COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-11-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: conservation of fish stocks, disclosure of information, fishing rights, protection of animal life, sea fish

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, XXX 
[…](2011) XXX draft 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 
amending Council Regulation (EC) 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board 
vessels 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

1.1. 
1.2. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES .............................. 3 
ORGANISATION AND TIMING................................................................................................................. 3 
CONSULTATION AND EXPERTISE ........................................................................................................... 3 
PROBLEM DEFINITION.......................................................................................................................... 4 
SCOPE OF COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) NO 1185/2003......................................................................... 4 
2.1. 
SHARK FINNING: DEFINITION AND BAN................................................................................................. 4 
2.2. 
SHARK FISHERIES AND SHARK FIN TRADE............................................................................................. 6 
2.3. 
PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 9 
2.4. 
2.5. 
EVOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM ............................................................................................................. 12 
2.6.  WHO IS AFFECTED?............................................................................................................................. 13 
3.  OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................................ 17 

4. 

4.1. 
4.2. 

POLICY OPTIONS................................................................................................................................... 18 
LIST OF OPTIONS ................................................................................................................................. 18 
DESCRIPTION OF POLICY OPTIONS....................................................................................................... 18 
5.  ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ....................................................................................................................... 20 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPORTANCE OF ELASMOBRANCH FISHERIES IN THE EU ............................... 20 
IMPACTS OF EACH POLICY OPTION ...................................................................................................... 21 
6.  COMPARING OF THE POLICY OPTIONS ........................................................................................ 30 

5.1. 
5.2. 

7.  MONITORING AND EVALUATION .................................................................................................... 34 

ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................................... 36 
ANNEX I – SCIENTIFIC ADVICE................................................................................................................. 36 
ANNEX II - MEMBER STATES' COMPLIANCE WITH THE ANNUAL REPORTING OBLIGATION .... 39 

 
 
 
2

GLOSSARY 

CPUE – Catch Per Unit of (fishing) Effort 

ICCAT – International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 

IOTC – Indian Ocean Tuna Commission 

MSY – Maximum Sustainable Yield; the optimal catch that may be taken from a fishing stock 
year after year without endangering its capacity to regenerate for the future. 

RFMO – Regional Fisheries Management Organisation, e.g. ICCAT, IOTC. 

STECF – Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries 

Surface Longlines – Fishing lines often several kilometres long, with baited hooks sometimes 
numbering in the thousands, set at fixed intervals by means of branch lines. 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties 

1.1. 

Organisation and timing 

This  Impact  Assessment  concerns  a  proposal  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament and Council to amend Council Regulation (EC) 1185/2003 on the removal of fins 
of sharks on board vessels1. Its development is foreseen in Agenda Planning 2010/MARE/005 
and aims to fulfil one of the commitments taken by the Commission within the context of EU 
Action Plan for Sharks2, i.e. to amend Council Regulation (EC) 1185/2003 in a manner which 
contributes to enhanced conservation and management of shark stocks. 

An  Impact  Assessment  Steering  Group  (IASG)  was  set  up.  The  following  services  were 
invited  to  this  IASG:  SG,  SJ,  TRADE,  ENV,  ENTR,  ECFIN,  EMPL,  REGIO  and  CLIMA. 
The IASG has met twice, on 16 June 2010 and 5 May 2011 with the presence of MARE and 
ENV. 

1.2. 

Adaptations to the report in line with the comments of the Impact Assessment 
Board 

DG  MARE  has  welcomed  the  comments,  suggestions  and  questions  of  the  Impact 
Assessment Board and has adapted the report so as to address these. In particular, the report 
has  been  adapted  in  order  to  provide  more  evidence  regarding  the  existing  problem  (see 
Annex III), to analyse an additional set of potential policy options (Section 4.2), text has been 
re-arranged to improve coherence, additions were made to the specific objectives (Section 3), 
differentiation  between  vessels  and  their  activities  has  been  made  (Section  5.1),  separate 
analyses  of  the  impacts  of  options  1(i)  and  1(ii)  were  made  (Section  5.2),  the  analyses  of 
impacts  of  options  2  and  3  have  been  improved  (Section  5.2),  the  Impacts  on  Conservation 
subsection  (Section  6)  has  been  improved,  and  a  summary  of  the  results  of  the  public 
consultation was inserted (Annex IV). 

1.3. 

Consultation and expertise 

The  relevant  information  was  drawn  partly  from  the  Impact  Assessment  carried  out  for  the 
preparation  of  the  "European  Community  Plan  of  Action  for  the  Conservation  and 
Management of Sharks3", partly from direct research carried out by DG MARE services, and 
partly from the results of the public consultation carried out between 15 November 2010 and 
21 February 20114. No external consultant was engaged. 

In the consultation specific emphasis was put on: which option and/or sub-option stakeholders 
consider  the  most  appropriate  and  the  least  appropriate.  In  addition  to  this,  DG  MARE 
directly asked for the likely effects on the commercial operators and on the associated trade as 

1 Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 of 26 June 2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels 
2 COM(2009) 40 final Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a 
European Community Action Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 
3 SEC(2009) 103 Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the communication from 
the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a European Community Plan of Action for the 
Conservation and Management of Sharks - Impact assessment 
4 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/partners/consultations/shark_finning_ban/index_en.htm  

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4

well as on the conservation of shark stocks if the vessels were to be obliged to land fins and 
carcasses simultaneously at the same port. 

More than 5,000 contributions were received. The responses indicate that virtually all NGO's 
and  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  public  support  Option  3.  Part  of  the  sector  supports 
option 1 (either 1(a) or 1(b)), whereas other parts of the sector propose an alternative: Raising 
the 5% fin to live-weight ratio to 6 or 6.5% to reflect the average ratio applicable to the two 
main species caught by EU vessels (blue shark and shortfin mako) and to the fin-cutting and 
fin-retention techniques employed by these vessels.  

The  arguments  presented  by  the  various  stakeholders  vary  in  quality  and  content.  The  most 
well-informed and well-argued positions are presented by the NGO's and the fishing industry, 
as well as some local and national authorities and some academic and research associations. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  vast  majority  of  the  general  public  seem  to  be  poorly  informed:  it 
seems that they reacted to the consultation paper after viewing various television broadcasts 
on shark finning, without reading the paper itself. This led to the submission of approximately 
2,500 contributions which are not useable for the purposes of the Impact Assessment. 
The Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) states5 that finning 
should not take place, because it leads to increased mortality of sharks. STECF recommends 
measures 
to  eradicate  finning  without  exemption.  Regional  Fisheries  Management 
Organizations  (RFMO's)  have  scientific  committees  which  provide  advice  on  stock 
management.  The  scientific  committees  within  the  International  Commission  for  the 
Conservation  of  Atlantic  Tunas  (ICCAT)  and  the  Indian  Ocean  Tuna  Commission  (IOTC) 
have attempted to evaluate the various geographical distinct stocks of blue shark and shortfin 
mako in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Though there is a general lack of data on all of these 
stocks, the ICCAT shark assessment group suggests that blue shark stocks are probably above 
Maximum  Sustainable  Yield  (MSY)  in  the  North  and  South  Atlantic  and  in  the 
Mediterranean. In the Pacific, the blue shark stock seems to be in a rather good state, whereas 
no conclusions can be drawn regarding the Indian Ocean stock, due to lack of data. The data 
necessary to carry out proper stock assessments for shortfin mako is lacking in the  Atlantic 
and  Indian  Oceans  as  well  as  the  Mediterranean Sea.  However,  reductions  on  the  catch  per 
unit effort (CPUE) suggest that the stocks may be declining. 

2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

Scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 

According to Article 1 (Scope) of the Regulation:  

"This Regulation shall apply to the removal of shark fins, retention on board, transhipment 
and landing of sharks or shark fins: 

1. by vessels in maritime waters under the sovereignty or the jurisdiction of Member States; 

2. by vessels flying the flag or registered in Member States in other maritime waters." 

2.2. 

Shark Finning: definition and ban 

Finning is the practice of severing and retaining the fins of sharks while discarding the carcass 
at sea. Finning is highly wasteful and unsustainable. Recognizing that sharks, skates and rays 

5 Commission Staff Working Document 27th Plenary Meeting Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (Plen-08-01) Plenary Meeting 14-18 April 2008, Hamburg 
https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=21111&name=DLFE-6501.pdf  

EN 

 
 
                                                 
5

are  particularly  vulnerable  to  overexploitation,  that  many  shark  stocks  are  under  serious 
threat,  and  that  the  practice  of  shark  finning  contributes  to  excessive  mortality  and  to  stock 
depletion the Council in 2003, adopted Regulation (EC) No. 1185/2003 on the removal of fins 
of  sharks  on  board  vessels1  (hereafter  referred  to  as  "the  Regulation").  Although  this 
Regulation  aims  to  contribute  to  shark  conservation,  its  scope  is  limited  to  banning  the 
practice  of  finning  and  to  regulating  the  on-board  processing  of  sharks.  The  Regulation 
applies to all types of fishing in EU waters, and to all EU vessels fishing in non-EU waters. 
The  EU  has  also  taken  a  proactive  attitude  towards  finning  prohibitions  in  various 
international fora, namely Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMO's). 

The Regulation bans finning without exception, and also bans the removal of fins of sharks on 
board vessels. However, by derogation, shark fins may be removed from carcasses on board 
vessels which hold special fishing permits. This on-board removal of fins, which according to 
the Regulation shall not involve the discard of any carcasses, is not to be confused with the 
practice of finning. In order to ensure that no discarding of carcasses has occurred, the weight 
of  the  fins  must  never  exceed  5%  of  the  live  weight  of  the  shark  catch  on  board.  The 
Regulation permits landings of fins and carcasses in separate ports, which makes it difficult 
for inspectors to be certain that no discarding has taken place. The main identified problem 
with  the  current  Regulation  centres  on  this  weakness  in  control,  which  stems  from  the 
existence of permits allowing the removal of fins on board.  

Even  though  the  current  Regulation  prohibits  the  removal  of  shark  fins  on  board  vessels, 
special  permits  allowing  the  removal  of  fins  on  board  may  be  issued  by  derogation.  Such 
permits may be issued by the competent Member State authorities to fishing vessels for which 
a capacity to use all parts of sharks has been demonstrated and where the need for the separate 
on-board processing of shark fins and of the remaining parts of sharks has been justified. The 
Regulation does not specify what constitutes valid justification for these purposes. This means 
that  it  is  for  the  flag  Member  State  to  interpret  this  provision  and  accordingly  to  issue  and 
manage,  with  associated  conditions,  special  permits  for  on-board  removal  of  shark  fins. 
Member  States  must  submit  annual  reports  to  the  Commission  on  implementation  of  the 
Regulation,  including  the  following  information:  (a)  compliance  with  the  prohibition  to 
discard shark carcasses, (b) compliance with the 5% fin-to-live-weight ratio, (c) the number of 
special fishing permits issued and (d) the technical basis for setting the fin-to-carcass weight 
ratio.  This  reporting  obligation  concerns  22  Member  States  and  covers  the  reference  years 
2004 onwards. The majority of Member States have consistently failed to meet the reporting 
deadline, and each year the Commission Services have had to send reminders to the relevant 
authorities. 

The  current  Regulation  allows  for  the  landing  of  fins  and  carcasses  in  separate  ports,  at 
separate times. In order to ensure that no finning has occurred, a fin-to-carcass weight ratio 
has been established. Permit holders must record in a logbook the weight of shark fins and the 
remaining  parts  of  sharks  retained  on  board,  transhipped  or  landed.  The  relevant 
documentation (as defined by Member State authorities) of landings, transhipments and sales 
of fins and other shark parts shall be used to complete logbook records. The weight of the fins 
kept from the catch shall never exceed the theoretical weight of the fins that would correspond 
to the remaining parts of sharks retained on board, transhipped or landed. In no case shall the 
theoretical weight of the fins exceed 5 % of the live6 weight of the shark catch. Live weight is 
the weight of the shark before any processing has occurred. Dressed weight is the weight after 
processing, i.e. after beheading, evisceration, fin removal and sometimes skinning.  Due to the 

6 "Live weight" is the term used throughout EU fisheries legislation to refer to the weight of the fish as soon as it 
has been hauled on board, and prior to any form of processing or degradation. The term "whole weight" used in 
other legal texts such as those of the USA and Canada generally has the same meaning as "live weight". 

EN 

 
 
                                                 
6

relatively large weight of sharks' heads and internal organs, the dressed weight may be 30 to 
50% less than the live weight. RFMO's such as ICCAT and IOTC have rules stating that the 
weight of the fins of sharks must not exceed 5% of the weight of sharks on board. These rules 
do not specify whether this 5% should refer to live weight or dressed weight. Many countries 
which are members of these RFMO's set the limit at 5% of the dressed weight, whereas the 
EU Regulation goes by live weight, which is approximately double the dressed weight. As a 
result,  NGO's  have  been  criticizing  the  EU  Regulation  as  being  one  of  the  weakest  finning 
bans in the world. Furthermore, EU vessels subject to the 5% live weight rule and landing in 
third country ports have been found to be in breach of the local rules which only permit a fin 
weight allowance of 5% of the dressed carcass weight (see Section 5.1., Option 2, Economic 
Impacts). 

It  has  become  clear,  via  information  received  from  national  authorities,  the  fishing  sector, 
NGO's and RFMO's, that the current system of weight ratios, which allows separate landings 
of fins and carcasses, has various flaws and weaknesses. Between the entry into force of the 
Regulation and today, five Member States have reported numerous instances of breach of the 
Regulation.  These  reports  come  predominantly  from  those  Member  States  that  have  been 
issuing  special  fishing  permits,  and  the  infractions  committed  consist  in  their  majority  of 
violations of the 5% fin-to-carcass weight allowance. Though all RFMO's with finning bans 
currently use fin to carcass ratios, in recent years such systems have been challenged, mostly 
due to the associated difficulties in control and enforcement. An alternative, the fins-attached 
approach has been discussed in RFMO's over recent years, and some countries such as Costa 
Rica and the USA, have already adopted this system. 

2.3. 

Shark Fisheries and shark fin trade 

Due to their characteristics of slow growth, late maturity and a small number of young, shark 
populations  are  particularly  vulnerable  to  overfishing  and  take  a  long  time  to  recover  from 
depletion. Sharks have been increasingly targeted by fisheries due to an increased demand for 
shark products (fins in particular), especially on the Asian market, where fins from the most 
desirable species can fetch up to 500€/kg 7. The value of fins is generally much higher than the 
value of shark meat and given that on-board storage space is usually limited, there is a strong 
economic incentive to fin (i.e. retain fins while discarding carcasses).  

European shark fisheries operate in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans and are larger than 
is generally understood. The EU is possibly the world's largest shark fishing entity9, although 
systematic  underreporting  of  catches  by  fleets  worldwide  prevents  one  from  drawing  this 
conclusion with certainty. According to existing catch reports, European fleets accounted for 
more  than  13%  of  global  shark  landings  in  20048,  and  an  average  of  13.4%  of  the  global 
landings  reported  from  2000  to  2008,  i.e.  the  catch  of  the  top  4  EU  shark-fishing  Member 
States (Spain, France, Portugal and the United Kingdom) accounted for 110,436 tons out of 
the  824,364  tons  landed  globally.  The  data  pertaining  to  the  surface  longline  fisheries 
undertaken  by these four Member States in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, are not 
detailed enough to paint a detailed enough picture of the catch composition. 

Table 1. Average reported landings (in tons) by vessels of the top 20 shark fishing countries from 
2000 to 2008.  
Rank 

Average landings 2000 - 2008 

Proportion of global catch 

Country/territory 

7 Hareide, N.R., J. Carlson, M. Clarke, S. Clarke, J. Ellis, S. Fordham, S. Fowler, M. Pinho, C. Raymakers, F. 
Serena,  B.  Seret,  and  S.  Polti.  2007.  European  Shark  Fisheries:  a  preliminary  investigation  into  fisheries, 
conversion  factors,  trade  products,  markets  and  management  measures.  European  Elasmobranch  Association. 
http://www.eulasmo.org/v.asp?level2id=6465&rootid=6465&depth=1 
8 FAO 2004 reporthttp://www.fao.org/fishery/publications/en 

EN 

 
 
                                                 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

Indonesia 
India 
Spain 
Taiwan 
Argentina 
Mexico 
Pakistan 
US 
Japan 
Malaysia 
Thailand 
France 
Brazil 
Sri Lanka 
New Zealand 
Portugal 
Nigeria 
Iran 
United Kingdom 
Korea 
World total 
EU top 4 total 

7

109,248 
74,050 
59,777 
47,636 
35,089 
33,971 
32,277 
30,686 
24,961 
24,334 
22,729 
21,511 
20,014 
19,989 
18,005 
15,819 
14,311 
14,001 
13,356 
11,887 
824,364 
110,436* 

13.3 
9.0 
7.3 
5.8 
4.3 
4.1 
3.9 
3.7 
3.0 
3.0 
2.8 
2.6 
2.4 
2.4 
2.2 
1.9 
1.7 
1.7 
1.6 
1.4 
100 
13.4 

These figures exclude discarded and unreported catches, which combined worldwide, likely exceed reported 
catches9. 
* The total production of EU capture fisheries is 5,150,000 tons. 

The  FAO  Fishstat  Capture  Production  Database  reports  retained  catches  of  fish  species  and 
does  not  include  information  on  discards.  A  study10  by  FAO  has  estimated  that  more  than 
200,000 tons of sharks are discarded per year. Various other studies11,12,13,14 have reported that 
85-100%  of  sharks  caught  in  longline  and  purse  seine  fisheries  in  the  Pacific  and  Indian 
Oceans are discarded. Furthermore, several countries which are known to catch sharks, do not 
report these catches to the FAO, and significant discrepancies between catch data and export 
data  from  some  countries  indicate  that  there  is  significant  underreporting.  Estimates  of  the 
volume  and  species  composition  of  shark  discards  remain  limited,  meaning  that  the  true 
impact  of  fishing  on  sharks  is  generally  unknown15.  The  Spanish  and  Portuguese  surface 
longlining sector has informed the Commission in writing that they do not discard carcasses 
and that they market them instead. During the public consultation a Portuguese organization 

9 Fowler, S. and Seret, B. 2010. Shark fins in Europe: Implications for reforming the EU finning ban. 
10 Kelleher, K. (2005). Discards in the World's Marine Fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. 
No. 470. Rome, FAO. 
11 Amandé M.J., Chassot, E.,Chavance, P., Pianet, R. (2008). Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) bycatch 
in the French tuna purse-seine fishery of the Indian Ocean. (IOTC-2008-WPEB-16). 
12 Gilman, E., Clarke, S., Brothers, N., Alfaro-Shiguetto, J., Mandelman, J., Mangel, J., Petersen, S., Piovano, S., 
Thomson,  N.,  Dalzell,  P.,  Donoso,  M.,  Goren,  M.  and  Werner,  T.  (2007).  Shark  Depredation  and  Unwanted 
Bycatch  in  Pelagic  Longline  Fisheries.  Industry  Practices  and  Attitudes  and  Shark  Avoidance  Strategies. 
Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu, USA. 
13 Hender, J., Ward, P., Knight, E and Darbyshire, R. (2007). Pilot Scientific Monitoring Program for the 
Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery Final Report (2003–06), BRS Canberra 
14 Xiaojie-DAI, Liu-xiong XU and Li-ming Sonng (2006). Catch Estimation of Pelagic Sharks by Chinese 
Longline Observer in the Eastern Pacific Ocean . Document SAR-7-09a IATTC Tropical Tuna Working Group 
to Review Stock Assessment, 7th meeting, La Jolla California (USA), 15-19 May 2006. Available 
at: http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/SAR-7-09a-Shark-bycatch-CHN-LL-fishery.pdf   
15  Lack,  M.  and  Sant,  G.  (2009).  Trends  in  Global  Shark  Catch  and  Recent  Developments  inManagement. 
TRAFFIC International. 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
informed  the  Commission  that  in  the  case  of  blue  shark,  the  revenue  from  marketing  all 
carcasses  makes  up  approximately  58%  of  the  shark-derived  revenue,  the  remaining  42% 
coming from fins. 

8

Figure 1. Trends in shark catches of various countries and the EU as a whole, between 2000 
and 2008 (FAO Fishstat, taken from Fowler and Seret, 20109). In general, shark catches are 
decreasing  worldwide  and  apparent  upward  trends  can  often  be  ascribed  to  increased 
reporting  of  shark  catches  or  differentiation  between  shark  catches  and  catches  of  other 
species. 

Considerable data deficiencies exist with regards to a lack of species-specific catch reporting 
and the fact that most (but not all) elasmobranch catches in EU waters and further afield, are 
bycatches16  from  other  targeted  fisheries.  The  mixed  nature  of  most  of  the  fisheries  from 
which elasmobranch catches are made, makes it difficult to determine with any certainty how 
dependent  individual  fishermen/vessels  are  on  catches  of  these  species  or  how  much  value-
added  is  made  specifically  from  elasmobranch  catches,  because  virtually  no  fleet  segments 
rely  exclusively  on  elasmobranch  catches.  Furthermore,  there  are  no  coastal  communities 
within the EU which exclusively rely on shark fishing or processing. 

Though these fisheries historically targeted primarily tunas and swordfish, longline catches of 
oceanic  sharks  are  as  large  as  or  larger  than  the  catch  of  tuna  and  swordfish,  and  most 
longliners  now  actively  target  sharks.  EU  surface  longliner  catches  include  between  40% 
(Indian Ocean) and 68% (Atlantic Ocean) of shark (mostly blue shark Prionace glauca). 

Information concerning the involvement of EU Member States in international trade of sharks 
and  shark  fins  varies  according  to  the  source.  Trade  statistics  indicate  that  in  2005,  Spain, 
France and the Netherlands17 were involved in the shark fin trade in the Hong Kong market, 
which is the largest shark fin market in the world, representing 50% of the worldwide sharkfin 
trade. After China, Spain is the second largest exporter of shark fins to the Hong Kong market 
and is responsible for around 10% of the shark fins traded there18. The Galician port of Vigo 

16  The  two  main  species  caught  by  EU-flagged  surface  longliners  are  actively  targeted  via  the  use  of  specific 
gears such as steel leaders to which the baited hooks are attached, and by temporal and spatial execution 
of fishing activities. 

17 The Netherlands appears to be more of a transit hub rather than an actual "producer" of fins. 
18 Hong Kong Foreign Trade Statistics for Sharkfin Imports and Exports. 2005. 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
9

and the port of Las Palmas in the Canary Islands are the European centres for the shark fin 
trade. In Las Palmas, both Spanish and Japanese surface longliners land shark fins.  

According  to  the  annual  reports  submitted  to  the  Commission  by  the  Spanish  authorities  in 
accordance  with  Article  6(1)  of  the  Regulation,  between  2004  and  2008  Spanish  vessels 
holding special fishing permits landed fins and carcasses processed in various  ways in non-
EU ports in Australia, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, Ecuador, Fiji, French Polynesia, Indonesia, 
Kenya, Mauritius, Namibia, New Caledonia, Panama, Peru, Senegal, South Africa, Trinidad 
and  Tobago,  and  Uruguay.  The  annual  shark  landings  in  non-EU  ports  by  Spanish  vessels 
holding on-board processing permits were 8,077 tons in 2005, 9,003 tons in 2006, 8,295 tons 
in 2007 and 9,119 tons in 2008.  The annual shark landings (EU ports and non-EU ports) by 
Spanish vessels holding on-board processing permits were 20,447 tons in 2003, 21,417 tons in 
2004, and 18,936 tons in 2005. Of the 18,936 tons landed in 2005, 10,859 tons were landed in 
EU ports (i.e. 57%) and 8,077 tons were landed in non-EU ports (i.e. 43%). In 2003, 2004 and 
2005, Spanish vessels with special fishing permits caught an average of 87% of the total shark 
catch  of  the  Spanish  fleet.  According  to  the  Portuguese  2009  report,  the  majority  of 
Portuguese  vessels  land  their  catch  in  Portuguese  and  Spanish  ports,  though  some  landings 
take place in 3rd country ports, notably Cape Verde, Uruguay, Namibia, Togo and Mauritius. 
Portuguese  vessels  holding  special  fishing  permits  always  land  their  fins  and  carcasses 
simultaneously in the same port. 

No  TAC's  have  been  set  for  blue  shark  and  shortfin  mako  due  to  the  lack  of  relevant  data. 
TAC's  are  being  discussed  in  ICCAT  for  porbeagle,  shortfin  mako,  thresher  sharks  and 
hammerhead  sharks.  The  Commission  made  proposals,  aligned  with  scientific  advice,  to 
prohibit fishing, transhipment and landing of these species and families at the annual ICCAT 
meeting in November 2010. The prohibition was accepted for the hammerhead family (except 
one  species),  but  rejected  for  the  thresher  shark  family  (except  bigeye  thresher  for  which  a 
fishing  ban  had  already  been  in  accepted  in  2009).  The  Commission  will  continue  to  seek 
scientific advice on the state of stocks of blue shark and shortfin mako, and will look into the 
possibility of establishing TAC's in EU waters for these species in the future. Data collection 
on the status of these stocks is essential if TAC's are to be established.  

2.4. 

Problems with the current system 

The main identified problem with the current Regulation centres on the weakness in control, 
which stems from the existence of permits (issued at Member States' discretion) allowing the 
removal of fins on board, and from the use of weight ratios in an attempt to verify that finning 
has not occurred. Consequently the following specific problems are identified: 

1.  The Regulation permits processed shark carcasses and fins to be landed in separate ports 
at separate times, making it impossible to physically weigh fins and carcasses against each 
other, thus making it impossible for inspectors to be certain that finning has not occurred. 
Inspectors must rely on the figures recorded in the logbook. Such separate landings by EU 
vessels  occur  in  ports  worldwide  with  varying  levels  of  control.  Furthermore,  the 
Regulation does not require that landings be made in designated ports19, where appropriate 
inspection services are available at all times. 

2.  To  verify  the  compliance  with  the  5%  fin  to  carcass  live  weight  ratio,  inspectors  must 
compare  the  total  weight  of  landed  shark  carcasses  and  the  total  weight  of  landed  fins. 

19The designation of ports is encouraged by RFMO's or imposed by various regulations (e.g. the Mediterranean 
Regulation), on EU Member States and/or non-EU states.   

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
10

Given  that  after  processing  sharks  are  no  longer  whole,  inspectors  must  use  conversion 
factors  to  calculate  the  equivalent  live  weight  based  on  the  dressed  (processed)  weight. 
Fin  to  carcass  weight  ratios  are  different  for  each  species  and  may  even  vary  within  a 
species,  depending  on  location  and  life  stage.  Freezing  and/or  drying  of  fins  before 
inspection  may  change  the  weight  of  the  fins,  thus  causing  further  deviation  from  the 
theoretical weight ratio. No single ratio can apply to all of these contingencies. Therefore 
the  use  of  a  single  ratio  adds  uncertainty  and  considerable  enforcement  burden.  Once 
again,  when  fins  and  carcasses  are  landed  in  separate  ports  inspectors  must  rely  on  the 
figures  recorded  in  the  logbook  in  order  to  make  the  necessary  weight  conversions  and 
comparisons.  

3.  Fleets  around  the  world  use  different  fin  cutting  techniques  and  retain  different  fin  sets 
from carcasses. The Spanish and Portuguese fleets predominantly catch two species: blue 
shark  (Prionace  glauca  –  87%  of  the  catch  by  weight)  and  shortfin  mako  (Isurus 
oxyrinchus – 10%). They cut fins in such a way as to retain a significant amount of flesh 
attached to the base of the fin. Furthermore, the Spanish and Portuguese fleets retain and 
market both the primary and secondary fins (first and second dorsal, pectoral, pelvic, anal 
as well as the entire tail and caudal peduncle, i.e. the rear part of the spine). The Spanish 
authorities  have  communicated  to  the  Commission  in  their  annual  reports  that  the  5% 
weight ratio does not correspond to the reality of the Spanish commercial fleet, and should 
be  raised  to  6.5%  for  fleets  catching  mostly  blue  shark.  This  position  of  the  Spanish 
authorities is in line with the responses of part of the Spanish longline sector to the public 
consultation.  The  Spanish  authorities  requested  that  different  ratios  be  applied  to  each 
fishery/fleet in order to reflect the variability in ratios, depending on species, location and 
season. The Portuguese authorities communicated to the Commission, in their reports for 
the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 (the 2007 and 2008 reports have not been received yet), 
that given the species caught and the traditional fin-cutting method used by the Portuguese 
fleet, the fin-to-carcass ratio is between 5 and 6% of the live weight. 

Other fleets often retain only  the  primary fins i.e. the  front dorsal, the  pectorals and the 
lower, smaller lobe of the tail). These diverse practices result in significant variations in 
the fin-to-carcass weight ratio.  

Figure 2. Shark fins retained by different fleets. The fins highlighted in dark grey constitute 
the  primary  fin  set,  whereas  those  in  light  grey  constitute  the  secondary  fin  set.  EU  vessels 
holding special fishing permits typically cut and market all fins. 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
11

Table 2. Various fin-to-carcass weight ratios for blue shark processed in different ways, and 
with different fins sets being retained.  

Product 

Wet fins, live weight 
Wet fins, live weight 
Wet fins, live weight 
Wet fins, live weight 
Wet fins, live weight 
Wet fins, live weight 
Wet fins, live weight 
Wet fins, live weight 
Wet fins, live weight 
Wet fins, dressed weight 
Wet fins, dressed weight 
Wet fins, dressed weight 
Wet fins, dressed weight 
Wet fins, dressed weight 
Dry fins, dressed weight 
Dry fins, live weight 

Country/ 
Region 
USA 
USA 
- 
- 
- 
New Zealand 
Spain 
NW Pacific 
Portugal 
- 
- 
USA 
Spain 
Portugal 
USA 
USA 

Fin set 
taken 
Primary 
Primary 
- 
- 
- 
- 
All fins 
All fins 
All fins 
- 
- 
Primary 
All fins 
All fins 
Primary 
Primary 

Fin weight/ carcass 
live weight (%) 
2.16 
2.06 
2.06 
2.16 
2.08 
2.08 
6.53 
6.00 
6.66 
- 
- 
- 
- 
6.56 
- 
0.60 

Fin weight/ carcass 
dressed weight (%) 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
3.74 
4.46 
3.74 
14.72 
- 
1.07 
- 

The  fin  to  live  weight  ratio  for  blue  shark  is  calculated  at  6.0  to  6.7%  by  various  studies20  
based on Spanish processing and fin retention practices, as opposed to 2.1% to 2.2 % as based 
on US and New Zealand practices. The fin to dressed weight ratio for blue shark is calculated 
at 14.7% based on Spanish processing methods, as opposed to 3.7% to 4.5% based on US and 
other  processing  methods.  For  shortfin  mako  the  fin-to-live-weight  ratio  is  4%21  based  on 
Portuguese processing methods, as opposed to 1.7 to 1.8 based on US, New Zealand and other 
processing  methods22  .  The  fin-to-dressed-carcass  weight  ratio  for  shortfin  mako  is  5.8%5 
based on Spanish processing methods, whereas it ranges from 3.0 to 4.4% based on US and 
other processing methods8, 9. Further variability in ratios is introduced depending on the state 
of the fins and flesh, i.e. fresh, frozen, wet and dried. Additionally, ratios vary for each shark 
species.  According  to  NGO's  and  various  researchers  and  academics23,  under  the  current 
weight  ratio  system  it  is  possible  for  fishermen  to  fin  and  high-grade24  sharks  without 
exceeding the ratio defined in the Regulation, thereby avoiding detection or sanction. NGO's 

20 Neves dos Santos M. and Garcia A., 2004. Factors for conversion of fin weight into round weight for the blue 
shark (Prionace glauca). SCRS/2004/101 Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 58(3): 935–941 (2005). 123. 
Mejuto J. and García-Cortés B., 2004. Preliminary relationships between the wet fin weight and body weight of 
some large pelagic sharks caught by the Spanish surface longline fleet. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 56(1): 243–
253. 
Gordievskaya VS (1973) Shark flesh in the food industry. Israel Program for Scientific Transl. IPST Cat. No. 
60080 2. Published for the National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, US Department of Commerce. Washington DC. USA. 
21  Santos,  M.N.  and  Garcia,  A.  2008.  New  data  on  the  ratio  between  fin  and  body  weights  for  shark  species 
caught by the Portuguese surface longline fleet.  Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(5): 1592-1601. 
22  NMFS/NEFSC.  1992.  In  literature,  Jack  Casey,  National  Marine  Fisheries  Service,  Northeast  Fisheries 
Science Center, Narrangansett Laboratory, USA. 
BAREMORE, I.E., B. Winner, N. Kohler, and J. Mello. 2005. Differences in the ratios of fin to carcass weight 
among fourteen species of sharks. Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, 21st annual meeting of the 
American Elasmobranch Society, Tampa, Florida, USA, 6-11 July 2005 (abstract and presentation). 
Cortes, E. and Neer, J.A., 2006. Preliminary Reassessment of the validity of the 5% Fin to Carcass Weight Ratio 
for Sharks. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 59: 1025-1036. 
23  NGO's,  researchers  and  academics  have  made  these  statements  via  various  communications  with  the 
Commission, including the public consultation on the amendment of Council Regulation (EC) 1185/2003. 
24 High grading is a practice of selectively harvesting or landing fish (or fish products such as shark fins) fish so 
that those having the highest quality and/or commanding the highest prices are landed and marketed. Fish or fish 
products not considered of lower quality are discarded overboard. 

EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
12

argue that the current EU ratio is too high. The 5% fin to live weight ratio laid down in the 
Regulation is the most generous ratio in comparison to ratios specified by similar legislation 
worldwide.  The  annual  reports  of  the  Member  States  submitted  in  accordance  with  Article 
6(1)  of  the  Regulation,  indicate  that  some  finning    as  well  as  unauthorized  on-board 
processing  are  taking  place  (see  Annex  III),  but  the  extent  and  frequency  are  difficult  to 
determine. 

4.  Where  on-board  processing  involves  beheading  and  skinning  it  hampers  the  collection 
and/or  verification  of  data  such  as  species  identification,  catch  composition,  age/size 
population  structure  etc.,  which  are  vital  for  the  development  of  management  and 
conservation  measures.  Where  on-board  processing  also  involves  fin  removal  (i.e.  as 
practised by the majority of the EU surface longline fleet), species identification becomes 
virtually impossible in practical terms. In contrast, simple processing which only involves 
evisceration, which is the norm on surface longliners lacking freezer capabilities, allows 
for much more of the relevant data to be collected. 

5.  The  Regulation  imposes  an  annual  reporting  obligation  on  the  Member  States.  The 
majority of Member States have a poor compliance record with this obligation (see Annex 
II).  Member  States  have  never  presented  any  reasons  for  the  late  submission  or  for  the 
absence  of  reports.  It  would  seem  necessary  to  simplify  the  reporting  obligation  to 
facilitate Member State compliance.  

6.  As  mentioned  in  Section  2.1,  another  problem  with  implementation  is  the  fact  that  the 
Regulation  does  not  specify  what  constitutes  valid  justifications  for  Member  States  to 
issue special fishing permits. Consequently there are no uniform guidelines governing the 
issue  of  permits.  However,  in  line  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  the  evaluation  of 
justifications presented to obtain such permits has been left to the Member States.  

In  their  report  for  the  reference  year  2009,  the  UK  authorities  have  stated  that  there  were 
difficulties in identifying correct species codes for the species recorded in the log books, and 
with  regard  to  the  application  of  the  conversion  factors.  In  this  report  the  UK  authorities 
called for a full and thorough analysis of the regulation in view of its amendment with the aim 
of eliminating these problems by implementing a fins-attached landing policy (i.e. Option 3). 

2.5. 

Evolution of the problem 

The current Regulation has been in place since 2003. In accordance with Article 6(2) of the 
Regulation, the Commission produced in December 2005 a report25  on the operation of the 
Regulation  and  on  international  developments  in  that  field.  The  report  concluded  that  the 
Regulation  had  been  implemented  successfully  and  that  it  was  achieving  its  general 
objectives.  It  also  stated  that  Member  States  provided  no  information  to  suggest  that  the 
sector  had  any  significant  difficulties  in  coping  with  the  Regulation.  As  a  result,  it  was 
concluded that the Regulation was not in need of amendment at that time. The obligation to 
produce  such  a  report  was  a  one-time  obligation,  and  therefore  no  such  reports  have  been 
produced by the Commission since 2005. 

25 COM(2005) 700: Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the operation 
of Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels. 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
13

Recent  developments  in  various  international  fora  such  as  the  annual  meetings  of  the 
International  Commission  for  the  Conservation  of  Atlantic  Tunas  (ICCAT)  and  IOTC3  in 
2009, increasingly point out the shortcomings of a weight-ratio-based control system. Based 
on  information  from  various  sources,  including  the  Impact  Assessment3  carried  out  in 
preparation  of  the  EU  Plan  of  Action  for  Sharks,  it  has  become  clear  that  the  current 
Regulation allows potential room for finning, and that obstacles remain in relation to control 
and data collection.  

2.6.  Who is affected? 

Those  primarily  concerned  are  EU  vessels  which  have  received  or  will  receive  special 
permits, from their flag Member State, as permitted by exemption under Council Regulation 
(EC)  1185/2003,  allowing  them  to  remove  the  fins  of  sharks  on  board.  According  to  the 
reports submitted annually to the Commission, in line with the Regulation, only four Member 
States are currently issuing special fishing permits: Spain, Portugal and Cyprus. The United 
Kingdom  Germany  and  Lithuania,  which  issued  permits  in  the  past,  stopped  doing  so  as  of 
2009.  Though the number of permits fluctuates annually Spain issues the largest number of 
permits  by  far  (average  of  181/year),  followed  by  Portugal  (average  of  29/year).  The 
Portuguese authorities issued 49 special fishing permits in 2009 and 45 in 2010, up from 28 in 
2006 (The reports containing this information for 2007 and 2008 have not been submitted by 
the Portuguese authorities to the Commission, to date). Until 2009 the United Kingdom and 
Germany  would  respectively  issue  17  and  5  permits  annually,  on  average.  Lithuania  would 
issue one permit per year. Cyprus issued its first and, to date, only special fishing permit for 
2010. Even though France ranks 12th worldwide and 2nd in the EU in terms of shark landings, 
the  French  authorities  have  never  received  requests  from  the  French  fleet  to  issue  special 
fishing permits.  

Depending  on  the  choice  of  option,  the  workload  of  fisheries  inspectors  and  their  ability  to 
execute  effective  control  and  enforcement  could  be  significantly  affected.  The  workload  of 
national authorities responsible for reporting could also be affected, depending on the choice 
of  option,  but  to  a  limited  extent.  These  effects  are  analyzed  in  more  detail  in  Section  5, 
Analysis  of  Impacts.  Additionally,  conservation  NGO's  and  the  general  public  would  be 
especially satisfied if option 3 were to be chosen. 

EN 

 
 
 
14

Number of special fishing permits issued by each Member State

200

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

150

100

s
t
i

m
r
e
p
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

50

0

CY
DE
ES
LT
PT
UK

UK

PT

DE

CY

LT

UK

PT

PT

UK

UK

UK

DE

CY

LT

DE

CY

LT

DE

CY

LT

DE

CY

LT

CY

DE

UK

CY

DE

UK

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

2008

2009

2010

PT

PT

Table 4. Numbers of surface longline vessels and number of crew 

Vessels with permits (2004-2010 average*) 

Spain 
Portugal 
Lithuania 
Total 

181 
29 
1 
230 

Crew on vessels holding permits  
(2004-2010 average) 
2172 - 2715 
540 - 675 
12 - 15 
2724 - 3405 

*  The  Portuguese  reports  for  2007  and  2008  and  the  Lithuanian  reports  for  2009  and  2010  have  not  been 
submitted to the Commission yet.  

The  data  in  Table  4  are  extracted  from  annual  reports  submitted  by  the  Spanish  and 
Portuguese authorities to the Commission, in line with the Regulation, and from documents 
submitted  to  the  Commission  by  various  Spanish  and  Portuguese  longliner  organisations  in 
response to the public consultation. The number of employees is calculated on the basis that 
each  permit-holding  vessel  (freezer  vessel)  carries  a  crew  of  12  to  15,  as  stated  by  Spanish 
fisheries organisations. According to the same source, freezer vessels operate in the Atlantic, 
Indian and Pacific Oceans and typically carry out fishing trips of at least three months, they 
sever fins from carcasses before freezing, and land in Vigo or in various non-EU ports in the 
North and South Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. A smaller number of non-freezer vessels 
(70 - 80 Spanish and 15 – 30 Portuguese) operate in the Atlantic. Their fishing trips usually 
last slightly over one month and they usually land in Vigo with fins naturally attached. 

Catches of elasmobranchs by the EU fleet are 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 Community Plan of Action on Sharks, adopted by the Commission in February 
20092. Nevertheless there would be some effects, based on the value of catches by region, and 
on the potential importance of these catches on an average vessel basis.  

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
15

Table 5 indicates that income dependency on 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  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%.  

Table 5: Summary of current annual economic benefits from elasmobranch landings  

Value of 
elasmobranch 
landings  
(€ million)  

Contribution 
to total EU-
15 value of 
landings  

Maximum 
EU 
vessels 
involved  

81.19  

5.73  
92.99  

1.22%  

20 458  

0.09%  
1.39%  

32 727  
200  

11.79  

0.18%  

103  

Maximum 
catching 
sector 
employment 

Average 
value of 
catch 
per 
vessel 
(€)  
 3 968   42274 

63140 
3296 

 175  
 464 
946  
 114 
501  

Maximum 
processing/ 
ancillary 
sector 
employment 

28141 

20160 
2039 

Average 
value of 
landings 
per 
employee 
(€) 
1153 

69 
17430 

1960 

1340 

3573 

4.09  

0.06%  

12  

224 

140 

11248 

195.8 

2.93 

53500 

340853 
184889 110894 

51280 

6695 

NE & NW 
Atlantic  
Med  
C & S 
Atlantic  

Indian 
Ocean  

Pacific 
Ocean  

Total/ 
Average 

are 

and 

gear 

gears 

fleets 

Country 

excluded. 

Assumptions and notes of relevance to the above table are as follows:  
1. Gears/vessels assumed as potentially catching shark species in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean 
waters  are  passive  gears  (excluding  traps/pots)  and  towed  gears  (excluding  dredges  and  beach  seines). 
Mobile 
on 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics   
2. Catching and processing/ancillary employment dependent on elasmobranch in North Atlantic and Med, 
estimated  based  on  total  country  employment  in  a)  catching  and  b)  processing/ancillary  (amended  data 
from 2007 European Parliament study), and ratio of vessels in region to total number of vessels in each 
country  
3.  Catching  sector  employment  for  other  regions  based  on  estimated  crew  per  vessel  types,  with 
processing/ancillary  estimates  based  on  the  ratio  of  catching  to  processing/ancillary  employment  from 
2007 European Parliament study  
4. North Atlantic and Mediterranean catches valued at a basket price of euro 1 640/tonnes for skates, rays 
and dogfish (French price), and all other distant water catches at an average price of Euro 2 240/tonne for 
blue shark (based on a landed carcass value of Euro 1 490/tonne in Galicia plus a value for fins (at 5% of 
carcass weight) of Euro 15/kg)  

based 

types 

To  these  direct  economic  benefits  should  be  added  indirect  income  multiplier  benefits 
generated by the processing and ancillary sectors, and second-round multipliers generated by 
other  sectors  of  the  economy.  A  recent  European  Parliament  study26  suggests  that  income 
multipliers in the processing / ancillary sectors across the EU as a whole are in the order of 
1.9  times  the  income  made  in  the  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.  

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
16

Table 6. Main species caught by region, flag of vessel and gear type. The fisheries and species 
primarily concerned by the Regulation are in bold text. 
Region (RFMO)  

Main Gear type  

NE Atlantic (ICES)  

Nationality  
FR, UK, ES, PT, 
IE, BE  

NE Atlantic deep sea  
(ICES)  

UK, DE 

IT, EL, ES, FR 

Mediterranean  

IT, EL, ES, FR 

Trawl 

Trawl, nets  

Gillnet & bottom-
set longline  
Gillnets  

Species  
Various skates, rays and 
small shark species  
Portuguese dogfish, Gulper 
shark  
Smoothhound, tope, spurdog  
Various skates, rays, 
guitarfish and small sharks 

Atlantic (ICCAT)  

Indian Ocean 
(IOTC)  

Pacific Ocean  
(WCPFC)  

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

ES 

Blue shark  

Purse seine, 
Surface longlines 
Purse seine, 
Surface longlines 
Surface longlines  Blue shark 
Surface longlines  Mako, porbeagle 
Purse seine 

Mako, porbeagle 

Purse seine  

Unknown 
Silky shark, mako, porbeagle, 
& oceanic whitetip  
Surface longlines  Blue shark, mako 

Southern Ocean 
(CCAMLR)*  
* The quantities caught annually in the Southern Ocean are negligible (approximately 100 tons). 

Rajiformes & Bathyraja spp.  

Longline  

ES, FR  

Table  7:  Estimated  values  of  elasmobranch  landings  by  EC  fleet.  Catches  by  fleets  that  are 
affected  by  the  Regulation,  accounting  for  approximately  51%  of  the  total  value  of  the 
elasmobranch catch, are highlighted in bold type. 
Unit value 
Landings 
Region  
(€/kg)  
volume  
1.64*  
57 913  

Total Value (million 
€)  
95  

% of total 
value  
49%  

North E&W 
Atlantic  
Mediterranean  
C + S Atlantic  
Indian Ocean  
Pacific Ocean  
Southern Ocean  
Total  

3 914  
34 084  
5 247  
1 826  
100  
103 084  

1.64*  
2.24**  
2.24**  
2.24**  
1.64*  

6  
76  
12  
4  
0.2  
194 

3%  
39%  
6%  
2%  
0.1%  
100% 

- All North Atlantic, and Southern ocean, landings are assumed to be skates, rays and dogfish.  
- All landings from other regions are assumed to be blue shark. In reality 80-90% of the shark catch is blue shark 
- * : average first sale price of sharks and rays species under French Auction in 2006  
- ** : average price of blue shark Prionace glauca at first sale whole in Galicia (1.49€/kg) plus fins valued at 
15€/kg and representing 5% of whole weight 

The  total  EU  catches  of  all  fish  species  in  2005  were  5.6  million  tons,  and  catches  of 
elasmobranchs represent 1.8% of the total, 0.1 million tons. In 2006 the value of the total fish 
landings  of  the  EU-15  was  €6.68  billion 3,  elasmobranch  catches  representing  2.9%  of  this 
value  (i.e.  approximately  €194  million,  base d  on  the  information  in  Table  7  above). 
Approximately 50% of this value, i.e. €97 milli on is derived from shark fisheries which are 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
17

affected  by  the  Regulation,  i.e.  vessels  which  hold  special  fishing  permits  and  carry  out  on 
board  fin  removal.  The  remainder  is  derived  from  vessels  which  land  sharks  with  the  fins 
naturally attached. An estimated 41% percent of the total value of all shark catches made by 
EU vessels consists of catches in the Northeast Atlantic, where most EU landings are skates, 
rays and dogfish. French vessels account for 37% of the value of shark catches made in the 
North  Atlantic  and  Spanish  vessels  for  25%.  Catches  in  the  Central  and  Southern  Atlantic 
(mainly by Spain and Portugal) represent 47% of the total value of EU catches of sharks. In 
the Indian Ocean, again mainly Spain and Portugal account for 6% and in the Pacific, mainly 
Spain accounts for 2%. Almost all landings in the Central and Southern Atlantic, Indian and 
Pacific  Oceans  are  blue  and  mako  shark.  The  Mediterranean  accounts  for  3%  of  the  total 
value  of  EU  shark  catches.  In  the  Southern  Oceans  the  very  small  catches  of  less  than  100 
tonnes per year are mostly rays.  

For  surface  longline  vessels  operating  in  the  Indian  and  Pacific  Oceans,  shark  catches  are 
estimated  to  contribute  around  40%  of  catch  volumes  and  20-25%  of  total  incomes.  In  the 
Central  and  Southern  Atlantic,  shark  catches  of  the  Spanish  surface  longline  fishery  are 
around 65-70% of total catch volumes26 (the remainder being swordfish and tuna), and may 
contribute between  35-45%  of  total catch values. In Northern waters and the Mediterranean 
average individual vessel dependencies are typically between 2-5% of total values. The lack 
of information on specific metiers catching sharks in the North Atlantic makes it impossible 
to have any meaningful estimates about the percentage of income that might be made up of 
elasmobranch catches. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES  

The general objective of the Regulation corresponds to the general objective of the EU Shark 
Action Plan2, which is to enhance shark conservation. Given the vulnerability of these species 
to fishing and the strong financial incentive to fin, the current lack of data on stock status, and 
the  difficulties  intrinsic  to  the  current  derogation  in  the  Regulation,  which  hampers  the 
collection  of  data  and  makes  control  difficult  to  carry  out,  the  main  policy  objective  is  to 
ensure that, in application of the precautionary principle, the conservation of shark stocks is 
enhanced.  Maintaining  stocks  at  healthy  levels  is  key  to  ensuring  the  sustainability  of  the 
economic activities dependent on these stocks. 

In order to achieve this objective more specific objectives are set:  

Facilitation of effective and reliable control.   

Enabling  collection  of  data  critical  to  the  establishment  of  management  measures  and 

stock monitoring. 

Conservation  of  sharks  (particularly  blue  shark  and  shortfin  mako)  by  eliminating  all 
possibility to fin. Where finning occurs, the number of sharks taken per vessel, per fishing trip 
could be as many as 20 times higher before the cargo hold is filled and the vessel is obliged to 

26  Mejuto,  J.,  Garcia-Cortes, B.,  Ramos-Cartelle,  A.,  de  la  Serna,  J.M.  2008.  Scientific  estimations  of  bycatch 
landed by the Spanish surface longline fleet targeting swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in the Atlantic Ocean 
with  special  reference  to  the  years  2005  and  2006.  ICCAT  Standing  Committee  on  Research  and 
Statistics/2008/045. 

- 

- 

- 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
18

- 

- 

land  its  catch.  Pursuing  this  objective  would  ensure  coherence  of  EU  legislation  with 
international rules (in particular FAO, ICCAT and IOTC), which the EU must abide by.   

Simplification  of  the  reporting  format  in  order  to  facilitate  Member  State  compliance 
with  the  reporting  obligation.  This  simplification  could  be  partly  achieved  by  abolishing 
special fishing permits. 

Elimination  of  problems  associated  with  the  lack  of  uniform  guidelines  and 
justifications based on which special fishing permits are issued. This problem would be fully 
solved by abolishing special fishing permits. 

Additionally  these  measures  would  enhance  the  collection  of  data  such  as  species 
identification,  catch  composition,  age/size  population  structure  etc.,  which  are  vital  to  the 
development of effective management and conservation measures.  

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

4.1. 

List of options 

Option 1: Maintaining the 5% fin to live-weight ratio, (i) without, and (ii) with simultaneous 
landings of fins and carcasses. 

Option  2:  Shift  from  the  current  limit  of  5%  fin-to-live-weight  ratio  to  5%  fin-to-dressed-
weight (gutted, beheaded, skinned) ratio. 

Option 3: Fins-remain-attached approach. 

Option 4: Prohibition to take sharks in surface longline fisheries. 

4.2. 

Description of policy options  

Option 1: Maintaining the use of the 5% fin to live-weight ratio 

(i)  The  use  of  the  5%  fin-to-carcass  live  weight  ratio,  without  the  requirement  to  land 
processed carcasses and fins simultaneously or at the same port.  

(ii) The use of the 5% fin-to-carcass live weight ratio, combined with the requirement to land 
processed carcasses and fins simultaneously, at the same port. 

Option  1(i)  amounts  to  maintaining  the  status  quo,  i.e.  on-board  processing  would  still  be 
permitted  on  vessels  holding  processing  permits.  Where  fins  and  carcasses  are  landed 
simultaneously  at  the  same  port  they  would  have  to  be  weighed  to  check  whether  the  fin 
weight exceeds 5% of the live weight of the sharks, in order to determine whether finning has 
occurred.  When  fins  and  carcasses  are  landed  separately,  the  inspector  must  rely  on  the 
information recorded in the logbook. 

Option 1(ii) allows for direct inspection and weighing of both fins and carcasses. Under this 
option  it  is  not  necessary  to  rely  only  on  the  logbooks  to  determine  the  fin-carcass  weight 
correspondence.  

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
19

Option  2:  Shift  from  the  current  limit  of  5%  fin  to  live  weight  ratio  to  5%  fin  to  dressed 
(typically beheaded, eviscerated and skinned) carcass ratio and require that fins and carcasses 
are landed simultaneously at the same port 

Given that the dressed weight can be roughly equal to half the live weight, such a shift would 
halve  the  amount  of  fins  a  vessel  would  be  allowed  to  retain  on  board.  Similarly  to  Option 
1(ii),  Option  2  would  allow  for  direct  inspection  and  weighing  of  both  fins  and  carcasses, 
eliminating  reliance  on  logbooks  when  checking  for  compliance  with  the  maximum  fin-
carcass weight ratio. 

Option 3: Fins-remain-attached approach: 

Keeping fins naturally attached to the carcass makes it impossible for finning to take place. In 
order to facilitate on-board storage, the fins could be partly sliced through and folded against 
the carcass, as is practiced in some fisheries in North, Central and South America. Option 3 
would mean that special fishing permits would no longer be issued and no derogations would 
be permitted under any circumstances. 

Option 4: Prohibition to take sharks in surface longline fisheries 

This  prohibition  would  mean  that  sharks  cannot  be  retained,  transhipped  or  landed  by 
longliners.  Technical measures and fishing practices would have to be significantly changed 
to respect this prohibition, as sharks constitute 40-70% of longliners' catches by volume (25-
47% of the catch value). 

Options discussed and rejected in RFMO's: 

At the meeting of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) in Bali in April-May 200927, 
the  EU  and  Australia  jointly  proposed  alternatives  to  the  IOTC  fin  to  carcass  weight  ratio. 
One  approach  involved  placing  severed  fins  in  plastic  bags  which  would  be  physically 
attached  to  the  corresponding  shark  body.  This  approach  was  heavily  criticized  by  NGO's 
based on risks for marine pollution and wildlife  entanglement  as  well as substantial hurdles 
for enforcement. It was also rejected by the fishing industry as impractical. A proposal to use 
biodegradable bags was also rejected, both by NGO's and by the industry. The other solution 
proposed  by  the  EU  involved  marking  severed  fins  and  corresponding  carcasses  with 
matching serial numbers and then storing the parts separately. This approach was also heavily 
criticized and rejected as impractical and difficult to implement.  

Other options which were considered and rejected: 

1. An increase in the current fin-to-carcass weight ratio to 6.6% for blue shark, in line with the 
demands of the Spanish and Portuguese longlining sector: this option considered and rejected 
prior  to  formulating  the  public  consultation  document.  The  fin-to-carcass  weight  ratio 
established  in  the  EU  regulation  (5%  of  the  live  weight)  constitutes  the  most  relaxed 

27 Report of  the 13th Session of IOTC, Bali, Indonesia, 2009, 
http://www.iotc.org/files/proceedings/2009/s/IOTC-2009-S13-R[E].pdf  

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
20

interpretation of the binding agreement established in ICCAT and IOTC, which refers to 5% 
of the weight of sharks on board. Other countries using ratios have interpreted this as 5% of 
the  dressed  carcass  weight,  which  is  roughly  one  half  of  the  live  weight.  Additionally,  a 
second  ratio  would  have  to  be  established  for  shortfin  mako.  Once  processed,  it  will  be 
difficult for inspectors to differentiate the fins and carcasses of the two species, thus making it 
impossible to know which ratio to apply. Furthermore, most of the shark species making up 
the remaining 2-5% (approx.) of the catch have a smaller fin-to-carcass weight ratio, and this 
would  create  some  margin  for  discarding  carcasses.  Finally,  a  move  from  an  already 
permissive rule to a yet more relaxed rule would evoke a strong negative reaction from NGO's 
and the general public. 

2.  Imposition  of  catch  limits:  The  EU  made  a  proposal  for  the  establishment  of  a  TAC  for 
shortfin  mako  at  the  most  recent  ICCAT  meeting  (November,  2010).  The  establishment  of 
TAC's would be more meaningful in the RFMO context than in EU waters or exclusively for 
EU vessels the bulk of blue shark and shortfin mako are caught outside EU waters. 

3. Allowing only simultaneous landing at the same designated ports: A designated port is one 
in which inspection facilities and personnel are available 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, 
as necessary. Ports are designated by the national authorities of the country in question, and 
are designated by species according to the priorities of the concerned country. The EU does 
not have the authority to demand that third countries, such as the dozens of non-EU countries 
where  the  EU  fleet  lands  shark  carcasses  and  fins,  designate  ports  specific  to  the 
implementation of the EU regulation. Such designations would be practically and financially 
difficult to sustain. 

4.  Changing  the  regulation  only  after  internationally  agreeing  on  one  preferred  option:  The 
purpose of this Impact Assessment is to determine the best option for the EU prior to making 
international commitments.  

5. Discontinuing the regulation: this would make finning legal. It is therefore not an option. 

6. Banning longline fisheries: this measure is considered highly disproportionate as it would 
have  significant  negative  social-economic  impacts  on  the  longline  sector  and  the  associated 
industries. 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

5.1. 

Economic and social importance of elasmobranch fisheries in the EU 

Given  the  data  deficiencies,  the  mixed  nature  of  many  shark  fisheries  and  the  other  factors 
described in Section 2, it is  difficult to make a meaningful assessment of the economic and 
social  benefits  of  catches  in  the  EU.  Therefore  it  is  impossible  to  make  a  quantitative 
assessment  of  the  socio-economic  impacts  of  the  proposed  policy  options  on  the  surface 
longlining sector, which is the sector most concerned by this Regulation.  

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
21
Nevertheless,  some  very  crude  estimates  of  the  value  of  landings28  by  the  EU  fleet  are 
possible  based  on  certain  assumptions.  A  very  high  proportion  of  landings  from  catches  in 
each  region  are  made  up  of  one  species  or  reporting  category.  In  the  North  Atlantic,  most 
landings are skates, rays and dogfish caught by various gears, other than surface longlines. In 
the Central and Southern Atlantic, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, almost all landings are 
mako and blue shark caught by surface longliners which hold the vast majority of the special 
fishing permits. In the Southern Oceans, the small catches that are made are mostly rays. The 
strong concentration of landings in each region of one species means that approximate values 
of landings can be estimated by multiplying the landings in each region by an average price 
for the dominant species in that region, as shown in Table 7, in Section 2.6.  

The  economic  value,  the  number  of  vessels  and  employees  that  could  be  dependent  upon 
elasmobranch catches are summarised in the tables in Section 2. Given the lack of available 
data  and  the  mixed  nature  of  fisheries  in  the  North  Atlantic  and  the  Mediterranean,  it  is 
impossible to state with accuracy the number of vessels actually relying on shark catches in 
these areas. As sharks, skates and rays are often reported in the same category, it is unclear 
what proportion of the North Atlantic and Mediterranean catches each of these accounts for. 
The elasmobranch catches of surface longliners only comprise sharks.  

The  rate  of  infringement  of  the  regulation  is  indicated  in  Annex  III,  based  on  information 
submitted  by  national  authorities  as  part  of  the  annual  reporting  obligation  imposed  by  the 
regulation.  Infringements  are  committed  both  by  vessels  which  hold  special  fishing  permits 
and  by  vessels  which  do  not.  Though  the  information  supplied  in  the  annual  reports  is  not 
uniform  or  complete,  the  majority  of  infringements  appear  to  be  committed  by  EU  vessels. 
Non-EU  vessels  which  practice  finning  seem  to  avoid  landing  in  EU  ports  where  controls 
might be more difficult to evade than in certain non-EU ports. 

One-off  costs  would  be  incurred  by  all  Member  State  fishery  departments  associated  with 
informing  vessels  of  the  new  regulations  and  by  vessel  operators  familiarizing  themselves 
with  the  new  regulations.  However,  these  costs  and  the  associated  administrative  burden 
would be outweighed in the long run, provided that fishing permits are abolished. 

5.2. 

Impacts of each policy option  

Option  1(i):  Maintaining  the  5%  fin  to  live-weight  ratio,  continuing  to  allow  separate 
landings of fins and carcasses  

Under  option  1  (i)  control  would  remain  ineffective  and  it  would  remain  difficult  to  ensure 
that finning has not occurred. This applies in particular where fins and carcasses are landed 
separately and inspectors must rely only on the logbook. 

Environmental and stock impacts  

28 The value of landings is referred to, instead of the value of catches, because discard levels are generally not 
known, though they are thought to be significant in some fisheries. 

EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
22

The use of ratios greatly hinders the work of inspectors attempting to apply these to processed 
carcasses  which  are  difficult  to  identify  at  the  species  level.  It  is  therefore  unrealistic  to 
attempt  to  establish  a  ratio  that  would  apply  to  all  species,  all  cutting  and  fin-retention 
methods, and to all preservation methods. Establishing several ratios to cover all permutations 
of  species  (including  intra-specific  variations  based  on  life  stage  and  location),  cutting  and 
fin-retention practices, and all preservation methods could be possible, but applying these in 
an  attempt  to  ensure  control  and  compliance  would  be  logistically  very  difficult  and 
ineffective.  A  major  feature  of  the  interaction  of  shark  population  and  fisheries  across  the 
oceans is that it is not entirely clear what the status of the stocks of blue shark and shortfin 
mako  is.  The  data  gaps,  particularly  at  species  level,  produce  an  incomplete  picture.  Catch, 
landing and trade data are poor or patchy and many of the demersal shark catches are not from 
targeted fisheries, but bycatch. Shark fisheries, per se, are consequently often not subject to 
direct  regulation,  and  landings  reported  are  thought  to  be  significantly  less  than  the  actual 
catches,  due  to  high  rates  of  discarding  by  some  (non-EU)  fleets.  No  systematic  data  on 
discard  rates  can  be  found  in  the  published  domain.  Some  high  discard  rates  (e.g.  60%)  by 
non-EU fleets are reported, and this is compounded by the practice of finning and discarding 
the carcass. There are indications that the actual catches for finning alone might be four times 
higher than FAO landing data. There is little information on whether the EU surface longline 
fleet  is  finning  sharks.  According  to  industry  representatives  and  the  relevant  Spanish  and 
Portuguese  authorities,  these  surface  longliners  utilize  all  parts  of  the  shark.  There  is  no 
relevant information on the activities of French surface longliners, and the French authorities 
have never received requests to issue on-board processing permits, though it is believed that 
the crews of the French fleet remove shark fins on board, as a source of additional income3. 
Maintaining the status quo would lead to a continuation of declines already observed in some 
populations and, presumably, declines suspected in others29. However, the true status of most 
elasmobranch  populations  remains  uncertain  due  to  lack  of  stock-specific  information, 
particularly  over  significant  time  series.  This  has  lead  to  disputes  in  some  areas  over  the 
extent  of  stock  declines,  for  example  in  the  NW  Atlantic30,  31,  32,  33).  Due  to  a  lack  of 
information on the status of most stocks, ICES and some RMFO's have imposed catch limits 
based  on  catch  trends.  ICCAT  (2007)  reported  up  to  a  50%  catch  reduction  for  Isurus 
oxyrinchus.  It  is  also  clear  that  the  international  trade  in  shark  and  shark  products  is 
increasing, thus providing a driver for continued fishing pressure, which is likely to continue 
in the future26.  

Most large pelagic sharks, including blue shark and shortfin mako, are apex predators, which 
typically  have  a  significant  regulatory  effect  on  populations  in  the  lower  trophic  levels. 
Consequently the reduction or elimination of these two species is expected to have an impact 
on  other  species  and  on  the  ecosystem  as  a  whole.  These  effects  can  be  complex  and  may 
result  in  a  reduction  in  the  biodiversity  and  the  resilience  of  the  ecosystem  in  question34. 

29 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a European Community 
Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. February, 2009.  
30 Kehler, B. Worm, S.J. Harley, and P.A. Doherty (2003). Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the 
Northwest Atlantic. Science 299:389–392. 
31 Baum, J. K., Kehler, D. and Myers, R. A. (2005). Robust estimates of decline for pelagic shark populations in 
the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Fisheries, 30: 27–30. Baum, J.K., R.A. Myers, D.G. 
32 Burgess, G. H., Beerkircher, L. R., Cailliet, G. M., 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. 
33 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. 

EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
23

Option 1(i) and 1(ii) are expected to have a negative impact on sharks stocks, and probably 
other stocks in lower trophic levels, starting in the short term and becoming more severe in 
the long term.  

Whilst the EU may not be the main source of fishing mortality in external waters, maintaining 
the  status  quo  would  diminish  the  influence  of  the  EU  in  international  fora  where  shark 
management and conservation measures are decided. 

Economic impacts  

Option 1(i) (continuation of the status quo) would have no immediate economic impacts on 
the fishing sector, or on the secondary activities associated with the fishery. However, given 
that  declines  in  catches  have  already  been  observed  in  some  areas,  particularly  for  shortfin 
mako  as  mentioned  above  under  "Environmental  and  Stock  Impacts",  it  is  likely  that  a 
negative economic impact will be observed in the medium to long term, due to diminishing 
catches. The magnitude of this impact is difficult to quantify due to variations in the status of 
shortfin mako stocks in different regions (see Annex I). A reduction in shortfin mako catches 
could be offset by increased catches of other species, to an unknown extent.  

Of the options presented in the public consultation, Option 1(i) would be the most acceptable 
to  the  sector,  though  the  majority  of  their  contributions  call  for  alternative  option,  i.e.  an 
increase  in  the  fin-to-carcass  weight  allowance,  as  described  below  in  the  "Economic 
Impacts" of Option 2. 

Social Impacts 

As stated above in "Environmental impacts" and "Economic impacts" sections, Option 1(i) is 
expected  to  lead  to  diminished  catches  of  shortfin  mako,  which  are  likely  to  become  more 
pronounced  in  the  mid  and  long  term.  Blue  shark  stocks  are  likely  to  withstand  the  current 
fishing  pressure  longer  than  shortfin  mako  stocks,  though  not  indefinitely.  The  impact  of 
reduced catches on employment in the surface longlining sector is difficult to quantify, though 
it is not expected to be significant, especially in the in the short term. This is because shortfin 
mako makes up approximately 10% of the catch, and if depleted, other species would likely 
be caught instead. Here again it is difficult to quantify any effects on employment, though a 
minor negative impact is expected in the short term, perhaps becoming more pronounced in 
the long term as stocks decline. 

Option 1(ii): Maintaining the 5% fin to live-weight ratio, but requiring simultaneous landings 
of fins and carcasses at the same port 

Under option 1 (ii) control would become more effective as fins and carcasses can be weighed 
during  an  inspection,  rather  than  relying  on  information  recorded  in  a  logbook.    However, 
once carcasses have been processed it is extremely difficult to be sure that all the fins landed 
correspond to the carcasses landed.  The relative value of fins and of flesh varies by species, 
and less valuable flesh could still be discarded, though the margin for this is restricted by the 
enforcement of the weight ratio. 

Environmental and stock impacts 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
24

Option  1(ii)  has  the  same  disadvantages  as  Option  1(i)  as  far  as  the  use  of  weight  ratios  is 
concerned,  incurring  the  same  negative  environmental  and  stock  impacts  in  that  respect,  as 
described above.  

Economic Impacts 

Option 1(ii) is likely to have similar mid and long term impacts as Option 1(i). Option 1(ii) 
would also have a direct negative impact in the short and medium term, which would result 
from  the  obligation  to  simultaneously  land  fins  and  carcasses  in  the  same  port,  possibly 
preventing  vessels  from  obtaining  the  best  prices  at  first  landing.  At  a  meeting  between  the 
Spanish longliner representatives and Commission services in September 2010, the longliners' 
representatives  stated  that  they  may  be  willing  to  accept  simultaneous  landings  at  the  same 
port. This would suggest that the negative economic impact would be moderate. This impact 
might be alleviated (to an unknown extent) by potentially simplified logistics and fuel savings 
resulting  from  a  trip  to  a  single  port  rather  than  two  or  more  ports.  It  is  expected  that  the 
magnitude of this negative impact would be reduced over time, as marketing channels adapt 
to the new situation. 

Social Impacts 

Option 1(ii) will have similar impacts as Option 1(i). Additionally Option 1(ii) might result in 
a moderate reduction in profit margins in the short term, which is likely to diminish over time. 
Here again it is not possible to quantify any effects on employment, though a minor negative 
impact is expected in the short term, perhaps becoming more pronounced in the long term as 
stocks decline. 

Option  2:  Shift  from  the  current  limit  of  5%  fin  to  live  weight  ratio  to  5%  fin  to  dressed 
carcass ratio. Fins and carcasses are landed simultaneously in the same port. 

Given that the current processing and fin retention practices of the EU fleet would not change, 
Option  2  would  eliminate  the  possibility  to  discard  carcasses  at  sea35,  as  it  significantly 
reduces  the  fin  to  carcass  allowance.  For  most  species,  including  blue  shark  and  shortfin 
mako, a shift from a limit of 5% of the live weight to 5% of the dressed weight constitutes a 
reduction  of  the  fin  to  carcass  ratio  by  approximately  50%.  The  simultaneous  landing 
requirements would enhance the ability to measure and thereby enforce the ratio. Inspectors 
would  not  be  limited  to  using  information  in  logbooks.  The  possibility  to  fin  is  reduced, 
though  not  eliminated.  All  problems  associated  with  the  use  of  ratios,  as  described  in  the 
analysis of impacts of Option 1(i), also apply to Option 2. 

Environmental and stock impacts 

The  impacts  of  Option  2  on  the  stock  and  subsequently  on  the  environment  are  difficult  to 
predict.  Depending  on  the  reaction  of  the  sector  to  such  a  measure,  the  environmental  and 
stock effects might be similar to the environmental and stock effects resulting from Options 
1(i) and 1(ii); i.e. if the sector fails to adapt their processing practices (fins retained, types of 
cuts  etc.)  so  as  to  bring  the  weight  of  fins  on  board  below  5%  of  the  dressed  weight,  they 

35  Given  that  the  current  catch  composition,  processing  methods  and  fin  retention  practices  of  the  EU  fleet 
remain the same. 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
25

would be forced to discard an unknown proportion of the fins, thus loosing an unknown, but 
potentially  significant  amount  of  income  as  described  under  "Economic  Impacts"  below. 
Conversely, the sector might adapt fishing practices so as to avoid catching sharks in the first 
place, thus avoiding the loss of income that would be incurred by being forced to discard fins. 
In that case, a positive impact on  the stocks  and on the  environment would  be  expected, as 
those stocks which have already been negatively affected would start to recover. However, in 
order to make up for the income lost, the sector may increasingly target stocks of swordfish, 
tuna etc. some of which are depleted to various extents throughout the world. Given that these 
species occupy a similar ecological niche as sharks, the effects of their increased mortality on 
the  environment  will  be  negative,  and  likely  significant.  The  magnitude  of  these  negative 
effects would likely increase over time. These potential effects cannot be quantified as there 
are a number of variables coming into play, which would dictate how much more swordfish 
and tuna could and would be caught, e.g. differentiation of fishing activities in space and time, 
differentiation  of  gears,  effects  of  shifting  stock  abundance  on  inter-  and  intra-specific 
competition etc.  

Economic impacts 

Option 2 would only affect the Spanish and Portuguese long-distance surface longline vessels. 
Based on the current fin-cutting and fin-set retention practices of these fleets, the 5% fin-to-
live-weight ratio is slightly exceeded for blue shark, which makes up about 85% of the total 
shark catch. Option 2 would reduce the fin-to-carcass ratio by about 50%, thus making it very 
difficult to comply with under the current circumstances. However, some studies (Fowler and 
Seret,  20109)  suggest  that  improving  cutting  techniques,  i.e.  cutting  fins  so  that  no  flesh 
remains attached to the fin, can significantly reduce the fin-to-carcass weight ratio.  Thus the 
ratio for some species may fall below 5% of the dressed carcass weight. Due to a number of 
other factors affecting the ratio (retaining all fins or only primary fins, drying of fins, varying 
practises  in  'dressing'  the  carcass,  i.e.  beheading,  skinning,  evisceration  etc),  a  range  of 
different ratios could be calculated for each species. Blue shark which makes up 80 to 85% of 
the EU surface longliners' catch has one of the highest fin-to-carcass ratios (up to 6.5% of the 
live weight or 14% of the dressed weight). It must be noted that improved cutting techniques 
singularly employed, would not bring the fin-to-dressed-carcass ratio of blue shark below 5%.  
Studies  (Fowler  and  Seret,  20109)  also  suggest  that  improved  cutting  techniques  could 
eliminate the necessity to re-process at a later stage (i.e. trim the flesh off the fins) and reduce 
the weight of fins that must be transported, thus leading to significant savings. Furthermore, 
buyers would pay a higher unit price for well-trimmed fins.  It is, however, unclear whether 
the sector would be willing and able to adapt their practices in such a way as to bring the fin-
to-carcass  weight  ratio  below  5%  of  the  dressed  weight.  If  they  fail  to  do  so  they  may  be 
forced to discard an unknown proportion of the fins on board, thus losing a portion of their 
income,  which  is  difficult  to  calculate.  However,  given  that  none  of  the  contributions 
submitted by the sector in response to the public consultation supported Option 2, and given 
that  the  sector  has  requested  several  times  in  the  recent  past  that  the  fin-to-carcass  weight 
allowance  be  raised,  it  can  be  assumed  that  this  loss  would  be  significant.  This  loss  would 
occur  in  the  short  term  and  persist  in  the  long  term.  Additionally,  as  with  Option  1(ii),  the 
obligation  to  land  fins  and  carcasses  simultaneously  in  the  same  port  will  probably  incur  a 
short to mid term negative economic impact, which is likely to be modest, and which is likely 
to diminish over time. 

It should be noted that the Spanish longlining sector has, for several years, been calling for an 
increase  in  the  fin-to-carcass  ratio,  from  5%  of  the  live  weight  to  6.5%  (i.e.  14%  of  the 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
26

dressed weight, according to their calculations). As a justification they cite the following: (a) 
approximately  85% of their  catch is blue shark (which has one of the  highest fin-to-carcass 
weight ratios), (b) they retain both primary and secondary fins, as well as the entire tail with 
the caudal peduncle still attached to it (see Figure 2), and (c) they cut fins in a manner which 
results in significant amounts of flesh remaining attached to them. The ratio proposed by the 
Spanish longline sector is the absolute maximum applying to blue shark, processed under the 
conditions described above; this ratio would be significantly higher than any ratio applicable 
to  the  remaining  15%  of  their  catch.  Such  an  increase  would  constitute  a  weakening  of  the 
Regulation,  rather  than  a  strengthening.  In  addition  to  the  disadvantages  of  using  ratios, 
described in the text above, it must be mentioned that EU vessels have been found to be in 
breach of the 5% dressed-weight ratio, which is applied by countries which are ICCAT and 
IOTC members. In 2009 and 2010 there were two such instances, where EU vessels landing 
in Durban (South Africa) and in Cape Verde were accused by the relevant national authorities 
of  having  significantly  exceed  the  fin-to-carcass  weight  allowance.  Following  exchanges  of 
letters  between  the  European  Commission  and  these  national  authorities,  an  interim 
agreement  was  made,  allowing  these  vessels  to  carry  out  landings  in  these  ports,  provided 
they respected the 5% fin-to-live weight ratio imposed by the EU Regulation, despite the fact 
that  other  vessels  landing  in  these  and  other  ports  are  subject  to  the  more  restrictive  5% 
dressed-weight ratio. This interim arrangement was accepted due to the fact that the ICCAT 
and  IOTC  rules  refer  to  5%  of  the  weight  of  the  catch  on  board,  without  making  any 
distinction  between  live  and  dressed  weight  of  the  catch.  Given  the  interim  nature  of  this 
arrangement,  and the  difficulty  faced  by the Commission in achieving it, it can be assumed 
that any request for further relaxation of international rules in favour of EU vessels would not 
be  easy  to  justify.  An  increase  of  the  fin-to-carcass  weight  ratio  should  therefore  not  be 
considered.  

Social Impacts 

A  moderate  to  significant  negative  impact  on  employment  might  be  expected  if  the  sector 
fails to adapt its fin cutting methods and fin retention practices. If these practices are adjusted 
as  described  in  the  "Economic  impacts"  section  above,  this  impact  would  be  significantly 
reduced. The impact is expected to occur in the short term and persist through the long term. 
It is not possible to quantify the impact in terms of job losses or individual income. 

Option 3: Fins-remain-attached approach 

Having carried out the impact assessment and the public consultation, option 3 is the preferred 
option. 

Environmental and stock impacts 

Under Option 3, finning would become impossible. High-grading (mixing of bodies and fins 
from  different  animals  and  the  associated  discarding)  would  also  become  impossible.  Data 
collection  which  is  vital  to  establishing  management  and  conservation  measures  would  be 
greatly enhanced. The direct positive impact on shark stocks and on the environment is likely 
to be limited as regards the EU surface longlining fleet which seems to be discarding little or 
no  part  of  their  shark  catch;  this  impact  may  be  more  significant  vis-à-vis  third  country 
vessels  landing  part  or  all  of  their  shark  catch  in  EU  ports.  However,  the  indirect  positive 
impact resulting from enhanced data collection, and the subsequent establishment of effective 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
27

management and conservation measures, is likely to be significant in the mid and long term. 
A second indirect positive impact would be the strengthened position of the EU if it where to 
propose the adoption of Option 3 or similar measures in the international arena, in the future. 
In  the  recent  past  the  EU  has  not  been  in  a  position  to  create  momentum  or  support 
momentum created by other parties pushing for a fins-naturally-attached policy in the RFMO 
arena  (in  ICCAT  and  IOTC  in  particular).  Option  3  was  unanimously  supported  by  NGO's 
responding to the public consultation, as well as by the vast majority of the public. 

Economic impacts 

Under  Option  3  control  would  be  greatly  facilitated  and  the  enforcement  burden  would  be 
greatly reduced. The administrative burden linked to the issue of on-board processing permits 
(under option 3 no special fishing permits would be issued) would be eliminated permanently 
and  the  associated  reporting  obligations  would  be  simplified,  though  the  associated  savings 
would  not  be  significant.  Currently  only  Spain  and  Portugal  issue  significant  numbers  of 
special  fishing  permits.  As  of  2009  Germany,  Lithuania  and  the  United  Kingdom  have 
stopped issuing permits, whereas Cyprus issued its first permit in 2010. It is assumed that the 
Spanish and Portuguese authorities are burdened with a few man-hours or man-days of work 
per year in issuing permits and in producing annual reports, whereas the burden for Cyprus is 
estimated  to  be  much  smaller.  The  administrative  burden  for  the  remainder  of  the  Member 
States  is  negligible  as  they  simply  forward  short  statements  to  the  Commission,  year  after 
year, stating that they do not issue permits and in many cases that their vessels do not catch 
sharks. 

No significant economic impact on the industry is expected in connection with Option 3, as 
this would not significantly affect costs related to catching, processing and on-board storage 
and handling for those operators that are in compliance with the current prohibition to discard 
carcasses.  The  representatives  of  the  Spanish  and  Portuguese  longlining  industry  have 
repeatedly  pointed  out  (in  writing  and  during  various  meetings)  various  potential  practical 
problems  associated  with  the  fins-attached  approach.  However,  they  have  never  given  an 
indication  of  the  potential  financial  cost  associated  with  the  fins-attached  approach.  The 
problems they cite are the following: 

• Cargo space would be wasted.  

• Frozen sharks with their fins attached are difficult to handle and threaten the safety of 

the crew, as frozen fins protruding from the sharks carcasses are quite sharp.  

• If carcasses are processed in third country ports their customs status changes, both for 

the fins and the meat. 

• Removing  fins  from  frozen  carcasses  in  non-EU  ports  lacking  cold-storage  facilities 
would  break  the  cold  chain,  thus  causing  a  deterioration  of  the  flesh  as  well  as 
associated health risks to the consumer. 

There  are  practical  solutions  to  all  of  these  problems.  Provided  that  the  sector  is  willing  to 
partly slice through and fold fins against the body, as done in similar shark fisheries in other 
countries  (e.g.  Costa  Rica),  the  first  two  problems  cited  by  the  sector  can  be  fully  solved. 
Slicing  partly  through  the  fins  and  folding  them  against  the  carcass  yields  a  cylindrically-
shaped  carcass,  similar  to  that  produced  when  the  fins  are  removed.  This  prevents  loss  of 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
28

storage space and associated loss of income. Given that the fins are folded against the carcass, 
the  safety  and  handling  issues  cited  by  the  sector  are  also  eliminated.  The  third  objection 
raised by the sector is invalid. As far as the products are destined to be reintroduced into EU 
territory,  the  Community  Customs  Code  establishes  that  fishery  products  caught  by  EU 
vessels outside of the territorial waters of third countries are to be considered of EU origin, as 
are the products which have been processed on board EU vessels. The processing taking place 
on board surface  longliners  with  special fishing permits does not alter the origin of the fins 
and carcasses. Therefore, removing fins in a non-EU port and then shipping them off to Vigo 
or Las Palmas, as is commonly done, is not expected to hamper Spain's current trade activity 
of such products. The fourth problem could be solved by landing in ports where cold storage 
is available, though this would limit the number of ports the Spanish fleet currently lands its 
catch in. The EU longlining sector is aware of these potential solutions to the problems cited, 
as  these  solutions  are  being  employed  by  similar  shark  fisheries,  in  particular  in  North, 
Central and South America, and have been promoted by NGO's in the RFMO framework. The 
EU  longlining  sector  has  not  informed  the  Commission  of  their  views  on  these  potential 
solutions nor have they detailed any potential costs thereof. 

Considering that these issues can be effectively addressed, option 3 will not have a significant 
negative  impact  for  operators  that  are  in  compliance  with  the  current  prohibition  to  discard 
carcasses. Additionally, landing sharks with their fins attached in non-EU ports where the 5% 
dressed weight rule applies instead of the 5% live weight rule would permanently solve the 
problem of EU vessels being held in breach of the dressed weight rule (See Economic Impacts 
of Option 2 in this Section). The current arrangement allowing EU vessels to land in two non-
EU  ports  (Durban  and  Cape  Verde)  where  the  5%  dressed  weight  rule  applies  is  only  an 
interim  arrangement,  which  is  in  place  until  a  definitive  agreement  is  made  among  ICCAT 
members. In recent years there has been increased support for a fins-attached policy by some 
ICCAT members. 

Social impact 

Option 3 is not expected to have a significant negative impact on employment in fleets which 
are in compliance with the current Regulation, provided that the sector is willing to employ 
the  various  adaptations  listed  in  Section  5.  In  particular,  the  potential  hazard  to  crews 
handling  frozen  carcasses  with  protruding  fins  can  easily  be  eliminated  as  described  in  the 
"Economic  impacts"  section  above.  The  effect  on  employment  cannot  be  quantified,  but  is 
expected to be marginal.  

Option 4: Prohibition to take sharks in surface longline fisheries 

Option 4 did not feature in the public consultation. It was only conceived following after the 
consultation  was  completed,  as  a  result  of  numerous  calls  from  the  public  calling  for  rather 
drastic  conservation  measures.  It  would  probably  have  the  greatest  positive  impact  on 
conservation of the two main species caught by surface longliners, while having the greatest 
negative impact on the sector. However, it goes beyond the scope of the current Regulation, 
which  is  limited  to  the  removal,  retention  and  transhipment  of  sharks  and  shark  fins.  The 
prohibition to take sharks is only being considered here in respect to surface longliners, as it 
could  be  implemented  via  relatively  simple  technical  measures  or  modification  of  fishing 
practices.  Such  a  prohibition  would  be  virtually  impossible  to  implement  on  trawlers, 
gillnetters, purse seiners etc. without completely shutting down those fisheries.  

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Environmental and stock impacts 

29

Of the four options, Option 4 would have by far the most significant positive impact on the 
environment and on the two main shark stocks taken by surface longliners. However, as the 
Regulation  would  not  apply  to  non-EU  vessels  fishing  outside  EU  waters,  the  conservation 
benefit  for  these  two  species  might  be  rather  limited  on  a  global  scale.  The  impact  would 
manifest itself in the medium term, becoming more significant in the long term. Furthermore, 
Option  4  would  require  taking  measures  to  avoid  targeting  sharks,  which  if  unsuccessful, 
could result in significant shark discards. 

A rather simple selectivity measure which is already being employed by EU fleets, depending 
on fishing location and on season, is the alternation between steel and monofilament leaders. 
Whilst sharks are easily able to cut monofilament/nylon lines with their teeth and thus escape 
after taking the bait, they are unable to cut steel lines. Using steal leaders approximately 40cm 
long,  to  which  the  baited  hook  is  attached,  ensures  that  sharks  remain  on  the  line.  When 
nylon/monofilament  leaders  are  used  exclusively,  the  catch  comprises  almost  exclusively 
swordfish,  tuna  and  other  teleost  species,  whilst  few  or  no  sharks  remain  on  the  line. 
Fishermen  alternate  between  steel  and  nylon  leaders,  or  varying  proportions  of  each, 
according  to  the  fishing  grounds  and  the  time  of  year  (personal  communication  with  vessel 
operators  in  Vigo,  September  2010).  It  can  be  inferred  that  in  areas/seasons  where  sharks 
predominate, the use of nylon/monofilament would result in bait and hook loss with little or 
no catch.  

Specially  designed  hooks  could  also  be  used  in  order  to  avoid  hooking  sharks.  The 
effectiveness of such a measure is not well documented and its potential effectiveness cannot 
be stated here. 

Alternatively,  sharks  could  be  released  from  the  longlines  upon  or  before  being  hauled  on 
board.  Rates  of  survival  on  releases  can  be  quite  high,  30  –  60  %,  especially  in  surface 
longlines. Releasing live sharks from a longline can be hazardous to crew, especially if these 
must  be  hauled  on  board  to  have  the  leaders  and  hooks  removed  from  their  mouth. 
Alternatively, the line could be cut further from the shark's mouth so that the hook and a short 
length of leader remain in the shark's mouth. Sharks can survive with the hook in their mouth, 
though there may be a negative impact on the animal, the severity of which is unknown. 

Economic impacts 
Shark  catches  are  thought  to  contribute  around  25-47%  of  the  catch  value  of  EU  surface 
longliners. As mentioned in Section 5.1, approximately 50% of the value of EU elasmobranch 
catch, i.e. €97 million is derived from shark fi sheries which are affected by the Regulation. In 
the short-term, negative indirect impacts are expected  through a  reduction  in  revenues  from 
pelagic shark catches.  These impacts  are likely to be most strongly  felt by the catching and 
processing  sectors  associated  with  the  longline  fleet  in  the  Central  and  Southern  Atlantic, 
Indian  Ocean  and  the  Pacific.  The  losses  would  be  proportionally  greatest  for  vessels 
operating  in  the  Atlantic,  where  the  value  of  the  shark  catch  is  proportionally  the  highest, 
followed by those operating in the Indian Ocean and finally those in the Pacific. Given that 
shark  taking  would  only  be  prohibited  to  surface  longliners,  vessels  operating  in  the  North 
Atlantic  would  not  be  affected  as  they  predominantly  use  other  gears  such  as  gillnets  and 
trawls. Depending on the measure(s) selected to implement option 4, the negative impact of 
this  option  on  fleet  income  may  vary  and  it  may  result  in  a  disproportionate  impact  on  EU 
surface  longliners  compared  to  other  fleets.  For  example,  the  use  of  monofilament/nylon 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
30

leaders could result in significant gear damage as sharks taking baited hooks would cut such 
leaders. Using specialized hooks to avoid hooking sharks might lead to some loss of bait, but 
would presumably cause less gear damage, as sharks might be able to escape without cutting 
lines.  Finally,  live  release  of  sharks  would  cause  loss  of  hooks  and  leaders  and  presents  a 
certain degree of risk to the crew handling live sharks either on deck or alongside the vessel.  

The  impact  on  the  catching  sector  might  diminish  in  the  short  and  mid  term  provided  that 
other species are successfully targeted. However, given that stocks of other target species such 
as  swordfish  and  tuna  are  also  depleted  to  various  degrees  throughout  the  world,  and  are 
increasingly  subject  to  various  fisheries  restrictions,  the  surface  longlining  sector  may  be 
unable  to  compensate  the  loss  of  income  from  sharks,  by  targeting  these  other  species. 
Furthermore, given that the sector has already evolved to increasingly target sharks, an offset 
of  losses  in  this  way  would  seems  even  less  likely.  There  is  a  risk  that  the  sector  becomes 
unprofitable.  

The impacts on the processing sector 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 based26. The overall economic impact of Option 4 would be by far the most negative 
for  the  fishing  and  ancillary  sectors,  and  could  render  the  Spanish  and  Portuguese  surface 
longlining fleets unprofitable. 

Social impacts 

As with economic impacts, the social impacts of Option 4 would be the most severe among 
all  the  options.  Reflecting  the  negative  economic  impacts  of  this  option,  impacts  on 
employment would be most severe in the surface longlining sector operating in the Atlantic, 
followed  by  those  operating  in  the  Indian  Ocean  and  finally  those  operating  in  the  Pacific. 
Once  again,  the  impact  on  employment  cannot  be  quantified,  though  it  is  could  be  severe, 
taking effect in the short term and lasting for an unknown amount of time. 

6. 

COMPARING OF THE POLICY OPTIONS 

Impacts on conservation  

In terms of contributing to shark conservation, Option 4 would be by far the most effective, 
followed  by  Option  3,  then  2  then  1(ii)  and  finally  Option  1(i).  Option  4  would  have  a 
significant  positive  effect  on  the  two  main  stocks  concerned,  this  effect  being  more 
pronounced  on  shortfin  mako  which  is  believed  to  have  been  depleted  by  fishing  in  some 
areas, and which is more vulnerable to overfishing than blue shark. Given the scarcity of data 
on the state of these stocks, the positive conservation impact of Option 4 cannot be quantified. 
Compared to Option 1(i) (status quo), Option 4 would have a significant positive impact on 
shark  conservation.  On  the  other  hand,  if  measures  taken  to  avoid  catching  sharks  are  not 
successful, there is a risk of significant shark discards being generated. If such measures were 
successful,  the  shark  catch  would  most  likely  be  replaced  by  swordfish  and  tuna,  with 
negative impacts on these stocks which are already overfished or depleted, depending on the 
area  and  species.  The  potentially  significant  negative  socio-economic  impacts  of  option  4 
render this option undesirable. The direct positive conservation impact of Option 3 would be 
significantly  smaller  than  that  of  Option  4,  especially  vis-à-vis  the  EU  fleet  which  discards 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
31

few or no sharks, but could be relatively larger vis-à-vis non-EU vessels landing in EU ports. 
However,  the  indirect  positive  impact  of  Option  3  would  be  significant,  as  enhanced  data 
collection would allow for the establishment of effective management measures, which would 
enhance conservation in the mid and long term. In addition, implementing option 3 via an EU 
regulation would allow the EU to successfully promote this option worldwide, via RFMO's, 
with  a  potentially  global  positive  effect  on  the  shark  stocks  concerned.  Overall,  Option  3 
would have a significant positive impact on conservation, in contrast with Option 1(i). Option 
3 is therefore considered the preferred option. Depending on the reaction of the sector, Option 
2  could  result  in  either:  (a)  continued  pressure  and  possible  depletion,  or  (b)  some 
conservation  benefit,  on  the  two  main  shark  species  concerned.  Option  1(i)  and  1(ii)  are 
expected to have a negative impact on sharks stocks, starting in the short term and becoming 
more  severe  in  the  long  term.  Option  1(i)  is  likely  to  have  the  most  negative  impact  on 
conservation. 

Economic Impacts 

Option 1(i) represents the status quo and would therefore have no economic impacts on the 
sector in the short term. However, in the medium to long term, stock depletion, especially of 
shortfin  mako,  is  likely  to  result  in  reduced  catches  and  reduced  revenue.  Option  1(ii)  will 
have  an  economic  impact  similar  to  option  1(i).  The  sector  seems  to  be  willing  and  able  to 
accept simultaneous landings (option 1(ii)) across the board, as this is already the practice in 
many cases. Option 2 is expected to have a moderate negative impact surface longline sector. 
This  could  be  offset  to  a  certain  extent  provided  that  the  sector  is  willing  to  adapt  their  fin 
cutting  practices,  especially  in  terms  of  reducing  flesh  unnecessarily  retained  on  the  fins. 
Option  3  is  not  expected  to  have  a  significant  negative  impact  on  operators  who  are  in 
compliance  with  the  current  Regulation,  provided  that  the  sector  is  willing  to  employ  the 
various  adaptations  listed  in  Section  5.  Option  4  is  expected  to  have  an  immediate  and 
significant  negative  impact  on  the  sector,  as  the  significant  proportion  of  the  total  revenue 
attributed to sharks would be lost. 

Impacts on control and enforcement 

Under option 1(i) it is difficult for inspectors to be certain that no finning has occurred. Under 
option  1(ii)  the  uncertainty  is  significantly  reduced,  but  not  completely  eliminated.  Under 
option 2 the possibility of finning is greatly reduced, given the fin-to-carcass weight ratios of 
the main species caught, the fin sets retained, and the cutting techniques employed by the fleet 
segment concerned. Under option 3 finning cannot occur. Option 3 abolishes the use of ratios, 
thereby  closing  the  debate  on  whether  these  should  be  increased,  whether  species-specific 
ratios should be developed and used (something which would be virtually impossible to apply 
to  processed  carcasses)  and  whether  cutting  techniques  and  retention  of  fin  sets  should  be 
harmonized.  Under  Option  4,  control  and  enforcement  would  be  simplified  relative  to  the 
status  quo,  as  inspectors  would  simply  have  to  verify  that  no  sharks  or  shark  products  are 
retained on board, transhipped or landed.  

Impacts on data collection 

Under options 1(i), 1(ii) and 2, data collection is very limited due to the fact that various types 
of  biological  and  physiological  information  (e.g.  catch  composition,  species  identification 
etc.)  cannot  be  collected  once  carcasses  have  been  processed.    In  contrast,  the  collection  of 
such data essential in developing the necessary management and conservation tools would be 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
32

greatly enhanced under Option 3. Under Option 4 data collection would be virtually nil, i.e. 
more limited than under Option 1(i).   

Impacts on simplification, administrative burden and relations with third countries 

As regards impacts on (A) simplification, (B) administrative burden and (C) the relations with 
third  countries:  (A)  control  would  be  greatly  simplified  under  Option  3  as  finning  would 
become  impossible  and  the  use  of  weight  ratios  would  be  abolished.  (B)  Depending  on  the 
option  selected,  the  administrative  burden  would  either  remain  the  same  or  be  reduced.  (C) 
Relations  with  third  countries  would  not  be  affected,  irrespective  of  the  choice  of  option; 
except in the event that Option 1(i) or 1(ii) were to be selected and EU vessels abiding by the 
5% live-weight rule would attempt to land in non-EU ports where the 5% dressed-weight rule 
applies,  as  was  the  case  in  Durban  and  Cape  Verde  in  2009  (see  Section  5.1.,  Option  2, 
economic impacts). 

In  conclusion,  Option  4  might  have  the  largest  positive  effect  on  shark  stocks,  particularly 
blue shark and shortfin mako, provided that shark avoidance measures are successful and that 
no  discards  are  generated.  On  the  other  hand,  Option  4  would  have  the  most  significant 
negative  economic  and  social  impacts  on  the  fishing  sector,  which  might  cease  being 
profitable.  Furthermore,  option  4  would  further  limit  data  collection,  thus  inhibiting  the 
establishment  of  effective  management  measures  such  as  a  TAC  and  quota  regime,  in  the 
future.  Option  3  would  also  have  a  significant  positive  effect  on  these  stocks,  but  a  much 
smaller negative effect on the fishing sector than Option 4. Depending on the application of 
adaptive  strategies  (new  marketing  channels,  new  fishing,  processing  and  transhipment 
patterns etc), the sector might be able to withstand the negative economic impact of Option 3. 
Furthermore,  Option  3  would  have  a  significant  positive  effect  on  data  collection.  Options 
1(i), 1(ii) and 2 would not fulfil the desired policy objectives. The magnitude of the negative 
economic impacts of the various policy options cannot be quantified for the reasons described 
in Section 2.7. 

Table 8. Summary comparison of the policy options – impacts of each option. 

I     M     P     A     C     T     S 

Option  Economic 

Social  

Conservation 

Control and 
enforcement 

Data 
collection 

1(i) 

Minor impact 
on employment 
in the short 
term, 
increasing in 
the long term 
as stocks 
become 
depleted. 

No impact 
in the short 
term, but 
reduced 
revenue due 
to reduced 
catches is 
possible in 
the medium 
term and 
likely in the 

Remains very 
limited 

Negative 
impact 
increasing in 
the long term. 

Significant 
difficult in 
ensuring 
compliance. 
EU inspectors 
state that this 
option is 
unacceptable. 

Simplification, 
administrative 
burden and 
relations with 
non-EU 
countries 

No impact on 
simplification or 
administrative 
burden. Probable 
recurrence of 
problems when 
EU vessels land 
in non-EU ports 
where the 5% 
dressed weight 
rule applies. 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
33

Negative 
impact 
increasing in 
the long term. 

Remains very 
limited 

Control is 
facilitated, 
but a certain 
degree of 
uncertainty 
regarding 
compliance 
remains. 

No impact on 
simplification or 
administrative 
burden. Probable 
recurrence of 
problems when 
EU vessels land 
in non-EU ports 
where the 5% 
dressed weight 
rule applies. 

Control is 
facilitated, 
but a certain 
degree of 
uncertainty 
regarding 
compliance 
remains. 

Depending on 
the sector's 
reaction, either 
a continuation 
of current 
trends or a 
positive 
impact can be 
expected, the 
magnitude of 
which is 
unknown. 

Remains very 
limited 

No impact on 
simplification or 
administrative 
burden. EU 
vessels landing 
in certain non-
EU ports would 
in line with the 
locally applied 
5% dressed 
weight rule. 

long term. 

No impact 
in the short 
term, but 
reduced 
revenue due 
to reduced 
catches is 
possible in 
the medium 
term and 
likely in the 
long term. 

A moderate 
negative 
impact is 
expected. 
This could 
be offset to 
a certain 
extent 
provided 
that the 
sector is 
willing to 
adapt fin 
cutting 
practices. 

Minor impact 
on employment 
in the short 
term, 
increasing in 
the long term 
as stocks 
become 
depleted. A 
minor 
reduction in 
profit margins 
in the short 
term, which is 
likely to 
diminish over 
time. 

A moderate to 
significant 
negative 
impact on 
employment 
might be 
expected if the 
sector fails to 
adapt its fin 
cutting 
methods and 
fin retention 
practices. The 
impact is 
expected to 
occur in the 
short term and 
persist through 
the long term. 
If these 
practices are 
adjusted as 
described in 
the "Economic 
impacts" 
section above, 
this impact 
would be 
significantly 
reduced.  

No 
significant 
negative 
impact 
expected on 
operators 
who are in 
compliance 
with the 

No significant 
negative 
impact on 
employment in 
fleets which 
are in 
compliance 
with the 
current 

Positive 
impact 
expected, the 
magnitude of 
which is 
unknown, but 
becoming 
more positive 
in the mid to 

Control is 
significantly 
facilitated and 
simplified, 
and 
uncertainty 
regarding 
compliance is 
virtually 

Significantly 
enhanced, 
enabling 
establishment 
of further 
management 
measures in 
the future. 

The abolishment 
of weight ratios 
and special 
fishing permits 
would contribute 
to simplification 
of rules and their 
implementation. 
No direct impact 

1(ii) 

2 

3 

EN 

 
 
Regulation, 
provided that 
the sector is 
willing to 
employ the 
various 
adaptations 
listed in 
Section 5. 

A significant 
negative 
impact on 
employment, 
taking effect in 
the short term 
and lasting for 
an unknown 
amount of 
time. 

current 
Regulation. 

4 

A 
significant 
negative 
impact is 
expected 
due to the 
loss of a 
significant 
percentage 
of the 
current 
revenue of 
surface 
longliners. 

34

long term. 

eliminated. 

Data 
collection 
becomes 
virtually non-
existent. 

Significant 
positive 
impact 
expected in the 
short, medium 
and long term. 

Control is 
significantly 
facilitated and 
simplified, 
and 
uncertainty 
regarding 
compliance is 
virtually 
eliminated. 

on relations with 
non-EU 
countries. 

The abolishment 
of weight ratios 
and special 
fishing permits 
would contribute 
to simplification 
of rules and their 
implementation. 
No direct impact 
on relations with 
non-EU 
countries. 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The  nature  of  the  monitoring  regime  will  be  determined  by  the  choice  of  policy  option.  In 
case options 1(i), 1(ii) or 2 are selected, a monitoring regime similar to the current one would 
be implemented, i.e. the Member States will be required to submit annual reports of a nature 
similar to that laid down in Article 6 of the current Regulation. As mentioned in Section 2.4 
the majority of Member States have a poor compliance record with this obligation (see Annex 
II). It would be useful to simplify the reporting obligation for those Member States not issuing 
special permits and for those not catching any sharks. In such cases it might be sufficient that 
Member States annually report that they issue no permits, and where it applies, that they catch 
no  sharks.  This  would  eliminate  unnecessary  work  for  the  relevant  National  Authorities  as 
well as the Commission. 

In case option 3 or 4 is chosen, the nature of reporting would be radically different and the 
reporting format will be greatly simplified  as special  fishing permits  would no  longer  exist. 
The current reporting format consists of a questionnaire, many of the questions being based 
on  the  assumption  that  on-board  fin  removal  is  being  carried  out.  If  on-board  fin  removal 
were  to  cease,  these  questions  would  no  longer  be  present  in  the  future  follow-up 
questionnaire. Given that option 3 is the preferred option, any future suspected breaches of the 
regulation under the fins-attached regime would be much more readily detected by inspectors, 
and the case against those infringing upon the regulation would be more clear-cut. As reported 
by  some  Member  States,  in  particular  the  United  Kingdom  and  Germany  (See  Annex  III), 
there  have  been  cases  of  suspected  breaches  of  the  regulation  where  legal  action  has  been 
difficult  or  impossible  due  to  complications  introduced  by  the  use  of  ratios,  varying 
conversion  factors,  separate  landings  and  the  consequent  reliance  of  inspectors  on  logbook 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
35

records  etc.  Under  option  3,  monitoring  would  consist  of  simply  observing  that  sharks  are 
retained on board, transhipped and landed with their fins still attached. Inspectors will be able 
to ascertain a breach of the finning ban simply by simple observation, without the necessity to 
count and/or weigh fins and carcasses and without having to analyse figures in logbooks. The 
Commission  will  continue  to  analyse  Member  States'  annual  reports  and  will  follow  up  on 
cases where violation of the regulation is detected.  

The evaluation of the positive conservation effects on the two main shark species concerned 
will have to be monitored in the medium to long term, as their life-history characteristics are 
such that any positive trends in the stock would only become apparent after several years or 
perhaps decades.  

EN 

 
 
 
36

ANNEXES 

ANNEX I – SCIENTIFIC ADVICE 

STECF advice 

The Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) states36 that finning 
should  not  take  place,  because  it  leads  to  increased  mortality  of  primarily  pelagic  sharks, 
which  in  many  instances  survive  capture  and  could  be  released  back  into  the  sea  alive. 
Furthermore,  without  appropriate  species-specific  fin-weight  to  live  weight  conversion 
factors,  this  practice  can  lead  to  a  distortion  of  the  catch  statistics  required  for  stock 
assessment  purposes.  If  left  intact,  survival  rates  for  discarded  sharks  can  be  high.  Studies 
show that 80 – 90 % of blue sharks are alive on longlines during hauling and about 60% of 
those  sharks  could  survive  if  released  (Campana  et  al.,  2005)37.  STECF  recommends 
measures to eradicate finning without exemption. STECF suggests that this should apply to all 
elasmobranch  species,  including  skates  and  rays,  which  should  be  landed  whole  or  gutted, 
with fins/wings-still attached. STECF supports the proposal to oblige vessels to land carcases 
and fins simultaneously in the same port in order to improve the quality of catch statistics and 
to ensure that finning does not occur.  

RFMO advice  

Blue shark 

Atlantic  Ocean  stocks:  the  ICCAT  pelagic  shark  assessment  working  group  (ICCAT,  2005) 
considers there to be a single stock of blue shark (Prionace glauca) in the North Atlantic, one in 
the  South  Atlantic  and  one  in  the  Mediterranean  (Heessen,  2003;  Fitzmaurice  et  al.,  2005, 
ICCAT,  2004).  ICCAT started  collecting  data  on  shark  by-catches  from  the  Atlantic  tuna  fleets 
only in 1994, and catch reporting of sharks has not been good. Estimates from a study of the Hong 
Kong shark fin trade (Clarke, 2003) showed that blue shark catches were underreported globally. 
Based on this information ICCAT attempted to construct a more accurate picture of shark catch 
and  mortality  in  the  Atlantic  tuna  fleets  based  on  ratios  of  shark  to  tuna  landings  from  fleets 
reporting both to ICCAT and using these ratios to reconstruct an example catch history by major 
gear type. The current biomass of blue shark in both the North and South Atlantic appears to be 
above the MSY. In many model runs, stock status appeared to be close to unfished biomass levels. 
However  the  Working  Group  recommended  that  these  models  be  further  tested  and  improved 
before  drawing  stronger  conclusions.  The  Working  Group  stated  that  without  improving  these 
models, they can present neither more precise nor more accurate estimates of the status of these 
stocks. No reference points have been proposed for this stock. 

Indian  Ocean:  in  2005  seven  countries  reported  catches  of  blue  sharks  in  the  IOTC  region 
although this data is not used by IOTC as its likelihood of being representative is highly uncertain. 
FAO  landings  data  on  elasmobranchs  for  the  Indian  Ocean  are  severely  limited  by  the  lack  of 
species-specific  data  and  data  from  the  major  fleets.  There  is  little  information  on  blue  shark 

36 Commission Staff Working Document 27th Plenary Meeting Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (Plen-08-01) Plenary Meeting 14-18 April 2008, Hamburg 
https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=21111&name=DLFE-6501.pdf  
37 Campana, S. E., Marks, L., Joyce, W. Kohler, N. (2005). Catch, by-catch, and indices of population status of 
blue  shark  (Prionace  glauca)  in  the  Canadian  Atlantic.  International  Commission  for  the  Conservation  of 
Atlantic Tunas, Collective Volume of Scientific Papers. ICCAT 58(3): 891–934. 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
37

biology  in  the  Indian  Ocean  and  no  information  is  available  on  stock  structure.  The  catch 
estimates for blue shark are highly uncertain and CPUE trends are also not available as there are 
no surveys specifically designed to assess shark catch rates in the Indian Ocean. Due to the lack of 
data available no quantitative stock assessment has been undertaken by the IOTC Working Party 
on Ecosystems and Bycatch. There is no quantitative stock assessment or basic fishery indicators 
currently  available  for  blue  shark  in  the  Indian  Ocean  therefore  the  stock  status  is  highly 
uncertain.  Blue  sharks  are  commonly  taken  by  a  range  of  fisheries  in  the  Indian  Ocean  and  in 
some  areas  they  are  fished  in  their  nursery  grounds.  Because  of  its  life  history  characteristics  – 
being  relatively  long-lived  (16-20  years),  maturing  at  4-6  years,  and  having  relativity  few 
offspring (25-50 pups every two years), the blue shark is vulnerable to overfishing. 

Pacific Ocean: blue shark is not actively managed internationally within the Pacific and there 
are  no  quotas  set  by  any  of  the  RFMOs.  Recent  studies  indicate  the  species,  which  may 
comprise a single Pacific-wide stock, is abundant and healthy (F/FMSY < 0.5). There is some 
evidence for a decline of the stocks of blue shark in the central Pacific (Nakano 1996), but not 
yet evidence of overfishing. The north Pacific blue shark stock appears healthy (Kleiber et al. 
MS1) with a current population size that is above BMSY with F/FMSY < 0.5, and that MSY 
could be 1.7 - 3.0 times the catch observed in the late 80's early 90's. Sibert et al. estimate that 
the North Pacific blue shark population is at 91% of the unexploited level. In spite of being 
the largest component of the bycatch incidentally taken by high seas, longline fleets for over 
50 years the MSY for the north Pacific stock is tentatively estimated to be approximately 120 
000t. No harvest guidelines or reference points have been recommended at this time. 

Shortfin mako 

Atlantic  Ocean  stocks:  historically  the  shortfin  mako  has  been  caught  as  bycatch 
predominantly in tuna and billfish longline fisheries. It is a high value species and as such is 
also  targeted  by  recreational  fisheries  in  both  the  North  East  and  North  West  Atlantic.  At 
present there is still no directed fishery towards the shortfin mako which is considered to have 
only  a  single  stock  in  the  North  Atlantic.  Current  EU  catches  of  the  shortfin  mako  are 
predominantly  by  Portuguese  and  Spanish  vessels,  although  records  of  landings  Spanish 
vessels  only  exist  since  2004.  The  UK  has  also  reported  landings,  but  these  are  negligible, 
being below 3 tonnes. The Portuguese report the largest landings with the maximum reported 
being 542 tonnes in 2003, which made up 50 % of the total North Atlantic reported landings 
(ICES, 2007). The catch data provided is incomplete and as such it is difficult to accurately 
determine  catches  and  produce  stock  assessments.  However,  catch-per-unit-effort  (CPUE) 
data has shown that the North Atlantic stock has been declining since 1975 although further 
analysis is required (ICES, 2007).  

Despite  the  catch  data  available  and  the  CPUE  data  indicating  declining  stocks  there  have 
been no recent stock assessments. A decision was taken not to undertake stock assessments as 
there was limited data all of which was considered poor quality. The lack of accurate precise 
data  is  emphasized  by  the  fact  that  NAFO  uses  commercial  and  recreational  fisheries  to 
provide them with abundance indices (NAFO, 2007).  

Mediterranean  stocks:  it  is  considered  that  there  are  two  stocks  of  Shortfin  Mako  in  the 
Mediterranean;  a  Northern  Stock  and  a  Southern  Stock  (ICCAT,  2005).  A  lack  of  available 
landings  data  and  relevant  catch  data  from  commercial  fisheries  has  resulted  in  no  stock 
assessments  being  able  to  be  undertaken.  Increased  levels  of  data  recording  are  required  to 
enable stock assessment to be achieved.  

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
38

Indian  Ocean  stocks:  historically  there  has  been  little  information  on  the  status  of  the 
Shortfin Mako fishery in IOTC waters and it is apparent that landings of shortfin mako have 
gone unreported in the past. Consequently, IOTC catches of Shortfin Mako sharks are highly 
inaccurate  and  have  little  representativeness.  (IOTC,  2007)  A  lack  of  representative  data  is 
emphasized by the fact there is no extensive FAO data due to a lack of species-specific data 
from  major  fleets  (IOTC,  2007).  The  lack  of  landing  information  means  it  has  not  been 
possible  to  carry  out  a  stock  assessment.  In  addition  CPUE  has  not  been  available  as  no 
surveys have been carried out enabling the suitable data to be obtained to produce the relevant 
CPUE information. 

EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX II - MEMBER STATES' COMPLIANCE WITH THE ANNUAL REPORTING OBLIGATION 

Member  States'  compliance  with  the  annual  reporting  obligation  in  line  with  the  shark  finning  Regulation  (EC)  1185/2003:  State  of  play  on  16  May  11.  The 
reporting deadline for each reference year is the 1st of May of the following year. The number of fishing permits issued annually by the relevant national authorities 
of each Member State is shown. Red (dark) highlight = No report submitted to date.  Yellow (light) highlight = Report submitted after deadline.  Member States 
which issue, or have in the past issued special fishing permits are highlighted in light blue and the relevant information is in bold type.  

No. of 
permits 
issued 

N/A 

N/A 

20.9.05 

MS  2004 

No. of 
permits 
issued 

No. of 
permits 
issued 

No. of 
permits 
issued 

2008 
report 
received
27.01.10  0 

2007 
report 
received
27.01.10  0 
30.04.08  0 
18.01.10  0 
15.05.08  5 
24.07.08  0 
10.04.08  0 
11.07.08  0 
19.03.10  173 
14.07.08  0 

2005 
report 
received 
27.11.06  0 
N/A 
26.07.07  0 
26.06.07  5 
17.09.07  0 
03.05.06  0 
09.01.07  0 
30.06.06  192 
24.01.07  0 
22.10.07  0 
01.02.10  0 
04.05.06  0 
28.04.06   1 
26.01.06  0 
01.10.07  0 
07.04.06  0 
23.11.06  0 
10.01.08  12 
N/A 
11.05.06  0 
20.04.06  0 
07.06.06  16 

report 
received 
BE  09.06.05 
BG  N/A* 
CY  28.06.05 
DE  13.06.05 
DK  04.07.05 
EE  08.06.05 
EL  22.07.05 
ES  18.05.05 
FI 
FR  01.07.05 
19.01.06 
IE 
04.11.05 
IT 
LT  02.06.05 
LV  16.06.05 
MT  06.06.05 
NL  06.06.05 
PL  18.07.05 
PT  15.03.05 
RO  N/A 
SE  15.05.05 
13.12.07 
SI 
UK  26.05.05 
Total permits 
issued per year 
*N/A = Not Applicable. No report required for the years prior to 2007 for BG and RO, i.e. prior to EU membership. 

2006 
report 
received
10.09.07  0 
N/A 
31.07.07  0 
26.06.07  5 
17.09.07  0 
23.05.07  0 
27.08.07  0 
25.06.07  164 
09.01.08  0 
22.10.07  0 
30.04.07  0 
29.05.07  0 
10.05.07  1 
21.08.07  0 
14.12.07  0 
16.02.07  0 
21.08.07  0 
10.01.08  28 
N/A 

No. of 
permits 
issued 
0 
N/A 
0 
3 
0 
2 
0 
198 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
11 
N/A 
0 
0 
20 
232 

18.01.10  0 
14.04.09  5 
08.01.10  0 
23.04.09  0 
13.05.09  0 
19.03.10  200 
10.03.09  0 

23.04.08  0 
20.05.08  0 
25.04.08  1 
12.01.10  0 

26.03.09  0 
18.01.10  0 
12.05.09  1 
12.01.10  0 

27.07.09  0 
04.02.10  15 

30.04.08  0 
11.07.08  15 

27.04.07  0 
13.06.07  18 

02.02.10  0 
08.01.10  0 

02.02.10  0 
08.01.10  0 

29.04.11  0 

29.04.11  0 

194+ 

221+ 

216 

226 

N/A 

N/A 

2010 
report 
received

No. of 
permits 
issued 

28.04.11  1 
24.05.11 

08.04.11  0 
26.05.11  0 
24.04.11  164 
29.03.11  0 

18.04.11  0 

02.03.11  0 
09.05.11  45 
29.04.11  0 

No. of 
permits
issued  

2009  
report 
received
10.03.11  0 
11.05.10  0 
21.03.11  0 
03.08.10  0 
26.01.10  0 
08.04.11  0 
02.06.10  0 
24.04.11  175 
29.03.11  0 

31.03.10  0 

29.03.11  0 
18.04.11  0 

10.05.10  49 
29.04.11  0 

10.05.10  0 
09.08.10  0 

224 

210 

BE 
BG 
CY 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
UK 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
40

ANNEX III – INFRACTIONS OF COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1100/2007 REPORTED BY MEMBER STATES 

The tables in this Annex show, on an annual basis, the number of inspections carried out (where available), the number of infractions detected and the 
nature of these infractions. According to inspectors within the Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, the rate of inspection is such that 
only a small proportion of landings are inspected. It is therefore concluded that the number of infractions detected annually would multiply if all shark 
landings were to be inspected. 

YEAR  No of 

2003 
2004 

inspections  
0 
? 

No of 
infractions 
0 
9 

2005 

88 

2006 
2007 
2008 
2009 
2010 

149 
19 
97 
97 
78 

4 

2 
1 
7 
7 
? 

Nature of infraction / Comment 

SPAIN 

- 
3 instances of exceeding the 5% fin allowance and 6 instances of failure to record fins separately in the 
logbook 
3 instances of exceeding the 5% fin allowance (2 Spanish vessels and 1 Portuguese), 1 instance of a 
Portuguese vessel removing fins on board without a special fishing permit.  
1 Spanish and one Panamanian vessel removing fins without a permit and without updating the logbook 
1 instance of a Spanish vessel exceeding the 5% fin allowance 
7 instances of Spanish vessels exceeding the 5% fin allowance 
7 instances of Spanish vessels exceeding the 5% fin allowance 
Information still under scrutiny by Spanish authorities 

? 

0 

YEAR  No of inspections   No of infractions 
2003 
2004 
? 
2005 
2006 
? 
2007  No report 
submitted 
2008  No report 
submitted 

0 
0 
No report 
submitted 
No report 
submitted 

PORTUGAL 

Nature of infraction / Comment 
No separate landings of fins and carcasses were carried out. 

- 
- 
No report submitted 

No report submitted 

EN 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2009 

? 

2010 

49 

1 

0 

1 instance of removing fins without a special fishing permit was detected. Court proceeding were 
launched 
- 

41

UNITED KINGDOM 

No special fishing permits were issued 

? 

YEAR  No of inspections   No of infractions  Nature of infraction / Comment 
2003 
2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 
2008 
2009 
2010 

? 
? 
? 
? 
? 
? 
? 
No report 
submitted 

3 
? 
? 
5 
4 
No report 
submitted 

3 instances of exceeding the 5% fin allowance 
"A number of minor breaches occurred", but the UK authorities do not believe that finning occurred 
1 vessel was detained but no evidence of finning was found. 
5 infringements of an unspecified nature were found. 
4 UK-registered vessels retained on board and landed fins without a special fishing permit. 
No report submitted 

YEAR  No of 

inspections  

No of 
infractions 

Nature of infraction / Comment 

GERMANY 

2003 
2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 
2008 
2009 
2010 

? 
? 
? 
? 
? 
? 

5 
0 
2 
1 
0 
0 

5 instances of exceeding the 5% fin allowance were detected. Court proceedings were launched. 
No problems detected. 
2 instances of exceeding the 5% fin allowance were detected. Court proceedings were launched. 
1 infraction was detected, but no proceedings were launched as the rules were under revision at that time 
- 
- 

ITALY: One dried fin was found on board a vessel without a special fishing permit in 2009. 

EN 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV – SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

42

More  than  5,000  contributions  were  received.  The  responses  indicate  that  virtually  all  NGO's  and  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  public  support 
Option 3. Part of the sector supports option 1 (either 1(a) or 1(b)), whereas other parts of the sector propose an alternative: Raising the 5% fin to live-
weight ratio to 6 or 6.5% to reflect the average ratio applicable to the two main species caught by EU vessels (blue shark and shortfin mako) and to the 
fin-cutting  and  fin-retention  techniques  employed  by  these  vessels.  The  vast  majority  of  responses  were  sent  in  by  private  citizens  (4,456),  though 
about half of these (2,239) could not be considered useful for the purposes of the consultation. Four contributions were submitted by public authorities, 
26 by registered organizations and 31 by unregistered organizations.  

The arguments presented by the various stakeholders vary in quality and content. The most well-informed and well-argued positions are presented by 
the NGO's and the fishing industry, as well as some local and national authorities and some academic and research associations. On the other hand, the 
vast majority of the general public seem to be poorly informed: it seems that they reacted to the consultation paper after viewing various television 
broadcasts on shark finning, without reading the paper itself. This led to the submission of approximately 2,500 contributions which are not useable for 
the purposes of the Impact Assessment. The Spanish and Portuguese freezer vessels are those most concernced by the proposed amendment. This 
sector's representatives have stated that the prohibition to remove fins on board would lead to storage and handling difficulties and hazards, caused by 
frozen carcasses with protruding fins. These problems are eliminated by slicing partly though the fins and folding them against the carcass, as 
described in Section 5.2, Option 3.  

Nature of reply 
Option 1 
Option 2 
Option 3 
Other options 
Unclear 
TOTAL 

Number of replies
9 
0 
2706 
68 
2239 
5022 

Number of replies
Source of reply 
4961 
General public 
4 
Public authorities 
Registered organization 
26 
Unregistered organization 31 
TOTAL 

5022 

EN 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
43

EN 

EN