EN    EN  
 EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, XXX 
[…](2011) XXX draft 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
Accompanying the document 
Proposal for a Regulation of the Euro pean Parliament and of the Council 
amending Council Regulation (EC) 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board 
vessels 
 
 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF IN TERESTED P ARTIES .............................. 3  
1.1. ORGANISATION AND TIMING ................................................................................................................. 3  
1.2. CONSULTATION AND EXPERTISE ........................................................................................................... 3  
2. PROBLEM DE FINITI ON............................................................................................................. ............. 4  
2.1. SCOPE OF COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)  NO 1185/2003......................................................................... 4  
2.2. SHARK FINNING : DEFINITION AND BAN ................................................................................................. 4  
2.3. SHARK FISHERIES AND SHARK FIN TRADE ............................................................................................. 6  
2.4. PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 9  
2.5. EVOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM ............................................................................................................. 12  
2.6. WHO IS AFFECTED ?............................................................................................................................. 1 3 
3. OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................................... ....................... 17  
4. POLICY OPTIONS................................................................................................................. .................. 18  
4.1. LIST OF OPTIONS ............................................................................................................................... .. 18 
4.2. DESCRIPTION OF POLICY OPTIONS ....................................................................................................... 18  
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS............................................................................................................ ........... 20  
5.1. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPORTANCE OF ELASMOBRANCH FISHERIES IN THE EU............................... 20  
5.2. IMPACTS OF EACH POLICY OPTION ...................................................................................................... 21  
6. COMPARING OF THE POLICY OPTIONS ........................................................................................ 30  
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION.................................................................................................... 34  
ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................ ................................... 36  
ANNEX  I – SCIENTIFIC  ADVICE................................................................................................................. 36  
ANNEX  II - MEMBER  STATES'  COMPLIANCE  WITH  THE  ANNUAL  REPORTING  OBLIGATION.... 39  
 
 
EN  2
GLOSSARY  
CPUE – Catch Per Unit of (fishing) Effort 
 ICCAT – International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 
 IOTC – Indian Ocean Tuna Commission  MSY – Maximum Sustainable Yield; the optimal cat ch that may be taken from a fishing stock 
year after year without e ndangering its capacity to regenerate for the future. 
 RFMO – Regional Fisheries Manageme nt Organisation, e.g. ICCAT, IOTC. 
 STECF – Scientific Technical a nd Economic Committee for Fisheries 
 Surface Longlines – Fishing lines often several kilometres long, with baited hooks sometimes numbering in the thousands, set at fixe d intervals by means of branch lines. 
 
EN  3
 
Procedural issues and consu ltation of interested parties 
1.1. Organisation and timing 
 
This Impact Assessment concerns a proposal  from the Commission to the European 
Parliament and Council to amend Council Re gulation (EC) 1185/2003 on the removal of fins 
of sharks on board vessels1. Its development is foreseen in Agenda Planning 2010/MARE/005 
and aims to fulfil one of the commitments take n by the Commission within the context of EU 
Action Plan for Sharks2, i.e. to amend Council Regulation (EC) 1185/2003 in a manner which 
contributes to enhanced conservatio n and management of shark stocks. 
 An Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG) was set up. The following services were invited to this IASG: SG, SJ, TRADE, EN V, ENTR, ECFIN, EMPL, REGIO and CLIMA. 
The IASG has met twice, on 16 June 2010 and 5 May 2011 with the presence of MARE and 
ENV.  
1.2. Adaptations to the report in line with the comments of the Impact Assessment 
Board 
 
DG MARE has welcomed the comments, suggestions and questions of the Impact Assessment Board and has adapted the report so as  to address these. In  particular, the report 
has been adapted in order to provide more  evidence regarding the existing problem (see 
Annex III), to analyse an additional set of poten tial policy options (Section 4.2), text has been 
re-arranged to improve coherence,  additions were made to the specific objectives (Section 3), 
differentiation between vessels and their activities has been made (Section 5.1), separate 
analyses of the impacts of options 1(i) and 1( ii) were made (Section 5.2), the analyses of 
impacts of options 2 and 3 have been impr oved (Section 5.2), the Impacts on Conservation 
subsection (Section 6) has been improved, a nd a summary of the results of the public 
consultation was inserted (Annex IV).  
1.3. Consultation and expertise 
 
The relevant information was drawn partly fr om the Impact Assessment carried out for the 
preparation of the "European Community Plan of Action for the Conservation and 
Management of Sharks
3", partly from direct research carried out by DG MARE services, and 
partly from the results of the public consultation carried out between 15 November 2010 and 
21 February 20114. No external consultant was engaged. 
In the consultation specific emphasis was put on:  which option and/or sub-option stakeholders 
consider the most appropriate and the least appropriate. In addition to this, DG MARE directly asked for the likely effects on the co mmercial operators and on the associated trade as 
                                                
 
1 Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003  of 26 June 2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels 
2 COM(2009) 40 final  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a 
European Community Action Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 
3 SEC(2009) 103  Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the communication from 
the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a European Community Plan of Action for the 
Conservation and Management of Sharks - Impact assessment 
4 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/partners/consultations/shark_finning_ban/index_en.htm   
 
EN  4
well as on the conservation of shark stocks if th e vessels were to be ob liged to land fins and 
carcasses simultaneously at the same port. 
More than 5,000 contributions we re received. The res ponses indicate that virtually all NGO's 
and an overwhelming majority of the public support Option 3. Part of the sector supports 
option 1 (either 1(a) or 1(b)), whereas other part s of the sector propose an alternative: Raising 
the 5% fin to live-weight ratio to 6 or 6.5% to reflect the average ratio applicable to the two 
main species caught by EU vessels (blue shark and shortfin mako) and to the fin-cutting and 
fin-retention techniques employed by these vessels.  
The arguments presented by the various stakeholde rs vary in quality and content. The most 
well-informed and well-argued positions are pres ented by the NGO's and the fishing industry, 
as well as some local and nati onal authorities and some academic  and research associations. 
On the other hand, the vast majority of the general public seem to be poorly informed: it 
seems that they reacted to the consultation pa per after viewing various  television broadcasts 
on shark finning, without reading the paper itself. This led to the submission of approximately 
2,500 contributions which are not useable for the purposes of the Impact Assessment. 
The Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) states5 that finning 
should not take place, because it leads to in creased mortality of sharks. STECF recommends 
measures to eradicate finning without ex emption. Regional Fisheries Management 
Organizations (RFMO's) have  scientific committees which provide advice on stock 
management. The scientific committees with in the International Commission for the 
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) a nd the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) 
have attempted to evaluate the various geographical  distinct stocks of bl ue shark and shortfin 
mako in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Though ther e is a general lack of  data on all of these 
stocks, the ICCAT shark assessment group suggests that blue shark stocks  are probably above 
Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) in the North and South Atlantic and in the 
Mediterranean. In the Pacific, the blue shark st ock seems to be in a rather good state, whereas 
no conclusions can be drawn regarding the Indian  Ocean stock, due to lack of data. The data 
necessary to carry out proper stock assessments for shortfin mako is lacking in the Atlantic 
and Indian Oceans as well as the Mediterranean Sea. However, reductions on the catch per 
unit effort (CPUE) suggest that the stocks may be declining. 
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION 
2.1. Scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 
According to Article 1 (Scope) of the Regulation:  
"This Regulation shall apply to the removal of shark fins, re tention on board, transhipment 
and landing of sharks or shark fins: 
1. by vessels in maritime waters under the sovereignty or the jurisdiction of Member States; 2. by vessels flying the flag or registered in Member States in other maritime waters." 
2.2. Shark Finning: definition and ban 
Finning is the practice of severi ng and retaining the fins of sharks while discarding the carcass 
at sea. Finning is highly wastef ul and unsustainable. Recognizing that sharks, skates and rays 
                                                
 
5 Commission Staff Working Document 27th Plenary Meeting Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (Plen-08-01) Plenary Meeting 14-18 April 2008, Hamburg 
https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_libra ry/get_file?folderId=21111&name=DLFE-6501.pdf   
 
EN  5
are particularly vulnerable to overexploitati on, that many shark stocks are under serious 
threat, and that the practice of shark finning c ontributes to excessive mortality and to stock 
depletion the Council in 2003, adopted Regulatio n (EC) No. 1185/2003 on the removal of fins 
of sharks on board vessels1 (hereafter referred to as "the Regulation") . Although this 
Regulation aims to contribute to shark cons ervation, its scope is limited to banning the 
practice of finning and to regulating the on- board processing of sharks. The Regulation 
applies to all types of fishing in EU waters, and to all EU vessels fishing in non-EU waters. 
The EU has also taken a proactive attitude  towards finning prohib itions in various 
international fora, namely Regional Fisher ies Management Organizations (RFMO's). 
The Regulation bans finning without exception, and also bans the removal of fins of sharks on 
board vessels. However, by derogation, shark fi ns may be removed from carcasses on board 
vessels which hold special fishing permits. This  on-board removal of fi ns, which according to 
the Regulation shall not involve the discard of a ny carcasses, is not to be confused with the 
practice of finning. In order to en sure that no discarding of ca rcasses has occurred, the weight 
of the fins must never exceed 5% of the live weight of the shark catch on board. The 
Regulation permits landings of fins and carcasse s in separate ports, which makes it difficult 
for inspectors to be certain that no discarding has taken place. The main identified problem 
with the current Regulation centres on this weakness in control, which stems from the 
existence of permits allowing th e removal of fins on board.  
Even though the current Regulation prohibits th e removal of shark fins on board vessels, 
special permits allowing the removal of fins  on board may be issued by derogation. Such 
permits may be issued by the competent Member State authorities to fishing vessels for which 
a capacity to use all parts of sh arks has been demonstrated and where the need for the separate 
on-board processing of shark fins and of the rema ining parts of sharks has been justified. The 
Regulation does not specify what constitutes valid justification for these purposes. This means 
that it is for the flag Member State to interp ret this provision and ac cordingly to issue and 
manage, with associated conditions, special permits for on-board removal of shark fins. 
Member States must submit annual reports to the Commission on implementation of the 
Regulation, including the following information:  (a) compliance with the prohibition to 
discard shark carcasses, (b) complia nce with the 5% fin-to-live-we ight ratio, (c) the number of 
special fishing permits issued and (d) the techni cal basis for setting th e fin-to-carcass weight 
ratio. This reporting obligation concerns 22 Member States a nd covers the reference years 
2004 onwards. The majority of Member States ha ve consistently failed to meet the reporting 
deadline, and each year the Commission Services have had to send reminders to the relevant 
authorities. 
The current Regulation allows for the landing of fins and carcasses in  separate ports, at 
separate times. In order to ensure that no finning has o ccurred, a fin-to-carcass weight ratio 
has been established. Permit holders  must record in a logbook the weight of shark fins and the 
remaining parts of sharks retained on board, transhipped or landed. The relevant documentation (as defined by Member State author ities) of landings, transhipments and sales 
of fins and other shark parts shall be used to complete logbook records. The weight of the fins 
kept from the catch shall never exceed the theore tical weight of the fins  that would correspond 
to the remaining parts of sharks retained on boa rd, transhipped or landed. In no case shall the 
theoretical weight of the fins exceed 5 % of the live
6 weight of the shark catch. Live weight is 
the weight of the shark before any processing ha s occurred. Dressed weight  is the weight after 
processing, i.e. after beheading, evisceration, fin removal and so metimes skinning.  Due to the 
                                                 
6 "Live weight" is the term used throughout EU fisheries legisl ation to refer to the weight of the fish as soon as it 
has been hauled on board, and prior to any form of processing or degradation. The term "whole weight" used in 
other legal texts such as those of the USA and Canada generally has the same meaning as "live weight". 
 
EN  6
relatively large weight of sharks ' heads and internal organs, th e dressed weight may be 30 to 
50% less than the live weight. RFMO's such as ICCAT and IOTC have rules stating that the 
weight of the fins of sharks must not exceed 5%  of the weight of sharks on board. These rules 
do not specify whether this 5% should refer to live weight or dressed weight. Many countries 
which are members of these RFMO's set the lim it at 5% of the dressed weight, whereas the 
EU Regulation goes by live wei ght, which is approximately doubl e the dressed weight. As a 
result, NGO's have been criticizing the EU Re gulation as being one of the weakest finning 
bans in the world. Furthermore, EU vessels subj ect to the 5% live weight rule and landing in 
third country ports have been f ound to be in breach of the lo cal rules which only permit a fin 
weight allowance of 5% of th e dressed carcass weight (see  Section 5.1., Option 2, Economic 
Impacts). 
It has become clear, via information received fr om national authorities, the fishing sector, 
NGO's and RFMO's, that the current system of we ight ratios, which allows separate landings 
of fins and carcasses, has various flaws and w eaknesses. Between the entry into force of the 
Regulation and today, five Member  States have reported numerous  instances of breach of the 
Regulation. These reports come predominantly fr om those Member States that have been 
issuing special fishing permits, and the infracti ons committed consist in their majority of 
violations of the 5% fin-to-carcass weight allowance. Though all RFMO's with finning bans 
currently use fin to carcass ratio s, in recent years such system s have been challenged, mostly 
due to the associated difficulties in control a nd enforcement. An alternative, the fins-attached 
approach has been discussed in RFMO's over r ecent years, and some countries such as Costa 
Rica and the USA, have already adopted this system. 
2.3. Shark Fisheries and shark fin trade 
Due to their characteristics of slow growth, late maturity and a small number of young, shark 
populations are particular ly vulnerable to overf ishing and take a long time to recover from 
depletion. Sharks have been increasingly target ed by fisheries due to an increased demand for 
shark products (fins in pa rticular), especially on the Asian market, where fins from the most 
desirable species can fetch up to 500€/kg7. The value of fins is generally much higher than the 
value of shark meat and given that on-board st orage space is usually limited, there is a strong 
economic incentive to fin (i.e. retain  fins while discarding carcasses).  
European shark fisheries operate in the Atlantic , Indian and Pacific Oceans and are larger than 
is generally understood. The EU is possibly the world's largest shark fishing entity9, although 
systematic underreporting of catches by fleets worldwide prevents one from drawing this conclusion with certainty. According to existing catch reports, European fleets accounted for more than 13% of global shark landings in 2004
8, and an average of 13.4% of the global 
landings reported from 2000 to 2008, i.e. the ca tch of the top 4 EU shark-fishing Member 
States (Spain, France, Portugal and the Un ited Kingdom) accounted for 110,436 tons out of 
the 824,364 tons landed globally. The data pertaining to th e surface longline fisheries 
undertaken by these four Member States in the Atlantic, Pacific and In dian Oceans, are not 
detailed enough to paint a detailed enough picture of the catch composition. 
Table 1.  Average reported landings (in tons) by vessels of the top 20 shark fishing countries from 
2000 to 2008.  
Rank Country/territory Average landings 2000 - 2008 Proportion of global catch 
                                                 
7 Hareide, N.R., J. Carlson, M. Clarke , S. Clarke, J. Ellis, S. Fordham, S. Fowler, M. Pinho, C. Raymakers, F. 
Serena, B. Seret, and S. Polti. 2007. European Shark Fi sheries: a preliminary investigation into fisheries, 
conversion factors, trade products, markets and management measures. European Elasmobranch Association. 
http://www.eulasmo.org/v.asp?level2id=6465&rootid=6465&depth =1 
8 FAO 2004 reporthttp://www.fao.org/fishery/publications/en 
 
EN  7
1 Indonesia 109,248 13.3 
2 India 74,050 9.0 
3 Spain 59,777 7.3 
4 Taiwan 47,636 5.8 
5 Argentina 35,089 4.3 
6 Mexico 33,971 4.1 
7 Pakistan 32,277 3.9 
8 US 30,686 3.7 
9 Japan 24,961 3.0 
10 Malaysia 24,334 3.0 
11 Thailand 22,729 2.8 
12 France 21,511 2.6 
13 Brazil 20,014 2.4 
14 Sri Lanka 19,989 2.4 
15 New Zealand 18,005 2.2 
16 Portugal 15,819 1.9 
17 Nigeria 14,311 1.7 
18 Iran 14,001 1.7 
19 United Kingdom 13,356 1.6 
20 Korea 11,887 1.4 
 World total 824,364 100 
 EU top 4 total 110,436* 13.4 
These figures exclude discarded and unreported catches , which combined worldwide, likely exceed reported 
catches9. 
* The total production of EU capture fisheries is 5,150,000 tons. 
 
The FAO Fishstat Capture Productio n Database reports retained catches of fish species and 
does not include informa tion on discards. A study10 by FAO has estimated that more than 
200,000 tons of sharks are discarde d per year. Vari ous other studies11,12,13,14 have reported that 
85-100% of sharks caught in longline and purse seine fisheries in the Pacific and Indian 
Oceans are discarded. Furthermore, several coun tries which are known to catch sharks, do not 
report these catches to the FAO,  and significant disc repancies between cat ch data and export 
data from some countries indicate that there is significant underreport ing. Estimates of the 
volume and species composition of shark discar ds remain limited, meaning that the true 
impact of fishing on sharks is generally unknown15. The Spanish and Portuguese surface 
longlining sector has informed the Commission in writing that they do not discard carcasses 
and that they market them instead. During th e public consultation a Portuguese organization 
                                                 
9 Fowler, S. and Seret, B. 2010. Shark fins in Europe: Implications for reforming the EU finning ban. 
10 Kelleher, K. (2005). Discards in the World's Marine Fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. 
No. 470. Rome, FAO. 
11 Amandé M.J., Chassot, E.,Chavance, P., Pianet, R. (2008). Silky shark ( Carcharhinus falciformis ) bycatch 
in the French tuna purse-sei ne fishery of the Indian Ocean. (IOTC-2008-WPEB-16). 
12 Gilman, E., Clarke, S., Brothers, N., Alfaro-Shiguetto, 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 and Shark Avoidance Strategies . 
Western Pacific Regional Fishery Ma nagement Council, Honolulu, USA. 
13 Hender, J., Ward, P., Knight, E and Darbyshire, R. (2007). Pilot Scientific Monitoring Program for the 
Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery Final Report (2003–06), BRS Canberra  
14 Xiaojie-DAI, Liu-xiong XU and Li-ming Sonng (2006). Catch Estimation of Pelagic Sharks by Chinese 
Longline Observer in the Eastern Pacific Ocean . Document SAR-7-09a IATTC Tropical Tuna Working  Group 
to Review Stock Assessment, 7th meeting, La Jolla California (USA), 15-19 May 2006. Available at: http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/SAR-7-0 9a-Shark-bycatch-CHN-LL-fishery.pdf
   
15 Lack, M. and Sant, G. (2009). Trends in Global Shark Catch and Recent Developments inManagement. 
TRAFFIC International. 
 
EN  8
informed the Commission that in the case of blue shark, the revenue  from marketing all 
carcasses makes up approximately 58% of the shark-derived revenue, the remaining 42% 
coming from fins.  
 
Figure 1. Trends in shark catches  of various countries and th e EU as a whole, between 2000 
and 2008 (FAO Fishstat, taken from Fowler and Seret, 20109). In general, shark catches are 
decreasing worldwide and appare nt upward trends can often be ascribed to increased 
reporting of shark catches or differentiation between shark cat ches and catches of other 
species.  Considerable data deficiencies exist with rega rds to a lack of species-specific catch reporting 
and the fact that most (but not all) elasmobran ch catches in EU waters and further afield, are 
bycatches
16 from other targeted fisheries. The mixe d nature of most of the fisheries from 
which elasmobranch catches are made, makes it difficult to determine with any certainty how 
dependent individual fishermen/ vessels are on catches of these species or how much value-
added is made specifically from elasmobranch  catches, because virtually no fleet segments 
rely exclusively on elasmobranch catches. Fu rthermore, there are no coastal communities 
within the EU which exclusively re ly on shark fishing or processing. 
 Though these fisheries historically  targeted primarily tunas and swordfish, longline catches of 
oceanic sharks are as large as or larger th an the catch of tuna and swordfish, and most 
longliners now actively target sharks. EU su rface longliner catches include between 40% 
(Indian Ocean) and 68% (Atlantic Ocean) of shark (mostly blue shark Prionace glauca ). 
Information concerning the involvement of EU Memb er States in international trade of sharks 
and shark fins varies according to the source. Trade statistics indicate that in 2005, Spain, 
France and the Netherlands
17 were involved in the shark fi n trade in the Hong Kong market, 
which is the largest shark fin market in the wo rld, representing 50% of the worldwide sharkfin 
trade. After China, Spai n is the second largest exporter of shark fins to the Hong Kong market 
and is responsible for around 10% of  the shark fins traded there18. The Galician port of Vigo 
                                                 
16 The two main species caught by EU -flagged surface longliner s are actively targeted via the use of specific 
gears such as steel leaders to which the baited hooks  are attached, and by temporal and spatial execution 
of fishing activities. 
17 The Netherlands appears to be more of a trans it hub rather than an act ual "producer" of fins. 
18 Hong Kong Foreign Trade Statistics for Sharkfin Imports and Exports. 2005. 
 
EN  9
and the port of Las Palmas in the Canary Isla nds are the European centres for the shark fin 
trade. In Las Palmas, both Spanish and Ja panese surface longliners land shark fins.  
According to the annual reports submitted to the Commission by the Spanish authorities in 
accordance with Article 6(1) of the Regul ation, between 2004 and 2008 Spanish vessels 
holding special fishing permits landed fins an d carcasses processed in  various ways in non-
EU ports in Australia, Brazil, Cape Verde, Ch ile, Ecuador, Fiji, French Polynesia, Indonesia, 
Kenya, Mauritius, Namibia, New Caledonia, Pana ma, Peru, Senegal, South Africa, Trinidad 
and Tobago, and Uruguay. The annual shark landi ngs in non-EU ports by Spanish vessels 
holding on-board processing permits were 8,07 7 tons in 2005, 9,003 to ns in 2006, 8,295 tons 
in 2007 and 9,119 tons in 2008.  The annual shar k landings (EU ports  and non-EU ports) by 
Spanish vessels holding on-board processing pe rmits were 20,447 tons in 2003, 21,417 tons in 
2004, and 18,936 tons in 2005. Of the 18,936 tons landed in 2005, 10,859 tons were landed in 
EU ports (i.e. 57%) and 8,077 tons were landed in non-EU ports (i.e. 43%). In 2003, 2004 and 
2005, Spanish vessels with special fishing permits caught an average of 87% of the total shark 
catch of the Spanish fleet. According to the Portuguese 2009 report, the majority of Portuguese vessels land their catch in Portuguese and Span ish ports, though some landings 
take place in 3
rd country ports, notably Cape Verde, Uruguay, Namibia, Togo and Mauritius. 
Portuguese vessels holding specia l fishing permits always land  their fins and carcasses 
simultaneously in the same port. 
No TAC's have been set for blue shark and shor tfin mako due to the lack of relevant data. 
TAC's are being discussed in ICCAT for porb eagle, shortfin mako, thresher sharks and 
hammerhead sharks. The Commission made proposal s, aligned with scie ntific advice, to 
prohibit fishing, transhipment and landing of th ese species and familie s at the annual ICCAT 
meeting in November 2010. The prohibition was accepted for the hammerhead family (except one species), but rejected for the thresher shar k family (except bigeye thresher for which a 
fishing ban had already been in accepted in 2009). The Commission will continue to seek 
scientific advice on the st ate of stocks of blue shark and sh ortfin mako, and will look into the 
possibility of establishing TAC's in EU waters for these species in the future. Data collection 
on the status of these stocks is essent ial if TAC's are to be established.  
2.4. Problems with the current system 
The main identified problem with the current Regulation centres on the weakness in control, 
which stems from the existence of permits (issued at Member States' discretion) allowing the removal of fins on board, and from the use of weight  ratios in an attempt to verify that finning 
has not occurred. Consequently the follo wing specific problems are identified: 
 1. The Regulation permits processed shark carcasses and fins to be landed in separate ports 
at separate times, making it impossible to physic ally weigh fins and carcasses against each 
other, thus making it impossible for inspectors to be certain that finning has not occurred. 
Inspectors must rely on the figures recorded in the logbook. Such separate landings by EU 
vessels occur in ports worldw ide with varying levels of control. Furthermore, the 
Regulation does not require that land ings be made in designated ports
19, where appropriate 
inspection services are available at all times. 
 2. To verify the compliance with the 5% fin to  carcass live weight ratio, inspectors must 
compare the total weight of landed shark car casses and the total weight of landed fins. 
                                                
 
19The designation of ports is encouraged by RFMO's or imposed by various regulations (e.g. the Mediterranean 
Regulation), on EU Member Stat es and/or non-EU states.   
 
EN  10
Given that after processing sharks are no l onger whole, inspectors must use conversion 
factors to calculate the equivalent live wei ght based on the dresse d (processed) weight. 
Fin to carcass weight ratios ar e different for each species and may even vary within a 
species, depending on location and life stage. Freezing and/or drying of fins before 
inspection may change the weight of the fins , thus causing further deviation from the 
theoretical weight ratio. No single ratio can apply to all of these contingencies. Therefore the use of a single ratio adds uncertainty and considerable enforcement burden. Once 
again, when fins and carcasses are landed in se parate ports inspectors must rely on the 
figures recorded in the logbook in order to make the necessa ry weight conversions and 
comparisons.  
3. Fleets around the world use diffe rent fin cutting techniques a nd retain different fin sets 
from carcasses. The Spanish and Portuguese fl eets predominantly catch two species: blue 
shark (Prionace  glauca  – 87% of the catch by we ight) and shortfin mako ( Isurus 
oxyrinchus  – 10%). They cut fins in such a way as  to retain a signif icant amount of flesh 
attached to the base of the fin. Furthermore,  the Spanish and Portuguese fleets retain and 
market both the primary and secondary fins (fir st and second dorsal, pectoral, pelvic, anal 
as well as the entire tail and caudal peduncle, i.e. the rear pa rt of the spine). The Spanish 
authorities have communicated to the Commission in their annual reports that the 5% 
weight ratio does not correspond to the reality of the Spanis h commercial fleet, and should 
be raised to 6.5% for fleets catching mostly blue shark. Th is position of the Spanish 
authorities is in line with the responses of pa rt of the Spanish longline sector to the public 
consultation. The Spanish authorities requested  that different ratios be applied to each 
fishery/fleet in order to reflect the variability  in ratios, depending on species, location and 
season. The Portuguese authorities communicated  to the Commission, in their reports for 
the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 (the 2007 and 2008 re ports have not been received yet), 
that given the species caught and the traditi onal fin-cutting method used by the Portuguese 
fleet, the fin-to-carcass ratio is be tween 5 and 6% of the live weight. 
Other fleets often retain only the primary fins i.e. the front dorsal, the pectorals and the 
lower, smaller lobe of the tail). These divers e practices result in significant variations in 
the fin-to-carcass weight ratio.  
 
Figure 2. Shark fins retained by different fleets. The fins highlighted in dark grey constitute 
the primary fin set, whereas those in light grey constitute the secondary fin set. EU vessels holding special fishing permits typi cally cut and market all fins. 
  
 
EN  11
Table 2. Various fin-to-carcass we ight ratios for blue shark pr ocessed in different ways, and 
with different fins sets being retained.  
Product Country/ 
Region Fin set 
taken Fin weight/ carcass 
live weight (%) Fin weight/ carcass 
dressed weight (%) 
Wet fins, live weight USA Primary 2.16 - 
Wet fins, live weight USA Primary 2.06 - 
Wet fins, live weight - - 2.06 - 
Wet fins, live weight - - 2.16 - 
Wet fins, live weight - - 2.08 - 
Wet fins, live weight New Zealand - 2.08 - 
Wet fins, live weight Spain All fins 6.53 - 
Wet fins, live weight NW Pacific All fins 6.00 - 
Wet fins, live weight Portugal All fins 6.66 - 
Wet fins, dressed weight - - - 3.74 
Wet fins, dressed weight - - - 4.46 
Wet fins, dressed weight USA Primary - 3.74 
Wet fins, dressed weight Spain All fins - 14.72 
Wet fins, dressed weight Portugal All fins 6.56 - 
Dry fins, dressed weight USA Primary - 1.07 
Dry fins, live weight USA Primary 0.60 - 
 
The fin to live weight ratio for blue shark is calculated at 6.0 to 6.7% by various studies20  
based on Spanish processing and fin retention pr actices, as opposed to 2.1% to 2.2 % as based 
on US and New Zealand practices. The fin to dresse d weight ratio for blue shark is calculated 
at 14.7% based on Spanish processing methods, as  opposed to 3.7% to 4.5% based on US and 
other processing methods. For shortfin mako the fin-to-live-weight ratio is 4%21 based on 
Portuguese processing methods, as opposed to 1.7 to 1.8 based on US, New Zealand and other 
processing methods22 . The fin-to-dressed-carcass weight  ratio for shortfin mako is 5.8%5 
based on Spanish processing methods, whereas it ranges from 3.0 to 4.4% based on US and 
other processing methods8, 9. Further variability in ratios is  introduced depending on the state 
of the fins and flesh, i.e. fresh, frozen, wet and dried. Additionally, ratios vary for each shark 
species. According to NGO's and various researchers and academics23, under the current 
weight ratio system it is possible for fishermen to fin and high-grade24 sharks without 
exceeding the ratio defined in the Regulation, th ereby avoiding detection or sanction. NGO's 
                                                 
20 Neves dos Santos M. and Garcia A., 2004. Factors for conversion of fin weight into round weight for the blue 
shark ( Prionace glauca ). SCRS/2004/101 Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT , 58(3): 935–941 (2005). 123. 
Mejuto J. and García-Cortés B., 2004. Preliminary relationships between the wet fin weight and body weight of 
some large pelagic sharks caught by  the Spanish surface longline fleet. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT , 56(1): 243–
253. 
Gordievskaya VS (1973) Shark flesh in the food industry. Israel Program for Scientific Transl. IPST Cat. No. 
60080 2. Published for the National Marine Fish eries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, US Department of Commerce. Washington DC. USA. 
21 Santos, M.N. and Garcia, A. 2008. New data on the ratio between fin and body weights for shark species 
caught by the Portuguese surface l ongline fleet.  Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62 (5): 1592-1601. 
22 NMFS/NEFSC. 1992. In literature, Jack Casey, Nati onal Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries 
Science Center, Narrangansett Laboratory, USA. 
BAREMORE, I.E., B. Winner, N. Kohler, and J. Mello. 20 05. Differences in the ratios of fin to carcass weight 
among fourteen species of sharks. Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, 21st annual meeting of the 
American Elasmobranch Society, Tampa, Florida, USA, 6-11 July 2005 (abstract and presentation). 
Cortes, E. and Neer, J.A., 2006. Preliminary Reassessment of the validity of the 5% Fin to Carcass Weight Ratio for Sharks. Col. Vol. Sci.  Pap. ICCAT 59: 1025-1036. 
23 NGO's, researchers and academics have made thes e statements via various communications with the 
Commission, including the public consultation on the amendment of Council Regulation (EC) 1185/2003. 
24 High grading is a practice of selectively harvesting or landing fish (or fish products such as shark fins) fish so 
that those having the highest quality and/or commanding the highest prices are landed and marketed. Fish or fish 
products not considered of lowe r quality are discarded overboard. 
 
EN  12
argue that the current EU ratio is too high. The 5% fin to live weight ratio laid down in the 
Regulation is the most generous ratio in comp arison to ratios specified by similar legislation 
worldwide. The annual reports of the Member States submitted in acc ordance with Article 
6(1) of the Regulation, indicate that some  finning  as well as unauthorized on-board 
processing are taking place (see Annex III), but the extent and frequency are difficult to determine. 
 4. Where on-board processing involves beheadin g and skinning it hampers the collection 
and/or verification of data such as speci es identification, catch composition, age/size 
population structure etc., whic h are vital for the development of management and 
conservation measures. Where on-board proces sing also involves fin removal (i.e. as 
practised by the majority of the EU surface longline fleet), species identification becomes 
virtually impossible in practical  terms. In contrast, simple processing which only involves 
evisceration, which is the norm on surface l ongliners lacking freezer capabilities, allows 
for much more of the releva nt data to be collected. 
 5. The Regulation imposes an annual reporting obligation on the Member States. The 
majority of Member States have a poor comp liance record with this  obligation (see Annex 
II). Member States have never presented any reasons for the late submission or for the absence of reports. It would seem necessa ry to simplify the reporting obligation to 
facilitate Member State compliance.  
 6. As mentioned in Section 2.1, another problem with implementation is  the fact that the 
Regulation does not specify what constitutes valid justifications for Member States to issue special fishing permits. Consequently there are no uniform gui delines governing the 
issue of permits. However, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, the evaluation of 
justifications presented to obtain such perm its has been left to the Member States.  
 In their report for the reference year 2009, th e UK authorities have st ated that there were 
difficulties in identifying correct species codes for the species recorded in the log books, and 
with regard to the application of the conversion fact ors. In this report  the UK authorities 
called for a full and thorough analysis of the regul ation in view of its amendment with the aim 
of eliminating these problems by implementing a fins-attached landing policy (i.e. Option 3). 
 
2.5. Evolution of the problem 
The current Regulation has been in place since 2003. In accordance with Article 6(2) of the 
Regulation, the Commission produc ed in December 2005 a report
25  on the operation of the 
Regulation and on international developments in  that field. The repor t concluded that the 
Regulation had been implement ed successfully and that it was achieving its general 
objectives. It also stated that Member States  provided no information to suggest that the 
sector had any significant difficulties in copi ng with the Regulation. As a result, it was 
concluded that the Regulation wa s not in need of amendment at  that time. The obligation to 
produce such a report was a one-time obligation, and therefore no such reports have been 
produced by the Commission since 2005. 
                                                 
25 COM(2005) 700 : Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the operation 
of Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels. 
 
EN  13
Recent developments in various international fora such as the annual meetings of the 
International Commission for the Conserva tion of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and IOTC3 in 
2009, increasingly point out the shortcomings of a weight-ratio-based control system. Based 
on information from various sources, including the Impact Assessment3 carried out in 
preparation of the EU Plan of Action for Sh arks, it has become clear that the current 
Regulation allows potential room for finning, and th at obstacles remain in relation to control 
and data collection.  
2.6. Who is affected? 
Those primarily concerned are EU vessels wh ich have received or will receive special 
permits, from their flag Member State, as permitted by exemption under Council Regulation (EC) 1185/2003, allowing them to remove the fins of sharks on board. According to the reports submitted annually to the Commission, in  line with the Regulation, only four Member 
States are currently issuing special fishing permits: Spain, Portugal and Cyprus. The United 
Kingdom Germany and Lithuania, which issued pe rmits in the past, stopped doing so as of 
2009.  Though the number of permits fluctuates a nnually Spain issues the largest number of 
permits by far (average of 181/year), follo wed by Portugal (average of 29/year). The 
Portuguese authorities issued 49 special fish ing permits in 2009 and 45 in 2010, up from 28 in 
2006 (The reports containing this information for 2007 and 2008 have not been submitted by the Portuguese authorities to the Commission, to date). Until 2009 th e United Kingdom and 
Germany would respectively i ssue 17 and 5 permits annually, on average. Lithuania would 
issue one permit per year. Cyprus issued its fi rst and, to date, only special fishing permit for 
2010. Even though France ranks 12
th worldwide and 2nd in the EU in terms of shark landings, 
the French authorities have neve r received requests from the French fleet to issue special 
fishing permits.  
Depending on the choice of option, the workload of  fisheries inspectors and their ability to 
execute effective control and en forcement could be significantly  affected. The workload of 
national authorities responsible for reporting co uld also be affected, depending on the choice 
of option, but to a limited extent. These effects are analyzed in more detail in Section 5, 
Analysis of Impacts. Additionally, conserva tion NGO's and the general public would be 
especially satisfied if op tion 3 were to be chosen. 
 
 
EN  14
Number of special fishing permits issued by each Member State
CY CY CY CY CY CY CYDEDE DE DE DEDE DEES
ES
ESESES
ES
ES
LT LT LT LT LTPT PTPTPTPT
UKUKUKUK UK
UK UK
050100150200
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
YearNumber of permitsCY
DE
ES
LT
PT
UK
 
 
Table 4. Numbers of surface longline vessels and number of crew 
 Vessels with permits (2004-2010 average*) Crew on vessels holding permits  
(2004-2010 average) 
Spain 181 2172 - 2715 
Portugal 29 540 - 675 
Lithuania 1 12 - 15 
Total 230 2724 - 3405 
* The Portuguese reports for 2007 and 2008 and the Lithuanian reports for 2009 and 2010 have not been 
submitted to the Commission yet.  
 
The data in Table 4 are extracted from annual reports submitted by the Spanish and 
Portuguese authorities to the Commission, in li ne with the Regulation, and from documents 
submitted to the Commission by various Spanish and Portuguese longliner organisations in response to the public consultation. The number of employees is calculated on the basis that 
each permit-holding vessel (freezer  vessel) carries a crew of 12 to 15, as stated by Spanish 
fisheries organisations. According to the same s ource, freezer vessels operate in the Atlantic, 
Indian and Pacific Oceans and typically carry out  fishing trips of at le ast three months, they 
sever fins from carcasses before freezing, and la nd in Vigo or in variou s non-EU ports in the 
North and South Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. A smaller number of non-freezer vessels 
(70 - 80 Spanish and 15 – 30 Portuguese) operate in the Atlantic. Their fishing trips usually 
last slightly over one month and they usually land in Vigo with fins naturally attached. 
Catches of elasmobranchs by the EU fleet are ma de in a number of different oceans. The lack 
of species-specific repor ting by metier restricts a detailed analysis of the economic benefits of 
elasmobranch catches; indeed this lack of deta iled information is itself one of the primary 
drivers of the Community Plan of Action on Sh arks, adopted by the Commission in February 
2009
2. Nevertheless there would be some effects, based on the va lue of catches by region, and 
on the potential importance of these catches on an average vessel basis.  
 
EN  15
Table 5 indicates that income dependency on el asmobranch catches for individual vessels are 
most significant for the distant water fleets of Sp ain, Portugal and France. For some vessels in 
these distant water fleets, shark catches may re present between 20-45% of  the total value of 
catches. For individual vessels in Northern waters and the Mediterranean, vessel dependencies 
on shark catches are on average much lower; wh ile detailed quantification is not possible, 
taking the total value of national catches as  a proxy, average indivi dual vessel dependency 
may be in the order of 1.2 – 4.7%.   
 Table 5: Summary of current  annual economic benefits from elasmobranch landings  
 
Value of 
elasmobranch 
landings  (€ million)  Contribution 
to total EU-
15 value of landings  Maximum 
EU 
vessels involved  Average 
value of 
catch per 
vessel 
(€)  Maximum 
catching 
sector employment Maximum 
processing/ 
ancillary sector 
employment Average 
value of 
landings per 
employee 
(€) 
NE & NW 
Atlantic  
81.19  1.22%  20 458   3 968  42274 28141 1153 
Med  5.73  0.09%  32 727   175  63140 20160 69 
C & S 
Atlantic  92.99  1.39%  200   464 
946  3296 2039 17430 
Indian 
Ocean  11.79  0.18%  103   114 
501  1960 1340 3573 
Pacific 
Ocean  4.09  0.06%  12   
340853 224 140 11248 
Total/ 
Average 195.8 2.93 53500 184889 110894 51280 6695 
 
Assumptions and notes of relevance to the above table are as follows:  
1. Gears/vessels assumed as potentially catching shar k species in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean 
waters are passive gears (excluding traps/pots) and towed gears (excluding dr edges and beach seines). 
Mobile gears are exclud ed. Country fleets and gear types based on 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics    
2. Catching and processing/ancillary employment dependent on elasmobranch in North Atlantic and Med, estimated based on total country employment in a) catching and b) processing/ancillary (amended data 
from 2007 European Parliament study), and ratio of vessels in region to total number of vessels in each 
country  3. Catching sector employment for other regions based on estimated crew per vessel types, with 
processing/ancillary estimates based on the ratio of  catching to processing/ancillary employment from 
2007 European Parliament study  4. North Atlantic and Mediterranean catches valued at  a basket price of euro 1 640/tonnes for skates, rays 
and dogfish (French price), and all other distant water catches at an average pri ce of Euro 2 240/tonne for 
blue shark (based on a landed carcass value of Euro 1 490/tonne in Galicia plus a value for fins (at 5% of carcass weight) of Euro 15/kg)  
To these direct economic benefits should be  added indirect income multiplier benefits 
generated by the processing and ancillary sect ors, and second-round multipliers generated by 
other sectors of the economy. A recent European Parliament study26 suggests that income 
multipliers in the processing / ancillary sectors across the EU as a whole are in the order of 
1.9 times the income made in the catchi ng sector (France 1.87, Spain 1.77, the UK 2.9, 
Portugal 1.1, and Ireland 1.64). However, these economic benefits to both catching and processing/ancillary can be assumed to be of a short-term nature only, if indeed stocks are 
being overexploited.  
 
 
EN  16
Table 6. Main species caught by region, flag of ve ssel and gear type. The fisheries and species 
primarily concerned by the Re gulation are in bold text. 
Region (RFMO)  Nationality  Main Gear type  Species  
NE Atlantic (ICES)  FR, UK, ES, PT, 
IE, BE  Trawl, nets  Various skates, rays and 
small shark species  
NE Atlantic deep sea  (ICES)  UK, DE Gillnet & bottom-
set longline  Portuguese dogfish, Gulper 
shark  
IT, EL, ES, FR Gillnets  Smoothhound, tope, spurdog  
Mediterranean  IT, EL, ES, FR Trawl Various skates, rays, 
guitarfish and small sharks 
ES, PT Purse seine, 
Surface longlines  Blue shark  
Atlantic (ICCAT)  
ES, PT Purse seine, 
Surface longlines  Mako , porbeagle 
Surface longlines Blue shark 
Surface longlines Mako , porbeagle Indian Ocean 
(IOTC)  ES, PT 
Purse seine Unknown 
ES, PT Purse seine  Silky shark, mako, porbeagle, 
& oceanic whitetip  Pacific Ocean  (WCPFC)  ES Surface longlines Blue shark, mako 
Southern Ocean 
(CCAMLR)*  ES, FR  Longline  Rajiformes & Bathyraja spp.  
* The quantities caught annually in the Southern Ocean are negligible (approximately 100 tons). 
 
 Table 7: Estimated values of elasmobranch la ndings by EC fleet. Catches by fleets that are 
affected by the Regulation, accounting for appr oximately 51% of the total value of the 
elasmobranch catch, are hi ghlighted in bold type. 
Region  Landings 
volume  Unit value 
(€/kg)  Total Value (million 
€)  % of total 
value  
North E&W 
Atlantic  57 913  1.64*  95  49%  
Mediterranean  3 914  1.64*  6  3%  
C + S Atlantic  34 084  2.24**  76  39%  Indian Ocean  5 247  2.24**  12  6%  Pacific Ocean  1 826  2.24**  4  2%  
Southern Ocean  100  1.64*  0.2  0.1%  
Total  103 084   194 100% 
 
- All North Atlantic, and Southern ocean, landings are assumed to be skates, rays and dogfish.  
- All landings from other regions are assumed to be blue sh ark. In reality 80-90% of the shark catch is blue shark 
- * : average first sale price of sharks and rays species under French Auction in 2006  
- ** : average price of blue shark Prionace glauca at first sale whole in Galicia (1.49 €/kg) plus fins valued at 
15€/kg and representing 5% of whole weight 
 
The total EU catches of all fish species in 2005 were 5.6 million tons, and catches of 
elasmobranchs represent 1.8% of the total, 0.1 mi llion tons. In 2006 the value of the total fish 
landings of the EU-15 was €6.68 billion3, elasmobranch catches representing 2.9% of this 
value (i.e. approximately €194 million, base d on the information in Table 7 above). 
Approximately 50% of this value, i.e. €97 milli on is derived from shark fisheries which are 
 
EN  17
affected by the Regulation, i.e. vessels which hold special fishing permits and carry out on 
board fin removal. The remainder is derived from vessels which land sharks with the fins 
naturally attached. An estimated 41% percent of the total value of all shark catches made by EU vessels consists of catches in the Northeast Atlantic, where most EU landings are skates, 
rays and dogfish. French vessels account for 37% of the value of shark catches made in the North Atlantic and Spanish vessels for 25%. Ca tches in the Central and Southern Atlantic 
(mainly by Spain and Portugal) re present 47% of the total value of EU catches of sharks. In 
the Indian Ocean, again mainly Spain and Portuga l account for 6% and in the Pacific, mainly 
Spain accounts for 2%. Almost all landings in th e Central and Southern Atlantic, Indian and 
Pacific Oceans are blue and mako shark. The Mediterranean accounts for 3% of the total 
value of EU shark catches. In the Southern Oc eans the very small catches of less than 100 
tonnes per year are mostly rays.   For surface longline vessels operating in the In dian and Pacific Oceans, shark catches are 
estimated to contribute around 40%  of catch volumes and 20-25% of total incomes. In the 
Central and Southern Atlantic, shark catches of the Spanish surface longline fishery are 
around 65-70% of to tal catch volumes
26 (the remainder being swor dfish and tuna), and may 
contribute between 35-45% of to tal catch values. In Northern waters and the Mediterranean 
average individual vessel dependencies are typica lly between 2-5% of total values. The lack 
of information on specific metiers catching shar ks in the North Atlantic makes it impossible 
to have any meaningful estimates about the per centage of income that might be made up of 
elasmobranch catches.   
3. OBJECTIVES  
 
The general objective of the Regul ation corresponds to the gene ral objective of the EU Shark 
Action Plan
2, which is to enhance shark conservation. Given the vulnerability of these species 
to fishing and the strong financial incentive to fin, the current lack of data on stock status, and 
the difficulties intrinsic to the current der ogation in the Regulation, which hampers the 
collection of data and makes control difficult to  carry out, the main policy objective is to 
ensure that, in application of the precautionary principle, the conservation of shark stocks is 
enhanced. Maintaining stocks at healthy levels is key to ensuring the sustainability of the 
economic activities dependent on these stocks.  In order to achieve this objective more specific objectives are set:  
 
- Facilitation of ef fective and reliable control.   
 
- Enabling collection of data critical to the establishment of management measures and 
stock monitoring. 
 
- Conservation of sharks (par ticularly blue shark and shor tfin mako) by eliminating all 
possibility to fin. Where finning occurs, the number of sharks taken per vessel, per fishing trip 
could be as many as 20 times higher before the ca rgo hold is filled and the vessel is obliged to 
                                                
 
26 Mejuto, J., Garcia-Cortes, B., Ramos-Cartelle, A., de la Serna, J.M. 2008. Scientific estimations of bycatch 
landed by the Spanish surface longline fleet targeting swordfish ( Xiphias gladius ) in the Atlantic Ocean 
with special reference to the years 2005 and 2006. ICCAT St anding Committee on Research and 
Statistics/2008/045. 
 
EN  18
land its catch. Pursuing this objective would ensure coherence of EU legislation with 
international rules (in particular FAO, ICCAT and IOTC), which the EU must abide by.   
 
- Simplification of the reporting format in orde r to facilitate Member State compliance 
with the reporting obligation. Th is simplification could be partly achieved by abolishing 
special fishing permits. 
 
- Elimination of problems associated with  the lack of uniform guidelines and 
justifications based on which special fishing pe rmits are issued. This problem would be fully 
solved by abolishing special fishing permits.  Additionally these measures would enhance the collection of data such as species identification, catch composition, age/size population structure etc., which are vital to the 
development of effective management and conservation measures.  
 
 
4. POLICY OPTIONS 
 
4.1. List of options 
 
Option 1:  Maintaining the 5% fin to live-weight ra tio, (i) without, and (ii) with simultaneous 
landings of fins and carcasses.  Option 2:  Shift from the current limit of 5% fin-to -live-weight ratio to 5% fin-to-dressed-
weight (gutted, behead ed, skinned) ratio. 
 Option 3:  Fins-remain-attached approach. 
 Option 4:  Prohibition to take sharks in surface longline fisheries. 
 
4.2. Description of policy options  
 
Option 1: Maintaining the use of the 5% fin to live-weight ratio
 
 (i) The use of the 5% fin-to-carcass live we ight ratio, without th e requirement to land 
processed carcasses and fins simulta neously or at the same port.  
 (ii) The use of the 5% fin-to-carcass live weight  ratio, combined with the requirement to land 
processed carcasses and fins si multaneously, at the same port. 
 Option 1(i) amounts to maintaining the status quo, i.e. on-board processing would still be 
permitted on vessels holding processing permits. Where fins and carcasses are landed simultaneously at the same port they would have to be weighed to check whether the fin weight exceeds 5% of the live weight of the sh arks, in order to determine whether finning has 
occurred. When fins and carcasses are landed separately, the inspector must rely on the 
information recorded in the logbook.  Option 1(ii) allows for direct inspection and we ighing of both fins and carcasses. Under this 
option it is not necessary to rely only on the logbooks to determine the fin-carcass weight correspondence.  
 
EN  19
 
 Option 2: Shift from the current limit of 5% fin to live weight ratio to 5% fin to dressed 
(typically beheaded, eviscerated an d skinned) carcass ratio and re quire that fins and carcasses 
are landed simultaneously at the same port  
 Given that the dressed we ight can be roughly equa l to half the live wei ght, such a shift would 
halve the amount of fins a vesse l would be allowed to retain on board. Similarly to Option 
1(ii), Option 2 would allow for direct inspec tion and weighing of both fins and carcasses, 
eliminating reliance on logbooks when check ing for compliance with the maximum fin-
carcass weight ratio.  Option 3: Fins-remain-attached approach:
 
 Keeping fins naturally attached to the carcass makes it impossible for finning to take place. In 
order to facilitate on-board storag e, the fins could be partly s liced through and folded against 
the carcass, as is practiced in  some fisheries in North, Cent ral and South America. Option 3 
would mean that special fishing permits woul d no longer be issued a nd no derogations would 
be permitted under any circumstances.   Option 4: Prohibition to take shar ks in surface longline fisheries
 
 This prohibition would mean that sharks can not be retained, transhipped or landed by 
longliners.  Technical measures  and fishing practices would ha ve to be significantly changed 
to respect this prohibition, as sharks constitu te 40-70% of longliners' catches by volume (25-
47% of the catch value). 
  Options discussed and rejected in RFMO's:
 
 At the meeting of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) in Bali in April-May 2009
27, 
the EU and Australia jointly proposed alternativ es to the IOTC fin to carcass weight ratio. 
One approach involved placing severed fins in  plastic bags which would be physically 
attached to the corresponding shark body. This approach was heavily criticized by NGO's 
based on risks for marine pollution and wildlife entanglement as well as substantial hurdles 
for enforcement. It was also rejected by the fi shing industry as impractical. A proposal to use 
biodegradable bags was also rejected, both by NGO's and by th e industry. The other solution 
proposed by the EU involved marking severe d fins and corresponding carcasses with 
matching serial numbers and then storing the part s separately. This approach was also heavily 
criticized and rejected as impractical and difficult to implement.   Other options which were considered and rejected:
 
 1. An increase in the current fin-to-carcass weight  ratio to 6.6% for blue shark, in line with the 
demands of the Spanish and Port uguese longlining sector : this option considered and rejected 
prior to formulating the public consultation document. The fin-to-carcass weight ratio established in the EU regulation (5% of th e live weight) constitutes the most relaxed 
                                                
 
27 Report of  the 13th Session of IOTC, Bali, Indonesia, 2009, 
http://www.iotc.org/files/proceedin gs/2009/s/IOTC-2009-S13-R[E].pdf   
 
EN  20
interpretation of the binding agreement established in ICCAT and IOTC, which refers to 5% 
of the weight of sharks on boar d. Other countries using ratios have  interpreted this as 5% of 
the dressed carcass weight, whic h is roughly one half of th e live weight. Additionally, a 
second ratio would have to be established for shortfin mako. Once processed, it will be 
difficult for inspectors to differentiate the fins  and carcasses of the two species, thus making it 
impossible to know which ratio to apply. Furthe rmore, most of the shark species making up 
the remaining 2-5% (approx.) of the catch have a smaller fin-to-carcass weight ratio, and this 
would create some margin for discarding car casses. Finally, a move from an already 
permissive rule to a yet more relaxed rule would evoke a stro ng negative reac tion from NGO's 
and the general public.  2. Imposition of catch limits: The EU made a proposal for the establishment of a TAC for 
shortfin mako at the most recent ICCAT m eeting (November, 2010). The establishment of 
TAC's would be more meaningful in the RFMO c ontext than in EU waters or exclusively for 
EU vessels the bulk of blue shark and s hortfin mako are caught outside EU waters. 
 3. Allowing only simultaneous landing at the sa me designated ports: A designated port is one 
in which inspection facilities and personnel ar e available 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, 
as necessary. Ports are designated by the nationa l authorities of the country in question, and 
are designated by species accordi ng to the priorities of the c oncerned country. The EU does 
not have the authority to demand that third coun tries, such as the dozens of non-EU countries 
where the EU fleet lands sh ark carcasses and fins , designate ports specific to the 
implementation of the EU regulation. Such desi gnations would be prac tically and financially 
difficult to sustain.  4. Changing the regulation only af ter internationally agreeing on one preferred option: The 
purpose of this Impact Assessment is to determin e the best option for the EU prior to making 
international commitments.   5. Discontinuing the regulation: th is would make finning legal. It  is therefore not an option. 
 6. Banning longline fisheries: this measure is considered highly disproportionate as it would 
have significant negative social-economic impact s on the longline sector and the associated 
industries.     
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 
 
5.1. Economic and social importance of elasmobranch fisheries in the EU 
 
Given the data deficiencies, the mixed nature of many shark fisheries and the other factors 
described in Section 2, it is difficult to make a meaningful assessment of the economic and 
social benefits of catches in the EU. Theref ore it is impossible to make a quantitative 
assessment of the socio-economic impacts of  the proposed policy op tions on the surface 
longlining sector, which is the sector  most concerned by this Regulation.  
 
 
EN  21
Nevertheless, some very crude es timates of the value of landings28 by the EU fleet are 
possible based on certain assumptions. A very high proportion of landings from catches in 
each region are made up of one species or re porting category. In the North Atlantic, most 
landings are skates, rays and dogfish caught by vari ous gears, other than surface longlines. In 
the Central and Southern Atlantic, the Indian O cean and the Pacific, almost all landings are 
mako and blue shark caught by surface longliners which hold the vast majority of the special 
fishing permits. In the Southern Oceans, the small catches that are made are mostly rays. The strong concentration of landings in each region of one species means that approximate values 
of landings can be estimated by multiplying the landings in each region by an average price for the dominant species in that region, as shown in Table 7, in Section 2.6.  
     The economic value, the number of vessels a nd employees that could be dependent upon 
elasmobranch catches are summarised in the tabl es in Section 2. Given the lack of available 
data and the mixed nature of fisheries in th e North Atlantic and th e Mediterranean, it is 
impossible to state with accuracy the number of  vessels actually relying on shark catches in 
these areas. As sharks, skates and rays are of ten reported in the same category, it is unclear 
what proportion of the North Atlantic and Med iterranean catches each of these accounts for. 
The elasmobranch catches of surface longliners only comprise sharks.   The rate of infringement of the regulation is  indicated in Annex III,  based on information 
submitted by national authorities as part of the annual reporting obligation imposed by the regulation. Infringements are committed both by  vessels which hold special fishing permits 
and by vessels which do not. Though the informa tion supplied in the annual reports is not 
uniform or complete, the majority of infringe ments appear to be committed by EU vessels. 
Non-EU vessels which practice finning seem to  avoid landing in EU ports where controls 
might be more difficult to evade than in certain non-EU ports. 
 One-off costs would be incurred by all Member  State fishery departments associated with 
informing vessels of the new regulations a nd by vessel operators familiarizing themselves 
with the new regulations. However, these co sts and the associated administrative burden 
would be outweighed in the long run, provided that fish ing permits are abolished. 
  
5.2. Impacts of each policy option  
 
 Option 1(i)
: Maintaining the 5% fin to live-weight ratio, continuing to allow separate 
landings of fins and carcasses   Under option 1 (i) control would remain ineffec tive and it would remain difficult to ensure 
that finning has not occurred. This applies in particular where fins and carcasses are landed 
separately and inspectors must rely only on the logbook. 
 
Environmental and stock impacts  
 
                                                
 
28 The value of landings is referred to, instead of the value of catches, because discard levels are generally not 
known, though they are thought to be  significant in some fisheries. 
 
EN  22
The use of ratios greatly hinders the work of inspectors attempting to apply these to processed 
carcasses which are difficult to identify at the sp ecies level. It is therefore unrealistic to 
attempt to establish a ratio that would apply to all species, all cutting and fin-retention methods, and to all preservation methods. Establis hing several ratios to cover all permutations 
of species (including intra-spec ific variations based on life stage and location), cutting and 
fin-retention practices, and all preservation met hods could be possible, but applying these in 
an attempt to ensure control and compliance would be logistically  very difficult and 
ineffective. A major feature of the interac tion of shark population and fisheries across the 
oceans is that it is not entirely cl ear what the status of the stoc ks of blue shark and shortfin 
mako is. The data gaps, particular ly at species level, produce an  incomplete picture. Catch, 
landing and trade data are poor or patchy and many  of the demersal shark catches are not from 
targeted fisheries, but bycatch. Shark fisheries, per se , are consequently of ten not subject to 
direct regulation, and landings reported are th ought to be significantly less than the actual 
catches, due to high rates of discarding by some  (non-EU) fleets. No systematic data on 
discard rates can be found in the published domain. Some high disc ard rates (e.g. 60%) by 
non-EU fleets are reported, and this is compoun ded by the practice of finning and discarding 
the carcass. There are indications  that the actual catches for fi nning alone might be four times 
higher than FAO landing data. Th ere is little information on whether the EU surface longline 
fleet is finning sharks. According to industry representatives and the relevant Spanish and 
Portuguese authorities, these su rface longliners uti lize all parts of the shark. There is no 
relevant information on the activities of French  surface longliners, and the French authorities 
have never received requests to issue on-board  processing permits, though it is believed that 
the crews of the French fleet remove shark fins on board, as a source of additional income
3. 
Maintaining the status quo would lead to a con tinuation of declines already observed in some 
populations and, presumably, de clines suspected in others29. However, the true status of most 
elasmobranch populations remains uncertain due  to lack of stock-specific information, 
particularly over significant time series. This ha s lead to disputes in some areas over the 
extent of stock declines, fo r example in the NW Atlantic30, 31, 32, 33). Due to a lack of 
information on the status of most stocks, ICES  and some RMFO's have imposed catch limits 
based on catch trends. ICCA T (2007) reported up to a 50% catch reduction for Isurus 
oxyrinchus . It is also clear that the international tr ade in shark and shark products is 
increasing, thus providing a driver  for continued fishing pressure , which is likely to continue 
in the future26.  
 Most large pelagic sharks, incl uding blue shark and shortfin mako, are apex predators, which 
typically have a significant regulatory effect  on populations in the lower trophic levels. 
Consequently the reduction or elimination of thes e two species is expected to have an impact 
on other species and on the ecosystem as a w hole. These effects can be complex and may 
result in a reduction in the biodiversity a nd the resilience of the ecosystem in question
34. 
                                                 
29 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a European Community 
Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. February, 2009.  
30 Kehler, B. Worm, S.J. Harley, and P.A. Doherty (2003). Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the 
Northwest Atlantic. Science 299:389–392. 
31 Baum, J. K., Kehler, D. and Myers, R. A. (2005). Robust estimates of decline for pelagic shark populations in 
the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Fisheries , 30: 27–30. Baum, J.K., R.A. Myers, D.G. 
32 Burgess, G. H., Beerkircher, L. R., Cailliet, G. M., Carl son, J. K., Cortes, E., Gold man, K. J.; Grubbs, R. D., 
Musick, J. A., Musyl, M. K. and Simpfendorfer, C. A. (2005a). Is the collapse of shark populations in the 
Northwest Atlantic Ocean a nd Gulf of Mexico real? Fisheries , 30: 19–26. 
33 Burgess, G. H., Beerkircher, L. R., Cailliet, G. M., Carl son, J. K., Cortes, E., Gold man, K. J.; Grubbs, R. D., 
Musick, J. A., Musyl, M. K. and Simpfendorfer, C. A. (2005b). Reply to “Robust estimates of decline for pelagic 
shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico”. Fisheries , 30: 30–31. 
 
 
EN  23
Option 1(i) and 1(ii) are expected to have a negative impact on sharks stocks, and probably 
other stocks in lower trophic le vels, starting in the short term  and becoming more severe in 
the long term.   Whilst the EU may not be the main source of fishing mortality in external waters, maintaining the status quo would diminish the influence of the EU in international fora where shark 
management and conservation measures are decided. 
 
Economic impacts  
 
Option 1(i) (continuation of the status quo) would have no immediat e economic impacts on 
the fishing sector, or on the secondary activitie s associated with the fishery. However, given 
that declines in catches have already been obs erved in some areas, particularly for shortfin 
mako as mentioned above under "Environmenta l and Stock Impacts", it is likely that a 
negative economic impact will be observed in the medium to long term, due to diminishing 
catches. The magnitude of this impact is difficult to quantify due to varia tions in the status of 
shortfin mako stocks in differe nt regions (see Annex I). A re duction in shortfin mako catches 
could be offset by increased catches of other species, to an unknown extent.  
 Of the options presented in the public consul tation, Option 1(i) would be the most acceptable 
to the sector, though the majority of their cont ributions call for altern ative option, i.e. an 
increase in the fin-to-carca ss weight allowance, as desc ribed below in the "Economic 
Impacts" of Option 2.  
Social Impacts 
 
As stated above in "Environmental impacts" and "Economic impacts" sections, Option 1(i) is 
expected to lead to diminished catches of shortfin mako, which are likely to become more 
pronounced in the mid and long term. Blue shark stocks are likely to withstand the current 
fishing pressure longer than shortfin mako st ocks, though not indefinitely. The impact of 
reduced catches on employment in the surface l onglining sector is difficult to quantify, though 
it is not expected to be significant, especially in  the in the short term. This is because shortfin 
mako makes up approximately 10% of the catch, and if depleted, other species would likely 
be caught instead. Here again it is difficult to quantify any effects on employment, though a 
minor negative impact is expe cted in the short term, perhap s becoming more pronounced in 
the long term as stocks decline. 
 
 
Option 1(ii):  Maintaining the 5% fin to live-weigh t ratio, but requiring simultaneous landings 
of fins and carcasses at the same port  
 Under option 1 (ii) control would become more effective as fins  and carcasses can be weighed 
during an inspection, rather th an relying on information re corded in a logbook.  However, 
once carcasses have been processed it is extremel y difficult to be sure that all the fins landed 
correspond to the carcasses landed.  The relative value of fins a nd of flesh varies by species, 
and less valuable flesh could stil l be discarded, though the margin for this is restricted by the 
enforcement of the weight ratio.  
Environmental and stock impacts 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
 
 
EN  24
 
Option 1(ii) has the same disadvantages as Option 1(i) as far as the use of weight ratios is 
concerned, incurring the same negative enviro nmental and stock impacts in that respect, as 
described above.   
Economic Impacts 
 
Option 1(ii) is likely to have similar mid and long term impacts as Option 1(i). Option 1(ii) 
would also have a direct nega tive impact in the short and medi um term, which would result 
from the obligation to simultaneously land fi ns and carcasses in th e same port, possibly 
preventing vessels from obtaining the best prices at first la nding. At a meeting between the 
Spanish longliner representati ves and Commission services in  September 2010, the longliners' 
representatives stated that they may be w illing to accept simultaneous landings at the same 
port. This would suggest that the negative econo mic impact would be moderate. This impact 
might be alleviated (to an unknow n extent) by potentially simplif ied logistics and fuel savings 
resulting from a trip to a single port rather than  two or more ports. It is expected that the 
magnitude of this negative impact would be re duced over time, as marketing channels adapt 
to the new situation.  
Social Impacts 
 
Option 1(ii) will have similar impacts as Option 1( i). Additionally Option 1(ii) might result in 
a moderate reduction in profit margins in the shor t term, which is likely to diminish over time. 
Here again it is not possible to quantify a ny effects on employment, though a minor negative 
impact is expected in the s hort term, perhaps becoming more pronounced in the long term as 
stocks decline.  
 
 
Option 2:
 Shift from the current limit of 5% fin to live weight ratio to  5% fin to dressed 
carcass ratio. Fins and car casses are landed simultaneously in the same port. 
 Given that the current processing and fin retenti on practices of the EU fleet would not change, 
Option 2 would eliminate the possibil ity to discard carcasses at sea
35, as it significantly 
reduces the fin to carcass allowance. For most  species, including blue shark and shortfin 
mako, a shift from a limit of 5% of the live weig ht to 5% of the dressed weight constitutes a 
reduction of the fin to carcass ratio by a pproximately 50%. The simultaneous landing 
requirements would enhance the ability to meas ure and thereby enforce the ratio. Inspectors 
would not be limited to using information in logbooks. The possibility to fin is reduced, though not eliminated. All problems  associated with the use of ratios, as described in the 
analysis of impacts of Option 1(i), also apply to Option 2. 
 
Environmental and stock impacts 
 
The impacts of Option 2 on the stock and subse quently on the enviro nment are difficult to 
predict. Depending on the reaction of the sector to such a measure, the environmental and stock effects might be similar to the environm ental and stock effects resulting from Options 
1(i) and 1(ii); i.e. if the sector fails to adap t their processing practices (fins retained, types of 
cuts etc.) so as to bring the weight of fins  on board below 5% of the dressed weight, they 
                                                
 
35 Given that the current catch composition, processing methods and fin retention practices of the EU fleet 
remain the same. 
 
EN  25
would be forced to discard an unknown proporti on of the fins, thus loosing an unknown, but 
potentially significant amount of income as described under "Economic Impacts" below. 
Conversely, the sector might adapt fishing practices so as to avoi d catching sharks in the first 
place, thus avoiding the loss of income that woul d be incurred by being forced to discard fins. 
In that case, a positive impact on the stocks and on the environment would be expected, as those stocks which have already been negatively affected would start to recover. However, in 
order to make up for the income lost, the sector may increasingl y target stocks of swordfish, 
tuna etc. some of which are depleted to vari ous extents throughout the world. Given that these 
species occupy a similar ecological niche as sharks, the effects of their increased mortality on 
the environment will be negative, and likely si gnificant. The magnitude of these negative 
effects would likely increase over time. These pot ential effects cannot be quantified as there 
are a number of variables coming into play, wh ich would dictate how much more swordfish 
and tuna could and would be ca ught, e.g. differentiation of fishi ng activities in space and time, 
differentiation of gears, effects of shifti ng stock abundance on inte r- and intra-specific 
competition etc.   
Economic impacts 
 
Option 2  would only affect the Spanish and Portugue se long-distance surface longline vessels. 
Based on the current fin-cutting and fin-set reten tion practices of these fleets, the 5% fin-to-
live-weight ratio is slightly exceeded for blue  shark, which makes up about 85% of the total 
shark catch. Option 2 would redu ce the fin-to-carcass ratio by a bout 50%, thus making it very 
difficult to comply with under the current circ umstances. However, some studies (Fowler and 
Seret, 2010
9) suggest that improving cutting technique s, i.e. cutting fins  so that no flesh 
remains attached to the fin, can significantly re duce the fin-to-carcass weight ratio.  Thus the 
ratio for some species may fall below 5% of th e dressed carcass weight. Due to a number of 
other factors affecting the ratio (retaining all fins or only primar y fins, drying of fins, varying 
practises in 'dressing' the carcass, i.e. beh eading, skinning, eviscera tion etc), a range of 
different ratios could be calculated for each sp ecies. Blue shark which makes up 80 to 85% of 
the EU surface longliners' catch has one of the highest fin-to-car cass ratios (up to 6.5% of the 
live weight or 14% of the dressed weight). It must be noted that improved cutting techniques 
singularly employed, would not bring the fin-to-dre ssed-carcass ratio of blue shark below 5%.  
Studies (Fowler and Seret, 20109) also suggest that improved cutting techniques could 
eliminate the necessity to re-process at a later stage (i.e. trim the flesh off the fins) and reduce 
the weight of fins that must be transported, thus leading to significan t savings. Furthermore, 
buyers would pay a higher unit price for well-trim med fins.  It is, however, unclear whether 
the sector would be willing and able to adapt th eir practices in such a way as to bring the fin-
to-carcass weight ratio below 5% of the dressed weight. If they fail to do so they may be forced to discard an unknown pr oportion of the fins on board, th us losing a portion of their 
income, which is difficult to calculate. Howe ver, given that none of the contributions 
submitted by the sector in response to the publ ic consultation supported Option 2, and given 
that the sector has requested several times in th e recent past that the fin-to-carcass weight 
allowance be raised, it can be assumed that this loss would be significant. This loss would occur in the short term and persist in the l ong term. Additionally, as with Option 1(ii), the 
obligation to land fins and carcasses simultaneously in the same port will probably incur a short to mid term negative economic impact, whic h is likely to be modest , and which is likely 
to diminish over time.  It should be noted that the Spanish longlining sect or has, for several year s, been calling for an 
increase in the fin-to-carcass ratio, from 5% of the live weight to 6.5% (i.e. 14% of the 
 
EN  26
dressed weight, according to their calculations). As  a justification they c ite the following: (a) 
approximately 85% of their catch is blue shar k (which has one of th e highest fin-to-carcass 
weight ratios), (b) they retain both primary and secondary fins , as well as the entire tail with 
the caudal peduncle still attached to it (see Figure 2), and (c) they cut fins in a manner which 
results in significant amounts of flesh remaini ng attached to them. The ratio proposed by the 
Spanish longline sector is the absolute maximu m applying to blue shar k, processed under the 
conditions described above; this  ratio would be signi ficantly higher than any ratio applicable 
to the remaining 15% of their catch. Such an  increase would constitu te a weakening of the 
Regulation, rather than a strengthening. In ad dition to the disadvantages of using ratios, 
described in the text above, it must be mentione d that EU vessels have been found to be in 
breach of the 5% dressed-weight ratio, which is applied by countries which are ICCAT and 
IOTC members. In 2009 and 2010 there were two such instances, where EU vessels landing 
in Durban (South Africa) and in Cape Verde were  accused by the releva nt national authorities 
of having significantly exceed the fin-to-carcass weight allowance. Following exchanges of 
letters between the European Commission and these national authorities, an interim 
agreement was made, allowing these vessels to  carry out landings in these ports, provided 
they respected the 5% fin-to- live weight ratio impos ed by the EU Regulation, despite the fact 
that other vessels landing in th ese and other ports ar e subject to the more restrictive 5% 
dressed-weight ratio. This interim arrangemen t was accepted due to the fact that the ICCAT 
and IOTC rules refer to 5% of the weight  of the catch on board, without making any 
distinction between live and dressed weight of the catch. Given the interim nature of this 
arrangement, and the difficulty faced by the Commission in achieving it, it can be assumed 
that any request for further relaxation of intern ational rules in favour of EU vessels would not 
be easy to justify. An increase of the fin-to -carcass weight ratio sh ould therefore not be 
considered.   
Social Impacts 
 
A moderate to significant negative impact on employment might be expected if the sector 
fails to adapt its fin cutting me thods and fin retention practices. If these practices are adjusted 
as described in the "Economic impacts" section above, this im pact would be significantly 
reduced. The impact is expected to occur in the short term and persist through the long term. 
It is not possible to quantify the impact in  terms of job losses or individual income. 
  Option 3
: Fins-remain-attached approach 
 Having carried out the impact assessment and th e public consultation, opti on 3 is the preferred 
option.  
Environmental and stock impacts 
 
Under Option 3, finning would become impossible.  High-grading (mixing of bodies and fins 
from different animals and the associated disc arding) would also become impossible. Data 
collection which is vital to establishing mana gement and conservation measures would be 
greatly enhanced. The direct positive impact on shark stocks and on the environment is likely to be limited as regards the EU surface longlining fleet which seem s to be discarding little or 
no part of their shark catch; this impact ma y be more significant vi s-à-vis third country 
vessels landing part or all of their shark ca tch in EU ports. However, the indirect positive 
impact resulting from enhanced data collection,  and the subsequent esta blishment of effective 
 
EN  27
management and conservation measures, is likel y to be significant in the mid and long term. 
A second indirect positive impact would be the strengthened position of the EU if it where to 
propose the adoption of Option 3 or similar measures  in the international arena, in the future. 
In the recent past the EU has not been in  a position to create momentum or support 
momentum created by other part ies pushing for a fins-naturally -attached policy in the RFMO 
arena (in ICCAT and IOTC in particular). Option 3 was unanimously supported by NGO's 
responding to the public consultation, as we ll as by the vast majority of the public.  
 
Economic impacts 
 
Under Option 3 control would be greatly faci litated and the enforcement burden would be 
greatly reduced. The administrativ e burden linked to the issue of  on-board processing permits 
(under option 3 no special fishing permits would be issued) woul d be eliminated permanently 
and the associated reporting obligations woul d be simplified, though th e associated savings 
would not be significant. Currently only Spai n and Portugal issue significant numbers of 
special fishing permits. As of 2009 Germ any, Lithuania and the United Kingdom have 
stopped issuing permits, whereas Cyprus issued it s first permit in 2010. It is assumed that the 
Spanish and Portuguese authorities are burdened with a few man-hours or man-days of work 
per year in issuing permits and in producing an nual reports, whereas the burden for Cyprus is 
estimated to be much smaller. The administrative burden for the remainder of the Member States is negligible as they simply forwar d short statements to the Commission, year after 
year, stating that they do not issue permits a nd in many cases that their vessels do not catch 
sharks.  No significant economic impact on the industry is  expected in connection with Option 3, as 
this would not significantly a ffect costs related to  catching, processing and on-board storage 
and handling for those operators that are in co mpliance with the current prohibition to discard 
carcasses. The representatives of the Spanis h and Portuguese longlining industry have 
repeatedly pointed out (in writing and during various meetings) various potential practical 
problems associated with the fins-attached a pproach. However, they have never given an 
indication of the potential financial cost asso ciated with the fins-attached approach. The 
problems they cite are the following:  
• Cargo space would be wasted.  
 
• Frozen sharks with their fins attached are di fficult to handle and threaten the safety of 
the crew, as frozen fins protruding from  the sharks carcasses are quite sharp.  
 
• If carcasses are processed in third country ports their customs status changes, both for 
the fins and the meat. 
 
• Removing fins from frozen carcasses in non- EU ports lacking cold-storage facilities 
would break the cold chain, thus causing a deterioration of the flesh as well as 
associated health risks to the consumer. 
 
There are practical solutions to all of these pr oblems. Provided that the sector is willing to 
partly slice through and fold fins against the bod y, as done in similar sh ark fisheries in other 
countries (e.g. Costa Rica), the first two problems cited by th e sector can be fully solved. 
Slicing partly through the fins and folding th em against the carcass yields a cylindrically-
shaped carcass, similar to that produced when the fins are removed. This prevents loss of 
 
EN  28
storage space and associated loss of income. Given that the fins are folded against the carcass, 
the safety and handling issues cited by the s ector are also eliminated. The third objection 
raised by the sector is invalid. As  far as the products are destined to be reintroduced into EU 
territory, the Community Customs Code esta blishes that fishery products caught by EU 
vessels outside of the territorial waters of third countries are to be considered of EU origin, as 
are the products which have been processed on  board EU vessels. The processing taking place 
on board surface longliners with special fishing pe rmits does not alter the origin of the fins 
and carcasses. Therefore, removi ng fins in a non-EU port and th en shipping them off to Vigo 
or Las Palmas, as is commonly done, is not exp ected to hamper Spain's current trade activity 
of such products. The fourth problem could be solved by landing in ports where cold storage 
is available, though this would limit the number of  ports the Spanish flee t currently lands its 
catch in. The EU longlining sector is aware of  these potential solutions to the problems cited, 
as these solutions are being employed by simila r shark fisheries, in particular in North, 
Central and South America, and have been promoted by NGO's in the RFMO framework. The 
EU longlining sector has not informed the Commission of their views on these potential 
solutions nor have they detailed  any potential costs thereof. 
 Considering that these issues can be effectively addressed, option 3 will not have a significant negative impact for operators that are in compliance with the current prohibition to discard carcasses. Additionally, landing sharks with their fins attached in non-EU ports where the 5% 
dressed weight rule applies instead of the 5%  live weight rule would permanently solve the 
problem of EU vessels being held in breach of  the dressed weight rule (See Economic Impacts 
of Option 2 in this Section). The current arrangement allowing EU vessels to land in two non-
EU ports (Durban and Cape Verd e) where the 5% dressed wei ght rule applies is only an 
interim arrangement, which is in place until a definitive agreement is made among ICCAT members. In recent years there has been increased support for a fins-attached policy by some 
ICCAT members. 
 
Social impact 
 
Option 3 is not expected to ha ve a significant negative impact on employment in fleets which 
are in compliance with the curr ent Regulation, provided that the sector is willing to employ 
the various adaptations listed in Section 5. In  particular, the potential hazard to crews 
handling frozen carcasses with protruding fins can eas ily be eliminated as described in the 
"Economic impacts" section above. The effect  on employment cannot be  quantified, but is 
expected to be marginal.   Option 4: 
Prohibition to take sharks in surface longline fisheries 
 
Option 4 did not feature in the public consulta tion. It was only conceived following after the 
consultation was completed, as a result of numer ous calls from the public calling for rather 
drastic conservation measures. It would pr obably have the greatest positive impact on 
conservation of the two main species caught by surface longliners, while having the greatest 
negative impact on the sector. However, it goes beyond the scope of the current Regulation, 
which is limited to the removal, retention and transhipment of sharks and shark fins. The 
prohibition to take sharks is only being consider ed here in respect to surface longliners, as it 
could be implemented via relatively simple t echnical measures or modification of fishing 
practices. Such a prohibition would be virt ually impossible to implement on trawlers, 
gillnetters, purse seiners etc. without completely shutting down those fisheries.   
 
EN  29
Environmental and stock impacts 
 
Of the four options, Option 4 would have by fa r the most significant positive impact on the 
environment and on the two main shark stocks taken by surface longliners. However, as the 
Regulation would not apply to non-EU vessels fishing outside EU waters, the conservation 
benefit for these two species might be rather limited on a global scale. The impact would 
manifest itself in the medium term, becoming mo re significant in the long term. Furthermore, 
Option 4 would require taking measures to av oid targeting sharks, which if unsuccessful, 
could result in significant shark discards.  A rather simple selectivity measure which is already being employed by EU fleets, depending 
on fishing location and on season, is the alterna tion between steel and monofilament leaders. 
Whilst sharks are easily able to  cut monofilament/nylon  lines with their t eeth and thus escape 
after taking the bait, they are unable to cut st eel lines. Using steal l eaders approximately 40cm 
long, to which the baited hook is attached, ensu res that sharks remain on the line. When 
nylon/monofilament leaders are used exclusively, the catch comprises almost exclusively swordfish, tuna and other tele ost species, whilst few or no sharks remain on the line. 
Fishermen alternate between steel and nylon  leaders, or varying proportions of each, 
according to the fishing grounds and the time of year (personal communication with vessel operators in Vigo, September 2010). It can be inferred that in areas/seasons where sharks 
predominate, the use of nylon/monofilament wo uld result in bait and hook loss with little or 
no catch.   Specially designed hooks could also be us ed in order to avoid hooking sharks. The 
effectiveness of such a measure is not well documented and its potential effectiveness cannot 
be stated here. 
 
Alternatively, sharks co uld be released from the longlin es upon or before being hauled on 
board. Rates of survival on releases can be quite high, 30 – 60 %, es pecially in surface 
longlines. Releasing live sharks from a longline can be hazardous to crew, especially if these 
must be hauled on board to have the l eaders and hooks removed from their mouth. 
Alternatively, the line could be cut further from the shark's m outh so that the hook and a short 
length of leader remain in the shark's mouth. Sharks can survive with  the hook in their mouth, 
though there may be a negative impact on the animal, the severity of which is unknown. 
 
Economic impacts 
Shark catches are thought to contribute aroun d 25-47% of the catch value of EU surface 
longliners. As mentioned in S ection 5.1, approximately 50% of th e value of EU elasmobranch 
catch, i.e. €97 million is derived from shark fi sheries which are affected by the Regulation. In 
the short-term, negative indirect  impacts are expected through a reduction in revenues from 
pelagic shark catches. These impacts are likely  to be most strongly felt by the catching and 
processing sectors associated with the longline fleet in the Central and Southern Atlantic, 
Indian Ocean and the Pacific. The losses would be proportionally greatest for vessels 
operating in the Atlantic, where the value of the shark catch is proportionally the highest, 
followed by those operating in the Indian Ocean a nd finally those in the Pacific. Given that 
shark taking would only be prohibited to surfac e longliners, vessels op erating in the North 
Atlantic would not be affected as they predominantly use other gears such as gillnets and trawls. Depending on the measure(s) selected to implement option 4, the negative impact of 
this option on fleet income may vary and it ma y result in a dispropor tionate impact on EU 
surface longliners compared to other fleets. For example, the use of monofilament/nylon 
 
EN  30
leaders could result in significant gear damage  as sharks taking baited hooks would cut such 
leaders. Using specialized hooks to avoid hooking sh arks might lead to some loss of bait, but 
would presumably cause less gear damage, as shar ks might be able to escape without cutting 
lines. Finally, live release of sharks would cause  loss of hooks and le aders and presents a 
certain degree of risk to the crew handling live sharks either on deck or alongside the vessel.  
 The impact on the catching sector might diminish  in the short and mid term provided that 
other species are successfully targ eted. However, given that stocks  of other target species such 
as swordfish and tuna are also  depleted to various degree s throughout the world, and are 
increasingly subject to various fisheries rest rictions, the surface longl ining sector may be 
unable to compensate the loss of income fr om sharks, by targeting these other species. 
Furthermore, given that the sector has already e volved to increasingly targ et sharks, an offset 
of losses in this way would seems even less lik ely. There is a risk th at the sector becomes 
unprofitable.   The impacts on the processing sector should be me dium to low in most areas of the EU, but 
perhaps high in some especially dependent ar eas e.g. Galicia where most of the EU longline 
fleet is based
26. The overall economic impact of Opti on 4 would be by far the most negative 
for the fishing and ancillary sectors, and c ould render the Spanish and Portuguese surface 
longlining fleets unprofitable. 
 
Social impacts 
 
As with economic impacts, the social impacts of Option 4 w ould be the most severe among 
all the options. Reflecting the negative eco nomic impacts of th is option, impacts on 
employment would be most severe in the surf ace longlining sector operating in the Atlantic, 
followed by those operating in the Indian Ocean and finally those operating in the Pacific. 
Once again, the impact on employment cannot be quantified, though it is could be severe, 
taking effect in the short term and lasting for an unknown amount of time. 
   
6. COMPARING OF THE POLICY OPTIONS 
 
Impacts on conservation  
 
In terms of contributing to shark conservation, Option 4 would be by far the most effective, 
followed by Option 3, then 2 then 1(ii) and finally Option 1(i). Op tion 4 would have a 
significant positive effect on the two main st ocks concerned, this effect being more 
pronounced on shortfin mako which is believed to  have been depleted by fishing in some 
areas, and which is more vulnerable to overfishing  than blue shark. Given the scarcity of data 
on the state of these stocks, the positive conser vation impact of Option 4 cannot be quantified. 
Compared to Option 1(i) (status quo), Option 4 would have a significant positive impact on 
shark conservation. On the other hand, if measur es taken to avoid cat ching sharks are not 
successful, there is a risk of significant shark di scards being generated. If  such measures were 
successful, the shark catch would most likely be replaced by swordf ish and tuna, with 
negative impacts on these stocks which are al ready overfished or depleted, depending on the 
area and species. The potential ly significant negative socio-economic impacts of option 4 
render this option undesirable. The direct posit ive conservation impact of Option 3 would be 
significantly smaller than that of Option 4, esp ecially vis-à-vis the EU fleet which discards 
 
EN  31
few or no sharks, but could be relatively larg er vis-à-vis non-EU vesse ls landing in EU ports. 
However, the indirect positive impact of Opti on 3 would be significant, as enhanced data 
collection would allow for the establishment of  effective management measures, which would 
enhance conservation in the mid and long term. In addition, implementing option 3 via an EU regulation would allow the EU to successfully promote this option worldwide, via RFMO's, 
with a potentially global positive effect on th e shark stocks concerned. Overall, Option 3 
would have a significant positive impact on conser vation, in contrast wi th Option 1(i). Option 
3 is therefore considered the preferred option. Depending on the reaction of the sector, Option 
2 could result in either: (a) continued pressure and possible depletion, or (b) some 
conservation benefit, on the two main shark species concerned. Option 1(i) and 1(ii) are 
expected to have a negative impact on sharks stocks, starting in the short term and becoming 
more severe in the long term. Option 1(i) is  likely to have the most negative impact on 
conservation. 
 
Economic Impacts 
 
Option 1(i) represents the status quo and w ould therefore have no economic impacts on the 
sector in the short term. However, in the medi um to long term, stock de pletion, especially of 
shortfin mako, is likely to resu lt in reduced catches  and reduced revenue. Option 1(ii) will 
have an economic impact similar to option 1(i). The sector seems to be  willing and able to 
accept simultaneous landings (option 1(ii)) across the board, as this is already the practice in 
many cases. Option 2 is expected to have a mode rate negative impact surface longline sector. 
This could be offset to a certain  extent provided that the sector is willing to adapt their fin 
cutting practices, especially in terms of re ducing flesh unnecessarily retained on the fins. 
Option 3 is not expected to have a signifi cant negative impact on operators who are in 
compliance with the current Regulation, provided  that the sector is willing to employ the 
various adaptations listed in Section 5. Option 4 is expected  to have an immediate and 
significant negative impact on the sector, as the significant proportion of the total revenue 
attributed to sharks would be lost. 
 
Impacts on control and enforcement 
 
Under option 1(i) it is difficult for inspectors to  be certain that no finning has occurred. Under 
option 1(ii) the uncertainty is significantly reduced, but not completely eliminated. Under option 2 the possibility of finning is greatly reduced, given the fi n-to-carcass weight ratios of 
the main species caught, the fin sets retaine d, and the cutting techniques employed by the fleet 
segment concerned. Under option 3 finning cannot o ccur. Option 3 abolishes the use of ratios, 
thereby closing the debate on whether these sh ould be increased, whet her species-specific 
ratios should be developed and used (something which would be virtually impossible to apply 
to processed carcasses) and whether cutting tec hniques and retention of fin sets should be 
harmonized. Under Option 4, control and enfor cement would be simplified relative to the 
status quo, as inspectors would simply have to verify that no sharks or shark products are 
retained on board, transhipped or landed.   
Impacts on data collection 
 
Under options 1(i), 1(ii) and 2, da ta collection is very limited due to the fact that various types 
of biological and physiological information (e.g. catch composition, species identification 
etc.) cannot be collected once carcasses have been  processed.  In contra st, the collection of 
such data essential in devel oping the necessary management a nd conservation tools would be 
 
EN  32
greatly enhanced under Option 3. Under Option 4 da ta collection would be virtually nil, i.e. 
more limited than under Option 1(i).    
Impacts on simplification, ad ministrative burden and relations with third countries 
 
As regards impacts on (A) simplification, (B) admi nistrative burden and (C ) the relations with 
third countries: (A) control w ould be greatly simplified unde r Option 3 as finning would 
become impossible and the use of weight ra tios would be abolished. (B) Depending on the 
option selected, the administrative burden would either remain the same or be reduced. (C) 
Relations with third countries would not be af fected, irrespective of the choice of option; 
except in the event that Option 1( i) or 1(ii) were to be select ed and EU vessels abiding by the 
5% live-weight rule would attempt to land in non-EU ports where the 5% dressed-weight rule 
applies, as was the case in Durban and Cape Verde in 2009 (see Section 5.1., Option 2, 
economic impacts).  In conclusion, Option 4 might have the largest positive effect on shark stocks, particularly blue shark and shortfin mako, pr ovided that shark avoidance meas ures are successful and that 
no discards are generated. On the other hand, Option 4 woul d have the most significant 
negative economic and social impacts on th e fishing sector, which might cease being 
profitable. Furthermore, option 4 would furthe r limit data collection, thus inhibiting the 
establishment of effective management measur es such as a TAC and quota regime, in the 
future. Option 3 would also have a significan t positive effect on these stocks, but a much 
smaller negative effect on the fishing sector th an Option 4. Depending on the application of 
adaptive strategies (new marketing channels , new fishing, processi ng and transhipment 
patterns etc), the sector might be able to with stand the negative economic impact of Option 3. 
Furthermore, Option 3 would have a significant  positive effect on data collection. Options 
1(i), 1(ii) and 2 would not fulfil the desired po licy objectives. The magnitude of the negative 
economic impacts of the various policy options cannot be quantified for the reasons described 
in Section 2.7.  
Table 8. Summary comparison of the policy options – impacts of each option. 
 I     M     P     A     C     T     S 
Option Economic Social  Conservation Control and 
enforcement Data 
collection Simplification, 
administrative 
burden and 
relations with 
non-EU 
countries 
1(i) No impact 
in the short 
term, but reduced 
revenue due 
to reduced catches is 
possible in 
the medium 
term and 
likely in the Minor impact 
on employment 
in the short term, 
increasing in 
the long term as stocks 
become 
depleted. Negative 
impact 
increasing in the long term. Significant 
difficult in 
ensuring compliance. 
EU inspectors 
state that this option is 
unacceptable. Remains very 
limited No impact on 
simplification or 
administrative burden. Probable 
recurrence of 
problems when EU vessels land 
in non-EU ports 
where the 5% 
dressed weight 
rule applies. 
 
EN  33
long term. 
1(ii) No impact 
in the short 
term, but 
reduced revenue due 
to reduced 
catches is possible in 
the medium 
term and 
likely in the 
long term. Minor impact 
on employment 
in the short 
term, increasing in 
the long term 
as stocks become 
depleted. A 
minor 
reduction in 
profit margins in the short 
term, which is 
likely to diminish over 
time. Negative 
impact 
increasing in 
the long term. Control is 
facilitated, 
but a certain 
degree of uncertainty 
regarding 
compliance remains. Remains very 
limited No impact on 
simplification or 
administrative 
burden. Probable recurrence of 
problems when 
EU vessels land in non-EU ports 
where the 5% 
dressed weight 
rule applies. 
2 A moderate 
negative impact is 
expected. 
This could be offset to 
a certain 
extent provided 
that the 
sector is willing to 
adapt fin 
cutting 
practices. A moderate to 
significant negative 
impact on 
employment might be 
expected if the 
sector fails to adapt its fin 
cutting 
methods and fin retention 
practices. The 
impact is 
expected to 
occur in the short term and 
persist through 
the long term. If these 
practices are 
adjusted as described in 
the "Economic 
impacts" section above, 
this impact 
would be significantly 
reduced.  Depending on 
the sector's reaction, either 
a continuation 
of current trends or a 
positive 
impact can be expected, the 
magnitude of 
which is unknown. Control is 
facilitated, but a certain 
degree of 
uncertainty regarding 
compliance 
remains. Remains very 
limited No impact on 
simplification or administrative 
burden. EU 
vessels landing in certain non-
EU ports would 
in line with the locally applied 
5% dressed 
weight rule. 
3 No 
significant negative 
impact 
expected on 
operators 
who are in compliance 
with the No significant 
negative impact on 
employment in 
fleets which 
are in 
compliance with the 
current Positive 
impact expected, the 
magnitude of 
which is 
unknown, but 
becoming more positive 
in the mid to Control is 
significantly facilitated and 
simplified, 
and 
uncertainty 
regarding compliance is 
virtually Significantly 
enhanced, enabling 
establishment 
of further 
management 
measures in the future. The abolishment 
of weight ratios and special 
fishing permits 
would contribute 
to simplification 
of rules and their implementation. 
No direct impact 
 
EN  34
current 
Regulation. Regulation, 
provided that 
the sector is 
willing to employ the 
various 
adaptations listed in 
Section 5. long term. eliminated. on relations with 
non-EU 
countries. 
4 A 
significant 
negative 
impact is expected 
due to the 
loss of a significant 
percentage 
of the current 
revenue of 
surface longliners. A significant 
negative 
impact on 
employment, taking effect in 
the short term 
and lasting for an unknown 
amount of 
time. Significant 
positive 
impact 
expected in the short, medium 
and long term. Control is 
significantly 
facilitated and 
simplified, and 
uncertainty 
regarding compliance is 
virtually 
eliminated. Data 
collection 
becomes 
virtually non-existent. The abolishment 
of weight ratios 
and special 
fishing permits would contribute 
to simplification 
of rules and their implementation. 
No direct impact 
on relations with non-EU 
countries. 
 
 
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION 
 
The nature of the monito ring regime will be determined by the choice of  policy option. In 
case options 1(i), 1(ii) or 2 are selected, a mon itoring regime similar to the current one would 
be implemented, i.e. the Member States will be  required to submit annual reports of a nature 
similar to that laid down in Article 6 of the current Regulation. As mentioned in Section 2.4 the majority of Member States have a poor comp liance record with this  obligation (see Annex 
II). It would be useful to simplify the reporting obligation for those Member States not issuing 
special permits and for those not catching any shar ks. In such cases it might be sufficient that 
Member States annually report that they issue no permits, and where it applies, that they catch 
no sharks. This would eliminate unnecessary work for the relevant National Authorities as 
well as the Commission.  
In case option 3 or 4 is chosen, the nature of  reporting would be radically different and the 
reporting format will be greatly simplified as special fishing permits would no longer exist. The current reporting format consists of a que stionnaire, many of the questions being based 
on the assumption that on-board fin removal is  being carried out. If on-board fin removal 
were to cease, these questions would no longer be present in the future follow-up questionnaire. Given that option 3 is the preferre d option, any future suspected breaches of the 
regulation under the fins-attached  regime would be much more readily detected by inspectors, 
and the case against those infringing upon the regu lation would be more clear-cut. As reported 
by some Member States, in particular the United Kingdom and Germany (See Annex III), 
there have been cases of suspected breaches of the regulation where legal action has been 
difficult or impossible due to complications  introduced by the use of ratios, varying 
conversion factors, separate landings and the consequent reliance of inspectors on logbook 
 
EN  35
records etc. Under option 3, monitoring would c onsist of simply observing that sharks are 
retained on board, transhipped and landed with thei r fins still attached. Inspectors will be able 
to ascertain a breach of the fi nning ban simply by simple obser vation, without the necessity to 
count and/or weigh fins and ca rcasses and without having to an alyse figures in logbooks. The 
Commission will continue to analyse Member States' annual reports and will follow up on 
cases where violation of the regulation is detected.  
 The evaluation of the positive conservation eff ects on the two main shark species concerned 
will have to be monitored in the medium to l ong term, as their life-history characteristics are 
such that any positive trends in  the stock would only become a pparent after several years or 
perhaps decades. 
 
 
EN  36
 
ANNEXES 
 
ANNEX I – SCIENTIFIC ADVICE 
 
STECF advice 
 
The Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) states36 that finning 
should not take place, because it leads to increased mortality of primarily pelagic sharks, 
which in many instances survive capture and c ould be released back into the sea alive. 
Furthermore, without appropriate species-sp ecific fin-weight to live weight conversion 
factors, this practice can lead to a distorti on of the catch statis tics required for stock 
assessment purposes. If left intact, survival ra tes for discarded sharks  can be high. Studies 
show that 80 – 90 % of blue sharks are aliv e on longlines during hauling and about 60% of 
those sharks could survive if released (Campana et al., 2005)37. STECF recommends 
measures to eradicate finning without exempti on. STECF suggests that this should apply to all 
elasmobranch species, including skates and ra ys, which should be land ed whole or gutted, 
with fins/wings-still attached. STECF supports th e proposal to oblige vessels to land carcases 
and fins simultaneously in the same port in orde r to improve the quality of catch statistics and 
to ensure that finning does not occur.   
RFMO advice  
 
Blue shark 
 
Atlantic Ocean stocks: the ICCAT pelagic shark assessment working group (ICCAT, 2005) 
considers there to be a single stock of blue shark ( Prionace glauca ) in the North Atlantic, one in 
the South Atlantic and one in the Mediterranean (Heessen, 2003; Fitzmaurice et al ., 2005, 
ICCAT, 2004). ICCAT started collecting data on shark by-catches from the Atlantic tuna fleets 
only in 1994, and catch reporting of sharks has not been good. Estimates from a study of the Hong 
Kong shark fin trade (Clarke, 2003) showed that blue shark catches were underreported globally. 
Based on this information ICCAT attempted to construct a more accurate picture of shark catch and mortality in the Atlantic tuna fleets based on ratios of shark to tuna landings from fleets 
reporting both to ICCAT and using these ratios to reconstruct an example catch history by major 
gear type. The current biomass of blue shark in both the North and South Atlantic appears to be 
above the MSY. In many model runs, stock status appeared to be close to unfished biomass levels. 
However the Working Group recommended that these models be further tested and improved before drawing stronger conclusions. The Working Group stated that without improving these 
models, they can present neither more precise nor more accurate estimates of the status of these 
stocks. No reference points have been proposed for this stock. 
 
Indian Ocean: in 2005 seven countries reported catches of blue sharks in the IOTC region 
although this data is not used by IOTC as its likelihood of being representative is highly uncertain. 
FAO landings data on elasmobranchs for the Indi an Ocean are severely limited by the lack of 
species-specific data and data from the major fleets. There is little information on blue shark 
                                                 
36 Commission Staff Working Document 27th Plenary Meeting Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (Plen-08-01) Plenary Meeting 14-18 April 2008, Hamburg 
https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_libra ry/get_file?folderId=21111&name=DLFE-6501.pdf   
37 Campana, S. E., Marks, L., Joyce, W. Kohler, N. (2005). Catch, by-catch, and indices of population status of 
blue shark ( Prionace glauca ) in the Canadian Atlantic. International Commission for the Conservation of 
Atlantic Tunas, Collective Volume of Scientific Papers. ICCAT 58(3): 891–934. 
 
EN  37
biology in the Indian Ocean and no information is available on stock structure. The catch 
estimates for blue shark are highly uncertain and CPUE trends are also not available as there are 
no surveys specifically designed to assess shark catch rates in the Indian Ocean. Due to the lack of 
data available no quantitative stock assessment has been undertaken by the IOTC Working Party 
on Ecosystems and Bycatch. There is no quantitativ e stock assessment or basic fishery indicators 
currently available for blue shark in the Indian Ocean therefore the stock status is highly uncertain. Blue sharks are commonly taken by a range of fisheries in the Indian Ocean and in 
some areas they are fished in their nursery gr ounds. Because of its life history characteristics – 
being relatively long-lived (16-20 years), maturing at 4-6 years, and having relativity few 
offspring (25-50 pups every two years), the blue shark is vulnerable to overfishing. 
 
Pacific Ocean: blue shark is not actively managed internationally within the Pacific and there 
are no quotas set by any of the RFMOs. Recent studies indicate the species, which may comprise a single Pacific-wide stock, is abundant and healthy (F/FMSY < 0.5). There is some 
evidence for a decline of the stocks of blue shark in the central Paci fic (Nakano 1996), but not 
yet evidence of overfishing. The north Pacific blue shark stock appears healthy (Kleiber et al. 
MS1) with a current population size that is above BMSY with F/FMSY < 0.5, and that MSY 
could be 1.7 - 3.0 times the catch observed in the late 80's early 90's. Sibert et al. estimate that 
the North Pacific blue shark populat ion is at 91% of the unexploi ted level. In spite of being 
the largest component of the bycatch incidental ly taken by high seas, longline fleets for over 
50 years the MSY for the north Pacific stock is tentatively estimated to be approximately 120 
000t. No harvest guidelines or reference point s have been recommended at this time. 
 
Shortfin mako  
Atlantic Ocean stocks: historically the shortfin mako  has been caught as bycatch 
predominantly in tuna and billfish longline fisher ies. It is a high value species and as such is 
also targeted by recreational fisheries in both the North East and North West Atlantic. At present there is still no directed fishery towards the shortfin mako which is considered to have 
only a single stock in the No rth Atlantic. Current EU catch es of the shortfin mako are 
predominantly by Portuguese and Spanish vess els, although records of landings Spanish 
vessels only exist since 2004. The UK has also reported landings, but these are negligible, 
being below 3 tonnes. The Portuguese report the largest landings with  the maximum reported 
being 542 tonnes in 2003, which made up 50 % of the total North Atlan tic reported landings 
(ICES, 2007). The catch data provid ed is incomplete and as such  it is difficult to accurately 
determine catches and produce stock assessments . However, catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) 
data has shown that the North Atlantic stock has been declining since 1975 although further 
analysis is required (ICES, 2007).   Despite the catch data available and the CPUE data indicating declining stocks there have been no recent stock assessments. A decision wa s taken not to undertake stock assessments as 
there was limited data all of which was consider ed poor quality. The lack of accurate precise 
data is emphasized by the fact that NAFO uses  commercial and recreational fisheries to 
provide them with abundan ce indices (NAFO, 2007).  
 Mediterranean stocks: it is considered that there are two stocks of Shortfin Mako in the 
Mediterranean; a Northern Stoc k and a Southern Stock (ICCAT,  2005). A lack of available 
landings data and relevant catch data from commercial fisheries has resulted in no stock 
assessments being able to be undertaken. Increased levels of data recording are required to enable stock assessment to be achieved.   
 
EN  38
Indian Ocean stocks: historically there has been little information on the status of the 
Shortfin Mako fishery in IOTC wa ters and it is apparent that la ndings of shortfin mako have 
gone unreported in the past. Consequently, IOTC  catches of Shortfin Mako sharks are highly 
inaccurate and have little repres entativeness. (IOTC, 2007) A lack of representative data is 
emphasized by the fact there is no extensive FAO data due to a lack of species-specific data 
from major fleets (IOTC, 2007). The lack of landing information means it has not been 
possible to carry out a stock assessment. In addition CPUE has not been available as no 
surveys have been carried out en abling the suitabl e data to be obtained to produce the relevant 
CPUE information. 
 
 
 
 ANNEX II - MEMBER STATES' COMPLIANCE WITH THE ANNUAL REPORTING OBLIGATION 
Member States' compliance with  the annual reporting obligation in line with the shark finning Regulation (EC) 1185/2003: State of play on 16 May 11. The 
reporting deadline for each reference year is the 1st of May of the following year. The number of fishing perm its issued annually by the relevant national authorities 
of each Member State is shown. Red (dark) highlight = No re port submitted to date.  Yellow ( light) highlight = Report submitted  after deadline.  Member States 
which issue, or have in the past issued special fishing permits are highlighted in light blue and the relevant information is i n bold type.  
 
MS 2004 
report 
received No. of 
permits 
issued 2005 
report 
received No. of 
permits 
issued 2006 
report 
receivedNo. of 
permits 
issued 2007 
report 
receivedNo. of 
permits 
issued 2008 
report 
receivedNo. of 
permits 
issued 2009  
report 
receivedNo. of 
permits
issued  2010 
report 
receivedNo. of 
permits 
issued  
BE 09.06.05 0 27.11.06 0 10.09.07 0 27.01.10 0 27.01.10 0 10.03.11 0   BE 
BG N/A* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 30.04.08 0   11.05.10 0   BG 
CY 28.06.05 0 26.07.07 0 31.07.07 0 18.01.10 0 18.01.10 0 21.03.11 0 28.04.11 1 CY 
DE 13.06.05 3 26.06.07 5 26.06.07 5 15.05.08 5 14.04.09 5 03.08.10 0 24.05.11  DE 
DK 04.07.05 0 17.09.07 0 17.09.07 0 24.07.08 0 08.01.10 0 26.01.10 0   DK 
EE 08.06.05 2 03.05.06 0 23.05.07 0 10.04.08 0 23.04.09 0 08.04.11 0 08.04.11 0 EE 
EL 22.07.05 0 09.01.07 0 27.08.07 0 11.07.08 0 13.05.09 0 02.06.10 0 26.05.11 0 EL 
ES 18.05.05 198 30.06.06 192 25.06.07 164 19.03.10 173 19.03.10 200 24.04.11 175 24.04.11 164 ES 
FI 20.9.05 0 24.01.07 0 09.01.08 0 14.07.08 0 10.03.09 0 29.03.11 0 29.03.11 0 FI 
FR 01.07.05 0 22.10.07 0 22.10.07 0         FR 
IE 19.01.06 0 01.02.10 0 30.04.07 0 23.04.08 0 26.03.09 0 31.03.10 0   IE 
IT 04.11.05 0 04.05.06 0 29.05.07 0 20.05.08 0 18.01.10 0     IT 
LT 02.06.05 0 28.04.06  1 10.05.07 1 25.04.08 1 12.05.09 1 29.03.11 0   LT 
LV 16.06.05 0 26.01.06 0 21.08.07 0 12.01.10 0 12.01.10 0 18.04.11 0 18.04.11 0 LV 
MT 06.06.05 0 01.10.07 0 14.12.07 0         MT 
NL 06.06.05 0 07.04.06 0 16.02.07 0 02.02.10 0 02.02.10 0     NL 
PL 18.07.05 0 23.11.06 0 21.08.07 0 08.01.10 0 08.01.10 0   02.03.11 0 PL 
PT 15.03.05 11 10.01.08 12 10.01.08 28     10.05.10 49 09.05.11 45 PT 
RO N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 29.04.11 0 29.04.11 0 29.04.11 0 29.04.11 0 RO 
SE 15.05.05 0 11.05.06 0           SE 
SI 13.12.07 0 20.04.06 0 27.04.07 0 30.04.08 0 27.07.09 0 10.05.10 0   SI 
UK 26.05.05 20 07.06.06 16 13.06.07 18 11.07.08 15 04.02.10 15 09.08.10 0   UK 
Total permits 
issued per year 232  226  216  194+  221+  224  210  
*N/A = Not Applicable. No report required for the years prio r to 2007 for BG and RO, i.e. prior to EU membership. 
 
EN   EN 40
ANNEX III – INFRACTIONS OF CO UNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1100/2007 REPORTED BY MEMBER STATES 
 
The tables in this Annex show, on an annual basis, the number of  inspections carried out (where available), the number of infra ctions detected and the 
nature of these infractions. According to inspectors within th e Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, the rat e of inspection is such that 
only a small proportion of landings are inspected. It is therefore concluded that the number of infractions detected annually w ould multiply if all shark 
landings were to be inspected. 
SPAIN 
YEAR No of 
inspections  No of 
infractions Nature of infraction / Comment 
2003 0 0 - 
2004 ? 9 3 instances of exceeding the 5% fin allowance and 6 in stances of failure to record  fins separately in the 
logbook 
2005 88 4 3 instances of exceeding the 5% fin allowance (2  Spanish vessels and 1 Portuguese), 1 instance of a 
Portuguese vessel removing fins on board without a special fishing permit.  
2006 149 2 1 Spanish and one Panamanian vessel removing fi ns without a permit and w ithout updating the logbook 
2007 19 1 1 instance of a Spanish vessel exceeding the 5% fin allowance 
2008 97 7 7 instances of Spanish vesse ls exceeding the 5% fin allowance 
2009 97 7 7 instances of Spanish vesse ls exceeding the 5% fin allowance 
2010 78 ? Information still under sc rutiny by Spanish authorities 
 
 
PORTUGAL 
YEAR No of inspections  No of infr actions Nature of infraction / Comment 
2003 ? 0 No separate landings of fins  and carcasses were carried out. 
2004    
2005 ? 0 - 
2006 ? 0 - 
2007 No report 
submitted No report 
submitted No report submitted 
2008 No report 
submitted No report 
submitted No report submitted 
 
EN   EN 41
2009 ? 1 1 instance of removing fins without a special fishing permit was detected. Court proceeding were 
launched 
2010 49 0 - 
  
UNITED KINGDOM 
YEAR No of inspections  No of infr actions Nature of infraction / Comment 
2003 ? ? No special fishing permits were issued 
2004 ?   
2005 ? 3 3 instances of exceeding the 5% fin allowance 
2006 ? ? "A number of minor breaches occurred", but th e UK authorities do not believ e that finning occurred 
2007 ? ? 1 vessel was detained but no evidence of finning was found. 
2008 ? 5 5 infringements of an unspecified nature were found. 
2009 ? 4 4 UK-registered vessels reta ined on board and landed fins w ithout a special fishing permit. 
2010 No report 
submitted No report 
submitted No report submitted 
 
 
GERMANY 
YEAR No of 
inspections  No of 
infractions Nature of infraction / Comment 
2003    
2004    
2005 ? 5 5 instances of exceeding the 5% fin allowance were detected. Court proceedings were launched. 
2006 ? 0 No problems detected. 
2007 ? 2 2 instances of exceeding the 5% fin allowance were detected. Court proceedings were launched. 
2008 ? 1 1 infraction was detected, but no proceedings were la unched as the rules were under revision at that time 
2009 ? 0 - 
2010 ? 0 - 
 
ITALY: One dried fin was found on board a vess el without a special fishing permit in 2009. 
 
EN   EN 42
ANNEX IV – SUMMARY OF RESPONSE S TO THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION 
 
More than 5,000 contributions were receive d. The responses indicate that  virtually all NGO's and an overwhelming majority of th e public support 
Option 3. Part of the sector supports option 1 (either 1(a) or 1(b)), whereas other pa rts of the sector propose an alternative:  Raising the 5% fin to live-
weight ratio to 6 or 6.5% to re flect the average ra tio applicable to the two main species  caught by EU vessels (blue shark and shortfin mako) and to the 
fin-cutting and fin-retention techniques em ployed by these vessels. The vast majority of  responses were sent in by private citi zens (4,456), though 
about half of these (2,239) could not be c onsidered useful for the purposes of the c onsultation. Four contributions were submit ted by public authorities, 
26 by registered organizations and 31 by unregistered organizations.  
 
The arguments presented by the various stakeholders vary in qua lity and content. The most well-informed and well-argued positio ns are presented by 
the NGO's and the fishing industry, as well as some local and na tional authorities and some acade mic and research associations.  On the other hand, the 
vast majority of the general public seem to  be poorly informed: it seems that they reacted to the consu ltation paper after view ing various television 
broadcasts on shark finning, without readi ng the paper itself. This led to the subm ission of approximately 2,500 contributions which are not useable for 
the purposes of the Impact Assessment. The Spanish and Portuguese freezer vessels are those most concernced by the proposed ame ndment. This 
sector's representatives have stated that  the prohibition to remove fins on board w ould lead to storage and handling difficulti es and hazards, caused by 
frozen carcasses with protruding fins. These problems are eliminated by slicing partly  though the fins and folding them against  the carcass, as 
described in Section 5.2, Option 3.   
Nature of reply Number of replies
Option 1 9 
Option 2 0 
Option 3 2706 
Other options 68 
Unclear 2239 
TOTAL 5022 
  
Source of reply Number of replies
General public 4961 
Public authorities 4 
Registered organization 26 
Unregistered organization 31 
TOTAL 5022 
 
EN   EN 43