Response to Draft 2011 National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, received from Humane Society International

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Shark–plan 2. Humane Society International (HSI) was actively involved in the development of Shark–plan 1 and continues to actively engage in conservation efforts both nationally and internationally for sharks. This has included our role as a member of the Australian National Shark Recovery Group, as well as participating in the development of a Migratory Sharks agreement under the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS) and promoting shark proposals for inclusion under the Appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

The review of Shark–plan 1 and development of Shark–plan 2 comes at a time when shark conservation internationally is gaining significant attention. Since the publication of Shark–plan 1, legislation has been introduced in the Republic of Palau, Hawaii, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam to ban the trade of shark products due to concerns for shark conservation. In addition, the Republic of Palau, the Republic of Maldives and the Republic of Honduras have implemented a shark sanctuary in their waters, and Mexico has implemented a shark–fishing moratoria in its waters in order to protect shark populations which visit them. Legislation is also under discussion in the Chilean Parliament.

HSI has applauded these actions internationally, and it is disappointing to see the lack of ambition within Australia towards better conservation outcomes for sharks, as set out by Shark–plan 2. It is clear that Australia is no longer a world leader when it comes to shark conservation, and HSI has concerns that with no overarching policy for the conservation and management of sharks, Australia will struggle to even be able to catch up with international progress. This lack of overarching policy is evident in the development of Shark–plan 2, which appears to contain little towards the conservation of sharks, with a large part of the document focussed on their management.

HSI believes that it is not too late for this to be rectified, with greater focus put on conservation. For example, Government should task the relevant scientific committees with a thorough assessment of the conservation status of Australia’s sharks, with particular consideration for those listed under IUCN, to determine their eligibility for listing as threatened species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and state / territory laws. For the past three years, HSI has submitted a number of nominations for listing of shark species under the EPBC Act and state legislation which we hope will provide greater protection for the most vulnerable species. In addition, we believe an economic review of the value of sharks alive to ecotourism versus their value dead, such as that undertaken for the sharks of Palau recently would also be a valuable contribution towards Australia’s efforts to conserve sharks and therefore the objectives and principles as set out under IPOA–Sharks (FAO) 1999.

HSI’s shark conservation policy (enclosed) sets out our policy of no targeted shark fishing. In line with international efforts, we believe that Shark–plan 2 should have a greater focus on moving towards a ban on the export of shark products rather than maintaining current fisheries. Similarly, we are concerned that Shark–plan 2 makes no attempt to assess and restrict imports of shark products derived from non–sustainable sources. HSI believes the import of shark products should also be banned, but if they are to continue they should be subject to an ecological sustainability test. If Australia is serious about shark conservation these actions must be included in the plan and implemented urgently.

Since the development of Shark–plan 1, HSI has sought to be more involved in the development of shark conservation efforts in Australia, yet engagement by Government has been seriously lacking. We believe this to be a significant missed opportunity. We agree with the conclusions of the Shark–plan 1 review that more active engagement by all jurisdictions or stakeholders would be of benefit, and therefore we are disappointed to see the recommendation that SIRC, which contains no environmental NGO representative, will be responsible for the implementation and monitoring of Shark–plan 2. The review also suggests that: a strong engagement strategy is needed operating at many levels; the absence of NPOA stakeholder communication and engagement strategy limited Shark–plan 1’s performance; and there was a lack of stakeholder representation on committees. Given that Shark–plan 1 also recommended that stakeholders be fully represented on these committees, it is disappointing to see that Shark–plan 2 makes no attempt to address these recommendations. With no stakeholder representation, SIRC lacks transparency, accountability and therefore we have no confidence in its ability to deliver Shark–plan 2. This must be addressed.

Without targeted and specific action and a detailed implementation strategy involving all stakeholders, HSI fears that Shark–plan 2 will continue to fail to be the major driver towards improved conservation and management outcomes for sharks in Australian waters – an accusation levelled at Shark–plan 1. The actions contained within the Shark–plan 2 appear to be even less specific than those in Shark–plan 1, which risks the allegation in the review of Shark–plan 1, that the plan ‘lacks teeth’, applying equally to the new plan unless significant improvements are made. With cumulative impacts of Australian fisheries on individual shark species remaining a key threat to Australian sharks, HSI hopes these issues can be remedied.

Shark–plan 2 must be accompanied by a funding plan, or at the very least state a date by which all actions will be accompanied by general budget figures and where the funding will come from. An action plan without a commitment to fund it, does not generate faith that implementation will occur.

IPOA—Sharks calls for critical habitats to be determined and protected. HSI is concerned that very little work has gone into this aspect in Australia, with the exception of critical habitats for the critically endangered population of Grey Nurse Sharks on Australia’s East Coast. HSI recommends critical habitats be identified and protected for all other shark species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act or state / territory equivalent legislation (see earlier comments). This protection should include listing of critical habitats for all listed shark species on the EPBC Register of Critical Habitat (or state equivalent) and the establishment of marine reserves to remove threats where they exist. This should be added to the actions under Shark–plan 2.

When applying the precautionary principle to the plan, HSI believes the plan would benefit from specific mention and use of the CSIRO/AFMA Ecological Risk Assessment approach as the minimum standard to be used in assessing risk to shark species in Australian waters. We do not consider the FRDC sponsored National ESD Risk Assessment approach for fisheries to be of equal standing.

Action 6 in table 2 should be specific about the nature of the shark finning ban which should be implemented, which should be consistent with the Commonwealth approach requiring all sharks to be landed with their fins naturally attached, as well as the December 2007 resolution on sustainable fisheries at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Clause 12 of Resolution 62/177e states that the General Assembly:

“Calls upon States to take immediate and concerted action to improve the implementation of and compliance with existing regional fisheries management organisations or arrangement and national measures that regulate shark fisheries, in particular those measures which prohibit or restrict fisheries conducted solely for the purpose of harvesting shark fins, and, where necessary, to consider taking other measures, as appropriate, such as requiring that all sharks be landed with each fin naturally attached.” United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 62/177.

HSI also recommends that a comprehensive fins–attached policy be drawn up requiring all Commonwealth, State and Territory fisheries to establish such a policy for the landing of all sharks.

HSI understands that action 7 in table 2, on comprehensive trade codes for import and export, is an issue that DAFF are already moving forward with. We therefore encourage the Department to implement the proposed improvements to avoid any further delay.

HSI believes that action 12 (on the ecological impacts of shark control programs for bather protection) should be refocussed to ensure an end to the NSW and Queensland Government programs which have acknowledged significant impacts upon threatened shark species, including the critically endangered Grey Nurse Shark and the White Shark. HSI is opposed to such programs as they are outdated methods of control, seeking not to protect bathers but reduce shark numbers. They should therefore not be included within the actions of Shark–plan 2.

In addition to commercial exploitation of shark stocks, there are a large number of recreational fishers who also exploit shark stocks, and in many cases the recreational fishing harvest is far in excess of the commercial harvest. HSI is concerned at the implications of this unmonitored harvest on shark species which we believe is occurring nationally. This issue is addressed in issue 8 of table 2, actions 14 – 15. In light of the uncertainties HSI believes this issue should be high priority. Shark–plan 2 should also facilitate better management of recreational fishing for sharks across all States and Territory. Recreational and indigenous catches must also be factored into fisheries quotas in State and Commonwealth fisheries.

The AFMA Chondrichthyan technical working group progressed discussions on mitigation of the catches of sharks that are at risk. The actions under issue 12 of table 2 should explicitly refer to the implementation and trials of the findings in Patterson, H.M. and Tudman, M.J.  2009. Chondrichthyan guide for fisheries managers: A practical guide to mitigating chondrichthyan bycatch. Bureau of Rural Sciences and Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra;

HSI is concerned that issue 13, contains no focus on the protection of sharks, simply on recovery for those already listed. As stated above, this issue should be broadened with the inclusion of additional actions to ensure a comprehensive review of the conservation status of shark species in Australia and the implementation of any subsequent recovery plan or programs.

HSI believes that issue 14, actions 29–31 in table 2 should be afforded high priority.

In conclusion, HSI has a number of concerns regarding the current Shark–plan 2. So as to ensure that Australia is in line with international best practice for shark conservation, significant improvements need to be made to Shark–plan 2, to ensure that it is not a retrograde step. Without detailed actions and implementation involving all relevant stakeholders, the current draft cannot be considered a plan that will achieve the objectives as set out under IPOA—Sharks. We would be happy to meet to discuss our comments and concerns with you further.

Yours sincerely

[Signed]

Alexia Wellbelove
Senior Program Manager