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 - Summary of the impact assessment {COM(2009) 40 final} {SEC(2009) 103} {SEC(2009) 106}
Date: 2009-02-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: conservation of fish stocks, environmental protection, fishery management, marine life, protected species, sea fish

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 5.2.2009 
SEC(2009) 104 

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 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

{COM(2009) 40 final} 
{SEC(2009) 103} 
{SEC(2009) 106} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
1.  PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

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. 

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, which have made sharks a more valuable fisheries resource. 

Shark populations are generally fragile when targeted by unregulated fisheries, resulting 
in a pattern of ‘boom and bust’. Rising catches are followed by rapid declines and very 
slow  recoveries  when  stocks  are  then  protected.  Roughly  one  third  of  European  shark 
species  found  in  EU  waters  are  considered  by  the  International  Union  for  the 
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to be threatened with extinction.  

Within  the  framework  of  the  Code  of  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. 

Therefore, the Commission plans to adopt at the beginning of 2009 of a Communication 
on a Community Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. 

2.2. 

Underlying drivers of the problem 

In  general,  chondrichthyans  have  life  histories  characterised  by  low  fecundity,  large 
young, slow growth, late maturity, long life and high survival in all age classes. This set 
of  life  history  characteristics  results  in  low  reproductive  potential  and  low  capacity  for 
population  increase,  which  limits  their  capacity  to  recover  from  over-fishing  or  other 
negative impacts. 

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

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

EN 

2 

   EN 

2.3.  Who is affected? 

The  Community  Plan  of  Action  (CPOA)  will  potentially  affect  a  wide  range  of 
stakeholders.  This  impact  assessment  aims to  capture  the  economic,  environmental  and 
social  consequences  for  those  affected  stakeholders,  which  include  the  catching  and 
processing sectors, retailers, consumers, and civil society at large. 

2.4. 

How would the problem evolve? 

A number of legal measures have so far been taken to address aspects of the conservation 
and  management  of  sharks  at  both  international  and  Community  level.  However,  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. This situation is likely to persist if 
no further action is taken. 

3.  OBJECTIVES 

The Plan of Action is based on three main specific objectives: 

(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 specific objectives of the CPOA as set out in its consultation 
document, the Commission proposed nine ‘fields of action’ or operational objectives. 

4.  POLICY OPTIONS 

The IA presented in section 5 considers three main options: 

Option A: Status Quo with no Action Plan. 

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

Option B: A number of ‘Fields of Action’ to be addressed. 

Following the IA study, the fields of action have been reduced from the nine submitted to 
public consultation to five by merging some of them. 

In  addition,  for  each  measure  (or  activity)  a  number  of  different  implementation 
alternatives (‘hard’ or ‘soft’) have been considered. 

Option C: Application of a strict precautionary approach. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

Adoption  of  an  Action  Plan  to  modify  the  current  Community  legislative  framework 
applying to sharks by introducing strict interpretation of the precautionary approach and 
prohibiting  all  directed  shark  fisheries  or  indirect  catches  of  sharks  by  Community 
vessels,  unless  TACs  and  other  regulatory  measures  have  been  put  in  place  following 
scientific advice. 

5.  ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

5.1. 

Option A 

Environmental 
impacts 

Economic 
impacts 

Social impacts 

Risks and trade-
offs 

Continued generic or mis-reporting of species may prevent the development of targeted 
fisheries management plans to prevent the over-exploitation of sharks. 
Despite increased efforts by the Commission, ICCAT, IOTC and other RFMOs to 
include pelagic sharks in stock assessments (especially for tuna fisheries), some stocks 
may continue to decline, with some of the most vulnerable species facing extinction. 
This may be reversed by future recovery plans that might be implemented under the 
status quo. 
Removal of keystone species and apex predators leads to simplification of the marine 
ecosystem, reduced biodiversity and reduced ecosystem functionality.  
The distant-water fleets of Spain, Portugal and France are the most economically 
dependent on shark fisheries. A reduction in blue shark catches, especially in the Indian 
Ocean, where the blue shark stock status is ‘highly uncertain’ and where ‘because of 
their life history characteristics …. the blue shark is vulnerable to overfishing’ (IOTC, 
2007), might affect the surface longline fleet in particular. Although ICCAT considers 
blue shark catches in the N and S Atlantic to be above biomass at MSY (ICCAT, 2005), 
the long-term trend in CPUE is downwards. 
N Atlantic shark catches yield some benefits for EU fleets, although they make up a 
relatively small proportion of total production. 
It is highly likely that catches will decline over the longer term as a result of stock 
depletion, thus impacting both the catching and processing sub-sectors. 
This option has no significant economic impacts for the EU Member State control 
authorities, although this may change over the longer term. 
Overall, the greatest employment dependency is found in the mixed fisheries of the N 
Atlantic, although social dependency (in terms of value of landing per employee) is 
higher for the distant-water fleets. Impacts are likely to be medium in magnitude and 
likelihood. 
Some EU NUTS-2 regions are particularly dependent upon fisheries, including shark, 
especially Galicia, Bretagne, NE Scotland, Highlands and Islands, and the Algarve, and 
may suffer significant social challenges as shark catches decline. Impacts are likely to be 
high in terms of both magnitude and likelihood in such dependent areas. 
The opportunities for stakeholder involvement in sectoral governance will remain 
limited, contributing to a likely slide in stock status. 
Risks are minimal over the short to medium term. 
Public opinion would be negative if the CPOA was not adopted, given the high profile 
this issue has gained in the international press and the recent progress made by others, 
e.g. the US NMFS. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
5.2. 

Option B 

Environmental 
impacts 

Field of 
Action 1: 
Improved 
identification 
& reporting 

Economic 
impacts 

Social impacts 

Risks and 
trade-offs 

Field of 
Action 2: 
Research-
based 
conservation 
measures 

Environmental 
impacts 
Economic 
impacts 

Social impacts 

Risks and 
trade-offs 

Field of 
Action 3: 
Improved 
stakeholder 
awareness 

Environmental 
impacts 

Economic 
impacts 

Social impacts 

Strongly positive impact on the ability to manage stocks and to 
implement measures targeting vulnerable or threatened species. 
Improvements to stock status and downstream ecological benefits likely 
but longer term. 
These impacts are mostly low to medium in magnitude and medium to 
high in likelihood. 
Many measures likely to incur direct costs for regulatory authorities, 
but to a lesser extent under softer regulatory conditions (e.g. €3.7m for 
40% observer coverage as against €9.26m for 100%). Impacts are 
mostly medium to high in magnitude and high in likelihood. 
Extra data collection is unlikely to have a significant negative economic 
impact. 
Would help safeguard current economic benefits. 
All stakeholders would gain positive direct benefits over all time scales, 
plus longer-term indirect social benefits. Impacts are mostly medium in 
magnitude and high in likelihood. 
Stakeholder response would be highly favourable, although divided 
over hard and soft sub-options.  
Risks stem from the acceptability and uptake of measures among non-
EU RFMO contracting parties (catches by EU vessels make up only a 
proportion of catches by other flags in areas regulated by RFMOs). 
Strongly positive, esp. for vulnerable and threatened species, with low 
to medium magnitude and medium to high likelihood. 
Negative in terms of the high costs involved, albeit mostly short-term, 
but probably positive over the long term with economic benefits for 
implementing agencies. Impacts medium in magnitude but high in 
likelihood. 
Positive indirect economic impact over the longer term by sustaining or 
re-building stocks. 
Positive direct impacts over all time scales, mainly through capacity 
enhancement. Many indirect benefits in maintaining or enhancing 
incomes based on shark catches. Impacts medium in magnitude but 
high in likelihood. 
Stakeholder response would be highly favourable. 
Some risk regarding the acceptability and uptake of measures among 
non-EU RFMO contracting parties for those stocks extending into the 
high seas. 
Reduced post-discard mortality and greater selectivity, as well as more 
accurate reporting. Impacts low in magnitude and medium in 
likelihood. 
Largely short-term direct costs for the EU and Member States, but 
positive impact for implementing agencies. Impacts medium in 
magnitude but high in likelihood. 
Positive economic benefits over the longer term for all stakeholders. 
Positive direct social impacts over all time scales through enhanced 
stakeholder knowledge and involvement in sectoral governance. 
Many indirect benefits in maintaining or enhancing incomes based on 
shark catches. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

Risks and 
trade-offs 

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

Environmental 
impacts 

Economic 
impacts 

Field of 
Action 5 
Minimise 
wastes and 
discards from 
sharks 

Social impacts 

Risks and 
trade-offs 
Environmental 
impacts 

Economic 
impacts 

Social impacts 

Risks and 
trade-offs 

Stakeholder response would be highly favourable. 
Risks stem from the acceptability and uptake of measures among non-
EU RFMO contracting parties for those stocks extending into the high 
seas. 
Highly positive direct response in terms of both stock conservation and 
biodiversity. ‘Harder’ options (e.g. immediate precautionary TACs) 
yield the same benefits but over a shorter time scale. Impacts high in 
both magnitude and likelihood. 
Negative short-term impacts for catching and processing sectors, which 
may be significant for highly dependent fleets. Most costs would 
diminish over the longer term. Impacts medium in magnitude but high 
in likelihood. 
Indirect impacts would be strongly positive over the longer term as 
stocks recover and controls are relaxed. 
Patchy but significant negative impacts over the short to medium term, 
especially for the catching and processing sectors. Impacts medium in 
magnitude but high in likelihood. 
Many indirect benefits in maintaining or enhancing incomes based on 
shark catches, especially over the longer term. 
All stakeholders supportive, although sensitive to the nature of 
implementation measures (e.g. immediate or phased introduction). 
Significant impact for certain species, particularly blue shark and short-
fin mako sharks, which are the fisheries currently subject to the 
majority of finning derogations. Impacts medium in both magnitude 
and likelihood. 
Mainly impacts distant-water fleets making use of derogations under 
Regulation 1185/2003. High likelihood but low to medium magnitude. 
Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) costs would increase but 
probably not significantly. 
Short-term, medium-magnitude negative impacts, especially on distant-
water fleets and home ports (e.g. Galicia).  
Public opinion suggests some action is required, but there is a risk of 
non-action by other parties and effort displacement to other vulnerable 
species. 

5.3. 

Option C 

Environ-
mental 
impacts 
Economic 
impacts 

Social 
impacts 

Similar to Option B, but over a shorter time scale. High magnitude and high impact. 
NE Atlantic stocks would particularly benefit in terms of recovery.  

Short- to medium-term negative economic impacts would be highly significant and 
certain, with some specific targeted and mixed fisheries potentially becoming 
unviable.  
Without shark-related income (approx. 25%), EU distant-water longlining fleets may 
become unviable (only under a no-catch scenario). 
Over the longer term, this option may be positive for all stakeholders if stocks recover 
sufficiently to allow precautionary TACs. 
Short- to medium-term negative social impacts in some areas of N Atlantic and 
Mediterranean with dependencies. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Highly negative short- to medium-term social impact on a limited number of highly 
dependent home ports and downstream processes for distant-water fleets. 

Risks and 
trade-offs 

The  highly  significant  short-term  impacts  of  this  option  would  result  in  significant 
industry and associated political opposition. 

The benefits from shared stocks in the high seas and third country  waters  would  be 
diminished  through  non-compliance  and  a  (presumed)  lack  of  regulatory  uptake  by 
RFMO contracting parties. 

5.4. 

Comparison of the impacts 

Option 

Option A 

Option B 
FoA 1 

Option B 
FoA 2 

Option B 
FoA 3 

Environmental 

•  Progressive  decline  in 
many shark species and 
ecosystem impairment. 

•  Improved management, 
/ 

threatened 

esp.  of 
vulnerable species 

•  Improved management, 
/ 

threatened 

esp.  of 
vulnerable species 

•  Benefits 

limited 

to 
species  susceptible  to 
intervention 

Impact 
Economic 

Social 

•  Little 

short- 

to 
medium-term 
impact, 
but  increasing  over  the 
long term  

•  Little 

short- 

to 
medium-term 
impact, 
but  increasing  over  the 
long term 

•  Little  negative  impact 
on  industry  but  costly 
to implement 

•  Some  direct  benefits 
for  all  over  all  time 
scales 

•  High direct public costs 
over the short term, but 
indirect benefits later 

•  Improved  public  sector 
and 

employment 
capacity 

•  Some  direct  public 
the  short 
indirect 

costs  over 
but 
term, 
benefits later 

•  Indirect 
benefits 
increased 
through 
capacity 
stakeholder 
for sectoral governance 

Option B 
FoA 4 

•  Strongly  positive,  esp. 
with harder sub-options

•  Negative 

short-term 
impacts  on  catching  / 
processing  sectors,  but 
improving  over 
the 
long term 

short- 

•  Localised 
significant 
medium-term 
on 
improving  over 
long term 

but 
to 
impacts 
dependents, 
the 

Option B 
FoA 5 

Option C 

•  Significant  impact  for 

•  May  impact  longlining 

•  May  impact  longlining 

certain species 

distant-water fleet 

distant-water fleet 

•  Similar  to  Option  B, 
but  over  shorter  time 
scale 

•  Highly  negative  over 
and  medium 

short 
term. 

•  Highly  negative  over 
short and medium term 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

The  options  for  applying  the  Shark  Action  Plan  are  examined  above  along  with  their 
relative impacts. 

Given the evidence of a deteriorating situation for a number of shark populations, Option 
A would not allow the EU to come up with an effective systematic response in time and 
the present situation could become unacceptable. 

If fully implemented and complied with, Option C would be highly effective in achieving 
both data and management objectives. However, the strong drawbacks noted above mean 
that this cannot be the preferred option. 

The IA therefore concludes that the preferred option is an amended version of Option B. 
The  main  elements  of  the  selected  option  include  measures  for  data  collection  and 
scientific  advice,  management  and  technical  measures  and  further  limitations  on  shark 
finning practices. 

7. 

CONCLUSION 

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

EN 

8 

   EN