Shark finning regulations did not produce statistically significant changes in countries’ shark exports, imports or domestic consumption, according to a Nature Communications analysis of trade in 188 countries from 2007 to 2020, as summarized by Yahoo News.
The paper, “Global trade responses to shark finning regulations,” is a trade study, not a count of dead sharks. That distinction matters for how the findings are read. Sara Orofino of The Nature Conservancy is described as co-lead author and Gavin McDonald of the University of California, Santa Barbara’s emLab as senior author, according to Noozhawk’s coverage of a university press release.
The team drew on the Aquatic Resource Trade in Species (ARTIS) database. They used a method called difference-in-differences, which compares countries before and after they adopted rules with countries that had not yet done so.
On average, countries with regulations exported about 351 metric tons less shark product per year than expected and imported about 142 tons more. Domestic consumption was estimated at about 1,672 tons lower. None of those shifts was statistically significant.
A result that is not statistically significant does not prove the rules had no effect. Earth.com’s summary of the study framed it as an effect that is harder to see than expected.
Longer-term shifts in who trades with whom
The picture changed over a longer horizon. At least nine years after a country put rules in place, it generally sent smaller shipments abroad to fewer partners and bought from a wider set of suppliers. Consumption at home held roughly steady.
The trade is also lopsided. Relatively few countries supply most of the exports, while many more take part as buyers. Spain stood out as a hub, shipping large volumes and linked to many importing countries.
What the data can’t see
The database lumps shark fins in as a co-product, so they could not be analyzed on their own. It also has no record of sharks thrown back at sea. Since a shark released after capture can still die from injury or stress, fewer sharks in markets does not necessarily mean fewer sharks dying.
The paper suggests, tentatively, that regulations may have discouraged some countries from keeping sharks at all, so catch once finned is now discarded. It also floats other explanations: fewer shark interactions, though it calls that less consistent with evidence of rising mortality, and retention bans for threatened species in regional fisheries bodies. The paper notes that global shark mortality has continued to rise despite more regulation.
Why it matters for shark conservation
Finning regulations take several forms. Some require sharks to come ashore intact with their fins still on, some require fins to be secured to the carcass, and some set fin-to-carcass ratios. Sharks are especially vulnerable to fishing pressure because many are slow growers that reach maturity late and bear few young, so populations can struggle to rebound.
Sharkophile has also covered a study on shark mortality in longline fishing.
The Yahoo News piece argues that the more useful question is where sharks go after a country adopts a rule. It says answering that will take better monitoring of catches and discards, stronger seafood traceability and species-level identification in trade data.
Source: Yahoo News (originally Forbes), University of California, Santa Barbara via EurekAlert, Noozhawk / Study: Nature Communications
