bring down the curtain on this species.

Bad luck, too, for the Ursus maritimus, the polar bear.  Although the USA spared no effort, even distributing polar bear soft toys, their attempts to protect polar bears from international commercial trade through a listing on Appendix I failed.  In fact, climate change creates more problems than trade for Knut’s relatives in the wild. (Knut is the polar bear cub born in captivity at Berlin Zoo).  A listing on Appendix I would not have resulted in better protection from trophy hunters, as products from any species listed there are allowed to be sold as trophies with import and export permits from the participating countries.  Added to this, the use of these ‘resources’ by indigenous people (in this case Greenland, Alaska, Canada or Siberia) would still remain possible.  It doesn’t count as commercial.  In other words: the world would not have become a better place for Ursus maritimus.  The king of the Arctic remains on Appendix II, which at least demands a control of trade, e.g. if he is to be used as a bedside rug.

Negotiations over better protection for delicacies or other treasures from our oceans have no chance of success as long as Japan and its friends, as well as other fishing nations, continue to fight for their own commercial interests.  This became clear yet again with a US proposal to list red corals on Appendix II.  Although this would not entail a general trade ban but only proof of sustainabilty and better trade controls, the proposal was also doomed to failure.  It is incomprehensible, especially as all criteria for a listing were met – and scientists were in no doubt of the necessity for protective measures.

Any proposal for more protection, no matter how well-founded, has little chance of success if valuable products are part of the bigger picture.  The majestic elephant is, of course, also affected because it is unfortunate enough to possess valuable ivory tusks.  Tanzania and Zambia wanted to facilitate the sale of ivory through a de-listing from Appendix I to Appendix II, whilst Kenya proposed a nine-year moratorium on the sale of ivory.  Neither aim was reached.

Saved from massive lobbying by the for-and-against camps, small frogs and a salamander species were able to climb the Appendices by consensus.  Tree frogs from Central America, including the red-eyed tree frog, were listed on Appendix II, and the Kaiser’s spotted newt from Iran on Appendix I.  These species are ‘only’ of interest to the zoo trade and there are obviously not too many takers.  And last but not least, with little discussion for or against, a duck (Anas oustaleti) was struck off Appendix I.  It is definitely extinct.

Petra Deimer-Schütte, 29.03.2010

Translation: Susan Oestmann

on behalf of the Society for the Conservation of Marine Mammals (GSM) we would like to thank you for your enduring support, without which non of our work would be possible.

Please find below our christmas card which was painted by our member Rüdiger Strempel.

We wish you and your families a merry Christmas and a happy and healthy New Year.

Yours sincerely

Petra Deimer, Hans-Jürgen Schütte, Walter Karpf, Katharina Fietz and Philip Loos

Actually, this bizarre PR war concerning seal meat is something of a sideshow. The real issue is whether or not the industrial seal hunt and seal trade are to continue. Now that the U.S. and the EU have prohibited all imports of seal products, China and Russia are the only importing countries left. They are primarily interested in seal furs. Even Inuit hunters nearly always discard the meat. So it really should not be much of an issue any longer, especially in light of the fact that the price per kilogram of seal meat dropped by two thirds in recent years.

In order to keep the matter on the agenda anyhow, the parliamentary Committee on the Economy has decreed that the parliament’s cafeteria is obliged to offer at least one seal dish. Prior to finding out how many Senators and Members of Parliament would actually order seal for lunch, a supplier needed to be found. The seal hunters want to sell furs, they are not interested in meat. Finally, a tiny trading post that agreed to supply seal meat to the parliamentary canteen was found on the Magdalen Islands.

But despite these major PR efforts you can bet your bottom dollar that once it has been ostentatiously served on some TV show, seal stew (or whatever it may be) will disappear from the parliamentary cafeteria on the QT. And very likely, the mass slaughter of seals along Canada’s East Coast will come to an end as well. The important markets in the U.S. and Europe no longer want seal products.

So it remains to be seen if the Governor General’s bloody lunch will pay off. Formally speaking, she is the vice-regal representative of Queen Elizabeth II in Canada. We cannot help but wonder whether Her Majesty over in Buckingham Palace is “amused” by the sight of her representative with seal blood dripping down her chin. So that second period in office may not be a done deal yet.

Author: Walter Karpf

Translation: Rüdiger Strempel

This is a translation of a German article that was put on our website on the 23rd of November 2009.

Download the full letter here or read the text version below:

“Letter regarding dolphins and contamination”

Ms. Mizuho Fukushima
Minister of the Consumer Affairs Agency
Sanno Park Tower
2-11-1 Nagatacho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
Japan 100-6178

Re: Letter regarding contaminated whale, dolphin and porpoise products from ongoing drive hunts in Japan

Dear Minister,

Scientific studies have demonstrated that dolphin and whale meat is highly toxic and not fit for human consumption due to contamination from methylmercury, mercury, PCBs, and other poisons. Please prevent any further damage to the health of the Japanese people by banning the sale of dolphin and whale meat immediately.

The annual drive hunt of toothed whales has disturbed many German citizens. We have lots of inquiries of citizens asking us what they can do to inform Japanese people about the health risks and what they can do to save the whales that are being killed in such a cruel way.

In the name of all these people we kindly ask the Government of Japan to inform the public about the health risks and to do something about this unnecessary slaughter – The prompt implementation of an official ban of drive hunts and whale meat in supermarkets could be a first measure.

Reasons are obvious: Standards of humane slaughter cannot be met during the hunt, high contamination levels are threatening the Japanese population (especially children) and Japans’ international image is being damaged constantly.

Everybody accepts the traditions of different cultures – Including the Japanese traditions. But from time to time it can be better to change traditions for the own benefit.
Eighty years ago harbour seals used to be killed in Germany. But as we found out that the populations were severely dropping and that this harmed the whole marine ecosystem it was decided not to keep up such a tradition. Today there still are the so called ’seal hunters’ – They are keeping up the tradition not by killing seals but by conserving them. By that they ensure a healthy marine system with lots of fish. The ’seal-hunters’ also inform the public about the seals and their biology which generates massive profits in tourism. People come from all over Germany to see and enjoy the seals (from a ‘non-disturbing’ distance of course).

We kindly ask you to consider a prompt ban of the drive hunt on toothed whales.

We thank you in advance for considering our letter.

Yours sincerely,

Petra Deimer

Marine Biologist and Journalist
President – Society for the Conservation of Marine Mammals (Hamburg, Germany)


This letter has been sent to:

Ms. Keiko Ueda
Legislative Aide to Ms. Mizuho Fukushima

Member of the House of Councillors
Social Democratic Party E-mail: ukgo@jca.apc.org

CC:

Dr. Takahiro Shinyo
Japanese ambassador to Germany

Hiroshimastraße 6
10785 Berlin, Germany
Email: info@botschaft-japan.de

A worldwide alliance of environmental and consumer organisations today called on the Japan’s new government to take urgent action to stop the hunt of toothed cetaceans and ban the sale of contaminated whale, dolphin and porpoise products for human consumption in Japan.

… continue to read – please click here

Letter to the prime minister of Japan: please click here

Due to the resistance of Latin American countries only for the Northern hemisphere stocks of the highly overexploited spiny dogfish was listed, whereas stocks in the Southern hemisphere remain unprotected for the time being. Once abundant in German waters, this demersal species of cartilaginous fish has become rare in the Baltic and North Seas. Squalus acanthias, which can grow to around one meter and reach a weight of 10 kg, is much in demand in Germany, where its meat is either consumed fresh as “Seeaal” (“sea eel”) or in smoked strips known as “Schillerlocken”, and in Denmark, where it is marketed as “kongeål” (“King eel”). The name of the spiny dogfish derives from its two strong spines with small poison glands, one anterior to each of its dorsal fins.

The porbeagle (Lamna nasus), a very fast and persistent swimmer, is somewhat bigger and grows to 1.5 – 3 meters. As its name in German (“Heringshai”) indicates, herring and mackerel are its primary prey species. In Germany its meat is sold under such imaginative names as Karbonadenfisch (”cutlet fish”), Kalbfisch (“veal fish”) or Seestör (“sea sturgeon”). In the United Kingdom it is used in particular for fish and chips.

Like most species of sharks, the spiny dogfish and the porbeagle have comparatively slow reproductive rates which are similar to those of marine mammals. They live to be relatively old and their litters are small. Their reproductive biology makes them especially vulnerable to pressure from fisheries, which are spelling its doom the world over. In addition to targeted fisheries, many sharks are killed as bycatch in nets intended for other species.

Experts estimate that some 200 million (200,000,000) sharks are being killed each year in the world’s oceans. The result: some 70% of all pelagic sharks have disappeared in the last six years alone, with an even higher rate of 90% for hammerhead sharks. Unquestionably, therefore, the oceans, the world’s greatest ecosystem, now lack an important link at the top of the food chain.

The biggest problem for the conservation of these cartilaginous fish, which look back on a very long evolutionary history, is the continuously huge demand for shark products in Asia. Shark meat is a status symbol. The fins of these chondrichtyans have been considered one of the eight treasures of the sea since the days of the Chinese Qing dynasty (1644-1911). To this day, it is considered highly prestigious to serve shark fin soup on special occasions such as weddings. On average, a normal Chinese wedding costs 40 shark lives. In Asia, it is not yet common knowledge that at least 100 of the approximately 450 species of sharks known today are highly endangered or threatened with extinction. Status is considered far more important than species conservation or sustainable use. And nobody seems to be overly concerned by the fact that by eating their wedding soup, young couples increase their risk of having sick children.

Shark products are literally contaminated by methylated mercury (MeHg) and highly toxic. In seawater, mercury inevitably turns into methylated mercury, which is 1000 times more toxic than mercury. The National Academy of Science estimates that in the US alone 60,000 children are born with neurological disorders due to exposure to MeHg during pregnancy. This is also confirmed by a study commissioned in by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment.

Germany also welcomes the result of the recent CMS COP because it plans to work towards including the spiny dogfish and the porbeagle in Appendix II of CITES at that convention’s next COP in 2010. This would be the third attempt to improve control of international trade in products derived from these species by having the species listed in Appendix II.
Petra Deimer/Rüdiger Strempel (translation)

“The release of the long-awaited EU Shark Plan represents a great step forward for the conservation of sharks in European waters and beyond,” said Sonja Fordham, Shark Alliance Policy Director. “The Plan’s commitments to science-based fishing limits, endangered species protection, and a stronger finning ban are essential to securing a brighter future for some of Europe’s most vulnerable and neglected animals.”

EU Fisheries Ministers intend to agree “Council Conclusions” on the Plan at the April Fisheries Council meeting. The European Commission is responsible for developing regulations to tighten existing fishing rules, such as the finning ban and shark catch limits.

“The success of the EU Shark Plan depends on prompt, follow-up proposals from the Commission and cooperation from Member States in ensuring improvements are accepted and enforced,” added Fordham. “We urge all EU Fisheries Ministers to actively support timely implementation of the Shark Plan in line with scientific advice and the precautionary approach.”

ENDS

Contact:

For more information, media interviews or B roll, please contact:

Mona Samari, Tel: +44 (0) 7515 828 939, Email: mona@communicationsinc.co.uk

The Shark Alliance is able to provide spokespeople in languages including English, French, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch and Swedish.

Shark Alliance Position

European Community Plan of Action for the Conservation of Sharks

The Shark Alliance welcomes the final European Community Shark* Plan, pursuant to the International Plan of Action (IPOA) for Sharks. Whereas some of the Plan’s provisions (particularly those on finning) do not fully meet our expectations, overall, we find the document to be comprehensive and sound. If promptly and properly implemented, the Plan has potential to vastly improve EU shark policy and turn the tide for some of Europe’s most vulnerable and neglected animals.

Specifically, the Shark Alliance generally supports the Commission’s objectives for its Shark Plan, which aim to ensure:

* a deeper understanding of sharks & their role in ecosystems & fisheries,

* sustainable directed shark fisheries & properly regulated bycatch, and

* a coherent approach between internal & external Community policies for sharks.

1) We support the Commission’s intention to improve species-specific data on shark catches & trade through:

* enhanced investment in collection of species-specific shark data of shark landings, processing & marketing,
* increased at-sea observer coverage on vessels taking sharks,
* monitoring & assessment of recreational shark fishing mortality,
* recording of landings & trade of sharks separately by commodity and to the species level where possible, and
* promotion of Regional Plans of Action and reporting of related progress at the January 2010 meeting of CITES.

2) We support efforts to assess & mitigate threats to shark populations through:

* species-specific evaluation & monitoring of shark population status,
* fishing strategies based on principles for sustainability & long-term use of shark populations, and
* development of shark fisheries science expertise at the national level.

3) We support improving stakeholder consultation & awareness by:

* educating fishermen & the public about shark conservation programmes & restrictions,
* consulting the Regional Advisory Councils regarding best practices for management & bycatch reduction, and

* encouraging Member States to allow greater public access to shark fisheries information.

4) We support efforts to ensure sustainable shark fisheries & protection for threatened shark species by:

* matching fishing effort to available resources,

* setting limits on shark catch according to scientific advice,

* improving gear selectivity for reduced bycatch of sharks,

* developing bycatch reduction programmes for Endangered & Critically Endangered shark species,

* establishing time/area closures to protect shark pupping & nursery areas,

* further restricting or prohibiting fishing in critical habitats of Endangered sharks,

* promoting compatible shark fishing restrictions at Regional Fisheries Management Organizations,

* banning discard of dead sharks, provided sale of species for which fisheries are closed is strictly forbidden,

* granting exceptions to the discard ban for live, “unwanted” sharks, and

* using wildlife agreements, particularly CITES & CMS, to control shark fishing & trade.

5) We support tightening restrictions under the finning ban derogation (that allows at-sea fin removal) by:

* requiring the landing of shark fins & carcasses at the same time, in the same port,
* reducing the fin to carcass ratio from 5% whole weight to 5% of dressed weight, and
* making the process of justifying the need to remove fins at sea more rigorous.

The Shark Alliance remains concerned about the Commission’s proposal to allow EU Member States in certain cases to adopt ratios higher than 5% dressed weight, as such action – particularly without appropriate control and enforcement – could perpetuate loopholes in the finning ban. The most reliable means to prohibit finning is to require that sharks be landed with fins attached (which the Commission confirms is the general rule). We continue to call for the complete elimination of the finning ban derogation & special fishing permits that allow fins to be removed on board vessels at sea.

* Consistent with the IPOA definition, the term “shark” refers to all cartilaginous fishes: sharks, skates, rays & chimaeras.

Notes to Editors:
The Shark Alliance, a coalition of more than 60 conservation, scientific and recreational organizations, was formed in 2006 to promote the development of a sound, science-based EU Shark Plan.

The Shark Alliance was initiated by the Pew Charitable Trusts, a non-governmental, non-profit organisation. Pew applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improving public policy, informing the public and stimulating civic life. The objective of Pew’s European Marine Programme is to support the European Union in ending global overfishing and reducing the destruction of the world´s oceans. Pew brings resources, leadership and coordination to the Shark Alliance.

In early December a new season has begun for the 26 dolphin hunters. With the blessing of the government they will kill 2300 dolphins. The total annual quota of dolphins to be killed has been unilaterally set at 20,000 by the Japanese government.

As in previous years, the fishermen will herd the animals into the city’s most popular swimming bay. Then they will block the passage back to the open sea with nets, and wantonly kill them, the water seathing with blood. The carcasses will be dismembered, canned and sold for a give-away price – dolphin meat is not very popular in Japan and it only sells if prices are kept low. In addition, the meat is highly contaminated with mercury. On the one hand the government minimizes the threat to human health in the consumption of contaminated dolphin meat, whilst simultaneously admitting that pregnant women should never eat that meat, owing to the risk of congenital malformation and damage to the neural tube. If the threat from the meat is so great for the unborn, it can hardly be so insignificant for adults. What kind of a government is it that recommends such nutrition to its citizens?

The major of the city is not willing to talk to the international press. When there is to be another mass slaughter, the killing –bay is cordoned off in a wide range in order to prevent the witnessing of such cruelty by outsiders. As an additional precaution, in case a neutral observer were to slip through the cordons with a camera, the whole surface of the bay is sprayed with white foam to hide the blood-filled waters.

When a community unscrupulously acts as a paria in the face of international condemnation, they must be aware that they will be ostracised. Taiji’s Australian twin city of Broome is being pressured to break off the over one hundred year old relationship.

Walter Karpf, 18.12.2008

Translation: Alison Bailey

Why this sudden change in policy? Oslo cites bureaucratic reasons, but this can be seen differently, according to Petra Deimer, Chair person of the Society for the Conservation of Marine mammals (GSM): “ In recent years they have killed less whales than the estimated quotas would have allowed. In the year 2008 the whaling ships have been called home half way through the whaling season, because the demand was drastically reduced.” In addition, Japan does not, or occasionally only reluctantly, import whale meat from the northern hemisphere. The meat of the Minke whales is contaminated, as is the meat of the pilot whales which are still hunted by whalers from the Faroes. The meat is literally poisoned by mercury, for example, as is the meat and the fins of sharks.

Are the whaling politics of Oslo only empty gestures?

It is a fact that the Norwegians do not consume their yearly catches. The refrigerated warehouses are bursting, and the blubber, which was once extolled as a valuable source of nutrition by the government, is today destroyed. No more consumers.

Walter Karpf, 14.12.2008

Translation: Alison Bailey