The Future of Sharks:
A Review of Action and Inaction
January 2011

By Mary Lack and Glenn SantJIM ABERNETHY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
The authors wish to acknowledge the input provided
by a number of TRAFFIC network regional staff andto thank staff from the Pew Environment Group and
TRAFFIC for helpful comments on the draft report.

on the part of TRAFFIC or its supporting organizationsor The Pew Charitable Trusts concerning the legal
status of any country, territory or area, or of its
authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its
frontiers or boundaries.

Published by TRAFFIC International (Cambridge, U.K.)
and the Pew Environment Group (Washington, D.C.).

The TRAFFIC symbol copyright and registeredtrademark ownership is held by WWF. TRAFFIC isa joint program of WWF and IUCN.

© 2011 TRAFFIC International and the Pew
Environment Group.
All rights reserved.

B

CITATION:
M. Lack and Sant G. (2011). The Future of Sharks: A
Review of Action and Inaction. TRAFFIC International
and the Pew Environment Group.

All material appearing in this publication is
copyrighted and may be reproduced with permission.
Any reproduction in full or in part of this publicationmust credit TRAFFIC International and the Pew
Environment Group as the copyright owner.

TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, works
to ensure that trade in wild plants and animals is not athreat to the conservation of nature.

The views of the authors expressed in this publication
do not necessarily reﬂect those of the TRAFFIC
network, WWF and the Pew Environment Group.

The Pew Environment Group is the conservation armof The Pew Charitable Trusts, a nongovernmentalorganization that applies a rigorous, analytical
approach to improve public policy, inform the public
and stimulate civic life.

The designations of geographical entities in thispublication, and the presentation of the material, do
not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever

COVER PHOTO: Masa Ushioda / SeaPics.com

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY2

INTRODUCTION

4METHODS

5

THE TOP 20

6CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF SHARKS

8

IPOA-Sharks Obligations and Commitments

8

RFMO Membership and Obligations

11

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

14

Convention on Migratory Species

15

ASSESSMENT

16

IPOA-Sharks Implementation

16

Catch and Trade Data

19

Management Issues

20

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS TO COFI22

REFERENCES

24

ACRONYMS

26

APPENDIX 1

Proﬁles27

APPENDIX 2

Common and Scientiﬁc Names

41

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 10-year anniversary of the adoptionof the International Plan of Action for theConservation and Management of Sharks(IPOA-Sharks) by the FAO Committee on
Fisheries (COFI) is an opportune time to reﬂect
on global progress in managing shark ﬁsheries.
The members of COFI agreed explicitly in theimplementation section of the IPOA that allStates should strive “…to have a Shark-plan by
the COFI Session in 2001,” that “States which
implement the Shark-plan should regularly, atleast every four years, assess its implementation
for the purpose of identifying cost-effective
strategies for increasing its effectiveness,”
and that “States should report on the
progress of the assessment, development andimplementation of their Shark-plans as part oftheir biennial reporting to FAO on the Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.” (FAO 1999)
None of those elements of the IPOA-Sharks
have been properly implemented.

The Top 20 account for nearly 80% of totalreported shark catch, with Indonesia, India,
Spain and Taiwan accounting for more than
35%. The future of many shark populations
is essentially in the hands of the Top 20.
One indicator of the commitment to shark
management in the Top 20 is whether therecommendations of the IPOA-Sharks havebeen implemented. Currently, 13 of the Top 20
are known to have a National Plan of Action for
the Conservation and Management of Sharks(NPOA-Sharks).

Sharks1 are particularly vulnerable to overexploitation because of their biologicalcharacteristics of maturing late, having few
young and being long-lived. Action on sharks
by the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO), international treaties
such as the Convention on International Tradein Endangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora (CITES), regional ﬁsheries management
organizations (RFMOs) and shark catching
countries and entities has been promptedby increasing international concern about
shark stocks as a result of a growing bodyof evidence that many shark species are
threatened and continuing to decline becauseof unregulated ﬁshing. This report assesses thenature and extent of management measures inplace for sharks by the Top 20 “shark catchers”2identiﬁed from shark catch data provided to the
FAO (see table).

Top 20 (% of Global Shark
NPOA-Sharks
Reported Shark
Assessment
Catch)
ReportIndonesia (13%)
Not explicitly Draft (not accessed)
India (9%)
No
In development
Spain (7.3%)
Yes (EU)
Yes
Taiwan (5.8%)
No
Yes
Argentina (4.3%)
Unknown
Yes
Mexico (4.1%)
Unknown
Yes
Pakistan (3.9%)
Unknown
Unknown
United States (3.7%) Not explicitly Yes
Japan (3.0%)
No
Yes
Malaysia (2.9%)
Yes (in NPOA) Yes
Thailand (2.8%)
Unknown
Yes (could not be
accessed)
France (2.6%)
Yes (EU)
Yes
Brazil (2.4%)
Unknown
Yes (could not be
accessed)
Sri Lanka (2.4%)
No
No (has sought
assistance)
New Zealand (2.2%) Not explicitly Yes

1

The term “sharks” refers to all species of sharks, skates, rays andchimaeras (Class Chondrichthyes).

This analysis suggests that shark ﬁsheries arelikely to be generally well managed in only a
few of the Top 20 and that, although NPOAs
are in place in these, there is no evidence toindicate that the NPOAs are responsible forthe effective management of shark ﬁsheries. It
is possible to speculate that this management
is more likely to reﬂect better resourced andPortugal (1.9%)
Nigeria (1.7%)
Iran (1.7%)

Yes (EU)
Unknown
Unknown

Yes
Unknown
Unknown

U.K. (1.6%)
South Korea (1.4%)

Yes (EU)
Unknown

Yes
Unknown (may bein progress)

2

The term “shark catchers” refers to countries, territories and otherpolitical entities that report shark catch to the FAO.

2

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

informed systems of ﬁsheries management
and governance overall. Many of the remaining
Top 20 also have NPOAs, yet this analysis has
failed to identify information that indicates thatsharks are effectively managed. This suggeststhat the development of an NPOA may havebecome an end rather than the means. Further,
seven of the Top 20 are currently without an
NPOA-Sharks. Although this in itself cannot
be interpreted as implying that sharks are,necessarily, poorly managed, this analysis has
not been able to conﬁrm the status of shark
management arrangements in these Top 20
catchers.
Even where NPOAs exist, their structure,
together with a failure to review and assess
these plans periodically, makes assessment of
their effectiveness difﬁcult. More generally, thelack of publicly available information on sharkﬁsheries and their management means that it
is very difﬁcult to assess whether the principlesof the IPOA-Sharks have been adopted by
the Top 20. It is equally difﬁcult to determine
whether this group has implemented thelimited shark conservation and management
measures adopted by the RFMOs in which they
participate. Overall, however, this and previous
reviews of implementation of the IPOA-Sharks
have found little evidence that the IPOA-Sharks
has contributed to signiﬁcantly improved shark
conservation and management outcomes.
Based on this initial analysis, recommendations
for improved shark conservation andmanagement by the Top 20 and RFMOs areprovided below. These make it clear that
there is a pressing need for a more detailed
global review of progress by the Top 20
on the principles of the IPOA-Sharks. The
recommended review should then informthe development of national, regional
and international action to improve shark
conservation and management. The global
community cannot afford to wait for anotherdecade in the hope that the IPOA-Sharks will

deliver the outcomes that the members of FAO
expected when it was agreed upon. Additional
action is required to ensure that the list of sharkspecies threatened by overﬁshing does notcontinue to grow.
It is imperative that the 2011 meeting of COFI:
1. Recognizes that it is currently not possible todetermine whether the Top 20 shark catchers
are implementing the principles of the IPOASharks.
2. Requests that the FAO undertake, as apriority, a review into the application of theprinciples of the IPOA-Sharks by the Top 20.
a. The review should be a comprehensive
analysis of the actions being undertaken
to manage ﬁsheries in which sharks aretaken through directed ﬁshing or incidental
catch.
b. The review should prioritize those Top
20 catchers for which the information
available suggests that there is little or no
management of shark ﬁsheries in place, orfor which there was insufﬁcient information
available to make an informed judgement
about the level of management: Indonesia,
India, Taiwan, Argentina, Mexico, Pakistan,
Malaysia, Thailand, Brazil, Sri Lanka,
Nigeria, Iran and South Korea.
3. Requests that the FAO conduct an audit ofshark catch data provided by COFI members
to assess the extent to which they conform to
the FAO’s reporting requirements.
4. Requests that the FAO report back to
COFI 2013 on the above review and audit
through a publicly available document withrecommendations for further action anddeadlines.
5. Agrees that, after consideration of thatreport, COFI will adopt an ongoing andtransparent mechanism to monitor progresson the principles of the IPOA-Sharks for theTop 20 (noting that the composition of theTop 20 will change over time).

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 20113

INTRODUCTION
TRAFFIC has reported on trends in the catch,trade and management of sharks over the past
decade (see, for example, Lack and Sant, 2006;
Lack and Sant, 2008). In particular, TRAFFIC
has previously focused on identifying thosecountries and entities mainly responsible
for global shark catch. However, it is the
management of that catch, rather than merely
its extent, that is important in determining thepotential impact of catch on shark populations.
TRAFFIC and the Pew Environment Group
have, therefore, reviewed the reporting ofcatch and trade data and the conservationand management of sharks by the major shark
catchers (the Top 20).

In addition, the report:s Discusses the objectives and principles of the
IPOA-Sharks and responses to it.
s Makes recommendations for speciﬁc actions,with particular application to the Top 20, to
improve the conservation and managementof sharks.

MAXIMILIANO BELLO

For each of the Top 20, the report considers:s The catch and trade data reported to the
Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO).

s The nature of their shark ﬁsheries andmanagement, including development andimplementation of the FAO’s International
Plan of Action for the Conservation andManagement of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks).
s The implementation of shark conservationand management measures requiredor recommended by regional ﬁsheries
management organizations (RFMOs)
and other international conventions ororganizations in which they participate.

4

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

METHODSThe Top 20 were identiﬁed on the basis of
the average of shark catch data reported to
the FAO in the period 2000 to 2008. Drawing
on publicly available information, individual
proﬁles have been developed for eachof the Top 20 to describe the nature andextent of their ﬁsheries for, and their tradeand management of, sharks (see Appendix
1). The proﬁles are intended to provide asnapshot of the available information oneach of the leading shark catchers. The
extent of readily accessible information varies
considerably across the Top 20 and, as a result,the comprehensiveness of the proﬁles also
varies. This highlights those areas where abetter understanding of shark ﬁsheries andmanagement is required.

s FAO Fishstat Capture Production 1950-2008
and Commodities Production and Trade
1976-2007 datasets.3
s Ofﬁcial import statistics, 2005-09, for theEuropean Union (EU), Hong Kong (2008only), Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and theUnited States.
s Ofﬁcial export statistics, 2005-09, for the EU,
Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Taiwan,
and the United States.
s Shark catch data reported to RFMOs.
s Reports of meetings of RFMO bodies,including meetings of the commissions,scientiﬁc committees, ecosystem andbycatch committees and compliancecommittees.
s Published literature.

The major sources of information used indeveloping the proﬁles include:
Available at www.fao.org/ﬁshery/statistics/programme/3,1,1/en

SHAWN HEINRICHS

3

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 20115

THE TOP 20
The Top 20 for the period 2000 to 2008 arelisted in Table 1 (See also Figure 1). The Top 20
is an arbitrary construct and in considering thisreport, it is important to bear in mind that:s Although the Top 20 account for nearly 80%
of total reported shark catch, the top four
shark catchers (Indonesia, India, Spain andTaiwan) account for more than 35%.
s Five of the Top 20 (Portugal, Nigeria, Iran,the United Kingdom and South Korea)
each account for less than 2% of the global
reported shark catch.
s The 20th-ranked catcher accounts for 1.4%of global reported shark catch, and six thatare not in the Top 20 account for 1% or moreof the catch: Canada (1.39%), Peru (1.21%),
Yemen (1.17%), Australia (1.15%), Senegal(1.06%) and Venezuela (1.00%).

FIGURE 1 | Top 20 Average Annual Catch, 2000-08 (t, live weight)

U.K.
13,356

Spain
59,777

United States
30,686

France21,511TABLE 1

Portugal
15,819Mexico33,971

Nigeria
14,311

Brazil20,014

Pakistan
32,277Iran
14,001

Argentina
35,089

Sri Lanka
19,988South Korea
11,887

India
74,050Japan
24,960
Taiwan47,635Indonesia
Thailand
109,248
22,728
Malaysia
24,334

New Zealand
18,005

Source: FAO Fisheries Department (2010)

6

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

s The composition, ranking and catches of theTop 20 are determined by catch reported
to the FAO. The extent to which that is
an accurate reﬂection of the actual global
catch of sharks depends on the level ofunder-reporting and nonreporting of shark
catch by FAO members, the adherence ofmembers to the FAO’s reporting guidelines,
the catch of non-FAO members, and theextent to which sharks are reported as partof generic categories such as “marine ﬁshes
not elsewhere included (nei)” and “pelagicﬁshes nei.”

TABLE 1 | Reported Shark Catch to FAO, 2000-08 (t, live weight)
Catcher

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

AverageAnnualCatch%GlobalCatch
2000-08

Indonesia

113,626

110,311

106,398

117,559

108,944

100,037

110,528

108,539

107,290109,248

13.25

India

76,057

67,971

66,923

63,771

79,82561,056

66,367103,246

81,23774,050

8.98

Spain

82,34977,10362,996

61,59553,33042,80648,31053,71555,79059,777

7.25

Taiwan45,92342,35544,412

67,432

43,79745,94549,37548,707

40,77647,635

5.78

Argentina

25,75031,78426,251

31,691

32,03837,16140,32544,343

46,46135,0894.26

Mexico35,26032,71830,88834,42937,54035,832

34,97634,782

29,31533,971

4.12

Pakistan

51,17049,86349,90433,24830,68722,877

20,127

16,284

16,33532,277

3.92

UnitedStates30,93522,072

24,07635,37230,732

29,79332,00434,28736,90630,686

3.72

Japan

31,873

27,69632,87925,53723,47525,93022,795

16,212

18,24924,960

3.03

Malaysia

24,521

25,20924,167

27,94825,05325,094

22,24021,76423,011

24,334

2.95

Thailand

24,68924,27830,20832,54027,646

20,745

16,215

13,11615,121

22,728

2.76

France24,952

25,79923,13622,75521,80021,477

19,082

19,61914,98021,511

2.61

Brazil

21,585

20,40821,737

20,84920,04623,753

18,392

17,23916,121

20,014

2.43

Sri Lanka

34,38029,40032,753

32,83826,559

7,610

7,700

4,248

4,410

19,988

2.42

New
Zealand

17,71819,796

21,23818,45916,647

18,032

16,783

17,40915,96518,005

2.18

Portugal

12,783

13,85514,017

16,99912,765

15,36016,856

20,176

19,56015,819

1.92

Nigeria

13,238

14,626

13,44915,17913,56013,882

14,444

15,292

15,131

14,311

1.74

Iran

12,155

11,635

10,61915,96318,31817,44315,015

13,187

11,67814,001

1.70

U.K.

17,38919,346

16,832

19,581

16,232

10,625

7,982

6,442

5,779

13,356

1.62

South Korea

15,39414,011

11,961

12,567

12,506

10,11010,841

11,374

8,222

11,887

1.44

Top 20 Total

711,747

680,236

664,844706,312651,500

585,568

590,357

619,981582,337

643,654

78.08

GlobalReported
Catch889,117862,880

864,137

900,151

850,415773,689

753,110789,282

736,491

824,364

Source: FAO Fisheries Department (2010)

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 20117

CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT OF SHARKSIPOA-Sharks Obligations andCommitments
In 1994, because of concerns that trade inshark products was resulting in the overexploitation of shark species, the Parties
to the Convention on International Tradein Endangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora (CITES) requested through Resolution
Conference 9.17, among other things,
that FAO establish a program of work tocollate biological and trade data on sharks
in cooperation with all those using andtrading shark products.4 In response, the
FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) initiatedan expert consultation on sharks and aseries of regional and technical workshopsthat led, ultimately, to COFI’s adoption in1999 of the IPOA-Sharks (Oliver, Sant and4This resolution was updated in 2010 and is now Resolution Conference 12.6. (Rev. CoP15) (www.cites.org/eng/res/12/12-06R15.shtml).

Fowler, 1998) and the technical guidelines for
implementation of the IPOA, which containadvice on the ideal content of a National Planof Action for Sharks (NPOA-Sharks) (FAO,
2000). The implementation of the IPOA-Sharks
by the 136 members of COFI is voluntary.5
The IPOA-Sharks recommends a process
beginning with a review of shark catches,management and knowledge of species,
policies and status of stocks. This is presented
as a shark assessment report (SAR). Although
the IPOA-Sharks recommends that an NPOA
be prepared, it recognizes that an NPOA may
not be necessary in all cases and recommends
that the SAR be structured so as to guide a
decision as to whether there is a need foraction beyond what is already in place.
The FAO Secretariat reports to COFI on the5

Taiwan is not a member of COFI because it is not a member of theUnited Nations.

The IPOA-Sharks recommends that the following 10 principles be applied in thatdecision:
1. Ensure that shark catches from directed and nondirected ﬁsheries are sustainable.
2. Assess threats to shark populations, determine and protect critical habitats andimplement harvesting strategies consistent with the principles of biologicalsustainability and rational long-term economic use.
3. Identify and provide special attention, in particular to vulnerable or threatened sharkstocks.
4. Improve and develop frameworks for establishing and coordinating effective
consultation involving all stakeholders in research, management and educational
initiatives within and between States.
5. Minimize the unutilized incidental catches of sharks.
6. Contribute to the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem structure and function.
7. Minimize waste and discards from shark catches.
8. Encourage full use of dead sharks.
9. Facilitate improved species-speciﬁc catch and landings data and monitoring of shark
catches.
10. Facilitate the identiﬁcation and reporting of species-speciﬁc biological and trade
data.

8

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

application of the IPOA-Sharks at the nationaland regional levels. The FAO’s report is basedon voluntary responses by COFI members toa biennial FAO questionnaire and includes
an assessment of the development of SARs
and NPOA-Sharks. However, the voluntary
nature of the questionnaire means that some
SARs/NPOAs may not be reported to COFI.
In addition, these reports to COFI provide
only numbers, rather than names of members,that have reported. Further, such reporting
provides no indication of the extent to which
the principles of the IPOA have been applied
either through NPOAs or through othermanagement measures. In 2009, the FAO
reported to COFI that, of the one-third of COFI
members that had responded to the FAOquestionnaire, about 50% (34) had assessed
the need for an NPOA and, of those, 90% had
developed an NPOA (FAO, 2009a). The status
of development of NPOAs by the Top 20 isoutlined in Table 3. Currently, 13 of the Top 20
are known to have an NPOA-Sharks.
In 2005, the FAO organized an expert
consultation that evaluated progress in
the implementation of the IPOA-Sharks.
The consultation concluded that “a few
countries had made excellent progress in
the implementation of national plans ofaction for the management and conservationof elasmobranchs [and] some of theseequalled or exceeded what had been
anticipated in the FAO document. In sad
contrast, the majority of countries have notmade progress in implementing effective
ﬁsheries management and conservation of
their elasmobranch resources.” (FAO, 2006)
In 2008, FAO’s Technical Workshop on the
Status, Limitations and Opportunities for
Improving the Monitoring of Shark Fisheries
and Trade reconﬁrmed that slow progress in
the implementation of the IPOA-Sharks was amajor impediment to improving management
and monitoring of shark ﬁsheries in some of
the main shark ﬁshing nations (FAO, 2009b).

CITES Animals Committee assessments(2002a, 2002b and 2004) of NPOAs havefocused on reviewing the content of the
NPOAs in terms of their consistency with therequirements of the IPOA. However, since2004, only one of the NPOAs of the Top 20
has been reviewed and revised, and thus
these assessments generally still stand. The
intent of this review was to consider the extent
to which the Top 20 had implemented the“content” of their NPOAs, i.e., whether the
NPOAs had delivered improvements in shark
conservation and management in line withthe principles of the IPOA-Sharks. However, it
became apparent that available information is
insufﬁcient to make such an analysis. Althoughproduction of a SAR and NPOA may signify
progress in identifying the issues that need tobe addressed, examination of the available
SARs and NPOAs reveals that they vary interms of their comprehensiveness. Many do
not contain speciﬁc actions or schedules foraction, and most are not closely linked to theprinciples of the IPOA-Sharks. Assessmentof their effectiveness against the IPOA is,
therefore, very difﬁcult. Although information
is available about some catchers in terms of
their progress in improving shark conservationand management since adopting NPOAs—
for example, the United States, the United
Kingdom (U.K.) and New Zealand—it is notpossible to link or attribute this progress to the
NPOAs.
In addition, there are a limited numberof regional initiatives relating to shark
management and conservation. These include:s The EU Community Action Plan for theConservation and Management of Sharks(CAP) adopted in February 2009 (EU, 2009).
s The development of an Action Plan for
the Conservation of Cartilaginous Fishes(Chondrichthyans) in the Mediterranean
Sea (United Nations Environment Program,2003).

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

9

SHAWN HEINRICHS

s The development of a Regional Plan of
Action for Sharks (RPOA-Sharks) for PaciﬁcIsland Countries and Territories (Lack andMeere, 2009).
s Consultations, under the auspices of the Bayof Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Project,among India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh andthe Maldives, to develop NPOA-Sharks andultimately an RPOA-Sharks.
s RPOA-Sharks are in place or underdevelopment in Central and South America(Sanchez, 2010).
Some non-Top 20 shark catchers have also
taken strong initiatives to protect or manage
sharks as an integral part of formal ﬁsheries
management processes. For example:s Palau announced in September 2009 that it
would create the world’s ﬁrst shark sanctuary
by banning all commercial shark ﬁshingwithin its territorial waters.
s In February 2010, Honduras announced a
moratorium on shark ﬁshing and exportof shark products until research has been

10completed that will allow development of a
responsible management plan.
s In March 2010, the Maldives extended anational ban on shark hunting, banning sharkﬁshing in all its waters, protecting sharks
and banning all shark product exports. Thisdecision was based on evidence that sharks
are more valuable as a tourist attraction
than as exported meat and ﬁns (Timms andWilliams, 2009).
s Australia implemented an NPOA-Sharks in2004 and is currently developing a revised
plan. It has a number of target sharkﬁsheries, each of which is subject to speciﬁcmanagement arrangements and formal
harvest strategies for key commercial sharkspecies taken in Commonwealth-managedﬁsheries. Management measures in placein ﬁsheries where sharks are taken, either astarget or bycatch, include limited entry, total
allowable catches, individual transferable
quotas, closed seasons for nursery areas,
minimum gillnet mesh size, closed areas,
recreational bag limits and trip limits.
Controls on ﬁnning have been introduced

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

in all State and Commonwealth ﬁsheries. In
Commonwealth ﬁsheries, sharks must be
landed with ﬁns naturally attached, whereas
State-managed ﬁsheries require that ﬁns onboard do not exceed 5% of the weight ofthe shark carcasses on board. Australia has
responded strongly to illegal, unreported
and unregulated (IUU) ﬁshing for sharks in its
northern waters by foreign vessels.

RFMO Membership andObligations
The Top 20 participate in a number of RFMOs(see Table 2) variously as contracting parties,
cooperating noncontracting parties, entities
or ﬁshing entities. The relevant RFMOs for the
purpose of this analysis are:s The Commission for the Conservationof Antarctic Marine Living Resources(CCAMLR)6s The Commission for the Conservation ofSouthern Blueﬁn Tuna (CCSBT)s The International Commission for theConservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
s The Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission (IATTC)s The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)
s The General Fisheries Commission for theMediterranean (GFCM)
s The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Organization (NAFO)
s The North East Atlantic FisheriesCommission (NEAFC)
s The South East Atlantic Fisheries
Organization (SEAFO)
s The South Paciﬁc Regional Fisheries
Management Organization (SPRFMO)
s The Western and Central Paciﬁc FisheriesCommission (WCPFC)
6

It is acknowledged that CCAMLR is not a ﬁsheries management
organization. However, for convenience, a reference in this report to
RFMOs includes a reference to CCAMLR.

Generally, the Top 20 are members of therelevant RFMOs. It is notable, however,that neither Indonesia nor Mexico is a full
member of the WCPFC and that Taiwan, asa nonmember of the United Nations, cannot
become a contracting party or noncontracting
party to the IOTC, which is established under
the FAO.
Because of their participation in these
RFMOs, the Top 20 catchers have obligations
to implement shark conservation andmanagement measures that are adopted bythese RFMOs. Each of the RFMOs, except
the SPRFMO and the CCSBT, has some formof binding conservation and management
measure in place for sharks.7 In summary, themeasures most commonly in place across the
RFMOs include:s Retaining all parts of any retained sharks,
except head, guts and skin, to the ﬁrst pointof landing.
s Controlling shark ﬁnning by requiring thatthe weight of ﬁns at the ﬁrst point of landingor transshipment does not exceed 5% of theweight of shark carcasses on board.
s Prohibiting the retention, transshipment,
landing or trading of ﬁns in contravention of
the ﬁnning controls.
s Reporting data on shark catch (notmandatory in all cases and variable inextent).
s Encouraging release of live sharks taken as
bycatch.
s Encouraging members to implement the
IPOA-Sharks through development of an
NPOA-Sharks.
7
Details of the measures in place can be found at the following
websites: http://www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/e_pubs/cm/09-10/32-18.
pdf; http://www.ccsbt.org/docs/pdf/meeting_reports/ccsbt_15/
report_of_CCSBT15.pdf (Attachment 16); http://www.iattc.org/
ResolutionsActiveENG.htm; http://www.iccat.int/en/RecsRegs.asp;
http://www.iotc.org/ﬁles/proceedings/misc/ComReportsTexts/
resolutions_E.pdf; http://www.nafo.int/about/frames/about.html;
http://www.neafc.org/current-measures-list; http://www.seafo.org/
welcome.htm; http://www.wcpfc.int/conservation-and-management-measures.

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 201111

Some RFMOs have adopted stronger and,in some cases, species-speciﬁc measures forsharks:s CCAMLR has banned the targeting of sharks
in the Southern Ocean until the effects ofﬁshing them are assessed.
s IATTC requires purse seiners to release
sharks unharmed to the extent practicable.
s ICCAT requires its members to:o Reduce mortality in ﬁsheries targeting
porbeagle (Lamna nasus) and North
Atlantic shortﬁn mako (Isurus oxyrinchus)
until sustainable levels of harvest can be
determined.
o Prohibit retention, transshipment, landing,sorting, selling or offering for sale any partor whole carcass of bigeye thresher (Alopias
superciliosus); to release unharmed, to theextent practicable, bigeye thresher; andto report the number of discards of thisspecies and their life status.
o Prevent the targeting of all species ofthresher sharks of the genus Alopias.

o Ban the retention of oceanic whitetip sharks(Carcharhinus longimanus).
o Ban the retention of any hammerhead
sharks (except bonnethead shark [Sphyrna
tiburo]) caught in ICCAT ﬁsheries.
(Developing coastal countries may havecoastal ﬁsheries for this species fordomestic consumption, but international
trade of ﬁns is prohibited.)s IOTC prohibits retaining, transshipping,landing, sorting, selling or offering for saleany part or whole carcass of all species of thefamily Alopiidae and requires members torelease unharmed, to the extent practicable,
all species of that family.
s NAFO has established a total allowable
catch (TAC) for thorny skate (Ambyraja
radiata) in one ﬁshing division.
s NEAFC has:o Banned directed ﬁsheries in the international
waters of the NEAFC regulatory area forspiny dogﬁsh (Squalus acanthias), porbeagle,
and basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus).

TABLE 2 | Top 20 Participation in RFMOs
Catcher

CCAMLR

Indonesia

GFCM

IATTC

ICCAT

IOTC

P

India

P

Spain

P

CNP (EU)PSEAFOSPRFMO1

WCPFC
CNP

P (EU)P (EU)

P

CNP

P

P

P (EU)P (EU)P (EU)P (EU)S (EU)P (EU)PP

MexicoCNP
P

United States

P

Japan

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P
P

Malaysia

P

P

CNP

P

P

P (OT)P (EU)P (EU)S (EU)SPP (EU)P (EU)P (EU)S (EU)P (EU)P (EU)P (EU)S (EU)P (EU)

P

ThailandP

FranceP

BrazilP

CNP (EU)P

P (OT)P (OT)P (OT)P (OT)P

Sri Lanka
Portugal

NEAFC

P

Pakistan

New Zealand

NAFO

P
P2

TaiwanArgentina

CCSBT

P
P

P

P (EU)CNP (EU)CNP
P (EU)P (EU)

Nigeria

P (EU)P (EU)

P

Iran

P

U.K.

P

CNP (EU)

South Korea

PP

P (EU)P (EU)P (OT)P (OT)P (EU)

P

P

P

P

P

Notes: CNP=Cooperating Noncontracting Party/Member; OT=Overseas Territories; P=Party/Member/Fishing Entity; P (EU)=Party through membership in the EU (may or may not
be actively ﬁshing in the RFMO Convention Area); S=Signatory; S (EU)=Signatory through membership in the EU.
1. Open for signature for one year from February 1, 2010, but has not yet entered into force.
2. Member of the Extended Commission.

12

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

o Limited ﬁshing effort (to 65% of the highest
level in previous years) for deep-sea species,
which include a number of shark species.
The SPRFMO is not yet in effect, and no
shark-speciﬁc measures are included in theinterim measures adopted. However, theinterim measures do include a ban on theuse of deepwater set gillnets, which are used
to catch deepwater shark species as well asother teleosts.8 The CCSBT has adopted anonbinding recommendation that members
adhere to the requirements of the WCPFC andthe IOTC when their vessels are operating in
the relevant waters of those commissions.
An attempt has been made in the proﬁles toassess the extent to which the Top 20 have
implemented these measures. However, thisreview did not have the capacity to request
information from each Top 20 catcher.
8

Although it is difﬁcult to draw meaningfulconclusions about Top 20 compliance with therelevant shark conservation and management
measures, analysis of the available material
does allow some general conclusions to be

OLIVIER ROUX / MARINE PHOTOBANK

Details of the measure can be found at http://www.southpaciﬁcrfmo.org/assets/8th-Meeting-November-2009-New-Zealand/Interimmeasures/Interim-Measure-for-Deepwater-Gillnets.pdf

Further, the level and comprehensiveness ofthe publicly available information from RFMOs
on implementation of, and compliance with,these measures is variable. Therefore it remains
unclear in many cases whether domestic
regulations or laws have been adopted to
implement these measures, or how extensively
complementary measures are applied innational waters. As a result, the assessment is
opportunistic rather than comprehensive andis drawn largely from incidental references
to particular members in reports of RFMO
compliance committees and statements madeby the members to the RFMOs or to national
authorities. Thus Top 20 catchers that havenot been identiﬁed as failing to meet some
RFMO obligations cannot be assumed to be incompliance.

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 201113

made about the measures applied by RFMOs
and compliance with them:s Many of the shark conservation andmanagement measures are ambiguous (e.g.,whether the carcass weight of the ﬁn-tocarcass ratio relates to whole or dressedweight) and provide loopholes that can be
exploited.
s Reporting of shark catch remains voluntaryin some RFMOs (e.g., CCSBT, WCPFC andIATTC), and in such cases, a number of theTop 20 do not provide the recommended
data.
s Some of the Top 20 do not provide
mandatory data on sharks to the relevant
RFMOs.
s In most cases, there is no comprehensive,
publicly available reporting on compliancewith RFMO conservation and management
measures. This is true of all such measures,
not only those relating to sharks, and is aserious failing of RFMO procedures.
s There is little to no accountability in
RFMOs for noncompliance with themeasures, including a lack of sanctions fornoncompliance.
To improve shark conservation andmanagement, it is recommended that RFMOs:
s Prohibit the targeting of sharks and theretention of live sharks until science-based
management is implemented.
s In the absence of robust stock assessments
for sharks, implement shark conservation andmanagement measures based on ecologicalrisk assessments.
s Abandon their reliance on ﬁn-to-carcass
ratios and immediately require all members
to land sharks with ﬁns naturally attached.
s Continue to adopt species-speciﬁc measuresfor particularly vulnerable or at-risk sharkspecies.
s Address the mitigation of shark bycatchusing gear-speciﬁc solutions.

14s Mandate the provision of catch and effort
data on sharks.
s Implement statistically robust observer
programs.
s Establish comprehensive and transparent
mechanisms for monitoring members’
compliance with such measures.
s Adopt and implement sanctions fornoncompliance.

Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Speciesof Wild Fauna and Flora
As mentioned above, the parties to CITES
adopted a resolution in 1994 regarding shark
conservation and management. Since thattime, there have been many decisions of
the CITES parties regarding sharks and theagreement of a current resolution, Resolution
Conference 12.6 (Rev. CoP15). Subsequently,
the (now 175) parties to CITES have notedthat COFI members were encouraged to have
an NPOA-Sharks by 2001, that there was asigniﬁcant lack of progress in implementing the
IPOA-Sharks, and that insufﬁcient progress has
been made in achieving shark management
through the implementation of the IPOASharks. Speciﬁcally, CITES parties urged “FAO’s
COFI and RFMOs to strengthen their efforts
to undertake the research, training, datacollection, data analysis and shark management
plan development outlined by FAO as
necessary to implement the IPOA-Sharks.”(CITES Resolution Conf. 12.6 [Rev. CoP15])
In addition, the parties to CITES havesupported the creation of a memorandum of
understanding (MoU) between CITES and the
FAO. A number of sharks have been includedin CITES Appendices (whale shark [Rhincodon
typus], sawﬁsh [Pristidae spp.],9 great white9

Pristidae spp. are included in Appendix I of CITES except for Pristis microdon, which is in Appendix II and annotated to specify thatTHE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

shark [Carcharodon carcharias] and basking
shark), and species continue to be proposed
for listing at meetings of the Conference of theParties (CoP), with four shark proposals at themost recent CoP in 2010. The proposals (fromthe United States, the member states of theEU, and Palau) received a majority of votes but
not the required two-thirds majority and as aresult were not successful.
A common argument made by CITES parties
opposed to the listings was that responsibility
for ensuring adequate conservation andmanagement of sharks rests with the FAO(although the FAO does not have a mandate to
manage shark species or adopt conservationand management measures) and RFMOs.
The continued concern expressed by many
CITES parties at the lack of implementationof the IPOA-Sharks suggests that reliance on
the voluntary implementation of the FAO’s
IPOA-Sharks has failed. Likewise, despite there
having been many recommendations to CITES
parties to adopt measures such as better
catch and trade data reporting, response has
been limited, because such recommendations
are, like the IPOA-Sharks, nonbinding (CITES
Animals Committee, 2004). Given this apparent
unwillingness by many COFI members and
CITES parties to respond to calls for voluntaryaction, it is not surprising that there is
opposition to listing shark species on CITES,
given the binding nature of such listings on
CITES parties.

into effect in March 2010. The MoU applies
to species listed in the CMS Appendices,which currently include whale shark, basking
shark, great white shark, longﬁn mako (Isuruspaucus), shortﬁn mako, porbeagle and theNorthern Hemisphere population of the spiny
dogﬁsh. The current signatories to the MoU
are Congo, Costa Rica, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya,
Liberia, Palau, Philippines, Senegal, Togo,
United States, Nauru and Tuvalu. The UnitedStates is the only Top 20 signatory to the MoU.
A conservation plan, which will form an annex
to the MoU, is currently in draft form andhas yet to be agreed to by a meeting of thesignatories. The MoU is nonbinding and aimed
at increasing international coordination toensure that action is taken to protect
migratory sharks. While not all the Top 20
are members of CMS, the MoU is open to
signing by nonmembers, and the extent
of their catches would suggest the needfor their participation in the drafting andimplementation of the conservation plan if it
is to have the best opportunity to achieve its
objectives.

Convention on Migratory
Species
PHOTOLIBRARY.COM

In 2009, Convention on Migratory Species(CMS) members agreed to an MoU on theConservation of Migratory Sharks that went
its inclusion in Appendix II is “for the exclusive purpose of allowinginternational trade in live animals to appropriate and acceptableaquaria for primarily conservation purposes.” See http://www.cites.
org/eng/app/appendices.shtml.

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 201115

ASSESSMENTIPOA-Sharks Implementation
Based on the information contained in the
proﬁles, a summary of the status of theimplementation of the IPOA-Sharks is provided
in Table 3.
The information in Table 3 indicates that:s Thirteen of the Top 20 have an NPOASharks: Argentina, Brazil, Japan, Malaysia,
Mexico, New Zealand, Taiwan, Thailand andthe United States have individual NPOAs,
and France, Portugal, Spain and the U.K. aresubject to the EU CAP.
s Of the individual NPOAs, only seven are
posted on the FAO website, and eachof these is available in only one of thethree FAO working languages, reducing
opportunities for assessing and comparing
the NPOAs.
s Brazil’s NPOA was not publicly accessible,
and Thailand’s NPOA could not be locatedon the FAO website or through Internet
searches.
s Four of the Top 20 (Indonesia, India, South

Korea and Sri Lanka) are reported to be
developing or ﬁnalizing or have sought
assistance to develop NPOAs.
s Three of the Top 20 (Iran, Nigeria andPakistan) are not known to have engaged in
NPOA development.
s Only Japan is known to have reviewed andrevised its NPOA.
This analysis suggests that shark ﬁsheries arelikely to be generally well managed in only a
few of the Top 20 and, although NPOAs arein place in these countries/territories, there isno evidence to suggest that the NPOAs are
responsible for the effective management ofshark ﬁsheries. It is possible to speculate that
this is more likely to reﬂect generally better
resourced and informed systems of ﬁsheries
management and governance overall. Manyof the remaining Top 20 also have NPOAs, yet
this analysis has failed to identify informationthat suggests that sharks are effectively
managed. This suggests that the developmentof an NPOA may have become an end rather
than the means. Further, seven of the Top
20 are currently without an NPOA-Sharks.

TABLE 3 | Review of the Status of Implementation of the IPOA-Sharks by the Top 20

16

Top 20 (% of Global Shark Catch)

Shark Assessment ReportIndonesia (13%)

Not explicitly

Draft (not accessed)

India (9%)

No

In development

Spain (7.3%)

Yes (EU)

Yes (CAP, 2009)

Taiwan (5.8%)

No

Yes (2004)

Argentina (4.3%)

Unknown

Yes (2009)

Mexico (4.1%)

Unknown

Yes (2004)

Pakistan (3.9%)

Unknown

Unknown

United States (3.7%)

Not explicitly

Yes (2001)

Japan (3.0%)

No

Yes (revised, 2009)

Malaysia (2.9%)

Yes (in NPOA)

Yes (2006)

Thailand (2.8%)

Unknown

Yes (2006; could not be accessed)

France (2.6%)

Yes (EU)

Yes (CAP, 2009)

Brazil (2.4%)

Unknown

Yes (2006; could not be accessed)

Sri Lanka (2.4%)

No

No (has sought assistance)

New Zealand (2.2%)

Not explicitly

Yes (2008)

Portugal (1.9%)

Yes (EU)

Yes (CAP, 2009)

Nigeria (1.7%)

Unknown

Unknown

Iran (1.7%)

Unknown

Unknown

U.K. (1.6%)

Yes (EU)

Yes (CAP, 2009)

South Korea (1.4%)

Unknown

Unknown (may be in progress)

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTION

NPOA-Sharks

JANUARY 2011

Although this, in itself, cannot be interpreted
to mean that sharks are poorly managed,
this analysis has not been able to conﬁrm thestatus of shark management arrangements.
As did previous assessments of theimplementation of NPOAs, this analysis does
not offer strong support for the contention
that NPOAs have delivered more effective
shark management. That is not to say that the
principles and guidance provided by the IPOASharks have not inﬂuenced shark management
outcomes. Rather, the primary mechanism fordelivery of the IPOA—the NPOAs—appears to
be an issue.
It is time to reconsider the way in which theprinciples of the IPOA-Sharks are implemented
and question whether the development of
an NPOA is in fact the best response in all
circumstances. Where there are well-regulated,sophisticated ﬁsheries management regimes
in place, the value added by development of
an NPOA-Sharks may be minimal, although
there remains the need to ensure that the
principles of risk-based ﬁsheries management
are applied to sharks through speciﬁcmanagement measures. However, where
human and ﬁnancial resources for ﬁsheries
management are limited, and governancearrangements and infrastructure are not welldeveloped, the value of diverting resources
to the development of an NPOA and thelikelihood that such a plan can be successfully
implemented are questionable.
This view is supported by the ﬁndings of an
FAO technical workshop that agreed that many
countries/territories were unable to fully meetall of the requirements of the IPOA and thata “more pragmatic, step by step approach
toward the ultimate goal” might facilitate
the achievement of the goals of the IPOASharks (FAO, 2009b). This suggests that thefocus should be on achieving the principlesof the IPOA-Sharks rather than relying solely

on the development of an NPOA-Sharks todeliver the outcomes sought. There is a needto recognize that taking small, incremental
steps is preferable to having an NPOA that is
ambitious but not implemented or an NPOA
that simply restates the IPOA-Sharks, without
genuine political will for implementation.
Focusing attention on such steps by the Top 20
will deliver the best outcomes for global shark
conservation and management.
The following is recommended for the Top 20:
s In the absence of an NPOA, a SAR should be
prepared and the precautionary approach
applied.
o Species-speciﬁc measures should be
implemented to protect those species
considered to be at highest risk.
o Consideration should be given toa moratorium until such time as
stock assessment and/or risk-based
management has been implemented.
o Measures such as release of live sharks,a requirement that sharks be landed withﬁns attached, and bycatch mitigation
measures should be introduced.
o Processes to collect and report
information on the species composition of
all catch should be implemented.
s Where NPOAs are being developed, theseplans should be structured clearly aroundthe principles of the IPOA-Sharks andprioritized to ensure that the most urgent
issues are addressed.
s Where monitoring and management
capacity is limited, the advice of the 2008
FAO technical workshop (FAO, 2009b)
should be followed. That is, the priority
should be to improve information about
catches and life history parameters
on a limited number of primary sharkspecies. Those primary species should be
identiﬁed based on the quantity taken;
their socioeconomic importance to ﬁshingcommunities; and other speciﬁc needs suchas conservation concerns, including those

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 201117

species included in the appendices of CITES.
s The FAO should ensure that all available
NPOAs are available on the FAO website in
the three working languages of the FAO tomaximize opportunities for dissemination of
approaches and to allow for assessment andcomparison.
s Where NPOAs have been in place formore than four years, governments should
assess their effectiveness and, based on
the level of progress in shark conservationand management, determine whether an
updated NPOA is required to meet the
principles of the IPOA-Sharks.
s Where Top 20 catchers are involved in
RPOAs, the plans should be formally
adopted by the participants and, whereappropriate, formally recognized by therelevant RFMOs.

There needs to be an urgent review ofachievement on the principles of the IPOASharks focused on the major shark catchers.
This should be done through a structured
reporting format so that, a decade fromnow, the global community does not ﬁnditself without any means of assessing theeffectiveness of the IPOA-Sharks andconfronted with an increasingly long list ofendangered shark species.

JULIEN LAJOURNADEThe members of COFI agreed explicitly in
the implementation section of the IPOA
that all States should strive “…to have a
Shark-plan by the COFI Session in 2001,”

that “States which implement the Shark-planshould regularly, at least every four years,
assess its implementation for the purposeof identifying cost-effective strategies
for increasing its effectiveness,” and that
“States should report on the progress of theassessment, development and implementationof their Shark-plans as part of their biennial
reporting to FAO on the Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries.” (FAO 1999). None ofthose elements of the IPOA-Sharks have been
properly implemented.

18

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

Catch and Trade Data
Based on the information contained in the
proﬁles, a summary of the status of catch andtrade data reported to FAO by the Top 20 isprovided in Table 4.
The data in Table 4 indicate the following:s In reporting shark catch to the FAO:
o Six of the Top 20 provide no shark species
breakdown and provide all data in generic(nonspecies-speciﬁc) groups.
o Eight provide data for a limited number ofshark species (including three that report
only one species separately) with all otherdata reported in generic categories.
o Six provide an extensive species
breakdown.
s In reporting shark trade to the FAO:o Thirteen of the Top 20 provide no sharkspecies breakdown.
o Five provide a very limited shark species
breakdown.
o Two provide a breakdown for all major
species caught.

These results indicate a need for increased
attention by all of the Top 20 to species
identiﬁcation of sharks in catch and/or trade.
In particular, the Top 20 must ensure that themain shark species caught (those that make up
80% of shark catch) and traded are identiﬁed
in domestic as well as FAO reporting of shark
catch and trade. Additionally, speciﬁc Customs
codes should be adopted to identify anddistinguish between dried and frozen
shark ﬁns.
The analysis of the catch and trade of the Top
20 has revealed that the following countries/
territories export shark products but do notcurrently report shark catch to FAO: Andorra,
Austria, Czech Republic, Comoros, Federated
States of Micronesia, Fiji, Jamaica, Kuwait,
Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Palau, Papua
New Guinea, Singapore, Slovakia, Tonga andVietnam.10

10Each of these, except for Singapore, is a member of the FAO.
Andorra, Comoros, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Jamaica,
Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Palau, Papua New Guinea and Singapore are not members of COFI.

TABLE 4 | Review of the Status of Catch and Trade Data Reported to FAO by the Top 20
Top 20 (% of Global Shark Catch)

Species Breakdown of Catch

Trade Categories

Indonesia (13%)

Improving; One species and 12 species groups reported

No species reported

India (9%)

No species or species group reported

No species reported

Spain (7.3%)

Extensive

Very limited

Taiwan (5.8%)

No species or species group reported

No species reported

Argentina (4.3%)

ImprovingThree species reported since 2008

Mexico (4.1%)

LimitedNo species reported

Pakistan (3.9%)

No species reported

No species reported

United States (3.7%)

Extensive

Only dogﬁsh speciﬁed

Japan (3.0%)

One species

No species reported

Malaysia (2.9%)

No species reported

No species reported

Thailand (2.8%)

No species reported

No species reported

France (2.6%)

Extensive

Very limited

Brazil (2.4%)

LimitedNo species reported

Sri Lanka (2.4%)

One species reported

No species reported

New Zealand (2.2%)

Extensive

For major species

Portugal (1.9%)

Extensive

Very limited

Nigeria (1.7%)

No species reported

No species reported

Iran (1.7%)

Limited; covers main species

No species reported

U.K. (1.6%)

Extensive

Very limited

South Korea (1.4%)

LimitedNo species reported

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 201119

There are a number of possible explanations
for apparent lack of reporting of shark catch bythese countries/territories:s Each reports ﬁsheries catch to FAO (despite
Singapore not being an FAO member), and
it is likely that their shark catch is reported inother broad categories such as “marine ﬁshesnei.” This may reﬂect either the way that acountry/territory reports to FAO or the lackof speciﬁcity in its data collection procedures
so that sharks are not identiﬁed separately incatch data.
s A country/territory can be identiﬁed asa source of shark imports as a result ofimporting and re-exporting and/or processing
and exporting shark products, with zero or
minimal catch of shark within its waters.

products each year, according to the available
trade data for the period 2005-09, with many
averaging less than 10 t/year. Only four
countries averaged exports of more than 200
t/year (Papua New Guinea (2,500 t), Vietnam(1,830 t), Singapore (3,700 t) and Myanmar(270 t). Of those, Singapore is known to bea minor catcher of sharks (South East Asia
Fisheries Development Commission, 2010),
and it imports, processes and exports shark ﬁnproducts. The extent of shark catch and thereasons for nonreporting to FAO by Papua
New Guinea, Vietnam and Myanmar warrant
further investigation.

Of those countries/territories identiﬁed above,
most export fewer than 200 tonnes of shark

The information on the Top 20 catcherspresented in the proﬁles (Appendix 1)

MARCIA MORENO-BAEZ, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA/MARINE PHOTOBANKManagement Issues

20

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

s There is a need for adoption of enhanced
shark bycatch mitigation measures in all Top
20 countries/territories.
s Eighteen of the Top 20 need to implement
or extend regulations to require sharks to
be landed with ﬁns attached in all of theirﬁsheries.
s Given the signiﬁcance of the Top 20 catchers
in shark catch and trade, there is a needfor an increased focus on shark species
identiﬁcation in reporting on shark producttypes in trade.
s At least seven of the Top 20 need to
improve their cooperation with and/or
implementation of shark management
measures introduced by RFMOs.
s At least four of the Top 20 need to ensurethat they meet the shark data reporting
requirements of the RFMOs in which they
participate.

DAN DOUCETTE / INFOTOGRAPHY

has identiﬁed deﬁciencies and gaps inmanagement and monitoring of shark catchand trade. Overall, the analysis indicates that:s There is a need for urgent implementation of
dedicated shark management measures toaddress overﬁshing in at least two of theTop 20.
s There is a need for an urgent assessmentof shark ﬁsheries and management to be
initiated in at least ﬁve of the Top 20 so
as to inform the development of effective
management measures.
s In the absence of effective regulation of
shark catch on the high seas by RFMOs,
there is a need to prohibit the targetingof sharks by high seas vessels from eightof the Top 20 unless these ﬁsheries are
regulated under sustainable management
arrangements.

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 201121

CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COFIThe FAO has been at the forefront of efforts
to ensure the conservation and managementof sharks, having developed the IPOASharks and associated guidelines. However,international concern about shark stocks
continues to grow because of an increasing
body of evidence that many shark species are
threatened and are continuing to decline asa result of unregulated ﬁshing. As is shown inthis analysis, even the major shark catchers
are generally not demonstrating that they
are implementing the principles of the IPOASharks, even though in some cases an NPOASharks is in place. Given that a decade has
passed since the IPOA-Sharks was agreed
upon, TRAFFIC and the Pew Environment
Group believe that the time has come torefocus the FAO’s efforts on conservation andmanagement of sharks.

This review has highlighted a number of
speciﬁc recommendations for action by
the Top 20 and by RFMOs. These are notrepeated in this section. Rather, the following
recommendations focus on what can andshould be done through FAO and COFI to
improve the application of the principles of
the IPOA-Sharks so as to enhance the status ofshark populations.
Given that the Top 20 account for about
80% of global reported shark catch, thefuture sustainability of shark populations iseffectively in their hands. Yet it is apparent
that key Top 20 shark catchers, most of which
are COFI members, have not adopted therecommendations of the IPOA-Sharks related
to developing SARs and NPOAs or, more
broadly, the principles of the IPOA-Sharks.

Given this, it is imperative that COFI at its 2011 meeting:
1. Recognizes that it is currently not possible to determine whether the Top 20 shark
catchers are implementing the principles of the IPOA-Sharks.
2. Requests that the FAO undertake, as a priority, a review into the application of theprinciples of the IPOA-Sharks by the Top 20.
a. The review should be a comprehensive analysis of the actions being undertaken
to manage ﬁsheries in which sharks are taken through directed ﬁshing or
incidental catch.
b. The review should prioritize those Top 20 catchers for which the information
available suggests that there is little or no management of shark ﬁsheries in place,or for which there was insufﬁcient information available to make an informed
judgement about the level of management: Indonesia, India, Taiwan, Argentina,
Mexico, Pakistan, Malaysia, Thailand, Brazil, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Iran andSouth Korea.
3. Requests that the FAO conduct an audit of shark catch data provided by COFI
members to assess the extent to which they conform to the FAO’s reporting
requirements.
4. Requests that the FAO report back to COFI 2013 on the above review and audit
through a publicly available document with recommendations for further action anddeadlines.
5. Agrees that, after consideration of that report, COFI will adopt an ongoing andtransparent mechanism to monitor progress on the principles of the IPOA-Sharks for
the Top 20 (noting that the composition of the Top 20 will change over time).

22

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

JULIEN LAJOURNADEThe proposed review will inform the development of national,
regional and international action to improve shark conservation andmanagement. The global community cannot afford to wait anotherdecade in the hope that the IPOA-Sharks will deliver
the expected outcomes. Additional action is required
to ensure that the list of shark species threatened by
overﬁshing does not continue to grow.

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 201123

REFERENCES
Aslam, S. (2010). Pakistan becomes an unwitting contributor to “sharkﬁnning.” http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5590035-pakistanbecomes-an-unwitting-contributor-to-shark-ﬁnning. Viewed 28 October
2010.
Barriera, A. (2008). The Protection of Sharks: A Legal and Policy Analysis.
Instituto Internacionale de Derecho y Medio Ambiente for Oceana. http://
www.iidma.org/privado/Archivos/ReportSharksApril2007.pdf . Viewed 5
October 2010.
Camhi, M.D., Valenti, S.V., Fordham, S.V., Fowler, S.L. and Gibson, C.
(2009). The Conservation Status of Pelagic Sharks and Rays: Report of
the IUCN Shark Specialist Group Pelagic Shark Red List Workshop. IUCN
Species Survival Commission shark Specialist group. Newbury, UK. 78pp.
http://www.iucnssg.org/tl_ﬁles/Assets/pdf/Reports/SSG%20pelagic_
report_ﬁnal.pdf. Viewed 22 November 2010.
Cavanagh, R. D., Fowler, S. L. and Camhi, M.D. (2008). Pelagic Sharks
and the FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation andManagement of Sharks in Camhi, M.D., Pikitch, E.K and Babcock,
E.A. (Eds) (2008). Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries andConservation. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
CCSBT (2007). Report of the Seventh Meeting of the Ecologically Related
Species Working Group. 3-6 July, 2007, Tokyo, Japan. http://www.ccsbt.
org/docs/pdf/meeting_reports/ccsbt_14/report_of_erswg7.pdf. Viewed 2
November 2010.
CCSBT (2010). Report of the Fifth Meeting of the Compliance Committee.
CCSBT. http://www.ccsbt.org/docs/pdf/meeting_reports/ccsbt_17/
report_of_CC5.pdf. Viewed 22 November 2010.
Chiaramonte, G. (1998). Shark ﬁsheries in Argentina. Marine andFreshwater Research, 49(7): 601-609.
Chiaramonte, G (2006). Evaluating the Survivorship of Elasmobranchs
Captured by Bottom Trawlers: A Pilot Plan for Conservation of Sharks,
Skates and Rays. Rufford Small Grant (for Nature Conservation)in association with the Whitley Laing Foundation. http://www.
ruffordsmallgrants.org/ﬁles/Gustavo%20Final%20Report_0.pdf Viewed 18
November 2010.
CITES Animals Committee (2002a). Report on Implementation of theInternational Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks). Eighteenth meetingof the Animals Committee. San Jose (Costa Rica), 8-12 April 2002. AC18Doc. 19.2.
CITES Animals Committee (2002b). Update. Report on Implementationof the International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks). Eighteenthmeeting of the Animals Committee. San Jose (Costa Rica), 8-12 April
2002. AC18 Inf. 10.
CITES Animals Committee (2004). Report on the Implementation of the
UN FAO International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks). Twentiethmeeting of the Animals Committee Johannesburg (South Africa), 29
March-2 April 2004. AC20 Inf. 5.
CITES Animals Committee (2008). Conservation and Managementof Sharks. Twenty-third meeting of the Animals Committee, Geneva(Switzerland), 19-24 April 2009. AC23 Doc. 15.1 Addendum.
CITES Animals Committee (2009). Conservation and Managementof Sharks and Stingrays: Other Animals Committee Tasks Related toConservation and Management of Sharks. Twenty-fourth meeting of theAnimals Committee, Geneva (Switzerland), 20-24 April 2009. AC24 Doc.
14.4.
CITES Resolution Conf. 12.6 (Rev. CoP15). Available at: http://www.cites.
org/eng/res/12/12-06R15.shtml
Department of Fisheries, Malaysia (2006). Malaysia National Plan of Action
for the Conservation and Management of Shark, Ministry of Agricultureand Agro-based Industry Malaysia, Putrajaya. 66 pp.
EU (2009). Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council on a European Community Action Plan for theConservation and Management of Sharks. Com(2009) 40 Final. Available

24

at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:004
0:FIN:EN:PDF.
EU (2010a). Eurostat: External Trade: EU27 Trade since 1995 by CN8.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/external_trade/data/
database. Viewed 7 October 2010.
EU (2010b). Public Consultation on the Amendment of Council Regulation(EC) 1185/2003 on the Removal of Fins of Sharks on Board Vessels.
http://ec.europa.eu/ﬁsheries/partners/consultations/shark_ﬁnning_ban/
consultation_document_en.pdf. Viewed 17 November 2010.
FAO (1999). International Plan of Action for reducing incidental catchof seabirds in longline ﬁsheries. International Plan of Action for theconservation and management of sharks. International Plan of Action forthe management of ﬁshing capacity. Rome, FAO. 1999. 26p.
FAO (2000). Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries—Fisheries
Management—4 Suppl. 1-1. Conservation and Management of Sharks.
Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x8692e/x8692e00.htm.
FAO (2004a). Thailand Shark Fisheries 2004. Outcomes from the Study on
Shark Fisheries in Southeast Asia. http://ﬁrms.fao.org/ﬁrms/ﬁshery/348/en.
Viewed 14 September 2010.
FAO (2006). Report of the FAO Expert Consultation on the
Implementation of the FAO International Plan of Action for theConservation and Management of Sharks. Rome, 6-8 December 2005.
FAO Fisheries Report. No. 795. FAO, Rome. 24p.
FAO (2009a). Progress in the Implementation of the Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries, Related International Plans of Action and Strategy.
Committee on Fisheries, Twenty-eighth Session, Rome, 2-6 March, 2009.
COFI/2009/2.
FAO (2009b). Report of the Technical Workshop on the Status, Limitations
and Opportunities for Improving the Monitoring of Shark Fisheries andTrade, Rome, 3-6 November 2008. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report
No. 897. FIMF/R897. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1121e/i1121e00.
htm. Viewed 5 October 2010.
FAO Fisheries Department (2009). FISHSTAT Plus. Commodity Production
and Trade 1976-2007. Fisheries Information, Data and Statistics Unit, FAO.
FAO Fisheries Department (2010). FISHSTAT Plus. Capture Production
1950-2008. Fisheries Information, Data and Statistics Unit, FAO.
Feitosa, N. (2010). IBAMA seize a ton of shark ﬁn that would go to Japan.
Available at: http://www.ibama.gov.br/archives/11358. Viewed 25 October
2010.
Fisheries Agency, Government of Japan (2009). Japan National Plan of
Action for Conservation and Management of Sharks (Revised Version)
March 2009.
Fisheries Agency, Taiwan (2004). Taiwan’s National Plan of Action for theConservation and Management of Sharks. http://www.fa.gov.tw/pages/
detail.aspx?Node=269&Page=10269&Index=3. Viewed 21 October 2010.
Fowler, S. Mogenson, C.B. and Blasdale, T. (2004). Plan of Action for theConservation and Management of Sharks in UK Waters JNCC Report No.
360.
Gilman, E., Clarke, S., Brothers, N., Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Mandelman, J.,
Mangel, J., Petersen, S., Piovano, S., Thomson, N., Dalzell, P., Donoso,M., Goren, M. and Werner, T. (2007). Shark Depredation and Unwanted
Bycatch in Pelagic Longline Fisheries: Industry practices and attitudes andshark avoidance strategies. Western Paciﬁc Regional Fishery Management
Council, Honolulu, USA.
Government of Spain (2009). ARM/2689/2009 Order of 28 September,
Prohibiting the Capture of Thresher sharks Family Alopiidae) andHammerhead sharks or Hammerheads (Family Sphyrnidae). http://www.
boe.es/aeboe/consultas/bases_datos/doc.php?coleccion=indilex&id=20
09/15857&txtlen=598.Viewed 12 October 2010.
Herrera, M. and Pierre, L. (2010). Status of IOTC databases for Non-IOTC
Species. IOTC-2010-WPEB-INF04. Available at: http://www.iotc.org/ﬁles/

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

proceedings/2010/wpeb/IOTC-2010-WPEB-Inf04.pdf. Viewed 29 October
2010.
IATTC (2010). Compliance with IATTC Measures in 2009. Document COR01-06. Committee for the Review of Implementation of Measures adopted
by the Commission, 1st Meeting, Antigua, Guatemala, 24 September
2010. Available at: http://www.iattc.org/Meetings2010/PDF/Sept/COR-0106-Compliance-report-2009.pdf. Viewed 19 October 2010.
ICCAT (2010). ICCAT Report 2008-2009 (II). ICCAT, Madrid, Spain.
ICCAT Compliance Committee (2010). Report of the Inter-sessional
Meeting of the Compliance Committee, Madrid, Spain, February 24-26,
2010.
Ilyas, F. (2010). Alarming decline in shark catch over 11 years. http://
news.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/thenewspaper/local/alarming-decline-in-shark-catch-over-11-years-680.
Viewed 28 October 2010.
IOTC Scientiﬁc Committee (2009). Report of the Twelfth Session of the
Scientiﬁc Committee of the IOTC, 30 November-4 December 2009,
Victoria Seychelles.
IOTC WPEB (2009). Report of the Fifth Session of the IOTC Working Partyon Ecosystems and Bycatch. Mombasa, Kenya 12-14 October 2009.
Japan Ministry of Finance (2010). Trade statistics of Japan. http://www.
customs.go.jp/toukei/info/index_e.htm. Viewed 13 October 2010.
John, M. E. and Pillai, N.G.K. (2009). Current Status of Tuna Fisheries inIndia. IOTC–2009–SC–INF05. http://www.iotc.org/ﬁles/proceedings/2009/
sc/IOTC-2009-SC-INF05.pdf. Viewed 22 September 2010.
John, M. E., and Varghese, B.S. (2009). Decline in CPUE of Oceanic Sharks
in the Indian EEZ :Urgent Need for Precautionary Approach. IOTC2009-WPEB-17. IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch; 12-14
October 2009; Mombasa, Kenya.
KITA (2010). Trade statistics. http://global.kita.net/_engapp/board_sta_list.
jsp?grp=S3&code=S3001. Viewed 15 November 2010.
Lack, M. and Meere, F. (2009). Paciﬁc Islands Regional Plan of Action
for Sharks: Guidance for Paciﬁc Island Countries and Territories on theConservation and Management of Sharks. http://www.ffa.int/sharks.
Lack, M. and Sant, G. (2006). World Shark Catch, Production and Trade,
1990-2003. Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage and
TRAFFIC Oceania.
Lack, M. and Sant, G. (2008). Illegal, unreported and unregulated shark
catch: A review of current knowledge and action. Department of theEnvironment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and TRAFFIC, Canberra.
Ministry of Finance [China] (2010). Value of ROC Exports and Imports by
Product/Country. Directorate General of Customs. http://cus93.trade.gov.
tw/ENGLISH/FSCE/. Viewed 7 October 2010.
Ministry of Fisheries, New Zealand (2008). New Zealand National Planof Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. http://www.
ﬁsh.govt.nz/en-nz/Consultations/Archive/2008/NPOA+Sharks/default.
htm?wbc_purpose=Basic%2526WBCMODE. Viewed 30 October 2010.
NMFS (2009). 2009 Shark Finning Report to Congress. Issued Pursuant to
the Shark Finning Prohibition Act (Public Law 106-557). http://www.nmfs.
noaa.gov/sfa/hms/sharks/SharkFinningReport09.pdf. Viewed 31 October
2010.

Oliver, A., Sant, G.J. & Fowler, S. (1998). International Plan of Action for
the Conservation & Management of Sharks. IUCN Shark Specialist Group.
Shark News 12, November 1998.
Pasha, M.K. (2010). TRAFFIC India. pers. comm. October 2010.
Sanchez, A. (2010). Presentation to the FAO/CITES Workshop on the
Effects of a Regulation of International Trade on the Status, Fisheries
and Trade of Elasmobranchs in Comparison with Other Regulations.
Genazzano (Rome), Italy, 19-23 July 2010. ftp://ext-ftp.fao.org/FI/
Reserved/FI_Seminars/2010/Jul_2010_Italy_cites_2010/7_SANCHEZ.pdf.
Viewed 25 November 2010.
Timms, T. and Williams, C. (2009). Bleeding the Ocean Dry? The
Overﬁshing and Decline of Global Shark Stocks. WildAid. http://www.
wildaid.org/PDF/reports/2009%20shark%20report%20bleeding%20
the%20oceans%20dry_english.pdf. Viewed 6 October 2010.
SEAFO Compliance Committee (2009). Report of the 2nd Annual Meetingof the Compliance Committee. http://www.seafo.org/Compliance%20
Committee/Compliance%20report%202009.pdf. Viewed 16 October
2010.
Shark Alliance (2010). Enforcing Finning Bans: Making good rules work in
Europe. www.sharkalliance.org/do_download.asp?did=29693. Viewed 12
October 2010.
Shark Coalition (2010). International Shark Finning Regulations: Nationallaws, multi-lateral agreements, regional and global recommendations asof April 8 2010. http://www.coaliciontiburones.org/?page_id=157 Viewed
20 September 2010.
South East Asia Fisheries Development Commission (2010). Fishery
Statistics in the South China Sea Area 1976-2007. http://ﬁshstat.seafdec.
org/statistical_bulletin/ex_commo_action.php. Viewed 22 October 2010.
Statistics New Zealand (2010). Infoshare. http://www.stats.govt.nz/tools_
and_services/tools/infoshare.aspx. Viewed 4 October 2010.
Taipei Economic and Cultural Ofﬁce in Guam (2008). The Utilization,
Conservation and Management of Sharks in Taiwan. http://www.
taiwanembassy.org/us/ct.asp?xItem=73923&ctNode=2576&mp=32.
Viewed 21 October 2010.
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA (2010). Annual Report of theUnited States of America. ANN-045/2010. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/
hms/ICCAT/NationalReport10.pdf. Viewed 31 October 2010.
United Nations Environment Programme (2003). Action Plan for
the Conservation of Cartilaginous Fishes (Chondrichthyans) in the
Mediterranean Sea. Available at: http://www.unepmap.org/index.php?module=library&mode=pub&action=results&_stype=3&s_category=&s_
descriptors=Chondrichthyans. Viewed 21 October 2010.
Varkey, D.A., Ainsworth, C.H., Pitcher, T. J. Goram, Y and Sumaila, R.
(2010). Illegal, unreported and unregulated ﬁsheries catch in Raja Ampat
Regency, Eastern Indonesia. Marine Policy 34(2):228-236.
Verlecar, X.N., Snigdha, Desai, S.R. and Dhargalkar, V.K. (2007). Sharkhunting: an indiscriminate trade endangering elasmobranchs toextinction. Current Science, 92(8) 25 April 2007.
WCPFC Scientiﬁc Committee (2010). Korea Annual Report to theCommission. Part 1: Information on Fisheries, Research and Statistics.
WCPFC-SC6-AR/CMM-15.

NMFS (2010). Annual Commercial Landings statistics. http://www.st.nmfs.
noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html. Viewed 31
October 2010

WCPFC TCC (2010). Summary Report, Technical and Compliance
Committee Sixth Regular Session. 30 September–5 October 2010
Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Available at: http://www.wcpfc.
int/doc/place-holder. Viewed 2 November 2010.

NMFS (2010). Pers. comm., Fisheries Statistics Division.

Wu, J. (2010). TRAFFIC, in litt. to G. Sant, November 2010.

Oceana (2010). The International Trade of Shark Fins: Endangered Shark
Populations Worldwide. http://na.oceana.org/sites/default/ﬁles/reports/
OCEANA_international_trade_shark_ﬁns_english.pdf. Viewed 15 October
2010.

Zoological Society of London (2010). Chagos Archipelago Becomes a No
Fishing Zone. http://www.zsl.org/conservation/news/chagos,761,NS.html.
Viewed 3 November 2010.

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 201125

ACRONYMS

26

BIOT

British Indian Ocean Territories

CAP

Community Action Plan (EU)CCAMLR

Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

CCSBT

Commission for the Conservation of Southern Blueﬁn Tuna

CITES

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

CMS

Convention on Migratory Species

CNP

Cooperating noncontracting party

COFI

Committee on Fisheries

CPUE

Catch per unit effort

EU

European Union

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GFCM

General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean

IATTCInter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

ICCATInternational Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

IOTC

Indian Ocean Tuna Commission

IPOA-Sharks

International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks

IUU

Illegal, unreported and unregulated (ﬁshing)

KITA

Korea International Trade Association

MoU

Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS)MPA

Marine Protected Area

MSY

Maximum sustainable yield

NAFO

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization

NEAFC

North East Atlantic Fisheries Commissionnei

Not elsewhere included

NMFS

National Marine Fisheries Service (U.S.)

NPOA-Sharks

National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks

QMS

Quota Management System (New Zealand)

RFMO

Regional ﬁsheries management organization

RPOA-Sharks

Regional Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks

SAR

Shark Assessment Report

SEAFO

South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization

SPRFMOSouth Paciﬁc Regional Fisheries Management Organization

TAC

Total allowable catch

TCC

Technical and Compliance Committee

UAE

United Arab Emirates

WCPFC

Western Central Paciﬁc Fisheries Commission

WCPO

Western and Central Paciﬁc Ocean

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

APPENDIX 1 - PROFILES
Proﬁle Notes
A proﬁle for each of the Top 20 shark catchers
is provided below in rank order. The following
notes are provided to assist in interpreting theinformation.
1. Shark catch is sourced from FAO Fishstat
Capture Production 1950 to 2008 andrepresents the average shark catch reported
from 2000 to 2008. Percentage of global catch is
calculated by dividing the reported shark catchby the global reported shark catch.

2. Shark trade quantities are sourced primarily
from the FAO Fishstat Commodities Production
and Trade 1976-2007. Information on sources/
destination of imports/exports and data on
trade quantities for 2008-09 are identiﬁed
mainly from ofﬁcial import and/or export
statistics for the EU, Hong Kong (2008 only),
Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Taiwan andthe United States.
3. A list of scientiﬁc names for each of the sharkspecies mentioned in the proﬁles is provided inAppendix 2.

Indonesia
Shark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

109,000 t (13.3%)

Shark trade

Indonesia reports exports to FAO in four categories: “Shark ﬁns, dried, unsalted,” “shark ﬁns, salted and in brine but
not dried or smoked,” “sharks nei frozen,” and “sharks, rays, skates, fresh or chilled, nei.” In 2007, Indonesia reported
exports of 1,600 t of frozen shark products, 800 t of dried ﬁn, and 21 t of fresh/chilled shark products. Between 2005
and 2007, Indonesia accounted for 52% of exports of dried, unsalted shark ﬁn.

Before 2005, all catch was reported to FAO in only two species group categories. Currently, one species and 12
species groups are reported. Whitespotted wedgeﬁsh makes up 7% of the catch, “sharks, rays, skates etc., nei” about
30%, and “rays, stingrays, mantas, nei” 26%.

Dried shark ﬁn from species including guitarﬁsh and shovelnose rays is exported mainly to Japan, Hong Kong,
Singapore, China, Malaysia and Taiwan. Surabaya (East Java) is the center of shark ﬁn exports (FAO 2009). Indonesia
was the fourth-largest supplier (681 t) of dried and frozen shark ﬁn to Hong Kong in 2008 (Oceana 2010). Taiwan
imports about 500 t/year of frozen shark product and relatively small quantities of frozen and dried shark ﬁns fromIndonesia (Ministry of Finance 2010). South Korea imports frozen rays (110 t/year) and shark liver oil (45 t/year) fromIndonesia (KITA 2010).
Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

The main species taken are whitespotted whipray, cowtail stingray, whitespotted guitarﬁsh (whitespotted wedgeﬁsh),silky shark, spottail shark, blue shark, scalloped hammerhead, pelagic thresher and shortﬁn mako. Sharks are taken as
target species with gill and tangle nets, longlines and harpoons and as bycatch by tuna longlines, trawls, seine nets,
trammel nets, hand lines and other bottom gear. The growth in shark and ray ﬁsheries in Indonesia has outstripped
its effective management, and there are few, if any, management strategies aimed at protecting shark resources(FAO 2009). In Raja Ampat archipelago, about 100 vessels (about 7 m in length) target sharks for ﬁns, with small
sharks landed for domestic consumption and larger shark carcasses discarded. These subsistence or traditionalﬁshing vessels are not required to have ﬁshing permits (Varkey et al. 2010). IUU shark ﬁshing by Indonesian vessels innorthern Australian waters was common over the past decade with routine ﬁnning of shark catch, but this IUU activity
has been reduced signiﬁcantly in recent years (Lack and Sant 2008).

NPOA

No NPOA in place. Indonesia was reported to be developing an NPOA in 2004, but conﬁrmation of its status has notbeen possible. A ﬁve-year survey of shark landings in Indonesian ports conducted under an Australian-funded project
constituted a partial shark assessment report.

RFMOs

CCSBT, IOTC, WCPFC (CNP)

Implementation of
shark measures

It was not possible to conﬁrm whether Indonesia requires its vessels to comply with the ﬁn-to-carcass ratio mandated
by the IOTC and the WCPFC. Indonesia, as required by IOTC Resolution 05/05, reports shark catch to IOTC.
Reporting under the more detailed Resolution 10/02 has yet to be tested. Reporting of shark catch to CCSBT and
WCPFC is not mandatory. The 2010 meeting of the WCPFC Technical and Compliance Committee noted thatIndonesia had failed to include catch in its archipelagic waters in the 2000-09 catch data provided to the commission(WCPFC TCC 2010).

Participation inconventions

CITES, not CMS

Implementation of
shark measures

In CITES, Indonesia has taken out a reservation on the Appendix II listing of basking shark and whale shark.
Not a signatory to CMS Shark MoU

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 201127

APPENDIX 1 - PROFILES
India
Shark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

74,000 t (8.9%)

Shark trade

Reports shark exports to FAO in four categories: “shark ﬁllets, frozen,” “shark ﬁns, frozen,” “sharks nei, fresh or
chilled” and “sharks nei, frozen.” From 2000 to 2007, exports averaged 305 t/year, of which frozen shark ﬁns made up
more than 70%. Exports have declined in recent years, averaging only 177 t from 2005 to 2007, of which frozen sharkﬁns make up about 115 t.

All catch reported in one category: “Sharks, rays, skates, etc., nei”

Almost all shark ﬁns are exported, because domestic demand is limited. Fins are sold in large quantities from theAndaman Islands, where a commercial shark ﬁshery has been established. Species preferred for ﬁn export are smoothhammerhead, milk, spadenose and blacktip reef shark. Most ﬁns are exported to Hong Kong and Singapore. Markets
for other shark products are limited, but recently new markets have emerged, including the U.K., the United States,
Malaysia, Germany and Taiwan (Verlecar et al. 2007). Import data from Taiwan indicate that India also supplies dried
shark ﬁn to the export market, and EU import data indicate that about 200 t/year of predominantly frozen shark
products is imported from India.
Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

Sharks account for about 60 to 70% of the elasmobranch catch. Common species include blacktip, spottail,whitecheek, blacktip reef, hardnose, tiger, spadenose, milk, and scalloped hammerhead (Verlecar et al., 2007).
Sharks are taken as bycatch in trawl and gillnet ﬁsheries. Trawl nets account for 60% of shark landings and gillnets
38%. Finning of sharks is taking place on a large scale because of the increase in demand for shark ﬁn (Verlecar et al.
2007). A review of shark CPUE from 1984 to 2006 indicates a sharp downward trend in CPUE in all regions but withmost severe declines apparent on the west and east coasts, prompting Indian government scientists to conclude thatthe sustainability of some shark species was in doubt (John and Varghese 2009).
Ten species of sharks and rays (whale shark, narrow sawﬁsh, Pondicherry shark, Ganges shark, speartooth shark,
Ganges stingray, freshwater sawﬁsh, green sawﬁsh, whitespotted guitarﬁsh and porcupine ray) have been added to
Schedule 1 of India’s Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972. This listing precludes the hunting of these species.

28

NPOA

No NPOA in place. An NPOA is reportedly under development with FAO assistance and is expected to be completed
in 2011 (Pasha [TRAFFIC India] personal communication October 2010). In addition, a regional plan of action covering
India, Bangladesh, Maldives and Sri Lanka is under consideration (John and Pillai 2009).

RFMOs

IOTC, CCAMLR (not active ﬁsher)

Implementation of
RFMO shark measures

It was not possible to conﬁrm whether India requires its vessels to comply with the IOTC ﬁn-to-carcass ratio. India, as
required by IOTC Resolution 05/05, reports shark catch to the IOTC. Reporting under the more detailed Resolution
10/02 has yet to be tested.

Participation inconventions

CITES, CMS

Implementation of
shark measures

Not a signatory to CMS Shark MoU

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

SpainShark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

60,000 t (7.3%)

Shark trade

Reports exports to FAO in eight categories, predominantly as “sharks nei frozen” and “sharks, ﬁllets frozen.” Sharkﬁns are not identiﬁed separately. Spain reported imports of more than 11,000 t of frozen shark products to the FAO in
2007.

Reports catch to FAO in 50 categories including 33 species. Forty-seven percent of catch is blue shark, 20% “raja raysnei” and 13% “sharks, rays, skates, etc., nei.”

The EU reports 10 categories of ofﬁcial shark trade, but ﬁns are not reported separately. Spain’s main export partners
for frozen shark products are other EU members, Hong Kong, Singapore, Brazil and Uruguay (EC 2010a). Spain is
the leading supplier of shark ﬁns to Hong Kong, supplying 37% (2,646 t) of imports of dried and frozen ﬁns in 2008
(Oceana 2010).
Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

Spain’s directed ﬁsheries for sharks are 275 pelagic longline vessels mainly targeting swordﬁsh, shortﬁn mako and blue
shark; 5-6 bottom longliners targeting deepwater sharks in international waters; and 15-18 trawlers in the NAFO areaﬁshing for rays. Spain’s high-seas shark ﬁsheries undertaken by its pelagic ﬂeets are not adequately documented; theirlongline catches of oceanic sharks are as large as or larger than the catch of tuna and swordﬁsh; and most longliners
now also target sharks (EC 2010b). About 210 bottom trawlers and bottom longliners ﬁshing in European waters andbottom trawlers in coastal areas of Spain capture deepwater sharks and rays as bycatch (FAO 2009).
EU TACs are in force for porbeagle, spiny dogﬁsh, skates and rays. TACs for porbeagle and spiny dogﬁsh were set
at zero in 2010. Council Regulation (EU) No. 23/2010 prohibits EU vessels from retaining on board, transshippingor landing basking shark and great white shark in all waters; angel shark in all EU waters; common skate, undulate
ray and white skate in speciﬁc zones; and porbeagle in international waters. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1185/2003
prohibits shark ﬁnning but provides for the issue of special permits to allow for the removal of ﬁns at sea so that ﬁns
and carcasses can be landed separately at different ports, on the condition that the weight of shark ﬁns on board does
not exceed 5% of the whole weight of the shark. Spain issues an average of 185 special permits each year and from2003 to 2005, Spanish vessels with onboard processing permits caught an average of 87% of the total shark catch of
the Spanish ﬂeet (EC 2010b). The EU is consulting on options to amend the regulation. Options include requiring thatall sharks be landed with ﬁns naturally attached.

NPOA

The EU adopted a CAP for sharks in 2009. Spain is also a contracting party to the Barcelona Convention, which hasdeveloped an RPOA-Sharks for the Mediterranean.

RFMOs

CCAMLR, GFCM, IATTC, ICCAT, IOTC, NAFO, NEAFC, SEAFO, SPRFMO, WCPFC, CCSBT (CNP)

Implementation of
shark measures

The special permits under which many Spanish vessels operate may not be in compliance with the intent of the ﬁnto-carcass ratio implemented by the RFMOs of which it is a member, because the ratio applied by these RFMOs
relates to the weight of the shark on board (which is usually dressed weight rather than whole weight). However, theinterpretation of the ratio is not speciﬁed in any of the RFMO measures, and ICCAT allows members to interpretthe ratio as best suits the operations of their vessels. Spain has prohibited the catch, transshipment, landing andcommercializing of all hammerhead sharks and thresher sharks by all types of ﬁshing gear used by the Spanish ﬂeet,
regardless of where it operates (Government of Spain 2009).

Participation inconventions

CITES, CMS

Implementation of
shark measures

Not a signatory to CMS Shark MoU

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

29

APPENDIX 1 - PROFILES
TaiwanShark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

48,000 t (5.8%)

Shark trade

Taiwan is predominantly an exporter of shark products, although it regularly imports frozen shark meat and frozen anddried shark ﬁns. Taiwan reports shark exports to FAO in seven categories, predominantly frozen sharks, frozen ﬁllets,
fresh chilled sharks, and dried and frozen shark ﬁn.

Taiwan reports shark catch to FAO in two categories, and 98% of the catch is recorded as “sharks, rays, skates nei.”Taiwan’s ofﬁcial export data indicate that from 2005 to 2009, Taiwan exported about 65,000 t of shark meat products
and 3,480 t of frozen, dried and canned ﬁns. Shark meat exports went mainly to Uruguay, Vietnam, South Korea,
Mexico and Australia. Dried shark ﬁns were exported mainly to Hong Kong and China, and frozen ﬁns to China andSingapore. In 2008, Taiwan was the third-highest supplier of shark ﬁn to Hong Kong.
Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

Shark catch (from high seas and domestic waters) peaked at 68,000 t in 2003 and fell to 33,000 t in 2009. About 85%of the catch is taken on the high seas. Taiwan records catch data for silky shark, blue shark, shortﬁn mako, young
sharks, and skates and rays. Of the total recorded shark catch, 57% is reported as “shark,” and, of the three species
identiﬁed, blue shark is the most common (Joyce Wu, TRAFFIC, in litt. to G. Sant, November 2010). Sharks aretargeted by bottom longline and large-mesh driftnet and mid-water longline in the coastal and offshore shark ﬁsheryand are taken as bycatch in the tuna longline ﬁshery. In the far seas, sharks are bycatch of tuna longline and trawl
ﬁsheries, and some longliners target shark. Most sharks taken in the distant water tuna longline ﬂeet are blue (7080%), mako, thresher, hammerhead and oceanic whitetip. These are predominantly landed in foreign ports (Fisheries
Agency, Taiwan 2004).

NPOA

NPOA adopted in 2004. Due for review.

RFMOs

CCSBT (Extended Commission), IATTC, WCPFC, ICCAT (CNP). Taiwan is a signiﬁcant ﬁsher in the Indian Ocean
but cannot become a member or cooperating nonmember of the IOTC, which is an FAO body, because it is not amember of any United Nations body.

Implementation of
RFMO shark measures

Taiwan’s ﬁshery regulations require its vessels to meet the requirements of the shark conservation and management
measures of RFMOs. Vessels must transship and ofﬂoad ﬁns and carcasses together; must ensure that up to the ﬁrst
point of landing, the ﬁn to whole-body weight is less than 5%; must report to the port state the weight of shark bodyand ﬁn on board when entering and leaving ports, as well as the weight of shark ﬁn and carcass ofﬂoaded in port.
Sanctions are in place for failure to comply with these requirements (Taipei Economic and Cultural Ofﬁce in Guam2008). Taiwan has enhanced its port inspection regime to ensure compliance with the 5% ﬁn-to-carcass ratio requiredby the WCPFC; has made provision for recording of catch of 10 species of sharks in its WCPFC logbooks; and requires
live sharks taken as bycatch to be released and to be recorded (CCSBT 2007 and 2010).
Taiwan’s application of the ﬁn-to-carcass ratio may not be compliant with the intent of the IATTC and WCPFC ﬁnning
controls, because the ratio applied by these RFMOs relates to the weight of the shark on board (dressed weightrather than whole weight). However, the interpretation of the ratio is not speciﬁed in any of the RFMO measures, andICCAT leaves the interpretation open to its members (ICCAT Compliance Committee 2010).

Participation inconventions

Neither CMS nor CITES

Implementation of
shark measures

30

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

Argentina
Shark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

35,000 t (4.3%)

Shark trade

Reports exports to FAO in ﬁve categories, most of which consist of “shark, dried, salted or in brine.” Exports
averaged about 655 t/year in 2005-07. The FAO data suggest that despite being the ﬁfth-largest catching country/
territory, Argentina is a minor exporter. Export data presented by Sanchez (2010), however, suggest that there has
been a signiﬁcant increase in total shark exports since 2006 to about 11,000 t because of reported exports of frozen
skates and rays, which had previously been reported as “other ﬁsh.”Reports catch to FAO in 12 categories, of which nine are species-speciﬁc. “Rays, stingrays , mantas nei” make up 58%,
narrownose smoothhound 24% and Argentine angel shark 11%.

Argentina has improved its trade statistics signiﬁcantly. Since 2008, shark exports have been reported for 28
categories, of which 21 relate to different product forms of three species (narrownose smoothhound, school sharkand spiny dogﬁsh).
Argentina exports frozen and dried shark ﬁn to Hong Kong. In 2008, these exports were around 185 t (Oceana2010). The EU imports about 500 t/year of shark products from Argentina, and the United States also imports small
quantities.
Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

There are about 35 species of sharks in the Argentine Sea. Three species (narrownose smoothhound, school andcopper) are subjected to directed ﬁshing. Other species of commercial importance are the angel shark, the tiger sandshark and several species of skates and rays. The most important directed shark ﬁshery in the southwest Atlantic is the
Necochea gillnet ﬁshery for school shark, carried out by the coastal ﬂeet. The Puerto Quequén coastal bottom trawl
ﬁshery also takes sharks, of which 14 are commercial species (Chiaramonte 1998 and 2006).
Argentina has prohibited ﬁnning; adopted best practices for the handling of sharks (e.g. release of specimens larger
than 1.6 m; banning the use of gaffs); set a maximum shark/ray bycatch of 40%; closed nursery areas; and closed areas
to recreational ﬁshing. Argentina has increased the number of shark species recorded by ﬁshers from ﬁve in 2003 to
19 in 2009 (Sanchez 2010).

NPOA

NPOA adopted 2009 (available only in Spanish) underpinned by a series of multidisciplinary workshops (Sanchez
2010).

RFMOs

CCAMLR

Implementation of
RFMO shark measures

Unknown

Participation inconventions

CITES, CMS

Implementation of
shark measures

Not a signatory to CMS Shark MoU

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

31

APPENDIX 1 - PROFILES
MexicoShark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

34,000 t (4.1%)

Shark trade

FAO export data indicate that Mexico is a minor shark exporter with an average of 255 t of shark product exports overthe 2005-07 period. Since 2000, exports have been recorded in only two categories: “Sharks, nei, fresh or chilled” and“sharks nei, frozen.” Hong Kong imported 217 t of frozen and dried shark ﬁn from Mexico in 2008 (Oceana 2010), andthe United States imports about 170 t/year of shark products from Mexico (Personal communication from the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Fisheries Statistics Division, Silver Spring, Md., October 2010).

Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

Mexico takes sharks (mainly mako sharks discarded dead) as bycatch in its tuna longline ﬁshing operations in the
Gulf of Mexico (ICCAT SCRS 2010). Mexico introduced an Ofﬁcial Norm for Responsible Shark and Ray Fisheries in2006 under which landing of shark ﬁns without carcasses on board is prohibited; catch and retention of whale shark,basking shark, great white shark and big skate is banned; closed and exclusion zones are in place; detailed logbooks
to record retained species and an observer program are required; driftnets are banned (Barriera 2008).

NPOA

Plan approved in 2004 (Barriera 2008). Available in Spanish only. Due for review.

RFMOs

IATTC, ICCAT, WCPFC (CNP)

Implementation of
RFMO shark measures

Mexico was given a catch exemption of 110 bigeye thresher sharks from the ICCAT ban on retention and landing ofthat species.

Reports shark catch to FAO in 12 categories, eight of which are species-speciﬁc. Fifty-eight percent of catch isreported as “sharks, rays, skates, etc., nei” and 21% as “rays, stingrays, mantas, nei.”

IATTC observer reports indicate that Mexico took 11,128 sharks in its purse seine ﬂeet (38% of the total reported
observed purse seine take by IATTC vessels) in 2009. Of those, 99.7% were retained. This compares with an averageretention rate of 53% across the IATTC purse seine ﬂeet and suggests that the requirement of the IATTC to “releaseto the extent practicable, all sharks taken as bycatch” is not being applied by Mexico. In addition, 10 sharks on threetrips on Mexican vessels were noted by observers to be ﬁnned (IATTC 2010). Although Mexico bars the landing ofsharks unless the bodies are on board, it is not clear whether the 5% ﬁn-to-carcass ratio is applied.
Participation inconventions

CITES, not CMS

Implementation of
shark measures

The Mexican Ofﬁcial Norm on Environment Protection: Mexican Native Flora and Fauna Species-Risk Categories andSpeciﬁcation includes basking, great white and whale shark as threatened species.
Not a signatory to CMS Shark MoU

Pakistan

32

Shark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

32,000 t (3.9%)

Shark trade

Pakistan reports minor quantities of shark exports to FAO; since 2005, these have not exceeded 2 t. Before 2003,
Pakistan was reporting exports of shark ﬁn of about 90 t/year. Hong Kong import data for 2008 indicate that 40 t offrozen and dried shark ﬁns were imported from Pakistan that year. Recent anecdotal reports suggest that Pakistan
exports shark ﬁns predominantly to Hong Kong and Singapore and that some of the shark ﬁn exported from Pakistan
is smuggled into Pakistan from Iran (Aslam 2010, Ilyas 2010).

Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

Recent reports suggest that sharks are being heavily ﬁshed for their ﬁns, and there is concern that shark stocks are
declining. Shark landings are reported to have declined from 32,000 t in 1999 to 6,000 t in 2009. Sharks are taken
mainly with hooks and bottom-set gillnets and include species such as hammerhead, grey bamboo, blacktip, pelagic
thresher and spadenose sharks. The same reports indicate that ﬁnning is not practiced and that the carcass is retained(Aslam 2010, Ilyas 2010).

Reports shark catch to FAO in four categories that are not species-speciﬁc. Fifty-ﬁve percent of the catch is reported
as “requiem sharks, nei” and 42% as “rays, stingrays, mantas, nei.”

NPOA

May be developing an NPOA (Cavanagh et al. 2008), but its status could not be conﬁrmed.

RFMOs

IOTC

Implementation of
RFMO shark measures

The IOTC has identiﬁed Pakistan’s artisanal ﬁsheries as a major shark catching ﬂeet from which historical catch andeffort data are required. It is unclear whether Pakistan has implemented the 5% ﬁn-to-carcass ratio required by IOTC.
However, given the reports of full utilization of sharks, it is possible that the ratio is not required.

Participation inconventions

CITES, CMS

Implementation of
shark measures

Not a signatory to CMS Shark MoU

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

United States
Shark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

31,000 t (3.7%)

Shark trade

Reports exports to FAO in six categories, with “frozen and fresh/chilled dogﬁsh” making up about two-thirds of shark
exports since 2000. Dried shark ﬁn exports fell from nearly 500 t in 2003 to 36 t in 2007. Exports of frozen ﬁn are notreported separately. The United States accounted for about 35% of total reported exports of frozen dogﬁsh from2005 to 2007. The United States also imports about 1,100 t of shark products, predominantly as fresh/chilled dogﬁshand other sharks.

Reports catch to FAO in 30 categories, including 22 species. Forty-eight percent of catch is reported as “raja rays,nei,” 30% as picked dogﬁsh, 7% as Portuguese dogﬁsh and 5% as “dogﬁshes and hounds nei.”

Frozen shark ﬁn is not identiﬁed separately in U.S. trade data. However, Hong Kong import data indicate that in 2008,
251 t of dried and frozen shark ﬁns were imported from the United States in 2008 (Oceana 2010). Given that only 8 t
of dried ﬁn were identiﬁed in the U.S. export data as exported to Hong Kong that year, it is assumed that the majorityof ﬁns is exported as frozen product and is included in the U.S. data as “sharks, frozen, nei.”
Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

The United States has target ﬁsheries for species including spiny dogﬁsh, sandbar, blacktip, Atlantic sharpnose,
blacknose, ﬁnetooth, common thresher and shortﬁn mako shark. In the Atlantic, skates and rays are predominantly
taken by otter trawling. Reported landings have increased in recent years, partly in response to demand as lobster
bait domestically and to export demand for skate wings (FAO 2009). U.S. landings data indicate that in 2009,skates made up 24,000 t of the total shark catch of 33,000 t (NMFS 2010). Sharks are also taken as bycatch by thecommercial tuna and swordﬁsh ﬁsheries and trawl ﬁsheries. Sharks in U.S. federal waters are managed under eightfederal ﬁsheries management plans. In 2008, the U.S. reported that of its 35 identiﬁed shark stock/complexes, four
were subject to overﬁshing and four were overﬁshed, and the status of about 20 others was unknown or unidentiﬁed(NMFS 2009). Shark ﬁnning was banned in U.S. Atlantic ﬁsheries in 1993, and this ban was extended nationally in
2000. As of 2008, all sharks in the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery must be ofﬂoaded with ﬁns naturally
attached.

NPOA

NPOA in place since 2001. Due for review.

RFMOs

CCAMLR, IATTC, ICCAT, NAFO, SPRFMO, WCPFC, NEAFC (CNP)

Implementation of
RFMO shark measures

The United States provides Task I and Task II data in accordance with ICCAT requirements; sets and tracks annual
quotas for shortﬁn mako sharks to ensure that the catch is within the U.S. designated quota; and has catch limits inplace for Atlantic porbeagle, shortﬁn mako and blue sharks. The U.S. fulﬁlls the requirements of recommendations
related to ﬁnning through the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000, the Shark Conservation Act of 2010 and therequirement that sharks taken in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico, be landed with ﬁns naturally
attached. Consistent with Rec. 07-06, the U.S. reduced the porbeagle quota in 2008 from 91 t to 1.7 t andimplemented a rebuilding plan. It has prohibited the harvest of bigeye thresher sharks since 1999 (U.S. Department ofCommerce 2010).

Participation inconventions

CITES, not CMS

Implementation of
shark measures

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service uses a variety of material at ports to identify live sharks and parts or derivatives for
species listed in CITES (FAO 2009).
Signatory to CMS Shark MoU

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

33

APPENDIX 1 - PROFILES
Japan
Shark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

25,000 t (3.0%)

Shark trade

Has reported exports to FAO in four categories since 2000, averaging about 4,400 t/year and consisting largely of“sharks nei, frozen” and “shark ﬁllets frozen.”

Reports catch to FAO in three categories, of which one is species-speciﬁc. “Sharks, rays, skates, etc., nei” make up
85% of reported catch and whip stingray 15%.

There is no shark species identiﬁcation in Japan’s current trade codes. It exports mostly frozen shark meat and dried
shark ﬁns, with exports of shark meat going mainly to South Africa, Spain, Peru, China, South Korea and Vietnam(although most of the exports to South Africa, Spain and Peru are considered landings at foreign ports), and dried
shark ﬁn is exported mainly to Hong Kong, China and Singapore. Japan’s export data indicate that dried ﬁn exports
averaged about 170 t/year from 2005 to 2008, with the bulk of these exports going to Hong Kong. Japan imports
shark meat mainly from Spain, Canada, China, Indonesia, Taiwan, Vanuatu and South Korea. Imports averaged 928 t
from 2005 to 2008 but in 2009 fell to just over 600 t (Japan Ministry of Finance 2010).
Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

Japan’s pelagic longline ﬁsheries take sharks in both targeted shark operations and as bycatch to tuna ﬁshing
operations, with ﬁns and meat retained or carcasses discarded depending on the nature of the ﬁshing operation(Gillman et al. 2007). Pelagic shark species are taken primarily by the tuna longline ﬂeet, and demersal sharks and raysby the bottom trawl ﬁshery. Japan’s catches declined from about 70,000 t in the 1950s to about 20,000-30,000 t in the
1990s, mainly because of the decline in landings of demersal sharks and rays from the bottom trawl ﬁshery. Blue sharkis the most common species taken in the tuna longline ﬁshery and is mostly landed in overseas ports. Shortﬁn mako isoften landed in Japan by the tuna longline ﬂeet because of its high-quality meat. Salmon shark is mainly landed fromcoastal waters and is used for meat and ﬁns, and skins are used for handicrafts (FAO 2009).

NPOA

Adopted in 2001 and revised in 2009.

RFMOs

CCAMLR, CCSBT, IATTC, ICCAT, IOTC, NAFO, SPRFMO, WCPFC, GFCM, NEAFC (CNP), SEAFO

Implementation of
RFMO shark measures

Fishers are required to comply with the management measures of RFMOs through conditions imposed on ﬁshinglicenses (Fisheries Agency Government of Japan 2009). Japan has banned shark ﬁnning by Japanese vessels except
for far seas and coastal vessels operating and landing outside Japanese waters (Camhi et al. 2009). In 2009, the IOTC
Scientiﬁc Committee noted that Japan does not report on non-IOTC species such as sharks, and Japan opposed theadoption of an extended list of shark species to be reported on in IOTC logbooks (IOTC Scientiﬁc Committee 2009).
In 2007, Japan reported to CCSBT that it did not have speciﬁc mitigation measures in place for sharks at that time
but that it was monitoring shark populations in accordance with its NPOA-Sharks and implied that it applied the 5%
ﬁn-to-carcass ratio required by WCPFC and IOTC (CCSBT 2007). Japan has argued in CCSBT that the RFMO does nothave a mandate to manage ecologically related species such as sharks. Japanese ﬁshing vessels are complying with
SEAFO’s Conservation Measures (SEAFO Compliance Committee 2009).

Participation inconventions

CITES, not CMS

Implementation of
shark measures

In CITES, Japan has taken out a reservation on the Appendix II listing of whale shark, basking shark and great whiteshark
Not a signatory to CMS Shark MoU

34

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

Malaysia
Shark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

24,000 t (2.9%)

Shark trade

Malaysia is a net importer of shark ﬁn products. From 2000 to 2007, imports averaged about 600 t but increasedin the 2005-07 period to average about 1,100 t. Most of this increase has been attributed to increased imports of
prepared or preserved shark ﬁn product. Malaysia is a minor exporter of shark products, averaging about 200 t from2000 to 2007. Shark ﬁns make up the bulk of these exports (about 80%). Malaysia’s trade data do not identify sharkspecies.

Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

Malaysian landings of sharks and rays have increased rapidly since the late 1980s. Sharks are taken mainly by trawl andgillnet ﬁsheries, with small quantities taken in longline, purse seine and other ﬁsheries. The landings make up less than
2.2% of total marine landings. Sharks are not targeted by ﬁshers but are caught with other commercially important
species. Landings data indicate that the most dominant species of shark taken are longtailed carpet and requiem
sharks, and the most common rays are whiptail stingrays. All parts of the shark are utilized, with ﬁns exported to Hong
Kong and Singapore, meat sold fresh or salted, and noncommercial species sold to ﬁsh mill factories for fertilizers orused as bait for ﬁsh and crab traps. Jaws and teeth are sold as souvenirs (Department of Fisheries Malaysia 2006).

Reports shark catch to FAO in two categories, of which “rays, stingrays, mantas, nei” make up 66% and ”sharks, rays,
skates, etc., nei” make up 34%.

Malaysian ﬁsheries are managed under the Fisheries Act 1985. However, there is no speciﬁc regulation pertaining
to the management of sharks and rays except for whale shark, which is protected under the Fisheries (Control
of Endangered Species of Fish) Regulations 1999. There is no regulation pertaining to freshwater shark and ray
management, which is under the jurisdiction of the states.
NPOA

Implemented in 2006.

RFMOs

IOTC

Implementation of
RFMO shark measures

The IOTC Scientiﬁc Committee has identiﬁed the need for Malaysia to collect catch and effort information for sharkspecies from its longline tuna ﬂeet and to report this information to the commission.
It was not possible to determine whether Malaysia applies the 5% ﬁn-to-carcass ratio required by IOTC.

Participation inconventions

CITES, not CMS

Implementation of
shark measures

Not a signatory to CMS Shark MoU

Thailand
Shark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

23,000 t (2.8%)

Shark trade

Thailand has reported exports to FAO in four categories since 2000. From 2000 to 2006, Thailand reported low levelsof shark exports averaging about 110 t, most of which was classiﬁed as “sharks nei, frozen” and “shark ﬁns dried,salted.” However, in 2007, Thailand reported exports of preserved or prepared shark ﬁns totaling 13,000 t. Thailand isa minor importer.

Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

Sharks are taken by a wide range of gears, including trawl, gillnet, hook and line, and purse seine. Species taken
include brownbanded bamboo, grey bamboo, slender bamboo, whitespotted bamboo, spottail, bull, Caribbean reef,
pigeye, scalloped hammerhead, thresher and pelagic thresher sharks (FAO 2004). All parts of the sharks are fully
utilized, with meat used mainly domestically and dried ﬁns exported. There are no shark-speciﬁc management policies
except for whale shark. However, the Thai Department of Fisheries regulates ﬁsheries that take sharks through theestablished ﬁshing methods and conservation areas (CITES Animals Committee 2009).

NPOA

Adopted in 2006 (CITES Animals Committee 2009).

RFMOs

IOTC. Thailand has applied for CNP status to WCPFC for the purposes of contributing data exchange but does notintend to ﬁsh in the convention area (WCPFC TCC 2010)

Implementation of
RFMO shark measures

It was not possible to conﬁrm whether Thailand applies the 5% ﬁn-to-carcass ratio as required by IOTC.

Participation inconventions

CITES, not CMS

Implementation of
shark measures

Not a signatory to CMS Shark MoU

Reports catch to FAO in two categories, of which “rays, stingrays, mantas, nei” makes up 59% and ”sharks, rays,
skates, etc., nei” makes up 42%.

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 201135

APPENDIX 1 - PROFILESFranceShark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

22,000 t (2.6%)

Shark trade

Imports have averaged about 4,000 t/year since 2000, composed predominantly of frozen dogﬁsh and sharks. Exports
average about 1,300 t/year, are reported in eight categories and consist predominantly of fresh/chilled sharks anddogﬁsh (Squalidae).

Reports catch in 37 categories, including 26 species. Small spotted catshark makes up 26% of the reported catch,“raja rays nei” 15% and cuckoo ray 11%.

EU trade data indicate that shark product imports are sourced mainly from other EU members such as the U.K.,
Spain and Portugal as well as the United States, Canada and New Zealand. Exports are mainly to other EU member
countries. France does not appear to have signiﬁcant exports of shark ﬁns, with less than 1 t of ﬁns from France
imported to Hong Kong in 2008.
Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

French vessels target sharks using gillnets and take sharks as bycatch in ﬁsheries targeting tunas by longline and purse
seine. France does not issue special ﬁshing permits to allow ﬁnning under the derogation permitted by EU Regulation(EC) No. 1185/2003 and requires ﬁns to be landed naturally attached to the carcass (EC 2010b). EU TACs are in force
for porbeagle, spiny dogﬁsh, and skates and rays. TACs for porbeagle and spiny dogﬁsh were set at zero in 2010.
Council Regulation (EU) No. 23/2010 prohibits EU vessels from retaining on board, transshipping or landing basking
shark and great white shark in all waters; angel shark in all EU waters; common skate, undulate ray and white skate in
speciﬁc zones; and porbeagle in international waters.

NPOA

The EU adopted a CAP in 2009. France is also a contracting party to the Barcelona Convention, which has an RPOASharks for the Mediterranean Sea.

RFMOs

CCAMLR, GFCM, IATTC, ICCAT, IOTC, NEAFC, SPRFMO, CCSBT (CNP). Also a party to NAFO and SEAFO throughEU membership but not active in these ﬁsheries.

Implementation of
RFMO shark measures

France requires ﬁns to be landed naturally attached (EC 2010b) and meets and exceeds the ﬁnning requirements of
RFMOs.

Participation inconventions

CITES, CMS

Implementation of
shark measures

Not a signatory to CMS Shark MoU

Brazil36

Shark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

20,000 t (2.4%)

Shark trade

Exports are reported to FAO in ﬁve categories and averaged 100 t/year from 2000 to 2007; this has increased toabout 155 t/year since 2005. Dried, salted shark ﬁns make up most of the exports. Hong Kong import data indicatethat more than 200 t of frozen and dried shark ﬁn was imported from Brazil in 2008 (Oceana 2010).

Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

Brazil takes sharks in its longline tuna ﬂeet. In 2008, blue shark accounted for about 18% of the total longline catch
and was the third-most commonly caught species. Brazil is working with EC scientists to develop spatial and technicalmanagement measures to reduce the bycatch of pelagic sharks by pelagic longliners (ICCAT 2010). Brazil prohibits
landing of shark ﬁns without the corresponding carcasses. The total weight of ﬁns cannot exceed 5% of the total
weight of carcasses; all carcasses and ﬁns must be unloaded and weighed, and the weights must be reported tothe authorities (Shark Coalition 2010). The ﬁn-to-carcass ratio is applied to the whole weight of the shark (Camhi etal. 2009). Brazil apprehended a shipment of frozen ﬁns being exported to Japan and ﬁned the exporter and ﬁshingvessel operators in 2010 because of irregularities in the catch documentation (Feitosa 2010).

NPOA

Reportedly drafted in 2006. Appears to be available (restricted access and in Portuguese) on the website of theBrazilian Society for the Study of Elasmobranchs (www.sbeel.org.br/)

RFMOs

CCAMLR (not active), ICCAT

Implementation of
RFMO shark measures

Implements the 5% ﬁn-to-carcass ratio requirement of ICCAT.

Participation inconventions

CITES, not CMS

Implementation of
shark measures

Not a signatory to CMS Shark MoU

Reports catch in 10 categories, of which eight are species-speciﬁc. “Sharks, rays, skates, etc., nei” make up 50%,
“rays, stingrays, mantas, nei” 32% and blue shark 10%.

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

Sri Lanka
Shark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

20,000 t (2.4%)

Shark trade

Reports exports to FAO in four categories, but shark exports are limited and for most of the current decade havebeen less than 10 t/year. However, exports increased to more than 100 t in 2006 and 2007, consisting mainly of driedﬁn and fresh/chilled shark products. Sri Lanka reports (FAO 2009) that it exports shark ﬁns mainly to Hong Kong,
Malaysia, China, Singapore, Taiwan and Mauritius and that ﬁn exports have ranged from 119 t in 2000 to 67 t in 2007.
These data do not correspond with export data reported to FAO, which indicate no exports of ﬁns from 2000 to 2005,
and 70 t and 43 t, respectively, in 2006 and 2007.

Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

Sharks are taken as target species in the offshore gillnet, shark longline and tuna longline ﬁsheries (about 2,500 boats)in the deepwater benthic ﬁshery for shark and in the bottom-set gillnet ﬁshery for skate. Catch in offshore ﬁsheries
peaked at 25,000 t in 2000 but declined to about 2000 t by 2006. The main species taken are silky, blue and oceanic
whitetip shark. Sharks are also taken as bycatch in other bottom-set gillnet ﬁsheries, the bottom-set longline ﬁsheryand the beach seine ﬁshery. About 15 boats are exclusively engaged in drift longline ﬁshing for sharks, supplying
ﬁns to the export trade. A deepwater shark ﬁshery of 80 to 90 vessels using baited hooks from 5 m ﬁberglass boats
targets little gulper shark and leafscale gulper shark for oil (FAO 2009).

Reports catch to FAO in two categories, of which “sharks, rays, skates, nei” makes up 79% and silky shark makes up
21%.

Legislation pertaining directly to sharks is very limited. However, Landings of Fish (Species of Shark and Skates)
Regulations 2001 require that ﬁns are attached to sharks at the time of landing and precludes the landing of ﬁns thathave been removed from these species.
NPOA

None. Sri Lanka has reportedly sought assistance from the FAO to develop an NPOA-Sharks and is involved in regional
consultations with India, the Maldives and Bangladesh regarding the development of an RPOA-Sharks (FAO 2009).

RFMOs

IOTC

Implementation of
RFMO shark measures

Sri Lanka provides catch and effort data on shark ﬁsheries to IOTC annually (FAO 2009). The Sri Lankan artisanalﬁshing ﬂeet has been identiﬁed by IOTC as a major ﬂeet for which historical catch and effort information on sharks isrequired (IOTC WPEB 2009; Herrera and Pierre 2010). Sri Lanka’s requirement that sharks be landed with ﬁns attachedexceeds the 5% ﬁn-to-carcass ratio requirement of the IOTC.

Participation inconventions

CITES, CMS

Implementation of
shark measures

Not a signatory to CMS Shark MoU

New Zealand
Shark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

16,200 t (2.2%)

Shark trade

New Zealand has reported exports to FAO in 10 categories since 2000, predominantly as frozen dogﬁsh; frozen sharkﬁllets; frozen ﬁllets of shark, ray and chimaeras; and frozen shark. Exports of shark products averaged 3,600 t/year
from 2000 to 2007.

Reports catch in 34 categories, of which 26 are species-speciﬁc. Twenty-two percent of the catch is spiny dogﬁsh;
17% school (tope) shark, 11% dark ghost shark, 7% ghost shark (elephant ﬁsh), 7% New Zealand rough skate and 8%
spotted estuary smoothhound.

New Zealand has 25 trade codes for shark, with dark ghost shark, school shark, spotted dogﬁsh, spiny dogﬁsh andelephant ﬁsh products identiﬁed separately. There are no codes for shark ﬁns. Ofﬁcial New Zealand export data
indicate that exports of shark products averaged 3,000 t over the 2005-09 period and that the main export markets
were South Korea (30%), Australia (28%), Japan (7%), France (6%) and China (5%) (Statistics New Zealand 2010). Hong
Kong import data indicate that 80 t of shark ﬁns were imported from New Zealand in 2008 (Oceana 2010).
Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

Spotted dogﬁsh, school shark and elephant ﬁsh are targeted, and a range of other shark species are taken as bycatch.
Eleven shark species, accounting for about 85% of the weight of shark catch, are managed under the quota management
system (QMS). It is illegal to discard QMS species except for blue shark, shortﬁn mako, porbeagle and smooth skate, which
may be released if they are alive and likely to survive release, and spiny dogﬁsh, which may be released dead or alive. TACs
for eight of the 11 QMS shark species are set at a level that can produce MSY, and TACs for blue shark, shortﬁn mako andporbeagle are set without regard to MSY. The remaining shark species are managed as either open access or limited accessﬁsheries. Live ﬁnning is illegal, but ﬁnning remains legal in national waters (Ministry of Fisheries, New Zealand 2008).

NPOA

NPOA adopted in 2008.

RFMOs

CCAMLR, CCSBT, WCPFC, NEAFC (CNP), SPRFMO

Implementation of
RFMO shark measures

Release of live QMS pelagic shark species provides for the release of juvenile shark as encouraged by WCPFC
measure 2009-04. New Zealand allows ﬁnning in domestic waters, but provisions in high seas permits cover ﬁnningoutside the New Zealand EEZ (CCSBT 2010).

Participation inconventions

CITES, CMS

Implementation of
shark measures

Not a signatory to CMS Shark MoU
Basking shark and whale shark listed on Schedule 4 of the Fisheries Act: moratorium on issue of permits for these species,and existing permit holders can take them only as bycatch. Under the Wildlife Act, it is illegal to hunt, kill or harm a great
white shark within New Zealand waters or to possess or trade in any part of the great white shark. Sanctions apply. Under
the Fisheries Act, New Zealand-ﬂagged vessels operating on the high seas are prohibited from taking great white sharks.

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

37

APPENDIX 1 - PROFILES
Portugal
Shark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

16,000 t (1.9%)

Shark trade

Reports exports to FAO of about 1,800 t of shark products annually and in nine categories, of which two-thirds are“sharks nei frozen” and nearly one-third are frozen shark ﬁllets. Imports of shark products are negligible. Portugal’s
trade in shark product is predominantly intra-EU.

Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

The Portuguese longline ﬂeet targets sharks in high seas ﬁsheries (Shark Alliance 2010). Portugal’s shark ﬁsheries
undertaken on the high seas by its pelagic ﬂeets in the Atlantic and Indian oceans are not adequately documented;
their longline catches of oceanic sharks are as large as or larger than the catch of tuna and swordﬁsh; and mostlongliners now also target sharks (EC 2010).

Reports catch to FAO for 49 categories, including 36 species. Blue shark makes up 46%, “raja rays nei” 16%, shortﬁnmako 7%, leafscale gulper shark 7% and Portuguese dogﬁsh 5%.

EU TACs are in force for porbeagle, spiny dogﬁsh, and skates and rays. The TACs for porbeagle and spiny dogﬁshwere set at zero in 2010. Council Regulation (EU) No. 23/2010 prohibits EU vessels from retaining on board,transshipping or landing basking shark and great white shark in all EU and non-EU waters, angel shark in all EU waters,common skate, undulate ray and white skate in speciﬁc zones, and porbeagle in international waters.
EU Regulation (EC) No. 1185/2003 prohibits shark ﬁnning but provides for the issue of special permits to allow theremoval of ﬁns at sea so that ﬁns and carcasses can be landed separately at different ports, on the condition that theweight of shark ﬁns on board does not exceed 5% of the whole weight of the shark. Portugal issues an average of
17 special permits per year (EC 2010b). The EU is consulting on options to amend the regulation. Options include
requiring that all sharks be landed with ﬁns naturally attached.
NPOA

The EU adopted a CAP for sharks in 2009.

RFMOs

ICCAT, IOTC, NAFO, NEAFC, SEAFO, SPRFMO, CCSBT (CNP). Also a member of WCPFC, CCAMLR and IATTC
through EU membership but not active in these ﬁsheries.

Implementation of
RFMO shark measures

The ﬁn-to-carcass provision of the special permits issues under EU Regulation (EC) No. 1185/2003, under which some
Portuguese vessels operate, may not be in compliance with the intent of the ﬁn-to-carcass ratio implemented by
the WCPFC, IATTC, IOTC, ICCAT, GFCM, SEAFO, NEAFC and NAFO, because the ratio applied by these RFMOs
relates to the weight of the shark on board (i.e., usually dressed weight rather than whole weight). However, theinterpretation of the ratio is not speciﬁed in any of the RFMO measures, and ICCAT has agreed to allow members tointerpret the ratio as best suits the operations of their vessels.

Participation inconventions

CITES, CMS

Implementation of
shark measures

Not a signatory to CMS Shark MoU

Nigeria38

Shark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

14,000 t (1.7%)

Shark trade

Exports reported to FAO only for dried, unsalted ﬁns, but the level of exports is negligible, as is the level of imports.
Nigeria does not appear in the shark import data for the United States, Japan, Taiwan or the EU. Hong Kong importdata identify 1.3 t of dried or frozen shark ﬁn imports from Nigeria in 2008 (Oceana 2010).

Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

No information could be obtained on the nature of shark ﬁsheries and their management in Nigeria.

NPOA

No information available

RFMOs

ICCAT (since 2007)

Implementation of
RFMO shark measures

Nigeria has failed to report Task I (nominal catch) or Task II (catch and effort) data (ICCAT 2010) and has not submitted
annual reports since joining the commission. It is unclear whether Nigeria enforces the 5% ﬁn-to-carcass ratio required
under ICCAT.

Participation inconventions

CITES, CMS

Implementation of
shark measures

Not a signatory to CMS Shark MoU

Reports catch to FAO in two categories. “Rays, stingrays, mantas, nei” make up 44% and “sharks, rays, skates, nei”
56%.

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

IranShark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

14,000 t (1.7%)

Shark trade

Iran reported negligible exports of shark products to FAO as dried, unsalted ﬁns from 2000 to 2007. It did not report any
imports to FAO during that period. Shark ﬁllets are sold domestically; dried and salted meat is exported to Pakistan; othermeat is used in ﬁsh meal factories; and dried ﬁns are transported mainly to UAE directly without any control and can beconsidered an illegal trade (FAO 2009). The UAE’s data reported to FAO do not include imports of dried ﬁns; however,about 450 t of dried ﬁns are exported from the UAE each year (FAO Fisheries Department 2009).

Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

Sharks are taken predominantly by bottom and drift gillnets and as bycatch by bottom trawl. The main species taken
are whitecheek, spottail and milk sharks. Iran imposes a six-month closed season for sharks from March to August; hasbanned bottom trawlers in the Persian Gulf since 1993; has restricted bottom trawling in the Gulf of Oman to 4½ months
per year; restricts gillnet mesh size; has reduced the number of trawlers from 69 to 38; and collects monthly catch andeffort statistics (FAO 2009).

NPOA

No information available on development of an NPOA.

RFMOs

IOTC

Implementation of
RFMO shark measures

Iran’s artisanal ﬁsheries are considered to be one of the major ﬂeets involved in taking sharks in the IOTC area (IOTC
WPEB 2009). There is no indication that Iran requires its vessels to comply with the IOTC ﬁn-to-carcass ratio.

Participation inconventions

CITES, CMS

Implementation of
shark measures

Not a signatory to CMS Shark MoU.

Reports catch in four categories, of which two are species-speciﬁc. Spottail shark makes up 80%.

United Kingdom
Shark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

13,000 t (1.6%)

Shark trade

Reports exports to FAO in nine categories but predominantly as fresh/chilled skates and fresh/chilled sharks. No sharkﬁn categories are identiﬁed. Exports of shark products averaged 4,000 t from 2000 to 2007, but these declined to an
average of 2,200 t since 2005. Imports about 2,000 t of shark annually, composed mainly of fresh/chilled and frozen
dogﬁsh (Squalidae) and shark ﬁllets.

Reports catch to FAO in 52 categories, including 39 species. Thirty-six percent of catch reported as “raja rays nei,”
30% as picked dogﬁsh, 7% as Portuguese dogﬁsh and 5% as “dogﬁshes and hounds nei.”

Imports are sourced from other EU member countries, the United States, Canada and New Zealand. U.K. exports ofshark products go mainly to other EU member countries.
Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

In U.K. coastal waters, EU waters and international waters, sharks are taken in directed commercial, incidental commercial,directed recreational and incidental recreational ﬁsheries. In virtually every ﬁshery (e.g., gillnet, longline, trawl, purse seine,pot, handgear) there are varying levels of directed or incidental catch of shark species. Incidentally caught species may beeither retained or discarded, depending on their market value (Fowler et al. 2004). In 2007, shark catch landings of U.K.
vessels outside EU waters (mostly of blue and mako sharks) totaled about 2,260 t, including 76 t of ﬁns (CITES Animals
Committee 2009). The U.K. has ceased issuing special ﬁshing permits to allow ﬁnning under the derogation permitted by
EU Regulation (EC) No. 1185/2003 and requires ﬁns to be landed naturally attached to the carcass (EC 2010). EU TACs arein force for porbeagle, spiny dogﬁsh, and skates and rays. The TACs for porbeagle and spiny dogﬁsh were set at zero in2010. Council Regulation (EU) No. 23/2010 prohibits EU vessels from retaining on board, transshipping or landing basking
shark and great white shark in all EU and non-EU waters, angel shark in all EU waters, common skate, undulate ray andwhite skate in speciﬁc zones, and porbeagle in international waters.
In November 2010, the U.K.’s MPA around the Chagos Archipelago took effect. This is the largest no-take MPA in the world
and is expected to provide protection to a wide variety of shark and ray species (Zoological Society of London 2010).

NPOA

NPOA adopted in 2004 (for U.K. waters) and CAP adopted in 2009.

RFMOs

CCAMLR, IATTC, ICCAT, IOTC, NEAFC
Also a member of NAFO, CCSBT (CNP), SEAFO and WCPFC through EU membership but not active in these ﬁsheries.

Implementation of
RFMO shark measures

The U.K. requirement for ﬁns to be landed naturally attached exceeds the ﬁnning requirements of RFMOs. In response
to IOTC recommendations and resolutions, the U.K. has introduced changes to the BIOT systems: Sharks and rays havebeen separated in longline logbooks; the removal of ﬁns from sharks caught in BIOT was prohibited in 2006, and any
sharks caught must be retained whole or released; targeted shark ﬁshing is not permitted; and wire trace is banned
to minimize shark bycatch. All sharks found on board during an inspection must be accounted for in logbooks; a newprocessing method has been adopted whereby the ﬁns are partially cut through but left attached and folded over (IOTC
Scientiﬁc Committee 2009).

Participation inconventions

CITES, CMS

Implementation of
shark measures

Not a signatory to CMS Shark MoU
The EC Wildlife Trade Regulation, which implements CITES in the EU, includes in its annexes the shark species listed in the
CITES Appendices (CITES Animals Committee 2008). The Wildlife and Country Side Act (1981) applying to waters within 12
nm offshore makes it an offense to intentionally kill, injure, take, possess or trade basking shark. A species plan for basking
shark has been developed including actions, targets and reporting on targets on a three- to ﬁve-year cycle (Barriera 2008).

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

39

APPENDIX 1 - PROFILESSouth Korea
Shark catch (% ofreported global catch)and main species
reported

12,000 t (1.4%)

Shark trade

Reports exports to FAO in six categories, although exports are limited (about 350 t/year of “sharks nei, frozen” andabout 13 t of shark ﬁns). South Korea is a signiﬁcant importer of shark products, with imports averaging 22,000 t/yearin the 2000-07 period. Imports consist mainly of frozen sharks, rays and chimaeras and some fresh chilled shark
product.

Reports catch to FAO in seven categories, of which ﬁve are species-speciﬁc. Eighty-seven percent reported as “rays,
stingrays, mantas, nei.”South Korea’s ofﬁcial trade data are reported in these categories: shark ﬁn, dogﬁsh and other sharks, frozen; dogﬁshand other sharks fresh and chilled; frozen skates; frozen rays; and frozen shark liver oils and its factions. Exports haverisen signiﬁcantly since 2007, with exports of shark ﬁns from 2007 to 2009 averaging 57 t (compared with 13 t 200007) and exports of frozen shark products averaging 885 t (compared with 199 t). Most ﬁn exports go to Hong Kong,and most frozen product goes to New Zealand, Uruguay and Spain. South Korea is a signiﬁcant importer of skates
and rays, with imports of these products averaging 10,000 and 9,000 t/year respectively from 2005 to 2009. Major
suppliers of skates are Argentina, Chile, the United States, Uruguay and Canada, and major suppliers of rays are
Argentina, Brazil, the United States, Vietnam, Uruguay and Thailand. Imports of frozen dogﬁsh and other sharks overthe same period averaged 2,800 t/year with most product sourced from Taiwan, Japan, China and Singapore (KITA2010).

40

Shark ﬁsheries andmanagement

It has not been possible to obtain information about the nature and extent of shark ﬁsheries and their managementin South Korea. Korean observers report silky shark and whale shark taken in purse seine ﬁsheries in the WCPO andblue, silky, bigeye thresher, longﬁn mako and oceanic whitetip shark taken in longline ﬁsheries in the WCPO (WCPFC
Scientiﬁc Committee 2010).

NPOA

Reported to be in development in 2007.

RFMOs

CCAMLR, CCSBT, IATTC, ICCAT, IOTC, NAFO, WCPFC

Implementation of
RFMO shark measures

South Korea has implemented recommendations and resolutions adopted by regional ﬁsheries organizations,
including legislation to regulate RFMO requirements, initiation of an observer program and submission of ﬁsheries
statistics. Although South Korea has introduced additional columns for sharks into WCPFC logbooks in 2009 (WCPFC
Scientiﬁc Committee 2010), it opposed the adoption of an extended list of shark species to be reported in IOTC
logbooks (IOTC Scientiﬁc Committee 2009). South Korea applies the 5% ﬁn-to-carcass ratio required by IOTC and
WCPFC (CCSBT 2010).

Participation inconventions

CITES, not CMS

Implementation of
shark measures

In CITES, South Korea has taken out a reservation on the Appendix II listing of basking shark and whale shark.
Not a signatory to CMS Shark MoU

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 2011

APPENDIX 2
Common and scientiﬁc names
Common Name

Scientiﬁc Name

Common Name

Scientiﬁc NameAngel Shark

Squatina squatina

New Zealand Rough Skate

Dipturus nasuta

Argentine Angel Shark

Squatina argentina

Oceanic Whitetip Shark

Carcharhinus longimanus

Atlantic Sharpnose

Rhizoprionodon terraenovae

Pelagic Thresher

Alopias pelagicus

Basking Shark

Cetorhinus maximus

Pigeye Shark

Carcharhinus amboinensis

Bigeye Thresher

Alopias superciliosus

Pondicherry Shark

Carcharhinus hemiodon

Big Skate

Raja binoculata

Porbeagle

Lamna nasus

Blacknose Shark

Carcharhinus acronotus

Porcupine Ray

Urogymus asperrimusBlacktip Reef Shark

Carcharhinus melanopterus

Portuguese DogﬁshCentroscymnus coelolepis

Blacktip Shark

Carcharhinus limbatus

Requiem sharks

Family Carcharhinidae

Blue Shark

Prionace glauca

Salmon Shark

Lamna ditropis

Brownbanded Bamboo Shark

Chiloscyllium punctatum

Sandbar Shark

Carcharhinus plumbeus

Bull Shark

Carcharhinus leucas

Scalloped Hammerhead

Sphyrna lewini

Caribbean Reef Shark

Carcharhinus perezi

School Shark (Tope Shark)

Galeorhinus galeus

Common Skate

Dipturus batis

Shortﬁn Mako

Isurus oxyrinchus

Copper Shark

Carcharhinus brachyurus

Silky Shark

Carcharhimus falciformis

Cowtail Stingray

Pastinachus sephen

Slender Bamboo Shark

Chiloscyllium indicum

Cuckoo Ray

Raja naevus

Small Spotted Catshark

Scyliorhinus canicula

Dark Ghost Shark

Hydrolagus novaezealandiae

Smooth Hammerhead

Sphyrna zygaena

Elephant Fish (Ghost Shark)

Callorhinchus milii

Spadenose Shark

Scoliodon laticaudus

Finetooth Shark

Carcharhinus isodon

Speartooth Shark

Glyphis glyphis

Freshwater Sawﬁsh

Pristis microdon

Spiny Dogﬁsh (Picked Dogﬁsh)

Squalus acanthias

Ganges Shark

Glyphis gangeticus

Spottail Shark

Carcharhinus sorra

Ganges Stingray

Himantura ﬂuviatilis

Spotted Estuary Smoothhound(Rig/Spotted Dogﬁsh)Mustelus lenticulatus

Great White Shark

Carcharodon carcharias

Thorny Skate

Ambyraja radiata

Green Sawﬁsh

Pristis zijsron

Thresher Shark

Alopias vulpinus

Grey Bamboo Shark

Chiloscyllium griseum

Thresher sharks

Genus Alopias

Gulper Shark

Centrophorous granulosus

Tiger Sand Shark

Carcharias taurus

Hammerhead sharks

Genus Sphyrna

Tiger Shark

Galeocerdo cuvier

Hardnose Shark

Carcharhinus macloti

Undulate Ray

Raja undulata

Leafscale Gulper Shark

Centrophorus squamosus

Whale Shark

Rhincodon typus

Little Gulper Shark (Southern
Dogﬁsh)Centrophorous uyato

Whiptail stingrays

Family Dasyatidae

Longﬁn Mako

Isurus paucus

White Skate

Rostroraja alba

Longtailed carpet sharks

Family Hemiscyllidae

Whitecheek Shark

Carcharhinus dussumieri

Mako sharks

Genus IsurusWhitespotted Bamboo Shark

Chiloscyllium plagiosum

Milk Shark

Rhizoprionodon acutus

Whitespotted Wedgeﬁsh(Whitespotted Guitarﬁsh)

Rhynchobatus djiddensis

Narrow Sawﬁsh

Anoxypristis cuspidata

Whitespotted Whipray

Himantura gerrardi

Narrownose SmoothhoundMustelus schmitti

Winghead sharks

Genus Eusphyra

THE FUTURE OF SHARKS: A REVIEW OF ACTION AND INACTIONJANUARY 201141

Matt Rand
Director
Global Shark Conservation
Pew Environment Group901 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004, USA
Tel: +1-202-887-8841
Email: mrand@pewtrusts.org

Glenn Sant
Global Marine Programme Leader
TRAFFIC
P.O. BOX U115
University of Wollongong
NSW 2522, Australia
Tel: +61-2-4221-3221
Email: glenn.sant@trafﬁc.org