|
|
| |
| Questions
and Answers |
| |
| Q: Why
isn't there a market for shark meat?
- David K Vaughn |
| |
The only high-value
market for shark products is fin,
which is used in sharkfin soup sold
in Asian markets. Shark is
also a directed catch for its fish
oil and cartilage, sold to westerners
who believe they have therapeutic
value (there is no scientific validation
of this). Shark meat (derived from
tissues other than from fin) is eaten
by some poorer coastal communities,
but it is a very low value product,
and not worth the space that it takes
up in cargo holds of large commercial
fishing vessels. |
| |
| Q: What
is the objective of bottom trawling
vs other alternatives? - David
K Vaughn |
| |
Bottom
trawling is the most efficient way
of catching demersal fisheries species,
i.e. those living near the bottom.
This includes what we in the Northern
hemisphere call cod and haddock (genus
Gadus). When we talk of efficiency
here, we mean maximum catch per unit
effort, not minimum by-catch or disturbance
however. |
| |
| Q: Can
an international legislative system
limit overfishing and protect endangered
species in high seas? - Christina
Kaloudi |
| |
International
treaties can go a long ways towards
high seas sustainability and conservation,
but only if it is matched with monitoring
and enforcement. Overfishing
is a complex issue, however – in
order to know what is a sustainable
level of fishing, we must know more
about stock size, dynamics, and so
forth. The High Seas are relatively
understudied. As for endangered species,
international treaties already exist
to protect them, whether they are
within the territorial seas or EEZs
of nations, or on the High Seas.
But enforcement is a problem here
again.
One way to
affect change is to put international
pressure on those few countries
which are causing most of the fisheries-related
High Seas problems. These
countries, and the corporations
that underwrite large scale fishing
(which are few in number), could
be shamed and pressured through
a variety of means, including consumer
choice. Special national
sanctions could also be directed
at countries which practice destructive
High Seas fishing, similar to the
Pelly Amendment in the US which
allows the US to deny markets to
products coming from countries
that do not adhere to US environmental
standards, such as requiring Turtle
Excluder Devices in shrimp trawls. |
| |
| Q: To
follow up on Christina's question,
how effective is UNCLOS in limiting
these high seas fisheries issues? - Carrie
Wall |
| |
UNCLOS
is not terribly effective, although
it is as present the only game in
town (we should point out, too, that
certain prominent maritime nations
such as the US have not ratified
UNCLOS, even though they claim to
abide by it as “customary law”.
A more effective means currently being
employed is to put pressure on the
world community through the UN, and
in particular on the “rogue states”.
This has been the focus of many NGOs
tackling this issue, including Greenpeace,
IUCN (the World Conservation Union),
and others. |
| |
Q: Is
the most compelling issue overfishing
or damage from poor fishing practices?
- David K Vaughn |
| |
Many prominent
conservationists and scientists have
put forward analyses of trends in
global fisheries (High Seas and continental
shelf) suggesting both overfishing
and a phenomenon called “fishing
down the food web”, in which
serial depletion of fisheries species
begins at upper trophic levels (top
predators) and moves down the food
web. Since upper trophic level
species command much higher value
in markets, many more lower trophic
level species must be caught to turn
a profit. The fisheries techniques
then increasingly approximate mining,
as vast quantities of lower level
organisms are taken.
But (and this is my (Agardy’s)
opinion alone, a much greater problem
with fisheries in general is not how
much fisheries biomass is harvested,
but how it is harvested. Destructive
fishing threatens many important and
sensitive habitats, such as deepwater
corals, sea mounts, etc. At the same
time, by-catch on the High Seas is
causing massive impacts on the ecology
of some ecosystems, and threatening
many endangered marine species such
as certain sharks, leatherback turtles,
albatrosses, etc.
|
| |
Q: Do
you think social marketing, such
as the swordfish & caviar campagins
run by SeaWeb USA, could help change
consumer demand for fisheries such
as shark fining. Could this be used
to reduce pressure on high seas fisheries?
- Nicola Waldron |
|
The
swordfish campaign does seem to be
a success story. (I don’t think
the same can be said for the caviar
campaign, because the decline of
Beluga sturgeon is not merely an
overfishing problem, but also an
issue of environmental decline in
the Caspian Sea region). But I have
limited hope for the potential of
consumer awareness campaigns to address
this problem, since the bulk of consumers
of High Seas-derived products are
outside the US. I happen to
think trade sanctions against the
worst perpetrators of High Seas destructive
fisheries would go farther than consumer
campaigns, especially as it is almost
impossible to source many marine
products coming from offshore areas. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|