EU Parliamentary questions: Shark related questions from Oct 2014 to July 2015
European Parliament :
Parliamentary questions,
submitted from October 2014 to July 2015,
regarding European Shark Fisheries Policy
and Management.
Parliamentary question P-011546/2015
17 July 2015
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 130
Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE)
Subject: Shark finning
Under Regulation (EC) No 206/2009 the EU permits individuals to bring up to 20 kg of shark fins into the EU for personal consumption. 20 kg of shark fins is estimated to be enough to make over 700 bowls of shark fin soup, clearly far in excess of personal consumption levels.
This provision poses a significant threat to the EU’s efforts at shark conservation, most notably Regulation (EU) 1185/2003 as amended by Regulation (EU) 605/2013 on the finning of sharks. In addition, such a large allowance poses significant problems for customs officers, who cannot easily assess whether dried shark fins imported in this way are CITES protected species or not.
This is also an effective tax loophole, whereby Member States are missing out on tax revenue, which would be charged for shark fins imported into the EU through commercial, regulated channels.
Given the negative impacts on EU conservation and tax objectives, will the Commission urgently review the inclusion of shark fins in the fish products personal allowance list?
Answer :
No answer submitted yet
——————–
Parliamentary question E-006698/2015
28 April 2015
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 130
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)
Subject: Kitefin shark fishing in the Autonomous Region of the Azores
When Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries visited the Autonomous Region of the Azores a short time ago, fisheries sector representatives dwelt on the problem of the kitefin shark, a deep-water predator which, in the Azores, apparently has not been fished for more than a decade. The food chain is said to have been altered by the increased abundance of this predator, which, in view of that fact, ought to be fished on a controlled basis, and a limited number of fishing licences issued for that purpose. In addition, studies which, according to the representatives, have been sent to the Commission support the above claims and suggest that controlled fishing would be the best solution.
Further to earlier questions on the same subject:
1. What studies have been submitted to the Commission to date, who conducted them, what were their findings, and what action has the Commission taken on them?
2. Has the Commission asked any institute to carry out any more studies?
3. What EU funding could be used to support further research, including studies carried out by the Department of Oceanography and Fisheries at the University of the Azores?
Answer given by Mr Vella on behalf of the Commission
29 July 2015
The Commission is not aware of any study looking at the abundance of kitefin sharks other than the Commission study on the reduction of deep-sea sharks’ by catches in the Portuguese long-line black scabbard fishery(1). Relevant studies submitted by Member States to the Commission are forwarded to the scientific advisory bodies of reference for review. Member States are encouraged to submit their scientific information directly to these international scientific bodies.
The Commission has not asked any institute to carry out further studies.
As well as research funded under Horizon 2020, some scientific work, such as surveys, can be supported under a Member State’s Operational Programme under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund(2). The relevant stakeholders from the Azores are encouraged to liaise with the competent Portuguese authorities to investigate this option.
(1) PDF
(2) Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15.5.2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2328/2003, (EC) No 861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 149, 20.5.2014, p. 1‐66.
———————-
Parliamentary question E-003917/2015
11 March 2015
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 130
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)
Subject: By-catch of deep-sea sharks and the case of the kitefin shark (Dalatias licha) in the Autonomous Region of Madeira
In addition to previous questions (E-010864/2014 and E-010866/2014) on by-catches of deep-sea sharks, such as the kitefin shark, in the Autonomous Region of Madeira, which can be considered a by-catch of black scabbardfish, and taking into account the well-known importance of these fisheries in the region, I would be grateful if the European Commission could inform me about the state of play on this matter and in particular on the following:
1. Has Portugal submitted any scientific study or studies to date on the impact of by-catch of kitefin sharks?
2. How would the Commission assess the study or studies? Is the Commission’s position on this matter expected to change?
Answer given by Mr Vella on behalf of the Commission
29 May 2015
We are not aware of specific studies on the impacts of by-catch on kitefin sharks submitted by Portugal. When Member States provide scientific studies to the Commission, the Commission submits such studies to scientific advisory bodies, such as the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) for validation. If the findings from such national studies are validated, the Commission services can consider using them when making management proposals.
———————–
Parliamentary question E-001303/2015 (to Council) and P-001293/2015 (to Commission)
29 January 2015
Question for written answer
to the Council and the Commission
Rule 130
Cláudia Monteiro de Aguiar (PPE)
Subject: Ban on deep-sea shark fishing — the case of catshark in Madeira
On 15 December 2014, the Council approved Regulation No 1367/2014 fixing for 2015 and 2016 the fishing opportunities for Union fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks. However, no account was taken of the exemption which Madeira previously enjoyed in relation to deep-sea fishing for species commonly known as gulper or kitefin shark and locally known as ‘gata’ or catshark; this arrangement was not continued and a zero quota was allocated in the above regulation.
Black scabbardfish is important for the economy of the Autonomous Region of Madeira, since it generates more than EUR 6 million and secures hundreds of jobs. Catches of gulper or kitefin shark had been allowed while fishing for black scabbardfish, since both species bite the same hooks, and gulper and kitefin sharks were therefore considered a type of by-catch.
Catshark is a local speciality and tourist attraction, but above all it provides a livelihood for many fishermen in the community of Cámara de Lobos in the Autonomous Region of Madeira.
1. Can the Council (Commission) say what scientific advice provided the basis for the decision to ban deep-sea shark fishing?
2. When will the regulation be reviewed, and when might the exception granted to Madeira be reintroduced?
Answer given by Mr Vella on behalf of the Commission
27 February 2015
Leafscale gulper shark (Centrophorus squamosus), kitefin shark (Dalatias licha) and catsharks (Apristurus spp.) are different species of deep-water sharks considered vulnerable to exploitation as they are long-living, late maturing and low fecundity species. Leafscale gulper shark is by far the most important deep-water shark caught by the Madeira fleet with landings in 2012 amounting to nearly 160 tonnes. Scientists advised in 2014 that this stock is depleted. Knowing that these deep-water sharks are widely distributed throughout the North East Atlantic, in 2014 the STECF advised(1) to extend management measures to the whole distribution area including waters around Madeira. The current provisions are deemed appropriate to contain fishing mortality on these sharks and presently no amendment to Council Regulation (EU) No 1367/2014 is foreseen.
A recent study on the reduction of deep-sea sharks’ by-catches in the Portuguese longline black scabbard fishery(2) gives useful information of possible measures to improve further the selectivity on this fishery.
(1)Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) — 46th Plenary Meeting Report (PLEN-14-02). 2014.
(2) PDF
Reply (by Council) 9 April 2015
The Council fixes fishing opportunities based on a proposal submitted by the Commission, taking into account the scientific, technical and economic advice, where available.
In 2014, fishing opportunities in deep-sea waters were for the first time fixed under the rules of the revised common fisheries policy, which emphasises the role of the ‘best available scientific advice’. In this framework, the Council’s decision took into account the advice provided by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) indicating that appropriate management measures for the conservation of deep-sea sharks should be extended to cover the full distribution of these stocks( 1 ). It was therefore agreed that the total allowable catch (TAC) area for deep-sea sharks in Union and international waters of V, VI, VII, VIII and IX be extended to cover waters of CECAF (Committee for Eastern and Central Atlantic Fisheries) around Madeira, i.e. Union waters of CECAF 34.1.1, 34.1.2 and 34.2.
As the Council Regulation covers a period of two years, the deep-sea fishing opportunities will be reviewed in 2016, unless new scientific advice indicates the need to revise them sooner. In full respect of the role of each institution as established by the Treaties, the Commission might consider proposing such a revision, if necessary, which could then be considered by the Council.
———————-
Parliamentary question E-000856/2015
22 January 2015
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 130
José Inácio Faria (ALDE)
Subject: By-catches of kitefin sharks off Madeira
In Câmara de Lobos, part of the Portuguese Autonomous Region of Madeira, it sometimes happens — because they also get trapped by the bait — that the non-industrial gear used to fish for swordfish accidentally catches kitefin sharks. (The kitefin shark is deep-water species which occurs abundantly in that area).
Regulation (EU) No 1367/2014 of 15 December 2014 stipulates that kitefin sharks caught must all be thrown back into the sea, but, since this is a deep-water species, that practice does not save their lives: it is, indeed, futile from the conservation point of view and has an unfortunate social impact within the local small-scale fishing community. Furthermore, according to a report produced for the Commission, (accidental) by-catches of kitefin sharks have been found to be very low (0.01% — page 122, Table 36).
1. In the light of the foregoing, what does the Commission consider to be valid grounds for ruling out the use of by-catches?
2. Without going so far as to allow fishing for this species, how would it be possible, in the Commission’s opinion, to remove the obstacles preventing by-catches from being put to use?
3. Would it make sense to suspend enforcement of the above regulation for kitefin shark by-catches resulting from non-industrial methods, as opposed to trawling?
Answer given by Mr Vella on behalf of the Commission
9 March 2015
Kitefin shark, Dalatias licha, is a large deep-water shark considered to be long-living, late maturing and with low fecundity. In the Northeast Atlantic it is abundant in the area around Azores (ICES, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Subarea X). According to ICES this stock is depleted, below safe biomass levels and below 50% of its virgin biomass. ICES advises that there should be no targeted fisheries on this vulnerable stock.
Currently there are no targeted commercial fisheries for kitefin shark in the Northeast Atlantic, but by-catches are known to occur in trawl and hook-and-line fisheries.
It is important to protect kitefin sharks from fishing even if taken as by-catch in relative small quantities. Even for less vulnerable elasmobranches scientists have advised(1) that any permitted landings will probably generate additional mortality compromising stock recovery. So for precautionary reasons the measures currently in place for kitefin shark are deemed appropriate.
Further work on stock assessment and data collection is required to determine stock status. Fishing opportunities other than those currently in place can only be considered if evidence shows that fisheries are sustainable.
(1) Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) — 44th Plenary Meeting Report (PLEN-13-03). 2013. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26332 EN, JRC 86096, 124 pp.
——————
Parliamentary question E-000726/2015
21 January 2015
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 130
José Blanco López (S&D)
Subject: Aid granted by Member States for the enforcement of shark finning legislation
In its answer to my Written Question E-009767/2014, the Commission states that it sees no need to revise, at this stage, Regulation (EU) No 605/2013 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels, in view of the difficulties it is having in assessing its implementation, given that only 15 Member States have submitted the complete report they are supposed to draw up on the implementation of this regulation.
1. Can the Commission clarify which Member States have yet to submit this report, orwhich ones submitted it on time?
In its answer it also notes that it is the Member States which may decide to provide support under the EMFF to achieve a more sustainable use of marine biological resources, to promote environmentally-friendly processing methods, or to make investments to deal with unwanted catches or to improve the quality of fishery products.
2. Can the Commission clarify, in this regard, which Member States have granted aid tofacilitate the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 605/2013?
Answer given by Mr Vella on behalf of the Commission
9 March 2015
1. Among the coastal Member States, the Commission has not yet received reports from Croatia, Italy, the Netherlands and Romania. The reports received from Greece, Portugal, and Spain are incomplete. The Commission is in contact with these Member States so that they provide full reports as soon as possible.
2. It is too early to provide a thorough analysis of the content of EMFF programmes. To date, only one EMFF Operational Programme (OP) has been adopted and discussions are currently underway with Member States on the remaining OPs.
—————
Parliamentary question E-009767/2014
26 November 2014
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 130
José Blanco López (S&D)
Subject: Revision of European legislation on finning
Following on from my Question E-008314/2014, given that the ICCAT decided at its last Annual Meeting, in view of the opposition from various quarters, including Japan, China, and South Korea, not to prohibit the international fishing fleet as a whole from employing the practice of shark finning (i.e. cutting off the fins and discarding the rest of the body), competition is being made unfair by the fact that the European longliner fleet is subject to stricter requirements, a fact which further underlines the need for the Commission to revise legislation that is causing the sector to incur losses on a scale matching the inordinate costs involved. In particular, a finning ban could be secured more straightforwardly than under the arrangements in force since the last revision of Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003, which imposes an obligation to land sharks with the fins naturally attached to the bodies.
1. Will the Commission revise the current legislation so as to enable the finning ban to be enforced in a way geared more closely to the sector’s needs as well as complying with the requirements of international law?
2. How has the fleet been helped to implement this legislation?
3. In view of the unfair competition, is the Commission providing compensation?
Answer given by Mr Vella on behalf of the Commission
19 January 2015
The practice of shark finning — cutting off the fins and discarding the carcasses — has, since 2003, been prohibited through Regulation (EC) 1185/2003(1). Amendments were later introduced by Regulation (EU) 605/2013(2) in order to improve monitoring through a fins attached policy.
A comprehensive impact assessment and stakeholder consultation were conducted by the Commission before the amendment was proposed. In response to concerns voiced by the fishery sector, the Regulation allows slicing partly through each fin and folding it against the carcass, thus addressing the sector’s need for easier handling and storage.
The Commission sees no need to revise the regulation at this stage. Member States must submit annual reports on the implementation of the regulation. To date, only 15 have submitted a complete report; this makes it difficult to assess the implementation of the Regulation.
An increasing number of countries ban shark finning and implement fins attached policies. The EU promotes actively such policies in relevant international fora and in particular in RFMOs. The Commission’s aim is twofold: to improve the conservation and sustainable management of sharks and create a more level playing field. It will continue to work actively with like-minded States to eliminate the practice of shark finning globally.
The Commission does not provide financial support to Member States or operators for compliance with current legislation. To support the sector more generally, Member States may decide to provide support under the EMFF(3) to achieve more sustainable use of marine biological resources, to promote environmentally-friendly processing methods, or to make investments to deal with unwanted catches or to improve the quality of fishery products.
(1) OJ L 167, 4.7.2003, p.1,
(2) OJ L 181, 29.6.2013, p.1,
(3) European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) OJ L 149, 10.5.2014, p. 1
—————
Parliamentary question E-009447/2014
19 November 2014
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 130
Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE) , Gabriel Mato (PPE)
Subject: Fins-attached policy
In terms of Regulation (EU) No 605/2013 of 12 June 2013 the EU fishing fleet was prohibited from removing the fins of sharks on board vessels and discarding the rest of their bodies back into the sea. Instead, boats were required to unload sharks whole.
At the meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) that was held between 10 and 17 November in Genoa the European Commission failed to reach an agreement for the Asian fleet to eliminate the practice of shark-finning and to be bound, as the European fleet is, to land sharks whole rather than just their fins.
This is the sixth time that the EU has failed in this endeavour, which leaves the EU fishing sector in a position of clear disadvantage. It also entails diminished competitiveness for the vessels affected by the fins-attached policy, since they have to incur greater costs because they cannot process the sharks on board, as the Asian boats do, mainly the Chinese and Japanese fleets.
1. Does the Commission intend to adopt any measures to deal with this situation?
2 What options are available to compensate the European fleet for the situation of disadvantage it is suffering vis-à-vis the Asian boats?
3. Does the Commission intend to amend current EU legislation in this regard?
Answer given by Mr Vella on behalf of the Commission
16 January 2015
Regulation (EU) 605/2013(1) amended Regulation (EC) 1185/2003(2) — which already prohibited shark finning and the discarding of carcasses — to facilitate monitoring through a ‘fins attached’ policy.
Before proposing the regulation, the Commission conducted a comprehensive impact assessment and stakeholder consultation. In response to concerns of the fishery sector, the Regulation allows slicing partly through each fin and folding it against the carcass to facilitate handling and storage. This is common practice in an increasing number of countries that banned shark finning, also in Asia.
Over the past years the EU has been promoting a fins attached policy in international fora, incl. ICCAT. The aim of the Commission for doing so is twofold: to improve the conservation of sharks and to create a level playing field. Therefore it works actively with like-minded States to eliminate the practice of shark finning, and it will continue to do so.
Member States must submit annual reports to the Commission on the implementation of the regulation. By 2016 the Commission shall report on its operation to the European Parliament and the Council. To date, only 15 Member States have submitted a complete report for 2013.
The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund(3) (EMFF) does not directly provide for the compensation of any additional costs resulting from complying with the regulation. Member States, however, can explore the possibility of using a variety of measures in the EMFF, e.g. those aimed at achieving more sustainable use of marine biological resources or at promoting environmentally-friendly processing methods, as well as investments to deal with unwanted catches or to improve the quality of fishery products (Art. 39, 68, 38, 42).
(1) OJ L 181, 29.6.2013, p.1
(2) OJ L 167, 4.7.2003, p.1
(3) OJ L 149, 10.5.2014, p.1
——————-
Parliamentary question E-008314/2014
23 October 2014
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 130
José Blanco López (S&D)
Subject: Regulation on the removal of shark fins on board vessels
Since the coming into force of the European Commission’s proposal of November 2011 to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 on the removal of shark fins on board vessels, the long-line fishery sector has been complaining about the unnecessary extra costs incurred as a result of this measure in storage, handling, processing and marketing. They now say their situation is catastrophic, with many applications for scrapping of vessels.
While still in favour of effective control to enforce the ban on shark finning, which consists of cutting off the shark’s fins and discarding the rest of the body, the costs incurred under the present legislation are disproportionate, even more so when the regional fisheries organisations (RFOs) do not apply it uniformly, and it has even been criticised by the ICCAT.
In the EU this regulation affects 2 775 crew members and over 11 000 jobs on land, with annual costs amounting to around 10 million euros.
Does the Commission consider it opportune to revise the current regulations so as to enforce the ban on shark finning or, failing that, to prevent the current situation of unfair competition in the sector by promoting uniform legislation in this area on the part of the RFOs and the ICCAT?
Answer given by Mr Vella on behalf of the Commission
4 December 2014
Before proposing Regulation (EU) 605/2013(1), the Commission conducted an impact assessment that examined its potential conservation, economic and social effects as well as an extensive stakeholder consultation. In response to concerns of the fishery sector and to facilitate storage and handling, the regulation allows slicing partly through each fin and folding it against the sharks’ carcasses. This is common practice followed by fishermen from other countries that banned shark finning or follow a ‘fins attached’ policy, for instance Australia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, India, Panama, Taiwan or the USA.
Since the adoption of the regulation, the EU has been promoting the adoption of a ‘fins naturally attached’ policy in regional fishery management organisations (RFMOs), such as ICCAT(2), as well as at the United Nations. The aim of the Commission for doing so is twofold: to improve the conservation of sharks and to create a level playing field for the EU fleet by ensuring that all other fleets operate under the same conditions. The EU also works actively with other like-minded States in these fora to promote effective control measures in order to eliminate the practice of shark finning.
Member States must submit annual reports to the Commission on the implementation of the regulation, on the basis of which the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the operation of the regulation and on related international developments by 2016. To date, only half of the Member States have submitted a complete annual report for 2013. The Commission is urging the Member States to submit or complete their reports.
(1) OJ L 181, 29.6.2013, p.1, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0605
(2) International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.
Source: The European Parliament