ICCAT EFFORTS TO CONSERVE SHORTFIN MAKOS REMAIN STALLED

Earlier this month, delegates to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas held a three-day intersessional meeting, where they sought ways to conserve and rebuild the badly depleted North Atlantic shortfin mako shark stock.

As I’ve reported in posts going back to 2017, biologists have advised ICCAT that such stock is overfished,  New measures are needed to halt its decline, and hopefully rebuild the shortfin mako population within the next 50 years. 

Despite the fact that the stock is badly overfished and experiencing continued overfishing, little real progress has been made.  A few years ago, ICCAT adopted its first minimum size limit for makos, but far more is needed.  While the 71-inch minimum for males provides some protection for adult fish, allowing about half to become mature before they can be harvested, the 83-inch minimum size for females provides the mature adults most critical to the future of the stock no protection at all.

Since then, negotiations have broken down, with one group of conservation-oriented nations, which support a complete prohibition on shortfin mako harvest, squaring off against the European Union and the United States.

The result has been stalemate.

The need to improve mako management is urgent enough that, in calling the intersessional meeting, the Chair of the panel addressing the issue observed that

“It is essential that we reach agreement on North Atlantic shortfin mako this year, and I would therefore strongly urge all [members] to engage in bilateral and multilateral consultations in advance of the meeting to try to resolve differences or to reach a compromise position.”

The Chair then went further.  In a very unusual move, he drafted his own proposed resolution to address the shortfin mako issue, which reflected the points of potential agreement between the three factions that had emerged.  In doing so, he noted that

“In 2019 it was difficult to reach consensus and only limited measures were adopted on the conservation of North Atlantic shortfin mako shark, a stock that shows signs of major concerns.  In 2020 new proposals were tabled but no further developments on a way forward could be achieved…

“At this stage…as I believe it is essential to avoid repeating the scenario faced last year, I have taken the decision to table a Chair’s proposal that could hopefully provide a good starting point for negotiations…

“I have taken note that there are some common ideas to the tabled proposals, which correspond to the clean text in my proposal.  There are also some opposite views on relevant aspects…On the other hand, I believe there are components where it might be possible to develop some common ground, which correspond to the text that I kept in brackets in my proposal…

“Accordingly, the current proposal should be identified as the work of the Chair and not a product of joint work, through consultations with, or agreement by the proponents of the three proposals already tabled.  That said, I hope that progress can be made within the context of the upcoming intersessional meeting…that I consider a critical first step of exchange of views by Heads of Delegation on the full range of issues already on the table to further develop the process of finding a way forward for the conservation of the North Atlantic shortfin mako shark.”

Others also recognized the need to find a way forward.  

In May, the American Elasmobranch Society, a professional organization of scientists who focus their research on sharks and rays, sent a letter to Dr. Paul Doremus, who was then serving as the Acting Administrator of Fisheries at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (as noted in last week’s blog, Janet Coit has since been appointed as the permanent Assistant Administrator).  In that letter, the Society urged NMFS to support meaningful mako conservation, saying, in part,

“On behalf of the American Elasmobranch Society (AES), the world’s pre-eminent professional organization of shark and ray scientists, l am writing to draw your attention to our recent Resolution (included below) urging the United States (and Mexico) to heed urgent scientific advice for North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks through domestic protections and an international retention ban under the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).

“As you are likely aware, most sharks and rays exhibit life history characteristics (slow growth rate, late maturity and few young) that make them especially susceptible to overfishing and slow to recover from a depleted state…AES aims to add our perspective to the shark and ray fisheries management debate in hopes of supporting the formation of effective, science-based measures for these vulnerable species.

“Shortfin mako shark protection was one of two priority matters that our society chose to address at our annual business meeting, held virtually in July 2020…We shared the Resolution with the NOAA ICCAT Commissioner last October; we understand that ICCAT was unable to reach mako management decisions during its 2020 annual (virtual) meeting.  Given the resumption of ICCAT mako negotiations in the coming weeks, as well as recent changes in NOAA leadership, we respectfully resubmit our Resolution for your consideration.”

Unfortunately, it appears that the efforts of both the ICCAT panel Chair and the American Elasmobranch Society were in vain.  When the three-day intersessional meeting ended a week ago, little progress was made on mako conservation, and the United States was still insisting on some mako harvest.  Further efforts have been postponed until ICCAT’s annual meeting—the same annual meeting where mako conservation efforts have gone to die over the past two years.

All three factions appear to be locked into their positions. 

The largest faction has solidified around a resolution introduced by Canada, and co-sponsored by Gabon, Sierra Leone, the United Kingdom, Senegal, Chinese Taipei, Guinea-Bissau, and The Gambia, which would prohibit the retention of any shortfin mako sharks.  A similar resolution has, in the recent past, also been supported by Panama, Liberia, Guatemala, Angola, El Salvador, Egypt, Norway, Uruguay, Japan, and China.

The non-retention resolution is supported by the most recent ICCAT stock assessment for shortfin makos, which noted that

“For [two runs of a population model, each of which made slightly different assumptions], a [total allowable catch] of between 800-900 [metric tons], including dead discards, resulted in a >50% probability of the joint probability of [a fishing mortality rate that is below the rate that results in maximum sustainable yield] and [spawning stock fecundity that is above the fecundity level that is necessary for the shortfin mako stock to produce maximum sustainable yield] by 2070.  [Another model run], which assumed a low productivity stock-recruitment relationship, showed that only [a total allowable catch] between 0-100 [metric tons] (including dead discards) resulted in a >50% probability of [achieving the desired result] by 2070.”

The European Union proposal would permit the retention of shortfin makos that are dead when brought alongside a fishing vessel; although the EU was willing to limit retention to just two shortfin makos per trip.  In support of such proposal, EU negotiators have repeatedly argued that

“discarding dead fish is not helping conservation,”

but in doing so failed to acknowledge that allowing any retention could encourage fishermen to seek, rather than avoid, encounters with shortfin makos.

The United States’ position is, perhaps, the most frustrating of all, because the U.S. recognizes the need for mako conservation; however, it has also called for a 500 metric ton annual catch limit, and the retention of some makos that are alive and likely to survive release when brought alongside the vessel.  

Such 500 metric ton catch limit is calculated to have only a 52% probability of rebuilding the shortfin mako stock by 2070.  That is a curious position for the United States to take, as the Draft Amendment 14 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, released last September, states that

“As described in the 1999 [fishery management plan], when addressing management measures for overfished Atlantic shark stocks, NOAA Fisheries’ general objective is to rebuild the stock within the rebuilding period with a 70-percent probability…

“…NMFS uses the 70 percent probability of rebuilding for sharks given their life history traits, such as a late age at maturity and low fecundity (i.e., instead of 50 percent, which is commonly used for other species).  [emphasis added]”

Given such a policy on shark rebuilding, which has been in effect for more than two decades, it is difficult to understand why the United States would be fighting for shortfin mako management measures that, at best, would only have a 52% probability of success.

Part of the answer to that question may come from the United States' alleged desire to maintain landings in the recreational shark fishery.  Mako sharks are a popular recreational species, and the mako fishery makes a significant contribution to the recreational fishing industry, with many charter boats, tournament operators, boat dealers, marinas, bait and tackle shops, and fuel docks profiting from the continued harvest of such badly depleted species.

If that is the true reason for this nation's intransigence, and I strongly suspect that it is, I am deeply saddened.

I have been a participant in the northeastern shark fishery for more than forty years.  Over that time, I’ve caught my share of makos, eaten a few, and even slipped some tournament money into my pocket after putting anglers on prize-winning fish.

But over those four decades time, I have also learned to respect and admire the shortfin mako. 

I know how it feels to see a mako's blue-black dorsal slicing through the ocean.  I know what it’s cobalt back looks like as it swims past the boat, maybe chasing bluefish away from the chum pail, maybe as a hooked fish finally being brought boatside.  I know the awe a mako inspires—and, yes, the little frisson of fear, too--when a fish in the 400-pound class rockets out of the water, barely a leader-length away from the boat, while I look up at it spinning against the sky, and hope that it lands in the water from which it came, instead of on the deck where I stand.

And I know that, as an angler who was going offshore for many, many years, I would gladly forego seeing such things again, if only I could assure that the next generation of anglers, and the generations who come after them, will have to opportunity to see, know, and admire the wild beauty of a shortfin mako in the open sea.

The thought that people would deny others that future, just to kill a few fish, or make a few dollars, in the short term, disgusts me.

So I urge anyone reading this post to support mako conservation, and send your message to NMFS, and the U.S. ICCAT delegation, ahead of ICCAT’s annual meeting this fall. 

And if anyone reading this is involved with HMS at NMFS—and I strongly suspect that some of you are—I ask that you reconsider the U.S. position on mako conservation. 

Encountering a mako on the offshore grounds is reward enough.

There is no need to kill one.