Sharks in Brazil Project

Articles published about sharks

By Marcelo Szpilman*

Recently in a trip to South Africa where I got a great opportunity to dive with Tiger shark and Bull shark, without cage or any other kind of protection, specially to demystify these misunderstood animals, I visited the governmental institution Natal Shark Board (NSB) and its behind the scene. The NSB mission since its creation in 1962 it is “to authorise, control, and initiate provisions do keep humans safe from shark attack” in the coastal region of Durban and adjacency of Natal province, known nowadays as KwaZulu-Natal. By writing this article I would like to broach the role of shark nets issue and its unhappy relation to the world fin trade. However, I would like to introduce you a little about the history of these nets in South Africa and its relation with the shark attacks.

Historically the subtropical and warm waters always attracted visitors to Durban beaches and, unhappily, occasionally shark attacks happened there. In 1907 the City Council decided to raise an half circle enclosure approximately 180 meters in diameter in order to protect swimmers from the surf and strong currents and against shark attack. Unfortunately in 1928 due to the high cost of maintenance and the constant wave action and corrosion it was destroyed. Nevertheless, in the following 11 years there was no evidence to suggest that the shark attack was a problem. However, in 1940, 5 attacks were registered along the 8 km stretch of coastline to the south of Durban. Later on, between 1943 and 1951, Durban experienced 21 attacks, seven of which were fatal..

Desperate for a solution, the city authorities decided to adopted the same system that had been successfully used in Australia since 1937, where large-meshed gill nets which are anchored seaward of the breaker zone. These nets are not used as an exclusion area for swimmers, instead they capture and kill most shark that insist in swimming in the neighbourhood of the protected beaches. The effectiveness of the shark nets is assigned by the reduction of the numbers of shark occurring in the area and consequently minimising the probability of humans and shark encountering.

In 1952 seven gill nets, each 130 m long, were laid along the Durban beachfront. In the first year of operation 552 sharks were caught in these nets, the desired effect was achieved and no serious shark-inflicted injuries have occurred since at Durban's beaches. Unfortunately the resulting safe bathing conditions did not extend to other areas on the KwaZulu-Natal coast, particularly those south of Durban, where a series of attacks between December 1957 (since known as the infamous Black December) and Easter 1958 claimed the lives of five people. These incidents had a devastating effect on the coastal tourist industry.

In response to the public outcry, and fearing financial problems, several coastal towns tried rasing physical barriers in the surf zone to enclose their swimming areas. These unsightly structures, built from poles, wire and netting, could not stand up to the heavy wave action and were soon abandoned. Even the South African Navy frigate was called to release depth bomb and is known to have killed eight sharks by but probably attracted more sharks to the area to feed on dead fish.

In 1962, the nets operation was expanded to north and south of Durban, reaching 15 beaches in 1966. Each beach protected with 2 or 3 nets with 6 meters high and 200-300 meters long. At that time when people strongly believed that "good shark was dead shark", most of the sharks found alive in the nets were killed, especially those considered dangerous like Great white, Tiger shark and Bull shark. Nowadays with 29 km of nets spread with intervals along 320 km of coastline, protecting 38 localities in KwaZulu-Natal, the Natal Shark Board (NSB) concepts has changed and they release all shark captured alive in the nets, including those considered dangerous.

One of the strong argument that NSB uses in favour of the utilisation of the shark nets is the drastic reduction of the occurrence of shark attack and fatalities. In Durban, from 1943 and 1952, before the installation of the nets, was registered seven fatal shark attacks and after the nets were laid no more fatalities was registered. At the other localities of KwaZulu-Natal, from 1940 and 1960, when the majority of beaches installed the nets, there were 16 fatal shark attack and 11 with serious damages. Three decades later, after all nets were installed there were no more fatalities and only 4 attacks resulted in serious damages. Nowadays at the KwaZulu-Natal, the annual average is of only one attack per year.

According to a recent analyses of all attacks registered in the past four decades in all South Africa, shark attack is a rare event, with an average of 4 attacks per year, less than 30% caused serious damage and only 11% were fatal. In 14 years (from 1990 to 2004) there were 71 attacks with 9 fatalities in South Africa. In Brazil in the same period it was registered 67 attacks with 17 fatalities.

It is curious to compare Durban´s history reported above to the problem faced in Brazil in the last 14 years with the shark attacks in the Estate of Pernambuco. From 1990 to 2004 it was registered 45 attacks with 14 fatalities. It is interesting to notice how similar they are about their local claiming. In July 2004, during the II International Shark Attack Workshop in Brazil, there were many surfers and bathers claiming for immediate actions to protect them against the shark attack including the suggestion of laying nets to capture them. The utilisation of this nets for protection, indeed, was seriously exhorted by all specialists in the workshop, including the director of Natal Shark Board (NSB), Dr. Geremy Cliff, from South Africa and Dr. Matt Broadhust from Australia. Apparently these countries not only uses these nets but also agree and protect these kind of practices. Contradictory these specialists argued that the strong negative environment impact and high cost of the implementations ant maintenance of these nets is not recommended. Dr. George Burgess, from USA, country that don’t adopts nets, added that these nets are out of that date and are not environment friendly and also provokes such a negative impact which is incompatible with the problem to be faced afterwards.

In the last 22 years, the average annual capture in the shark nets in the province of KwaZulu-Natal, is of 1250 sharks (14 different species, with 15 to 20% of animal released alive), 350 rays (7 species, with 65 to 70% released alive), 70 marine turtles (2 species, with 35% released alive), 100 dolphins(3 species) and 40 different bony fish.

Even though the specialists of NSB believe that the capture of the majority of the species is sustainable from the population point of view. However, with the unquestionable necessity of protecting the marine live and ecosystem, local and international environmental authorities have been pressuring a review and modification about their unsustainable practices. Lately many actions have been implanted (reductions of 275 of shark nets in the beaches) or at least they are under review (the "drumlines", which are big hooks with baits suspended by floats and anchored in the bottom, as in Australia) to reduce the mortality of the marine animals without leaving the bathers unsafe.

The carcass of dead shark, are taken to Natal Shark Board (NSB) building, and they are used for researching and public dissections - around 60 thousand people visit the NSB every year. In addition, there are self explained banners and exhibitions displayed in order to present a fair program of environment awareness and safe marine recreation concepts, including aspects of the biology and conservation of sharks.

The way NSB drives the concepts of shark conservation and the scenes I witnessed in the tour around their installations are completely contradictories and made me very perplexed.

The theme is discussed in several pages at www.shark.co.za as below:
1. “Why should we be interested in shark conservation” – approaching the food chain aspects and the fragility of sharks under over fishing.
2 . “Threats to sharks” – explaining, among others, that one of the reasons for increased targeting of sharks has been the growing trade in shark fins. It also explains that some countries, including South Africa had banned the “finning” (shark fins are used for the fin soup - fins are cut off the shark, which are often alive and the bodies are dumped back in the ocean).
3. “International Conservation efforts” – listing internationals conservation organizations like IUCN, CITES and FAO, with their urgent demands for management plans to ensure the shark fishing sustainability.
4. “South Africa Shark Protection laws” – informing that the white Shark is totally protect by law and no parts of it or nothing coming from it can be commercialized. It also informs that there is a specific law that demands that all white Shark unloaded, transported or sold must be complete. This is to avoid the “finning” (A kind of Shark fishing driven exclusively to shark fin) and the discharge of the body without fins to the sea.

Nevertheless, in its beautiful and comfortable store, the Natal Shark Board (NSB) sells entire shark jaws taken during shark dissect studies. The utilization of shark bodies parts to produce and sell souvenirs is something controversial and questionable for an organization which presents itself concerned about shark preservation. What to say about the fin commercialization then?

During this visit, in which I was very well hosted by Dr. Geremy Cliff (NSB Director) I found that besides White shark that is protected by law, the shark fins coming from other sharks captured and killed in the protection nets and in the drumlines are sold and all the income (about U$ 50 thousands per year) is driven back to NSB.

We all know that there is an official fin market supplied from the commercial fishing, in which the flesh of the sharks are also processed for human consumption. When this fisheries are well managed, the fin commercialization should be fair. The problem is that in the past years there were a boom in the fin market and this practice became a big threat for sharks leaving already many species classified as endangered.

Called in question about this practice, Dr. Geremy Cliff said: “The NSB condemns the practice of finning and every shark found alive in its nets are released alive with their fins intact. The NSB removes the fins only from dead sharks captured in the nets. We do not capture sharks to make money with their fins.”

Even with all arguments above I still strongly believe that the fin commercialization through NSB is very contradictory and show a conflict of interests, and worse than that, by supplying the fin market in the last 23 years, the NSB motivates the illegal and ambitious fin trade and in addition boycott the world initiatives for banning finning and to protect sharks.

Indeed this practice could be compared to if brazilian environment authority (IBAMA), who banns the illegal wild life traffic of alive animals and wild life hunting, start to sell parts of dead wild animals (feathers, skin, horns, beaks etc..) aiming to revert the income for their own institution.

As a environmentalist and director of the Aqualung Ecological Institute and The Shark in Brazil Project (PROTUBA) I could not remain in silence facing this institutional absurd. I really hope that by doing this denounce, I will pressure Natal Shark Board to review their procedure.

*Marcelo Szpilman: Marine Biologist (UFRJ), with executive post graduation in environment (MBE) by COPPE/UFRJ, is author of AQUALUNG GUIDE TO FISHES, (Portuguese and English version) edited in 1991 and 1992, of SERES MARINHOS PERIGOSOS (Dangerous Marine Creatures), edited in 1998/99, of PEIXES MARINHOS DO BRASIL (Brazilian Marine Fishes), edited in 2000/01, TUBARÕES NO BRASIL (Sharks in Brazil), edited in 2004, of many articles about the environment, ecology and marine life evolution, published in the last years in magazines, papers and in the Institute news letter. Nowadays Marcelo Szpilman is director of the AQUALUNG ECOLOGICAL INSTITUTE, publisher and writer of the Institute news letter, director of THE SHARK IN BRAZIL PROJECT (PROTUBA), and member of the National Scientific Commission of The Brazilian Fishing and Underwater Activities Confederation (CBPDS).