In Panama, authorities stopped a container with 109 bags of shark fins. According to a report from news agency EFE, the cargo was to be shipped from the port of Manzanillo in Colón province to Malaysia. In the freight documents it was therefore not declared as shark fins, but as fish bladders or fish maw.
The discovery is more than a customs violation. The experts involved must first clarify which shark species the fins come from. Only then can it be assessed which national rules and CITES regulations apply to the individual parts. The species identification had not yet been completed at the time of reporting.
Joint operation at the Port of Manzanillo
The container was discovered on the Caribbean coast, on the Caribbean Sea. According to EFE, the Ministry of the Environment MiAmbiente, the Police Investigation Directorate DIP, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Fisheries Authority ARAP were involved in the operation. The case should be handed over to the environmental prosecutor.
It is still unclear who procured the goods, which fishing areas they came from and whether the fins were taken from legally landed animals. The false declaration is therefore an important investigative detail, but not proof that the sharks were caught at sea and their bodies thrown overboard. Finning and fin trading are related but not identical problems.
Taxonomic analysis determines how CITES applies
Specialists examine the seized parts taxonomically. For dried and mixed fins, identification is difficult without appropriate characteristics or genetic methods. It is still central: CITES rules are linked to the respective species, not just to the general name shark fin.
If protected species are detected, investigators must check whether origin, export and transport comply with the required permits and documentation. There may be fins of several species in a mixed shipment. A number of affected sharks cannot be reliably derived from 109 bags without weight, species range and composition.
Panama’s zero quota since January 2026
The political background is unusually strict: the communication from the Panamanian Ministry of the Environment declares that since January 1, 2026, an export quota of zero applies to shark and ray species in the CITES appendices. The rule covers commercial exports of animals, products, parts and derivatives; Exceptions exist only for approved scientific, medical, educational, law enforcement or forensic purposes.
MiAmbiente justifies the zero quota with the precautionary principle, the biological vulnerability of many species and still insufficient data on populations and traceability. For the blue shark, the ministry expressly mentions the rule as a preventative measure. However, it is not a blanket export ban for every shark species that exists worldwide, but rather refers to the CITES species recorded by Panama.
Why the false declaration matters
Port controls only work if authorities know what is in a container. If an animal product is registered under a different product name, species protection tests, permits and proof of origin can be avoided. Especially with dried fins, the supply chain is often long and leads through several retailers and countries.
Malaysia was the destination country, according to the report. It is not yet known whether the goods should be further processed there, sold or re-exported. There was also no reliable information about the total weight, the sender and possible recipients in the published message.
What still needs to be clarified
- Species: Which sharks can be identified morphologically or genetically?
- Quantity: What is the net weight and number of the individual fins?
- Origin: Which fisheries, ports and countries does the product come from?
- Documents: Who declared the shipment as fish bladders and what evidence was provided?
- Legal consequence: Which parts fall under CITES and Panama’s zero quota?
For shark protection, the case only becomes fully understandable with these answers. However, the seizure already shows why species identification, digital traceability and joint port inspections are crucial: an export ban only protects if incorrectly declared goods are detected before they leave the port.