Navigating Global Shark Conservation: Current

Transcription

Navigating
Global Shark
Conservation:
Current Measures
and Gaps
TA BL E O F C O NTENTS
While a significant effort was undertaken to assemble all existing
Introduction
2
Fishing to Supply a Global Market
4
Existing Protections and Gaps
7
International Instruments
7
Regional Measures
10
Domestic Measures
14
shark management measures, it is likely that some were missed,
especially at the domestic level. If you have questions or additional
information to provide, please contact us at [email protected].
The designations of geographical entities in this publication, and
the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of
any opinion whatsoever on the part of The Pew Charitable Trusts
concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area, or
of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or
boundaries.
The Pew Environment Group is the conservation arm of The Pew
Sharks in Decline, More Action Needed
16
Charting a New Course for Sharks
18
Appendix 1:
20
Charitable Trusts, a non-governmental organization that works
globally to establish pragmatic, science-based policies that protect
our oceans, preserve our wildlands and promote clean energy.
Cover Photo: Jim Abernethy
www.PewEnvironment.org
RFMO Conservation and Management Measures for Sharks
Appendix 2:
26
RFMO Members or Contracting Parties
Appendix 3:
Domestic Shark Measures
28
S
harks have been swimming the world’s oceans for more than 400 million years. They
have survived multiple mass extinctions, yet they are not equipped to withstand
the threats posed by humans. Life history characteristics, such as slow growth, late
The loss of sharks could cause irreversible damage to the ocean. Healthy and biologically
maturation, and production of few offspring, make sharks vulnerable to overfishing
diverse shark populations play an important role in maintaining balance in the marine
environment, such as coral reef systems.3 Sharks also regulate the variety and abundance of
and slow to recover from decline.
the species below them in the food chain, including commercially important fish.4
Shark populations are in trouble globally. The demand for shark fins, meat, liver
oil, and other products has driven numerous populations to the brink
Increasingly, studies show that sharks are worth more alive than dead.5 Tourism involving live
of extinction. With no international catch limits for sharks, many
sharks, such as recreational diving and shark watching from boats, is more sustainable and
typically more lucrative than shark fishing. In Palau, an individual reef shark was estimated
populations have declined by more than 90 percent.1, 2
to have a lifetime value of US$1.9 million to the tourism industry compared with the one-time
market value of US$108 if caught and killed.6
Sharks need comprehensive protections now. Current
protections for sharks are insufficient to provide for
sustainable fishing of the ocean’s top predator.
I NT RODUCTION
The lack of precautionary management is
concerning, especially given the global
scale of the fin trade and the migratory
nature of sharks.
Although studies show that sharks
are worth more alive than dead,
the world’s shark populations are
This report outlines
the
existing
state
of
management for sharks7 and
highlights the inadequacies in this
management framework. The report
concludes with suggestions for how to rebuild and
predators could cause irreversible
damage to the ocean. Despite
these concerns, global protections
for sharks largely do not exist.
Jim Abernethy
conserve shark populations through a variety of
policy approaches.
Bascompte, J., Melian, C.J., and Sala, E. (2005), “Interaction strength combinations and the overfishing of a marine food web.” PNAS, 102:15,
The National Academy of Sciences, pp. 5443-5447. www.pnas.org/content/102/15/5443.full.
4
Stevens, J.D., Bonfil, R., Dulvy, N.K., and Walker, P.A. (2000), “The effects of fishing on sharks, rays, and chimaeras (chondrichthyans), and the
implications for marine ecosystems.” ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 476-494. http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/3/476.full.pdf.
5
Vianna, G.M.S., Meeuwig, J.J., Pannell, D.J., Sykes, H., and Meekan, M.G. (2011), “The socio-economic value of the shark-diving industry in Fiji.”
Australian Institute of Marine Science. University of Western Australia.Perth, (26pp).
6
Vianna, G.M.S., Meekan, M.G., Pannell, D.J., March, S.P., and Meeuwig, J.J. (2012), “Socio-economic value and community benefits from sharkdiving tourism in Palau: A sustainable use of reef shark populations.” Biological Conservation, 145 (1): 267-277.
7
This report focuses only on sharks and does not include the other elasmobranch species (skates and rays).
3
Baum, J.K. and Myers, R.A. (2004), “Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico.” Ecology
Letters, 7:135-145. www.fmap.ca/ramweb/papers-total/Baum_Myers_2004.pdf.
2
Ferretti, F., Myers, R.A., Serena, F., and Lotze, H.K. (2008), “Loss of Large Predatory Sharks from the Mediterranean Sea.”
Conservation Biology, 22: 952-964. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00938.x/pdf.
1
2
in trouble. The loss of these top
3
Fishing
to Supply
a Global
Market
Figure 1: Estimated 2010 Shark Landings
Arctic Sea
Northeast Atlantic
?
30
Mediterranean
and Black Sea
Northwest Northeast Pacific
Pacific
14
?
Eastern
Central
Atlantic
Jim Abernethy
7
S
of the fishing or the catch. Evidence shows that actual global catch of sharks may
Antarctic Atlantic
?
Antarctic
Indian
Ocean
2
being submitted by many shark fishing countries to the FAO. From countries that did report
2010. However, because many countries do not submit
data, a total of 737,073 tonnes of sharks, rays, and skates were reported landed in 2010.
species-specific data on sharks landed by their fisheries,
nei,”10 rather than by the species name or even by “shark,” making it nearly impossible to
Southeast
Pacific
19
Southwest
Atlantic
16
Southwest Pacific
Sixty species of sharks appear in FAO landings data for
one-third of the total elasmobranch landings were reported as “sharks, rays, skates, etc.
13
8
Eastern
Indian Ocean
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).8 This is due to a lack of data
Two-thirds of these landings, or 493,839 tonnes, were reported as sharks. The remaining
Western Central Atlantic
12
10
be three to four times higher than the official statistics reported by the Food and
9
Northwest
Atlantic
6
Western
Indian
Ocean
Southeast
Atlantic
hark fishing occurs around the globe, but often little is known about the magnitude
Eastern Central
Pacific
Western Central
Pacific
17
11
12
?
this is likely an underestimate of the number of species
actually landed by commercial fisheries. Thirty shark
species were reported landed from the Northeast Atlantic,
the most of any region (Figure 1). The higher number of
know exactly how many sharks are being landed. However, an estimate can be made by
species reported from this region may be due to better
assuming the ratio of shark to other elasmobranch landings in the undifferentiated category
reporting rather than a greater diversity of shark species
is the same as the ratio in more detailed landing records that list landings for sharks and other
being fished.
?
Antarctic Pacific
Source: FAO Landings Data (2010)
Estimated 2010 Shark Landings
Tonnes
0 - 15,000
15,001 - 30,000
# of shark species
caught
12
> 30,000
elasmobranchs separately. Using this method to account for the additional shark landings
from the “sharks, rays, skates, etc. nei” category, an estimated 600,000 tonnes of sharks were
landed globally in 2010,11 with the Eastern Central Atlantic, the Western Central Pacific, and
Clarke, S.C., McAllister, M.K., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Kirkwood, G.P., Michielsens, C.G.J., Agnew, D.J., Pikitch, E.K., Nakano,
H., and Shivji, M.S. (2006), “Global estimates of shark catches using trade records from commercial markets.” Ecology Letters, 9:
1115–1126.
9
FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. 2010, Global Capture Production data.www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global-captureproduction/query/en.
10
“Nei” is an acronym for “not elsewhere included.”
11
The 600,000 tonnes is based on a Pew estimate that allocates a portion of the “sharks, rays, skates,
etc. nei” landings to shark landings based on the ratio of sharks to rays/skates that appears
in species-specific FAO landings for each region.
8
4
Jim Abernethy
the Southwest Atlantic as the world’s top three shark fishing regions (Figure 1).
5
Jim Abernethy
Shark fishing globally is largely driven by the demand for shark fins. Hong Kong, the world’s
largest shark fin market, represents approximately 50 percent of the global trade.12 According
to trade data from the Census and Statistics Department of Hong Kong, 83 countries exported
more than 10.3 million kilograms (22.7 million pounds) of shark fin products to Hong Kong in
2011 (Figure 2).13 With shark fishing countries from around the world supplying fins to the Hong
Kong market, the shark fin market is truly global, and therefore effective shark management
must include all areas where sharks are caught.
!
!
Europe
Spain
!
!
!
!
!! !!
!
Hong
Kong Taiwan
!
!
!
United Arab
Emirates
!
!
Senegal
!!
!
!
Afr
!
!
!
!
ica
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
Yemen
!
^
!
!
!
!
!
!
A sia
!
!
!
!
!
Singapore Indonesia
!
!
!
Japan
Mexico
Latin
Oc
ea
nia
!
!
United States
North America
!
Ame
rica
!
& Th
e
Car
ibb
!
ea
!
!
!! !!
!
!
Costa Rica
!
Ecuador
Peru
n
!
!
!
!
!
!
Trinidad &
Tobago
!
! ! !!
!
Brazil
!
!
!
! !
!
Source: Census and Statistics Department of Hong Kong
Top 15 Exporting Fins
to Hong Kong
Spain
Singapore
Taiwan, Province of China
Indonesia
United Arab Emirates
Trinidad & Tobago
Yemen
Mexico
United States
Costa Rica
Peru
Japan
Ecuador
Brazil
Senegal
6
Asia
Europe
Latin America & The Caribbean
Africa
North America
Oceania
Kilograms of Fin Products
Exported by Fishing Entity
> 1 million kg
170,0001 - 1 million kg
13
S
hark species not only span national jurisdictions, but also
roam the high seas, thus complicating conservation and
management efforts. Countries can establish protections
within their waters, but on the high seas, no single country is
responsible for species management. Countries have to cooperate
to ensure shark conservation. Unfortunately, current shark conservation and
management is a piecemeal approach of varying measures at the domestic,
regional, and international levels.
International Instruments
The International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) is a nonbinding, legal instrument adopted
by the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) in 1999.14 This plan was established to ensure the
conservation and management of sharks and their long-term sustainable use. The cornerstone
of the IPOA-Sharks is the development of National Plans of Action for Sharks (NPOA-Sharks),
which describe the state of local shark stocks and populations, associated fisheries, and the
management and enforcement framework.
10,000 - 170,000 kg
< 10,000 kg
Clarke, S.C., et al. 2006.
Census and Statistics Department (C&SD) (2012). Aquaculture fisheries statistics. The Government of the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. (Figure 2 is based on country of origin information provided in
import data.)
12
Shawn Heinrichs
Regions Exporting
Shark Fins
!
!
!
!
!
!
Existing
Protections
and Gaps
Chris and Monique Fallows/OceanwideImages.com
Figure 2: 2011 Imports of Shark Fins to Hong Kong
14
FAO, (1999). “International Plan of Action for the conservation and management of sharks.” Rome, FAO. 1999. 26p. http://www.fao.
org/DOCREP/006/X3170E/x3170e02.htm. See also, “International Plan of Action for reducing incidental catch of seabirds in longline
fisheries” and “International Plan of Action for the management of fishing capacity.”
7
The
IPOA
also
calls
on States to cooperate
regionally by developing regional
plans of action for sharks, as appropriate,
and to cooperate through regional fisheries
management organizations (RFMOs) and other
arrangements to ensure effective conservation and
management of transboundary, straddling, highly migratory,
and high seas stocks of sharks. There are regional plans of action
for the European Union (EU), Mediterranean, West Africa, Pacific
Islands, and South America. Despite the regional plans of action and
the ability of RFMOs to put shark management measures in place, very few
regional measures limit shark mortality across jurisdictional boundaries.
The Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) is an intergovernmental treaty
with 116 Parties that aims to conserve migratory species throughout their range. Appendix
I of CMS lists migratory species that are in danger of extinction, and Appendix II contains
those species that need or would significantly benefit from international cooperation.
For species listed on Appendix I, the Parties to CMS are required to work to enforce strict
protections for these animals, including a prohibition on take, as well as conserve or restore
the habitats in which they live, mitigate obstacles to migration, and control other factors
that might further endanger a species. Shark species listed on Appendix I are the basking
shark and great white shark. These species are also on Appendix II, along with longfin mako
(Isurus paucus), shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus), whale shark, porbeagle (Lamna nasus),
and the Northern Hemisphere population of spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias). Therefore,
Implementation of the IPOA-Sharks by the 144 members of COFI is voluntary, and to date, only 54
Parties to CMS should work together to establish agreements to protect these species and
countries have developed NPOAs for sharks. NPOAs identify issues that need to be addressed,
are encouraged to take action to conserve them.
but vary in comprehensiveness. Many do not contain specific actions or schedules for action, and
most plans are not closely linked to principles of the IPOA. To date, there are no indications that
A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks was
the NPOAs have significantly affected sustainable management or rebuilding of depleted shark
adopted under CMS in 2010 with the objective to “achieve and maintain a favorable
populations.
conservation status for migratory sharks.” The MoU is focused on increasing international
cooperation to ensure action is taken to protect sharks, and it applies to the shark species
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an
listed on the CMS Appendices. The 25 signatories16 to the MoU on sharks are Australia,
intergovernmental treaty that aims to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals
Belgium, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, Denmark, European Union, Germany, Ghana, Guinea,
and plants does not threaten their survival. It is the world’s primary mechanism for regulating
Italy, Kenya, Liberia, Monaco, Nauru, Netherlands, Palau, Philippines, Romania, Senegal,
international trade in endangered and threatened species. CITES provides for improved tracking,
South Africa, Togo, Tuvalu, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
enforcement, and management of species that are threatened with extinction or that may become
so unless trade is strictly regulated. This is done by issuing import and export permits, based on
While seven shark species are listed on the CMS Appendices and the MoU, these instruments
required scientific and management findings, for species that are listed on the CITES Appendices.
are relatively new and the benefit of these measures is still to be determined.
There are three CITES Appendices, each offering a different level of protection and set of regulatory
requirements, but only listing decisions for Appendix I and II are made multilaterally. Currently, 175
countries are parties to CITES, and a two-thirds majority vote is required to list a species on Appendix
I or II. Despite the poor status of many shark species and the benefits CITES can provide to shark
populations, only three shark species — basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), great
white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), and whale shark (Rhincodon
typus) — are included in the CITES Appendices.15 These species are
16
CMS membership is not required to be a signatory to the MoU.
Leaders from the Bahamas,
Mexico, Marshall Islands, Maldives,
Palau, Honduras, Colombia, and
Federated States of Micronesia
discuss the importance of shark
conservation in their waters.
listed on Appendix II of CITES, which provides regulation and
monitoring of international trade and assists with enforcement
and compliance with fisheries management measures.
15
Because this review includes only sharks, not skates and rays,
the sawfish CITES listing has not been included.
8
9
Regional Measures
Specific functions of RFMOs include monitoring and assessing the status of fish stocks, assigning
On a regional level, there are 17 international bodies established by international agreements or
total allowable catches/quotas, allocating fishing quotas, implementing fishing measures to
treaties to conserve and manage fish stocks through the regulation of certain types of fishing activities
conserve fish stocks, monitoring fishing effort and capacity, mitigating bycatch, adopting
within a delineated ocean area. Five of these regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs)
related conservation and management measures, and enforcing those measures. RFMOs
were established to manage tuna and tuna-like species (Figure 3), but large numbers of sharks are
either have a direct mandate to manage sharks or have the responsibility and ability to
also taken in the same fisheries. The remaining 12 RFMOs focus on other fish stocks that travel across
manage sharks that are caught as bycatch, the part of the catch that is not the targeted
jurisdictional boundaries and therefore require multilateral cooperation (Figure 4). RFMOs play a
species, while fishing for RFMO-managed species. RFMOs also have the ability to put in place
critical role in regulating fishing for highly migratory and straddling stock species, including sharks, to
management measures, such as catch limits and prohibitions on landing for certain shark
ensure the fisheries are sustainable.
species, thus providing critical elements of the management of some shark species that
migrate across national boundaries or that have populations that extend into areas beyond
Figure 3: RFMOs Responsible for Tuna and Tuna-like Species
national jurisdiction.
In the past decade, several RFMOs have recognized the need to establish management
measures for sharks (Appendix 1). Many RFMOs, especially the tuna RFMOs whose fisheries
catch very high numbers of sharks, have implemented requirements for data submission on
sharks and finning bans that prohibit vessels from having fins onboard that total more than
5 percent of the weight of shark carcasses. In addition, five RFMOs have recently adopted
ICCAT
species-specific measures for one or more shark species.
WCPFC
IATTC
IOTC
Only thresher sharks (family Alopiidae), oceanic
whitetip
sharks
(Carcharhinus
longimanus),
hammerhead sharks (family Sphyrnidae), silky sharks
CCSBT
(Carcharhinus falciformis), spiny dogfish, porbeagle
CCSBT
sharks, basking sharks, and 17 species of deep-sea
sharks17 have any conservation or management
Figure 4: RFMOs Responsible for Other Species
NPAFC
GFCM
IPHC
SPRFMO
CCAMLR
10
the Conservation of Atlantic
whitetip sharks, for which there are conservation or
management measures.
some limited progress. However, considering that
there are more than 450 species of sharks and that
SEAFO
for
five of those species have any
most sharks are highly migratory and routinely cross
SIOFA
Commission
bigeye thresher (Alopias superciliosus) and oceanic
in only one RFMO (Appendix 1). These actions show
NEAFC
NASCO
NAFO
International
Tunas (ICCAT) in 2010, but only
respectively, the rest of the species are protected
PSC
of sharks were reported to the
measures at the RFMO level. With the exception of
management measures in two and three RFMOs
CCBSP
➤ Catches involving 43 species
➤ The Western and Central
Pacific
Fisheries
Commission
(WCPFC) considers 13 species
of sharks to be priority species
for management but recently
political boundaries,18 more action by RFMOs is
agreed to measures for only
required to conserve and protect shark species.
one species.
Gulper shark (Centrophorus granulosus), leafscale gulper shark (Centrophorus squamosus), black dogfish (Centroscyllium fabricii),
Portuguese dogfish (Centroscymnus coelolepis), longnose velvet dogfish (Centroscymnus crepidater), kitefin shark (Dalatias licha),
greater lanternshark (Etmopterus princeps), Iceland catshark (Apristuris spp), frilled shark (Chlamydoselachus anguineus), birdbeak
dogfish (Deania calcea), blackmouth dogfish (Galeus melastomus), mouse catshark (Galeus murinus), bluntnose six-gilled shark
(Hexanchus griseus), velvet belly lanternshark (Etmopterus spinax), sailfin roughshark (sharpback shark) (Oxynotus paradoxus),
knifetooth dogfish (Scymnodon ringens), and Greenland shark (Somniosus microcephalus)
18
Camhi, M. (1998). Sharks on the Line: a state-by-state analysis of sharks and their fisheries. National Audubon Society, Living
Oceans Program. Islip, NY. 160 pp.
17
11
The insufficiency of current global shark management is further illustrated by looking at 14 species of sharks
commonly found in the international shark fin trade.19 A review of the distribution of these species and areas
where they are currently protected by RFMOs clearly shows that existing management has serious gaps
(Figure 5). While the recent actions by some RFMOs provide a step forward in regional shark conservation,
RFMOs do not manage all fisheries within their Convention Area or apply to all countries fishing in an area;
and therefore, they do not provide full protection even for the species whose retention they prohibit, and
certainly do not provide full protection for any shark species.
Figure 5: RFMO Management Measures20
for 14 Shark Species Commonly Found in the Fin Trade
Smooth hammerhead shark
Measures in place for fisheries managed by ICCAT
Scalloped hammerhead shark
Great hammerhead shark
Common thresher shark
Bigeye thresher shark
Measures in place for fisheries managed by ICCAT and IOTC
Pelagic thresher shark
Measures in place for fisheries managed by IOTC
Clarke, S.C., Magnussen, J.E., Abercrombie, D.L., McAllister, M.K., and Shivji, M.S. (2006). “Identification of shark species
composition and proportion in the Hong Kong shark fin market based on molecular genetics and trade records.” Conservation
Biology, 20(1), 201-211.http://fsehs.nova.edu/ocean/ghri/forms/clarke_cb05.pdf.
20
These measures apply only to RFMO members and, in many cases, only to RFMO-managed fisheries. For a list of members for
each RFMO, see Appendix 2.
19
12
Silky shark
ICCAT protection
Oceanic whitetip shark — Measures in place for
fisheries managed by IATTC, ICCAT, and WCPFC
Tiger shark
No RFMO measures in place
Shortfin mako shark
Blue shark
Dusky shark
Bull shark
Sandbar shark
Shark Species Range
RFMO Area
13
Domestic Measures
“high-grading,” the mixing of bodies and fins from different
Countries, territories, and other political entities have taken action to manage and conserve
naturally attached is the best way to end shark finning,
sharks in their waters (Appendix 3). Some countries have passed laws or put in place
and it improves data collection with species identification
regulations that prohibit commercial fishing of all sharks throughout their exclusive economic
and species landed. Several countries, including Chile,
zone, creating a shark sanctuary.
the United States, and El Salvador, require that sharks be
species. Requiring that sharks be landed whole with fins
Gear Restrictions
Ban on Wire
Leaders
landed with their fins naturally attached.22 Finning bans
Palau created the world’s first national shark sanctuary in 2009, followed by Maldives,
are a good step forward, but they do not provide actual
High levels of shark bycatch
Honduras, The Bahamas, Tokelau, and the Marshall Islands. These sanctuaries cover 4,701,274
limits on the number of sharks that can be caught or
in
square kilometers (1,817,170 square miles) of ocean (Figure 6). Some sanctuaries also have
ensure sustainability of shark fisheries.
and swordfish is detrimental
to
zero retention of incidental catch of sharks and ban the sale, trade, and possession of sharks
fisheries
the
targeting
continued
tuna
survival
A variety of other types of fisheries management measures
of many shark populations.
are used at the national level including catch quotas,
Longline fisheries that use wire
While these countries’ bold actions provide significant protection to sharks in their waters,
prohibitions on retention of vulnerable species, and gear
leaders or “steel traces” have
protections currently cover a relatively small percentage of the ocean (Figure 6). To help
restrictions. Despite the wide range of management
higher
conserve shark populations, more sanctuaries are needed around the world.
measures available to fisheries managers, many shark
bycatch, and use of this gear
fisheries remain unregulated, and in many places species-
creates de facto targeted
specific shark catch and landings data are not collected by
fisheries for sharks, which are
government agencies.
problematic.23 As a result, a
including fins, meat, and other shark products.
Figure 6: Shark Sanctuaries
quantities
of
shark
number of countries, including
The Bahamas
Palau
Maldives
Marshall Islands
Honduras
Tokelau
Shark protections are also sometimes put in place at a more
Australia, Ecuador, Federated
localized level. For example, no shark fishing is allowed
States of Micronesia, New
around Malpelo Island in Colombia, Cocos Island in Costa
Caledonia,
Rica, or the Galapagos Islands in Ecuador. In the United
Guinea, South Africa, Tonga,
States, several states and territories have recently enacted
and the Marshall Islands, have
trade bans on sharks and shark products. Hawaii, the
prohibited the use of wire
Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Oregon, and California
leaders by longline vessels
banned the possession, sale, and distribution of shark fins.
operating in their waters.24,
The state of Washington also banned the sale and trade of
The use of single monofilament
shark fins, as well as the preparation of shark fins for food.
fishing line rather than wire
Papua
New
25
leaders helps protect sharks,
species-specific
and scientific research has
management measures in place on a local level. However,
shown that it increases the
a review of available domestic shark fishing regulations
catch of some target species
To address shark finning, the act of slicing off the fins of a shark and discarding the body at sea,
shows that very few countries have protections in place
of tuna and swordfish.26, 27
many countries have prohibited finning. A review of regulations from 211 countries, territories,
for individual shark species (Appendix 3).
Some
countries
have
also
put
and other political entities shows that only approximately one-third have shark finning bans.21
For a full list, see Domestic Shark Measures in Appendix 3.
Ward, P., Lawerence, E., Darbyshire, R., and Hindmarsh, S. (2008). “Large-scale experiment shows that nylon leaders reduce shark
bycatch and benefit pelagic longline fishers.” Fisheries Research, 90: 100-108.
24
Lack, M. and Meere, F. (2009). Pacific Islands: Regional Plan of Action for Sharks: Guidance for Pacific Island countries and territories
on the conservation and management of sharks. Shellack Pty Ltd., p. 123. www.ffa.int/system/files/Pacific%20Islands%20RPOA%20
Sharks%20Final%20Report%20__3_.pdf.
25
Gilman, E., Clarke, S., Brothers, N., Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Mandelman, J., Mangel, J., Peterson, S., Piovano, S., Thomson, N., Palzell,
P., Donoso, M., Goren, M., and Werner, T. (2008).“Shark interactions in pelagic longline fisheries.”Marine Policy. 32: 1-18.
26
Ward, P., et al. 2008.
27
Vega, R. and Licandeo, R. (2009).“The effect of American and Spanish longline systems on target and non-target species in the eastern
South Pacific swordfish fishery,” Fisheries Research. 98:22-32
22
While many shark finning bans are based on a fins-to-carcass ratio, this method is not fully effective
at preventing shark finning because the ratio varies by different shark species and allows for
21
This review was completed in 2011 and was based on the information available to Pew at that time. While minor changes were
made in 2012, it is possible that other regulations exist that were not identified due to inaccessibility of regulations or language barriers.
Additionally, it is possible that updates to regulations and laws may have taken place since this information was gathered.
14
23
15
Stuart Cove’s Dive Bahamas www.stuartcove.com
Figure 8: Status and Management
of Highly Migratory Shark Species
Sharks in Decline,
More Action
Needed
T
he International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species
(www.iucnredlist.org) has assessed the extinction
risk of 480 species of sharks from around the
world. Forty-three percent (209 species) are data
deficient. Of those with enough information to determine their
250
conservation status, 55 percent (150 species) are threatened or
near threatened with extinction.27
Of the 62 highly migratory shark species with enough data
to allow for a full assessment, 82 percent (51 species) are
considered threatened or near threatened by IUCN (Figure 7).28
Despite the poor conservation status of global shark populations,
only three species, the basking, whale, and great white sharks, have
any global management measures in place, wherein international
trade in these three species is regulated under Appendix II
of CITES. In addition, since the basking and great white
sharks are listed on Appendix I of CMS, take of these
Considering the continuing decline of
shark populations around the world,
additional
conservation
and
management measures are
Andy Murch/OceanwideImages.com
needed.
27
This accounts for only the number of shark, not ray or skate, species assessed by IUCN.
“Highly migratory” as defined by UN Convention on the Law of the Sea Annex I, which includes these oceanic sharks: Hexanchus griseus;
Cetorhinus maximus; Family Alopiidae; Rhincodon typus; Family Carcharhinidae; Family Sphyrnidae; Family Isurida. This includes only the
number of shark, not ray or skate, species assessed by IUCN. Full assessment does not include species that are data deficient by IUCN.
28 16
Species that are
threatened or near
threatened
Species of least
concern
Species managed
internationally
Katie Grudecki
species by the 116 CMS Parties is also prohibited.
17
Charting a
New Course
for Sharks
D
This has resulted in an inconsistent patchwork approach that does not
adequately protect sharks, which migrate across jurisdictional areas, are fished
in both national and international waters, and are traded internationally in vast
quantities. Precautionary national, regional, and international protections to
conserve these species are urgently needed.
espite the important role that shark play in their ecosystems and their
economic value for sustainable tourism, the vast majority of shark species
still do not have conservation or management measures in place that
are adequate for maintaining or rebuilding their populations. The shark
conservation and management measures that have been put in place range from
the local to international levels with some protections covering all shark species and
others that are specific to only certain species of sharks.
The Pew Environment Group calls on all countries, territories,
and entities to improve shark conservation and management
by urgently acting to:
•
Prohibit the retention of shark species considered
threatened and endangered by the IUCN Red List
of Threatened Species.
•
Prohibit the retention of all other species of sharks
until rigorous science-based management plans
are developed and in place.
•
Regulate
international
trade
under
CITES
in
threatened and endangered shark species and
those that may become threatened that would
benefit from such a listing.
•
Establish conservation and management measures
for all shark species caught by RFMO-managed
fisheries.
•
Develop and adopt national measures, such as
shark sanctuaries and regulations on the trade in or
possession of sharks or shark parts.
Manu
18
San Fe
lix
•
Implement the IPOA-Sharks.
19
RFMOs Managing Tuna Species
Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT)
· When fishing in ICCAT, IATTC, and WCPFC Convention Areas, vessels must adhere to the measures from
those RFMOs.
· Vessels are to collect and report data on sharks.
· Implement the International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks).1
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)
· Vessels are prohibited from retaining onboard, transshipping, landing, storing, selling, or offering for sale
any part or whole carcass of thresher sharks of all the species of the family Alopiidae (2010).2 Vessels
should, to the extent practicable, release these species when brought alongside the vessel and record all
discards as dead or alive.
e
ov
· Vessels cannot have onboard fins that total more than 5 percent of the weight of sharks. Vessels are
prohibited from retaining onboard, transshipping, or landing fins harvested in contravention of the
Resolution.
om
.C
tc
ar
u
as
w
W
.St
· Contracting Parties, Cooperating non-Contracting Parties (CPCs) shall annually report data for catches of
sharks, to the species level if possible.
w
· In fisheries that are not directed, live releases, especially juveniles and pregnant females, is encouraged.
m
ha
s
e’
ov
C
rt
ve
Di
Ba
Appendix 1
· Catch of sharks is to be fully utilized (all parts are to be retained except head, guts, and skins).
· Where possible, CPCs should conduct research to make gears more selective (such as avoiding wire
traces) and identify nursery habitats.
ua
St
RFMO Conservation
and Management
Measures for Sharks
· CPCs should seek scientific advice on stock status of key shark species and propose a research plan and
timeline for a comprehensive assessment of these stocks.3
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)
· Vessels are prohibited from retaining onboard, transshipping, landing, storing, selling, or offering for sale
any part or whole carcass of the following shark species: oceanic whitetip (Carcharhinus longimanus)
(2011).4 Vessels should, to the extent practicable, release these species when brought alongside the
vessel and record all discards as dead or alive.
Resolution.
· Each Party and cooperating non-Party, cooperating fishing entity or regional economic integration
organization (CPCs) shall annually submit data to the IATTC Secretariat for catches, effort by gear type,
and landing and trade of sharks by species, where possible.
· In fisheries that are not directed, live release, especially juveniles, is encouraged, and fishermen are to
develop techniques for rapid and safe release.
M
ar
k
CCSBT. Recommendation to Mitigate the Impact of Ecologically Related Species of Fishing for Southern Bluefin Tuna. Updated Oct. 2011. www.
ccsbt.org/userfiles/file/docs_english/operational_resolutions/Recommendation_ERS.pdf.
2
IOTC. The Conservation of Thresher Sharks (Family Alopiidae) Caught in Association with Fisheries in the IOTC Area of Competence. Resolution
10/12. http://iotc.org/English/resolutions.php.
3
IOTC. Concerning the Conservation of Sharks Caught in Association with Fisheries Managed by IOTC. Resolution 05/05 in IOTC Collection of
Active Conservation and Management Measures.Pg. 60. http://iotc.org/English/resolutions.php.
4
IATTC. Resolution on the Conservation of Oceanic Whitetip Sharks Caught in Association with Fisheries in the Antigua Convention Area. Resolution
C-11-10. www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-11-10-Conservation-of-oceanic-whitetip-sharks.pdf.
1
C
aw
ar
di
ne
/O
ce
an
w
20
id
eI
m
ag
es
.c
om
21
· CPCs are encouraged, when possible, to conduct research to make gears more selective, identify nursery
habitats, determine survival rates of released sharks and define areas/periods when species are most likely
caught.
· CPCs should establish and implement a National Plan of Action for Sharks.
· CPCs should seek scientific advice on stock status of key shark species and propose a research plan for
comprehensive assessment of these stocks.5
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
· Vessels are prohibited from retaining onboard, transshipping, landing, storing, selling, or offering
for sale any part or whole carcass of the following shark species: bigeye thresher sharks (Alopias
superciliosus) (2009),6 oceanic whitetip sharks (Carcharhinus longimanus) (2010),7 hammerhead
sharks (family Sphyrnidae except for Sphyrna tiburo) (2010)8 taken within the Convention Area.
Vessels should, to the extent practicable, release these species when brought alongside the
vessel and record all discards as dead or alive. Developing coastal states are exempted from the
prohibition to allow for domestic consumption of hammerhead sharks assuming these sharks do not
enter into international trade and catches do not increase. The Mexican small-scale coastal fishery
(catch of less than 110 fish) is also exempted from the bigeye thresher prohibition. Vessels are also
encouraged to not undertake a directed fishery for the other thresher sharks of the genus Alopias.
· Vessels operating in ICCAT-managed fisheries are to release all silky sharks (Carcharhinus falciformis),
dead or alive, and prohibit retaining onboard, transshipping or landing any part or whole carcass
of silky sharks (2011). Silky sharks are to be released promptly, at the latest before putting the catch
into the fish holds. Discards of silky sharks are to be recorded along with their status of dead or alive.
Developing coastal States are exempted from the prohibition to allow for domestic consumption of
silky sharks assuming these sharks do not enter into international trade and catches do not increase.9
· A stock assessment for shortfin makos (Isurus oxyrinchus) is to be conducted in 2012 resulting in an
annual catch limit and conservation recommendations. Those countries that have not reported
data for shortfin makos shall be prohibited from retaining them beginning in 2013 until data are
received.10
· Until sustainable levels of catch can be determined through a stock assessment, fishing mortality of
porbeagles (Lamna nasus) should be reduced.
Recommendation.
· Contracting and Cooperating non-Contracting Parties, Entities or Fishing Entities (CPCs) shall
annually submit data for catches of sharks, including effort, gear, landings and discards, to the
species level if possible.
· In fisheries that are not directed, live releases, especially juveniles, is encouraged.
· Where possible CPCs shall conduct research to make gears more selective and to identify nursery
habitats.11
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)
· Vessels are prohibited from retaining onboard, transshipping, or landing, any part or whole carcass
of the following shark species: oceanic whitetip sharks (Carcharhinus longimanus) (2012). All
discards of these species should be recorded as dead or alive.
Conservation and Management Measure.
· Commission Members, Cooperating non-Members and Participating Territories (CCMs) shall
annually report data to the Commission, which specifically includes the following key shark species:
blue, silky, oceanic whitetip, mako, thresher, porbeagle, and hammerhead (winghead, scalloped,
great, and smooth). Data should include catch and fishing effort by gear type, noting sharks that
are retained and discarded.
· In fisheries that are not directed, live release is encouraged.
· CCMs shall support research for avoidance of unwanted shark captures.
· CCMs should establish and implement an International Plan of Action for the Conservation and
Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks).
· National Plans of Action or other relevant policies for sharks should include measures to minimize
waste and discards from shark catches and encourage live release of incidental catches of sharks.
· The Scientific Committee should provide advice on stock status of key shark species and propose
a research plan for the assessment of the status of these stocks.12
RFMOs Managing Other Species
Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)
· Directed fishing on shark species in the Convention Area, for purposes other than scientific research,
is prohibited.
· Any bycatch of shark, especially juveniles and gravid females, taken accidentally in other fisheries, shall,
as far as possible, be released alive.13
Convention on the Conservation and Management of the Pollock Resources in the Central
Bering Sea (CCBSP)
· No shark management measures
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)
IATTC. Resolution on the Conservation of Sharks Caught in Association with Fisheries in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Resolution C-05-03. www.iattc.
org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-05-03-Sharks.pdf .
6
ICCAT. Recommendation by ICCAT on the Conservation of Thresher Sharks Caught in Association with Fisheries in the ICCAT Convention Area.
09-07. www.iccat.es/Documents%5CRecs%5Ccompendiopdf-e%5C2009-07-e.pdf.
7
ICCAT. Recommendation by ICCAT on the Conservation of Oceanic Whitetip Sharks Caught in Association with Fisheries in the ICCAT Convention
Area. 10-07. www.iccat.es/Documents%5CRecs%5Ccompendiopdf-e%5C2010-07-e.pdf.
8
ICCAT. Recommendation by ICCAT on Hammerhead Sharks (Family Sphyrnidae) Caught in Association with Fisheries Managed by ICCAT. 10-08.
www.iccat.es/Documents%5CRecs%5Ccompendiopdf-e%5C2010-08-e.pdf.
9
ICCAT. Recommendation by ICCAT on the Conservation of Silky Sharks Caught in Association with ICCAT Fisheries. 11-08. www.iccat.es/
Documents%5CRecs%5Ccompendiopdf-e%5C2011-08-e.pdf.
10
ICCAT. Recommendation by ICCAT on Atlantic ShortfinMako Sharks Caught in Association with ICCAT Fisheries. 10-06. www.iccat.es/
Documents%5CRecs%5Ccompendiopdf-e%5C2010-06-e.pdf.
11
ICCAT. Recommendation by ICCAT Concerning the Conservation of Sharks Caught in Association with Fisheries Managed by ICCAT. 04-10.
www.iccat.es/Documents%5CRecs%5Ccompendiopdf-e%5C2004-10-e.pdf.
5
22
· Vessels are prohibited from retaining onboard, landing, transshipping, storing, selling, or offering for sale
any part or whole carcass of the following shark species: hammerhead sharks (family Sphyrnidae except
for Sphyrna tiburo). Vessels should promptly release hammerheads unharmed, to the extent practicable.
All discards of these species should be recorded as dead or alive. There is an exemption for developing
coastal States for domestic consumption of hammerheads assuming these sharks do not enter into
international trade. Research of nursery areas should be conducted.14
12
WCPFC. Conservation and Management Measures for Sharks. Conservation and Management Measure 2010-07. www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-201007/conservation-and-management-measure-sharks.
13
CCAMLR. Conservation of Sharks. Conservation Measure 32-18 (2006). www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/e_pubs/cm/11-12/32-18.pdf.
14
GFCM. Recommendation GFCM/35/2011/7 (C) ICCAT recommendation [10-08] on Hammerhead sharks (family Sphyrnidae) caught in association
with fisheries managed by ICCAT. Pg 78-79. http://151.1.154.86/GfcmWebSite/docs/RecRes/GFCM_2011_RecRes_en.pdf.
23
· Vessels are prohibited from retaining onboard, landing, transshipping, storing, selling, or offering for sale
any part or whole carcass of bigeye thresher sharks (Alopias superciliosus) in any fishery with the exception
of a Mexican small-scale coastal fishery with a catch of less than 110 fish. Vessels should promptly release
bigeye thresher sharks unharmed, to the extent practicable. All discards of these species should be
recorded as dead or alive. Research of nursery areas should be conducted. Vessels are encouraged not
to start a directed fishery for other thresher species (Alopias spp.).15
rt
North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC)
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO)
prohibited from retaining onboard, transshipping, or landing fins harvested in contravention of these
provisions.
· A stock assessment for shortfin makos (Isurus oxyrinchus) is to be conducted in 2012 resulting in an annual
catch limit and conservation recommendations. Countries that have not reported data for shortfin makos
shall be prohibited from retaining them beginning 2013 until data are received.16
· Contracting Parties are to report data for catches of sharks, including discards, to species level if possible.
Recommendation.
· All parts of the shark are to be retained onboard except head, guts, and skins.
· CPCs shall annually submit data for catches of sharks, including effort, gear, landings, and discards, to the
species level if possible.
· Where possible research is to be conducted to make gears more selective and to identify nursery
habitats.22
Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC)
· Where possible, research is to be conducted to make gears more selective and to identify nursery habitats.17
International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC)
South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO)
· Directed fisheries of deep-water sharks in the Convention Area are banned until additional information
becomes available to identify sustainable fishing levels (2008).23
North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO)
Resolution.
North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC)
· Each Contracting Party shall annually report data for catches of sharks, to the species level if possible.
· No directed fishery for basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) (2011) in the Convention Area from 2012-2014.
Data on the species should be provided to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES).18
· In fisheries that are not directed, live release, especially juveniles, is encouraged.
Catch of sharks is to be fully utilized (all parts are to be retained except head, guts, and skins).
· Prohibits all directed fishing of spurdog (Squalus acanthias) (2011)19 and porbeagle (Lamna nasus) (2011)20
in the Regulatory Area from 2012-2014. In addition, any incidental catches are to be promptly released
unharmed, to the extent practicable. Data, including discards, is to be submitted to ICES. It’s encouraged
to implement equal conservation measures in national jurisdictions.
· Prohibits all directed fishing of deep-sea sharks including: gulper shark (Centrophorus granulosus),
leafscale gulper shark (Centrophorus squamosus), black dogfish (Centroscyllium fabricii), Portuguese
dogfish (Centroscymnus coelolepis), longnose velvet dogfish (Centroscymnus crepidater), kitefin shark
(Dalatias licha), greater lanternshark (Etmopterus princeps), Iceland catshark (Apristuris spp), Frilled
shark (Chlamydoselachus anguineus), birdbeak dogfish (Deania calcea), blackmouth dogfish (Galeus
melastomus), mouse catshark (Galeus murinus), bluntnose six-gilled shark (Hexanchus griseus), velvet
belly (Etmopterus spinax), sailfin rough shark (sharpback shark) (Oxynotus paradoxus), knifetooth dogfish
(Scymnodon ringens), and Greenland shark (Somniosus microcephalus) (2011) in the Regulatory Area
for 2012.21 Data, including discards, are to be submitted to ICES. It is encouraged to implement equal
conservation measures in national jurisdictions.
15
GFCM. Recommendation GFCM34/2010/4 (C) Recommendation by ICCAT on the conservation of thresher sharks caught in association with fisheries
in the ICCAT Convention Area. Pg. 13. http://151.1.154.86/GfcmWebSite/docs/RecRes/GFCM_2010_RecRes_en.pdf.
16
GFCM. Recommendation GFCM/35/2011/7 (B) ICCAT recommendation [10-06] on Atlantic ShortfinMako sharks caught in association with fisheries
managed by ICCAT. Pg. 76-77. http://151.1.154.86/GfcmWebSite/docs/RecRes/GFCM_2011_RecRes_en.pdf.
17
GFCM. GFCM/2005/3 (E) Recommendation [04-10] by ICCAT concerning the conservation of sharks caught in association with fisheries managed
by ICCAT. Pg 46. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/a0031e/a0031e00.pdf.
18
NEAFC. Basking shark. Recommendation 4: 2012. www.neafc.org/system/files/Rec_4_Recommendation_basking_shark-rev1.pdf.
19
NEAFC. Spurdog. Recommendation 5: 2012. www.neafc.org/system/files/Rec_5_Recommendation_spurdog.pdf.
20
NEAFC. Porbeagle. Recommendation 6: 2012. www.neafc.org/system/files/Rec_6_Recommendation_porbeagle.pdf.
21
NEAFC. Deep-sea sharks. Recommendation 7: 2012. www.neafc.org/system/files/Rec_7_deep-sea_sharks.pdf.
24
· Where possible, research is to be conducted to make gears more selective (such as avoiding wire traces)
and to identify nursery habitats.24
South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA)
South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization (SPRFMO)
·
NAFO.
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Conservation and Enforcement Measures. NAFO/FC Doc. 12/1. Serial No. N6001. www.nafo.
·
int/fisheries/frames/regulations.html.
23
SEAFO. Recommendation 1/2008 Banning of deep-water shark catches.
24
SEAFO. Conservation Measure 04/06 on the Conservation of Sharks Caught in Association with Fisheries Managed by SEAFO. Approved 04/10/2006.
www.seafo.org/ConservationMeasures/2006%20conservation%20measures/conservation%20measure%2004_06.pdf.
22
25
RFMO Members or Contracting Parties
CCAMLR
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, European Union, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan,
Republic of Korea, Namibia, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden,
Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay
CCBSP
China, Japan, Republic of Korea, Poland, Russian Federation, United States
CCSBT
Jim
Australia, Chinese Taipei, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand
er n
Ab
GFCM
y
eth
Albania, Algeria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt,European Union, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon,
Libya, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey
IATTC
Belize, Canada, China, Chinese Taipei, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, European Union, France,
Guatemala, Japan, Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, United States, Vanuatu, Venezuela
ICCAT
Appendix 2
The entities in this publication, and the
presentation of the material, do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the
part of The Pew Charitable Trusts concerning
the legal status of any country, territory or
area, or of its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
Albania, Algeria, Angola, Barbados, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Egypt,
Equatorial Guinea, European Union, France (Saint Pierre and Miquelon), Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea,
Honduras, Iceland, Japan, Republic of Korea, Libya, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Nicaragua,
Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Philippines, Russia Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and
Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Syrian Arab Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United
Kingdom (Overseas Territories), United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela
IOTC
Australia, Belize, China, Comoros, Eritrea, European Union, France, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan,
Kenya, Republic of Korea, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Seychelles,
Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, Thailand, United Kingdom, Vanuatu
IPHC
Canada, United States
NAFO
Canada, Cuba, Denmark, European Union, France (Saint Pierre and Miquelon), Iceland, Japan, Republic of Korea,
Norway, Russian Federation, Ukraine, United States
NASCO
Canada, Denmark (Faroe Islands and Greenland), European Union, Norway, Russian Federation, United States
NEAFC
Denmark (Faroe Islands and Greenland), European Union, Iceland, Norway, Russian Federation
NPAFC
Canada, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United States
PSC
Canada, United States
SEAFO
Angola, European Union, Japan, Republic of Korea, Namibia, Norway, South Africa
SIOFA
Shawn Heinrichs
Cook Islands, European Union, Mauritius, Seychelles
26
SPRFMO
Not yet in force.
WCPFC
Australia, Canada, China, Chinese Taipei, Cook Islands, European Union, Federated States of
Micronesia, Fiji, France, Japan, Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue,
Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States, Vanuatu
27
NOTE: This review was completed in 2011 and was based on the information available to Pew at that time. It
is possible that other regulations exist that were not identified due to inaccessibility of regulations or language
barriers. Although minor updates were made to this Appendix in 2012, it is possible that additional updates to
regulations and laws may have taken place since this information was gathered. If you have additional information
to provide, please contact [email protected]. While individual countries implement RFMO measures, those
measures were not repeated in this Appendix. For RFMO measures and a list of parties, see Appendices 1 and 2.
This review only includes countries, territories, and other political entities that have a coast.
Appendix 3
Domestic Shark Measures
*EU Member states that have an NPOA, but are land-locked and not included in the table below: Austria,
Hungary, Luxembourg, and Slovakia.
Akrotiri
Shark Species Found in the
Following Domestic Measures
Acronyms
EU
European Union
CPOA
Community Plan of Action
NPOA
National Plan of Action
for Sharks
TAC
Total Allowable Catch
32
28
Angel shark
Barbeled houndshark
Basking shark
Bigeye thresher shark
Blacktip reef shark
Blue shark
Bluntnose six-gilled shark
Common smoothhound
Common thresher shark
Dark ghost shark
Deepwater nurse shark
Dusky shark
Galapagos shark
Ganges shark
Graceful shark
Gray reef shark
Gray sharpnose shark
Great hammerhead shark
Great white shark
Gummy shark
Humpback smoothhound
Leopard shark
Longfin mako shark
Northern spiny dogfish
Oceanic whitetip shark
Pale ghost shark
Pelagic thresher shark
Pondicherry shark
Porbeagle shark
Rig shark
Salmon shark
Sand tiger shark
Scalloped hammerhead shark
Shortfin mako shark
Silky shark
Silvertip shark
Small spotted catshark
Smooth hammerhead shark
Soupfin shark
Speartooth shark
Speckled smoothhound
Spiny dogfish
Spotted houndshark
Tiger shark
Tope or school shark
Whale shark
White pointer shark
Whitetip reef shark
Squatina squatina
Leptocharias smithii
Cetorhinus maximus
Alopias superciliosus
Carcharhinus melanopterus
Prionace glauca
Hexanchus griseus
Mustelus mustelus
Alopias vulpinus
Hydrolagusnovae zealandiae
Odonta spisferox
Carcharhinu sobscurus
Carcharhinus galapagensis
Glyphis gangeticus
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchoides
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos
Rhizopriono donoligolinx
Sphyrna mokarran
Carcharodon carcharias
Mustelus antarcticus
Mustelus whitneyi
Triakissemi fasciata
Isurus paucus
Squalus griffini
Carcharhinus longimanus
Hydrola gusbemisi
Alopias pelagicus
Carcharhinus hemiodon
Lamnanasus
Musteluslen ticulatus
Lamna ditropis
Carcharias Taurus
Sphyrna lewini
Isurus oxyrinchus
Carcharhinus falciformis
Carcharhinus albimarginatus
Scyliorhinus canicula
Sphyrna zygaena
Galeo rhinuszyopterus
Glyphis glyphis
Mustelus mento
Squalus acanthias
Triakisma culata
Galeo cerdocuvier
Galeo rhinusgaleus
Rhincodon typus
Carcharodon carcharias
Triaenodono besus
· No shark management measures available
Albania
· Basking sharks are on the prohibited list
· Illegal to use bottom trawls/sailing or fixed nets to fish for bluntnose six-gilled sharks, basking sharks,
thresher sharks (Alopiidae), requiem sharks (Carcharhinidae), hammerhead sharks (Sphyrnidae), and
mackerel/white sharks (Isuridae/Lamnidae)
· Pelagic longlining for shark species (above) is prohibited from October 1 to January 31
· Size limits of 40 cm (~16 inches) for dogfish (Squalus), catsharks (Scyliorhinus), and blue sharks
Algeria
American Samoa
· Shark finning ban: Yes, fins and carcasses must be offloaded together
· Illegal for any person to chum for sharks, except for harvesting purposes
· Fishery ecosystem plans include gray reef, silvertip, Galapagos, blacktip reef, and whitetip reef sharks
Angola
Anguilla
·Antigua and Barbuda
· Foreign sport fishing vessels are prohibited from catching sharks
Argentina
· NPOA: Yes
· Shark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins attached
· Best practices for handling sharks (e.g., release of sharks larger than 1.6 m (5 feet); banning the use of gaffs)
· Maximum shark bycatch limit of 40%
· Closed nursery areas and closed recreational fishing areas
Aruba
29
Ashmore and Cartier Islands
Belize
· S hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached; applies to domestic
and foreign vessels and vessels fishing in international waters that fly the flag of Belize, Costa Rica,
Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama; export and import
of fins not attached requires certification by the country of origin that fins are not a product of finning
Australia
· N
POA: Yes
· F inning is not allowed in any tuna or billfish longline fishery or in any Commonwealth fishery taking
sharks; sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached
· Whale sharks are protected
· Sharks are species of interest in 8 of 14 marine protected areas
· F inning is banned to 3 miles in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia,
and Northern Territory
Benin
· T arget fisheries : Individual Transferable Quotas, limited entry and gear restrictions
· N
on-target fisheries: minimum size limit, trip limits for shark byproducts, ban on finning, ban on retention
of some shark products, ban on use of wire leaders and long shanked hooks
Bermuda
· G
reat white, basking, and whale sharks protected
· N
orthern Territory: Sharks without fins may not be discarded unless the shark cannot be used for
commercial purposes, either because of damage by other marine organisms, or because it was
destroyed due to mechanical error; discards must be logged; fresh or frozen fin weight must not
exceed 6.5% of the total weight of shark carcasses
· W
estern Australia: Vessels must have onboard whole sharks where every part is somewhere on the
vessel (less the tail, head, and guts); only fins may otherwise be removed; total landed fin weight may
not exceed 11% of the total weight of shark fillets, cartilage, liver, head, and upper tail; if a shark is
whole, total landed weight of fins may not exceed 5.5% of the total weight of shark products
· N
ew South Wales: fishing/gear restrictions, circle hooks, trip limits, cap on catch of school/gummy
sharks, observer program, illegal to kill or sell fins of great hammerheads (listed as vulnerable) and
scalloped hammerheads (listed as endangered)
· Q
ueensland: TAC for sharks on east coast (20/trip eastern tuna/billfish longline fishery), maximum size
limit, bag limit (recreational), speartooth sharks are prohibited
· S outh Australia: gear restrictions, time/area closure, maximum size for dusky sharks, wire hooks and
large hooks banned.
The Bahamas
· S hark sanctuary: All commercial shark fishing is prohibited
· B
an on sale, import, or export of shark, shark parts or shark products
· L ongline fishing ban
Bahrain
Bangladesh
· Shark finning ban: Yes
· Basking sharks and great white sharks are protected
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bouvet Island
Brazil
· S hark finning ban: Yes, fins and carcasses are landed together; total weight of fins must not exceed 5%
of the weight of the total shark carcasses landed; boats must report weight of fins and carcasses landed
British Virgin Islands
Brunei
Bulgaria
· NPOA: Yes, the EU CPOA
· S hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached; does not issue special permits
to transship or land fins and carcasses separately
· F ishing for, transshipment, and landing of angel shark, basking shark, porbeagle shark, and great white
shark by commercial fishing vessels are prohibited; Zero TAC for spiny dogfish
Burma (Myanmar)
Barbados
· Shark fishing ban: Yes, in territorial waters
· Ban on shark fin trade
Belgium
· Protected area in Myeik Archipelago that does not allow shark fishing
· S hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached; does not issue special permits to
transship or land fins and carcasses separately
Cambodia
30
31
Cameroon
Colombia
· Shark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached
Canada
· Large marine sanctuary around Malpelo Island, where no fishing is allowed
· NPOA: Yes
Comoros
· S hark finning ban: Yes, total weight of fins must not exceed 5% of the weight of total shark carcasses
landed. Applies to Canadian waters and Canadian fishing vessels outside Canada’s exclusive
economic zone
Congo (Brazzaville)
· Small closure in its fisheries to protect porbeagle sharks
· Shark fishing banned in territorial waters
· F ishery management plans, dock side monitoring, observers, quota monitoring system, vessel
monitoring systems
· Ban on the export of sharks or shark products
· Bycatch of smaller sharks allowed, but fishermen are prohibited from catching larger sharks
· A
tlantic: Porbeagle catch limits; limited permits; only porbeagle and blue sharks can be targeted;
all other sharks restricted to bycatch; targeted fishery closures; dogfish quota
· Fishermen pay taxes on sharks captured, shark fishing license, shark quality control, and shark certification
· Pacific: Total allowable catch on dogfish
Cook Islands
· Arctic: Fisheries Management Plan
· S hark finning ban: Yes, total weight of fins landed must not exceed 5% of the weight of total shark
carcasses landed for all Cook Islands vessels operating within its exclusive economic zone and high seas
Cape Verde
· NPOA: Yes
· Shark finning ban: Yes, throughout full exclusive economic zone
Cayman Islands
Coral Sea Islands
Costa Rica
· S hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins attached; permits are required to transport fins
after landing; transshipment of fins is prohibited
· S hark finning ban: Yes, sharks are required to be landed with fins naturally attached; applies to domestic
and foreign vessels and vessels fishing in international waters that fly the flag of Belize, Costa Rica,
Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama; export and import
of fins not attached requires certification by the country of origin that fins are not a product of finning
· Cocos Island is a marine reserve, although limited fishing is allowed in parts
Chile
· NPOA: Yes
· Shark finning ban: Yes, all sharks must be landed whole with fins naturally attached
China
· Permits required for shark fishing
· Hong Kong: Whale and basking sharks are protected
Christmas Island
· Within 12 miles, all shark species are commercially protected
· Whale and great white sharks are fully protected
Clipperton Island
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
· All foreign vessels must land at public docks
· Observers on boats and mandatory monitoring and data collection on sharks offloaded from vessels
Côte d’Ivoire
Croatia
· Great white and basking sharks are protected
· Marine protected area in its waters
· Damage to breeding and resting sites is prohibited
Cuba
Curacao
· Within 12 miles, all shark species are commercially protected
· Whale and great white sharks are fully protected
32
33
Cyprus
Egypt
· N
POA: Yes, the EU CPOA
· S
hark fishing banned in territorial waters to 12 miles offshore
El Salvador
Czech Republic · N
Democratic Republic of Congo
Denmark
· N
POA: Yes
· S
hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with at least 25% of each fin naturally attached; applies to
domestic and foreign vessels and vessels fishing in international waters that fly the flag of Belize, Costa Rica,
Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, or Panama
· S
ale or export of fins without the corresponding carcass is prohibited; import of fins not attached
requires certification by the country of origin that fins are not a product of finning
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
· N
· S
hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached; does not issue special
permits to transship or land fins and carcasses separately
· F ishing for, transshipment, and landing of angel shark, basking shark, porbeagle shark, and great
white shark by commercial fishing vessels are prohibited; Zero TAC for spiny dogfish
Falkland Islands
Dhekelia
Faroe Islands
Djibouti
Federated States of Micronesia
Dominica
· T argeted shark fishing is prohibited (use of wire traces or leaders is regarded as prima facie evidence
of such targeting)
Dominican Republic
Fiji
· N
o shark management measures available
· S hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached; applies to domestic and
foreign vessels and vessels fishing in international waters that fly the flag of Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican
Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama; export and import of fins not
attached requires certification by the country of origin that fins are not a product of finning
Finland
Ecuador
· Shark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached; does not issue special
· NPOA: Yes
· Shark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached
· N
· Fishing for, transshipment, and landing of angel shark, basking shark, porbeagle shark, and great
· Targeted shark fishing is prohibited, but if a shark is caught as bycatch, it must be fully utilized
· Catch, landing, and sale of sharks in the Galapagos Islands is prohibited
· Whale, basking, great white, porbeagle, and spiny dogfish sharks are protected
· Restrictions on longline gear: #1/0 and 3/0 normal eye and twisted gangion wire or chain, wire leaders
34
35
France
Greece
· N
POA: Yes, in addition to the EU CPOA
· N
· S
· S
French Guiana
Greenland
French Polynesia
Grenada
· S
hark finning ban: Yes
· S
hark fishing and trade are prohibited, except for mako sharks
Guadeloupe
French Southern and Antarctic Lands
Gabon
The Gambia
· N
POA: Yes
· S
hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins attached within all territorial waters
· A
ny shark caught in Gambian waters must be landed on Gambian soil
Gaza Strip
· S hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached; does not issue special
· Great white, whale, and basking sharks are protected
· EU TACs for spiny dogfish and porbeagle equal zero
· Targeted fishing for angel shark in EU waters is banned
Guam
· Ban on the sale, possession, and distribution of shark fins
· T he management unit of the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries includes the
common thresher, pelagic thresher, bigeye thresher, silky, oceanic whitetip, shortfin mako, longfin
mako, salmon, and blue sharks.
· Illegal for any person to chum for sharks, except for harvesting purposes
Georgia
Guatemala
· S hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached; applies to domestic and
foreign vessels and vessels fishing in international waters that fly the flag of Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican
Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama; export and import of fins not
attached requires certification by the country of origin that fins are not a product of finning
Germany
· N
Guernsey
· S
hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached; does not issue
special permits to transship or land fins and carcasses separately
· F
ishing for, transshipment, and landing of angel shark, basking shark, porbeagle shark, and great
· F ishing for, transshipment, and landing of angel shark, basking shark, porbeagle shark, and
great white shark by commercial fishing vessels are prohibited; Zero TAC for spiny dogfish
Ghana
Gibraltar
· S
hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached; special permit
required to transship or land fins and carcasses separately
· G
reat white and basking sharks are protected
Guinea
· N
POA: Yes
· S
hark finning ban: Yes, in territorial waters
· B
an on fishing for certain critically threatened species of sharks
Guinea-Bissau
· N
POA: Yes
· B
an on shark fishing in marine protected areas
· E
U TACs for spiny dogfish and porbeagle equal zero
36
37
Guyana
Israel
· S
· S
· G
reat white, whale, and basking sharks are protected
· E
· T argeted fishing for angel shark in EU waters is banned
Haiti
Honduras
· S
hark sanctuary: All commercial shark fishing is prohibited
· B
an on possession, sale, import, and export of sharks and shark products
· S
hark fishing is prohibited except with a special permit
Italy
· N
· S
· F
Jamaica
· W
hale shark is protected
Jan Mayen
Iceland
Japan
India
· N
POA: Yes
· B
an on fishing of whale, Pondicherry, Ganges, and speartooth sharks
· D
istant-water and near-shore tuna fisheries and coastal tuna longline fisheries are required to
land sharks whole (heads, intestines, and skin may be removed)
Indonesia
· N
POA: Yes
· B
an on shark fishing around Raja Ampat islands
Iran
· S
easonal closures for shark fishing
· B
ottom trawlers banned in Persian Gulf and restricted in Gulf of Oman
· R
estrictions on gillnet mesh size
· C
ollects monthly catch and effort data
Iraq
Ireland
· N
· S
· F
· F
ishermen must comply with regional fisheries management organization rules, which are imposed
on fishing licenses
· M
onitoring occurs according to Japan’s NPOA, which complies with SEAFO’s conservation
measures and requires information recorded on catch, auctions, and landing sites
Jersey
· F
Jordan
· N
o shark management measures
Kenya
· F ive species of shark listed as vulnerable
· F oreign trawling is prohibited within 5 miles of the coast
· L ongline fishing is prohibited within 200 miles of the coast
Kiribati
· N
o shark fishing is allowed in the Phoenix Islands Protected Area
Isle of Man
· F
38
39
Kuwait
Malta
· C
atching sharks is forbidden, except the graceful shark and gray sharpnose shark
· Y
es, the EU CPOA
· S elling or exhibiting sharks or shark parts in any fish market or shop is prohibited, except the graceful shark
and gray sharpnose shark
· S
· A
ll fishermen, commercial or recreational, including fisheries agencies are required to release any live shark
in the sea from their catch and inform the Public Authority of Agriculture and Fisheries (PAAF) of any incident
· S
cientific and research catch of sharks requires a permit from PAAF
Latvia
· N
· F ishing for, transshipment, and landing of angel shark, basking shark, porbeagle shark, and great white shark
by commercial fishing vessels are prohibited; Zero TAC for spiny dogfish
Lebanon
· N
Liberia
· N
Libya
· M
anagement plan for sharks, which is in agreement with the UN Environment Program Regional
Activity Center of Specially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA)
Marshall Islands
· S
· B
an on use of wire leaders
· B
an on trade of sharks and shark products
· A
ny shark caught accidentally by fishing vessels must be set free; violators are fined
Martinique
· S
· G
reat white and basking sharks are protected; fishing of these species is prohibited in all of
Martinique’s waters
· E
Mauritania
· N
POA: Yes
Lithuania
· L imits landing size of common smoothhound and parbeled houndshark to 60 cm (24 inches)
· N
· B
anc d’Arguin National Park: Finning and targeted shark fishing are prohibited with the exception
that milk and scalloped hammerhead sharks can be caught as bycatch
· P
elagic longline vessels and tuna seiners are prohibited from catching sand tiger, basking, great
white, and tope sharks
· F ishing for, transshipment, and landing of angel shark, basking shark, porbeagle shark, and great white shark
by commercial fishing vessels are prohibited; Zero TAC for spiny dogfish
Mauritius
Macau
· N
· N
Mayotte
Madagascar
· S
· N
Malaysia
· N
POA: Yes
· G
· E
· W
hale sharks are protected
Maldives
· S
· B
an on trade and export of sharks and shark products
· G
reat white and whale sharks are protected
40
41
Mexico
New Zealand
· N
POA: Yes
· N
POA: Yes
· S hark finning ban: Yes, fins and carcasses must be landed together for sharks caught intentionally or as
bycatch
· L ive finning is banned
· W
hale, basking, and great white sharks are protected
· C
ertain areas in the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico are closed to shark fishing
· F
in weight must correspond to carcass weight as guided by conversion factors stated in legislation
· B
asking, deepwater nurse, great white, whale, and white pointer sharks are protected
· B
an on driftnets
· Q
uotas for school, pale ghost, dark ghost, shortfin mako, porbeagle, rig, and blue sharks as well as
spiny dogfish and northern spiny dogfish; it is illegal to discard any of these, except blue, shortfin
mako, and porbeagle sharks, which can be released if captured alive; and spiny dogfish, which
may be released if captured alive or dead
Monaco
· O
ther shark species are managed as open or limited access fisheries
· N
Nicaragua
Montenegro
· S
hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached; applies to domestic
and foreign vessels and vessels fishing in international waters that fly the flag of Belize, Costa
Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama; export
and import of fins not attached requires certification by the country of origin that fins are not a
product of finning
· F ishermen must maintain logbooks
· P
orbeagle and great white sharks are protected
Montserrat
· B
asking sharks and great white sharks are protected
Morocco
· E
stablished set of guidelines designed to reduce fishing impact on sharks
Mozambique
· M
inimum size of 120 cm (47 inches) for sharks caught in nets
Namibia
· G
reat white sharks are protected
· D
iscarding biological materials in territorial waters is prohibited
· N
ational shark plan recommends legislation be established to prohibit shark finning
Nauru
· N
Navassa Island
· N
Netherlands
· N
New Caledonia
· S hark finning is banned in territorial seas of the Southern Province, except for tuna longliners
Nigeria
· S
hark finning ban: yes
Niue
· S
Norfolk Island
· N
North Korea
· N
Norway
· N
Northern Mariana Islands
· B
an on the possession, sale, and distribution of shark fins
· Illegal to land sharks at any ports within the Northern Mariana Islands
· Illegal to chum for sharks for recreational activities, only for harvesting purposes
Oman
· S
hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed, transshipped, sold, and disposed of with fins
naturally attached
· N
o shark parts may be discarded at sea or on land
· P
ermits are required to handle sharks and their parts
· L anding fins separated from the body is prohibited unless authorized by a competent authority
· U
ses monofilament as a shark avoidance measure
42
43
Pakistan
Portugal
· N
· N
Palau
· S
hark finning ban: Yes, special permit required to transship or land fins and carcasses separately
at different ports; Portugal and Spain are the only EU member states to issue these special permits,
which are granted to most of their long- distance fleets; shark fins and corresponding carcasses
must be kept onboard, and the weight of the fins must not exceed 5% of the live weight of the
shark catch
· A
ny sharks caught incidentally must be released
Panama
· N
POA: Yes
· S
hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached; applies to domestic
and foreign vessels and vessels fishing in international waters that fly the flag of Belize, Costa
Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama; export
and import of fins not attached requires certification by the country of origin that fins are not a
product of finning
Papua New Guinea
· S hark management plan
· L ongliners are not allowed to target sharks, cannot use wire leaders, and cannot export sharks
· T otal allowable catch limit of 200t (dressed weight) and includes allowance shark discards caught by
non-shark licensed fishers
· A
permit is required to target sharks
· O
bserver coverage at 20% of fishing days for active vessels
Peru
· M
inimum size limits
· T here is a management plan in place for tunas that also manages 10 species of sharks
Puerto Rico
· F
ollows management measures of the United States
Qatar
· N
Réunion
· S
· G
· E
Romania
· N
· S
· F
· M
aximum tolerance percentage for juvenile blue and mako sharks, speckled and humpback
smoothhounds, and spotted houndsharks
Russia
Philippines
· T otal allowable catch limits on sharks
· N
POA: Yes
Saint Barthelemy
· W
· N
Pitcairn Islands
Saint Helena, Ascension, & Tristan da Cunha
· B
· B
Poland
Saint Kitts and Nevis
· N
· N
Saint Lucia
· N
· S
aint Martin
44
45
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
· S
· G
· E
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Slovenia
· N
· N
Solomon Islands
Samoa
· L icenses are required to export shark fins
· S hark finning ban: Yes, total weight of fins must not exceed 5% of the weight of the total shark carcasses
landed
Somalia
Sao Tome and Principe
· N
Saudi Arabia
Sint
Maarten
· T argeting of sharks is prohibited, but shark bycatch is allowed and can be sold
Senegal
· N
POA: Yes
· S hark fishing is prohibited in the Sine Saloum National Park, Bamboung Bolon Marine Reserve, and in the
Madeleine Islands National Park
Seychelles
· N
POA: Yes
· S hark finning ban: Yes, total weight of fins landed by foreign vessels must not exceed 5% of the weight of
dressed shark carcasses
Sierra Leone
· N
POA: Yes
· S hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins attached
· L icenses are required to fish for sharks
· E
xport tax on shark products
· M
esh size requirement for shark fishing nets
Singapore
· N
Sint Maarten
· N
· N
South Africa
· S hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed, transported, sold or disposed of whole (can be headed and
gutted) with fins naturally attached in South African waters; in international waters, fins may be separated
from their carcasses provided that the fin-to-dressed-carcass weight is not in excess of 5% for international
vessels and 8% for domestic vessels
· G
reat white, basking, and whale sharks are protected
South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands
· N
South Korea
· N
POA: Yes
· S
hark finning ban: Yes, total weight of fins must not exceed 5% of the weight of the total shark
carcasses landed
Spain
· N
· S
hark finning ban: Yes, special permit required to transship or land fins and carcasses separately
at different ports; Spain and Portugal are the only EU member states to issue these permits, which
are granted to most of their long-distance fleets; shark fins and corresponding carcasses must be
kept onboard, and the weight of the fins must not exceed 5% of the live weight of the shark catch
· C
apture, injury, and trade of threshers, hammerheads, basking sharks, great white sharks, three
species of angel sharks, sand tiger sharks, smalltooth sand tiger sharks, and angular rough sharks are
prohibited
Spratly Islands
· N
Sri Lanka
· S
hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins attached
Sudan
· S
hark fishing is prohibited, but sale of shark in markets is still allowed
46
47
Suriname
Trinidad and Tobago
· N
· N
POA: Yes
Svalbard
Tunisia
· N
· N
Sweden
Turkey
· N
· B
asking sharks are protected
· S
hark finning ban: yes, sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached; does not issue
special permits to transship or land fins and carcasses separately
Turks and Caicos Islands
· F
ishing for, transshipment, and landing of angel shark, basking shark, porbeagle shark, and
great white shark by commercial fishing vessels are prohibited; Zero TAC for spiny dogfish
Tuvalu
· B
· N
Syria
Ukraine
· N
· N
Taiwan, Province of China
United Arab Emirates
· N
POA: Yes
· S
hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached
· S hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed whole
· S hark fishing banned from January to April
· V
essels must meet shark conservation and management requirements set by RFMOs
· W
· L ive sharks caught as bycatch must be released, and catch/release must be recorded
· O
nly licensed vessels can capture sharks
· F
ishermen must record the catch in WCPFC logbooks
· R
estrictions on hook type and the number of hooks that each boat may have
Tanzania
· F ishing is confined to waters at least 5 nm from the coast, 3 nm from islands, and 1 nm from reefs
· N
Thailand
· W
Timor-Leste
· N
Togo
Provide Kingdom
catch/effort data
United
· N
POA: Yes, in addition to the EU CPOA and a national shark strategy
· N
· N
o-take marine reserve surrounding the Chagos Archipelago
Tokelau
· E
ngland and Wales: Targeted fishing for tope shark is banned; recreationally-caught fish must be returned;
45 kg per day bycatch allowance for commercial boats; complete protection from disturbance or
harm for the angel shark out to 12 nm.
· F oreign vessels abide by New Zealand measures
Tonga
· S cotland: Fishing for tope shark, other than by rod and line or hand-line, is prohibited; transshipment of
tope shark is prohibited; landing of tope shark is prohibited; landing of any shark listed as a “specified
species” caught by rod and line or hand-line is prohibited
· B
an on live finning
· U
p to 10% of a boat’s total catch in weight can be shark
· B
an on the use of wire leaders
48
49
51
United States
Venezuela
· N
POA: Yes
· N
POA: Yes
· S
hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached with the exception smooth
dogfish; transfer of fins at sea is prohibited
· S
hark finning ban: Yes, sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached
· A
tlantic: Quotas for porbeagle and blue sharks, prohibited shark species, recreational harvest limits,
seasons assigned to species, time/area closures, regional commercial quotas, limited access permits,
vessel monitoring systems for bottom longlines during Mid-Atlantic time/area closure, shark dealers
must attend shark identification workshops, restricted areas off US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico
(essential fish habitat protection, reduce fishing mortality of other species), shark research fishery,
species-specific quota for sandbar shark, management units, fins naturally attached at offloading,
fishery observers, regional closures when quotas are met, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
and New England Fishery Management Council manage spiny dogfish (quota, seasonal closures
based on quota being reached), target reference points
· P
acific: management units include shark species; prohibited species; fishery monitoring and annual
stock assessment and Fishery Evaluation reports; leopard, soupfin, and spiny dogfish are managed
separately with closed areas; and spiny dogfish trip limits
· C
alifornia, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington states prohibit the sale, possession, and distribution of
shark fins
· M
any states have shark fisheries regulations in place, such as Florida, which bans retention of
hammerheads, tiger sharks, and other species
Vietnam
· N
Virgin Islands
· F
ollows the measures of the United States
Wallis and Futuna
· S
· G
· E
Western Sahara
· N
Uruguay
Yemen
· N
POA: Yes
· S
Vanuatu
· S
om
ideImages.c
ws/Oceanw
ique Fallo
Chris and Mon
50
· C
ommercial shark fishing is banned around the Los Roques Archipelago
Notes
Notes
David
Fleet
ham
/Oce
anw
ideIm
ages
.com
Pew Environment Group
901 E St. NW, Washington, DC 20004
Phone: +1.202.552.2000 · Email: [email protected]
www.pewenvironment.org/sharks

Navigating Global Shark Conservation: Current

Transcription

Similar documents

What Are The Odds Of A Shark Attack?

Agrostis stolonifera Characteristics An excellent and

Entertainment - The Montgomery County Agricultural Fair

Dogfish Shark Dissection

great white shark - Friends of the Elephant Seal

Shark Attacks - International Wildlife Museum

Shark`s Tale - GreatSchools

File

Can you tell FACT from fiction?

Dogfish Shark Dissection