Even in July 2021, the EU continues to refuse to implement effective protection for the mako shark. The shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) has been listed on CITES Appendix II since 2019 and may therefore only be traded from demonstrably "healthy" stocks. The Atlantic stock is not among them. The European Union could guarantee effective protection by imposing a general ban on landing mako sharks, a measure that Spain and Portugal have already independently enacted into national law.
On 11 May this year, Portuguese MEP Francisco Guerreiro (Greens/EFA) hosted a videoconference. Participants included marine conservation organisations, ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas), and the representative of the European Commission's Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Anders Jessen. The demand for an immediate retention ban for mako sharks was rejected by him. If mako sharks are already dead when hauled on board from longlines, their processing remains permitted. What is to prevent fishers from allowing live-caught sharks to die on board and declaring them as previously deceased?
Very little.
Mr Jessen did not find this argument convincing. He assumes constant honesty on the part of all fishers, and that only already deceased mako sharks are landed. This reflects the fundamental stance of the European Commission. It remains unclear why the EU is unwilling to implement CITES in the simplest way possible, by banning trade and any commercial utilisation. In July, another important meeting of ICCAT took place to clarify, among other issues, the future approach to protecting mako sharks.
And once again, the outcome can be summarised as: postponement to the end of the year, as no consensus could be reached. Generally, the status of the mako shark in the Atlantic is critical. Atlantic stocks are so severely depleted that recovery by 2045 is only 53% probable, even with a strict zero-catch limit across all coastal nations. Furthermore, approximately 70% of mako sharks caught on longlines are released alive back into the water. For 30% of these sharks, any intervention comes too late. How many of the sharks initially returned to the sea alive subsequently die from stress and exhaustion also remains unclear. Monitoring of vessels via observers or cameras occurs on fewer than one in every 30 trips. This is negligibly low.
What remains to protect the mako shark? What are the demands of ElasmOcean?
In our view, a landing ban would make a difference, but not a sufficient one. This makes the currently demanded retention ban the appropriate course of action. EU subsidies for industrial fishing fleets operating destructive techniques – non-selective fisheries such as longlining, bottom trawling, and purse seining with FADs (fish aggregating devices) – must end. Strict quotas for blue shark (Prionace glauca) and swordfish (Xiphias gladius) would ensure, on the one hand, that blue shark stocks remain stable in the long term, and on the other, that swordfish and mako shark populations recover from (by)catch pressure. Marine protected areas must be rigorously implemented. And we need more of them. "No-take" zones, in which no human exploitation is permitted, represent true marine conservation. Current MPAs (Marine Protected Areas) often exist only on paper, but in reality provide no rigorous protection because compliance with restrictions is not adequately monitored. Only then will it be possible to ensure the long-term survival of species such as the mako shark in our oceans.
Source:
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas: Report of the 2019 ICCAT Shortfin Mako Shark Stock Assessment Update Meeting. ICCAT, 2019
