uk/eu shark legislation

Dear All,

Here is an update on my correspondence with the UK govt on the dire status of EU and UK shark conservation. It is estimated that the UK is Europes fourth largest exporter of shark products, and Europe

now accounts for up to 1/3 of all shark imports in the hong kong fin market. It is vital that we engage in debate with ministers on this topic.

After the initial pathetic response from DEFRA (dept environ, food and rural affiars), my county MP has pressed for a fuller response, which this time came from a different minister. Having managed to open dialogue with the snoozing dinosaur that is DEFRA, I would like to maintian reciprocal communication rather than let the beast go back to sleep. I've posted the full reply below and would appreciate feedback from interested/concerned individuals to allow me to make a coherent and effective response. First glance makes it seem they are doing all they can to protect sharks, but particular cop-out paragraphs are the one on the cornish porbeagle fishery (which i know little about, info appreciated) and quoting ICES proposals as a tool for conservation, particularly in the light of the recent Commission TAC guidlines which opted for minimal reduction, effectively ignoring the advice of ICES.

If anyone can review the below and let me know any observations, i'd appreciate it.

Thanks,

Mark.

Answer from Jonathan Shaw MP minister for Marine, Landscape, & Rural Affairs and Minister for the South East

‘opening paragraph not reproduced as contains my address details’

The UK only allows shark finning to take place in restricted circumstances where a capacity to use all the parts of sharks has been demonstrated and where the need for separate processing on board of shark fins and the remaining parts of sharks has been justified. We are obliged to report to the European Commission on our implementation of Council Regulation 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks aboard vessels. These reports can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/fish/sea/conserve/conserv.htm

Our permit scheme does not use the derogation that allows the separate landing and transhipment of fins and bodies. Our vessels are required to have the fins and bodies available for inspection at sea or on landing.

The process of CITES listing is inevitably slow given that CITES Conference of Parties (CoP) only takes place every 2-3 years to agree new listings, up-listings or de-listings. Around 33,000 species of flora and fauna are currently listed on CITES and all 172 parties are encouraged to constantly monitor trade and conservation issues in endangered species and consider where a CITES listing may help protect or enhance the conservation of a species.

Any party can propose a new listing which then has to be agreed at a CoP. We encourage suggestions for species listings from any source (backed by evidence) which can then be considered by our scientific authorities and if we feel there is a case, we can pursue this with our EU partners to agree that the proposal can be submitted at a CoP. If your constituent has specific listing proposals we would encourage him to contact us with his justification. Further information on what is needed to support a listing proposal can be found at www.cites.org

As your constituent notes, the EU proposals to list the porbeagle and spiny dogfish were unsuccessful at the last CoP mainly due to the fact that most of the trade was intra-community and therefore should be addressed in the first instance through the EU Shark Management Plan. We continue to press the Commission to take this forward.

In 2005, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) advised that no fishery should be permitted on this stock and that improved management information was needed. In April this year the Commission’s Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries found that this advice was justified and recommended that no directed fishing for porbeagle be permitted. It further recommended that additional measures should be taken to prevent the by-catch of porbeagle in fisheries targeting other species, and suggested that live release might be a successful mitigation measure.

The council of the European Union therefore invited the Commission to come forward with a proposal to regulate both directed fisheries and by-catches of this stock. We consulted the Shark Trust and Save our Sharks on the package of proposals. I can assure you that the UK will be proactive in helping develop these proposals to provide effective protection for porbeagles. We will also be urging the Commission to provide the necessary encouragement to the Regional Fishery Management Organisations, with which it has dealings, to introduce similar conservation mechanisms to make the international mechanism as effective as possible. We do not intend to take unilateral action to prevent the directed North Cornish porbeagle fishery in advance of our engagement with EU and Common Fisheries Policy proposals for the management of the porbeagle stock in 2008 and beyond.

Given the international nature of the fishery, localised reports of catches would give little indication about the state of the stock as a whole. Closure or other management measures in relation to the UK fishery alone would not guarantee the sustainability of the stock. Our preference in for action at the EU level. We are improving our data collection on shark species caught by our fleet and intend to share this with scientists working on data preparation excercises in the international context of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)/ICES.

There do not appear to be any directed fisheries for tope other than by rod and line on a catch and release basis. Nevertheless, in the absence of any EU initiatives, we are in the process of developing unilateral proposals to prevent the development of a commercial tope fishery in English waters.

The EU will soon start working on a proposal for a plan of action covering all elasmobranchs following the recommendations of the FAO International Plan of Action. The proposal should be ready to be discussed with Member States in 2008 and should set the basis for future management. The scope of the action plan includes directed and by-catch fisheries that are within Community waters as well as fisheries on the High Seas where the EU fleet operates.

--

underwater film & photo @

--------------------------------------

http://www.eyemocean.com

----------------------------------------

multimedia productions @

---------------------------------------

http://www.writepic.com

-----------------------------------

Mark,

I am back form Raja. I am not clear as to the position of this fellow. Sounds like he agrees but wont' prompt any real action. Is that your take?

shawn

yes shawn,

i'm viewing it as typical politician speak, making it look like they are doing things whilst doing very little.

i'm trying to get consultation with some shark conservation heavies over here so i can make my response as powerful as possible. i now have the backing of my local MP who is helping me push for responses from the ministry, so it would be a shame to waste the opportunity by making a weak response.

talk soon,

mark

"We do not intend to take unilateral action to prevent the directed North Cornish porbeagle fishery in advance of our engagement with EU and Common Fisheries Policy proposals for the management of the porbeagle stock in 2008 and beyond. "

Are they taking this stance because the DEFRA is relatively powerless or is it because the EU/Common Fisheries/Commission's decisions are imminent and/or likely to precede the next porbeagle season? In other words, is the DEFRA waiting for the bigger, stronger agency to take action because between now and then there's very little porbeagle fishing in the UK? Or are they waiting because the Commission involves the larger agencies that actually have the jurisdiction and the means to create and enforce regulations?

Or are they just passing the buck, the way George W. Bush just did (yet again) regarding climate change?

Look on the bright side, at least you actually got a reply, I'm still waiting........

From the answer you posted it looks as though Shaw has passed on your letter to someone within Defra and that you succeeded in taking up a considerable amount of this person's time at Defra, hence the Civil Service technical response which is written in their usual apparently precise style which is as usual rather vague over anything likely to actually be done!

Its difficult to see how you can actually force anything beyond this level of correspondence, but asking appropriate questions may help - perhaps you could actually write directly to Shaw and ask what is his own personal opinions of shark finning - does he agree or disagree with it and what action will he personally be taking beyong the points raised in the reply you have just had. It might also be worth writing ICES with a copy of the letter to ask whether this is in fact the UK/EU position (or is it merely the sop that it appears) and what action would they suggest that you take as a concerned individual. My experience with writing to or lobbying our politicians is not good - the only real way of exerting pressure is to equate an issue with the potential votes it will generate or lose for them and this is really difficult!

After listening to an interview with Benn (from Bali) on BBC Radio 4 this morning I have to say that my opinion of UK Politicians is at an all time low - and that is saying an awful lot!

thanks for the input pgk,

i'm cynical enough to take the advantage that my MP is in opposition, if not then i'd probably just be doing more waiting.

interesting point about asking shaw his personal opinions. do you think he would really answer that?

will post my reply here soon. at least we are not the only few that are pushing for this, there is a (i htink growing) movement to get things changed...lets hope we have enough time. i know we are running late.

mark