Action + Updates

At this stage the European Commission is accepting public comments via their official questionnaire. This is your opportunity to participate, deadline is June 4th 2024. The questions are focused on policy options. These are loaded questions, so be very careful and read the details below before you begin. This is completely about your opinion, any suggestions we make below are simply that, suggestions. Click the button below to see how Shark Allies answered. To participate, go to this link and create a log in.

Here are some overall points that might help you understand and navigate the process:

• For each question you have 6 option ranging from VERY POSITIVE to VERY NEGATIVE and NO OPINION. Be aware that the Commission will most likely just tally the results automatically and not carefully consider subtleties you want to express. It’s probably best to be very obvious in your selection. NEUTRAL is a better choice than NO OPINION to show that there is most likely no impact, or there will be negative and positive changes that will balance out.

• When you read the proposed policy options (#2-7) please keep in mind that they are not asking whether these are good practices to pursue in general (most of them are), but whether this is the one policy solution they should chose (instead of a fin trade ban). So your answers should reflect whether that particular policy option will bring the effect you desire.

• If you are in favor of a fin trade ban, then policy options #2-5 are completely undesirable, since they would not create any effective change. At best they would be NEUTRAL. Therefore, the environmental impacts would be VERY NEGATIVE (because very little would change and systems keep degrading) and most of the social and economic impacts would be NEUTRAL, because they wouldn’t change much from what they are now (with the exception being tourism and human health). On the flip side, if you are in favor of a fin trade ban, then policy options #6 and #7 are desirable, particularly #7!

Questionnaire guidance in multiple languages: StopFinningEU Action Guide

1. “Landed whole/fins naturally attached” regulations were the reasons shark fishers switched to bringing in sharks and promoting the consumption of shark meat, not fin trade bans. This is exactly the reason why we are shifting from “fins naturally attached” to a trade ban. When fins can’t be sold or shipped, it takes away the incentive to catch sharks in the first place. Targeting sharks for their meat only is not the incentive and while the fishing industry claims this is an important market, they are also fighting fin bans because in reality they are using the meat as a secondary product. Without the income from fins, the incentive decreases immensely.

2. Recent published papers that many are referring to as proof that fin bans don’t work actually only cover “finning” regulations, fin-to-carcass ratio regulations, shark fishing prohibitions and CITES implementation — not fin trade bans. If you need clarification on these terms check out our campaign page outlining the need and purpose for a European fin trade ban here.

3. Many fin trade bans are relatively new. Assuming that shark fishing trends from several decades are proof that current fin trade legislation isn’t working is unrealistic. There cannot be an immediate jump in shark populations. Shark numbers can take decades to recover and population assessments are not done every year. It will take some years to interpret landing data to see the effect. In places that have had fin bans in place for a while, the amount of fins traded legally has gone down dramatically, and cases of fin shipments have been prosecuted. In some cases, the effort to ban the trade of fins has subsequently led to even stronger protection of sharks.