Regional Overview
The following sections provide an overview of the status of fisheries, trade, management and conservation in the Northeast Atlantic region, updated from Walker et al. (2005).  This is an extract from the following document: click on the image below to download a .pdf.

5.1 Fisheries, utilisation and management
Generally, most chondrichthyans landed in the Northeast Atlantic region are not landed in target fisheries but in multi-species fisheries or as utilised bycatch. The few traditional fisheries targeting commercially valuable chondrichthyan species are now all in decline. Many vessels formerly engaged in these fisheries have been re-directed to other target species or have stopped fishing altogether. It is apparent that reduced availability of stocks, rather than falling market values, has been the main reason that these fisheries have become unprofitable (Walker et al. 2005).

FAO capture production data from 1985-2006 indicate that the major fishing nations landing chondrichthyans in the Northeast Atlantic region are Spain, France, the UK and Portugal (Table 5.1). These countries are also amongst the largest chondrichthyan fishing nations reporting highest global capture production of these species (FAO 2008). In 1997, Spain reported the highest landings in the world at almost 100,000t; in 2006 it was ranked fifth in the world with ~40,000t, but most of these catches are made outside the Northeast Atlantic (Clarke et al. 2005; FAO 2008). Records indicate that Belgium, Ireland and Norway are also key contributors to elasmobranch landings in the region (Table 5.1).
 
Total landings of chondrichthyans in the Northeast Atlantic region have, until recently, remained relatively stable; fluctuating around ~100,000t for just over 50 years. Reported regional landings were around 80,000t in 1950, peaking in the early 1960s and again in the late 1960s at 125,700t and 127,700t respectively. They have been declining significantly since 2000, to ~51,000t in 2006 (Table 5.1, Figure 5.1).

The UK and France dominated landings in the Northeast Atlantic from the 1950s until the late 1990s (when Spain surpassed them by a large margin). The UK had the highest landings in Europe during the 1950s, at ~30,000-35,000t/year. Over the next few years, France’s reported landings gradually became higher than the UK’s, peaking at ~42,000t in 1981. In 1999-2000, France reported ~23,000t/year and the UK ~17,500t (Figure 5.2).

The total regional peak of ~111,000t in 1997 (Figure 5.1) clearly reflects the dramatic eight to ninefold increase in reported landings by Spain (Figure 5.2, Table 5.1). This may have been due to improved reporting, increased retention of bycatch, or a shift towards target chondrichthyan fisheries as teleost stocks decline (few data are identified to species level, making interpretation difficult). These volumes, combined with high landings from pelagic fleets operating outside the Northeast Atlantic, may also explain Spain’s recent dominance in the Hong Kong shark fin market (Walker et al. 2005). From 1998 to 2000, Spain was the top importer of shark fins to Hong Kong. However, in recent years (2001–2005), Spain dropped to the third largest importer, due to increased imports from mainland China (owing to cross-boundary trading with Hong Kong, not increased catches) and Taiwan (Hareide et al. 2007). With the decline of swordfish stocks in many areas, the Spanish pelagic fleet is now also targeting sharks (Hareide et al. 2007; Mejuto et al. 2005). Portugal’s reported chondrichthyan landings increased significantly in the early 1990s (Figure 5.2; Table 5.1).

Recent declines in total regional landings over the past few years are mainly due to large reductions in reported landings from the UK and Spain, to ~18,600t and 6,300t, respectively, in 2006 (Figure 5.2; Table 5.1).

5.2 Fisheries governance in the Northeast Atlantic
Fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic region are influenced by a number of regional and international policies, management and advisory bodies, all of which play an important role by providing technical advice or developing management measures.

5.2.1 Regional Fisheries Management Organisations
Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) are responsible for developing and implementing fishing regulations for international waters. RFMOs have a duty to consider all species associated with or affected by fisheries they govern and are increasing their attention to sharks and rays. Such species have been generally considered bycatch but in many cases are also targeted. RFMOs have a key role to play in conservation, particularly for wide-ranging species whose effective management depends upon collaboration between States. The RFMOs most relevant for elasmobranchs of the Northeast Atlantic Ocean are the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).

The Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) was formed to commission and disseminate scientific advice on the state of fish stocks in the Northeast Atlantic and to recommend measures to maintain their rational exploitation. The Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (see below), supplies NEAFC with scientific advice. The present NEAFC Convention entered into force in 1982 and there are currently six contracting parties: The European Community, Denmark (on behalf of the Faroe Islands and Greenland), Iceland, Norway, Poland and the Russian Federation. Most of the NEAFC Convention Area is under the fisheries jurisdiction of NEAFC's Contracting Parties; the three remaining areas of international waters constitute the NEAFC Regulatory Area. Deep sea sharks such as Portuguese dogfish and leafscale gulper shark are taken in NEAFC regulated fisheries and NEAFC has closed some deep sea areas to bottom fishing. In 2005, NEAFC recommended a ban on fishing for basking sharks (NEAFC 2008, http://www.neafc.org).

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is an inter-governmental fishery organisation responsible for the conservation of tunas and tuna-like species throughout the entire Atlantic Ocean. ICCAT currently has 46 Contracting Parties which annually consider and often agree (usually by consensus) management measures for a variety of tunas, swordfish, billfish and, to a lesser extent, sharks. Scientists associated with ICCAT’s Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) compile relevant fishery statistics from all entities fishing in the Atlantic Ocean, convene and conduct stock assessments, develop management advice, and produce related publications. Sharks have been characterized as “bycatch” in ICCAT fisheries, but species such as shortfin makos and blue sharks are increasingly targeted in international waters. The SCRS has conducted population assessments for blue and mako sharks since 2004 and, in 2008, facilitated ecological risk assessments for these and nine other pelagic elasmobranchs. As a result, the SCRS has issued advice on shark data collection, fin to carcass ratios, and pelagic shark fishing limits. In 2004, ICCAT became the world’s first RFMO to adopt a ban on shark finning. Since then, ICCAT Parties have adopted binding recommendations to reduce fishing mortality of North Atlantic shortfin mako and porbeagle sharks, but without setting any specific shark fishing limits. More information can be found at http://www.iccat.int/en/.

5.2.2 Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)
Established in 1983, the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is the principal instrument for management of European Union (EU) marine fisheries. The primary objective of the CFP is to: “Ensure sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources, integrating economics, conservation and environmental considerations.” The European Commission states that the European Community “shall apply the precautionary approach to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, to ensure sustainable use of, and to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems”. There is concern however that this pledge has not been adhered to, even for the most biologically vulnerable fish species, such as sharks and rays (EC 2008; http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp_en.htm).

The European Commission’s Directorate-General (DG) for Fisheries is responsible for initiating European fisheries legislation. Such proposals are influenced by expert advice (see below) and considered by Working Groups of Member State officials and the European Parliament before being offered for adoption by the Fisheries Council (consisting of Agriculture and Fisheries Ministers). In principle, the Fisheries Council takes decisions by qualified majority vote with Member States’ votes weighted, roughly, according to population size. In practice, however, fisheries decisions are often made by consensus. Most fishing restrictions, including Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and national quotas, are decided at Council meetings in November and December.  Norway is included in negotiations related to shared North Sea fish populations.  Enforcement of EU fishing regulations is the responsibility of Member State authorities and the EU Inspectorate (Shark Alliance 2008).

To date, under the CFP, the Commission has proposed and EU Member States have adopted catch limits for spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias, deepwater sharks, porbeagle shark Lamna nasus, and a suite of skate and ray species. Additional limits (for 2009) are anticipated for more species of demersal elasmobranchs, based on new ICES advice. 

5.2.3 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF)
The STECF is a standing committee, established in 2005 to provide input from scientific experts to inform the Commission’s implementation of the CFP. The STECF is composed of scientific experts in the fields of marine biology and ecology, fisheries science and the economic, statistical and research issues associated with fisheries. The STECF produces annual reports on the state of fish stocks and trends in the fisheries industry and is consulted on matters relating to EU fishing activities. STECF’s findings are key to the annual process for setting EU total allowable catches and national quotas (Europa 2008). With the Commission’s agreement, the Committee can create working parties for specific issues. The Subgroup on Resource Status (SGRST) of the STECF provides information on the status of fisheries resources; including chondrichthyan fisheries (e.g. SGRST 2002). More information on the STECF can be found at http://fishnet.jrc.it/web/stecf and http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/cha/c11127.htm.

5.2.4 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
ICES is the scientific and research organisation that coordinates and promotes marine research in the North Atlantic and adjacent seas. A map of ICES Fishing Areas is shown in Figure 5.3 and details of ICES Fishing Areas for Western Europe are shown in Figure 5.4. ICES is the primary source of advice on matters relating to marine ecosystems for member governments, the European Commission and NEAFC. ICES is comprised of more than 1,600 marine scientists from its 20 North Atlantic member countries who compile and analyse information about the marine ecosystem and fisheries. ICES fills gaps in existing knowledge, responds to member inquiries and provides regular advice for limits associated with sustainable fishing. ICES is structured into a system of committees and more than 100 working/study groups, including the ICES Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF) (ICES 2008). More information can be found at: http://www.ices.dk/indexfla.asp

5.3 Utilisation and Trade
Elasmobranchs are versatile fishery resources providing meat and fins for human consumption, liver oil for lubricants, cosmetics and vitamin A, skins for leather; cartilage for medicinal use, and jaws and teeth as curios. Despite the lucrative market for their fins, sharks have generally not been the subject of high value fisheries. As a result, sharks have not been high priorities for fishery managers and populations have been left to follow boom-and-bust cycles. The versatility and development of new of elasmobranch products and the ease with which the species can be targeted when other species are depleted or otherwise unavailable have led to increased elasmobranch fishing over the past few decades (Hareide et al. 2007). Global statistics on the production of particular shark products, such as meat, fins and liver oil, are available from the FAO Fishstat database, but are hampered by sparse and incomplete data. Produced quantities of less valuable elasmobranch products, such as skins and leather, cartilage, fish meal and fertiliser, are rarely tabulated by trade authorities and are thus even more difficult to assess. Although there is significant under-reporting of trade in shark products, available evidence indicates that the European Union dominates world shark trade activity (although this may be due to better trade records in Europe) (Hareide et al. 2007).

The product with the longest history of trade in the Northeast Atlantic region is shark liver oil, which stimulated Irish fisheries for basking sharks Cetorhinus maximus as early as the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to produce lighting fuel (Walker et al. 2005). In the 1930s and 1940s, the use of shark liver oil also prompted a boom in fisheries for Greenland shark Somniosus microcephalus, tope Galeorhinus galeus, spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias, and the deepwater sharks Centrophorus squamosus and Centroscyllium coelolepis. In later years, the development of synthetic substitutes for fuel soon caused the shark liver-oil market to collapse. Although the oil is still used in the manufacture of cosmetics and pharmaceutical products, reported production has decreased markedly since the mid-1970s (Hareide et al. 2007).

Historically, shark meat has been considered a low-value product outside of speciality markets. Europe has been a hotspot for demand, dating back to the introduction of commercial refrigeration in the 1950’s (Hareide et al. 2007; Clarke et al. 2005). Since 1985, reported world landings of sharks have tripled as the popularity of shark meat has increased. EU countries (particularly Spain and Italy) were responsible for 56% of reported global shark meat imports in 2005. Fisheries that previously focused on the squalene-rich livers of deepsea sharks are now also landing meat, since markets have developed (Hareide et al. 2005). Market demand is also the main reason for retaining elasmobranchs such as dogfishes, skates and rays taken as bycatch in other fisheries. Dogfish species such as spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias are favoured as food in Northern European countries, particularly the UK, France, Germany and Belgium, whereas houndsharks, Mustelus spp. and makos Isurus spp. are preferred in southern European countries such as Spain (Vannuccini 1999).

Shark fins are still usually the most valuable parts of sharks and some of the most expensive seafood products in the world (selling for up to 500 €/kg) (Hareide et al. 2007). Fins from short-fin makos Isurus oxyrinchus, hammerheads Sphyrna spp. and guitarfish Rhinobatos spp. are among the most valuable. The dominant species in the global shark fin trade is the blue shark, whose fins comprise at least 17% of the Hong Kong shark fin auction market (Clarke et al. 2006).

Some Northeast Atlantic countries are among the biggest exporters of shark fins to Asia. Spain leads this category, contributing 14% of all shark fin imports to Hong Kong (by adjusted weight) for 1998-2000, nearly double the contribution of the world’s second ranked exporter: Indonesia (Clarke et al. 2005). In addition, Spain was the second greatest exporter of all shark products in 2003 and 2005 and the UK was ranked as the fifth and seventh greatest exporter of all shark products in 2003 and 2005, respectively, by tonnage (Lack and Sant 2005).

5.5. International and regional instruments relevant to the conservation of chondrichthyans in the Northeast Atlantic

5.5.1 The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS or Bonn Convention)
CMS recognises the need for countries to cooperate in the conservation of animals that migrate across national boundaries, if an effective response to threats operating throughout a species’ range is to be made. The Convention actively promotes concerted action by the Range States of species listed on its Appendices. CMS Parties should strive towards strictly protecting the endangered species on Appendix I, conserving or restoring their habitat, mitigating obstacles to migration and controlling other factors that might endanger them (CMS 2008). The Range States of Appendix II species (migratory species with an unfavourable conservation status that need or would significantly benefit from international cooperation) are encouraged to conclude global or regional Agreements for their conservation and management (CMS 2008). Currently, the white shark and basking shark are listed on Appendices I and II of the CMS (the whale shark is also listed on Appendix II, but does not occur in the Northeast Atlantic region). The EU subsequently adopted a zero TAC for basking sharks and Norway closed the basing shark fishery. In 2005, the 8th Conference of Parties adopted a Resolution on migratory sharks. In early 2007 the IUCN SSG was commissioned by DEFRA and the CMS Secretariat to prepare a database of all migratory sharks and rays and a background paper on the conservation status these species and possible options for international cooperation under the Convention. Subsequent to a number of specific meetings, the Scientific Council determined that an additional 35 shark and ray species meet the criteria for listing under the CMS Appendices (Zidowitz et al. 2008). After further review, proposals to list four species of shark; spiny dogfish, porbeagle, shortfin and longfin mako on Appendix II of CMS have been submitted for consideration by the 9th CMS Conference of Parties in December 2008. See: http://www.cms.int/ for more information.

5.5.2 The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES)
CITES was established in recognition that international cooperation is essential for the protection of certain species from over-exploitation through international trade. It creates the international legal framework for the prevention of trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora and for the effective regulation of international trade in other species which may become threatened in the absence of such regulation.

Two shark species (whale shark Rhincodon typus and basking shark Cetorhinus maximus) have been listed on CITES Appendix II since 2002. White sharks were added to Appendix II in 2004. At the 14th Conference of Parties in 2007, all but one species of sawfish (Family Pristidae) were listed on CITES Appendix I. The freshwater sawfish Pristis microdon was listed on Appendix II, which allows limited trade in live specimens for conservation purposes. Following a lack of support in previous years, Germany’s Appendix II listing proposals for spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias and porbeagle Lamna nasus were presented by the EU to the 14th CoP14 in June 2007. Both proposals received a majority of votes, but fell short of the two-thirds majority required for adoption. Germany has pledged to propose the listing of both these species again at the CITES CoP15 in 2010 which, if successful, would mean trade in their meat and fins would be regulated to sustainable levels (Shark Alliance 2008).

CITES’ other major role in promoting the sustainable management of wild species (arguably as important, if not more important than species listings on its Appendices), is through the adoption of Resolutions and Decisions. Resolution Conf. 12.6 encourages Parties, inter alia, to identify endangered shark species that require consideration for inclusion in the Appendices, if their management and conservation status does not improve. Decision 13.42 encourages Parties to improve their data collection and reporting of catches, landings and trade in sharks (at species level where possible), to build capacity to manage their shark fisheries, and to take action on several species-specific recommendations from the Animals Committee, some of which refer to Northeast Atlantic species (CITES 2006; Fowler and Cavanagh 2005). See http://www.cites.org for more information.

5.5.3 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
UNCLOS provides a framework for the conservation and management of fisheries and other uses of the sea by giving Coastal States the right and responsibility for the management and use of fishery resources within their national jurisdiction (the territorial sea, which can extend up to 12 nautical miles). UNCLOS also recognises Coastal States’ right to claim an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of up to 200 nautical miles. The management goal adopted by UNCLOS (Article 61(3)) is that of maximum sustainable yield, qualified by environmental and economic factors. The provisions of UNCLOS directly related to the conservation and management of sharks include the duty placed on Coastal States to ensure that stocks occurring within their jurisdictional waters are not endangered by overexploitation. See http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm for more information.

5.5.4 United Nations Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFSA)
UNFSA was established to implement the provisions of UNCLOS pertaining to the conservation and management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. UNSFA (adopted in 1995, ratified in 2001) calls for Parties to protect marine biodiversity, minimise pollution, monitor fishing levels and stocks, provide accurate reporting of and minimise bycatch and discards, and gather reliable, comprehensive scientific data as the basis for management decisions. In the absence of scientific certainty, it mandates a precautionary approach to the management of straddling and highly migratory stocks and species. Cooperation for such species is achieved though regional fisheries arrangements or organisations. According to Annex I of UNCLOS, Coastal States and other States who fish in areas where highly migratory species occur are required to ensure the conservation and promote optimum utilisation of listed species. The following chondrichthyans are listed on UNCLOS Annex I, Highly Migratory Species: sixgill shark Hexanchus griseus, basking shark Cetorhinus maximus, thresher sharks family Alopiidae, whale shark Rhincodon typus, requiem sharks family Carcharhinidae (including blue shark), hammerhead sharks family Sphyrnidae, and mackerel sharks family Isuridae (including shortfin mako and porbeagle). Other chondrichthyan species may be classified as ‘straddling stocks’ (Article 63 (2)) under the Convention. States are required to agree upon measures to ensure the conservation of qualifying chondrichthyan species or stocks which straddle coastal waters and high seas. The final mandate is for chondrichthyans that only occur on the high seas: fishing States must individually, or in cooperation with other fishing States, take measures to ensure these stocks are conserved (Fowler and Cavanagh 2005). See http://www.oceanlaw.net/texts/unfsa.htm or more information.

5.5.5 FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA–Sharks)
In 1999, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) adopted the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) within the framework of their ‘Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries’ (Fowler and Cavanagh 2005b).

The objective of IPOA-Sharks is to ensure the conservation and management of sharks (and their relatives) and their long-term sustainable use. FAO have developed Technical Guidelines (FAO 2000) to support the IPOA-Sharks, which say ‘States contributing to fishing mortality on a species or stock should participate in its management’. The IPOA-Sharks calls upon all States to produce a Shark Assessment Report (SAR) and to determine whether or not they need to develop and implement a National Plan of Action for Sharks (NPOA-Sharks) (FAO 2000). An NPOA should identify research, monitoring and management needs for all chondrichthyan fishes that occur in the waters of a particular State (Fowler and Cavanagh 2005b).

The implementation of the IPOA-Sharks is, however, wholly voluntary and progress toward its implementation has been slow. It was intended that NPOAs should have been completed by the FAO’s Committee on Fisheries (COFI) session of early 2001, however the EU only recently started to develop a Community Plan of Action (CPOA) for sharks. Following a long consultation period, the European Commission will present its CPOA in December 2008 and the formal response from the Council of Ministers is expected early in 2009. As of yet, there are no regional plans of action for sharks.

5.5.6 The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic (OSPAR)
The OSPAR Convention brings together 15 governments with the European Community to help protect and conserve the Northeast Atlantic and its resources. OSPAR uses an ecosystem approach to establish programmes, measures and policies across nations to protect the marine environment from the adverse effects of human activities and to encourage the sustainable use of the seas. OSPAR’s work is structured into six thematic strategies. The OSPAR List of threatened and/or declining species and habitats was adopted in 2003 under the OSPAR Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems and Biological Diversity of the Maritime Area. It provides guidance on the future conservation priorities and research needs of marine biodiversity at risk in this region. Inclusion onto the list will highlight priority species/habitats for further research and draw the attention of other management bodies to the need for their protection. OSPAR will further develop education and awareness materials on the need for protection of these features and Contracting Parties will be urged to take this into account when developing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Nominations for additions to the list are submitted to the OSPAR Commission by Contracting Parties and observers who provide evidence in support of the listing to justify the need for further protection and conservation action. To date, 11 elasmobranch species have been listed on OSPAR to receive greater protection either across the entire OSPAR region or in specified areas. These are: Portuguese dogfish Centroscymnus coelolepis, gulper shark Centrophorus granulosus, leafscale gulper shark Centrophorus squamosus, basking shark Cetorhinus maximus, common skate Dipturus batis, spotted ray Raja montagui, thornback ray Raja clavata, white skate Rostroraja alba, spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias, angel shark Squatina squatina and porbeagle shark Lamna nasus. For more information see: http://www.ospar.org.

6. Conclusions
This report presents the first comprehensive IUCN Red List assessment of chondrichthyans in the Northeast Atlantic region. With 26% (30 species) assessed as Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable, chondrichthyans are more threatened in the region compared to global Red List results for the whole taxonomic group, of which 18% are threatened globally.

A number of commercially important species occur within the Northeast Atlantic and the region is bordered by some of the largest and most important chondrichthyan fishing nations in the world, including Spain, France, the UK and Portugal.

Only the basking shark Cetorhinus maximus and white shark Carcharodon carcharias, common sawfish Pristis pristis and smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata are afforded any kind of protected status internationally, through their listing on the CITES and/or CMS Appendices. Basking shark fisheries have, as a result, been closed in the EU and Norway. However it is assumed that both sawfish species are already extinct in European waters, based on a lack of records over many decades. The UK and Sweden are the only Northeast Atlantic countries to provide full, national protection for certain shark and ray species and the Critically Endangered angel shark Squatina squatina is only protected in English waters.

There are no international catch limits for Northeast Atlantic chondrichthyans. The European Union (EU) has set fishing quotas for a few species, including spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias and porbeagle Lamna nasus. However total allowable catches (TACs) for these two species are set higher than the zero catch advised by the International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES).The EU has also set broad limits on multiple species of skates and rays as well as deepwater sharks, but these limits are also not yet in line with scientists’ recommendations. Norway is the only country to have adopted ICES advice for porbeagle. It is clear that additional management and conservation measures are urgently needed and that the exploitation of depleted populations needs to be regulated.

Due to insufficient knowledge and information, 31 species have been assessed as Data Deficient. Despite the current lack of data, this group may prove to include some of the most threatened chondrichthyans. Although limited data availability is often cited as a problem for the development of management measures, it must not be used to justify lack of management. Enough is known about shark biology and the dynamics of shark fisheries to begin implementing basic management measures wherever fisheries exist (Camhi et al. 1998). Increased funding and research attention should also be directed towards these species.

7. Recommendations
The following recommendations have been formulated based on the information collated within this report. They are intended to complement and enhance existing scientific advice regarding the conservation and management of Northeast Atlantic chondrichthyans.

All entities with fishing fleets operating in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean should:

1.    complete, implement and regularly revise Plans of Action, pursuant to the United Nations (UN) Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) International Plan of Action for the Conservation of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks), which include specific strategies for conservation action;
2.    ratify and comply with the UN Agreement for Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and Straddling Fish Stocks;
3.    promptly provide accurate, species-specific elasmobranch catch data to national, regional and international authorities;
4.    actively engage in elasmobranch conservation initiatives associated with OSPAR, CITES, CMS, ICCAT and NEAFC;
5.    encourage their fishery scientists to collaborate in the ongoing assessment of the population status and conservation requirements of Northeast Atlantic chondrichthyans;
6.    promote and enforce fishing limits for chondrichthyans in line with scientific advice from the International Council for Exploration of the Sea, including:
•    total allowable catches (TACs) of zero for spiny dogfish and deepwater sharks;
•    a reduced skate and ray TAC and expansion of the area subject to this TAC;
•    an end to fishing for common skates and undulate rays;
•    a prohibition on landings of porbeagle, white skates, and angel sharks;
•    caps on catches for other demersal sharks and rays;
7.    apply the precautionary approach with respect to chondrichthyan fishing limits;
8.    publicise and enforce elasmobranch conservation measures, including prohibitions on shark finning and take of basking sharks as well as TACs;
9.    strengthen shark finning bans by requiring that sharks be landed with their fins attached in order to ease enforcement and facilitate the collection of species-specific shark catch information;
10.    establish programmes to research and protect habitats essential to chondrichthyans (such as pupping and nursery areas);
11.    reduce fishing capacity and effort;
12.    facilitate experts’ participation in efforts to increase the selectivity of fishing gears used in the Northeast Atlantic and thereby minimise regional chondrichthyan bycatch.

Regional Fishery Management Organisations, particularly the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), should:

13.    develop regional plans of action under the FAO IPOA-Sharks;
14.    continue to encourage and create incentives for prompt and accurate reporting of species-specific elasmobranch catch data associated with their respective Convention Areas;
15.    work to improve elasmobranch population assessments;
16.    implement available scientific advice for elasmobranch fishing limits in order to ensure international catches are sustainable;
17.    fully protect (through zero catch limits and/or prohibitions on retention) particularly vulnerable and/or depleted elasmobranch species taken in international fisheries of the Northeast Atlantic, such as porbeagles, bigeye threshers and deepwater sharks;
18.    strengthen shark finning bans by requiring that sharks be landed with their fins attached in order to ease enforcement and facilitate the collection of species-specific shark catch information;
19.    apply the precautionary approach with respect to chondrichthyan fishing limits;
20.    investigate and promote measures to minimise chondrichthyan bycatch; and
21.    reduce fishing capacity and effort.