COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER SUMMARY OF THE 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 

SUMMARY OF THE 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 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1. PROBLEM DEFINITION 

Due  to  their  life-history  characteristics,  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. 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  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 vesselsError!  Bookmark  not  defined.. The Regulation applies to all types of fishing in EU 
waters, and to all EU vessels fishing in non-EU waters.  

The Regulation bans finning without exception, and also bans the removal of fins of sharks on 
board vessels. However, by derogation, shark fins may be removed from carcasses on board 
vessels which hold special fishing permits. 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 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 in order to make the necessary 
weight comparisons. 

2.  To  verify  the  compliance  with  the  5%  fin  to  carcass  live  weight  ratio,  inspectors  faced 
with processed carcasses and/or fins, must use conversion factors to verify that finning has 
not occurred. The weight ratio and conversion factor varies according to species, location 
and life stage, as well as processing/preservation methods such as freezing and/or drying 
of the products. No single ratio can apply to all of these contingencies. 

3.  Fleets  around  the  world  use  different  fin  cutting  techniques  and  retain  different  fin  sets 
from carcasses. The fin cutting methods of the EU fleets and the fact that they retain all 
fins on board results in a higher fin-to-carcass-weight ratio than that calculated for other 
fleets.  EU  vessels  routinely  land  in  non-EU  ports  where  more  restrictive  weight  ratios 
apply, and are consequently found to be in breach of locally applied regulations. 

4.  On-board processing hampers the collection of data which are vital for the development of 

management and conservation measures.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2

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).  It  would  seem  necessary  to  simplify  the  reporting  obligation  for  those  Member 
States not issuing special permits and for those not catching any sharks. 

6.  There are no uniform guidelines governing the issue of permits by national authorities.  

Those primarily concerned are EU vessels holding special fishing permits. These are typically 
long distance surface longliners, the vast majority being Spanish (181 vessels), followed by 
Portuguese (29 vessels). There is one Lithuanian and one Cypriot vessel holding permits.  

2. ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY 

The conservation of marine biological resources is an exclusive competence of the European 
Union and the European Commission therefore has the right to propose relevant legislation in 
this domain, in the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy. Sharks are fished by vessels 
flagged in various Member States, operating within and outside EU waters, and EU action in 
this domain is therefore necessary and justified. 

3. OBJECTIVES  

The  general  objective  of  the  Regulation  is  to  enhance  shark  conservation.  The  main  policy 
objective  is  to  ensure  that,  in  application  of  the  precautionary  principle,  the  conservation  of 
shark stocks is enhanced. 

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

-  Conservation  of  sharks  (particularly  blue  shark  and  shortfin  mako)  by  eliminating  all 
possibility to fin.  

- Facilitation of effective and reliable control.   

- Enabling collection of data critical to the establishment of management measures and stock 
monitoring. 

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

4. POLICY OPTIONS 

The following options have been considered and assessed: 

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

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

EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3

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

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 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). 

5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

The  impacts  of  each  policy  option  were  assessed  to  the  greatest  extent  possible.  However, 
given  the  lack  of  relevant  data,  economic  data  in  particular,  it  has  not  been  possible  to 
accurately quantify these impacts. These impacts are summarized in Table 1. 

Table 1. Summary comparison of the policy options – impacts of each option. 

I     M     P     A     C     T     S 

Option 

Economic 

Conservation 

Control and 
enforcement 

Data 
collection 

Simplification, 
administrative 
burden and 
relations with 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Remains very 
limited 

Remains very 
limited 

Remains very 
limited 

4

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

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

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

Negative impact 
increasing in the 
long term. 

Negative impact 
increasing in the 
long term. 

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. 

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

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

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

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. 

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

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

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. 
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. 
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. 

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. 
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-

1(i) 

1(ii) 

2 

3 

4 

EN 

 
 
longliners. 

EU countries. 

5

6. COMPARING OF THE POLICY OPTIONS  

Option  4  might  have  the  largest  positive  effect  on  shark  stocks,  particularly  blue  shark  and 
shortfin mako, provided that shark avoidance measures are successful and that no discards are 
generated.  On  the  other  hand,  Option  4  would  have  the  most  significant  negative  economic 
impact 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,  consequently  enabling  the  establishment  of 
essential  conservation  and  management  measures  in  the  mid  and  long  term.  Additionally, 
Option 3 would simplify control and enhance its effectiveness. Options 1(i), 1(ii) and 2 would 
not fulfil the desired policy objectives.  

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.  

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.  

No significant costs or savings are expected, regardless of the choice of the format and nature 
of the future reporting obligations. However, if options 3 or 4 are chosen the administrative 
burden would be reduced. 

The evaluation of the positive conservation 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