Shark Finning Industry - Research Paper Example

 Shark finning industry Sharks, as a species, exist in oceans for about 400 million years (Verclar et al. 1078). The last decades, the population of sharks globally is continuously decreased; the expansion of the finning industry is considered as the key reason for this phenomenon. Finning industry is based on the following practice: ‘the fin of each shark is chopped off and the rest is discharged’ (Verclar et al. 1078). Then, the fin is likely to be used for soup, after being diverted to the market, in its natural form or using appropriate package. The consumption of fin of sharks is quite common in many countries worldwide. However, this ‘custom’ threatens the population of sharks internationally. In accordance with a recent research, the finning industry worldwide is a continuously growing industry, with the value of the fin to reach the $116/ kg (Verclar et al. 1078). India is among the countries with the highest performance in this industry; in accordance with Verclar et al. the annual shark production of India reaches the 45,500 tonnes (Verclar et al. 1078), a significant figure if taking into consideration the price of the particular product in the market, as presented above. It is clear that the profits of the particular industry can be significant, a fact which may be considered as a barrier to the control of the phenomenon. As noted in the study of Verclar et al., about 20 species of sharks will be extinguished by 2017 if the shark finning industry continues its current rate of expansion (Verclar et al. 1078). However, the current signs regarding the development of this industry are rather discouraging; instead of being reduced, the finning industry is further expanded with other countries to be involved in such activities. An indicative example is China, which has started to activate in many areas of the specific industry – acting as ‘producer, importer, consumer and processing centre’ (Verclar et al. 1079); other countries also have been attracted by the prospects that the particular industry offers. Indonesia, Pakistan and Singapore (Verclar et al. 1079) are some of the countries, which have been involved in various areas of shark finning industry. The shark finning industry offers many prospects as a business activity, as it combines the trade of fin, as a product of a significant value, with the trade of other parts of the shark – meaning the body and the bones (Verclay et al. 1080). At this point, it should be noted that ‘not all fins of a shark are of the same value’ (Verclay et al. 1080). In any case, since all parts of the body of a shark can be disposed to the market, the fishing of sharks is quite popular, guaranteeing high profits. Efforts have been made for setting limits to the particular activity, since a threat of the extinction of many species of shark has been made clear. Under this threat, the Government of India prohibited the fishing of a particular species of shark, the elasmobranchii, in 2001 (Verclay et al. 1080); the Gazette Notification through which this prohibition was imposed has been proved particularly valuable for the protection of the above species. Another practice used for the control of shark finning industry worldwide is the DNA checks; through these checks, the level of limitation of each shark species can be identified – by checking various parts of the bodies of sharks disposed to market (Verclay et al. 1080). The above method has the following disadvantage: not all parts of the body of a shark can prove valid information on the species of the shark; however, new DNA checks have been improved allowing the identification of sharks’ DNA even from dried fins (Verclay et al. 1080). Particular attention should be paid to the effects of shark finning industry for the marine ecosystems. In accordance with Taylor (2010) sharks are predators, which helps to keep balance in prey worldwide (Taylor, online article). By reducing significantly the number of sharks worldwide, extremely severe damages would be expected on marine ecosystems globally (Taylor, online article). It is explained that the number of sharks killed annually around the world can be estimated to 100 millions; this fact has led to the reduction of the population of sharks by a percentage of 90% - compared to the past (Taylor, online article). The above problem has caused the concerns of scientists in Australia; in the above country many initiatives have been developed for the protection of sharks population. The Australian Marine Conservation Society is one of the institutions activating in the particular field; the initiatives developed by the members of the above institution have resulted to the significant limitation of shark killings in Queensland (Taylor, online article). However, additional measures are required in order for shark species worldwide to be effectively protected. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia has been used in order to protect two of the most threatened species of shark: ‘the whitetip reef shark and gray reef shark’ (Taylor, online article). However, the above initiative has not particularly protect these species; indeed, after measuring the shark population of the above Park in 2006, it was proved that the reduction of the population of the above two species of shark reached the ‘80% - for the whitetip reef shark – and the 97% - for the gray reef shark’ (Taylor, online article). It is further explained that the significant limitation of the number of sharks worldwide – as a consequence of the continuous increase of shark fishing – has been resulted because of the following reason: sharks need time to grow while their production is slow (Taylor, online article). For this reason, the increase of their fishing threatens their existence, more than other fish, which have a higher rate of production and are more difficult to be extinguished (Taylor, online article). In a research developed in 2006, the number of sharks killed annually was estimated to 38 millions (Bakalar, online article). If the above number is compared with the 100 millions of shark killings in 2010 (as noted in the study of Taylor, presented above) can reveal the actual size of the problem. In the above article it is explained that International Organizations are not fully aware of the problem; it is noted that the number of shark killings, as estimated by the United Nations in 2006, reached the 10 millions, a number which is significantly lower from the actual number of sharks killed annually (Bakalar, online article). Another fact highlighted in the study of Bakalar is the following one: the trade of shark fins is mainly developed by certain Asian countries; in other words, the problem is considered to be related to certain regions globally, a view that could be possibly justified if taking into consideration the low level of shark fishing in other areas internationally – probably because of the existence of severe restrictions on the particular activity, as for instance, the case of E.E. and the U.S. (Bakalar, online article). In accordance with Bakalar, the problem could be effectively controlled if ‘fisheries-management –systems for sharks’ (Bakalar, online article) would be developed in countries worldwide, a plan which still is not promoted. The view of Bakalar that the shark finning industry is limited geographically, is opposed by Vannuccini (1999); in accordance with the above researcher, shark catches worldwide are significant; for instance, in USA the shark catches in 1997 were estimated to 40400 (Vannuccini 125). On the other hand, for the same year, i.e. for 1997, shark catches in UK were estimated to 21400 tonnes, presenting a decline compared to the past – probably under the influence of the strict regulation on shark killings for the fin industry and the other industries that activate in the particular field. In terms of shark production, South Africa is considered as the area with the highest production of shark, reaching the 122 tonnes (Vannuccini 109). As noted in the above study, because of the continuous limitation in shark production worldwide and the establishment of strict rules on shark catches, artificial shark fin has been made available to the market, as an option for covering the consumer needs without harming the marine environment (Vannuccini 105). At this point, explanations should be given on the effects of the shark finning industry on the marine ecosystems worldwide. In the context of shark finning, ‘a knife removes the fins of a shark and then the body of the shark is dumped overboard’ (Greenpeace, online article); the shark, still alive, is likely to die after a while being unable to swim – in certain cases, the shark drowns the moment its body is dumped overboard (Greenpeace, online article). In other words, shark finning aims to the use of a percentage of 5% of the body of the shark – the rest 95% of the body of the shark becomes useless (Greenpeace, online article) not being used as a food. The practice described above is extremely brutal, even if it could be justified by the fact that there would be no storage area available for keeping the bodies of sharks for further process (Greenpeace, online article). In terms of the damages caused to the marine ecosystems, shark finning can be characterized as a catastrophic activity; sharks consume specific amount of prey; in this way, a balance is kept in the population of prey in marine ecosystems worldwide. By reducing the number of sharks can have a series of implications for marine ecosystems internationally. An indicative example is provided in the article of Greenpeace (2006); it is noted that ‘it has been found that the removal of tiger sharks from a tropical ecosystem resulted in a decline in the tuna population’ (Greenpeace 2006). It is explained that ‘tiger sharks had kept populations of other predators of tuna in check’ (Greenpeace 2006). The extinction of the particular species of shark in the area, led to the increase of the predators of tuna and the decline of the latter in the local marine ecosystem. The severe effects of shark finning globally have led to the development of measures for the control of the problem. In USA, the ‘Shark Conservation Act of 2009’ (Allard, online article) has been promoted by the Congress in order to protect the species of shark being threaten with extinction because of the expansion of shark finning activities. In the above study it is noted that shark conservation is of significant importance for the protection of marine ecosystems worldwide and for this reason such activities would be effectively controlled; reference is also made to other human activities threatening the shark species, such as the development of scuba diving without following the relevant rules. In any case, shark finning cannot continue to be developed, at least at its current rate of growth, since it has already resulted to the significant limitation of shark population worldwide; also, severe turbulences have been caused to marine ecosystems, as indicatively explained below, a fact which should lead to the awareness of governments and organizations worldwide for controlling the particular activity. Works Cited Allard, Evan. “New bill aims to ban shark finning in U.S. waters.” CDNN. 10 January 2009. Web. 23 June 2011. < http://www.cdnn.info/news/eco/e090110.html> Bakalar, Nicholas. “38 Million Sharks Killed for Fins Annually, Experts Estimate.” National Geographic. 12 October 2006. Web. 23 June 2011. < http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061012-shark-fin.html> Greenpeace. “Shark finning mystery.” 4 October 2006. Web. 23 June 2011. < http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/the-expedition/news/shark-fin-mystery> Taylor, Robin. "When Predator Become Prey." Ecos Aug.-Sept. 2010: 14-16. Web. 23 June 2011. < http://www.sciencealert.com.au/features/20101709-21334.html> Vannuccini, Stefania. Shark Utilization, marketing and trade. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1999. Print. 23 June 2011. Verclar, X. N., Snigdha, S. R. Dessai, and V. K. Dhargalkar. "Shark Hunting – an Indiscriminate Trade Endangering Elasmobranchs to Extinction." 9 June 2006. Web. 23 June 2011. < www.ias.ac.in/currsci/apr252007/1078.pdf> Read More