EN    EN  
 EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, XXX 
[…](2011) XXX draft 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
SUMMARY OF THE 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 
 
 
 
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
1. PROBLEM DEFINITION 
 
Due to their life-history charac teristics, shark populations ar e particularly vulnerable to 
overfishing and take a long time to recover from  depletion. Sharks have been increasingly 
targeted by fisheries due to an increased demand for shark products, fins in particular. Finning 
is the practice of severing and retaining the fins  of sharks while discarding the carcass at sea. 
Finning is highly wasteful and unsustainable. R ecognizing that sharks, skates and rays are 
particularly vulnerable to overe xploitation, that many shark st ocks are under serious threat, 
and that the practice of shark finning contribute s to excessive mortality and to stock depletion 
the Council in 2003, adopted Regulation (EC) N o. 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks 
on board vesselsError! Bookmark not defined.. The Regulation applies to al l types of fishing in EU 
waters, and to all EU vessel s fishing in non-EU waters.  
 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. In or der to ensure that no  discarding of carcasses 
has occurred, the weight of the fins must neve r exceed 5% of the live weight of the shark 
catch on board.   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 fi gures recorded in the logbook in order to make the necessary 
weight comparisons. 
 2. To verify the compliance with the 5% fin to carcass live weight ratio, inspectors faced 
with processed carcasses and/or fins, must use conversion factors to verify that finning has 
not occurred. The weight ratio and conversion fa ctor varies according to species, location 
and life stage, as well as processing/preserva tion methods such as freezing and/or drying 
of the products. No single ratio can a pply to all of these contingencies. 
 3. Fleets around the world use diffe rent fin cutting techniques a nd retain different fin sets 
from carcasses. The fin cutting methods of the EU fleets and the fact that they retain all 
fins on board results in a higher fin-to-carcass- weight ratio than that calculated for other 
fleets. EU vessels routinely land in non-EU ports where more restrictive weight ratios 
apply, and are consequently found to be in  breach of locally applied regulations. 
 
4. On-board processing hampers the collection of data which are vital for the development of 
management and conservation measures.  
 
 
EN  2
5. The Regulation imposes an annual reporting obligation on the Member States. The 
majority of Member States have a poor co mpliance record with this obligation (see 
Annex). It would seem necessary to simplif y the reporting obligation for those Member 
States not issuing special permits an d for those not catching any sharks. 
 6. There are no uniform guidelines governing the issue of permits by national authorities.  
  Those primarily concerned are EU vessels holding special fishing permits.  These are typically 
long distance surface longliners, the vast majori ty being Spanish (181 vessels), followed by 
Portuguese (29 vessels). There is one Lithuanian and one C ypriot vessel holding permits.  
 
2. ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY 
 
The conservation of marine biological resources is an exclusive competence of the European 
Union and the European Commissi on therefore has the right to pr opose relevant legislation in 
this domain, in the framework of the Common Fi sheries Policy. Sharks are fished by vessels 
flagged in various Member Stat es, operating within and outside  EU waters, and EU action in 
this domain is therefore necessary and justified. 
 
3. OBJECTIVES  
The general objective of the Regulation is to  enhance shark conservation. The main policy 
objective is to ensure that, in application of the precautionary principle, the conservation of 
shark stocks is enhanced.  In order to achieve this objective more specific objectives are set:  
 
- Conservation of sharks (particularly blue shark and shortfin mako) by eliminating all 
possibility to fin.   - Facilitation of effective and reliable control.   
 - Enabling collection of data critical to the es tablishment of management measures and stock 
monitoring.  Pursuing this objective would ensure coherence of  EU legislation with international rules (in 
particular FAO, ICCAT and IOTC),  which the EU must abide by.   
 
4. POLICY OPTIONS 
The following options have been  considered and assessed: 
 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.  
 
EN  3
 
(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.   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, Central and South America. 
 
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).  
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 
The impacts of each policy option were assessed  to the greatest extent possible. However, 
given the lack of relevant data, economic data  in particular, it has not been possible to 
accurately quantify these impacts. Thes e impacts are summarized in Table 1. 
 Table 1. Summary comparison of the policy options – impacts of each option. 
 I     M     P     A     C     T     S 
Option Economic Conservation Control and 
enforcement Data 
collection Simplification, 
administrative 
burden and 
relations with 
 
EN  4
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 long term. 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. 
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. 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. 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 current 
Regulation. Positive impact 
expected, the magnitude of which is 
unknown, but 
becoming more positive in the mid to long term. Control is 
significantly facilitated and simplified, and 
uncertainty 
regarding compliance is virtually eliminated. 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 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 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-
 
EN  5
longliners. EU countries. 
 
 
6. COMPARING OF THE POLICY OPTIONS  
 
Option 4 might have the largest positive effect on shark stocks, particularly blue shark and 
shortfin mako, provided that sh ark avoidance measures are succe ssful and that no discards are 
generated. On the other hand, Option 4 would ha ve the most significant negative economic 
impact on the fishing sector, which might cease being profitable. Furthe rmore, option 4 would 
further limit data collection, thus inhibiting the establishment of effective management 
measures such as a TAC and quota regime, in  the future. Option 3 would also have a 
significant positive effect on these stocks, but a much smaller negative effect on the fishing sector than Option 4. Depending on the applica tion of adaptive strategies (new marketing 
channels, new fishing, processing and transhipment patterns etc), the sect or might be able to 
withstand the negative economic impact of Option 3. Furthermore, Option 3 would have a significant positive effect on data collection, consequently enabling the establishment of essential conservation and management measur es in the mid and long term. Additionally, 
Option 3 would simplify control an d enhance its effectiveness. Op tions 1(i), 1(ii) and 2 would 
not fulfil the desired policy objectives.    
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 Arti cle 6 of the current Regulation.  
 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.   
No significant costs or savings ar e expected, regardless of the c hoice of the format and nature 
of the future reporting obligations . However, if options 3 or 4 are chosen the administrative 
burden would be reduced.
 
 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.