Are sharks endangered by fin soup?

HOW YOU CAN HAVE YOUR SHARK AND EAT IT – FIN & ALL 

shark fin factory in China <Photo: tt.mop.com>

A guessing game for guests at a Chinese wedding dinner play, while waiting for the second dish to be served, is : Will it be shark fin soup?

The quiz is also about  tradition and change.

If the answer is yes, it’s a win  for conservative diners; If no, a victory for the anti-shark fin lobby!

Many young couples in Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan and China have scratched the item from the menu – in response to a strident international campaign, waged by wildlife NGOs, to protect sharks — much to the chagrin of  parents and grandparents for whom the dish is a nuptial must for prestige reasons.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF), WildAid and Oceana have been running well-publicised celebrity-backed campaigns  in Asia through the local chapters and allied groups and winning support, especially of the younger generation, for their cause. NBA star Yao Ming and pop singer Liu Huan have forsworn the delicacy.

The green lobbies’ selling point: 73 million sharks a year are killed annually for their fins, threatening their future survival as a species.

And the finger for the mass slaughter of sharks has been pointed at China. Marine conservation lobby, Oceana, claimed that Chinese citizens are splurging on shark fin soup for weddings and birthdays.

Pointing out that  several shark species are among the 90 per cent of the apex predator fishes, that have dwindled since 1950s,  Oceana warns that this will disrupt the oceans’ food web to our detriment.

Poignantly, the WWF anti-shark fin publicity posters appeal to Singaporeans to Help Save the Chilli Crab, delivering the message that sharks help maintain a healthy marine ecosystem.

This is a sophisticated departure from the earlier ‘live finning of sharks’ –  the charge that fishermen cruelly slice off  the fins of living sharks in their boats before throwing them overboard to die.

This serious allegation has provoked a storm of controversy and the accused  seafood merchants of Asia have broken their silence. 

Live finning is  not “mainstream practice”, declared the Marine Products Association in Hong Kong,  the nerve centre of the lucrative trade in 30 to 40 different kinds of shark.

“Shark fins are mostly obtained as a by-product of both targeted shark fisheries and mixed species village-level fisheries.”

Rebutting the NGOs’ other charge that sharks face extinction through the demand for fins, the Association said, in reality, only four of the more than 400 shark species have been listed by CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species ) as requiring trade regulation.

Amid the row over human cruelty to sharks, several marine wildlife experts have weighed in to try and sieve fact from fiction.

“Speaking as a veteran myself I say ‘live’ fining is cruel. But in practice it is not a norm,” said Hank Jenkins, president of Species Management Specialists.“The basic reason is to prevent any wastage (from throwing away the carcass)’.“There are also laws to forbid more than 5 per cent of ‘live’ fining.”

Dr Giam Choo Hoo, a CITES member and a former chief veterinary officer in Singapore said “the fact  is it’s just not possible for 73 million sharks caught annually to be live finned… it will require millions of fishermen to do the job.”

Nor are sharks targeted for their fins. Some 53 million of the sharks were   “accidental”  catches of small-scale fishermen in developing countries, he added.The other 20 million were harvested by  commercial fishermen in developed countries. Oceana has described as brutal and wasteful the killing of sharks for the shark fin industry.

But Dr Giam said it would be wasteful indeed if fins were not used by the Chinese for soup. As for the threat of shark extinction, he said of the 400 species of sharks CITES list only three —  Basking Shark, Great White and Whale Shark, as being endangered.(In contrast, whales, turtles, rhinoceroses, chimpanzees and tigers are listed by CITES in Appendix 1 as endangered. It  means there is a legal ban on catching, eating or selling these animals in any country.)

 Hank Jenkins said international consensus exists on limiting catching and trading of three endangered shark species.

“The United States, EU and other developed countries should take the lead in exercising better management in reducing harvesting and allowing the stocks to recover,” he said. 

However, developing countries may face difficulty in doing so as the population relies on fishing for livelihood.

Striking a somewhat partisan tone, Jenkins suggested that the millions of dollars that NGOs get from foundations and public donations for their campaign against shark’s fin soup “be more productively channeled to developing countries to work on reducing shark catch”.

But  numbers is only one aspect of the problem. Steve Oakley from Tropical Research &Conservation Centre has this poser:Is 73 million sharks killed in 2010, according to FAO, a lot or little for a world population of 7 billion?“We don’t eat species but by over fishing it is unsustainable,” he said.

As he sees it, the core issue is: shark protection should be properly managed.“Poor people in developing countries depend of sharks as a local resource.Thus, we have to manage it to make it sustainable,” said Oakley, also Chairman of Shark Savers, Malaysia.

Protecting sharks as a species is crucial because “when sharks die, oceans die”.“Sharks keep oceans healthy by preying on sick or unhealthy fishes. Sharks also keep balance in food chain. For example, sharks eat dognose rays which feeds on scallops.” 

Ironically, shark fin traders have vested interests in seeing to a flourishing fishery industry akin to NGOs drive to protect sharks. But the merchants resent being singled out for blame for putting shark species in peril. 

Dr Giam sees a cultural bias in the targeting of Asia, especially China.Why were there no similar campaigns by NGOs against European consumption of sharks?. In particular Spiny dogfish, for meat, nor against caviars (sturgeons) or Atlantic blue fin tuna which are cited by CITES as endangered species.

Meat from Spiny dogfish,a shark species, is also served up as ‘rock salmon’ or ‘huss’ in fish-and-chip shops. In Germany it is sold as ‘See-Aal’ or sea eel, in France as ‘aiguillat commun’. In Australia, it is sold as ‘flake.’ EU is the biggest consumer of spiny dogfish meat, accounting for 65% of the world catch.

Making a case for a balanced accounting, Dr Giam said traders from the East came to Europe only in 1960s and they made good use of the fins from European shark catches that were normally thrown away as of no value. 

The Chinese love affair with shark fin soup really began with the legendary Chinese voyager Admiral Cheng Ho of the Ming Dynasty in the 14th century. Venturing out with his fleet to Africa, the Chinese-Muslim seafarer enjoyed the spectacle of villagers snarling big sharks but was surprised to see them throwing away the fins.

Admiral Cheng Ho was credited with adding the exotic fish to the Chinese in whose hands shark fin soup was born. After all the cut and thrust over sustainability and cultural discrimination, the debate boils down to this: To eat or not to east shark fin soup? That is the question.

For the individual the choice is a moral one. Oakley’s choice is a palatable solution: Get your fix from a sustainable source, a certified to be sure. In that way you can savour the frothy broth without a pricked conscience.