Sharks Need Our Help: The Grim Reality of International Shark Finning

On average, between 76 and 80 million sharks are killed every year for their fins. Despite the fact that nearly 50 countries and territories and most international fisheries management organizations (called Regional Fishery Management Organizations, or RFMOs) have implemented full or partial shark finning bans, statistics indicate that finning is still on the rise.

Shark finning is the practice of catching wild sharks, slicing off their fins, and throwing their bodies back into the ocean, where they die from suffocation, blood loss, or predation. Fins are primarily used in food and traditional medicine. Consuming fins is often associated with wealth and status, as a single fin can be worth upwards of $1,300 USD. Studies have also found that shark fins are high in mercury and can contain other neurotoxins, which can cause permanent nerve and brain damage in humans.

Undoubtedly, the practice of shark finning is cruel and disturbing, leading to a slow and painful death for millions of sharks every year. Finning is also ecologically detrimental, contributing to decreasing shark populations and species endangerment. A 2024 study found that one-third of sharks killed annually are members of a species threatened with extinction. Species affected include the scalloped hammerhead and great hammerhead, which are listed as critically endangered on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. Because many shark species are apex predators, their disappearance from their natural range disturbs the fragile balance of aquatic ecosystems, leading to consequences for all marine animals.

Between 2012 and 2019, shark finning bans increased tenfold, likely due to increased public visibility on the horrific nature of finning. Today, shark finning is banned partially or in full in 49 countries and territories, including the United States with the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act of 2023. The Act prohibits the possession, transport, and sale of shark fins, aiming to end the commercial market out of the U.S.

In late 2024, the United States, Brazil, and Belize presented a proposal to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), an RFMO, with the goal of strengthening the commission’s ban on shark finning in the Atlantic Ocean. Although 42 of the 53 ICCAT members supported this proposal, it ultimately failed, lacking the consensus it needed to pass. Reports indicate that influence from China and Japan, nations which boast the world’s biggest consumer markets for shark fins, led to the proposal’s failure. Despite the increased push for additional legal shark finning prohibitions across the globe, the political will among consumer countries is lacking.

Oceanic whitetip sharks are just one victim of the practice but the risks to this critically endangered species are garnering some recent legal attention. In addition to RFMOs, both the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) face important issues of treaty interpretation and compliance as applied to oceanic whitetip shark fishing.

By and large, these sharks are caught as “bycatch,” meaning that they are not the intended target of the fishing but are nonetheless caught. Protected as an Appendix I species under CMS, Parties should prohibit the take (meaning “taking, hunting, fishing, capturing, harassing, deliberate killing, or attempting to engage in any such conduct”) in this species, as required by Article III. Whether bycatch – unintentional take – constitutes a prohibited take as defined under the treaty is currently being debated. Recently, the Global Law Alliance for Animals and the Environment (GLA) and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) partnered to analyze whether bycatch constitutes a take under the treaty. The analysis argues that the plain language of the treaty and its negotiating history support the interpretation that incidental takes such as bycatch constitute prohibited takes. This interpretation is also supported by other agreements in the CMS family, such as the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement. We hope that CMS Parties ultimately agree that this approach avoids a significant legal loophole that could further threaten a critically endangered species.

Oceanic whitetip sharks are also protected under CITES. One of the most critical elements of CITES, where the treaty allows commercial trade, is that Parties must demonstrate that any plant or animal in trade has been obtained legally, otherwise known as a legal acquisition finding (LAF). Recently, the Maldives brought to the attention of the Parties concerns that oceanic whitetip sharks have been reported in international trade despite the impossibility of proving legal acquisition due to both international and domestic legal prohibitions. Without a LAF, most of the trade in oceanic whitetip shark fin is illegal.

Both of these issues will continue to unfold as the Parties to CMS and CITES meet throughout the next year. The Global Law Alliance for Animals and the Environment (GLA) will continue to monitor and participate in these discussions in order to provide legal support to partner organizations and to the sharks themselves. Led by Director and Clinical Professor Erica Lyman, GLA provides JD and LLM students with real-life experience working on international aquatic animal issues, including shark conservation. Alums of the clinic have gone on to work in the international marine space, contributing to positive movement in the field.

About the Authors:

Ally Grimaldi is the 2024 GLA Diehl Fellow. She is a 2024 JD graduate of the Environmental and Animal Law programs at Lewis & Clark Law School. As a student, Ally participated in GLA, the Animal Law Review, and the Women’s Law Caucus. She interned with Phoenix Zones Initiative and worked on a project where she strategized legal pathways for the advancement of a Belmont Report for animal research.

Clinical Professor Erica Lyman has over fifteen years of experience in international environmental law, with a strong focus on wildlife protection issues. She is the Director of GLA. Launched in the fall of 2020, GLA is an innovative collaboration of the Center for Animal Law Studies and the top-ranked Environmental Law Program at Lewis & Clark Law School. GLA champions wild animals and wild spaces around the world. Law students (JD and LLM) actively participate in GLA’s work for academic credit. She also teaches Global Wild Animal Law in the online Animal Law advanced degree program.

The Center for Animal Law Studies (CALS) was founded in 2008 with a mission to educate the next generation of animal law advocates and advance animal protection through the law. With vision and bold risk-taking, CALS has since developed into a world-renowned animal law epicenter. CALS’ Alumni-in-Action from 30 countries are making a difference for animals around the world. CALS is a self-funded Center within the law school operating under the Lewis & Clark College 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, and is able to provide these educational opportunities through donations and grants.