Mako Shark Conservation: An Opportunity Wasted

The Shortfin Mako Shark is one of the ocean’s most fascinating predators. In the North Atlantic, it is also one of the most endangered. In November 2019, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas gathered fishery management groups from around the world for a long-anticipated meeting. Its goal? Put an end to Mako Shark overfishing, and reach a long-term agreement for the conservation of the species. 

As an international fishery management organization, the ICCAT was the perfect place for saving the North Atlantic Mako. Considering how depleted Mako stocks were becoming, the meeting had the eye of conservationists from all over the globe.

However, despite high hopes, ICCAT members failed to reach an agreement, potentially allowing the species to decline even further. A number of conservation groups condemned the failed talks, even accusing some of the largest Mako fishing nations of sabotaging the deal. 

And while the failed negotiations were certainly a cause for controversy, none of the reports actually told the whole story. Today, we’re going to dive into what exactly happened at the ICCAT. 

Before we do, we’ll take a quick look at what makes the Mako Shark so important, and why it’s endangered in the first place.

Why are Mako Sharks important?

Mako Sharks are among the deadliest Sharks in existence. As such, they are extremely important, both from an ecological and a commercial standpoint. As top-tier predators, they keep a number of sea creatures in check. For example, they’re responsible for keeping healthy stocks of species like Tuna, which constitute a $42 billion fishery in the US alone.

And then there’s fishing for Makos themselves. This Shark is an incredible fighter, and a prime delicacy, too. It makes sense, then, that commercial and recreational fishers can’t get enough of them. That, sadly, is precisely where the problem lies. But more on that in a second.

Why are Mako Sharks endangered?

Shortfin Mako Sharks boast several characteristics that make them particularly vulnerable to overfishing. Because they have almost no natural predators, Makos tend to grow very slowly. This causes them to reproduce fairly late in life. Makos can live to around 30 years, but they don’t start breeding before they’re eight (males) and 19 (females).

This means that a female Mako has to survive 19 years of fishing before it ever gets a chance to breed. Even if the Shark gets released by its captor, its chances of survival aren’t great. According to the ICCAT, almost 30% of Makos die after they’re released.

And it’s not just the Mako fishermen that these Sharks have to contend with. Because Makos feed on Tuna and other popular pelagic fish, they often end up as bycatch. Tens of thousands of Makos die every year as a result of being hooked by longliners or entangled in huge purse seines. 

Combined, these factors make for a pretty grim picture.

Mako Shark Conservation

The past three years have been very eventful for Shortfin Mako Shark conservation.

2017

In 2017, an ICCAT stock assessment revealed that North Atlantic Mako Sharks were being overfished, and that their population was extremely depleted. Commercial and recreational fishers were catching way more Makos than the species could handle. The assessment was a wake up call for regulators, consumers, and anglers across the world.

2018

Soon after the ICCAT assessment, fishery management organizations started making changes in Mako fishing regulations. In the US, NOAA announced its emergency Mako Shark management measures in March 2018. 

The new rules introduced stricter gear requirements for commercial fishers, a release-only policy for all live caught Makos, and a minimum size requirement of 83 inches (210 centimeters) for recreational fishers.

2019

Sadly, Mako populations continued to drop, and in March 2019, the species was officially listed as “endangered” by the IUCN. Combining information from the ICCAT and other organizations, the IUCN revealed that Mako Shark populations have dropped by 50–79% over the last 75 years. For a species with almost no natural predators, that was a shockingly high number.

For most anglers, seeing the species officially receive an IUCN Red List tag was disheartening. Conservationists, however, welcomed the news, because they now had much more ground to stand on when pushing conservation-oriented regulations. 

Good news came in September, when the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) granted Makos a much anticipated Appendix II listing. This meant that, for the first time ever, international trade of Shortfin Makos would be regulated along with conservational requirements.

Considering how popular and lucrative Makos were in global seafood markets, the CITES listing approval was a big deal. Exporting countries would now need to prove that their Makos were sustainably caught. 

After receiving nods from IUCN and CITES, Mako Sharks finally seemed to be heading towards a brighter future. One crucial hurdle, however, was still in the way: reducing the actual number of Mako killings. 

A Perfect Opportunity

Every year, the ICCAT provides its 48 member states with scientific stock reports and regulation recommendations. The members then use these to agree on international catch limits and other conservation measures. This year was no different.

Ahead of the convention, the ICCAT Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) put forward their Mako Shark conservation recommendation.

The Recommendation

According to the SCRS, North Atlantic fisheries caught an average of 3,137 tonnes of Mako every year between 2013 and 2015. The research showed that, in order to stop overfishing, countries would need to immediately cut their catches by 85%. Such a solution, however, would still leave Makos with only a 35% chance of recovering by the year 2040.

With that in mind, the SCRS put forward the following management recommendation: 

“Only a 0 t annual catch will rebuild the stock by 2040 with a 54% probability… If the Commission wishes to stop overfishing immediately and achieve rebuilding by 2040 with over a 50% probability, the most effective immediate measure is a complete prohibition of retention.”

In other words, eliminating catches was the only way for Makos to have a realistic chance of recovering. The ICCAT member countries just needed to accept it.

An Opportunity Wasted

There were three competing proposals presented at ICCAT. The proposals, presented by Senegal, the European Union, and the United States, were similar in many ways. Each of the three supported sustainable release practices, advanced data collection, and further research of the Mako stock. 

However, out of the three parties, Senegal was the only one to propose a complete ban on Mako retention. The EU and the US, meanwhile, proposed different versions of a reduction in the total allowable catch (TAC). 

Here are some of the key points from each proposal.

The Senegal Proposal

The Senegal proposal asked for a complete ban on Mako retention. It also blocked any incentive to keep a dead Mako Shark, by saying that they could not be sold for profit. Although it failed to propose a detailed plan to reduce Mako post-release fatalities, the Senegal proposal was still the most conservative of the three. 

This proposal was co-sponsored by Canada, then Gambia, Gabon, Panama, Liberia, Guatemala, Angola, El Salvador, and Egypt.

Here are some of the key points from the Senegal proposal.

• A complete ban on North Atlantic Shortfin Mako Shark retention;
• Only countries that require landing dead fish by law may retain a Mako Shark. Fishers can only do so if the fish is dead at haul-back, in which case, they cannot draw any commercial profit from it.

The EU Proposal

The EU proposal asked for a complete ban on live Mako retention. However, it also suggested a 500 t retention quota for dead-at-haul-back Makos. Unlike the Senegal proposal, the EU would allow these Makos to be sold for profit.

Conservationists argued that the you-can’t-sell-them-unless-they’re-already-dead approach would create some “perverse incentives.” To that end, the EU requested a mandatory monitoring program to limit any chance of foul play.

The key points of the EU proposal were:

• A complete ban on live North Atlantic Shortfin Mako Shark retention;
• A TAC of 500 tonnes for Shortfin Makos that are dead at haul-back, which fishers can sell for profit;
• Each Mako fishing vessel must have an observer or an electronic monitoring system on board;
• A country may authorize their vessels to catch and retain Mako Sharks if:

1. The Shortfin Mako Shark is dead at haul-back;
2. A Mako fishing vessel has either an observer or a electronic monitoring system on board;
3. The observer collects data on the dead Mako Shark;
4. When the fish is not retained, the number of dead discards and live releases are recorded by the observer or the electronic monitoring system.

The US Proposal

The US proposal recommended a TAC of 700 tonnes in 2020, with a reduction over the next two years to a TAC level of no more than 500 tonnes by 2022. It argued that a simple no-catch policy wouldn’t end overfishing, because of the extremely high mortality rates characteristic for Shortfin Makos.

As many as 30% of Makos die post release.

Instead, the US suggested that nations adopt stricter gear regulations, which would allow them to release more Makos unharmed. The Makos that they do retain or fail to release alive would count towards their TAC quota.

The US proposal was co-sponsored by Curaçao. Some of the key points in this proposal were:

• Total allowable catch of 700 tonnes in 2020;
• Total allowable catch of no more than 500 tonnes by 2022;
• Mandatory use of nylon monofilament leaders and large circle hooks;
• If a country achieves the necessary reductions, it may allow its fishers to retain Mako Sharks if one or more of the following conditions are met: 

1. The Shortfin Mako Shark is already dead at haul-back;
2. The Shortfin Mako Shark is a male larger than 70 inches or a female larger than 83 inches;
3. A country prohibits the release of dead Mako Sharks.

The Status Quo

Despite much deliberation, the ICCAT members failed to reach an agreement. According an NOAA spokesperson: “At the end of the meeting, all expressed disappointment that consensus could not be reached.” The Chairman of the panel put forth a one-year extension so that the talks could continue. 

In the end, the ICCAT adopted a temporary solution, which by all accounts, will continue the status-quo. Under the new rules:

• ICCAT member fishermen must release all Mako Sharks “in a manner that causes the least harm” to the animal;
• ICCAT members may allow fishers to retain Mako Sharks if they are dead at haul-back. There will be additional monitoring requirements for larger vessels; 
• Fishermen whose countries require them to land dead fish may retain Mako Sharks as long as they gain no profit;
• ICCAT members may allow fishermen to keep Mako Sharks if their domestic laws require a minimum size of 70 inches for male and 83 inches for female Mako Sharks.

ICCAT members will now have a year of unofficial talks to reach a consensus. Let’s hope that the Makos will hold on for that long.

What are your thoughts on Shortfin Mako Shark conservation? What would be the best solution in your mind? Let us know in the comments below.