Response to Draft 2011 National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, received from WWF & Traffic

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft of Shark–plan 2. WWF and TRAFFIC have been engaged in Shark conservation and management in Australia for many years including providing input to the development of the FAO International Plan of Action for Shark Conservation and Management (IPOA–Sharks) and the Australian NPOA–Sharks (see Annex I for details). WWF and TRAFFIC also continue to produce publications examining shark trade, management, conservation and issues associated with the illegal, unreported and unregulated catch of sharks. (See Annex II for a summary list of relevant publications).

The review of Shark–plan 1¹ noted that for the development of Shark–plan 2:

“..the new Programme Logic should be clear, simple, and powerful. Accompanied by a carefully targeted implementation strategy, and an efficient monitoring and evaluation framework, these characteristics should alleviate widely held concerns that Australia’s NPOA Sharks lacks teeth.”

WWF and TRAFFIC consider these to be significant points that reflect our concerns that the conservation and management status of sharks in Australia remains in urgent need of attention. Even though these priorities were identified in Shark–plan 1 there was little progress made against them and where there was progress made the  2009 Shark Assessment Report² (SAR2) noted it was mainly due to non–Shark–plan 1 related actions. The cumulative impacts of Australian fisheries on individual shark species remains the key threat to Australian sharks.

It is the view of WWF and TRAFFIC that the information above reinforces the need for Shark–plan 2 to be much more specific about the actions to be taken and details of implementation compared with Shark–plan 1. To our distress this is not the case. In fact Shark–plan 2 is less action orientated, is more general in attributing responsibility for action and devoid of an implementation strategy. (SAR2) noted:

Shark–plan 2 falls far short of these goals. As it is currently drafted there appears to be little possibility that the identified shortcomings of Shark–plan 1 will be addressed in Shark–plan 2. Indeed, Shark–plan 2 is a retrograde step and is out of keeping with international best practices for shark conservation.

Some specific comments on points raised in the Shark–plan 2:

1. In putting the precautionary principle in to action the plan should specify the 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;
2. Once again, implementation and oversight of the Shark–plan is being left to the Shark Implementation Review Committee (SIRC³) which lacks membership outside of State/Territory and Commonwealth Government. In Shark–plan 1 it was specified that all stakeholders were to be represented on the SIRC, but the government–based membership failed to be inclusive of all stakeholders despite repeated calls by industry and NGOs throughout the life of Shark–plan 1 to be inclusive. The current makeup of the SIRC lacks transparency, accountability and confidence in its delivery of Shark–plan 2 by the broader community and therefore Shark–plan 2 should specify the inclusion of all stakeholders on the SIRC;
3. SAR2 noted there was a need for Shark–plan 2 to “Assess the sustainability of imported shark products”. This has continuously been raised by WWF and TRAFFIC with the government following the publication of our review “South Africa’s Demersal Shark Meat Harvest” and its associated trade with Australia (see Annex III letter to Australian Government 2007). No action against this appears in Table 2 of Shark–plan 2 so it should be included. Further, WWF and TRAFFIC have called on the Commonwealth Government to restrict import of shark products that are not demonstrated to be from sustainable sources. With the inclusion of the action in Table 2 to review the sustainability, it should also be tasked to consider how to restrict imports of non–sustainably sourced products;
4. WWF and TRAFFIC have continually called for the revision of import and export trade codes for shark products in Australia so that they are comprehensive. This was a specific action of Shark–plan 1, is recognised in SAR2 as an issue and included in a general review in Sharkplan 2. TRAFFIC and DAFF engaged in discussions as to how the codes could be improved for Australia and it was TRAFFICs understanding that DAFF were moving forward with this. So action 7 in Table 2 would appear to have already been done; it is a matter for DAFF to act upon, not for further review;
5. The AFMA Chondrichthyan technical working group progressed discussions on mitigation of the catches of sharks that are at risk. The actions in 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;
6. Action 6 in Table 2 should be very specific about the nature of the shark finning ban which should be implemented. This should be consistent with that adopted by the Commonwealth which requires all sharks to be landed with their fins naturally attached. It should also involve an action to monitor its effectiveness;
7. Bather protection programmes, Action 12 in Table 2. As WWF and TRAFFIC have repeatedly raised, the new plan should involve the abolishment of such programmes as there are two programmes by the NSW and Qld Governments that fund the killing of listed endangered species. These programmes are designed not to exclude sharks, but to reduce their numbers significantly.
8. WWF and TRAFFIC would see both Issue 9 and Issue 14 in Table 2 as actions requiring a high priority;
9. The NPOA needs to 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 by all Government jurisdictions by a certain date does not generate faith that it will be successfully implemented; and
10. Paragraph  26 of the FAO International Plan of Action for the conservation and management of sharks (IPOA) states “Where transboundary, straddling, highly migratory and high seas stocks of sharks are exploited by two or more States, the States concerned should strive to ensure effective conservation and management of the stocks.” There seems to be a gap in Shark–plan 2 addressing regional management issues to the North of Australia, with Timor Leste, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. While Australia has been engaging in collaborative research it is critical specific joint management goals are explored.

WWF and TRAFFIC would like to thank the Australian Government for the opportunity to comment on the draft Shark–plan 2. We feel the current draft cannot be considered a “plan of action” for the “conservation and management” of sharks in the absence of more prescriptive actions that are benchmarked against the precautionary principle and supported by an extensive implementation plan. WWF and TRAFFIC have been raising with the government the need for overarching policy on sharks for Australia and it is evident still that the NPOA lacks guidance from such a policy as to the benchmarks to be achieved by any plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks.

We would be more than happy to further discuss our concerns with you and your staff.

Yours sincerely,

[Signed]

Michael Harte
Program Manager Fisheries Policy
WWF Australia

[Signed]
Glenn Sant
Global Marine Programme Leader
TRAFFIC

Annex I: WWF and Traffic engagement in Shark conservation and management

1. Participated in the Indo–Pacific Regional Working Group in drafting a regional strategy for the conservation and management of sharks (Preparation for the FAO Experts Consultation on shark management), 1997
2. Invited shark expert and Australian Government Nominee to the FAO Shark Experts Technical Working Group to draft IPOA–Sharks, 1998
3. Member of the Australian Shark Advisory Group and Drafting Group formed by the Commonwealth Government to write the first Australian Shark Assessment Report and National Plan of Action for the conservation of sharks as prescribed by the FAO International Plan of Action for the conservation of sharks, 2000 to 2003
4. IUCN Shark Specialist Group Member, Trade Contact Person, 1994–2006. Vice Chair 2006 to present
5. Conservation Member of the Southern Shark Management Advisory Committee, 1996–2001
6. Member of the AFMA Board Environment Committee, 1999 to present
7. Member of Australian National Shark Recovery Group (2003–present), SEWPaC
8. Member of Ecologically Sustainable Development consultative committee (Australia)
9. Member of CITES Animals Committee Shark Working Group.
10. Member of the Australian Chondricthyan working Group – AFMA. 2008
11. Invited expert to FAO/CITES “Workshop to review the application and effectiveness of international regulatory measures for the conservation and sustainable use of elasmobranchs” held in Genezzano, Italy in 2010.

Annex II: Relevant WWF/Traffic publications

DA SILVA, C., B?RGENER, M. 2007. South Africa's Demersal Shark Meat Harvest. Traffic Bulletin. Vol. 21 (2): 55–66
Lack M. and Sant G. (2006). World shark catch, production and trade 1990–2003. Australian Government and TRAFFIC report 28 pp.
Lack M. and Sant G. (2006). Confronting Shark Conservation Head On! TRAFFIC International Lack, M. and Sant, G. (2008). Illegal, unreported and unregulated shark catch: A review of current knowledge and action. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and TRAFFIC, Canberra.
Lack M. and Sant G. (2009). Trends in Global Shark Catch and Recent Developments in Management. TRAFFIC International 29 pp.
Lack M. and Sant G. (2011). The Future of Sharks: A Review of Action and Inaction. TRAFFIC International and the Pew Environment Group.
Oliver, A., Sant, G.J. & Fowler, S. (1998). International Plan of Action for the Conservation & management of Sharks. IUCN Shark Secialist Group. Shark News 12, November 1998. Also appeared in Waves, Vol 6, No.4.
Sant, G.J. (2006) The Evolution and impact of ‘precautionary’ fisheries law and policy in Australia., a case study contributing to meaning, operation and impacts of the precautionary principle in natural resource management and biodiversity conservation. A book produced by the Precautionary Principle Project.
Sant, G.J and E.A.Hayes (1996) (eds). The Oceania Region’s Harvest, Trade and Management of Sharks and Other Cartilaginous Fish: An Overview. TRAFFIC Oceania. Sant, G., Goodman, G., Crook, V., Lack, M. and Oldfield, T.E.E (2011). Fish and Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs): a methodology to identify high risk commercially–exploited
aquatic organisms in trade and an analysis of the potential application of MEAs. JNCC Report No. 453.
Stevens, J.D, Sant, G. & White, W.T. (2008). Completing the Australia and Oceania IUCN shark Red List assessments. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Government of Australia.

Annex III: Letter to Australian Government 2007

TRAFFIC Oceania
PO Box U115
University of Wollongong
NSW 2522

The Honourable Peter McGauran MP
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Deputy Leader of the House)
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
 14 August 2007
Dear Minister,

RE: Australian shark imports – the inadequacy of import codes and a test for sustainability

We would like to bring to your attention the findings of a TRAFFIC report ‘South Africa’s Demersal Shark Meat Harvest and Associated Trade with Australia’, which presents information on the unregulated catch of sharks within South Africa that are exported to Australia but are not recorded adequately within Australian import statistics.

A comparative analysis between South African export data and Australian import data for shark meat reveals significant anomalies. In 2001, South African exports of shark products to Australia totalled 37 tonnes; the combined Australian import figure was almost 148 tonnes, a discrepancy of more than 100 tonnes. This represents imports to Australia from one country yet there are others that are also exporting to Australia and shark products are entering into the Australian market without being adequately recorded. We tried to investigate further if data was available in Australia but we were unable to find further data.

Australia has very strict measures for Australian harvested shark, but there are no regulations on imported shark. If these overseas fisheries are deemed unsustainable or illegal, then by not adequately regulating its shark imports, Australia is contributing to the unsustainable exploitation of these shark populations. We believe Australia needs to apply an equally burdensome test on the sustainability of shark product imported as those harvested within Australia. We ask the government to put this in place for all imported seafood.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry developed the National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (NPOA–shark) in line with the recommendations of the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (FAO 1999). NPOAsharks recognises Australia’s commitment to shark conservation and the pursuit of ecologically sustainable development. Identified in the NPOA–sharks is Action 26 which highlights the need to ‘assess availability of Australian export and import data for shark products against the recommendations of the FAO and CITES decisions on trade codes, identify deficiencies and address these.’ We are strongly recommending that Action 26 be urgently carried out and stricter codes for imported shark be implemented.

Shark stocks can be rapidly depleted and may be slow to recover from the effects of overfishing. Action needs to be taken to resolve the data discrepancies of imported shark meat into Australia by ensuring the adequacy of the Australian import codes. If you or your department would like to discuss this further please feel free to contact me.

Yours Sincerely,

[Signed]
Glenn Sant
Global Marine Programme Leader
TRAFFIC International

Notes

1 Bodsworth, A., Mazur, N., Lack, M., and Knuckey, I. 2010. Review of Australia’s 2004 National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. Final Report to the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Cobalt Marine Resource Management

2 Bensley N, Woodhams J, Patterson HM, Rodgers M, McLoughlin K, Stobutzki I, and Begg GA 2009, Shark Assessment Report for the Australian National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, final report to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

3 SIRC members comprise representatives from the fisheries agencies from each State, the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth (including DAFF, the Bureau of Rural Sciences, the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC); the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA).