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 {COM(2009) 40 final} {SEC(2009) 104} {SEC(2009) 106}
Date: 2009-02-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: conservation of fish stocks, environmental protection, fishery management, impact study, marine life, protected species, sea fish

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 5.2.2009 
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 

{COM(2009) 40 final} 
{SEC(2009) 104} 
{SEC(2009) 106} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. IV 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 6 

Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 6 

Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 6 

Problem definition........................................................................................................ 7 

Issues requiring action.................................................................................................. 7 

Underlying drivers of the problem............................................................................... 9 

2.3.  Who is affected?......................................................................................................... 12 

2.4. 

2.5. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

5. 

How would the problem evolve? ............................................................................... 16 

Right to act ................................................................................................................. 19 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 20 

Policy objectives and scope ....................................................................................... 20 

Consistency with other EU policies ........................................................................... 23 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 24 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 25 

5.1. 

Option A..................................................................................................................... 25 

5.1.1.  Environmental impacts............................................................................................... 25 

5.1.2.  Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 27 

5.1.3.  Social impacts ............................................................................................................ 29 

5.1.4.  Risks, trade-offs / synergies, public opinion, enhancing measures............................ 31 

5.2. 

Option B ..................................................................................................................... 31 

5.2.1.  Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 31 

5.2.2.  Economic Impacts...................................................................................................... 34 

5.2.3.  Social Impacts ............................................................................................................ 39 

5.2.4.  Risks, trade-offs/synergies, public opinion, enhancing measures.............................. 41 

5.3. 

Option C ..................................................................................................................... 43 

5.3.1.  Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 43 

5.3.2.  Economic Impacts...................................................................................................... 43 

5.3.3.  Social Impacts ............................................................................................................ 45 

EN 

II 

   EN 

 
5.3.4.  Risks, trade-offs/synergies, public opinion, enhancing measures.............................. 46 

6. 

7. 

Administrative and management costs....................................................................... 46 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 47 

7.1. 

Option A: Status quo.................................................................................................. 48 

7.1.1.  Advantages................................................................................................................. 48 

7.1.2.  Drawbacks.................................................................................................................. 48 

7.2. 

Option B: Proposed Fields of Action ......................................................................... 48 

7.2.1.  Advantages................................................................................................................. 48 

7.2.2.  Drawbacks.................................................................................................................. 49 

7.3. 

Option C: Strict Precautionary Approach .................................................................. 49 

7.3.1.  Advantages................................................................................................................. 49 

7.3.2.  Drawbacks.................................................................................................................. 49 

7.4. 

Preferred option.......................................................................................................... 50 

8. 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 59 

APPENDIX I............................................................................................................................ 63 

APPENDIX II .......................................................................................................................... 72 

APPENDIX III ......................................................................................................................... 79 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Administration costs of Option B .............................................................................. 79 

Phase 1 Preparatory Analysis..................................................................................... 79 

Phase 2: Data capture and standardization................................................................. 80 

Phase 3: Calculation and reporting ............................................................................ 83 

Administration costs of Option C .............................................................................. 89 

management costs (Option B and C) ......................................................................... 93 

Management and administration cost estimates......................................................... 96 

APPENDIX IV......................................................................................................................... 97 

APPENDIX V .......................................................................................................................... 99 

APPENDIX VI....................................................................................................................... 103 

EN 

III 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

accompanying 

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 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This  Impact  Assessment  (IA)  concerns  a  proposal  for  a  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. The report has been drafted 
taking into consideration the results of public and institutional consultations and a study 
commissioned from a private consultant on this subject. 

Three  policy  objectives  and  nine  fields  of  action  were  initially  envisaged  by  the  draft 
submitted for consultation. Following the consultation process, the fields of action have 
been  reduced  to  five,  by  merging  some  of  them  while  retaining  all  the  particular 
measures initially proposed. 

The main policy objectives remain the same: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Broaden the knowledge both on shark fisheries and on shark species and their role 
in the ecosystem. 
Ensure  that  directed  fisheries  for  shark  are  sustainable  and  that  by-catches  of 
shark resulting from other fisheries are properly regulated. 
Encourage  a  coherent  approach  between  the  internal  and  external  EC  fishery 
policy for sharks. 

The policy options analysed by this IA are as follow: 

Option A: Status Quo with no Action Plan. 

Option B: Several fields of Action to be addressed (with the possibility for "hard" and 
"soft" sub-options). 

Option C: Application of a strict precautionary approach. 

Following  a  detailed  study  of  the  environmental,  economic  and  social  impacts  of  each 
option  and  each  field  of  action,  the  range  of  measures  initially  proposed  under  the  re-
arranged five fields of action has been slightly reduced, mainly because other bodies are 

EN 

IV 

   EN 

 
already dealing with them and in order to ensure a balance between available resources 
and  effectiveness.  However,  a  new  measure  has  been  added  (co-operation  through  the 
Convention on Migratory Species –CMS- and the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora -CITES). 

The IA therefore concludes that the preferred option is an amended version of Option B. 
The  main  elements  of  the  selected  option  comprise  measures  for  data  collection  and 
scientific  advice,  management  and  technical  measures  and  further  limitations  on  shark 
fining practices. The fields of action and corresponding measures included in the revised 
draft Community Plan of Action (CPOA) are set out in Section 7.4 of the present Impact 
Assessment and in the table annexed to the Communication to the Commission. 

Finally,  a  series  of  impact  indicators  (of  the  broad  CPOA  policy  objectives)  and  result 
indicators (for the specific aims of the individual fields of action) have been proposed. 

In summary, there are long-term negative impacts associated with the present status quo. 
The actions under option B should go along way to reversing those impacts, particularly 
within  Community  waters,  without  unacceptable  social  and  economic  short-or  medium 
term impacts. 

EN 

V 

   EN 

 
Lead DG: DG MARE 

Other involved services: DG ENV, DG RTD, DG DEV and the SG. 

Agenda planning reference: 2009/MARE/001 

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Organisation and timing 

This impact assessment concerns a proposal for a 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. Its development is foreseen in Agenda 
Planning  2009/MARE/001  (Commission  Communication  on  an  EU  Action  Plan  for 
sharks)  and  in  the  2008  Annual  Management  Plan  of  the  Directorate  General  for 
Maritime Affairs and Fisheries under the specific objective "Improve the governance of 
shark fisheries and ensure the sustainability of shark stocks". 

On  16  October  2007,  an  inter-service  steering  group  on  an  EU  Plan  of  Action  for  the 
Conservation and Management of Sharks was convened by note of the DG FISH General 
Director to DGs ENV, RTD, DEV, AIDCO, TRADE, RELEX, SANCO, the LS and the 
SG. Four meetings of the steering group have taken place so far, with the participation of 
DGs MARE, RTD, ENV, DEV and the SG. 

On  13  March  2008,  a  contract  has  been  signed  between  an  external  consultant  and  the 
Commission to carry out a study concerning the Impact Assessment of the Commission's 
projected  Plan  of  Action.  The  final  report  of  this  study  has  been  delivered  by  the 
consultant on 18 July 2008. 

The adoption of the Communication by the Commission is foreseen in January 2009. 

1.2. 

Consultation and expertise 

As a first step of this assessment, the Commission identified nine fields of action that it 
believed should be addressed in an EU Action Plan for Sharks. 

On 11 December 2007, DG MARE launched a public consultation process through "Your 
Voice  in  Europe"  on  the  measures  to  take,  which  was  completed  in  March  2008. 
Furthermore,  during  the  first  part  of  2008,  the  Commission  services  had  contacts  and 
exchange  of  views  with  NGOs  and  stakeholders  and  formal  institutional  consultations 
with  all  the  RACs  (Regional  Advisory  Councils),  the  ACFA  (Advisory  Committee  on 
Fisheries  and  Aquaculture)  and  the  STECF  (Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic 
Committee on Fisheries).  

The input received in the consultation process has been used to inform this report and the 
impact  assessment  of  the  envisaged  Action  Plan.  Appendix  I  to  this  report  presents  a 
brief summary of the contributions made by stakeholders to the EC. 

On  29  September  2008  the  Impact  Assessment  Board  issued  its  opinion  on  the  1 
impact  assessment  report.  The  Board's 
September  2008  version  of 

the  draft 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
recommendations have led to changes which are included in the present draft. They can 
be summarised as follows: 

•  The report has been re-structured to provide  more  information  on the general  policy 

context and to improve the presentation and analysis of the options. 

•  The  analysis  of  option  A  better  demonstrates  the  problems  to  be  solved  and  the 

rejection of option C has been further justified. 

•  Economic,  social,  trade  and  international  cooperation  considerations  have  been 

incorporated to section 2.2. 

•  Basic information on fisheries and areas most concerned has been included in section 

2.3. 

•  Further references to the EU and international policy context in which the CPOA will 
be  developed  have  been  included  in  section  3.2  (Johannesburg  World  Summit,  CFP 
reform, Communication on discards and IUU Regulation). 

•  The  policy  objectives,  scope  and  aimed  vessels  of  option  B  have  been  clarified  and 

further developed in sections 4 and 5. 

•  The operational objectives have been redefined in order to make them "SMART". 

•  Administrative  and  management  costs  have  been  extended  in  section  6  and  a 
comprehensive  presentation  about  the  estimation  which  was  used  is  given  in 
Appendix III. 

•  Option B is now analysed at the same level of detail than options A and C in the main 

text. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

Issues requiring action 

Despite  their  known  vulnerability  to  overfishing,  chondrichthyans  (sharks,  rays  and 
chimaeras) have been increasingly exploited in recent decades. A number of factors are 
responsible for this trend, including improvements in fishing technology, processing and 
consumer marketing, expanding human populations and declines in other fish stocks, all 
of which have made sharks a more valuable fisheries resource. Thus, shark fisheries have 
experienced  rapid  growth  since  the  mid-1980s  due  to  an  increased  demand  for  shark 
products  (fins  in  particular,  but  also  meat,  skin,  cartilage,  etc),  especially  in  Asian 
markets.  Between  1984  and  2004,  world  catches  of  sharks  grew  from  600,000  to  over 
810,000 metric tons. In addition, many thousands of sharks have been taken accidentally 
in tuna longline fisheries every year since their introduction in the 1960s. 

Shark populations are generally fragile when targeted by unregulated fisheries, resulting 
in a pattern of “boom and bust”. Rising catches are followed by rapid declines and very 
slow recoveries when stocks are protected. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Roughly one-third of European shark species occurring in the EU waters are considered 
by IUCN to be threatened with extinction. Of the pelagic species, porbeagle Lamna nasus 
has been assessed as Critically Endangered in the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean 
Sea, the shortfin mako Isurus oxyrinchus is Critically Endangered in the Mediterranean, 
the  white  shark  Carcharodon  carcharias  is  Endangered  in  the  Mediterranean,  and  the 
basking  shark  Cetorhinus  maximus  is  Endangered  in  the  Northeast  Atlantic.  The  blue 
shark Prionace glauca is assessed as Vulnerable in the Mediterranean. Deepwater sharks 
are  of  particular  concern:  in  the  Northeast  Atlantic,  the  gulper  shark  Centrophorus  is 
Critically  Endangered  whilst  the  leafscale  gulper  shark  Centrophorus  squamosus  and 
Portugese dogfish Centroscymnus coelolepis are both Endangered here. Two species of 
smoothhound Mustelus asterias and Mustelus mustelus are assessed as Vulnerable in the 
Mediterranean.  Also  of  particular  concern  in  European  waters  is  the  spiny  dogfish 
Squalus acanthias, which is assessed as Critically Endangered in the Northeast Atlantic 
and Endangered in the Mediterranean. 

The high value and demand for fins has led to the highly wasteful practise of cutting off 
the  fins  and  discarding  the  carcasses.  This  practice  is  banned  by  all  RFMOs  and  under 
Council Regulation (EC) No. 1185/2003, but cutting the fins on  board and keeping the 
carcasses is allowed under certain conditions. Thus, member States are permitted to issue 
Special Fishing Permits (SFP) that allow derogation from the prohibition to remove shark 
fins  at  sea  provided  they  do  not  have  onboard  more  than  5%  live  weight  of  fins. 
However, this measure does not guaranty that finning practices are 100% prevented. In 
2006  approximately  216  vessels  (mostly  Spanish)  obtained  this  derogation,  down  from 
232  in  2004.  For  other  parties  of  RFMO’s,  the  current  state  of  implementation  of  the 
shark finning ban is unknown. 

Within  the  framework  of  the  Code  of  Conduct  for  Responsible  Fisheries,  the  FAO 
adopted in 1999 the International Plan of action for the conservation and management of 
sharks (IPOA SHARKS). This international plan is voluntary but all concerned States are 
encouraged to implement it. It therefore foresees the implementation by States of national 
plans to ensure the conservation, management and long-term sustainable exploitation of 
shark following the guidelines of the IPOA. 

The  ability  to  manage  elasmobranch  stocks  in  both  European  waters  and  elsewhere  is 
severely  limited  by  the  lack  of  detailed  information  on  catches,  discards  and  landings. 
Traditionally,  however,  not  only  have  catches,  discards  and  landings  been  under-
recorded, but trade in shark products has been poorly understood and trade statistics are 
poor. 

For  both  EU  and  non-EU  fleets,  species  caught  are  often  aggregated  under  generic 
headings  such  as  inter  alia  rajiformes,  sharks  nei,  elasmobranchii,  preventing  a  clear 
distinction  of  catches  by  species,  and  therefore  robust  basis  for  stock  assessment.  This 
may be caused by the inability of fishing masters to formally identify the various shark 
species and/or reluctance to declare catches of individual species since some of them may 
be under special status (IUCN red list, CITES listing). 

The European Community has the exclusive competence for the management of fisheries 
resources; however, it has not yet developed an EC Plan of Action for sharks, although it 
has adopted a number of measures aiming directly or indirectly at the conservation and 
management of sharks. However, the range of existing measures is clearly insufficient to 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
ensure  the  rebuilding  of  many  depleted  stocks  fished  by  the  Community  fleet  in 
its  weight  at 
Community  and  outside  Community  waters.  Furthermore,  given 
international level, the Community should assume a leading role in the development of 
policies  aiming  at  the  rational  exploitation  of  fishing  resources.  Therefore,  the 
Commission has foreseen the adoption at the end of 2008 of a Communication on an EC 
Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. 

2.2. 

Underlying drivers of the problem 

Biological considerations 

In  general,  chondrichthyans  have  life  histories  characterised  by  low  fecundity,  large 
young, slow growth, late maturity, long life and high survival of all age classes. 

This  suite  of  life  history  characteristics  results  in  low  reproductive  potential  and  low 
capacity  for  population  increase,  which  has  serious  implications  for  chondrichthyan 
populations,  as  they  limit  their  capacity  to  recover  from  over-fishing  or  other  negative 
impacts. In contrast to teleosts, the recruitment of sharks to the adult population is very 
closely  linked  to  the  number  of  mature,  breeding  females  (Holden  1974).  The  result  is 
that,  as  mature  animals  are  caught,  the  production  of  offspring  that  will  support  future 
generations also declines, which in turn limits future productivity of the fishery and the 
ability  of  chondrichthyan  populations  to  recover  from  overfishing.  In  this  respect,  the 
reproductive potential and  strategies of  the  chondrichthyans  are  more  closely  related  to 
those of the cetaceans, large land mammals and birds than to the teleost fishes. Hence, 
long recovery periods are needed in response to over-fishing. 

Data availability considerations 

The  European  Commission  is  aiming  to  base  the  management  of  shark  fisheries 
following the management advice of independent International Scientific Fora, as well as 
the recommendations of the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs). A 
crucial  element  of  the  present  European  Community’s  action  plan  will  be  the 
improvement of the knowledge on directed fisheries as well as on incidental catches of 
sharks. 

Catch data for elasmobranchs in the ICES area are poor, and there are several reasons for 
this.  Landings  data  are  not  indicative  of  catch  levels  because  of  the  high  discarding  of 
some  species.  Even  the  available  landings  data  for  elasmobranchs  are  unreliable. 
Elasmobranchs  are  often  not  considered  of  high  commercial 
importance,  and 
consequently  not  always  recorded  in  official  records,  many  fisheries  are  unregulated, 
some  commercial  teleost  species  may  be  misreported  as  elasmobranchs,  and  the  use  of 
the  more  inappropriate,  generic  reporting  categories  hampers  analyses.  Methods  to 
estimate  elasmobranch  catch  data  included  sampling  of  mixed  landings;  establishing 
ratios  of  elasmobranch  to  target  species,  based  on  observers  data,  interviews  with 
fishermen,  processors  and/or  gear  manufacturers;  and  correlating  generic  landings  data 
with indicator species in official data (ICES, 2007). 

Concerning  the  European  fleets,  there  are  no  data  available  on  discard  rates  of  sharks 
species. The 2006 STECF Working Paper on discards from Community vessels did not 
include any shark species in the 27 ‘priority species’ listed (STECF, 2006). 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
The main data gaps are quite similar across the external fisheries exploited by European 
vessels.  The  quantity  of  sharks  declared  by  the  European  vessels  reflect  basically  the 
quantities  retained  onboard  as  per  the  reporting  obligations  imposed  by  the  competent 
RFMO’s.  However,  raw  data  on  total  catches  and  portion  thereof  discarded  have  been 
collected through independent scientific observations, notably under the requirements of 
the Data Collection regulation. No analysis of these discard data have been placed in the 
public domain so far. 

Considerations on the nature of the fishery 

One  of  the  most  essential  problems  for  the  management  of  sharks  in  EC  waters  is  the 
mixed  nature  of  demersal  fisheries,  which  makes  it  very  difficult  to  target  protective 
action on sharks without severe consequences on the other species caught. Furthermore, 
the large overcapacity of the fleets that catch small sharks, skates and rays as by-catch in 
demersal fisheries is also an important driver of the management problems in this area. 

Economic and social considerations 

An estimated 41% percent of the total value of all shark catches made by EU vessels is 
made  from  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 Spain 25%. Catches in the Central and Southern Atlantic (mainly by 
Spain and Portugal) are even more important representing 47% of the total value of EU 
catches of sharks1. The Indian Ocean (again mainly Spain and Portugal) accounts for 6%, 
and the Pacific (mainly Spain) for 2%. Almost all landings in the Central and Southern 
Atlantic,  Indian  and  Pacific  Oceans  are  blue  and  mako  shark.  The  Mediterranean 
accounts for just 3% of the total value of EU shark catches. In the Southern Oceans the 
very small catches of less than 100 tonnes per year are mostly rays. The total catches of 
elasmobranchs  must  also  be  seen  in  the  context  of  total  EU  catches  for  all  species  -  in 
2005, the volume of landings was recorded at 5.6 million tonnes, meaning that catches of 
elasmobranch represent just 1.8% of the total volume of landings. While in 2006 landed 
values  for  the  EU-15  are  recorded  as  Euro  6.68  billion,  meaning  that  elasmobranch 
catches represent 2.9% of the value of landings. 

The main socio-economic indicators of the number of vessels and employees that could 
to  some  extent  be  dependent  upon  elasmobranch  catches  and  which  might  therefore  be 
affected  by  measures  proposed  under  the  CPOA  are  summarised  in  Table  1.  Given  the 
lack of data available on specific species being caught by specific fleets and the mixed 
nature of fisheries in Northern waters and the Mediterranean, it is impossible to state with 
any accuracy the number of vessels actually relying on shark catches in these areas. This 
necessitates  an  approach  in  estimating  the  socio-economic  benefits  which  includes  all 
vessels in each fishing area using gears that could be catching sharks. 

In Northern waters and the Mediterranean this results in average catches per vessel that 
are  low,  with  average  individual  vessel  dependencies  typically  between  2-5%  of  total 
values.  The  average  catch  volumes  and  values  per  vessel  are  however  sure  to  hide 
significant differences between different vessels/metiers in each country, and in addition 

1 

Note that C&S Atlantic catches are based on ICCAT data and include some pelagic shark catches 
made in Northern waters 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
are  almost  certainly  an  underestimate  because  an  unknown  proportion  of  the  vessel 
numbers  in  the  table  below  may  not  catch  any  shark  species  at  all.  The  lack  of 
information on specific metiers in Northern waters catching sharks also means that it is 
not possible to make any meaningful estimates about the percentage of total income for 
those particular metiers that might be made up of shark catches.  

For surface longline vessels operating in the Indian Ocean and Pacific, shark catches are 
estimated  to  contribute  around  40%  of  catch  volumes  and  20-25%  of  total  incomes. 
While  in  the  Central  and  Southern  Atlantic,  shark  catches  are  around  65-70%  of  total 
catch volumes (the remainder being swordfish and tuna), and may contribute between 35-
45% of total catch values. 

The  almost  certain  over-estimate  of  vessels  in  Northern  and  Mediterranean  waters 
potentially catching sharks also means that caution should be expressed in the estimates 
of the numbers of catching and processing labour potentially involved with shark catches 
– these estimates are also certain to be an over-estimate, but there is no way to refine the 
assessment given current data deficiencies, a deficiency which is part of the very reason 
for the proposed CPOA.  

Table  1:  Summary  of  the  value  and  contribution  of  elasmobranch  landings  & 
downstream employment (MRAG Study on the impact of measures under the CPOA on 
Sharks –July 2008-). 

Region

NE & NW Atlantic
Mediterranean
C&S Atlantic
Indian Ocean
Pacific
Total / Average

Value of 
elasmobranch 
landings (€ 
million)

Contribution to 
total EC-15 
value of 
landings

Maximum 
EU vessels 
involved

Average value 
of catch per 
vessel

Maximum 
catching 
sector 
employment

81.2
5.7
93.0
11.8
4.1
195.8

1.22%
0.09%
1.39%
0.18%
0.06%
2.93%

20 458
32 727
200
103
 12
53,500

€ 3 968
€  175
€ 464 946
€ 114 501
€ 340 853
€ 184 889

42 274
63 140
3 296
1 960
 224
110,894

Maximum 
processing/ 
ancillary 
sector 
employment
28 141
20 160
2 039
1 340
 140
51,820

Average 
value of 
landings 
per 
employee
€ 1 153
€  69
€ 17 430
€ 3 573
€ 11 248
€ 6 695  

Trade considerations 

The  demand  for  and  the  value  and  volume  of  shark  products  in  trade  have  increased 
considerably over the past 15 years and continue to rise. 

The  shark  biomass  represented  by  the  global  fin  trade  is  estimated  to  lie  between  1.21 
and 2.29 million t/year with a median of 1.70 million t/year. This is some three to four 
times higher than indicated by FAO’s landings data. It should be stressed that only those 
sharks whose fins are taken for use in the international shark fin trade are represented in 
these estimates. Sharks which are a) discarded dead; b) released but subsequently die due 
to  injury  or  stress;  or  c)  are  retained  but  whose  fins  are  either  not  used  at  all  or  used 
within  the  country  of  landing  are  not  accounted  for,  therefore  these  estimates  are 
considered to be minimum values. (Clarke S.C. 2008). 

Given what now appears to be a strong linkage between shark catches and the volume of 
the  fin  trade,  several  leading  shark  scientists  have  called  for  urgent  consideration  of 
effective fisheries management measures for sharks (Dulvy et al. 2008). 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                   
                     
                   
                   
                     
                 
            
          
            
International cooperation considerations 

In the North Atlantic, nearly two thirds of the total catch of shark species is made by the 
EC fleet. It is not possible to clearly establish the share of the EC fleet in other areas of 
the  world  due  to  the  lack  of  data,  but  for the  most  commercially  important  species  EC 
catches in all waters are also almost two thirds of the total world catches. 

One  of  the  stated  specific  objectives  of  the  Plan  of  Action  is  "to  ensure  a  coherent 
approach  between  the  internal  and  external  EC  fishery  policy  for  sharks".  For  some 
species, such as small-spotted catshark, and spurdog, most of the world catches are made 
by the EC fleet and in these cases international cooperation is not so important to achieve 
their long term sustainable use. However, for other species, such as blueshark or shortfin 
mako  the  part  of  foreign  fleet  catches  is  much  more  important  and  international 
cooperation is an essential element to achieve the general objective of sustainable use of 
these species. 

2.3.  Who is affected? 

The CPOA has the potential to impact on a wide number of stakeholders. It is recognised 
that a successful CPOA will have long-term benefits to all, but its implementation may 
have implications for some resources users. This impact assessment will aim to capture 
the economic, environmental and social consequences for the affected stakeholders. 

As  a  framework  for  this  assessment,  the  main  stakeholders  have  been  identified  as 
follows: 

Table 2: Key stakeholders in EU shark fishing effort 

Stakeholder 

Description 

Key interests 

EC vessel owners, operators and crew. Maintaining profitability and livelihoods. 

Catching 
sector 

Dependent 
businesses & 
communities  

Processing 
sector 

Sector 
regulators 

Business and communities dependent 
upon shark fisheries for their 
livelihoods. 

Those processing raw material from 
the EC shark catch (target and 
retained bycatch) 

Regional, national and provincial 
bodies regulating EC shark fishing 
effort  

Sector research  Scientific research bodies contributing 

to the conservation and management 
of shark stocks. 

Maintaining profitability and livelihoods. 

Maintaining profitability and livelihoods. 

Ensuring an efficient, effective and 
practical management framework that 
balances a wide range of stakeholder 
needs. 

Contribution to an effective fisheries 
management regime through the timely 
access to high quality, robust data from 
fishery dependent and independent 
sources. 

Retailers 

Organisation selling shark and shark 
products to consumers 

Continuity of supply and, increasingly, 
sustainable credentials of the resource. 

Consumers 

Those persons consuming shark 

Availability, cost and quality of shark-

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
NGOs 

Civil society 

products 

derived products with varying degrees of 
environmental scrutiny. 

Non-governmental organisations 
advocating responsible management 
of shark populations. 

To secure responsible, science-based 
shark fishing limits for long-term 
sustainability and ecosystem health. 

The wider public with an interest in 
and concern for, the sharks in 
particular and the marine environment 
in general 

To maintain shark populations and 
diversity. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
The main fisheries involved and the priority for action have been identified as follows: 

Table 3: Summary risk table showing priorities for action 

Region (RFO) 

NE Atlantic 
skates and rays 
(ICES) 

NE Atlantic 
deepsea sharks 
(ICES) 

Mediterranean 
(GFCM) 

Atlantic pelagic 
sharks (ICCAT) 

Indian Ocean 
pelagic sharks 
(IOTC) 

Nationality 
(EU only) 

France, UK, 
Spain, Portugal, 
Ireland & 
Belgium 
UK and 
Germany 

Italy, Greece, 
Spain, France 

Italy, Greece, 
Spain, France 
Spain & 
Portugal 
Spain & 
Portugal 
Spain & 
Portugal 

Pacific Ocean 
pelagic sharks 
(WCPFC) 

Spain and 
Portugal 
Spain 

Main Gear 
type 
Trawl, nets 

Species 

Vulnerability (IUCN cat) 

Exposure and vulnerability 

Various skates, rays and small 
shark species 

Range from CR (common 
skate), EN (sandy white 
skate) to LC 

High volume mixed fishery including 
some with high vulnerability 

Priority for 
action 

High 

Gillnet & 
longline 

Portuguese dogfish 
Gulper shark 

EN 
VU/EN 

Low volume catch but probable high 
discards 

High 

Various skates, rays, guitarfish 
and small shark species 
Blue shark 

Ranges from EN(guitarfish), 
most VU, some LC 
NT  

Gillnets 

Smoothhound, tope, spurdog 

VU 

Trawl 

Purse seine, 
Long lines 
Purse seine, 
Long lines 
Long line 
Long line 
Purse seine 

Purse seine 

Longline 

Mako, porbeagle 

Blue 
Mako, porbeagle 
Unknown 

Silky shark, mako, porbeagle, & 
oceanic whitetip 
Blue shark, mako 

VU 

NT 
VU 
?? 

VU 

LC, VU 

Not determined, but 
probably LC 

14 

Large number of vessels in a mixed 
fishery with increasing catches of 
vulnerable species (e.g. smoothhound) 
Extensive mixed fishery including 
some with high vulnerability 
High volume and medium sensitivity 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

Misreporting and high sensitivity 

High 

High volume 
Misreporting and high sensitivity 
Little known exposure and 
vulnerability 
Little known exposure and high 
vulnerability 
Low volume catch with some high 
sensitivity (mako) 
Low volume and low sensitivity 

Medium 
High 
?? 

Medium 

Medium 

Low 

EN 

Southern Oceans 
(CCAMLR) 

Spain & France 

Longline 

Rajiformes & Bathyraja spp. 

EN 

 
  
Vulnerability key: Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), NT Near threatened (NT) and LC Least concern (LC) 

EN 

15 

EN 

 
  
2.4. 

How would the problem evolve? 

A  number  of  legal  measures  have  been  taken  to  date  concerning  aspects  of  the 
conservation  and  management  of  sharks  at  both  at  the  international  level  and  by  the 
European Community.  

At international level, the most high profile development to date has been the adoption by 
FAO  in  1999  of  the  International  Plan  of  Action  (IPOA)  for  the  conservation  and 
management of sharks (‘IPOA SHARKS’2). IPOA SHARKS, which was developed and 
adopted  within  the  framework  of  the  ‘Code  of  Conduct  for  Responsible  Fisheries’ 
(CCRF),  is  like  the  CCRF  itself  voluntary  but  all  concerned  States  are  encouraged  to 
implement  it.  It  therefore  foresees  the  implementation  by  States  of  national  plans  to 
ensure the conservation, management and long-term sustainable exploitation of sharks. 

Otherwise the main actions taken to date have been undertaken by regional international 
fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) including: 

•  the Inter American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC); 

•  the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT); 

•  the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC); 

•  the North Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO); 

•  the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM); 

•  the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO);  

•  the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC); 

•  the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT); and  

•  the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC).  

The EU is party to most of these of RFMOs3 and a cooperating non-party in respect of 
the remainder.4 The measures taken are of somewhat limited effect and do not generally 
including binding management measures. 

It is also important to note that a number of steps have been undertaken at international 
level  and  by  the  European  Community  concerning  the  regulation  of  the  international 
trade in sharks and shark products. Such activity has taken place within the auspices of 
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

2 

3 
4 

The FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks considers 
the  term  “shark”  to  include  all  species  of  sharks,  skates,  rays,  and  chimaeras  (Class 
Chondrichthyes). The EU Action Plan will follow the same approach. 
The EU is party to ICCAT, the IOTC, NAFO, GFCM, SEAFO, NEAFC and the WCPFC.  
The EU is a cooperating non-party to the IATTC although France and Spain are parties. The EU is 
also a cooperating non-party to the CCSBT. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(CITES) which was signed in Washington DC in 3 March 1973. All 27 Members of the 
EU  are  Parties  to  CITES  although  the  Community  itself  is  not.  Nevertheless  the 
provisions of CITES have been implemented in European Community law since 1982. 

Within  the  European  Community  the  basic  legal  framework  for  the  implementation  of 
CITES  is  contained  in  Regulation  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  338/97  of  9  December 
1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein5, as 
amended  (the  CITES  Regulation).  A  number  of  shark  species  namely  basking  shark 
(Cetorhinus  maximus),  great  white  shark  (Carcharodon  carcharias)  and  whale  shark 
(Rhincodon  typus),  are  included  in  CITES  Appendix  II  meaning  that  trade  in  them  is 
strictly regulated. 

Furthermore, the basking shark and the great white shark are listed on the Appendices I and 
II of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). The whale shark is listed on Appendix II 
of this Convention. 

Turning  to  measures  undertaken  by  the  European  Community,  a  number  of  measures 
have  been  taken  that  aim  directly  or  indirectly  at  the  conservation  and  management  of 
sharks.  These  measures  have  been  adopted  within  the  context  of  the  basic  legal 
framework established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 
on  the  conservation  and  sustainable  exploitation  of  fisheries  resources  under  the 
Common Fisheries Policy6 (‘the Framework Regulation ’). 

In general terms, as regards fishing opportunities for sharks, two types of Regulations lay 
down the rules for shark directed fisheries and by-catches of sharks: 

a) Bi-annual Council Regulations fixing the fishing opportunities for Community fishing 
vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks every two years, for EU and NEAFC waters; 

b) Annual Council Regulations fixing fishing opportunities and associated conditions for 
certain  fish  stocks,  applicable  in  Community  waters  and,  for  Community  vessels,  in 
waters where catch limitations are required (including NEAFC, NAFO and CCAMLR).  

Moreover,  Regulation  (EC)  N°  2347/2002  of  16  December  20027  establishes  specific 
access requirements and associated conditions applicable to fishing for deep-seas stocks, 
among others a wide rage of deep-water sharks. 

In addition, mention must be made of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1639/2001 of 25 
July  2001  establishing  the  minimum  and  extended  Community  programmes  for  the 
collection of data in the fisheries sector and laying down detailed rules for the application 
of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1543/20008,  as  amended,  which  includes  sharks  within 
the  mandatory  sampling  schemes  for  data  collection.  A  new  regulation  under  new 
framework  for  data  collection  (Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  199/2008  of  25  February 
2008  concerning  the  establishment  of  a  Community  framework  for  the  collection, 
management  and  use  of  data  in  the  fisheries  sector  and  support  for  scientific  advice 

5 
6 
7 
8 

OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1 
OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p 59. 
OJ L351, 28.12.2002. 
OJ L 222, 17.8.2001, p. 53. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
regarding the Common Fisheries Policy does not add anything new related to shark catch 
sampling. 

Other  measures,  although  not  shark  specific,  may  have  an  important  bearing  on  them, 
especially for those taken as a by-catch. Among them, we should mention measures taken 
in the context of multi-annual plans in the framework of Regulation (EC) N° 1967/2006. 

Nevertheless,  the  range  of  existing  measures  is  clearly  insufficient  to  ensure  the 
rebuilding  of  many  depleted  stocks.  Furthermore,  the  Community  should  assume  a 
leading  role  at  international  level  in  the  development  of  policies  aimed  at  the  rational 
exploitation of fishing resources. 

The only regulation adopted to date that is exclusively concerned with sharks is Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1185/2003  of  26  June  2003  on  the  removal  of  fins  of  sharks  on 
board  vessels.  This  regulation  was  intended  to  prevent  the  practice  of  shark  finning 
within the European fleet. Pursuant to Article 3 (1) it is prohibited to remove shark fins 
on  board  vessels,  and  to  retain  on  board,  tranship  or  land  shark  fins.  Furthermore  the 
purchase,  offer  for  sale  and  sale  of  shark  fins  which  have  been  removed  on  board, 
retained  on  board,  transhipped  or  landed  in  contravention  of  the  Regulation  is  also 
prohibited.  

However  by  way  of  derogation  Article  4  provides  that,  subject  to  certain  specified 
conditions,  the  removal  and  retention  of  shark  fins  from  dead  sharks  on  board  and  the 
transhipment or landing of such fins may be permitted with regard to vessels which hold 
a  special  fishing  permit.  Such  permits  may  only  be  issued  to  fishing  vessels  where  a 
capacity  to  use  all  parts  of  sharks  has  been  demonstrated  and  where  the  need  for  the 
‘separate  processing  on  board  of  shark  fins  and  the  remaining  parts  of  sharks  has  been 
justified’ (Article 4(2)). The discard of the remaining parts of sharks after removal of the 
fins is prohibited (except for those parts resulting from basic processing operations, such 
as beheading, gutting and skinning). 

Article  4  goes  on  to  specify  that  the  weight  of  the  fins  kept  from  the  catch  may  not 
exceed the theoretical weight of the fins that would correspond to the remaining parts of 
sharks  retained  on  board,  transhipped  or  landed  and  that  in  no  circumstances  the 
theoretical weight may exceed 5% of the live weight of the shark catch. This approach is 
often  complementary  to  the  one most  commonly  taken  by  third  countries  and  RFMOs 
which seeks to apply a ratio of 5% of total weight of sharks retained on board, although 
there  is  some  lack  of  clarity  as  to  whether  they  refer  to  total  live  or  dressed  weight. 
Regulation  1185/2003  does  not  provide  detailed  indications  as  to  the  justification 
necessary to permit the separate processing onboard of shark fins. 

to 

this  Regulation,  Member  States  shall  send 

According 
the  Commission 
comprehensive  annual  reports  on  its  implementation.  On  the  basis  of  these  reports,  the 
Commission  has  issued  on  23.12.2005  a  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council  on  the  operation  of  this  Regulation9.  According  to  this  report,  the  information 
made  available  by  the  Member  States  to  the  Commission  on  the  operation  of  this 
Regulation, although not always complete, amounts to a confirmation that the Regulation 

to 

9 

Report on the operation of Council Regulation (EC) N° 1185/2003 on the renoval of fins of sharks 
on borrad vessels. COM(2005)700. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
appears to be achieving its general objectives. Therefore, the Commission concluded that 
the Regulation did not appear to need an amendment at that stage. However, improved 
implementation of some aspects by some Member States was desirable, "in particular in 
terms of the criteria for allocation of special fishing permits or reporting". 

Finning regulations in other parts of the world are stricter than in the EU as they use the 
ratio  between  wet  fins  and  the  processed  carcass  (Fin/Dressed  weight),  instead  of  the 
ratio provided by the EC Regulation (Fin/live weight). The ratio most widely applied by 
third countries is 5% of wet fin weight to ‘dressed’ (gutted and beheaded) carcass weight, 
or  2%  of  wet  fin  weight  to  whole  shark  (‘round’  or  ‘live’)  weigh  (5%  in  the  EU).  The 
finning  recommendations  or  resolutions  adopted  by  RFMOS  all  include  a  fin/body 
weight  ratio.  The  common  wording  is  that  Contracting  Parties,  Cooperating  non-
Contracting  Parties  and  other  bodies  (CPCs):  “Shall  require  their  vessels  to  have  on 
board fins that total no more than 5% of the weight of sharks on board, up to the first 
point of landing”. 

However, there may well be some species differences and also the way finning is carried 
out  makes  a  difference.  For  example,  Asian  crews  tend  to  remove  just  the  fins  whilst 
Spanish crew are reported to take a piece of meat off with the fin. There is also the issue 
of whether the rule might be applied to live weight or dressed weight and which measure 
is the most practical. Fin weights as a proportion of round weight (FW:RW) and dressed 
weight (FW:DW) differ significantly for different species and fleets. 

Some  stakeholders  advocate  a  move  to  five  percent  of  dressed  weight  ratio  from  five 
percent of whole weight or a complete, unequivocal ban on finning. The latter approach 
is  often  advocated  as  it  removes  difficulty  over  species  identification,  enforcement  and 
leaves little room for abuse. 

More  systematic  work  on  this  standard  needs  to  be  carried  out  in  the  context  of  this 
measure. Meanwhile, a precautionary approach would recommend the more conservative 
general  rule  (5%  FW:DW)  while  providing  for  the  status  quo  (5%  FW:RW)  for  those 
been able to fully justify this need. 

There  are  clear  indications  of  reductions  of  shark  populations.  The  true  status  of  most 
elasmobranch  populations,  however,  remains  uncertain  due  to  lack  of  stock  specific 
information particularly over significant time series. For example, the common skate and 
angel  sharks  have  virtually  disappeared  from  North  Sea  fisheries  and  ICCAT  (2007) 
reported up to a 50% reduction for the population of Isurus oxyrinchus. How widespread 
such reductions are remains to be determined. It is also clear that the international trade 
in  shark  and  shark  products  is  increasing,  thus  providing  a  future  driver  for  continued 
fishing pressure. The situation is likely to persist as a result of this driver.  

Under Section 5, we will further develop these aspects and examine the risks and trade-
offs of the status quo option. 

2.5. 

Right to act 

The  right  of  the  European  Community  to  legislate  in  the  sphere  of  fisheries  is  long 
established  and  has  led  to  the  adoption  of  a  large  body  of  secondary  legislation 
exclusively in the form of regulations. The right to legislate derives from the provisions 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
in  Article  32  of  the  Treaty  Establishing  the  European  Community  (as  amended)  (the 
‘Treaty’)  concerning  the  establishment  of  a  common  market  for  agricultural  products, 
which term includes fisheries products. Such a common market is to be accompanied by 
a common policy which in terms of fisheries is the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).  

The scope of the CFP is currently defined in Article 1 of the Framework Regulation so as 
to  cover 
living  aquatic 
‘conservation,  management  and  exploitation  of 
resources…where such activities are practised …in Community waters or by Community 
fishing vessels’.  

the 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

3.1. 

Policy objectives and scope  

The  general  objective,  in  line  with  the  FAO  IPOA  SHARKS,  is  to  ensure  the 
conservation and management of sharks and their long-term sustainable use worldwide. 

The scope of the initiative includes directed commercial, by-catch commercial, directed 
recreational,  and  by-catch  recreational  fisheries  catching  any  chondrichthyans  within 
Community waters by both EU flagged vessels and foreign vessels. It also includes any 
fishery covered by current and potential agreements and partnerships between European 
Community and third countries, as well as fisheries in the high seas and fisheries covered 
by  RFMOs  managing  or  providing  non-binding  recommendations  outside  Community 
waters. 

The Plan of Action is based on the following three main specific objectives, aiming to: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Broaden the knowledge both on shark fisheries and on shark species and 
their role in the ecosystem. 

Ensure  that  directed  fisheries  for  shark  are  sustainable  and  that  by-
catches of shark resulting from other fisheries are properly regulated. 

Encourage  a  coherent  approach  between  the  internal  and  external  EC 
fishery policy for sharks. 

In order to achieve the three main objectives, the Commission initially proposed in its EC 
consultation document nine ‘fields of action’ or operational objectives which it felt could 
help to fulfil these objectives (see table 4).  

Table 4: Initial operational objectives 

Specific objectives 

Operational objectives (field o action) 

Ensure a 
coherent 
approach 
between the 
internal and 
external EC 

Deepening the 
knowledge both 
on shark 
fisheries and on 
shark species 
and their role 

–  1  Facilitate  improved  species-specific  catch 
and  landings  data  and  monitoring  of  shark 
catches 

–  2 Facilitate the identification and reporting of 
species-specific biological and trade data 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
fishery policy 
for sharks 

in the 
ecosystem 

–  3 Compile the necessary information to assess 
threats  to  shark  populations,  determine  and 
implement 
protect  critical  habitats,  and 
harvesting  strategies  consistent  with 
the 
principles  of  biological  sustainability  and 
rational long term economic use 

shark 

–  4  Develop  research  projects  to  assess  threats 
implement 
populations 
to 
harvesting  strategies  consistent  with 
the 
principles  of  biological  sustainability  and 
rational long term economic use 

and 

–  5  Improve  and  develop  frameworks  for 
effective 
in 
educational 

and 
establishing 
involving 
consultation 
research,  management 
initiatives within and between States 

stakeholders 
and 

coordinating 

Ensure that 
directed 
fisheries for 
shark are 
sustainable and 
that by-catches 
of shark 
resulting from 
other fisheries 
are properly 
regulated 

–  6  Adjust  fishing  effort  to  the  available 

resources 

–  7 Adjust catches to the available resources 

–  8  Minimize  waste  and  discards  from  shark 
catches in accordance with article 7.2.2(g) of 
for  Responsible 
the  Code  of  Conduct 
Fisheries  requiring  the  retention  of  sharks 
from  which  fins  are  removed  and  encourage 
the use of dead sharks 

–  9  Identify  and  provide  special  attention  in 
particular  to  vulnerable  or  threatened  shark 
stocks 

Operational  objectives  1-5  responded  to  the  objective  of  greater  knowledge  of  shark 
fishers  and  their  ecosystem  linkages.  Operational  objectives  6-9  aimed  at  ensuring  that 
directed shark fisheries are sustainable and that  by-catches were regulated. All of them 
were required to ensure a coherent approach between the internal and external EC fishery 
policy for sharks. 

These  fields  of  action  include  all  the  measures  originally  proposed  in  the  consultation 
document  presented  by  the  Commission,  but,  following  the  consultation  process,  they 
have  been  simplified/consolidated  where  possible  and  appropriate.  This  has  involved 
merging fields of action 1 and 2, 3 and 4, 6 and 7, and distributing measures under field 
of action no. 9 throughout other fields of action. It is important to note that no measures 
have  been  dropped  at  this  stage,  only  consolidated  under  a  lesser  number  of  ‘fields  of 
action’. It should also be noted that merging fields of action was suggested by a number 
of stakeholders (see Appendix I). 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
Table 5: Justification for merging Fields of Action during option screening 

Merger 

Fields 
1 & 2 

Fields 
3 & 4 

Fields 
6 & 7 

Field 9 

Justification 

Both  have  the  same  objective.  Both  look  at  facilitating 
improved  data  collection  but  at  different  points  in  the  harvest 
chain. RFMO measures similar in both cases. 

Both have the same objective. Both have the same intent, with 
FoA  3  looking  at  data  collection  and  FoA  4  implements 
subsequent research and can thus be compiled together. Merger 
also suggested by some stakeholders (see Appendix I). 

Both have the same objective. FoA 6 looks at controlling effort 
and  FoA  7  looks  at  controlling  catches.  Both  act  at  similar 
levels  and  effort  /  catch  reduction  mechanisms  need  to  be 
complementary.  Merger  also  suggested  by  some  stakeholders 
(see Appendix I). 

FoA  9  focuses  on  vulnerable  or  threatened  species.  Whilst  a 
legitimate goal, it is considered that all the measures in this field 
are already included in the earlier Fields of Actions, especially 6 
& 7. It does highlight the need to conduct risk assessments for 
the  majority  of  the  different  measures  in  order  to  target 
vulnerable  and  threatened  species  across  ALL  the  Fields  of 
Action, rather than having a specific programme that addresses 
this  separately.  This  merger  is  considered  to  have  a  number  of 
effectiveness and efficiency advantages. 

Furthermore,  the  operational  objectives  have  been  redefined  in  order  to  make  them 
"SMART". Table 6 offers a general vision of how the 5 selected operational objectives 
respond to each of the specific objectives. 

Table 6: Final operational objectives. 

Specific objectives 

Operational objectives 

a 

Ensure 
coherent 
approach 
between 
the 
internal  and 
external  EC 
fishery  policy 
for sharks 

the 
Deepening 
knowledge  both 
on 
shark  fisheries  and  on 
shark  species  and  their 
role in the ecosystem 

–  Having  reliable  and  detailed 
quantitative 
species-specific 
and biological data on catches 
and  landings  as  well  as  trade 
data  for  high  and  medium 
priority  fisheries,  after  three 
years of implementation. 

–  Being 

to 

efficiently 
able 
monitor  and  assess 
shark 
stocks  on  a  species  specific 
level  and  develop  harvesting 
strategies 
with 
of 
biological  sustainability  and 
rational  long  term  economic 
three  years  of 
use,  after 

principles 

the 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
implementation. 

–  Improve 

coordinating 

develop 
and 
frameworks  for  establishing 
effective 
and 
involving 
consultation 
stakeholders 
research, 
management  and  educational 
initiatives  

in 

Ensure 
that  directed 
fisheries  for  shark  are 
that 
sustainable  and 
by-catches  of 
shark 
resulting 
from  other 
fisheries  are  properly 
regulated 

to 

–  Adjust  catches  and  fishing 
available 
effort 
the 
particular 
resources  with 
attention 
to  high  priority 
fisheries  and  vulnerable  or 
threatened  shark  stocks,  after 
three years of implementation.

–  Minimize  waste  and  discards 
from  shark  catches  requiring 
the  retention  of  sharks  from 
which  fins  are  removed  and 
strengthening 
control 
measures. 

3.2. 

Consistency with other EU policies 

At the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development the EU Member 
States  signed  up  to  limiting  fishing  to  sustainable  levels  by  maintaining  or  restoring 
stocks to levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield. For depleted stocks, it 
was agreed that this should be achieved urgently, and where possible not later than 2015. 

The new CFP which resulted from the 2002 reform intended to adopt measures aiming at 
ensuring  the  sustainable  development  of  fishing  activities  from  an  environmental, 
economic  and  social  point  of  view.  Coherence  with  other  EU  policies  such  as 
environmental policy was also a major element of the new CFP. 

The initiative is consistent with the communications from the European Commission to 
the Council and the European Parliament that pointed out the importance of a European 
Community  biodiversity  strategy10  and  that  highlighted  the  relationships  between 

10 

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a European 
Community Biodiversity Strategy : COM(98)42 final. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
fisheries  management  and  nature  conservation11  as  well  as  with  the  Communications 
from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the review of the 
management of deep-sea fish stocks12 and on a policy to reduce unwanted by-catches and 
eliminate discards in European fisheries13. However, the EC communication on discards 
is general, and does not fully address the specificities of shark. For example shark fining 
results in the discard of the body of the shark, a practice which is not covered by the EC 
communication on discards. 

The elimination of discards, including a discard ban is an element of the Plan of Action 
itself.  The  new  Fisheries  Control  Regulation  will  enhance  the  efficacy  of  the  measures 
contained in the Plan but does not form part of it. 

The IUU Regulation adopted by the Council on 29 September is a broad instrument that 
will  apply  to  all  stocks.  It  will  encompass  shark  catches  and  should  contribute  to  a 
reduction of illegal fishing for such species. However, the management of sharks requires 
that specific rules are adopted in order to better address the specific problems posed by 
this fishery. Such rules are not laid down in the IUU Regulation, which is a dedicated to 
control measures and not conservation measures. 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

The analysis of impacts presented in Section 5 considers three main options as follows: 

Option A: Status Quo with no Action Plan. 

This  Option  represents  a  continuation  of  the  current  status  quo  with  no  CPOA  and 
keeping  the  current  EC  legislation  on  sharks,  while  adapting  it  to  new  circumstances 
when necessary taking into consideration new scientific advice. 

This  is  a  ‘do  nothing  more’  option  and  will  be  used  as  the  baseline  for  the  impact 
assessment in the next section of the report. This ‘no action plan’ scenario presumes that 
the  existing  measures  continue  to  exist  without  the  assistance  of  a  specific  Plan  of 
Action. 

Option B: Action Plan: 

This  option  is  based  on  the  adoption  of  an  Action  Plan,  which  provides  for  the 
continuation  of  the  current  status  quo  regarding  EC  legislation  on  sharks  and  for  the 
introduction of new legislation  or the  adaptation of existing one aiming at ensuring the 
achievement of the objectives envisaged. This Action Plan will allow having a clear and 
comprehensive picture of what is already in force and what remains to be done in order 
to achieve a coherent and effective approach. Under some of the operational objectives 
foreseen by this option, different alternatives (i.e. softer or stricter measures) have been 
considered for implementation. These alternatives include, for example, a) voluntary vs. 

11 

12 
13 

Communication from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  on  Fisheries 
Management and Nature Conservation in the Marine Environment. COM(1999)363 final. 
COM(2007) 30 final of 29.01.2007 
COM(2007) 136 final of 28.03.2007 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
optional  activities/funding,  b)  full  vs.  partial  coverage,  c)  immediate  or  phased 
implementation. The table in Appendix II shows the implementation alternatives which 
are subject to the IA in Section 5. As a result of this analysis, section 7.4 will describe the 
preferred option as an amended version of option B. 

The  policy  objectives  and  scope  have  been  described  in  section  3.1.  The  measures 
envisaged  under  this  option  will  be  applicable  to  all  vessels  operating  in  Community 
waters  and  to  all  EU  flagged  vessels  in  all  waters.  Furthermore,  in  order  to  ensure  a 
coherent  approach  between  the  internal  and  external  EC  fishery  policy  for  sharks,  the 
Community  will  seek  that  the  relevant  international  bodies  adopt  similar  measures  to 
third country vessels outside Community waters. 

Option C: Application of a strict precautionary approach: 

Option C looks at taking a strict precautionary approach. Essentially it seeks the adoption 
of  a  Plan  of  Action  modifying  the  current  EC  legislative  framework  on  sharks  and 
introducing  a  strict  interpretation  of  the  precautionary  approach  by  prohibiting  all 
directed fisheries or indirect catches on sharks by Community vessels, unless TACs and 
other  regulatory  measures  have  been  put  in  force,  following  scientific  advice.  This 
Option includes all the measures and implementation mechanisms specified in Option B, 
except that in this case, non regulated shark fisheries would not be allowed. Furthermore, 
only sharks complete with fins could be landed. 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

The  following  analysis  has  been  developed  on  the  basis  of  the  information  and  data 
provided  by  the  MRAG  Study  on  the  impact  of  measures  under  the  CPOA  on  Sharks 
finalised in July 2008. 

5.1. 

Option A 

5.1.1.  Environmental impacts 

This  option  represents  a  continuation  of  the  status  quo.  As  such,  no  changes  to  the 
current impacts of the current status quo are envisaged. The impacts of the status quo are 
examined below. 

5.1.1.1.  Direct Impacts 

A major feature of the interaction of shark population and fisheries across the oceans is 
that it is not entirely clear what the status quo is. The data gaps, particularly at the species 
level, produce a very incomplete picture. Catch, landing and trade data are poor or patchy 
and  many  of  the  demersal  shark  catches  are  not  from  targeted  fisheries  but  exist  as 
bycatch.  Shark  fisheries,  per  se,  are  consequently  often  not  subject  to  direct  regulation 
and reported catches refer only to that portion retained onboard yet no systematic data on 
discard rates are in the published domain. Some high discard rates (e.g. 60%) worldwide 
are reported and this is compounded by the practice of finning and discarding the carcass. 
The  study  shows  that  there  is  a  rather  underestimated  view  of  impacts.  There  are 
indications that the actual catches for finning alone might be four times higher than FAO 
landing data. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
The first direct impact observable is some reduction of shark populations. The true status 
of  most  elasmobranch  populations,  however,  remains  uncertain  due  to  lack  of  stock 
specific information particularly over significant time series. This has lead to dispute in 
some areas over the extent of any decline, for example in the NW Atlantic (e.g. Baum et 
al  2003,  Baum  et  al  2005,  Burgess  et  al  2005a  &  Burgess  2005b).  Even  where  limits 
have  been  imposed  by  ICES  and  some  RMFOs  this  has  mainly  been  based  on  catch 
trends  since  there  has  been  inadequate  information  to  construct  stock  models. 
Nevertheless, some fisheries have shown reductions, for example, the common skate and 
angel  sharks  have  virtually  disappeared  from  North  Sea  fisheries  and  ICCAT  (2007) 
reported up to a 50% reduction for Isurus oxyrinchus. How widespread such reductions 
are remains to be determined and a precautionary approach would be of advantage here 
which is reflected in the perception by NGOs that some species now are under threat. It is 
also  clear  that  the  international  trade  in  shark  and  shark  products  is  increasing  (see 
Appendix V), thus providing a future driver for continued fishing pressure. The situation 
is likely to persist as a result of this driver.  

The  impacts  of  sustained  fishing  will  reduce  shark  populations  further.  Moreover,  it  is 
not just a question of the volume of a shark species taken which defines the risk, it is a 
function  of  the  status  of  a  stock  and  its  increased  vulnerability  which,  in  turn,  is  a 
function of its rate of replication, the degree of specialisation of the species and the time 
and  place  of  catches.  It  is  clear  that  particular  species  have  become  threatened  and  in 
consequence, even small catches of such species would drive it to a higher category of 
threat.  Therefore,  if  current  trends  continue  it  could  be  expected  that  there  will  be  an 
increase  in  the  number  of  species  threatened  and  a  general  upward  trend  of  threatened 
species towards extinction. However, there is no sufficient technical evidence to prove it.  

Such  impacts  are  likely  to  be  greatest  on  those  species  with  particularly  low  rates  of 
replacement, low growth rates and greater longevity which almost certainly includes the 
deep sea sharks. Conversely, the blue shark provides the greatest catches amongst pelagic 
sharks  but  has  one  of  the  highest  rates  of  replication.  It  is,  therefore,  important  to 
understand the biology to produce a management plan for particular shark species. 

The  above  comments  refer  to  the  general  importance  of  continued  fishing  under  the 
status quo on sharks. Of course, the EU fleet is not alone in contributing to this situation. 
The  pressures,  and  therefore,  the  impacts  vary  greatly  across  the  oceans.  Thus,  the  EU 
fleet  accounts  for  70%  of  all  sharks  landed  in  the  NE  Atlantic,  89%  for  the 
Mediterranean, 39% for Central and Southern Atlantic, 8% for the Indian Ocean, 16% for 
the  Pacific  Ocean  and  a  very  small  amount  for  the  Southern  Ocean.  Clearly  then  the 
greatest  regional  impacts  from  the  EU  fleet  are  most  likely  to  be  felt  in  home  waters 
which  helps  prioritise  and  regulate  actions.  Taking  into  account  the  range  of  measures 
that  are  already  being  taken  by  the  EC,  a  likely  scenario  under  option  A  could  also  be 
that the very depleted state of several stocks will not improve or will improve too slowly, 
but will not necessarily deteriorate further. 

5.1.1.2.  Indirect and Ecosystem Impacts 

Most sharks are predators. Some, like skates and rays, are bottom feeding predators on 
crustacean  and  molluscs,  whilst  others  conform  to  the  stereotype  of  open  water 
piscivores,  and  top  predators.  In  ecosystems,  particularly  aquatic  ecosystems,  top 
predators  appear  to  have  a  significant  regulatory  effect  on  populations  in  the  lower 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
trophic  levels.  Consequently  the  introduction  or  elimination  of  top  predators  has 
considerable impacts on other communities and the ecosystem as a whole.  

The  elimination  of  top  predators  generally  tends  to  have  a  simplifying  effect  on  the 
ecosystem.  Examples are rarely straightforward  but  it  seems  that  the  elimination  of  the 
larger  predatory  species  for  the  Black  Sea  fisheries,  such  as  tuna-like  species  and 
mackerels,  contributed  to  the  shift  from  a  fishery  typified  by  24  species  to  one  relying 
only on 6 species with the bulk being taken from a single plankton feeding anchovy. It is 
equally thought that the elimination of cod from the Grand Banks fishery and its failure 
to  recover  may  well  be  due  to  crabs  taking  over  the  vacant  feeding  niche.  This 
phenomenon  of  removal  of  top  predators  leading  to  a  redistribution  of  species  lower 
down  the  trophic  system  has  been  termed  ‘fishing  down  the  food  chain’  (Pauly  et  al 
1998). 

Essentially,  such  impacts  change  the  nature  of  the  target  fisheries  whilst  also  reducing 
biodiversity. Whilst this effect is yet to be recorded in sharks it would be most surprising 
if  it  didn’t  follow  the  general  pattern  described  by  Pauly  et  al  (1998).  The  impacts  on 
biodiversity  in  terms  of  both  numbers  and  relative  abundance  of  other  species  in  the 
system  is  likely  to  produce  a  disproportionate  impact  on  biodiversity  beyond  the 
reduction  in  specific  shark  species.  In  this  respect  sharks  and  rays  may  be  different 
depending upon their mode of feeding and trophic level. 

Whilst the EU may not be the main source of fishing mortality in external waters, doing 
nothing  to  rectify  the  above  situation  diminishes  the  influence  of  the  EU  in  the 
international community to control such environmental damage. 

5.1.2.  Economic impacts 

As noted in this Section, catches of elasmobranchs by the EU fleet are made in a number 
of  different  oceans.  The  lack  of  species-specific  reporting  by  metier  restricts  a  detailed 
analysis of the  economic benefits  of elasmobranch catches; indeed this lack of detailed 
information  is  itself  one  of  the  primary  drivers  of  the  problem.  Nevertheless,  some 
indicative figures on the value of catches by region, and the potential importance of these 
catches on an average vessel basis are presented. These figures on the current/short-term 
economic benefits to the catching sector, are summarised in the table below.  

Table  7:  Summary  of  current  annual  economic  benefits  from  elasmobranch  landings 
(MRAG Study on the impact of measures under the CPOA on Sharks –July 2008-) 

Region 

Value of 
elasmobranch 
landings (€ 
million) 

Contribution 
to total EC-15 
value of 
landings 

Maximum 
EU vessels 
involved 

Average value 
of catch per 
vessel 

NE & NW Atlantic 
Mediterranean 
C & S Atlantic 
Indian Ocean 
Pacific 

81.19  
5.73  
92.99  
11.79  
4.09  

1.22%
0.09%
1.39%
0.18%
0.06%

20 458
32 727
 200
 103
 12

€ 3 968
€ 175
€ 464 946
€ 114 501
€ 340 853

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 The  table  indicates  that  income  dependency  on  elasmobranch  catches  for  individual 
vessels are most significant for the distant water fleets of Spain, Portugal and France. For 
some vessels in these distant water fleets, shark catches may represent 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  very  much  lower; 
while detailed quantification is not possible, taking the total value of national catches as a 
proxy, average individual vessel dependency may be in the order of 1.2 – 4.7%. Within 
the North Atlantic, while the total value of landings is significantly greater for France and 
Spain than for other EU MS, due to numbers of vessels potentially involved in catching 
elasmobranchs,  the  average  income  dependency  on  vessels  is  highest  in  Belgium, 
followed  by  France,  Ireland,  the  UK  and  then  Spain.  These  average  figures,  as  already 
noted, do not of course capture the fact that some individual vessels may be much more 
dependent  on  the  income  from  elasmobranch  catches  on  an  annual  basis,  or  during 
particular  seasons.  The  status  quo  would  have  no  impacts  on  the  costs  to  the  catching 
sector of in terms of current reporting requirements, any consultation, nor on the short-
term  economics  of  fishing  operations  in  terms  of  the  ability  of  vessels  to  obtain 
exemptions from the ban on finning and their ability to land fins and shark carcasses in 
different ports. 

When considering the dependency of the EU fleet on different regions, the table shows 
that  catches  made  in  Northern  Atlantic  waters  (predominantly  by  gillnet  and  trawl 
vessels)  represent  41%  of  the  value  of  total  catches  by  the  EU  fleet,  with 
Central/Southern  Atlantic  and  distant  water  longliners  accounting  for  around  47%,  the 
Indian Ocean 6%, the Pacific 2% and the Mediterranean the remaining 3% by value. 

To these direct economic benefits should be added indirect income multiplier benefits to 
the processing and ancillary sectors, and second-round multipliers in other sectors of the 
economy. A recent European Parliament study14 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 catching 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  as 
suggested in the preceding section on the environmental impacts of the status quo. Thus, 
while  the  status  quo  includes  some  regulations  and  actions  to  limit  catches,  reducing 
finning,  etc  in  the  long-term,  without  any  improved  conservation  measures  and  better 
knowledge of shark catches, it is highly likely that the value of current economic benefits 
from landings would decline through over-fishing, potentially to a significant extent for 
some vessels. These declines will be particularly marked for those vessels which depend 
to  a  great  extent  on  shark  catches  to  contribute  to  their  total  earnings  e.g.  the  distant 
water fleets, and some selected fleets/metiers in EU waters. Shark catches are thought to 
contribute around 25% of total vessel turnover for distant water longliners. The current 
status  quo  with  limited  specific  reporting  and  control  of  shark  catches,  and  with  shark 
being a bycatch in many fisheries, also does little or nothing to encourage innovation and 
research on species selectivity in fishing operations. 

14 

Regional dependency on fisheries. 2007. Directorate General Internal Policies of the Union 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
EU vessels catching elasmobranchs do so in many of the world’s oceans, in competition 
with other fishing nations. It is thus equally true that for third countries, continuation of 
the current status quo would be likely to result in the significant long-term declines in the 
economic benefits to both catching and processing/ancillary sectors through overfishing. 

For  the  EU  retail/food  service  sectors,  and  consumers  as  the  end  point  of  the  supply 
chain,  current  short-term  trade  in  shark  products  primarily  involves  shark  meat.  For 
catches  made  in  the  North  East  Atlantic,  the  primary  products  are  skates,  rays,  and 
dogfish, which are generally sold in the  country of landing, although France and Spain 
also import product from other EU countries. For catches made by the EU distant water 
fleet,  primarily  of  blue  shark,  shark  meat  is  sold  in  the  EU,  with  fins  generally  being 
exported  to  the  Asian  markets.  Current  short-term  availability  of  shark  products  to  all 
consumers is highly likely to decline significantly in the longer-term under the status quo 
option.  This  will  particularly  affect  consumers  in  France  and  Spain,  where  demand  is 
high. This in turn is also highly likely to result in an increase in market prices for shark 
products as availability becomes more limited. 

For  EU  MS  authorities,  and  for  RMFOs,  the  current  status  quo  would  have  no  direct 
short  or  long-term  economic  impacts  over  and  above  current  reporting  and  control 
obligations.  However,  longer-term  indirect  costs  be  incurred  if  vessel  profitability 
declines as a result of over-fishing, in turn resulting in increases in social support to those 
leaving the fishing sector. And declining economic benefits in third countries in the long-
term  could  also  be  contrary  to  MS  and  EU  development  policy.  The  status  quo  would 
also  mean  a  continuation  in  the  short-  and  longer-term  of  a  situation  in  which  there  is 
poor knowledge both on shark fisheries and shark species and their role in the ecosystem, 
and  a  lack  of  coherence  between  internal  EC  fisheries  policy  and  international  best 
practice e.g. via requirements for a plan of action as required by FAO in 1999. 

For  NGOs  and  civil  society,  there  are  now  a  number  of  groups/organisations  actively 
involved in trying to protect shark species. Their activities require financial and human 
resources. A continuation of the status quo would result in them continuing in both the 
short and long-term to spend money and time researching shark issues and lobbying for 
protection of sharks. 

5.1.3. 

Social impacts 

The short-term direct social benefits to the catching and processing/ancillary sectors of 
shark catches in different regions are shown in the table below. 

Table 8: Summary of current social benefits from elasmobranch landings (MRAG Study 
on the impact of measures under the CPOA on Sharks –July 2008-) 

Region 

Maximum 
catching 
sector 
employment 

Maximum 
processing/ 
ancillary 
sector 
employment 

Average 
value of 
landings 
per 
catching 
sector 
employee 

Average 
value of 
landings 
per 
processing 
sector 
employee 

NE & NW Atlantic 

42 274

28 141

€ 1 920

€ 2 885 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
Mediterranean 

C&S Atlantic 

Indian Ocean 

Pacific 

63 140

20 160

3 296

1 960

 224

2 039

1 340

 140

€ 91

€ 28 213

€ 6 017

€ 18 260

€ 284 

€ 45 606 

€ 8 799 

€ 29 292 

It should be noted that these figures are a maximum number of those potentially involved 
in catching sharks and in related processing/ancillary employment and are not full time 
equivalents  but  just  the  total  number  of  people  who  could  potentially  be  dependent  on 
shark  catches.  Likewise,  the  table  provides  only  an  average  value  of  landings  per 
employee. Again, the figures suggest that while the North East Atlantic may provide the 
greatest  total  dependency  in  terms  of  employment  to  some  degree  dependent  on  shark 
catches, social dependency in terms of the value of landings per employee is very much 
higher  from  catches  made  in  distant  waters.  As  with  the  economic  impacts  discussed 
above,  labour  in  different  countries  will  be  dependent  on  shark  landings  to  a  lesser  or 
greater degree. To these direct employment benefits must be added the indirect second-
round multiplier effects from economic activity related to shark catches and employment. 

In terms of regions which make significant catches of sharks, the importance of Galicia, 
Bretagne,  NE  Scotland,  Highlands  and  Islands,  and  the  Algarve  regions,  should  be 
highlighted as being especially dependent on fisheries. 

The  longer-term  negative  social  impacts  of  this  option  on  the  catching  and 
processing/ancillary  sectors  would  be  significant  and  very  likely  in  regions  particularly 
dependent on fisheries. In many countries, while catching sector employment is strongly 
dominated by men, the processing sector typically employs many women. Employment 
on  the  distant  water  fleet  could  be  particularly  susceptible  to  negative  impacts  in  the 
longer-term  because  of  the  higher  dependence  of  individual  vessels  on  blue  shark 
catches, compared to those vessels catching skates, rays and dogfish in the Atlantic. 

The status quo option, with limited stakeholder consultation (to be addressed specifically 
by  one  Field  of  Action  in  Option  B),  would  also  directly  impact  in  both  the  short  and 
long term on the ability of catching and processing sector stakeholders, along with NGOs 
and  civil  society,  to  be  involved  in  issues  of  sector  governance  as  provided  for  in  the 
Treaty and the new governance approach. These impacts would be both high likely and 
significant. 

It  should  also  be  noted  that  many  of  the  crew  on  these  distant  water  vessels  are  from 
outside  the  EU,  so  the  negative  impacts  on  labour  from  third  countries  would  also  be 
likely  and  significant  in  the  longer  term.  Other  longer-term  negative  social  impacts  in 
third  countries  would  also  come  from  declining  catches  in  these  countries  from 
overfishing, and would be both significant and likely. 

The social impacts on consumers would be very likely in the longer-term, and potentially 
significant, and would involve a declining availability of shark products, which in some 
regions, are in high demand. 

For  EU  MS  authorities,  and  for  RMFOs,  the  current  status  quo  would  have  no  direct 
short or long-term social impacts. However, longer-term indirect social costs are likely, 
and  in  some  regions  could  be  significant,  if  vessel  profitability  declines  as  a  result  of 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
over-fishing,  in  turn  resulting  in  necessary  increases  in  social  support  to  those 
unemployed on leaving the fishing sector. And declining social benefits in third countries 
from  declining  catches  in  the  long-term  would  also  be  significant  and  highly  likely  in 
terms of a lack of coherence with MS and EU development policy. 

5.1.4.  Risks, trade-offs / synergies, public opinion, enhancing measures 

The trade offs inherent in the status quo option are by definition all those environmental, 
economic and social impacts of the proposed policy options presented in Option B (and 
the five Fields of Action), and Option C. The negative public opinion which would result 
from Option A would be very significant and very likely (despite the current initiatives 
already being taken as outlined in Section 2) given the significant decline in many shark 
populations  in  recent  years  and  given  increasing  consumer  concerns  over  the 
sustainability of seafood catches. 

The European Community has the exclusive competence for the management of fisheries 
resources. Although it has adopted a number of measures aiming directly or indirectly at 
the  conservation  and  management  of  sharks,  it  has  not  yet  developed  an  EC  Plan  of 
Action  for  sharks.  However,  the  range  of  existing  measures  is  clearly  insufficient  to 
ensure  the  rebuilding  of  many  depleted  stocks  fished  by  the  Community  fleet  in 
its  weight  at 
Community  and  outside  Community  waters.  Furthermore,  given 
international level, the Community should assume a leading role in the development of 
policies aiming at the rational exploitation of fishing resources. 

5.2. 

Option B 

Within  Option  B,  the  IA  assesses  individually  a  number  of  fields  of  action.  It  is 
appropriate to consider the likely impact of each of the fields in turn, bearing in mind the 
original nine have been condensed to five (see Appendix II). The detailed analysis of the 
environmental, economic and social impact of every field of action is provided below. 

5.2.1.  Environmental Impacts  

Field of Action 1 

This  provides  for  improved  collection  and  verification  of  catches  and  related  data  by 
species  and  product  backed  up  by  pilot  observer  schemes  to  scrutinise  catches  and 
discards. Clearly catches and presumably the equivalent effort data will go some way to 
defining  the  precise  magnitude  of  the  problem  which  currently  contains  many 
uncertainties. This is particularly the case if pilot observer schemes are used to obtain a 
proper  estimate  of  discard  rates.  Once  the  scale  of  the  problem,  in  terms  of  accurate 
estimates  of  losses  by  species,  is  fully  understood  then  the  management  and  mitigation 
measures can be more clearly defined. 

Additional benefits can come from catch and effort data since these will allow a start to 
be  made  on  population  assessments  for  key  species  as  with  other  fisheries  regulated 
under the CFP. The presence of observers often has effects beyond the collection of data. 
Their presence also tends to help towards compliance with recommended practices and 
responsible fishing. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
Improved  processing  and  landing  data  will  also  help  estimate  the  present  and  future 
pressure from the market driver and better monitoring of vulnerable species traded. 

Promoting  similar  data  collection  with  across  RMFOs  will  enlarge  the  scope  of  data 
collected but also be a way of promoting equivalent measures outside the EU. Linking up 
with  FAO,  CITES  and  other  international  bodies  with  related  agendas  on  sharks  will 
further internationalise actions. 

Field of Action 2 

Given  the  general  lack  of  information  on  sharks  and  the  key  role  that  differences  in 
biology  are  likely  to  make  both  to  management  and  stock  recovery  plans,  this  Field  of 
Action should have a considerable impact towards positive recovery of the stocks. This 
element will provide the parameters in growth, mortality and behaviour which together 
with  the  information  gathered  under  Fields  of  Action  1  and  from  previous  studies  will 
enable population and fishery models to be constructed as for other regulated species. A 
more generalised risk assessment is also included as a rapid appraisal of relevant stocks 
which  will  enable  those  stocks  for  which  a  full  model  would  be  essential,  to  be 
prioritised. Again working with RMFOs would help disseminate the approach. Work on 
the identification of more selective technologies, similar to that carried out on turtles and 
dolphins, would be very helpful. 

Field of Action 3 

This  has  a  two-fold  impact,  to  educate  the  industry  as  to  those  best  practices  which 
impinge least on their livelihoods and to inform the civil society of the commitment of 
the EU to addressing the problem. This may add further pressure on the industry through 
market-based customer responses to further increase compliance. 

This will be a facilitating measure which will underpin the positive impacts of the other 
activities. 

Field of Action 4 

These are the regulatory measures stemming from the earlier actions data collection and 
research  dealt  with  under  the  Fields  of  Action  above.  Given  that  the  greatest 
proportionate impact of the EU fleet is with the NE Atlantic, it is appropriate that sharks 
are brought more generally under the ICES- based TAC and quota systems and the full 
regulations  of  the  CFP.  In  fact,  ICES  and  some  of  the  RMFOs  have  started  to 
recommend TACs although these are often based on catch trends rather than population 
analysis and have a precautionary element in them. Some examples are shown in Table 9. 

Table 9: Summary table of current scientific advice and current TACs actually set 

Species /areas 

Recommended scientific 
advice on catch limits 

TACs actually set 

Deepwater sharks: 15ICES V, VI, VII, VIII, 
IX 

0 (2006)16 

6 763 (2006) 

15 

Includes  Portuguese  dogfish,  leafscale  gulper  shark,  birdbeak  dogfish,  kitefin  shark,  greater 
lantern shark, velvet belly, black dogfish, gulper shark, black mouth dogfish, mouse catshark and 
Iceland catshark. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Deepwater sharks: ICES XII 

Basking shark: ICES I-XIV/EU 

Porbeagle shark: EC and international 
waters of I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, 
X, XII & XIV 

Thorny skate (A. radiata: ) NAFO 3L, 3N, 
3O 

White shark: EU 

Squalus acanthius: EU (bycatch) 

Source: see footnotes 

0 (2006)16 
0 (2006-07)17 

243 (2006) 

0 (2006-2008)

0 (2006) [3] 

IIIa (Minimum bycatch) x 

0 (2007) 

IV (Minimum bycatch) x 

581 (2008) 

VIId (Minimum bycatch) x  

11 000 (2006)18 

13 

500 

(2005-

0  
0 (2006-07)17 

2007) 

0 

<5% retained 
weight  

Of course, many are tuna RMFOs and have no remit to set TACs on shark but do have 
recommendations on the treatment of bycatch, most commonly the 5% rule. Several of 
the other points of action such as limitations in sensitive areas (or time periods) will also 
be feasible within Community waters to protect spawning or feeding areas or migration 
routes. It will be also important, following stock assessments, to draw up recovery plans 
for  the  worst  affected  species.  The  commitment  to  adjust  fishing  levels  under 
international  circumstances  to  appropriate  resource  levels  maybe  more  difficult, 
particularly where sharks are not the target species. 

The  prohibition  of  all  discards  could  be  a  very  powerful  measure  given  the  probable 
extent  to  which  this  distorts  the  problem.  Much  depends  on  upon  the  robustness  of  the 
animals  themselves  with  regard  to  their  survival  on  liberation.  This  may  need  some 
research.  The  problem,  for  example,  for  a  tuna  long-liner  is  that  if  the  shark  comes  in 
dead, will the crew want to fill up the hold with shark rather than the target tuna? Thus, 
whilst it is potentially a powerful measure some problems of implementation still remain, 
especially  in  international  waters  where  control  is  difficult.  Compliance  with  a  discard 
regulation is a point where observers can have a positive role. Where there is sufficient 
civil  awareness,  consumer  driven  market  instruments  can  also  positively  re-enforce 
compliance. 

If  fully  implemented  this  action  will  have  direct,  very  positive  impacts  to  shark  stocks 
and biodiversity. 

Field of Action 5 

It refers largely to a ban on finning and to the current reflexion on discards. Clearly this 
is  a  positive  move  which  will  underline  the  EU  commitment  but  probably  the  most 

16 

17 

18 

EN 

ICES 

Advice 

(2005). 

ICES 
http://www.ices.dk/products/icesadvice2005.asp  
ICES 
http://www.ices.dk/products/icesadvice2006.asp  
NAFO (2005). Thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) in Divisions 3L, 3N and 3O and Subdivison 3Ps. 
http://www.nafo.int/science/frames/science.html  

(2006). 

Advice 

2005, 

2006, 

ICES 

Book 

Book 

255 

pp. 

10. 

pp. 

35 

9. 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
important downstream effect will be as an example for wider RFMO adoption although 
most have already gone down this route 

The impacts of finning really depend upon any additional mortality caused since this is a 
parameter in the context of managing the stocks. In this respect it is really a specialised 
element of fishing mortality and therefore a component of FoA 4. In a targeted fishery, 
where the whole shark is taken but the fins sold separately, the practice of finning may 
have no specific impacts on shark populations. It is the practice of finning the sharks and 
then  discarding  the  carcase  which  may  encourage  incremental  mortality  since  the  fins 
take up very little storage space and therefore makes little demand on the hold space for 
target species. In this way, many more individual sharks may be taken than if the whole 
carcass was being taken. It is also for this reason that this practice is being discouraged, 
to reduce or eliminate this incremental mortality as a negative impact. 

An element of trying to ensure that only whole sharks are being landed is to specify the 
ratio of permissible fins to carcass weight, typically the ‘5% rule’. Where regulations on 
finning have been brought to bear, as in some RMFOs for example, there appears to be a 
standardised concept that a fin should constitute no more than 5% by weight of the shark 
catch.  However,  there  is  little  systematic  work  to  show  this  is  actually  the  case.  There 
may well, therefore, be some species differences and also the way finning is carried out 
makes a difference. For example, Asian crews tend to remove just the fins whilst Spanish 
crew  are  reported  to  take  a  piece  of  meat  off  with  the  fin.  There  is  also  the  issue  of 
whether  the  rule  might  be  applied  to  live  (or  round)  weight  (RW)  or  dressed  weight 
(DW)  and  which  measure  is  the  most  practical.  Clearly  more  systematic  work  on  this 
standard  needs  to  be  carried  out  in  the  context  of  this  measure.  Meanwhile,  a 
precautionary  approach  would  recommend  the  more  conservative  general  rule  (5% 
FW:DW)  while  providing  for  the  status  quo  (5%  FW:RW)  for  those  been  able  to  fully 
justify this need. The final definition may not, in itself, have any direct impact on shark 
fishing mortality but the most rational ratio would be fairer and therefore more likely to 
achieve compliance. 

5.2.2.  Economic Impacts 

Field of Action 1 

Measures 1.1, 1.2 and 1.5, and 1.11, will all have direct cost implications on the catching 
sector  in  the  EU  (recreational  and  commercial),  the  processing  sector  in  the  EU,  MS 
authorities and the Commission. For the catching and processing sectors direct costs in 
terms  of  the  time  spent  providing  additional  data  over  current  requirements  are  not 
expected  to  result  in  any  reduced  fishing  time  and  therefore  profitability.  Rather  costs 
will relate to some amounts of reduced leisure time that might be involved19. Measures 
1.6 through 1.9 will also have direct cost implications for RFMO administrations and all 
third  country  contracting  parties,  in  terms  of  the  collection,  analysis  and  reporting  of 
landings  and  trade  data.  Measure  1.8  would  also  have  some,  as  yet  unspecified,  direct 
costs  of  workshops.  All  these  direct  costs  can  be  expected  to  run  indefinitely  once 
improved data collection systems are put in place. All are certainly going to occur, but all 
costs  are  deemed  to  be  not  significant  in  terms  of  their  magnitude,  given  that  existing 

19 

In investment appraisal (e.g. of fishing harbour investments) it is standard practice to value leisure 
time at around 30% of the hourly earnings made from fishing 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
                                                 
data  collection  systems  can  be  amended  to  include  provision  of  additional  species-
specific data on sharks. 

Measures 1.3 and 1.4 will also have direct cost implications. If this measure is put into 
practice then costs will definitely occur. Likewise, measure 1.10 would be certain to have 
direct cost implications on RFMOs. 

Section  3  of  Appendix  III  provides  a  detailed  explanation  of  the  magnitude  of  the 
management costs involved by the observers schemes. 

There are also expected to be many positive indirect economic impacts of FoA 1 in the 
longer  term.  Taken  as  a  whole,  if  implemented  FoA  1  can  be  expected  to  contribute 
towards  safeguarding  the  current  economic  benefits  from  shark  fisheries  to  all 
stakeholders by ensuring long-term sustainability of catches. 

Field of Action 2 

All measures proposed in FoA 2 (2.1 to 2.8) will involve direct economic impacts in the 
short, medium and long term. Some costs may be necessary only in the short-term e.g. 
related  to  identification  of  space-time  boxes,  while  others  will  be  continuous  into  the 
future  e.g.  regular  assessments  proposed  under  measure  2.2.  These  costs  will  generate 
negative direct impacts on those paying for them e.g. EC MS, Commission, RFMOs, and 
third  countries,  and  positive  direct  impacts  for  those  being  paid  to  undertake  the 
proposed  research  and  assessments  e.g.  researchers/scientists.  If  implemented  the 
likelihood of these economic impacts is high, but their magnitude is not quantifiable in 
the  absence  of  more  specific  information  on  exactly  how  the  measures  would  be 
implemented, and to what extent. The direct economic costs/benefits of the measures will 
depend  to  a  large  extent  on  the  financial  resources  that  are  available  to  implement  the 
measures. 

Field of Action 3 

Measures 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4 proposed in FoA 3 will involve direct economic impacts in the 
short, medium and long term. Costs will generate negative direct impacts on those paying 
for  the  measures  e.g.  EC  MS,  Commission,  RFMOs,  and  third  countries,  and  positive 
direct  impacts  for  all  stakeholder  being  paid  to  undertake/organise/attend  the  proposed 
awareness and consultation envisaged. If implemented the likelihood of these economic 
impacts is high, but their magnitude is not quantifiable in the absence of more  specific 
information  on  exactly  how  the  measures  would  be  implemented.  The  direct  economic 
costs/benefits of the measures will depend to a large extent on the financial resources that 
are  available  to  implement  the  measures.  Measure  3.2  is  not  expected  to  involve  any 
direct  economic  impacts  over  and  above  the  administrative  costs  discussed  later  in  this 
report. 

Field of Action 4 

Measures  4.1  –  4.4  and  4.8  would  all  involve  direct  costs  in  the  short-term  on  the 
catching sector (both in the EU and from third countries), in the form of reduced shark 
catches  and  therefore  revenues  (subject  to  price  elasticities  of  supply  which  are  not 
known).  The  processing  sector  and  retailers/consumers  would  also  be  negatively 
impacted  in  the  short  term  through  reduced  availability  of  shark  species  for  processing 
and consumption, with associated higher prices. The magnitude of these impacts will be 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
directly related to a) the economic dependency on different shark fisheries in particular 
areas  and  by  particular  fleet  segments,  as  already  discussed,  b)  the  extent  of  the 
limitations put in place, and c) the extent to which fishing strategy could be altered so as 
to  minimise  the  economic  impacts  through  focusing  catches  on  other  species/areas.  At 
the present time, sufficient detail is unavailable on the implementation of the measures, 
or the specific fleets involved, to be able to quantify the sum of these negative short-term 
impacts.  However,  the  cessation  of  the  deepwater  shark  fishery  would  impact  most 
strongly on the German and UK registered vessels (10), which are Spanish owned, which 
prosecute this fishery. 

Measure 4.4 could potentially be implemented through a hard or soft approach. The costs 
involved with these sub-options would be the same, but the hard approach would result 
in  costs  being  incurred  immediately,  while  for  the  soft  approach  the  associated  costs 
would not commence until 2013. 

Measure 4.5 could have significant negative economic impacts on the catching sector in 
the  short-  and  long-term,  with  the  prohibition  on  any  discards  resulting  in  increased 
fishing hold space being used to store low value sharks (some potentially unmarketable if 
too  small,  or  conversely  very  large  specimens  filling  alone  a  lot  of  space)  instead  of 
higher value species. A related impact on the catching sector could be to require vessels 
to  make  shorter  fishing  trips  as  fishing  holds  fill  up  more  quickly.  This  could  increase 
overall fuel costs related to steaming time between ports and fishing grounds, but could 
also increase unit prices received for all landed fish because of improved quality resulting 
from  shorter  trips.  Impacts  of  this  measure  on  the  processing  sector,  and  on 
retailers/consumers,  could  be  to  increase  the  availability  of  shark  products  for 
processing/consumption,  but  to  reduce  the  availability  of  other  species,  thus  increasing 
prices  for  other  species  which  may  be  in  stronger  demand,  while  reducing  prices  for 
shark products (again, subject to unknown price elasticities of supply). 

Measures 4.6, 4.7 and 4.9 will involve direct economic impacts in the short and medium 
term. These costs can be expected to be phased out over time as discards and bycatch are 
successfully reduced, and as the impact of market mechanisms on conservation measures 
is  better  understood.  These  costs  will  generate  negative  direct  impacts  on  those  paying 
for  them  e.g.  EC  MS,  Commission,  RFMOs,  and  third  countries,  and  positive  direct 
impacts  for  those  being  paid  to  undertake  the  proposed  research  and  assessments  e.g. 
researchers/scientists. Direct  costs could  also be imposed  on  the catching  sector in the 
short-term through the need to modify fishing gear and fishing strategy. But these costs 
would  in  part  be  offset  by  increased  size  and  species  selectivity  which  should  result  in 
higher  prices  and  a  more  efficient  and  targeted  fishing  strategy.  If  implemented  the 
likelihood of these economic impacts is high, but their magnitude is not quantifiable in 
the  absence  of  more  specific  information  on  exactly  how  the  measures  would  be 
implemented,  and  to  what  extent  they  would  affect  different  fishing  fleets.  The  direct 
economic  costs/benefits  of  the  measures  will  depend  to  a  large  extent  on  the  financial 
resources that are available to implement the measures. 

EU MS, the Commission, and RFMOs can also be expected to face direct economic costs 
in both the short and long-term from measures 4.1 – 4.8, in terms of both administration 
(discussed  later),  and  increased  budgetary  allocations  for  monitoring,  control  and 
surveillance  (MCS).  Again,  at  the  present  time,  sufficient  detail  is  not  available  on  the 
implementation of the measures to be able to quantify these costs. The likelihood of some 
costs  being  incurred  is  very  high,  however  given  existing  commitments  for  MCS 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
activities  and  the  potential  ability  of  existing  operations  to  include  the  policing  of  new 
conservation  measures,  the  magnitude  of  these  increased  costs  may  not  necessarily  be 
significant.  EU  MS,  the  Commission,  and  RFMOs  are  also  likely  to  incur  some  small 
direct economic costs associated with the development of any new effort regulation. 

Also to be expected are many positive indirect economic impacts of FoA 4 in the longer 
term. Taken as a whole and if implemented, FoA 4 can be expected to contribute towards 
safeguarding  the  current  economic  benefits  from  shark  fisheries  to  all  stakeholders,  by 
ensuring  long-term  sustainability  of  catches.  These  positive  indirect  long-term  benefits 
could take the form of a continuation of the current level of economic benefits from the 
fishery, or if stocks can be re-built, of actually increasing them. The magnitude of these 
impacts should therefore be seen in the context of the long-term economic costs/impacts 
associated with Option A. The reader is thus referred the discussion of economic impacts 
in Option A. FoA 4 (along with FoA 5 – see following text) is estimated to be of special 
importance in generating/ensuring these long-term economic benefits 

Field of Action 5 

Assessment of the impacts of this FoA is underpinned by20: 

•  the current use of derogations under existing regulations; 

•  the fin: whole weight and the fin: dressed weight for different species being caught by 

EU vessels; and 

•  current (and potential) fin cutting practices 

The fleets that have obtained derogations are primarily Spanish owned operating in the 
Atlantic,  and  total  around  200.  These  are  almost  all  surface  longline  vessels  targeting 
pelagic species (with catches very strongly dependent on blue shark and shortfin mako), 
but  derogations  have  also  been  provided  for  Spanish  owned  (German/UK-registered) 
deepwater  shark  vessels  in  Northern  waters.  Some  Portuguese  vessels  operating  in  the 
North  Atlantic  have  also  previously  obtained  permits  to  remove  fins  onboard.  French 
vessels in C&S Atlantic are not thought to have requested any exemptions from the anti-
finning regulation.  

Fin weights as a proportion of a) round weight (FW:RW) and dressed weight (FW:DW) 
differ  significantly  for  different  species  and  fleets,  as  shown  in  the  table  hereunder  for 
key species being caught by EU vessels. 

Table 11: Fin weight ratios for different species and fleets 

Species 

Porbeagle 
Blue shark 
Shortfin mako 

FW:RW 
(EU) 

? 
6.6% 
3.9 

FW:DW (EU)  FW:RW 

FW:DW (US) 

? 
14.6% 
5.8% 

(US) 

2.2% 
2.1% 
1.6 – 1.7% 

3.6% 
3.7 – 4.5% 
2.9 – 4.2% 

20 

Information  on  these  three  issues  obtained  from  a  recent  report  by  the  European  Elasmobranch 
Association – see http://www.lenfestocean.org/publications/SharkFinning_underlying_report.pdf 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Deepwater sharks 

1.6 

6.5% 

However these % are based not just on the species, but also on a) whether just primary or 
all fins are retained, b) the cutting practices and the amount of meat attached to fins when 
cut from the carcasses, and c) the dressed weight products. Current practices by the EU 
fleet  increase  FW:RW  ratios  compared  to  north  American  estimates,  because  generally 
all  fins  are  retained  (except  from  deepwater  sharks  where  only  the  caudal  fins  are 
retained),  and  because  fins  are  cut  with  more  meat  attached  than  in  fisheries  in  North 
America. It is estimated for example that if Portuguese vessels retained primary fins only 
from blue shark with improved cutting practices FW:RW would be 3.8%, and that "clean 
cutting"  could  result  in  a  FW:RW  of  6.56%  for  all  fins.  It  is  probable  therefore  that 
changed cutting practices could be sufficient to bring all FW:RW figures below 5% for 
EU  vessels.  With  regards  to  FW:DW  figures,  it  is  likely  that  "clean  cutting"  practices 
would result in figures of less than 5% for all species, except blue shark (see discussion 
below on measure 5.2) 

However, as noted and acknowledged in the study referenced on the previous page, the 
real/specific  impacts  on  ratios  of  a)  the  fins retained  b)  the  cutting  practices  and  c)  the 
forms  of  dressed  products,  are  not  well  understood.  Ratios  within  a  particular  fleet 
segment  can  vary  greatly.  This  makes  quantification  of  the  impacts  of  the  proposed 
measures problematic, although some general conclusions can certainly be drawn and are 
presented below. 

Measure  5.1  would  involve  direct  economic  costs  for  the  catching  sector  currently 
obtaining  exemptions  (primarily  Spanish  as  noted  above)  in  both  the  short-  and  long-
term,  and  for  their  national  administrations,  in  terms  of  the  extra  work  required  to 
provide  additional/improved  justification.  These  costs  are  not  quantifiable  but  could 
include the time and costs involved with both additional research and paperwork required 
to  provide  the  improved  justifications  envisaged  by  the  measure.  Such  direct  costs  are 
expected to be insignificant. However, this measure could result in indirect operational 
costs if vessels avoid the need for exemptions, either by amending their cutting practices 
to  reduce  fin  weights  (and  therefore  potentially  values,  although  the  exact  financial 
benefits  of  more/less  meat  on  fins  is  not  known)  so  as  to  reduce  the  need  to  obtain 
exemptions, or by reducing discard practices, which could result in vessels having to use 
increased  fishing  hold  space  to  store  low  value  shark  meat  instead  of  higher  value 
species21.  Quantification  of  the  significance  of  these  impacts  is  not  possible  due  to  the 
fact  that  it  is  impossible  to  know  the  extent  to  which  a)  vessels  would  change  their 
cutting practices to being fin weights under the existing 5% rule as opposed to incurring 
additional  costs  involved  with  obtaining  derogations/exemptions,  and  b)  discarding  is 
currently  taking  place  and  therefore  the  extent  to  which  the  measure  would  reduce 
discards and impact on operational costs. 

Measure 5.2 would potentially involve all distant water surface longline vessels (247) i.e. 
catching sector, on the basis that all are expected to catch at least some blue shark, and a 
move to 5% dressed weight would mean that all catches of blue shark could fall foul of 
the  new  regulation,  even  if  cutting  practices  are  improved.  This  would  affect  Spanish, 
Portugese  and  French  vessels.  For  other  species  it  is  expected  that  improved  cutting 

21 

One can presume that vessels discard because it is financially advantageous to do so 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
practices  would  bring  FW:DW  to  below  5%.  But  important  in  assessing  the  economic 
impacts of this measure is that the measure provides for 5% of live weight to be retained 
if  proven.  In  essence  this  means  that  research  can  be  used  to  ensure  that  adverse 
economic  impacts  are  not  incurred.  It  is  thus  expected  that  the  catching  sector  and 
administrations  in  Spain,  France,  and  Portugal,  as  well  as  in  RFMOs  would  all  incur 
direct  costs  in  the  short-term  involved  with  investigating  whether  the  revised  5%  rule 
should include blue shark or not. It is expected that these costs would not be significant. 
On the basis that research on blue shark either proves that 5% of live weight should be 
retained, or that improved cutting practices could bring the FW:DW below 5% for blue 
shark as well as for other species, this measure would then only involve the indirect costs 
to the catching  sector of  changed values of  fins with lower meat content, and costs are 
therefore expected to be insignificant. This measure could also result in indirect costs to 
the catching sector associated with reduced discards i.e. vessels having to use increased 
fishing  hold  space  to  store  low  value  shark  meat  instead  of  higher  value  species. 
Quantification of the significance of these indirect impacts is not possible due to the fact 
that it is impossible to know the extent to which a) changed cutting practices would alter 
values, and b) discarding is currently taking place and therefore the extent to which the 
measure would reduce discards and impact on operational costs. 

A  direct  impact  of  Measure  5.3  on  the  longline  catching  sector  exempted  could  be  to 
increase fuel costs from landing fins and carcasses in the same port, but for these savings 
to  be  outweighed  by  the  inability  to  sell  different  products  into  ports  commanding  the 
best  prices  (on  the  basis  that  current  practices  maximise  revenues/profits).  In  the  US, 
similar regulations have resulted in vessels part-cutting fins and folding them next to the 
carcass  for  freezing.  Quantification  of  these  impacts  is  not  possible,  but  stakeholder 
objections to this measure suggest that the industry feel they could be quite significant. 

The impacts of measures 5.1 to 5.3 on the processing sector, and on retailers/consumers, 
in both the short and long-term could be to increase the availability of pelagic shark meat 
for  processing/consumption  (in  high  demand  in  Spain  in  particular),  but  to  reduce  the 
availability  of  other  species  (e.g.  swordfish),  thus  increasing  prices  for  other  species 
which may be in stronger demand, while reducing prices for shark products (subject to 
unknown price elasticity of supply). However, these negative economic impacts could be 
partially  offset  by  the  measures  resulting  in  greater  efforts  of  fishing  fleets  to  improve 
selectivity. 

EU MS, the Commission, and RFMOs can also be expected to face direct economic costs 
in  both  the  short  and  long-term  from  all  measures,  in  terms  of  both  administration 
(discussed later in this IA), increased budgetary allocations for  monitoring, control and 
surveillance (MCS) (in distant water longline ports in Spain and Portugal especially), and 
for  the  specific  data  collection  programmes  mentioned  in  measure  5.2.  Again,  at  the 
present time, sufficient detail is not available on the implementation of the measures to 
be able to quantify these costs. The likelihood of some costs being incurred is very high, 
however  given  existing  commitments  for  MCS  activities  and  the  potential  ability  of 
existing operations to include the policing of new conservation measures, the magnitude 
of these increased costs may not necessarily be significant. 

5.2.3. 

Social Impacts 

Field of Action 1 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
Measures  proposed  in  FoA  1  will  involve  positive  direct  social  impacts  in  the  short, 
medium and long term, through the enhancement of individual and organisational human 
capacity  of  all  stakeholders  involved  with  the  proposed  data  collection.  These  impacts 
are  certain  to  occur  and  likely  to  be  significant.  In  addition,  as  with  the  economic 
impacts, there are also expected to be many positive indirect social impacts of FoA 1 in 
the longer term. Taken as a whole, if implemented FoA 1 can be expected to contribute 
towards safeguarding the current social benefits from shark fisheries to all stakeholders. 

Field of Action 2 

All measures proposed in FoA 2 (2.1 to 2.8) will involve positive direct social impacts in 
the  short,  medium  and  long  term,  through  the  enhancement  of  individual  and 
organisational  human  capacity  of  researchers/scientists  involved  with  the  proposed 
research. These impacts are certain to occur if the measures are implemented, and likely 
to be significant. 

Field of Action 3 

All measures proposed in FoA 3 will involve positive direct social impacts in the short, 
medium  and  long  term,  through  the  enhancement  of  knowledge  to  all  stakeholders 
involved. This FoA will also directly generate positive social benefits in terms of sector 
governance  as  provided  for  in  the  Treaty  and  the  new  governance  approach.  These 
impacts would be both high likely and significant. 

Field of Action 4 

In  the  short-term,  all  measures  under  FoA  4  are  expected  to  result  in  negative  indirect 
social  impacts,  through  a  reduction  in  shark  catches  that  are  currently  generating  the 
social  benefits  as  previously  discussed  in  Section  B  and  Option  A.  These  impacts  are 
likely to be most strongly felt by the catching and processing sectors, and are certain to 
occur.  However,  the  effects  should  be  medium  to  low  in  most  areas  of  the  EU,  but 
perhaps high in some especially dependent areas e.g. Galicia, Brittany. 

Measures  4.6,  4.7  and  4.9  will  involve  positive  direct  social  impacts  in  the  short  and 
medium term, through the enhancement of individual and organisational human capacity 
of  researchers  /  scientists  and  the  catching  sector  involved  with  the  proposed  research 
and  programmes.  These  impacts  are  certain  to  occur  if  the  measures  are  implemented, 
and likely to be significant. 

In the longer term, FoA 4 can be expected to contribute towards safeguarding the current 
social  benefits  from  shark  fisheries  to  all  stakeholders,  by  ensuring  long-term 
sustainability of catches. These positive indirect long-term benefits could take the form 
of a continuation of the current level of social benefits from the fishery, or if stocks can 
be re-built, of actually increasing them. The magnitude of these impacts should therefore 
be  seen  in  the  context  of  the  long-term  social  costs/impacts  associated  with  Option  A. 
The reader is thus referred to the discussion of social impacts in Option A. 

Field of Action 5 

In  the  short-term,  all  measures  under  FoA  5  are  expected  to  result  in  negative  indirect 
social  impacts,  through  a  reduction  in  revenues  from  pelagic  shark  catches  that  are 
currently  generating  the  social  benefits  as  previously  discussed  in  Option  A.  These 
impacts  are  likely  to  be  most  strongly  felt  by  the  catching  and  processing  sectors 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
associated with the longline fleet in the Central and Southern Atlantic, Indian Ocean and 
the Pacific, and are certain to occur. The impacts should be medium to low in most areas 
of the EU, but perhaps high in some especially dependent areas e.g. Galicia where most 
of the EU longline fleet is based. 

Measure  5.2  will  involve  positive  direct  social  impacts  in  the  short  and  medium  term, 
through the enhancement of knowledge about the applicability/suitability of the 5% rule 
to particular species. These impacts are certain to occur if the measures are implemented, 
and likely to be significant. 

5.2.4.  Risks, trade-offs/synergies, public opinion, enhancing measures 

Field of Action 1 

It is clear from stakeholder feedback on the consultation document, that public opinion 
would in general be very favourable to this FoA. Certainly public opinion is of the view 
that it is entirely appropriate for the EC to act on the measures proposed. Public opinion 
is  unlikely  to  be  consistent  however  with regards  to  the  detailed  implementation  of  the 
measures related  to  observer  coverage  (1.3 and 1.4). Certain NGOs have advocated for 
vessels of less than 24m to be included in measures 1.3, and for the hard versions of 1.3 
and 1.4 to be introduced i.e. immediately. The catching sector to be affected by measures 
1.3  and  1.4  would  probably  argue  that  the  soft  versions  are  entirely  sufficient  i.e. 
sufficient/representative  (not  total)  observer  coverage  to  be  phased  in.  As  a  result,  it  is 
likely  there  will  be  risks  and  trade-offs  between  the  hard  and  soft  sub-options  of 
measures  1.3  and  1.4.  Proposing  the  hard  options  could  end  up  reducing  enforceability 
and  resulting  in  a  deterioration  of  relations  between  the  catching  sector  and  the 
Commission.  The  hard  and  soft  versions  of  measures  1.3  and  1.4  clearly  represent  a 
trade-off  in  terms  of  different  costs  related  to  different  levels  of  observer  coverage. 
Synergy with other proposed bycatch reduction measures under Option B is envisaged, as 
these other measures would reduce the number of vessels affected by Measure 1.3, and 
would therefore reduce the required observer costs. 

The  FoA  brings  with  it  certain  risks  in  terms  of  implementation  by  third  countries  and 
RFMOs, given the lack of jurisdiction of the EC over these parties. The result in external 
waters could be increased costs being borne by EC stakeholders, no action being taken by 
third countries/RFMOs, and therefore a reduced impact on safeguarding/improving long 
term economic and social benefits. Given differing stakeholder views, no specific ways 
of enhancing the measures are recommended. 

Field of Action 2 

It is clear from stakeholder feedback on the consultation document, that public opinion 
would  in  general  be  very  favourable  to  this  FoA.  All  are  likely  to  be  of  the  view  that 
management  measures  must  be  taken  based  on  appropriate  research.  Certainly  public 
opinion  is  of  the  view  that  it  is  entirely  appropriate  for  the  EC  to  act  on  the  measures 
proposed. Public opinion is also likely to be fairly consistent with regards to the detailed 
implementation  of  the  measures.  The  FoA  brings  with  it  certain  risks  in  terms  of 
implementation by third countries and RFMOs, given the lack of jurisdiction of the EC 
over these parties. The result in external waters could be increased costs being borne by 
EC  stakeholders,  no  action  being  taken  by  third  countries/RFMOs,  and  therefore  a 
reduced impact on safeguarding/improving long term economic and social benefits. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
Field of Action 3 

It is clear from stakeholder feedback on the consultation document, that public opinion 
would in general be very favourable to this FoA. All stakeholders are likely to be of the 
view that increased awareness and consultation is to be supported. 

Field of Action 4 

Public opinion would in general be favourable  to  this  FoA.  NGOs  and  advisory  bodies 
are  particular  supportive  and  view  this  FoA  as  perhaps  the  most  important,  while  the 
industry is supportive to the extent that the detailed implementation mechanisms for all 
measures is based on suitably rigorous evidence and justification. Public opinion is of the 
view that it is entirely appropriate for the EC to act on the measures proposed. 

The  FoA  brings  with  it  certain  risks  in  terms  of  implementation  by  third  countries  and 
RFMOs,  given  the  lack  of  jurisdiction  of  the  EC  over  these  parties.  There  is  also  the 
added  risk  on  non-acceptability  by  EC  Member  States  as  well.  The  result  in  external 
waters could be increased costs being borne by EC stakeholders, no action being taken by 
third countries/RFMOs, and therefore a reduced impact on safeguarding/improving long 
term  economic  and  social  benefits.  Additional  risks  to  this  FoA  relate  to  control  of 
catches and fishing effort on shark resulting in displacement to other fisheries that may 
also be under pressure and susceptible to overfishing. 

Field of Action 5 

It is clear from stakeholder feedback on the consultation document, that public opinion 
would  in  general  be  favourable  to  this  FoA.  NGOs  and  advisory  bodies  are  particular 
supportive and view this FoA as important, while the industry is supportive to the extent 
that  the  detailed  implementation  mechanisms  for  all  measures  is  based  on  suitably 
rigorous evidence and justification related to different species and the potential impacts. 
Public  opinion  is  of  the  view  that  it  is  entirely  appropriate  for  the  EC  to  act  on  the 
measures proposed. 

The  FoA  brings  with  it  certain  risks  in  terms  of  implementation  by  third  countries  and 
RFMOs,  given  the  lack  of  jurisdiction  of  the  EC  over  these  parties.  There  is  also  the 
added  risk  on  non-acceptability  by  EC  Member  States  as  well.  The  result  in  external 
waters could be increased costs being borne by EC stakeholders, no action being taken by 
third countries/RFMOs, and therefore a reduced impact on safeguarding/improving long 
term  economic  and  social  benefits.  Additional  risks  to  this  FoA  relate  to  control  of 
catches and fishing effort on shark resulting in displacement to other fisheries that may 
also be under pressure and susceptible to overfishing.  

Summarising  the  analysis  of  option  B,  there  are  long-term  negative  impacts  associated 
with  the  present  status  quo  (option  A).  The  above  actions  should  go  along  way  to 
reversing those impacts particularly within Community waters, in relation to both stock 
and  ecosystem  responses.  The  key  effective  actions  are  1,  and  4  with  the  other  three 
providing  a  supporting  function.  The  positive  environmental  impacts,  however,  could 
only be achieved with full implementation of at least the two key actions which must be 
underpinned by a binding regulation. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
5.3. 

Option C 

5.3.1.  Environmental Impacts 

Essentially  the  actions  are  similar  to  those  outlined  in  Option  B  but  would  attempt  to 
reverse  the  negative  impacts  much  more  immediately  to  ensure  no  further  damage  is 
done. It would be more interventionist with highly restrictive harvesting practices which 
would  further  impact  on  other  fish  and  fisheries  within  the  immediate  target  fishery. 
Based upon an initial rapid risk assessment on existing data, all high and medium priority 
fisheries would be closed down immediately and only sharks complete with fins could be 
landed.  

In  terms  of  environmental  impacts  the  effects  would  be  positive,  like  Option  B,  but 
occurring more immediately. This may mean less damage might be incurred during the 
implementation period so stocks are in a better condition to recover since the regulation 
is  more  immediate.  Positive  environmental  impacts  may  therefore  be  achieved  more 
completely and more quickly. 

The  effects  would  be  felt  particularly  in  the  NE  Atlantic  where  the  mixed  nature  of 
fishery  with  an  inevitable  shark/ray  catch  might  seriously  interfere  with  the  fishery  if 
Option C is fully implemented. 

5.3.2.  Economic Impacts 

This option would result in a complete ban on the catches of many shark species in the 
short-  to  medium  term,  and  until  such  time  as  TACs  are  established  for  individual 
species. In the case of the N. Atlantic and the Mediterranean, given that most sharks are 
caught  in  mixed  fisheries,  the  potential  economic  impact  of  this  option  would  be  a 
complete cessation to all stakeholders of all current benefits being generated from non-
TAC shark fisheries as outlined in Option A. As a recommended TAC is only available 
for a few species including thorny skate (11,000 tonnes), this could reduce catches in the 
North Atlantic and Mediterranean from around 54,000 tonnes of shark to around 10,000 
tonnes. This would result in a direct and significant cost of reduced sales values of shark 
species  by  the  catching  sector  of  around  Euro  69  million  per  year22.  Given  the  low 
average  dependency  on  shark  catches  in  Northern  and  Mediterranean  waters,  these 
impacts would probably be insignificant in terms of individual vessel viability for most 
vessels, but could be significant for some specific metiers/fleets relying heavily on shark 
catches  (e.g.  specific  French  fleets  in  Bay  of  Biscay  targeting  sharks).  Further 
quantification is not possible given the lack of current species reporting which precludes 
an analysis of economic benefits being generated by specific species or fleets.  

Impacts  in  the  short-  to  medium-term  on  the  processing  sector  as  a  whole  would  be 
significant in terms  of reduced  product for processing and subsequent sale. This would 
mean that current margins/profits on around 43,000 tonnes of product would be forgone. 
Sufficient  data/information  is  not  available  on  margins/profits  made  specifically  from 
processing  shark  species  in  Northern  waters  to  estimate  the  economic  costs  that  would 
result. However, it can be assumed that given other species available for processing and 

22 

It should be noted that this lost value to the catching sector, could to some extent be recovered by 
increases of catches of other non-TAC species. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the relatively small percentage that sharks make up of total catches in Northern waters, 
that  these  impacts  would  probably  not  be  significant  enough  to  result  in  the  difference 
between  processors  being  economically  viable  or  not,  except  in  cases  where  any 
individual  processors  rely  strongly  on  shark  catches.  The  impacts  can  therefore  be 
viewed as not significant. 

For  the  distant  water  pelagic  fisheries,  as  already  noted  shark  catches  represent  a 
significant proportion of total turnover of longline vessels (around 25-45% depending on 
the  fishery).  In  the  absence  of  TACs  for  specific  shark  species,  a  ban  on  catches  of  all 
sharks would result in the short- to medium term in a loss of revenue of Euro 93 million 
from the C&S Atlantic, Euro 12 million in the Indian Ocean and Euro 4 million in the 
Pacific. These impacts are obviously very significant. In the current climate of increased 
operational costs (e.g. from fuel price rises), the impacts on individual vessels could very 
well make such fisheries unviable for the catching sector. This is especially likely given 
operational fishing strategies which rely on different species at different times of the year 
depending on both market prices and species availability in different locations. Impacts 
in the short- to medium-term on the processing sector as a whole would be significant in 
terms  of  reduced  product  for  processing  and  subsequent  sale.  This  would  mean  that 
current  margins/profits  being  made  on  around  48,000  tonnes  of  pelagic  shark  product 
would  be  forgone.  Sufficient  data/information  is  not  available  on  margins/profits  made 
specifically  from  processing  pelagic  shark  species  from  distant  waters  to  quantify  the 
costs  that  would  result.  Some  very  specialist  shark  processing  operations  could  also  be 
expected to be so negatively affected as to render them unviable due to reduced landings 
of  shark,  but  the  impacts  on  the  processing  sector  would  be  less  severe  than  on  the 
catching sector, as it can be expected that processors are engaged with processing other 
species as well as sharks. 

In the longer term, and as TACs are phased in for all species, Option C can be expected 
to  contribute  towards  re-establishing  or  increasing  the  current  economic  benefits  from 
shark  fisheries  to  all  stakeholders  by  ensuring  long-term  sustainability  of  catches. 
However, it must be remembered that the short-term impacts as discussed above could be 
very  significant  for  some  specific  fleet  segments,  potentially  meaning  that  operations 
could  have  ceased  to  exist  by  the  time  stocks  recovered  and/or  TACs  introduced.  The 
magnitude of the balance of these short- and long term impacts should therefore be seen 
in the context of the discussion of the current economic benefits of shark fisheries.  

For  the  new  measure  proposed  for  FoA  5  in  Option  C  (landing  of  all  sharks  with  fins 
with  no  exceptions),  there  would  be  no  merit  in  stakeholders  spending  any  monies  on 
research  to  demonstrate/justify  exemptions,  so  these  short-term  costs  associated  with 
Option B would be saved. Short- and long term economic costs would therefore involve 
the direct impact on the catching sector for those pelagic shark vessels currently gaining 
exemptions (mostly Spanish) of increased fuel costs from landing fins and carcasses in 
the  same  port,  but  for  these  savings  to  be  outweighed  by  the  inability  to  sell  different 
products  into  ports  commanding  the  best  prices  (on  the  basis  that  current  practices 
maximise  revenues/profits).  Quantification  of  these  impacts  is  not  possible,  but 
stakeholder objections to this measure suggest that the industry feel they could be quite 
significant.  Likewise  a  requirement  to  land  all  fins  without  any  exceptions,  would  also 
result in indirect operational costs if vessels are forced to amend their cutting practices to 
reduce fin weights (and therefore potentially values) so as to fall under the 5% rule. The 
measure  would  also  result  in  costs  to  the  catching  sector  of  reduced  discard  practices, 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
which  could  result  in  vessels  having  to  use  increased  fishing  hold  space  to  store  low 
value  shark  meat  instead  of  higher  value  species.  Quantification  of  the  significance  of 
these  impacts  is  not  possible  due  to  the  fact  that  it  is  impossible  to  know  the  extent  to 
which  a)  changes  to  cutting  practices  would  reduce  sales  values  and  b)  discarding  is 
currently  taking  place  and  therefore  the  extent  to  which  the  measure  would  reduce 
discards and impact on operational costs. 

5.3.3. 

Social Impacts 

In  the  case  of  the  North  Atlantic  and  the  Mediterranean,  given  that  most  sharks  are 
caught  in  mixed  fisheries,  this  option  would  mean  that  around  50,000  vessels,  100,000 
catching  sector  jobs,  and  50,000  processing  sector  jobs  could  be  impacted.  Given  the 
relatively  low  importance  of  shark  species  as  a  proportion  of  total  catches  in  northern 
waters, these impacts would probably not be significant overall, but could be significant 
for some specific metiers/fleets and areas, such as the longline fishery for porbeagle from 
Isle  d’Yeu.  However  a  detailed  quantification  is  not  possible  given  the  lack  of  current 
species  reporting  which  precludes  an  analysis  of  economic  benefits  being  generated  by 
specific species or fleets.  

For  the  distant  water  pelagic  fisheries,  as  already  noted  shark  catches  represent  a 
significant  proportion  of  total  turnover  of  longline  vessels  (around  25-45%)  and  some 
regions e.g. Galicia are very dependent on fisheries. A complete ban on shark fisheries in 
distant waters given the lack of TACs would affect more than 300 longline vessels and 
around  5,000  crew,  an  additional  56  purse  seine  vessels  and  their  crew,  and  around  3-
4000 processor sector jobs. In the absence of TACs for specific shark species, a ban on 
catches  of  sharks,  especially  in  the  current  climate  of  increased  operational  costs  (e.g. 
from fuel price rises), could very well make such distant water fisheries unviable for the 
catching  sector,  with  resulting  social  implications  in  terms  of  job  losses.  This  is 
especially  likely  given  operational  fishing  strategies  which  rely  on  different  species  at 
different  times  of  the  year  depending  on  both  market  prices  and  species  availability  in 
different  locations.  Some  very  specialist  shark  processing  operations  could  also  be 
expected to be so negatively affected as to render them unviable due to reduced landings 
of  shark,  with  resulting  negative  social  impacts  in  terms  of  employment,  but  given  the 
ability/likelihood of processing companies obtaining species from other sources and not 
be  entirely  dependent  on  longline  catches,  the  impacts  may  not  be  as  severe  as  for  the 
catching sector. 

In the longer term, and as TACs are phased in for all species, Option C can be expected 
to contribute towards re-establishing or increasing the current social benefits from shark 
fisheries  to  all  stakeholders  as  discussed  earlier  in  Option  A,  by  ensuring  long-term 
sustainability of catches.  

For  the  new  measure  proposed  for  FoA  5  in  Option  C  (landing  of  all  sharks  with  fins 
with no exceptions), the short and long-term direct and indirect social impacts would be 
the same as those described under FoA 5 for Option B, except even greater because no 
vessels  would  be  afforded  the  derogations.  Impacts  would  be  both  certain  and 
significant. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
5.3.4.  Risks, trade-offs/synergies, public opinion, enhancing measures 

It  is  clear  from  stakeholder  feedback  on  the  consultation  document,  that  while  some 
NGOs  might  be  supportive  of  this  Option,  the  industry  would  certainly  not  be. 
Compliance and enforceability issues would certainly therefore be a significant concern. 
In addition, it must be remembered that the short-term impacts as discussed above would 
be very significant. The magnitude of the balance of these short- and long term impacts 
should therefore be seen in the context of the discussion of the current social benefits of 
shark fisheries, and the probable trade-off between short-term costs and long-term gains 
could be unacceptable and hardly supported by politicians. 

The Option also brings with it certain risks in terms of implementation by third countries 
and RFMOs, given the lack of jurisdiction of the EC over these parties. There is also the 
added  risk  on  non-acceptability  by  EC  Member  States  as  well.  The  result  in  external 
waters could be increased costs being borne by EC stakeholders, no action being taken by 
third  countries/RFMOs,  and  therefore  a  reduced  impact  on  long  term  economic  and 
social benefits. Additional risks to this FoA relate to control of catches and fishing effort 
on shark resulting in displacement to other fisheries that may also be under pressure and 
susceptible to overfishing. 

In summary, implementation of Option C would have similar environmental impacts to 
Option  B  in  that  it  would  slow  down  or  reverse  the  decline  in  shark  populations, 
particularly  the  more  vulnerable  species,  and  reverse  negative  trends  in  ecosystem 
structure. It would, however, achieve these positive impacts more immediately and more 
extensively than Option B. Never the less the social and economic impacts would also be 
more  immediate  for  an  unprepared  industry  and  consequently  cause  some  hardship  in 
some fishing regions. 

6. 

ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT COSTS 

Administrative costs are those that are defined as “the costs incurred by enterprises, the 
voluntary  sector,  public  authorities  and  citizens  in  meeting  legal  obligations  to  provide 
information  on  their  action  or  production,  either  to  public  authorities  or  to  private 
parties” (EC Impact Assessment Guidelines, Sept 2006 update). The administrative costs 
were estimated using the EU Standard Cost Model. Please find here the estimation's main 
results (see the detailed calculation in Appendix IV.):  

Option A (the status quo) results in no net change to administration costs.  

Option B (the proposed CPOA) is estimated to result in administration costs of around 
€19  million.   Around  99%  of  these  costs  relate  to  Field  of  Action  1.  The  proposed 
measure to change catch reporting for elasmobranchs to species level results in 55% of 
the  costs  incurred  by  the  catching  sector  through  additional  labour  allocated  to  more 
detailed  catch  reporting  and  20%  is  incurred  by  the  post-harvest  sector  for  resulting 
alterations  to  reporting.  A  further  24%  is  incurred  by  Member  States  resulting  from 
additions  to  the  DCR,  but  mainly  through  the  administration  costs  associated  with  the 
proposed observer scheme. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
With  the  large  numbers  of  vessels  and  seafood  enterprises  affected  by  the  proposed 
change  to  reporting  requirements,  the  additional  administration  costs  estimated  for 
RFMO and RAC secretariats to increase research and information on elasmobranch are 
comparatively  minimal.  These  will  however  have  budgetary  implications  and  require 
future funding. 

The  total  administration  costs  for  Option  C  (application  of  a  strict  precautionary 
approach) are estimated to be just over €17 million . Option C incurs similar levels and 
target  group  apportionment  of  costs  as  Option  B.  Some  costs  savings  result  from  the 
outright  ban  on  high  and  medium  priority  fisheries  resulting  in  no  observer  scheme  in 
these fisheries and no costs associated with the application for and processing of finning 
and landing exemptions. 

Management costs essentially cover the cost of implementation – be this management or 
research – and are considered separately. The total management costs for options B and 
C are estimated to be from the first year between just over €4 million (soft option) and 
almost  € 14  million  (hard  option).  This  amount  can  be  from  the  fifth  year  about  € 5 
million.  

The  total  anticipated  costs  (both  management  and  administrative)  are  included  in 
Appendix IV. Option B results in marginally higher overall costs compared to Option C, 
with the hard options both totalling just over €30m in the first year, decreasing to annual 
costs of approximately €23m in Year 5. 

7. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

The  options  for  applying  the  Shark  Action  Plan  have  been  examined  above  along  with 
their relative impacts. It remains to assess the effectiveness of these options for achieving 
the stated objectives of the Plan. These objectives were: 

•  Ensuring  a  coherent  approach  between  internal  and  external  EC  fishery  policy  for 

sharks. 

•  Deepening the knowledge both on shark fisheries and on shark species and their role 

in the ecosystem. 

•  Ensure  that  directed  fisheries  for  shark  are  sustainable  and  that  by-catches  of  shark 

resulting from other fisheries are properly regulated. 

The  probable  effectiveness  of  the  three  options  of  achieving  these  objectives  can  be 
compared  and  an  indication  of  their  relative  efficiencies  can  be  gained  by  comparing 
their advantages and drawbacks. 

Advantages, drawbacks and relative efficiency of options 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
7.1. 

Option A: Status quo 

7.1.1.  Advantages 

In  the  short-term,  there  are  currently  significant  economic  and  social  advantages  to  no 
change  in  the  present  situation.  Current  catches  are  worth  around  EUR  196  million 
annually  with  significant  income  dependency  particularly  for  the  external  fleets  and 
amongst the major fishing regions of the Community. This benefit extends to secondary 
and tertiary tiers of the industry. In addition, much of the shark is retailed and consumed 
within the EU therefore it makes a significant contribution to EU fish supplies. 

7.1.2.  Drawbacks 

Most of the advantages listed above are short-term. All the indicators suggest that current 
stocks  are  declining  rapidly  and  that  some  may  be  already  badly  damaged.  This  is,  in 
itself,  a  drawback  in  environmental  terms,  of  doing  nothing,  but  it  would  have  the 
additional  disadvantages  of  undermining  the  economic  and  social  benefits  from  shark 
fishing  described  above.  These  progressively  negative  effects  would  affect  some  of  the 
most  sensitive  fishing  regions  of  the  Community,  such  as  Galicia,  Brittany  and  NE 
Scotland. Clearly, market  supplies  would also suffer.  Such  effects  might  also  be  felt  in 
third party countries who often supply crew for the distant water fleet. With such long-
term costs this cannot be regarded as an efficient option. 

With increasing damage to shark stocks, the role of many sharks as top predators with a 
regulatory role in ecosystem function, may have wider effects within the ecosystem and 
its biodiversity as they are progressively removed. 

There will also be drawbacks for the Commission itself since doing nothing on an issue 
widely perceived to be a serious problem will lead to increasing friction with NGOs, civil 
society and concerned Member States. This would also compromise the standing of the 
EU in international management and conservation bodies. 

This option is neither effective nor efficient in the long-term. 

7.2. 

Option B: Proposed Fields of Action 

7.2.1.  Advantages 

The  main  advantages  of  Option  B  are  initially  environmental  along  with  improved 
governance  and  best  practice.  If  all  the  actions  included  in  this  option  were  fully 
implemented  and  complied  with,  the  objectives  of  the  Plan  would  be  achieved  and  the 
negative  impacts  on  shark  populations  and  biodiversity  minimised  or  reversed  through 
the positive impact of the actions. 

Governance should be linked with improved coherence between home and external fleets 
since the outputs of the CPOA should take into account and address the interests of both 
fleets.  It  will  also  require  much  closer  collaboration  with  RMFOs  and  international 
bodies.  Moreover  the  EU  can  be  seen  to  be  taking  the  initiative  in  a  plan  of  some 
significance in the marine environment, thereby increasing its political capital. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
Ultimately,  in  the  longer  term  although  there  may  have  been  initial  costs  within  the 
industry the management of the shark stocks will guarantee a more stable and sustainable 
activity within the industry thereby conferring more long term benefit and more supply. 
The  consultation  action  (Activity  3)  will  also  help  a  more  informed  civil  society  and 
industry. 

7.2.2.  Drawbacks 

There  are  significant  direct  and  indirect  costs  associated  with  both  the  data  collection 
elements  (Actions  1  and  2)  and  the  management  elements  (Actions  4  and  5).  Data 
collection always has a cost attached to it. Catch and effort monitoring will have some 
administrative associated with it both within the industry and the Commission. The use 
of  observer  pilot  schemes  could  be  particularly  costly  (Section  6).  In  addition  to 
monitoring  and  observer  costs  there  would  also  be  research  costs  particularly  for 
measures of Action 2. The consultation process envisaged in Option 3 would also have a 
cost. 

The  implementation  of  Option  4  and  5  would  have  their  costs  on  the  industry.  As 
management measures are implemented there will be a curtailment in fishing for sharks 
which will have economic and social costs within the industry and fishing communities. 
The extent of these costs would depend upon the degree of limitations put in place and 
the extent to which fishing strategies could be altered so as to minimise economic costs. 
The  prohibition  of  discards  could  prevent  the  full  benefit  of  fishing  from  the  target 
species to be realised. This would also be the case in Option 5 where fishing costs may 
also be increased due to increased frequency of landings needed. 

In the longer term many of these costs would be offset by the more sustainable sub-sector 
as described under ‘advantages’. 

To be fully effective new regulations would had to be of a binding nature which brings 
additional costs of ensuring compliance through inspection and monitoring. 

This option is likely to be effective but will have its costs, particularly in the short term. 
If  properly  adjusted,  however,  it  should  be  reasonably  cost  effective  and  efficient.  It 
seems to offer the most efficient way of achieving effectiveness of the objectives. 

7.3. 

Option C: Strict Precautionary Approach 

7.3.1.  Advantages 

It should achieve the objectives of data collection and management as per Option B but 
achieve them more quickly and with less damage being done to shark stocks during the 
implementation period. 

7.3.2.  Drawbacks 

The range of costs is likely to be similar to Option B but the immediate curtailment of all 
medium and high risk fisheries will have rapid and more profound consequences for the 
industry. The more rigorous regulations, which will be binding, will present much greater 
issues  of  compliance.  This  could  further  increase  the  risks  of  compliance  not  being 
achieved. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
The  ultimate  effectiveness  will  be  achieved  in  advance  of  Option  B  but  the  increased 
costs,  largely  economic  and  social,  will  largely  be  felt  by  the  industry  and  also  the 
consumer as market supplies are more reduced. The efficiency of this option may be less 
than that for Option B. 

7.4. 

Preferred option 

Given  the  evidence  for  a  deteriorating  situation  for  a  number  of  shark  populations,  it 
cannot be said that Option A will enable an effective systematic response to be arrived at 
by the EU in a timely fashion and the present situation could become unacceptable. The 
overall negative impacts of continuing with the status quo were outlined in the previous 
Section. It is this that the Commission intends to mitigate through fields of action within 
the CPOA. 

If fully implemented and complied with Option C would be highly effective in achieving 
both data and management objectives. However, the strong drawbacks pointed out above 
do not allow the choice of this option as the preferred one. It is important to recall that 
this option also brings with it certain risks in terms of implementation by third countries 
and  RFMOs,  given  the  lack  of  jurisdiction  of  the  EC  over  these  parties.  The  result  in 
external waters could be increased costs being borne by EC stakeholders, no action being 
taken by third countries/RFMOs. 

Our  preferred  option  is  an  amended  version  of  Option  B  (including  the  "soft"  sub-
option  for  measures  1.3,  1.4  and  1.10  and  the  "hard"  sub-option  for  measure  4.4  –see 
Appendix II). 

Following the analysis made in the previous sections, it could be inferred that not all the 
proposed actions seem compulsory. A number of them could be dismissed without major 
detriment  for  the  whole  Plan  of  Action  in  consideration  of  the  workload  involved  in 
relation to the available human resources. 

In  the  preferred  option,  measures  2.2,  2.3,  2.4,  2.5,  2.7  and  3.3  are  dropped  and  a  new 
measure (4.10) is added. 

The measures to be dropped are the following ones: 

Under Field of Action 2: 

To  conduct  regular  assessment  in  order  to  identify  threats  to  shark  populations 

2.2 
and to determine the fishing mortality by stocks and, if possible, partitioned by fishery. 

Reason: This task should be accomplished by relevant scientific advisory bodies without 
specific resort to Community action. Although the existing mechanisms could be considered 
insufficient,  the  lack  of  human  resources  in  DG  MARE  does  not  allow  making  further 
progress.  Furthermore,  the  relative  weight  of  this  action  in  the  whole  CPOA  has  been 
considered low to medium and its implementation optional. 

Identification  of  space-time  boxes  in  areas  where  juveniles  or  spawners  are 

2.3 
abundant. 

Reason: Already covered by measure 4.8 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
 
2.4 

Study biology and ecology of sharks. 

Reason: This task should be accomplished by relevant national and international 
research  bodies  without  specific  resort  to  Community  action.  Although  the  existing 
mechanisms could be considered insufficient, the lack of human resources in DG MARE 
does not allow making further progress. Furthermore, the relative weight of this action 
in the whole CPOA has been considered low to medium and its implementation optional. 

2.5 
Develop  prototypes,  monitor  experiments  and  propose  measures  for  improving 
size  selectivity  and  for  reducing  unwanted  by-catch  and  discarding  of  no  commercial 
species. 

Reason:  DG  Research  is  financing  a  collaborative  project,  MADE,  selected 
through  FP7,  which  perfectly  fits  into  this  particular  action.  MADE  addresses  the 
objective  of  "mitigating  adverse  ecological  impacts  of  open  ocean  fisheries",  i.e.  of 
pelagic  long  lines  and  FAD  fisheries.  Sharks  are  concerned  as  by-catch  for  these  two 
fisheries.  The  field  of  the  programme  corresponds  to  the  main  fishing  grounds  of 
European fleets in the Indian and Atlantic oceans, and in the Mediterranean Sea. 

The  programme  begun  in  May  2008  and  will  end  in  2012  but  deliverables  will  be 
available from December 2009 on. Therefore, it seems appropriate to see this action in 
the context of the EC Plan of Action. 

Although this could be considered insufficient, the lack of human resources in DG MARE 
does not allow making further progress. Furthermore, the relative weight of this action 
in the whole CPOA has been considered low to medium and its implementation optional. 

Foster implementation of internationally coordinated studies on straddling and/or 

2.7 
shared stocks. 

Reason:  This  task  should  be  accomplished  by  relevant  international  research 
bodies  without  specific  resort  to  Community  action.  Although  the  existing  mechanisms 
could  be  considered  insufficient,  the  lack  of  human  resources  in  DG  MARE  does  not 
allow  making  further  progress.  Furthermore,  the  implementation  of  this  measure  has 
been considered optional. 

Under Field of Action 3: 

3.3 
Foster  stakeholder  awareness  and  consultation  regarding  shark  management  and 
best  practices  to  reduce  unwanted  by-catch  through  programs  promoted  by  RFMO  and 
international fishermen associations. 

Reason:  This  task  should  be  accomplished  by  relevant  international  bodies  without 
specific  resort  to  Community  action.  Although  the  existing  mechanisms  could  be 
considered insufficient, the lack of human resources in DG MARE does not allow making 
further progress. Furthermore, the implementation of this measure has been considered 
optional. 

The measure to be added is the following one: 

4.10  Co-operate through CMS and CITES to controlling shark fishing and trade. 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Reason:  The  Community  is  already  cooperating  with  these  two  international 
Conventions.  However,  strengthened  participation  on  shark  conservation  related 
activities  is  advisable.  Additionally,  this  measure  has  been  suggested  by  a  number  of 
stakeholders and is clearly relevant and appropriated. 

The  Fields  of  Action  and  the  corresponding  measures  actually  included  in  the  draft 
CPOA can be found in the following table: 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
Operational 
objective 
Having 
1. 
reliable 
and 
detailed  species-
specific 
quantitative  and 
biological  data 
on  catches  and 
landings  as  well 
as  trade  data  for 
high 
and 
medium  priority 
after 
fisheries, 
three  years  of 
implementation.
23 

Operational objectives, measures and implementation mechanisms resulting from the IA 

Basic Measures 

Implementation mechanisms and options 

EC level 

Increase  investment  in  shark  data  collection  at 
landing  sites  and  by  processing  and  marketing 
industries. 

Increase  the  requirements  of  the  DCR  to  specify  shark  landings  by 
species.  
Use of Control regulation 

Establish  systems  to  provide  verification  of  catch 
information by species and by fishery. 

As above. Focus should be on strengthening implementation of existing 
control regulations 

Mandate  representative  coverage  on  EC  fishing 
vessels by on-board observers for vessels over 24 m 
and  with  recent  by-catches  figures  of  more  than 
10% to 15% (depending on the particular fishery) of 
sharks over the total catch. 

Soft  option:  40%  observer  coverage  for  high  priority  pelagic  fisheries 
that catch more than 10% shark bycatch by 2013. 

For  all  the  distant  water  fleets  not  covered  by  the 
measure  above  and  taking  sharks  as  a  by-catch, 
mandate  at  least  10%  observer  coverage  by  2013. 
For high priority shallow-water fisheries in the NE 
Atlantic, mandate pilot-based observer scheme (e.g. 
c. 25 observers) by 2013. 

Soft  option:  10%  observer  coverage  of  all  distant  water  fleets  not 
covered by Measure 1.3 by 2013 and pilot-based observer scheme (e.g. 
c. 25 observers) by 2013 on high priority shallow-water fisheries in the 
NE  Atlantic.  Refine  over  time  with  better  landings  data  from  Measure 
1.1 and 1.2. 

23 

Fields of Action 1 & 2 merged 

EN 

53 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
Operational 
objective 

Basic Measures 

Implementation mechanisms and options 

Ensure that all landings and trade of shark fins, meat 
and  oil  are  recorded  separately  by  commodity  and 
to the species level. 

Adapt Reg. 1921/2006 on landings to presentation of shark commodities 
by species. 

RFMO 
level 

 Promote 
improved  species-specific  catch  and 
landings  data  and  monitoring  of  shark  catches  by 
fishery. 
Improve,  in  cooperation  with  FAO  and  relevant 
fisheries  management  bodies,  the  monitoring  and 
reporting  of  catch,  bycatch,  discards,  market  and 
international  trade  data,  at  the  species  level  where 
possible. 
Request  through  the  FAO  and  Regional  Fisheries 
Management  Organisations  where  appropriate  that 
these  organisations  develop 
implement 
Regional  Shark  Plans  and  associated  measures  to 
assist  in  species  identification  and  monitoring,  as 
called  for  in  the  IPOA–Sharks,  by  mid-2009  in 
order  to  report  to  the  15th  Meeting  of  the  CITES 
Conference of Parties. 
Promote the identification and reporting of species-
specific biological and trade data. 

and 

Promote  adoption  of  regulatory  measures  for  shark  catches  reporting 
(see Measure 2.6) through binding measures. 

Financial  support  to  FAO,  and  contribution  to  Working  Groups  and 
RFMO meetings.  

Contribution  to  Working  Groups  and  RFMO  meetings  to  assist  NPOA 
development. Consider technical and financial assistance through FPAs. 
NPOA outputs  

RFMO 
recommendations. 

alter 

reporting 

requirements 

accordingly 

through 

EN 

54 

EN 

 
  
Operational 
objective 

Basic Measures 

Implementation mechanisms and options 

representative  coverage  on 

Encourage 
fishing 
vessels by on-board observers for vessels over 24 m 
fishing in the high seas and with recent by-catches 
figures of more than 10% to 15% (depending on the 
particular  fishery)  of  sharks  of  the  total  catch.  For 
other  fleets  not  covered  by  the  measure  above  and 
taking  sharks  as  a  by-catch,  mandate  at  least  10% 
observer coverage by 2013. 

Member 
State level 

Monitor 
between 
fishing  mortality 
recreational and commercial fishing. 

recreational  catches  and  distinguish 
exerted  by 
the 

Soft  option:  40%  observer  coverage  for  high  priority  pelagic  fisheries 
that catch more than 10% shark bycatch by 2013. 

reporting  of 

Mandatory 
elasmobranchs. 
Studies  into  mortality  following  release  in  both  recreational  and 
commercial fisheries  

landings  of 

recreational 

seafishing 

on 

2.  Being  able  to 
efficiently 
and 
monitor 
shark 
assess 
stocks 
a 
species  specific 
level 
and 
develop 
harvesting 
strategies 
with 
principles 

the 
of 

and 

EC 
RFMOs 
level 

Enhance  EC  and  RFMOs  research  programmes  to 
facilitate  data  collection,  monitoring  and  stock 
assessment on a species-specific level. 

Following  ICES  and  RFMOs  advice,  seek  specific  scientific  advice 
based on MoU with JRC and STEFC through specific requests. 
Promote  specific  research  programmes  through  the  7th  Framework 
Programme (2007-2013). 
Contribution to Working Groups and RFMO meetings. Finance provided 
to studies. 

EN 

55 

EN 

 
  
Operational 
objective 
biological 
sustainability 
and rational long 
term 
economic 
use,  after  three 
of 
years 
implementation.
24 
3.  Improve  and 
develop 
frameworks 
for 
establishing  and 
coordinating 
effective 
consultation 
involving 
stakeholders 
research, 
management and 
educational 
initiatives 

in 

4. Adjust catches 
fishing 
and 
effort 
the 
available 
resources  with 

to 

Basic Measures 

Implementation mechanisms and options 

Member 
State level 

Develop national expertise 

Promote  uptake  of  courses,  facilitate  exchange  and  mobility  of 
researchers through funding available under FP7. 

EC level 

Facilitate  stakeholder  awareness  and  consultation 
regarding  shark  management  and  best  practices  to 
reduce unwanted by-catch through RAC programs. 

Encourage Member States to allow public access to 
relevant  aggregated  data  for  fleets  and  information 
on  shark  fisheries,  while  protecting  the  right  of 
confidentiality. 

Solicit inclusion of shark management issues on agenda of RACs  

Establish  internet-based  resources  either  on  Europa  website  or  via 
independent provider, but respecting issues of individual vessel / owner 
confidentiality. 

Member 
State level 

Launch  educational  programs  aimed  specifically  at 
educating fishermen and the public about shark and 
ray conservation programs and restrictions. 

Promote specific programmes with financial support of EFF or through 
NGOs. 

EC level 

Limitation  or  prohibition  of  fishing  activities  in 
areas  that  are  considered  sensitive  to  endangered 
stocks. 
Stronger  limitation  of  fishing  effort  by  relevant 
fisheries. 

Specific legislation. 

Specific legislation. 

24 

Fields of Action 3 & 4 merged 

EN 

56 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
Operational 
objective 
particular 
attention  to  high 
priority  fisheries 
and  vulnerable 
threatened 
or 
stocks, 
shark 
after  three  years 
of 
implementation.
25 

Basic Measures 

Implementation mechanisms and options 

Both 
EC 
and  RFMO 
levels 

Foster  programmes  and  analysis  to  adjust  fishing 
effort at international level. 
Establish  catch  limits  by  stocks  in  conformity  with 
the  advice  provided  by  ICES  and  by  the  relevant 
RFMOs. 

Active contribution to Working Groups and RFMO meetings to develop 
resolutions to limit shark-related effort. 

Hard  option:  Immediate  imposition  of  TACs  and  other  management 
measures as recommended by ICES and by the relevant RFMOs. 

Prohibit  all  shark  discards  and  require  that  all 
catches 
landed. 
Unwanted  by-catches  of  sharks  that  have  a  chance 
to survive must be released back into the water. 

by-catches) 

(including 

are 

Increase  size  and  species  selectivity  in  order  to 
reduce undersized catches and unwanted by-catch. 

Establish  bycatch  reduction  programs  for  shark 
species  considered  Critically  Endangered  or 
Endangered by relevant international organisations. 
Establishment  of  space-time  boxes  in  areas  where 
juveniles  or  spawners  are  abundant,  esp.  for 
vulnerable or threatened species. 
Provide  international  cooperation  in  CMS  and 
CITES with a view to controlling shark fishing and 
trade. 

Provide derogations for species with high post-discard survivability e.g. 
some ray species. 
Propose  discard  ban  at  RFMO  level.  Provide  derogations  for  species 
with high post-discard survivability e.g. blue shark. 
Develop  joint  research  programmes  that  would  test  different  gear 
options.  Possible  maximum  size  limits  to  conserve  large  breeding 
females. 

Dedicated RFMOs working groups on shark fisheries that would analyse 
data available and make management recommendations to the Plenary. 

Specific legislation.  

Proactive  participation  in  CMS  and  CITES  in  support  of  shark 
conservation measures. 

25 

Fields of Action 6 and 7 merged 

EN 

57 

EN 

 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
Operational 
objective 

Basic Measures 

Implementation mechanisms and options 

Examine the possible impact of market mechanisms 
on  conservation  measures,  including  for  shark 
species  within  the  framework  of  the  ongoing 
evaluation  of  the  Common  Market  Organisation  in 
fishery and aquaculture products. 
Confirm the ban of finning practices26. As a general 
rule,  it  will  be  prohibited  to  remove  shark  fins  on 
board, tranship or land shark fins. Any exception to 
this rule will have to be fully justified on solid and 
objective  grounds  and  documented  prior  to  the 
issuing  by  the  Member  State  of  the  special  permit. 
Member  States  should  not  issue  special  permits  to 
vessels not having fulfilled this condition. 
To review the 5% rule by requiring that in no case 
shall  the  weight  of  the  fins  exceed  5%  of  the 
dressed (gutted and beheaded) carcass weight of the 
shark catch. However, Member States having set up 
implemented  data  collection  programmes 
and 
proving  that  this  percentage  could  be  increased  in 
certain  cases,  could  do  so  up  to  a  percentage 
corresponding to 5% of the live weight of the shark 
catch. 
For vessels of Member States having been exempted 
from  the  obligation  of  landing  of  sharks  with  fins 
attached,  introduce  the  requirement  to  land  shark 
fins and carcases at the same time in the same port. 

Minimize 
5. 
and 
waste 
from 
discards 
catches 
shark 
the 
requiring 
of 
retention 
sharks 
from 
which  fins  are 
removed 
and 
strengthening 
control 
measures. 

Both 
EC 
and  RFMO 
levels 

Review the applicability of market intervention measures to endangered 
shark species. 

Amendment of Reg. 1185/2003. 

26 

Practice whereby the fins are removed from sharks, with the reminder of the shark being discarded at sea. 

EN 

58 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
8. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Identification of core indicators 

A series of indicators have been drafted in the table overleaf. These have been divided 
into: 

•  Impact indicators: CPOA broad policy objectives 

•  Result indicators: CPOA Fields of Action (specific objectives) 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
Table 8: Core indicators for monitoring and evaluation 

OBJECTIVE LEVEL 

TARGET 

Broad policy objectives 

1. Deepening the knowledge both on 
shark fisheries and on shark species and 
their role in the ecosystem. 

OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE 
INDICATORS 

MEANS OF 
VERIFICATION  

IMPORTANT RISKS AND 
ASSUMPTIONS 

Activity and outputs of elasmobranch-specific 
Working Groups 

ICES, STECF and 
RFMO reports 

Number and focus of species and fisheries-
specific management mechanisms elucidated 

2. Ensure that directed fisheries for shark 
are sustainable and that by-catches of 
shark resulting from other fisheries are 
properly regulated. 

Shark populations recover to sustainable 
levels.  

ICES, STECF and 
RFMO reports 

Number of species in the IUCN Red List CR, 
EN & VU categories 

IUCN Red List updates 

Research is focused on vulnerable 
and threatened species. Dependent 
upon regular risk assessment and 
prioritisation. 

Some species are already critical and 
their potential for recovery 
uncertain. 

3. Encourage a coherent approach 
between the internal and external EC 
fishery policy for sharks 

Uptake and consistency of internal EC 
regulations related to sharks into RFMO 
resolutions. 

EC Regulations and 
relevant RFMO 
resolutions  

The adoption of a precautionary 
approach may not be acceptable to 
all RFMO CPs. 

Fields of Action - specific objectives  

MS / EC / 
RFMO 

Increased proportion of catches and landings 
reported to species level. 

Eurostat, ICES and FAO 
databases 

Nomenclature can be clarified and 
agreed 

Level of observer coverage on high priority 
and other fisheries. 

DCR regulations update and strengthened to 
reflect the Action Plan. 

MS / EC / 
RFMO 

New stocks assessed. 

New national expertise developed 

ICES, STECF and 
RFMO reports 

FP7 funding priorities coherent with 
Action Plan-related research needs 

1. Facilitate improved 
identification and reporting 
of species-specific catch, 
landings and market data 

2. Conduct research and 
compile the necessary 
information to assess threats 
to shark populations and 
protect critical habitats, and 
implement sustainable and 
rational harvesting strategies  

EN 

60 

EN 

 
  
3. Improve stakeholder 
awareness and consultation 
processes 

EC 

RACs incorporate shark management issues 

RAC reporting 

Regional issues recognised 

MS public access portal providing access to 
relevant information on sharks 

Website or other portal 

MS 

EFF fund uptake includes education & 
awareness building for shark conservation 

MS mid-term review of 
EFF uptake 

Technical and financial resources 
made available. Public information 
needs identified. 

National fisheries administrations 
encouraged to include shark issues 
in EFF programmes 

Key risk is the acceptability of EC 
measures to RFMOs and their 
Contracting Parties.  

4. Adjust fishing effort and 
catches to the available 
resources 

EC / 
RFMO 

Number of fisheries where effort and / or catch 
is limited (all fishery / spatial / seasonal) due to 
shark-related concerns 

Relevant regulations and 
resolutions. 

5. Minimize waste and 
discards from sharks 

EC / 
RFMO 

Imposition of a discard ban (except for certain 
species / fisheries where post-discard mortality 
is acceptable) 

Imposition of maximum size limited for 
certain species. 

Amendments to Reg. 1185/2003, with 
sufficiently justified applications for 
derogations 

Revised regulation(s) 
and MCS records 

Consensus agreed within Member 
States. 

EN 

61 

EN 

 
  
Monitoring and evaluation 

The following is proposed: 

•  An interim evaluation report on the qualitative and quantitative implementation of the 
programme and on the results so far achieved after three years of implementation. 

•  A communication on the continuation of the programme. 

•  A full evaluation report after six years of implementation. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
APPENDIX I 

Summary of stakeholder feedback presented to the European Commission 

Prior to the commencement of this study, the Commission identified nine fields of action 
that it believed should be addressed in an EU Action Plan for Sharks. Stakeholders were 
invited to express their views on these fields of action, and present their opinions as to 
what  further  measures  would  be  appropriate  to  reinforce  the  policy  of  the  European 
Community  on  the  conservation  and  management  of  sharks.  The  input  received  in  the 
consultation  process  has  been  used  to  inform  this  report  and  the  impact  assessment 
conducted of the envisaged Action Plan. This Appendix presents a brief summary of the 
contributions  made  by  stakeholders  to  the  EC.  It  is  not  intended  to  be  an  all 
encompassing  presentation  of  all  the  views  contained  in  the  contributions,  and  more 
detail on the specific views of stakeholders is contained in the contributions themselves, 
which can be found at the relevant EC website. 

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/governance/consultations/consultation_111207_contribut
ions_en.htm 

Field of Action No. 1: Facilitate improved species-specific catch and landings data 
and monitoring of shark catches. 

Sector 

Some specific comments and concerns 

Industry 

•  Appropriate for Community to act, question whether data will improve knowledge about 

status of sharks in eco-system 

• 

Important  for  processing/marketing  sectors  of  contracting  parties  to  RMFOs  to  be 
included 

•  Should be easy in recreational fisheries 

•  Could have large negative economic/social impact in developing countries 

•  Strong environmental benefits through better knowledge 

Recreational  • 

Important to distinguish between landings and mortality, and also be sub-sectors of the 
recreational sector in terms of data collection and regulation 

Advisory 

•  Need to measures to be carefully tailored to reflect difference in species, and different 

dependencies on shark by commercial and recreational interests 

•  Need  for  measures  to  be  adequately  researched  and  agreed,  and  subject  to  impact 

assessment and objective specification, so as to ensure applicability 

•  Declaration systems need to be more precise 

NGO and 
others 

•  Very important and entirely appropriate for EC to act 

•  Should include data collection at sea and should include FPAs 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
•  Could be facilitated by dedicated landing ports for shark 

•  Commission  could  play  an 

important 

role 

in  standardizing  names  across 

countries/regions 

•  Could be facilitated through incentives not just penalties 

•  EU action should not be held up by lack of international or regional action 

•  Not properly distributed – need more emphasis on MS and international level, not just 

RMFOs 

•  Only minor economic/social costs of better data collection and reporting, but impacts of 

not doing so could be very serious 

•  Very important environmental benefits 

•  Use CCAMLR and DCR as model 

STECF 

•  An appropriate area where progress has been made in recent years 

•  There is a need to collate and verify existing information. 

•  The recording of the catch of sharks as bycatch is required, as is biological information 

for stock assessment purposes  

Field of Action No. 2: Facilitate the identification and reporting of species-specific 
biological and trade data. 

Sector 

Some specific comments and concerns 

Industry 

•  Appropriate for Community to act but terms need to be gradual  

•  Concern  about  lack  of  reporting  of  Asian  vessels  and  ability  to  enforce,  and  proposed 

measures not complete at regional level 

• 

Impacts  on  EU  fleet  would  be  serious,  and  the  proposed  extent  of  coverage  is  not 
needed in order to obtain reliable information 

•  Port sampling would be better in developing countries 

•  Limited  environmental  impact  on  Community  directed  fisheries  given  existing 

reporting, but significant on non-EU fleets 

Recreational  •  Supportive 

Advisory 

•  Need to measures to be carefully tailored to reflect difference in species, and different 

dependencies on shark by commercial and recreational interests 

•  Need  for  measures  to  be  adequately  researched  and  agreed,  and  subject  to  impact 

assessment and objective specification, so as to ensure applicability 

•  Declaration systems need to be more precise 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
NGO and 
others 

•  Separate  catch  reporting  in  field  of  action  1,  and  trade  issues  in  FoA  2  i.e.  move 

observer coverage measures to FoA 1 

•  >24m cut off for observer coverage too large 

•  Suggest 10% observer coverage, and move from full to partial coverage must be phased 

•  Observers when bycatch more than 10% 

•  Trade data to be covered could be broadened to include all/additional products 

•  Use CCAMLR and DCR as model 

•  Potential problems with trade species-specific data should not delay FoA 1. 

STECF 

•  The  proposals  for  full  observer  coverage  for  >24  m  vessels  and  those  with  >10-15% 

bycatch may encourage misreporting by those not carrying observers. 

• 

It  should  be  mandatory  for  all  vessels  wishing  to  land  shark  fins  without  the 
accompanying carcass, to carry observers on board. 

• 

Increasing observer coverage is expensive. 

Field of Action No. 3: Compile the necessary information to assess threats to shark 
populations, determine and protect critical habitats, and implement harvesting 
strategies consistent with the principles of biological sustainability and rational long 
term economic use. 

Sector 

Some specific comments and concerns 

Industry 

•  Appropriate to act, but need better mapping for space-time boxes 

•  Proposed measures not complete at regional level, and will be difficult to enforce 

•  Limited  impact  on  Community  directed  fisheries  but  could  be  impacts  on  incidental 

catches 

•  Significant costs implications on developing countries 

•  Needs amending to be effective on Asian fleets 

•  Positive environmental impact 

Recreational  •  Supportive but need to be aware of value of recreational fisheries 

Advisory 

•  Need to measures to be carefully tailored to reflect difference in species, and different 

dependencies on shark by commercial and recreational interests 

•  Need  for  measures  to  be  adequately  researched  and  agreed,  and  subject  to  impact 

assessment and objective specification, so as to ensure applicability 

NGO and 
others 

•  Appropriate to act. Proposals will be particularly relevant for establishing Natura 2000 

sites for any sharks listed under the Habitat Directive. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
•  Recommend  the  models  &  approaches  used  by  the  international  expert  WG  convened 
last  year  by  the  Lenfest  Ocean  Program  to  set  annual  catch  limits  for  a  variety  of 
fisheries 

•  No new shark fisheries to be allowed without EIA to include threats 

•  Properly distributed 

•  Social/networking  and  raised  profile  benefits  of  better  research,  and  identification  of 
economically sustainable fisheries. Economic and social impacts of no action would be 
serious 

•  Need to foster technical expertise at national level 

STECF 

•  No comments 

Field of Action No. 4: Develop research projects to assess threats to shark 
populations and implement harvesting strategies consistent with the principles of 
biological sustainability and rational long term economic use. 

Sector 

Some specific comments and concerns 

Industry 

•  Appropriate to Act, especially to ensure that management decisions are taken based on 

proven data and not just on speculation 

•  Proposed measures not complete at regional level 

• 

Impacts on EU and developing countries dependent on harvesting strategies chosen and 
balance of imports 

•  Environmental impacts positive, but less implementable if social/economic impacts very 

large and negative on fleets 

Recreational  •  Supportive but need to be aware of value of recreational fisheries 

Advisory 

•  Need to measures to be carefully tailored to reflect difference in species, and different 

dependencies on shark by commercial and recreational interests 

•  Need  for  measures  to  be  adequately  researched  and  agreed,  and  subject  to  impact 

assessment and objective specification, so as to ensure applicability 

NGO and 
others 

•  Suggest merging FoA 3 and 4, because the title of FoA 4 is broader than its measures  

•  Conservation  targets  could  be  broadened  and  should  seek  to  minimize  not  reduce 

bycatch 

•  Need to foster technical expertise at national level 

•  Appropriate  to  act  because  the  proposals  in  this  field  of  action  are  consistent  with  an 
ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, a stated goal of the Community. 

•  Not distributed properly because the document proposes no role for Member States and 

neglects to include bycatch reduction research in programmes fostered regionally. 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
•  Social/networking  and  raised  profile  benefits  of  better  research,  and  identification  of 
economically sustainable fisheries. Economic and social impacts of no action would be 
serious 

•  Determining  important  parameters  and  learning  how  to  minimise  shark  bycatch  and 
discard mortality are key steps toward safeguarding shark populations & the ecosystems 
they support. 

STECF 

•  Suggests  that  the  Community  level  proposal  “Study  biology  and  ecology  of  sharks” 
should be reworded to reflect the true focus which is to target gaps in knowledge which 
are important for assessing threats in the shark populations. 

Field of Action No. 5: Improve and develop frameworks for establishing and 
coordinating effective consultation involving stakeholders in research, management 
and educational initiatives within and between States. 

Sector 

Some specific comments and concerns 

Industry 

•  Appropriate to act, but measures need modification 

•  Measures  not  properly  distributed.  Too  much  emphasis  on  RACs  and  not  enough  on 

industry representation 

•  Public access should only be considered from a standpoint of aggregate data for fleets, 

protecting the right of confidentiality 

•  Community and regional measures should be the same 

•  Strongly positive social impacts, economic impacts uncertain 

•  Environmental impacts positive, but less implementable if social/economic impacts very 

large and negative on fleets 

Recreational  •  Supportive.  Anglers  must  not  be  overlooked  and  can  play  important  part  in  tagging 

programmes 

Advisory 

•  Need to measures to be carefully tailored to reflect difference in species, and different 

dependencies on shark by commercial and recreational interests 

•  Need  for  measures  to  be  adequately  researched  and  agreed,  and  subject  to  impact 

assessment and objective specification, so as to ensure applicability 

NGO and 
others 

•  Need a broad definition of stakeholders 

•  Need to include advice with regards to minimizing bycatch, not just unwanted animals 

•  Education  also  needs  to  focus  on  threats  to  sharks,  not  just  about  conservation 

programmes and regulations 

•  Appropriate to act and well distributed 

•  Strong positive economic, social and environmental benefits 

STECF 

•  No comments 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
Field of Action No. 6: Adjust fishing effort to the available resources.  

Sector 

Some specific comments and concerns 

Industry 

•  Must be carefully studies to assess social/economic impacts 

•  Measures  equally  distributed,  ,  but  must  be  based  on  scientific  data  and  evidence,  not 

speculation 

•  Economic/social impacts could be great but handled, but concern over Community fleet 

being affected with less effort/concern on non-EU vessels 

•  Suggest merging fields of action 6 and 7 

•  Positive environmental impact but must be equally imposed on all fleets, not just EU 

Recreational  •  Supportive and suggest that some species could be for recreational catches only 

Advisory 

•  Need to measures to be carefully tailored to reflect difference in species, and different 

dependencies on shark by commercial and recreational interests 

•  Need  for  measures  to  be  adequately  researched  and  agreed,  and  subject  to  impact 

assessment and objective specification, so as to ensure applicability 

NGO and 
others 

•  One of the most crucial FoA 

•  Should specify emergency measures to protect from excess effort 

•  Potential for eco-tourism ‘effort’ 

•  Need closed areas in-shore, and no expansion of effort with EIA 

•  Appropriate  to  act  in  line  with  FAO,  and  Commission’s  stated  goals  of  substantially 

reducing EC fishing capacity and adopting an ecosystem approach. 

• 

In  terms  of  distribution,  should  propose  options  for  encouraging  meaningful  and 
enforceable reductions in fishing effort, as well as closed areas, at the national level and 
guard  against  effort  displacement  to  other  sensitive  areas  or  the  waters  of  other 
countries. 

•  Essential for economic, social and environmental benefits 

STECF 

•  No comments 

Field of Action No. 7: Adjust catches to the available resources. 

Sector 

Some specific comments and concerns 

Industry 

•  Suggest merging fields of action 6 and 7 

•  Need for good mapping 

•  Need to carefully consider different characteristics of fisheries and species in the detail 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
 
of the measures 

•  Balance in distribution between Community and RMFO, but must be based on scientific 

data and evidence, not speculation 

•  Economic/social  impacts  would  depend  on  application  of  measures  in  EU  and 

developing country fleets 

•  Positive environmental impact but must be equally imposed on all fleets, not just EU 

Recreational  •  Need to distinguish between discards in commercial fisheries and releases in angling 

Advisory 

•  Need to measures to be carefully tailored to reflect difference in species, and different 

dependencies on shark by commercial and recreational interests 

•  Need  for  measures  to  be  adequately  researched  and  agreed,  and  subject  to  impact 

assessment and objective specification, so as to ensure applicability 

• 

In  favour  of  the  adoption  of  catch  limits  for  sharks,  fixed  on  the  basis  of  the  best 
possible  evaluations  produced  by  ICES  or  the  scientific  committees  of  concerned 
RFMOs  or,  when  these  evaluations  are  not  available,  in  favour  of  the  adoption  of 
precautionary  TACs  to  be  established  on  the  basis  of  fishing  statistics  and 
recommendations of independent and institutionally recognized scientific authorities 

NGO and 
others 

•  One of the most crucial FoA 

•  Need realistic timelines 

• 

In favour exceptions to the EU discard ban for shark species with a high discard survival 
rates and a chance to survive capture. Should also grant exceptions for shark species that 
are  considered  by  IUCN  as  Threatened  (Critically  Endangered,  Endangered  or 
Vulnerable),  and  Commission  should  promote  release  of  shark  species  that  are  legally 
protected. 

•  Trawl fisheries with high bycatch of skates and rays should be among the first fisheries 

subjected to the new discard ban rules. 

•  Should not be reserved for undersized sharks 

•  Fisheries management measures under this field of action should include not only Total 
Allowable Catches (TACs) and quotas, but size limits (minimum, maximum, and slot) 
and restrictions on fishing gear, and sharks should be regularly considered as part of the 
review of technical measures. 

•  Urge precautionary approach, EIAs, and emergency measures 

•  Appropriate to act, but need more measures at MS level 

•  Short term costs will be outweighed by long-term benefits 

STECF 

•  Concern is raised over “unpredictable behaviour” that may result from a discard ban, its 

enforceability without observers and the impact on post discard mortality. 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
Field of Action No. 8: Minimize waste and discards from shark catches in 
accordance with article 7.2.2(g) of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries 
requiring the retention of sharks from which fins are removed and encourage the 
use of dead sharks. 

Sector 

Some specific comments and concerns 

Industry 

•  Valid  for  non-EU  fleets.  But  for  EU  sector  there  must  be  careful  analysis  of  the 
implications  of  introducing  an  obligation  to  land  shark  fins  and  carcasses  at  the  same 
time,  as  it  could  have  a  negative  impact  on  the  marketing  of  sharks,  whilst  failing  to 
make a positive impact on the goal of conservation 

•  Balance in distribution between Community and RMFO, but measures flawed because 
1)  different  marketing  channels  and  ports  of  landing  for  fins  and  meat,  2)  for  some 
species fin ratio needs to be increased 

•  Economic/social  impacts  would  be  devastating  for  EU  and  developing  country  fleets, 

but Asia fleets would avoid enforcement 

•  Environmental impacts limited because would result in discards of fins 

Recreational  •  Supportive but see no need for 5% 

Advisory 

•  Need to measures to be carefully tailored to reflect difference in species, and different 

dependencies on shark by commercial and recreational interests 

•  Need  for  measures  to  be  adequately  researched  and  agreed,  and  subject  to  impact 

assessment and objective specification, so as to ensure applicability 

•  Need research on minimizing bycatch 

NGO and 
others 

•  5%  proposed  is  better  than  current  5%  of  total  body  weight  but  problematic  for  some 
species and governments moving away from ratios, and still not warranted/justified 

•  Support same port of landing for fins and carcasses until finning completely prohibited 

•  Urge the Commission to eliminate the derogation that allows shark fins to be removed 
on board vessels and thereby ensure that all sharks are landed with their fins attached. 
Commission should facilitate the rapid development of pilot programmes to study and 
document the practical execution of a fins-attached rule in EU waters. 

•  Appropriate to act, but need more measures at MS level 

•  Negative impacts minimal, positive impacts will be significant 

STECF 

•  Recommends that finning should be eradicated without exception. 

•  Agrees that the current 5% ratio be reviewed and supports the proposal to oblige vessels 
to  land  carcases  and  fins  in  the  same  port  in  order  to  improve  the  quality  of  landing 
statistics. 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
Field of Action No. 9: Identify and provide special attention in particular to 
vulnerable or threatened shark stocks. 

Sector 

Some specific comments and concerns 

Industry 

•  Appropriateness of Community action would depend on approach 

•  Could be conflict of jurisdiction and hence not properly distributed 

•  Major economic/social impacts because there would be a lack of action and enforcement 

from RMFOs on Asian fleets 

Recreational  •  Supportive but could exempt recreational fishers 

Advisory 

•  Need to measures to be carefully tailored to reflect difference in species, and different 

dependencies on shark by commercial and recreational interests 

•  Need  for  measures  to  be  adequately  researched  and  agreed,  and  subject  to  impact 

assessment and objective specification, so as to ensure applicability 

NGO and 
others 

•  Roughly  one-third  of  European  shark  populations  are  considered  by  IUCN  (World 

Conservation Union) to be threatened with extinction. 

•  Commission  should  clarify  that  TACs  of  zero  and/or  prohibited  status  are  possible 
options  under  this  field  and  that  measures  to  protect  these  species  are  not  limited  to 
bycatch reduction programmes. 

•  Need to clarify that ‘season’ refers to seasonal closures, not open seasons on threatened 

species 

•  Recovery  plans  and  implementation  of  scientific  advice  for  threatened  spurdog  and 

porbeagle sharks to be identified in the CPOA as priority actions. 

•  May need emergency measures and some year-round closures 

•  Appropriate  to  act,  but  need  distribution  of  measures  at  MS  level,  &  also  suggest 
international measures should include promotion of complementary protective measures 
for  threatened  sharks  by  not  only  RFMOs  but  also  various  wildlife  treaties,  including 
CMS & CITES. 

•  Short term costs will be outweighed by long-term benefits 

STECF 

•  STECF agrees that the proposed bycatch reduction programmes are desirable but should 

be applied regardless of whether a TAC has been set. 

•  Would  consider  convening  a meeting  to  expedite providing  definitions for  each of  the 

IUCN Red List threatened categories and their criteria. 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
Option B: Fields of Action, measures and implementation mechanisms subject to the IA 

APPENDIX II 

Field of Action 
1. Facilitate 
improved 
identification and 
reporting of 
species-specific 
catch, landings 
and market data27 

Basic Measures 
EC level 
1.1 
at landing sites and by processing and marketing 
industries. 

Increase investment in shark data collection 

Establish systems to provide verification of 

1.2 
catch information by species and by fishery. 

At an initial phase, mandate full coverage 

1.3 
on fishing vessels by independent on-board 
observers for vessels >24 m and with recent by-
catches figures of more than 10- 15% (depending 
on the particular fishery) of sharks over the total 
catch. At a later stage, once the basic information 
on the fisheries has been obtained, full coverage 
could be replaced by a partial coverage, at a level 
ensuring representative coverage. 
1.4 
by-catch, mandate sampling scheme for 
representative coverage of fishing operations by 
independent, on-board observers. 

For other fishing vessels taking sharks as a 

Implementation mechanisms and options 
Increase the requirements of the DCR to specify shark landings by species.  
Use of Control regulation 
Mandatory 
As above. Focus should be on strengthening implementation of existing 
control regulations 
Mandatory 
Hard: 100% observer coverage for high priority pelagic fisheries28 that catch 
more than 10% shark bycatch immediately. 
Mandatory 
Soft: 40% observer coverage for high priority pelagic fisheries that catch 
more than 10% shark bycatch by 2013. 
Mandatory 

Hard: 10% observer coverage of all distant water fleets not covered by 
Measure 1.3 immediately and pilot-based observer scheme (e.g. c. 100 
observers) by 2013 on high priority shallow-water fisheries in the NE 
Atlantic. Refine over time with better landings data from Measure 1.1 and 
1.2. 
Mandatory 

27 
28 

Fields of Action 1 & 2 merged 
See  

EN 

72 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
Field of Action 

Basic Measures 

Ensure that all landings and trade of shark 

1.5 
fins, meat and oil are recorded separately by 
commodity and to the species level. 

RFMO 
level 

1.6 
Promote the facilitation of improved 
species-specific catch data and monitoring of shark 
catches by fishery. 

To organise through FAO and regional 

Improve, in cooperation with FAO and 

1.7 
relevant fisheries management bodies, the 
monitoring and reporting of catch, bycatch, 
discards, market and international trade data, at the 
species level where possible. 
1.8 
fishing management organizations where 
appropriate, workshops on RPOA as called for in 
the IPOA–Sharks, by mid-2009 in order to report to 
the 15th Meeting of the CITES Conference of 
Parties. 
1.9 
species-specific biological and trade data. 

Promote the identification and reporting of 

Implementation mechanisms and options 
Soft: 10% observer coverage of all distant water fleets not covered by 
Measure 1.3 by 2013 and pilot-based observer scheme (e.g. c. 25 observers) 
by 2013 on high priority shallow-water fisheries in the NE Atlantic. Refine 
over time with better landings data from Measure 1.1 and 1.2.  
Mandatory 
Adapt Reg. 1921/2006 on landings to presentation of shark commodities by 
species. 
Mandatory 
Promote adoption of regulatory measures for shark catches reporting (see 
Measure 2.6) through binding measures29  
Mandatory 
Financial support to FAO, and contribution to Working Groups and RFMO 
meetings.  
Optional 

Contribution to Working Groups and RFMO meetings to assist NPOA 
development. Consider technical and financial assistance through FPAs. 
NPOA outputs  
Optional 

RFMO alter reporting requirements accordingly through recommendations 
Optional 

29 

Note resolutions binding, recommendations do not require obligatory action on the part of contracting parties. 

EN 

73 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
Field of Action 

Basic Measures 
1.10 
Full coverage on fishing vessels by 
independent on-board observers for vessels over 24 
m fishing in the high seas and with recent by-
catches figures of more than 10% to 15% 
(depending on the particular fishery) of sharks of 
the total catch and the introduction of sampling 
schemes for representative coverage of other 
fishing vessels taking sharks as a by-catch by 
independent, on-board scientific observers. 
1.11  Monitor recreational catches and 
distinguish between the fishing mortality exerted 
by recreational and commercial fishing. 

Member 
State 
level 

Implementation mechanisms and options 
Hard: 100% observer coverage for high priority pelagic fisheries30 that catch 
more than 10% shark bycatch immediately. 
Mandatory 

Soft: 40% observer coverage for high priority pelagic fisheries that catch 
more than 10% shark bycatch by 2013. 
Mandatory 

Mandatory reporting of recreational seafishing catches of elasmobranchs  
Studies into mortality following release in both recreational and commercial 
fisheries  
Optional 

Field of Action 
2. Conduct 
research and 
compile the 
necessary 
information to 
assess threats to 
shark populations 
and protect 
critical habitats, 
and implement 

30 

See 

EN 

Basic Measures 
EC level 
2.1 
Enhance programs to facilitate data 
collection, monitoring and stock assessment on a 
species-specific level. 

To conduct regular assessment in order to 

2.2 
identify threats to shark populations and to determine 
the fishing mortality by stocks and, if possible, 
partitioned by fishery32. 
2.3 
where juveniles or spawners are abundant. 
2.4 

Identification of space-time boxes in areas 

Study biology and ecology of sharks. 

Implementation mechanisms and options 
Seek specific scientific advice based on MoU with JRC and STEFC 
through specific requests 
Optional 
Seek specific scientific advice based on MoU with JRC and STEFC 
through specific requests 
Optional 

Promote specific research programmes through the 7th Framework 
Programme (2007-2013). 
Seek scientific advice based on MoU with JRC and STEFC through 

74 

EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
Field of Action 
sustainable and 
rational 
harvesting 
strategies 31 

Develop prototypes, monitor experiments 

Basic Measures 
2.5 
and propose measures for improving size selectivity 
and for reducing unwanted by-catch and discarding 
of no commercial species 
2.6 
collection, monitoring and stock assessment on a 
species-specific level. 

Foster enhanced programs to facilitate data 

RFMO 
level 

Member 
State 
level 

EC level 

3. Improve 
stakeholder 
awareness and 
consultation 
processes 

2.7 
Foster implementation of internationally 
coordinated studies on straddling and/or shared 
stocks. 

2.8 

Develop national expertise 

3.1 
Facilitate stakeholder awareness and 
consultation regarding shark management and best 
practices to reduce unwanted by-catch through RAC 
programs. 
3.2 
to relevant fishing permit information on sharks. 

Direct Member States to allow public access 

Implementation mechanisms and options 
specific requests. 
Link to Measure 4.8 
Optional 

Promote adoption of regulatory measures for shark catches reporting 
(see Measure 1.6) plus additional stock assessment work commissioned 
Optional 
Contribution to Working Groups and RFMO meetings. Finance provided 
to studies.  
Optional 
Promote uptake of courses, facilitate exchange and mobility of 
researchers through funding available under FP7 
Optional 

Solicit inclusion of shark management issues on agenda of RACs  
Optional 

Establish internet-based resources either on Europa website or via 
independent provider, but respecting issues of individual vessel / owner 
confidentiality  
Optional 

31 
32 

Fields of Action 3 & 4 merged 
Includes measure for vulnerable or threatened species from original Field of Action 7 

EN 

75 

EN 

 
  
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
Field of Action 

Basic Measures 
3.3 
Foster stakeholder awareness and 
RFMO 
consultation regarding shark management and best 
level 
practices to reduce unwanted by-catch through 
programs promoted by RFMO and international 
fishermen associations. 
3.4 
Launch educational programs aimed 
specifically at educating fishermen and the public 
about shark and ray conservation programs and 
restrictions. 

Member 
State 
level 

Implementation mechanisms and options 
Develop and disseminate a code of conduct (or equivalent) for tuna and 
swordfish-directed fisheries to reduce bycatch and improve post-discard 
survival. 
Optional 

Promote specific programmes with financial support of EFF or through 
NGOs  
Optional 

EC level 

Field of Action  Basic Measures 
4. Adjust 
fishing effort 
and catches to 
the available 
resources33 

4.2 
fisheries. 

4.1 
Limitation or prohibition of fishing activities in 
areas that are considered sensitive to endangered stocks. 

Stronger limitation of fishing effort by relevant 

RFMO 
level 

4.3 
effort at international level. 

Foster programmes and analysis to adjust fishing 

Both EC 
and 
RFMO 

Establish catch limits by stocks in conformity with 
4.4 
the advice provided by ICES and by the relevant RFMOs. 

Implementation mechanisms and options 
New regulation. Link to Measure 2.3 
Mandatory 
As for Measure 4.1 (new effort regulation)  
Mandatory 
Active contribution to Working Groups and RFMO meetings to 
develop resolutions to limit shark-related effort. Similar to Measure 
3.3 
Mandatory 
Hard: Immediate imposition of TACs and other management 
measures as recommended by ICES and by the relevant RFMOs 
Mandatory 

33 

Fields of Action 6 and 7 merged 

EN 

76 

EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
Field of Action  Basic Measures 

levels 

Prohibit all shark discards and require that all 

4.5 
catches (including by-catches) are landed. Unwanted by-
catches of sharks that have a chance to survive must be 
released back into the water. 

Increase size and species selectivity in order to 

4.6 
reduce discards of undersize and unwanted by-catch. 

Establish bycatch reduction programs for shark 

4.7 
species considered Critically Endangered or Endangered by 
IUCN, where a zero TAC or prohibited status is not in 
force for these species. 
Establishment of space-time boxes in areas where 
4.8 
juveniles or spawners are abundant, esp. For vulnerable or 
threatened species. 
4.9  Within the framework of the ongoing evaluation of 
the Common Market Organisation in fishery and 
aquaculture products, the Commission will examine the 
possible impact of market mechanisms on conservation 
measures, including for shark species. 

Implementation mechanisms and options 
Soft: Imposition of TACs and other management measures as 
recommended by ICES and by the relevant RFMOs, to be phased in 
by 2013 
Mandatory 
Provide derogations for species with high post-discard survivability 
e.g. some ray species (i.e. link to Measure 1.10) 
Propose discard ban at RFMO level. Provide derogations for species 
with high post-discard survivability e.g. blue shark 
Mandatory 
Develop joint research programmes that would test different gear 
options.Possible maximum size limits to conserve large breeding 
females. 
Mandatory (after 2010) 
Dedicated working groups on shark fisheries that would analyse data 
available and make management recommendations to the Plenary. 
Voluntary. 

Link to Measure 2.3.  
Voluntary 

Funds for studies (FP7), and EFF funding towards the certification 
e.g. MSC or other responsible fishing scheme, of ‘well managed’ and 
sustainable fisheries where shark bycatch is an issue. 
Voluntary 

EN 

77 

EN 

 
  
Field of Action 
5. Minimize 
wastes and 
discards from 
sharks 

To review the 5% rule by requiring that in no 

To ban finning practices as the general rule. Any 

Basic Measures 
Both EC 
5.1 
and 
exception to this general rule will have to be fully 
RFMO 
justified on solid and objective grounds and documented 
levels 
prior to the issuing by the Member State of the special 
permit. Member States should not issue special permits 
to vessels not having fulfilled this condition. 
5.2 
case shall the weight of the fins exceed 5% of the 
dressed (gutted and beheaded) carcass weight of the 
shark catch. However, Member States having set up and 
implemented data collection programmes proving that 
this percentage could be increased in certain cases, 
could do so up to a percentage corresponding to 5% of 
the live weight of the shark catch. 
5.3 
For vessels of Member States having been 
exempted from the obligation of landing of sharks with 
fins attached, introduce the obligation to land shark fins 
and carcases at the same time in the same port. 

Implementation mechanisms and options 

Provide sufficient level of justification for derogations. 

Mandatory 

Have this issue included in the Terms of Reference of the scientific 
working groups, and then revise Regulation No. 1185/2003. 
Mandatory 

Amendment of Reg. 1185/2003. To date 5 German, 198 Spanish and 
20 UK vessels have obtained this derogation.  
Mandatory  

EN 

78 

EN 

 
  
 
APPENDIX III 

ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT COSTS 

As Option A relates to the status quo, no net change to administrative costs is anticipated. 

For Option B a three-phase process was undertaken in line with the guidance. 

Option C was then assessed to determine any differences in administration costs compared with those 
estimated for option B. 

1.  ADMINISTRATION COSTS OF OPTION B 

Phase 1 Preparatory Analysis 

Those incurring administration costs as a result of the measures (the target groups) are identified as DG 
MARE, Regional Fisheries Management Organization (RFMO) secretariats, Regional Advisory Council 
(RAC) secretariats and Member State fishery departments. In the private sector target groups identified 
are owners of over 10m vessels and fish merchants/wholesalers. 

The following assessment has been made in relation to identification of information obligations, required 
actions and target groups for the proposed fields of action:  

Field  of  Action  1:  Facilitate  improved  identification  and  reporting  of  species-specific  catch, 
landings and market data 

The  proposed  measure  requiring  catch  and  commodity  reporting  to  species  level  has  a  recurrent 
administrative  cost  for  vessel  owners,  merchants  and  Member  State  fishery  departments  due  to  the 
required  adjustment  of  existing  regular  reporting  practices.  Monthly  reporting  by  vessel  owners  and 
merchants is assumed, with amendments to the annual submission of the DCR for member state fishery 
departments.  

The  main  costs  for  observer  programmes  such  as  observer  wages,  deployment,  support  structure, 
training  etc.  are  included  in  the  main  Impact  Assessment  and  not  within  this  assessment  of 
administration costs. 

Observer programmes result in additional administrative costs to fishery departments due to additional 
data  collection  and  reporting  from  on  board  inspection,  but  not  to  fishing  vessels  as  it  is  the  observer 
rather than vessel owners required to report this data. 

Co-ordination  with  FAO  and  RFMOs  primarily  results  in  administrative  costs  for  RFMO  secretariats 
through incorporating additional meetings, workshops and agenda items, along with additional financial 
management with EC support for these activities. 

The  reporting  of  recreational  elasmobranch  catches  will  result  in  additional  regulatory  costs  from  the 
collation  and  reporting  of  that  data.  The  significant  costs  associated  with  producing  such  data  are 
included in the main Impact Assessment. 

Field of Action 2: Conduct research and compile the necessary information 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
The  main  administrative  costs  relate  to  those  incurred  by  DG  MARE  in  establishing  and  managing 
additional information requests on elasmobranchs including the development of research programmes. 

RFMOs  will  incur  additional  administrative  costs  through  commissioning  new  research  and  stock 
assessments for elasmobranch fisheries. 

Member  state  fishery  departments  will  incur  administration  costs  through  efforts  to  develop  national 
expertise. 

Field of Action 3: Improve stakeholder awareness and consultation processes 

Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) will incur additional administrative costs through expanding their 
current scope of works to more explicitly include elasmobranch issues, specifically in their reporting to 
the EC. 

DG MARE will incur additional costs through the design of information material and RFMOs will incur 
some cost associated with dissemination of material to and subsequent consultation with stakeholders. 

Member states should incur no additional administrative costs associated with proposed measures under 
this field of action as required actions would be supported through EFF project funding. 

Field of Action 4 - Adjust fishing effort and catches to the available resources 

Administration  costs  are  primarily  associated  with  one  off  costs  to  ensure  familiarization  with  the 
proposed new regulation. These would be incurred by DG MARE and RFMO secretariats. 

The  development  of  research  programmes  and  dedicated  working  groups  would  result  in  recurring 
additional meeting and reporting requirements for RFMO secretariats. 

Field of Action 5 - Minimize wastes and discards from sharks 

In relation to banning finning practices and the landing of shark carcases at the same time as shark parts, 
fishing vessel owners and member state fishery departments will incur additional administration costs in 
the application for derogation or exemption. The precise details of such as measure would determine the 
extent of likely applications for exemptions and their frequency (i.e. one-off or annual licences).  

One-off  costs  would  be  incurred  by  all  member  state  fishery  departments  associated  with  informing 
vessels of the new regulations and by vessel operators familiarizing themselves with the new regulations. 

In relation to step 3 of the administration cost assessment process, the regulatory origin is identified as 
being 100% from the EU. 

1.1. 

Phase 2: Data capture and standardization 

This section examines the incremental administrative costs that would be incurred as a result from new 
legislation being promulgated directly as a result of the CPOA. These administrative costs are defined as 
“the costs incurred by enterprises, the voluntary sector, public authorities and citizens in meeting legal 
obligations to provide information on their action or production, either to public authorities or to private 
parties”  (EC  Impact  Assessment  Guidelines,  Sept  2006  update).  Implementation  costs  –  be  they 
management or research costs – are considered separately. 

The following data was used as the basis for calculations: 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
Hourly tariff  

Eurostat data on EU 27 labour costs (excluding apprentices) per employee per hour were collated using 
the following categories to distinguish costs for target groups:  

Labour costs for the private sector (fishing vessel owners and merchants) were based on category G51 
(wholesale  trade  and  commission  trade).  It  was  assumed  that  fishing  vessel  reporting  associated  with 
larger  vessels  would  be  undertaken  by  vessel  agents  or  owner/operators  and  therefore  the  service 
category was more appropriate than the lower wage levels recorded for those engaged in fishing, which 
includes the inshore/artisanal sectors. 

Labour  costs  for  the  public  sector  (member  state  fishery  departments,  RFMO  secretariats  and  RAC 
secretariats) were based on category L (public administration) 

Labour costs for DG MARE were based on category L (public administration) for Belgium. 

Labour costs data were from 2004. To bring these up to date an annual inflation rate of 2.3% was applied 
based on the Harmonised Indices of Consumer Prices (HICPs) for EU27. 

A  25%  overhead  figure  was  applied  across  all  groups  to  derive  the  following  hourly  tariffs:  private 
sector: €29.23/hour; public sect or €26.51/hour; DG MARE €45.17/hour. 

Time 

The  number  of  hours  spent  on  a  specific  action  is  estimated  based  on  expert  assessment.  For  initial 
recording  catches  to  species  level  an  additional  0.5  hours  is  assumed  for  the  catching  sector  and  0.25 
hours for merchants for more extensive recording of shark and ray species. This reporting is assumed to 
simply be an extension to catch reporting on a per landing basis for the catching sector and a monthly 
basis for the merchanting sector. 

More  significant  time  costs  are  assumed  for  member  state  fishery  departments  however  this  would 
amount to additional collation and reporting for the annual submission of the DCR.  

Significant one-off administration costs are assumed for RFMO secretariats in setting up meetings and 
adopting  resulting  changes  in  reporting  procedures.  Recurrent  annual  costs  for  member  states  are 
identified for the reporting of recreational elasmobranchs, which is not a current requirement.  

The  administration  costs  associated  with  the  establishment  and  reporting  of  new  working  groups  are 
assumed to be 2 weeks initial set-up plus 3 days preparation and 3 days reporting for 2 working groups 
per year. 

Equipment costs 

No additional equipment costs are expected as a result of the proposed measures. 

Frequency of Actions 

As proposed in the guidelines, one-off costs are distinguished from annual costs by ‘1’ being in italics in 
the reporting sheet, Table  below. 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
Private sector reporting for the merchanting sector was assumed to be on a monthly basis, while for the 
catching sector this was assumed to be on a per landing basis. Frequency of landings (44) was estimated 
based on an average 5 day trip length over 220 working days. 

The  additional  administration  costs  for  Member  State  fishery  departments  associated  with  inspections 
relate  to  daily  reporting  for  the  number  of  vessels  requiring  observer  coverage  (247)  and  the  average 
number  of  working  days  (220).  For  the  observer  programme  associated  with  a  sample  of  vessels 
operating in other distant water fleets, an estimate of 500 observers has been made. 

Number of entities 

the  EC  Fleet  Register 
The  number  of  >10m  vessels  was  derived 
(http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet/index.cfm)  for  all  gear  types  (21,196)  excluding  those  with  no 
potential for elasmobranch catch such as pots, traps, dredges, purse seines, etc. (5,227) to give a total of 
15,969. 

from  data  within 

The number of fish merchant enterprises in EU27 (43,000) was derived from Eurostat data (NACE) for 
the  number  of  enterprises  under  the  category  'Wholesale  of  other  food  including  fish,  crustaceans  and 
molluscs' for 2005. 

The  number  of  RFMO  secretariats  (13)  relates  to  the  marine  RFMOs  where  EU  vessels  may  operate, 
namely:  APFC,  CCAMLR,  CCSBT,  CECAF,  GFCM,  IATTC,  ICCAT,  NEAFC,  NAFO,  SEAFO, 
SWIOFC, WECAFC, and WCPFC. 

There  are  currently  seven  RACs,  each  of  relevance  to  the  proposed  measures:  Baltic,  Mediterranean, 
North Sea, NW Waters, SW Waters, Pelagic Stocks and Distant Waters. 

The number of fishing vessels seeking derogation from proposed regulations is based on the number of 
vessels currently receiving derogation (223) and the different member state departments associated with 
those vessels (3). 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
1.2.  Phase 3: Calculation and reporting 

Table 15: Summary administration costs per field of action and target group (Option B) 

Field 
of 
Action 

Target group 

Price 
(per 
action) 

Freq  
(per 
year) 

No.  
of  
entities 

Total no. 
of  
actions 

Total  
cost 

% of 
total 
cost 

>10m fishing vessel owners 

fish merchants and traders 

€ 15 

7 € 

 44 

15 969 

 702 636  

€10 269 025 

55%

 12 

43 000 

 516 000  

€3 770 670 

20%

FOA 1 

M.S. fishery departments 

€2 558 

 458 

 936 

 164 826  

€4 463 661 

24%

RFMO secretariats 

 €822 

3 

 39 

39  

€10 684 

0%

Sub-total 

DG MARE 

RFMO secretariats 

FOA 2 

M.S. fishery departments 

Sub-total 

RAC secretariats 

DG MARE 

FOA 3 

RFMO secretariats 

Sub-total 

DG MARE 

FOA 4 

RFMO secretariats 

Sub-total 

M.S. fishery departments 

FOA 5 

fishing vessel owners 

Sub-total 

€3 402 

 517 

59 944 

1 383 501  

€18 514 040 

99%

€2 936 

 €265 

 € 530 

€ 3 731 

 € 265 

€ 6 776 

€ 1 988 

€ 9 029 

 € 28 796 

€ 7 595 

€ 36 391 

€ 1 683 

 € 205 

€ 1 888 

4 

1 

1 

6 

1 

1 

1 

3 

4 

5 

9 

3 

2 

5 

 4 

 13 

 27 

 44 

 7 

 1 

 13 

 21 

 4 

 65 

 69 

 57 

4  

13  

27  

44  

7  

1  

13  

21  

4  

65  

69  

57  

 446 

 503 

446  

503  

€2 936 

0.0%

€3 446 

0.0%

€14 315 

0.1%

€20 698 

0.1%

 €1 856 

0.0%

 €6 776 

0.0%

 €25 847 

0.1%

 €34 478 

0.2%

 €28 796 

0.2%

 €98 736 

0.5%

 €127 532 

0.7%

 €39 089 

0.2%

 €45 628 

0.2%

 €84 717 

0.5%

Total for all fields of action  

 €54,441 

 540 

60 581 

1 384 138  

€18 781 465  100%

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
 
Table 16: Report sheet for administrative costs associated with Shark management measures - Option B 

Community Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 

Tariff
(€ per 
hour) 

Time 
(hour) 

Price 
(per 
action) 

Freq  
(per 
year) 

No.  
of  
entities 

Total 
no. 
of  
actions 

Total  
cost 

Regulatory 
origin 
(%) 

No. 

FOA 

Orig. 
Art. 

Type of 
obligation 

Description of 
required action(s) 

Target group 

i 

e 

i 

e

Int 

EU 

N
at 

Reg 

1 

1.1 

2 

1.1 

3 

1,1 

of 

of 

of 

Submission 
(recurring) 
reports 

Submission 
(recurring) 
reports 

Submission 
(recurring) 
reports 

Adjusting 
data 

existing 

>10m 
owners 

fishing  vessel 

29 

0.50 

14.6 

44.00 

15 969

702 636 

10 269 
025 

100% 

Adjusting 
data 

existing 

fish  merchants 
traders 

and 

Adjusting 
data 

existing 

MS fishery departments 

29 

0.25 

7.3 

12.00 

43 000

516 000 

3 770 670 

100% 

27 

5.00 

132.6 

1.00 

27

27 

3 579 

100% 

4 

1.3 

Inspection 

Filling  forms  and 
tables 

MS fishery departments 

27 

1.00 

26.5 

220.00 

247

54 340 

1 440 553 

100% 

5 

1.3 

Inspection 

Producing new data  MS fishery departments 

27 

10.0 

265.1 

1.00 

6 

1.3 

Inspection 

Submitting 
information  

the 

MS fishery departments 

27 

0.50 

13.3 

1.00 

27

27

27 

27 

7 158 

100% 

358 

100% 

7 

1.4 

Inspection 

Filling  forms  and 
tables 

MS fishery departments 

27 

1.00 

26.5 

220.00 

500

110 000 

2 916 100 

100% 

8 

1.4 

Inspection 

Producing new data  MS fishery departments 

27 

10.0 

265.1 

1.00 

27

27 

7 158 

100% 

EN 

84 

EN 

 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
Community Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 

Tariff
(€ per 
hour) 

Time 
(hour) 

Price 
(per 
action) 

Freq  
(per 
year) 

No.  
of  
entities 

Total 
no. 
of  
actions 

Total  
cost 

Regulatory 
origin 
(%) 

MS fishery departments 

27 

5.00 

132.6 

12.00 

27

324 

42 946 

100% 

of 

of 

Submission 
(recurring) 
reports 

Notification 
(specific) 
activities 

Adjusting 
data 

existing 

Familiarising  with 
the 
information 
obligation 

RFMO secretariats 

27 

3.00 

79.5 

1.00 

13

13

13

27

13 

1 034 

100% 

13 

13 

1 379 

100% 

8 271 

100% 

27 

17 178 

100% 

Application 
subsidy or grant 

for 

Filling  forms  and 
tables 

RFMO secretariats 

27 

4.00 

106.0 

1.00 

12 

1.8 

Other 

Holding meetings 

RFMO secretariats 

27 

24.0 

636.2 

1.00 

Adjusting 
data 

existing 

MS fishery departments 

27 

24.0 

636.2 

1.00 

of 

of 

of 

of 

Submission 
(recurring) 
reports 

Submission 
(recurring) 
reports 

Notification 
(specific) 
activities 

Notification 
(specific) 
activities 

Producing new data 

27 

40.0 

1 060.4 

1.00 

27

27 

28 631 

100% 

MS fishery departments 

Familiarising  with 
information 
the 
obligation 

Familiarising  with 
information 
the 
obligation 

DG MARE 

DG MARE 

45 

10.0 

451.7 

1.00 

45 

10.0 

451.7 

1.00 

Non-labelling 
information 

for 

Designing 
information material 

DG MARE 

45 

40.0 

1 806.8 

1.00 

1

1

1

1 

1 

1 

452 

100% 

452 

100% 

1 807 

100% 

9 

1.5 

10 

1.6 

11 

1.7 

13 

1.9 

14 

1.10 

15 

2.1 

16 

2.2 

17 

2.3 

EN 

85 

EN 

 
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
Community Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 

third parties 

Tariff
(€ per 
hour) 

Time 
(hour) 

Price 
(per 
action) 

Freq  
(per 
year) 

No.  
of  
entities 

Total 
no. 
of  
actions 

Total  
cost 

Regulatory 
origin 
(%) 

18 

2.6 

19 

2.7 

Notification 
(specific) 
activities 

of 

Familiarising  with 
information 
the 
obligation 

RFMO secretariats 

27 

10.0 

265.1 

1.00 

Application 
subsidy or grant 

for 

Filling  forms  and 
tables 

DG MARE 

45 

5.0 

225.9 

1.00 

20 

2.8 

Other 

Designing 
information material 

MS fishery departments 

27 

20.0 

530.2 

1.00 

of 

Submission 
(recurring) 
reports 

Adjusting 
data 

existing 

RAC secretariats 

27 

10.0 

265.1 

1.00 

Non-labelling 
information 
third parties 

for 

Designing 
information material 

DG MARE 

45 

150.
0 

6 775.5 

1.00 

13

1

27

7

1

13 

3 446 

100% 

1 

226 

100% 

27 

14 315 

100% 

7 

1 

1 856 

100% 

6 776 

100% 

Non-labelling 
information 
third parties 

for 

Copying 
(reproducing 
reports, 
leaflets) 

labels  or 

RFMO secretariats 

Notification 
(specific) 
activities 

of 

Designing 
information material 
(leaflet conception) 

DG MARE 

Notification 
(specific) 

of 

Designing 
information material 

DG MARE 

27 

75.0 

1 988.3 

1.00 

13

13 

25 847 

100% 

10 163.3 

1.00 

10 163.3 

1.00 

1

1

1 

1 

10 163 

100% 

10 163 

100% 

45 

45 

225.
0 

225.
0 

86 

EN 

21 

3.1 

22 

3.2 

23 

3.3 

24 

4.1 

25 

4.2 

EN 

 
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
Community Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 

Tariff
(€ per 
hour) 

Time 
(hour) 

Price 
(per 
action) 

Freq  
(per 
year) 

No.  
of  
entities 

Total 
no. 
of  
actions 

Total  
cost 

Regulatory 
origin 
(%) 

activities 

(leaflet conception) 

Non-labelling 
information 
third parties 

for 

Designing 
information material 

RFMO secretariats 

27 

75.0 

1 988.3 

1.00 

13

13 

25 847 

100% 

26 

4.3 

27 

4.4 

28 

4.6 

29 

4.6 

30 

4.7 

31 

4.7 

32 

4.7 

33 

5.1 

of 

of 

of 

of 

of 

of 

Notification 
(specific) 
activities 

Notification 
(specific) 
activities 

Notification 
(specific) 
activities 

Submission 
(recurring) 
reports 

Submission 
(recurring) 
reports 

Submission 
(recurring) 
reports 

Designing 
information material 

DG MARE 

45 

75.0 

3 387.8 

1.00 

Designing 
information material 

DG MARE 

45 

112.
5 

5 081.6 

1.00 

1

1

1 

1 

3 388 

100% 

5 082 

Familiarising  with 
the 
information 
obligation 

RFMO secretariats 

27 

37.5 

994.1 

1.00 

13

13 

12 924 

100% 

Holding meetings 

RFMO secretariats 

27 

120.
0 

3 181.2 

1.00 

13

13 

41 356 

100% 

Producing new data 

27 

48.0 

1 272.5 

1.00 

13

13 

16 542 

100% 

RFMO secretariats 

Submitting 
information  

the 

RFMO secretariats 

27 

6.0 

159.1 

1.00 

Application 
general 

for 

Filling  forms  and 

MS fishery departments 

27 

37.5 

994.1 

1.00 

13

27

13 

2 068 

100% 

27 

26 841 

100% 

EN 

87 

EN 

 
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
Community Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 

Tariff
(€ per 
hour) 

Time 
(hour) 

Price 
(per 
action) 

Freq  
(per 
year) 

No.  
of  
entities 

Total 
no. 
of  
actions 

Total  
cost 

Regulatory 
origin 
(%) 

authorisation  or 
exemption 

tables 

for 

Application 
general 
authorisation  or 
exemption 

for 

Application 
general 
authorisation  or 
exemption 

of 

of 

Notification 
(specific) 
activities 

Notification 
(specific) 
activities 

Filling  forms  and 
tables 

Filling  forms  and 
tables 

Designing 
information material 

Familiarising  with 
information 
the 
obligation 

fishing vessel owners 

MS fishery departments 

MS fishery departments 

fishing vessel owners 

34 

5.1 

35 

5.2 

36 

5.3 

37 

5.3 

29 

5.0 

146.2 

1.00 

223

223 

32 591 

100% 

27 

10.0 

265.1 

1.00 

3

3 

795 

100% 

27 

16.0 

424.2 

1.00 

27

27 

11 452 

100% 

29 

2.0 

58.5 

1.00 

223

223 

13 037 

100% 

Total administrative costs (€) 18 781 465  

EN 

88 

EN 

 
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  ADMINISTRATION COSTS OF OPTION C 

Option C was assessed in relation to the individual elements of the Option B assessment with 
the same assumptions adopted (see 1). In administrative terms the ban on high and medium 
priority fisheries should result in similar costs for familiarisation with the new regulation, but 
would save administration costs associated with: 

Observer schemes for high and medium priority fisheries  

(estimated to amount to €1 448 069) 

Applications for exemptions from finning and landing requirements 

(estimated to amount to €84 717) 

It  is  assumed  that  all  other  measures  discussed  under  option  B,  including  the  observer 
schemes associated with fisheries where shark is taken as by-catch, are retained. 

The above saving results in administration costs estimated to total €17 248 679 for Option C, 
as illustrated in Table 17 overleaf. 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
Table 17: Report sheet for administrative costs associated with Shark management measures - Option C 

Community Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 

Tariff 
(€ per 
hour) 

Time 
(hour) 

Price 
(per 
action) 

Freq 
(per 
year) 

No.  
of  
entities 

Total 
no. 
of  
actions 

Total  
cost 

Regulatory 
origin 
(%) 

No. 

FOA 

Orig. 
Art. 

Type of obligation 

Description of 
required action(s) 

Target group 

i 

e 

i 

e

Int 

EU 

Nat  Reg 

29 

29 

27 

27 

27 

27 

1 

1.1 

2 

1.1 

3 

1,1 

Submission 
(recurring) reports 

of 

Adjusting 
data 

existing 

>10m  fishing  vessel 
owners 

Submission 
(recurring) reports 

of 

Adjusting 
data 

existing 

fish  merchants  and 
traders 

Submission 
(recurring) reports 

of 

Adjusting 
data 

existing 

member  state  fishery 
departments 

4 

1.4 

Inspection 

Filling  forms  and 
tables 

member  state  fishery 
departments 

5 

1.4 

Inspection 

Producing new data 

member  state  fishery 
departments 

6 

1.5 

7 

1.6 

8 

1.7 

Submission 
(recurring) reports 

of 

Adjusting 
data 

existing 

member  state  fishery 
departments 

Notification 
of 
(specific) activities 

Familiarising  with 
the 
information 
obligation 

RFMO secretariats 

Application 
subsidy or grant 

for 

Filling  forms  and 
tables 

RFMO secretariats 

9 

1.8 

Other 

Holding meetings 

RFMO secretariats 

10 

1.9 

Submission 

of  Adjusting 

existing  member  state  fishery 

EN 

0.50 

14.6 

44.00 

15 969

702 636 

10 269 025 

100% 

0.25 

7.3 

12.00 

43 000

516 000 

3 770 670 

100% 

5.00 

132.6 

1.00 

27

27 

3 579 

100% 

1.00 

26.5 

220.0
0 

10.0 

265.1 

1.00 

5.00 

132.6 

12.00 

27 

3.00 

79.5 

1.00 

106.0 

1.00 

636.2 

1.00 

636.2 

1.00 

27 

27 

27 

4.00 

24.0 

24.0 

90 

500

110 000 

2 916 100 

100% 

27

27

13

13

13

27

27 

7 158 

100% 

324 

42 946 

100% 

13 

1 034 

100% 

13 

13 

27 

1 379 

100% 

8 271 

100% 

17 178 

100% 

EN 

 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
Community Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 

(recurring) reports 

data 

departments 

Tariff 
(€ per 
hour) 

Time 
(hour) 

Price 
(per 
action) 

Freq 
(per 
year) 

No.  
of  
entities 

Total 
no. 
of  
actions 

Total  
cost 

Regulatory 
origin 
(%) 

Submission 
(recurring) reports 

of 

Producing new data 

member  state  fishery 
departments 

27 

40.0 

1 060.4 

1.00 

27

27 

28 631 

100% 

11 

1.10 

12 

2.1 

13 

2.2 

14 

2.3 

15 

2.6 

16 

2.7 

Notification 
of 
(specific) activities 

Familiarising  with 
the 
information 
obligation 

DG MARE 

Notification 
of 
(specific) activities 

Familiarising  with 
the 
information 
obligation 

DG MARE 

Non-labelling 
information 
third parties 

for 

Designing 
information material 

DG MARE 

of 
Notification 
(specific) activities 

Familiarising  with 
information 
the 
obligation 

RFMO secretariats 

Application 
subsidy or grant 

for 

Filling  forms  and 
tables 

DG MARE 

17 

2.8 

Other 

Designing 
information material 

member  state  fishery 
departments 

Submission 
(recurring) reports 

of 

Adjusting 
data 

existing 

RAC secretariats 

Non-labelling 
information 
third parties 

for 

Designing 
information material 

DG MARE 

18 

3.1 

19 

3.2 

EN 

45 

10.0 

451.7 

1.00 

45 

10.0 

451.7 

1.00 

45 

40.0 

1 806.8 

1.00 

27 

10.0 

265.1 

1.00 

45 

27 

27 

5.00 

225.9 

1.00 

20.0 

530.2 

1.00 

10.0 

265.1 

1.00 

45 

150. 

6 775.5 

1.00 

1

1

1

13

1

27

7

1

1 

1 

1 

452 

100% 

452 

100% 

1 807 

100% 

13 

3 446 

100% 

1 

226 

100% 

27 

14 315 

100% 

7 

1 

1 856 

100% 

6 776 

100% 

91 

EN 

 
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
Community Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 

Tariff 
(€ per 
hour) 

Time 
(hour) 

Price 
(per 
action) 

Freq 
(per 
year) 

No.  
of  
entities 

Total 
no. 
of  
actions 

Total  
cost 

Regulatory 
origin 
(%) 

20 

3.3 

21 

4.1 

22 

4.2 

23 

4.3 

24 

4.4 

25 

4.6 

26 

4.6 

27 

4.7 

28 

4.7 

29 

4.7 

EN 

Non-labelling 
information 
third parties 

for 

Copying 

27 

75.0 

1 988.3 

1.00 

13

13 

25 847 

100% 

RFMO secretariats 

of 
Notification 
(specific) activities 

Designing 
information material 

DG MARE 

Notification 
of 
(specific) activities 

Designing 
information material 

DG MARE 

Non-labelling 
information 
third parties 

for 

Designing 
information material 

RFMO secretariats 

of 
Notification 
(specific) activities 

Designing 
information material 

DG MARE 

Notification 
of 
(specific) activities 

Designing 
information material 

DG MARE 

Notification 
of 
(specific) activities 

Familiarising  with 
the 
information 
obligation 

RFMO secretariats 

Submission 
(recurring) reports 

of 

Holding meetings 

RFMO secretariats 

Submission 
(recurring) reports 

of 

Producing new data 

RFMO secretariats 

Submission 
(recurring) reports 

of 

Submitting 
information 

the 

RFMO secretariats 

45 

45 

225 

10 163.3 

1.00 

225 

10 163.3 

1.00 

1

1

1 

1 

10 163 

100% 

10 163 

100% 

27 

75.0 

1 988.3 

1.00 

13

13 

25 847 

100% 

45 

45 

27 

27 

27 

27 

75.0 

3 387.8 

1.00 

112.
5 

37.5
0 

5 081.6 

1.00 

994.1 

1.00 

120 

3 181.2 

1.00 

48.0 

1 272.5 

1.00 

6.0 

159.1 

1.00 

1

1

13

13

13

13

1 

1 

3 388 

100% 

5 082 

13 

12 924 

100% 

13 

41 356 

100% 

13 

16 542 

100% 

13 

2 068 

100% 

Total administrative costs (€) 17 248 679  

92 

EN 

 
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  MANAGEMENT COSTS (OPTION B and C) 

Only under measures 1.3 and 1.4 will have direct and significant cost implications. According 
to Article 11  of Council Regulation (EC)  No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the 
establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in 
the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy34 
and  Article  16  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 861/2006  of  22  May  2006  establishing 
Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in 
the area of the Law of the Sea35, 50% of these costs will be covered by the EC and 50% by the 
Member States. 

In  assessing  the  magnitude  of  observer  costs  on  EU  vessels  (measures  1.3  and  1.4),  for  the 
purpose  of  this  assessment  an  average  of  Euro  125/day  is  estimated  per  observer36.  For 
measure  1.3,  there  is  a  ‘hard’  and  a  ‘soft’  option.  For  the  hard  option,  measure  1.3  would 
involve 100% observer coverage on all longline vessels in the Central and Southern Atlantic, 
Indian Ocean and Pacific (except the 33 small French longliners in the Indian Ocean)37. This 
coverage  would  start  immediately  and  continue  thereafter  for  a  period  until  full  coverage 
could  be  replaced  by  partial  coverage.  247  vessels  would  thus  be  involved  in  the  short-  to 
medium  term.  Taking  an  average  of  300  days  of  fishing  a  year,  total  observer  costs  are 
estimated at Euro 9.26 million per year. In the longer term a partial 40% observer coverage 
(typically  considered  sufficient  in  many  fisheries)  would  reduce  annual  costs  to  Euro  3.7 
million. For the soft option of measure 1.3, annual costs would be Euro 3.7 million from 2013 
onwards. These two levels of observer coverage is also expected to be extended to the non-
EU  vessels  through  RFMO  actions  in  Measure  1.10,  although  this  does  not  have  any  direct 
costs to the EU. 

For measure 1.4 hard and soft options are also envisaged. Both would involve the pelagic and 
pole  and  line  vessels  not  covered  under  measure  1.3  along  with  the  33  smaller  French 
longliners  in  the  Indian  Ocean  and  all  distant  water  purse  seiners.  Total  vessel  numbers 
involved would thus be 102. The hard option would involve immediate costs of Euro 382 500 
per year for the EU fleets in the central and Southern Atlantic, Indian Ocean and the Pacific. 
The hard option for measure 1.4 also envisages a pilot observer scheme of 100 observers in 
the NE Atlantic to collect data on shallow water high risk fisheries. These observers would be 
deployed on a rotating basis between high risk fisheries. This would involve immediate costs 
of Euro 4.56 million per year. The soft often would result in similar costs of Euro 382 500 per 
year  for  the  pelagic  shark  fleet,  but  only  beginning  in  2013.  While  costs  for  a  reduced 
observer scheme of 25 observers for the NE Atlantic from 2013 would result in annual costs 
thereafter of Euro 1.14 million. 

It  is  also  important  to  remember  that,  while  not  costed  as  part  of  this  CPOA,  observer 
coverage on EU longline vessels should be completed by similar levels of observer coverage 
on vessels from third countries e.g. Asian vessels. Given that the EC might decide to act with 
regards  to  its  distant  water  fleet  (to  demonstrate  best  practice)  with  no  guarantee  that  other 

34 
35 
36 
37 

O.J. L 060, 05/03/2008 
O.J. L 160, 14/06/2006 
Based on a range of observer costs in other fisheries 
Shark bycatches in purse seine fisheries are generally thought to be well below 10%, except for some 
specific temporal/spatial fishing on FADs 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
                                                 
countries will do the same given that vessels from third countries are not directly responsible 
to  the  EC,  the  likelihood  and  magnitude  of  observer  costs  being  incurred  by  third  countries 
and RFMOs (Measure 1.10) are less certain and not quantifiable. 

Table 18: Management costs for measures 1.3 and 1.4 

Options 

HARD 

1.3 Measure 

1.4 Measure 

TOTAL 

Year 1 

Year 5 

Year 1 

Year 5 

Year 1 

Year 5 

9.26 M€ 

247  >  24  m 
vessels; 

300 days; 

125€/day. 

3.7 M€ 

40% 

4.56 M€ 

102 
vessels; 

LD 

100 
observers 

SW 

1.52 M€ 

Only 
vessels 

1.52 M€ 

(0.382 M€ 

13.82 M€ 

5.22 M€ 

SW 

2.94 M€ 

3.7 M€ 

1.14 M€ 

SOFT 

LD vessels + 

4.08 M€  

5.22 M€ 

30% 

40% 

25 observers 

1.14 M€ 

25 observers) 

LD: Long distance fleet. 

SW: Shallow water fleet. 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
Table 19: Summary of management (implementation) and administrative costs 

OPTION B ANNUAL COSTS 

OPTION C ANNUAL COSTS 

Field of Action 

Hard option 

Soft option 

Hard option 

Soft option 

Year 1 

Year 5 

Year 1 

Year 5 

Year 1 

Year 5 

Year 1 

Year 5 

FoA 1 

Management 

13 820 000

5 220 000

4 082 500

5 222 500 

13 820 000

5 220 000

4 082 500

5 222 500 

Administration 

18 514 040

18 486 178

18 514 040

18 486 178 

17 065 971

17 038 109

17 065 971

17 038 109 

Sub-total 

32 334 040

23 706 178

22 596 540

23 708 678 

30 885 971

22 258 109

21 148 471

22 260 609 

FoA 2 

Management 

Administration 

Sub-total 

FoA 3 

Management 

Administration 

Sub-total 

FoA 4 

Management 

Administration 

Sub-total 

FoA 5 

Management 

Administration 

Sub-total 

Management 

Administration 

Total 

 na 

20 698

20 698

 na 

34 478

34 478

 na 

127 532

127 532

 na 

84 717

84 717

 na 

14 541

14 541

 na 

1 856

1 856

 na 

63 353

63 353

 na 

795

795

 na 

20 698

20 698

 na 

34 478

34 478

 na 

127 532

127 532

 na 

84 717

84 717

 na  

14 541 

14 541 

 na  

1 856 

1 856 

 na  

63 353 

63 353 

 na  

795 

795 

 na 

20 698

20 698

 na 

34 478

34 478

 na 

127 532

127 532

 na 

-

-

 na 

14 541

14 541

 na 

1 856

1 856

 na 

63 353

63 353

 na 

-

-

 na 

20 698

20 698

 na 

34 478

34 478

 na 

127 532

127 532

 na 

-

-

 na  

14 541 

14 541 

 na  

1 856 

1 856 

 na  

63 353 

63 353 

 na  

- 

-  

13,820,000

5 220 000

13 820 000

5 220 000 

13 820 000

5 220 000

13 820 000

5 220 000 

18,514,040

18 486 178

18 514 040

18 486 178 

17 065 971

17 038 109

17 065 971

17 038 109 

32,601,465

23 786 723

22 863 965

23 789 223 

31 068 679

22 337 859

21 331 179

22 340 359 

EN 

95 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION COST ESTIMATES 

Table  19  overleaf  summarises  the  various  costs  that  can  be  been  quantified  for  each  option 
under each Field of Action. The table collates the management and monitoring costs, and the 
administrative costs  above.  Option B  results in marginally higher overall  costs  compared to 
Option C with the hard options both totalling just over €30m in the first year, decreasing to 
annual costs of approximately €23m in Year 5.  

For the hard option, the reduction in costs over time is evident due to two factors: 

Monitoring  and  management  is  proposed  to  change  by  2013  including  reduced  levels  of 
observer coverage which results in cost savings. 

Some administration costs are one-off costs only incurred in year 1 

The  soft  option  with  a  lower  proportional  observer  coverage  from  Year  1  amounts  to 
approximately  €22m.  This  increases  by  Year  5  as  the  existing  lower  level  of  observer 
coverage continues (in line with the hard option) plus additional observer programmes come 
on stream for other fisheries by 2013. 

Management and monitoring costs and administrative costs are predominantly associated with 
Field  of  Action  1  as  this  relates  to  increased  reporting  and  observer  schemes,  while  other 
fields  of  action  relate  to  research,  awareness  raising  and  co-ordination.  It  is  not  possible  to 
quantify the direct economic costs of these as they are dependent upon allocated budgets, but 
some increase in administrative costs resulting from meetings and reporting requirements are 
assumed. 

Management and monitoring costs are the same for both Option B and Option C, while the 
stricter but simpler Option C does create some small savings in administrative costs. 

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
APPENDIX IV 

Markets and trade in sharks and shark products 

According  to  Globefish  (2008),  the  largest  exporters  of  sharks  are  Taiwan,  China,  Japan, 
Spain, Panama and the United Arab Emirates (see figure below). Products include fins, meat, 
and other shark products such as liver oil, skins and cartilage. Spain represents approximately 
11% of total world trade of sharks products in value over the last 6 years (2000-2005). At the 
same time, Spain and Italy are significant importers of shark species (15 000 t and 10 000 t 
respectively)  suggesting  that  there  is  a  domestic  market  that  is  insufficiently  supplied  by 
national  fleets.  The  development  of  markets  for  shark  products  is  demonstrated  by  catches 
from the deepwater Atlantic fishery; initially only the sharks’ livers were landed, but a limited 
market for fresh shark developed for fish caught in the last days of a trip. Gradually the meat 
of the fish has become the main product and since 1999 deepwater sharks have been landed 
for  human  consumption  of  the  meat,  initially  into  the  French  market  and  more  recently  as 
frozen siki ‘backs’ into the Spanish market. 

Exports (in Million USD) of sharks by countries. 

Tonnes

300 000

250 000

200 000

150 000

100 000

50 000

0

Other

Japan

UAE

Panama

China

Spain

Taiw an

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

The  demand  for  and  the  value  and  volume  of  shark  products  in  trade  have  increased 
considerably over the past 15 years and continue to rise. However, membership of China to 
WTO appears to have decreased the volume traded. Estimates of the total number of sharks 
traded  annually  worldwide  range  from  26–73  million/year  with  an  overall  median  of  38 
million/year. The shark biomass represented by the global fin trade is estimated to lie between 
1.21 and 2.29 million t/year with a median of 1.70 million t/year. This is some three to four 
times  higher  than  indicated  by  FAO’s  landings  data,  and  does  not  include  sharks  that  are 
discarded  at  sea  or  that  are  wholly  processed  and  utilised  domestically  (for  example  those 
taken by the Japanese and Taiwanese fleets). (Clarke, S.C. 2008).  

According  to  the  Marine  Resource  Economics  (Clark  2007), although  Hong  Kong  has  long 
been the world’s largest shark fin trading center, handling shark fin trading activity has shifted 
from  centralized  channels  in  Hong  Kong  to  a  diversified  Mainland  China  network. Today, 
shark  fin  is  available  in  most,  if  not  all,  major  cities  in  China,  and  with  population  growth 
between  2000  and  2005  of  9.5  million  persons  per  year,  a  large  number  of  consumers  are 

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
 
sampling shark fin for the first time. While traders insist that the shark fin market is driven by 
demand in Mainland China, due to statistical problems involving combining frozen shark fins 
(a significant portion of the market) with frozen shark meat in the Mainland customs data, it is 
not possible to accurately track trade levels in recent years. However, it appears that the trend 
in the Mainland fin trade is downward since 2000 (Clarke 2008). After increasing at a rate of 
6% per annum, shark fin imports to Hong Kong have also declined since 2000. This trend is 
matched  by  an  observed  decline  in  global  shark  catches  since  2000  based  on  FAO  capture 
production data. It is not known whether these trends may be caused by over-exploitation of 
sharks,  a  reduction  in  fishing  effort  due  to  higher  fuel  prices,  or  a  combination  of  these  or 
other factors. Nevertheless, the downturn in catches in combination with similar trends in the 
fin  trade,  despite  indications  that  demand  for  fins  is  growing,  is  worrying. Given  what  now 
appears to be a strong linkage between shark catches and the volume of the fin trade, several 
leading shark scientists have called for urgent consideration of effective fisheries management 
measures for sharks (Dulvy et al. 2008).  

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
APPENDIX V 

Acronyms Used 

ACP 

CAP 

African, Caribbean, and Pacific 

Community Action Plan 

CCAMLR 

Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

CCR 

Joint Research Centre (JRC) 

CCSBT 

Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna 

CECAF 

Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic  

CFCA 

Community Fisheries Control Agency 

CFP 

Common Fisheries Policy 

CNRO 

Centre National de Recherches Océanographiques 

COFREMAR 

Joint Technical Commission for the Argentina / Uruguay Maritime Front 

COREP 

Regional Fisheries Committee for the Gulf of Guinea 

CP 

Contracting Party 

CPOA 

Community Plan of Action 

CPPS 

CpUE 

CRO 

CSRP 

DCR 

Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur 

Catch per Unit Effort 

Centre de Recherches Océanologiques  

Sub Regional Fisheries Commission (West Africa) 

Data Collection Regulations 

DELASS 

Development of Elasmobranch Assessments 

DNAP 

Direcção Nacional de Administração Pesqueira 

DPS 

DWF 

EC 

EEZ 

EP 

EU 

Demersal and pelagic species 

Distant Water Fleet 

European Commission 

Exclusive Economic Zone 

European Parliament  

European Union 

EN 

99 

   EN 

 
FA 

FAD 

FAO 

FFA 

Fisheries Agreement 

Fish Aggregating Device 

Food and Agriculture Organisation 

Forum Fisheries Agency 

FIAS 

Fisheries Information and Analysis System  

FOC 

FP7 

FPA 

GDP 

Flag of Convenience 

Framework Program (7th of) 

Fisheries Partnership Agreement 

Gross Domestic Product 

GFCM 

General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean 

GRT 

GVA 

Gross Registered Tons 

Gross Value Added 

HACCP 

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 

HMS 

Highly Migratory Species 

IATTC 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 

IBSFC 

International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission  

IBTS 

International Bottom Trawl Survey  

ICCAT 

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas  

ICES 

International Council for the Seas 

ICRAM 

Italian Centre for Applied Marine Research  

IEO 

IFC 

IIP 

IOC 

Instituto Español de Oceanografía  

International Fisheries Commission 

Instituto de Investigação Pesqueira 

International Oceanographic Commission 

IOTC 

Indian Ocean Tuna Commission 

IPIMAR 

Instituto de Investigação das Pescas e do Mar 

IPOA 

IRD 

International Plan of Action 

Institut de Recherche pour le Développement 

EN 

100 

   EN 

 
ISTAM 

Improve Scientific and Technical Advices for fisheries Management 

IUCN 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature 

IUU 

JRC 

LME 

Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported 

Joint Research Centre 

Large Marine Ecosystem 

LOSC 

Law of the Sea Convention 

MCS 

MEU 

MPA 

MS 

MSY 

Monitoring, Control and Surveillance 

Marine Environment Unit  

Marine Protected Area 

Member State (of the EU) 

Maximum Sustainable Yield 

NAFO 

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation 

NEAFC 

Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission 

NOAA 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 

NTZ 

RAC 

RFB 

No Take Zone 

Regional Activity Centre 

Regional Fisheries Body 

RFMO 

Regional Fisheries Management Organisation 

RIP 

Regional Indicative Programme 

RPOA 

Regional Plan of Action 

RTD 

RTTP 

SBT 

Research and Technological Development 

Regional Tagging Programme  

Southern Bluefin Tuna 

SEAFDEC 

Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center 

SEAFO 

South-East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation 

SPC 

Secretariat of the Pacific Community 

SPRFMO 

South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation 

SRFC 

Sub-regional Fisheries Commission 

EN 

101 

   EN 

 
STA 

Scientific and Technical Advice 

STECF 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries  

SWIOFC 

South-West Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission 

TAC 

ToR 

UN 

Total Allowable Catch 

Terms of Reference 

United Nations  

UNCLOS 

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 

UNEP 

United Nations Environment Programme 

VMS 

Vessel Monitoring System 

WCPFC 

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission 

WECAFC 

Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission 

WGEF 

Working Group on Elasmobranch Fisheries (ICES) 

WIO 

Western Indian Ocean 

WSSD 

World Summit on Sustainable Development 

EN 

102 

   EN 

 
APPENDIX VI 

References 

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. 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. 

Burgess, G. H., Beerkircher, L. R., Cailliet, G. M., Carlson, J. K., Cortes, E., Goldman, 
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 and Gulf of Mexico real? 
Fisheries, 30: 19–26. 

Burgess, G. H., Beerkircher, L. R., Cailliet, G. M., Carlson, J. K., Cortes, E., Goldman, 
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. 

Clarke,  S.C.  2008. Statement  of  Dr.  Shelley  Clarke  before  the  House  Subcommittee  on 
Fisheries,  Wildlife  and  Oceans  Oversight  hearing  on  illegal,  unreported,  and  unregulated 
(IUU) fishing and bycatch, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C. 16 April 2008. 

ICCAT (2007). Report for biennial period, 2006-2007, Part I (2006) –Vol. 2, SCRS, 244 p. 

ICES  (2007).  Report  of  the  Working  Group  on  Elasmobranch  Fishes  (WGEF).  22-28  June 
2007,  Galway  Ireland.  ICES  Advisory  Committee  on  Fishery  Management  ICES  CM 
2007/ACFM:27 318 pp 

IUCN Red List (2006). www.iucnredlist.org 

Pauly,  D.,  Christensen,  D.,  Dalsgaard,  J,  Froese,  R.,  Torres,  F.  (1998).  Fishing  down 
marine food webs. Science 279: 860-863. 

STECF  (2006).  Discards  from  Community  Vessels.  Report  of  the  Scientific,  Technical  and 
Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries.  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper.  STECF  opinion 
expressed during plenary meeting held in Ispra from 6-10 November 2006. 56 pp. 

EN 

103 

   EN