EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 5.2.2009 
SEC(2009) 104 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 
  
On a European Community Plan of Action for the Conservation and  
Management of Sharks 
 
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
 
{COM(2009) 40 final} 
{SEC(2009) 103} {SEC(2009) 106} 
EN 2   EN 1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTA TION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
This Impact Assessment (IA) concerns a proposal for a Co mmunication from the 
Commission to the European Parliament a nd the Council on a European Community Plan 
of Action for the Conservation and Management  of Sharks. The report has been drafted 
taking into consideration the results of pub lic and institutional consultations and a study 
commissioned from a private consultant on this subject. 
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. Issues requiring action 
Despite their known vulnerabil ity to overfishing, chondricht hyans (sharks, rays and 
chimaeras) have been increasingly exploited in recent decades. A number of factors are 
responsible for this trend, which have made sharks a more valuable fisheries resource. 
Shark populations are generally fragile when targeted by unregulated fisheries, resulting 
in a pattern of ‘boom and bus t’. Rising catches are followed by rapid declines and very 
slow recoveries when stocks are then prot ected. Roughly one third of European shark 
species found in EU waters  are considered by the International Union for the 
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to be threatened with extinction.  
Within the framework of the Code of C onduct for Responsible Fisheries, the FAO 
adopted in 1999 the Internati onal Plan of Action for the c onservation and management of 
sharks (IPOA SHARKS). This international plan  is voluntary but all concerned states are 
encouraged to implement it. 
Therefore, the Commission pl ans to adopt at the beginni ng of 2009 of a Communication 
on a Community Plan of Action for the C onservation and Management of Sharks. 
2.2. Underlying drivers of the problem 
In general, chondrichthyans have life hist ories characterised by low fecundity, large 
young, slow growth, late maturit y, long life and high su rvival in all age classes. This set 
of life history characteristics results in low reproductive potential and low capacity for 
population increase, which limits their capaci ty to recover from over-fishing or other 
negative impacts. 
The ability to manage chondrichthyan stocks in both European waters and elsewhere is 
severely limited by the lack of detailed info rmation on catches, discards and landings. 
Traditionally, not only have catches, dis cards and landings be en under-recorded, but 
trade in shark products has also been poor ly understood and trad e statistics are poor. 
One of the main problems for the management  of sharks in EU waters is the mixed 
nature of demersal fisheries, which makes it very difficult to target action to protect sharks without severe consequences for the other species caught. Furthermore, the 
considerable overcapacity of the fleets that catch small sharks, skates and rays as by-
catch in demersal fisheries is also an impor tant driver of the management problems in 
this area. 
EN 3   EN 2.3. Who is affected? 
The Community Plan of Action (CPOA) w ill potentially affect a wide range of 
stakeholders. This impact assessment aims to capture the economic, environmental and 
social consequences for those affected st akeholders, which include the catching and 
processing sectors, retailers, consum ers, and civil society at large. 
2.4. How would the problem evolve? 
A number of legal measures have so far been  taken to address aspects of the conservation 
and management of sharks at both interna tional and Community level. However, there 
are clear indications of re ductions of shark populations. The true status of most 
elasmobranch populations, however, remains un certain due to lack of stock specific 
information particularly over significant time series. This situation is likely to persist if no further action is taken. 
3. O
BJECTIVES  
The Plan of Action is based on three main specific objectives: 
(1) Broaden the knowledge both on shark fisheries and on shar k species and their role 
in the ecosystem. 
(2) Ensure that directed fisheries for shar k are sustainable and that by-catches of 
shark resulting from other fi sheries are properly regulated. 
(3) Encourage a coherent approach between the internal and external EC fishery 
policy for sharks. 
In order to achieve the three specific objectives  of the CPOA as set out in its consultation 
document, the Commission proposed nine ‘fie lds of action’ or operational objectives. 
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
The IA presented in section 5 considers three main options: 
Option A: Status Quo with no Action Plan . 
This Option represents continuation of the current status quo with no CPOA and 
maintaining the current Community legislation on sharks, while adapting it to new 
circumstances where necessary taking into  consideration new scientific advice. 
Option B: A number of ‘Fields of Action’ to be addressed.  
Following the IA study, the fields of action ha ve been reduced from the nine submitted to 
public consultation to five by merging some of them. 
In addition, for each measure (or activity) a number of different implementation 
alternatives (‘hard’ or ‘sof t’) have been considered. 
Option C: Application of a strict precautionary approach . 
EN 4   EN Adoption of an Action Plan to modify th e current Community legislative framework 
applying to sharks by introducing strict inte rpretation of the precau tionary approach and 
prohibiting all directed shark fisheries or indirect catches of sharks by Community 
vessels, unless TACs and other regulatory meas ures have been put in place following 
scientific advice. 
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
5.1. Option A 
Environmental 
impacts Continued generic or mis-reporting of species may prevent the development of targeted 
fisheries management plans to prevent the over-exploitation of sharks. 
Despite increased efforts by the Commission, ICCAT, IOTC and other RFMOs to 
include pelagic sharks in stock assessments (especially for tuna fisheries), some stocks 
may continue to decline, with some of th e most vulnerable species facing extinction. 
This may be reversed by future recovery  plans that might be implemented under the 
status quo. 
Removal of keystone species and apex predators leads to simplification of the marine 
ecosystem, reduced biodiversity and reduced ecosystem functionality.  
Economic 
impacts The distant-water fleets of Spain, Port ugal and France are the most economically 
dependent on shark fisheries. A reduction in blue shark catches, especially in the Indian 
Ocean, where the blue shark stock status is ‘highly uncertain’ and where ‘because of 
their life history characteristics …. the blue sh ark is vulnerable to overfishing’ (IOTC, 
2007), might affect the surface longline fleet in particular. Although ICCAT considers 
blue shark catches in the N and S Atlantic to be above biomass at MSY (ICCAT, 2005), the long-term trend in CPUE is downwards. 
N Atlantic shark catches yield some benefits for EU fleets, although they make up a 
relatively small proportion of total production. 
It is highly likely that catches will decline over the longer term as a result of stock 
depletion, thus impacting both the catching and processing sub-sectors. 
This option has no significant economic impacts for the EU Member State control 
authorities, although this may change over the longer term. 
Social impacts Overall, the greatest employment dependency is found in the mixed fisheries of the N 
Atlantic, although social dependency (in term s of value of landing per employee) is 
higher for the distant-water fleets. Impacts are likely to be medium in magnitude and likelihood. 
Some EU NUTS-2 regions are particularly de pendent upon fisheries, including shark, 
especially Galicia, Bretagne, NE Scotland, Hi ghlands and Islands, and the Algarve, and 
may suffer significant social challenges as shark catches decline. Impacts are likely to be 
high in terms of both magnitude and likelihood in such dependent areas. 
The opportunities for stakeholder involve ment in sectoral governance will remain 
limited, contributing to a likely slide in stock status. 
Risks and trade-
offs Risks are minimal over the short to medium term. 
Public opinion would be negative if the CPOA was not adopted, given the high profile 
this issue has gained in the internationa l press and the recent progress made by others, 
e.g. the US NMFS. 
 
EN 5   EN 5.2. Option B 
Environmental 
impacts Strongly positive impact on the ability to manage stocks and to 
implement measures targeting vuln erable or threatened species. 
Improvements to stock status and dow nstream ecological benefits likely 
but longer term. 
These impacts are mostly low to medium in magnitude and medium to 
high in likelihood. 
Economic 
impacts Many measures likely to incur direct  costs for regulatory authorities, 
but to a lesser extent under softer regulatory conditions (e.g. €3.7m for 
40% observer coverage as against €9.26m for 100%). Impacts are 
mostly medium to high in magnitude and high in likelihood. 
Extra data collection is unlikely to  have a significant negative economic 
impact. 
Would help safeguard cu rrent economic benefits. 
Social impacts All stakeholders would gain positive di rect benefits over all time scales, 
plus longer-term indirect social benefits. Impacts are mostly medium in 
magnitude and high in likelihood. Field of 
Action 1: 
Improved 
identification 
& reporting 
Risks and 
trade-offs Stakeholder response would be hi ghly favourable, although divided 
over hard and soft sub-options.  
Risks stem from the acceptability and uptake of measures among non-
EU RFMO contracting parties (catches by EU vessels make up only a 
proportion of catches by other flags in areas regulated by RFMOs). 
Environmental 
impacts Strongly positive, esp. for vulnerable and threatened species, with low 
to medium magnitude and medium to high likelihood. 
Economic 
impacts Negative in terms of the high costs involved, albeit mostly short-term, 
but probably positive over the long te rm with economic benefits for 
implementing agencies. Impacts medium in magnitude but high in 
likelihood. 
Positive indirect economic impact over the longer term by sustaining or 
re-building stocks. 
Social impacts Positive direct impacts over all tim e scales, mainly through capacity 
enhancement. Many indirect benef its in maintaining or enhancing 
incomes based on shark catches. Impacts medium in magnitude but 
high in likelihood. Field of 
Action 2: 
Research-
based 
conservation 
measures 
Risks and 
trade-offs Stakeholder response would be highly favourable. 
Some risk regarding the acceptability and uptake of measures among 
non-EU RFMO contracting parties for those stocks extending into the 
high seas. 
Environmental 
impacts Reduced post-discard mortality and greater selectivity, as well as more 
accurate reporting. Impacts low in magnitude and medium in likelihood. 
Economic 
impacts Largely short-term direct costs for the EU and Member States, but 
positive impact for implementing agencies. Impacts medium in 
magnitude but high in likelihood. 
Positive economic benefits over the lo nger term for all stakeholders. Field of 
Action 3: 
Improved 
stakeholder 
awareness 
Social impacts Positive direct social impacts over all time scales through enhanced 
stakeholder knowledge and involvement in sectoral governance. 
Many indirect benefits in mainta ining or enhancing incomes based on 
shark catches. 
EN 6   EN Risks and 
trade-offs Stakeholder response would be highly favourable. 
Risks stem from the acceptability and uptake of measures among non-
EU RFMO contracting parties for those stocks extending into the high seas. 
Environmental 
impacts Highly positive direct response in terms of both stock conservation and 
biodiversity. ‘Harder’ options (e .g. immediate precautionary TACs) 
yield the same benefits but over a shorter time scale. Impacts high in both magnitude and likelihood. 
Economic 
impacts Negative short-term impacts for catching and processing sectors, which 
may be significant for highly dependent fleets. Most costs would 
diminish over the longer term. Impacts medium in magnitude but high in likelihood. 
Indirect impacts would be strongly positive over the longer term as 
stocks recover and controls are relaxed. 
Social impacts Patchy but significant negative impacts over the short to medium term, 
especially for the catching and processing sectors. Impacts medium in magnitude but high in likelihood. 
Many indirect benefits in mainta ining or enhancing incomes based on 
shark catches, especially over the longer term. Field of 
Action 4: 
Adjust fishing 
effort and 
catches to 
available 
resources 
Risks and 
trade-offs All stakeholders supportive, alt hough sensitive to the nature of 
implementation measures (e.g. immediate or phased introduction). 
Environmental 
impacts Significant impact for certain species, particularly blue shark and short-
fin mako sharks, which are the fisheries currently subject to the 
majority of finning derogations. Impacts medium in both magnitude and likelihood. 
Economic 
impacts Mainly impacts distant-water fleets making use of derogations under 
Regulation 1185/2003. High likelihood but low to medium magnitude. 
Monitoring, control and surveilla nce (MCS) costs would increase but 
probably not significantly. 
Social impacts Short-term, medium-magnitude negati ve impacts, especially on distant-
water fleets and home ports (e.g. Galicia).  Field of 
Action 5 
Minimise 
wastes and 
discards from 
sharks 
Risks and 
trade-offs Public opinion suggests some action is required, but there is a risk of 
non-action by other parties and effort  displacement to other vulnerable 
species. 
 
5.3. Option C 
Environ-
mental 
impacts Similar to Option B, but over a shorter ti me scale. High magnitude and high impact. 
NE Atlantic stocks would particular ly benefit in terms of recovery.  
Economic 
impacts Short- to medium-term negative economic impacts would be highly significant and 
certain, with some specific targeted a nd mixed fisheries potentially becoming 
unviable.  
Without shark-related income (approx. 25%),  EU distant-water longlining fleets may 
become unviable (only unde r a no-catch scenario). 
Over the longer term, this option may be posit ive for all stakeholders if stocks recover 
sufficiently to allow precautionary TACs. 
Social 
impacts Short- to medium-term negative social im pacts in some areas of N Atlantic and 
Mediterranean with dependencies. 
EN 7   EN Highly negative short- to medium-term soci al impact on a limited number of highly 
dependent home ports and downstream processes for distant-water fleets. 
Risks and 
trade-offs The highly significant short-term impacts of this option would resu lt in significant 
industry and associated political opposition. 
The benefits from shared stocks in the hi gh seas and third count ry waters would be 
diminished through non-compliance and a (pre sumed) lack of re gulatory uptake by 
RFMO contracting parties. 
5.4. Comparison of the impacts 
Impact Option Environmental Economic Social 
Option A • Progressive decline in 
many shark species and ecosystem impairment. • Little short- to 
medium-term impact, but increasing over the long term  • Little short- to 
medium-term impact, but increasing over the long term 
Option B 
FoA 1 • Improved management, 
esp. of threatened / 
vulnerable species • Little negative impact 
on industry but costly 
to implement 
 • Some direct benefits 
for all over all time 
scales 
Option B 
FoA 2 • Improved management, 
esp. of threatened / 
vulnerable species • High direct public costs 
over the short term, but 
indirect benefits later • Improved public sector 
employment and 
capacity 
Option B 
FoA 3 • Benefits limited to 
species susceptible to intervention • Some direct public 
costs over the short term, but indirect benefits later • Indirect benefits 
through increased stakeholder capacity for sectoral governance 
Option B 
FoA 4 • Strongly positive, esp. 
with harder sub-options• Negative short-term 
impacts on catching / 
processing sectors, but improving over the long term • Localised but 
significant short- to 
medium-term impacts on dependents, improving over the long term 
Option B 
FoA 5 • Significant impact for 
certain species • May impact longlining 
distant-water fleet • May impact longlining 
distant-water fleet 
Option C • Similar to Option B, 
but over shorter time scale • Highly negative over 
short and medium term. • Highly negative over 
short and medium term 
EN 8   EN 6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
The options for applying the Shark Action Plan are examined above along with their 
relative impacts. 
Given the evidence of a deteriorating situa tion for a number of shark populations, Option 
A would not allow the EU to come up with an effective systematic response in time and 
the present situation could become unacceptable. 
If fully implemented and complied with, Option C  would be highly e ffective in achieving 
both data and management objectives. Howeve r, the strong drawbacks noted above mean 
that this cannot be the preferred option. 
The IA therefore concludes th at the preferred option is an  amended version of Option B . 
The main elements of the selected option include measures for data collection and 
scientific advice, management and technica l measures and further limitations on shark 
finning practices. 
7. CONCLUSION  
In summary, there are negative impacts associ ated with the present status quo increasing 
over the long-term. The actions under op tion B, as amended, should go along way to 
reversing those impacts, particularly within Community waters, without unacceptable social and economic short- or medium-term impacts.