The How
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
The European Commission published a call for evidence seeking views and expertise on the environmental, social, and economic consequences of a potential ban on EU sales and international trade of loose shark fins. This is an important step in the process towards an assessment that will consider all stakeholders. Their goal is, “to better protect sharks and related marine ecosystems.” This is an important distinction because this opens the door to discussing the broader importance of sharks, beyond dominating concerns focused on impacts on fisheries income.
The call will be open until May 16th 2024 (12 weeks). Alerts announcing that step will be found here and @SharkAllies. The call for evidence is addressed to the following audience, both within and outside the European Union:
Organizations and individuals involved in the conservation of marine resources
Stakeholders with related economic interests
Researchers
Consumer representatives
Submission Tips:
To contribute you must register! Just follow the prompts on the EU site.
This first call for evidence is very easy, but be prepared to support your statements and opinions with evidence: studies, white papers, reports, academic references, agency and government mandates in other countries, etc.
Strategically, it is best to focus on points that hold political weight (economics, biodiversity, health, sustainability for all vs. biased support of a harmful industry).
Despite the name of the ECI, “Stop finning - Stop the Trade”, this proposal is about an end to the trade of fins, not the act of finning. This is an extremely important distinction that everyone who comments and partakes in the call for evidence needs to understand. Before submitting, please familiarize yourself with the main points of this initiative, found on our campaign page outlining the need and purpose for a European fin trade ban.
sharks are misunderstood, but fin trade bans don’t have to be
“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.
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.
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.
REALITY: “It’s true, shark fin bans are not a perfect solution.”
They are the best option we have available at this time. They are stronger than “finning”, “landed-whole” and “fins naturally attached” laws, but weaker than a complete ban on shark fishing or the establishment of fully protected areas. The reality check here is that it is easy to say that nothing except the most complete protection will work, but judging by how long and hard the road has been to get any law passed that limits fishing, this goal is extremely difficult to achieve. In the meantime, our best bet is to create laws that are easy to enforce so that the limited capacity of monitoring and enforcement in nearly every country can be maximized.
Hawaiian Senator Clayton Hee, the author of the first shark-fin trade ban established in the state in 2010 — which then became the model legislation that subsequent US states adopted as well as federal bans including Canada and many Pacific Island Nations — highlights the importance of a fin trade ban. Hee emphasizes that “as a Senator, it is my responsibility to pass laws that work. And the existing law in place, ‘fins naturally attached’ wasn’t only not working but also enabled shark-finners to conduct their business in plain sight… Together with law enforcement leaders including former Prosecutors and Attorneys General, the passage of this law re-defined shark fins to be a commodity, to be regulated via trade and commerce statutory law. Furthermore, the terms of the bill needed to be simple, clear, and made effective through strong penalties. I can report that since the passing of the law, officers have been able to arrest everyone who has been caught with shark fins within the jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii, and for the first time violators have been prosecuted in State and Federal US courts."