International Shark Protection Measures

Underwater view of an Oceanic Whitetip shark.

Shark fin bans around the world

Canada
Canada has prohibited shark finning since 1994 by means of a licensing requirement for fishers. In 2018, the government added a fins naturally attached (FNA) mandate for all sharks landed in Canada. The ban was expanded in 2019 when Parliament adopted Bill C-68 “An Act to amend the Fisheries Act” prohibiting the import and export of shark fins not attached to a shark carcass.

European Union
In 2003, the European Union passed Regulation 1185/2003 “On the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels.”  However, this regulation contained a number of exemptions that made enforcement difficult. In 2013, the European Union revised its regulations to establish a strict FNA policy across all member states, thereby prohibiting the removal of fins at sea.

Other Nations
Many countries initially imposed shark finning bans that did not require whole carcasses with fins be brought to shore. Instead, a fin-to-carcass ratio, whereby the weight of the fins must not exceed a certain percentage of that of the carcasses, was enforced. Once fins were removed, however, it was nearly impossible to determine what species they were taken from, making enforcement very difficult and allowing fishers to flout the law and mix and match the bodies and fins of various sharks. Recognizing these issues, many countries have transitioned to FNA policies, mandating that sharks be landed with fins intact, thereby simplifying species identification and enhancing compliance monitoring.

A number of countries, including Argentina, Costa Rica, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Panama, and the United States, require that sharks be landed with their fins naturally attached to their bodies to ensure that finning does not occur. Recognizing the need for even stronger protections, some nations have become true champions for sharks; since 2009, an increasing number of countries such as Palau, Honduras, and the Maldives have banned shark finning as well as established shark sanctuaries that ban all shark fishing within their territorial waters.  

Countries/jurisdictions with full or partial bans on shark finning:

  • The United Kingdom (2023): no import/export of detached shark fins, including all products containing shark fins, such as canned shark fin soup; builds upon 2003 ban achieved via the Shark Finning Regulation and a 2009 FNA policy applicable in UK waters and by UK vessels worldwide
  • The United States (2022): no sale, possession, transport, or purchase of shark fins and shark fin products
  • Mozambique (2021): no commercial fishing of whale sharks, manta rays, or any mobula species
  • Canada (2019): no import and export of shark fins not naturally attached to the shark
  • New Zealand (2014): no finning in territorial waters
  • British Virgin Islands (2014): no sale, possession, or distribution of shark fin products
  • China and Hong Kong (2013): no shark fin dishes at official government functions
  • India (2013): sharks must be landed with fins attached to their bodies
  • European Union (2013): no finning by any vessel in EU waters or by any EU-registered vessel worldwide
  • Malta (2012): sharks must be landed whole
  • Venezuela (2012): sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached to their bodies
  • Brazil (2012): sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached to their bodies
  • Taiwan (2012): sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached
  • Chile (2011): sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached to their bodies
  • Honduras (2010): no finning
  • The United Kingdom (2009): no removal of shark fins at sea by any UK vessel worldwide
  • Argentina (2009): no retaining of fins while discarding of carcasses
  • El Salvador (2009): no finning in territorial waters
  • Guinea (2009): no finning in territorial waters
  • Sierra Leone (2008): no finning
  • Colombia (2007): sharks must be landed with fins naturally attached to their bodies
  • Mexico (2007): no finning
  • Panama (2006): no finning in territorial waters
  • Seychelles (2006): no removal of fins on board vessels unless granted authorization
  • Costa Rica (2006): former “fins attached” requirement reinstated (canceling a 2003 policy that allowed sharks to be landed without their fins)
  • Nicaragua (2004): no fin exports without proof that the meat was sold
  • Gambia (2004): no finning in territorial waters
  • Namibia (2003): no finning
  • Spain (2002): no fins on board without the corresponding carcasses
  • United States (2000): no possession of a shark fin in US waters without a corresponding carcass; amended in 2010 to require that sharks be brought ashore with fins naturally attached
  • United Arab Emirates (1999): sharks must be landed whole
  • New South Wales, Australia (1999): no finning in NSW coastal waters; sharks may not be taken on board any vessel without fins naturally attached
  • South Africa (1998): sharks must be landed, transported, and sold or disposed of whole
  • Oman (1998): sharks must be landed, transported, and sold or disposed of whole

This list was compiled in conjunction with WildAid with the help of resources from Humane World for Animals (formerly the Humane Society International).

Foreign Fisheries Shark Protections 

While some countries/jurisdictions have enacted full or partial bans on shark finning, other country/jurisdictions have taken the additional step of enacting complete or partial bans on shark fishing (such that, by inclusion, shark finning is also banned). 

Countries/jurisdictions with full or partial bans on shark fishing:

  • Kiribati (2015): no commercial fishing in the Phoenix Islands Protected Area and Southern Line Islands
  • UK Virgin Islands (2014): no commercial fishing of sharks or rays
  • United Arab Emirates (2014): no shark fishing from February 1 to June 30; no import/export of shark products
  • Brunei (2013): no harvest and importation of shark products
  • Fiji (2013): no shark fishing
  • The Cook Islands (2012): no commercial shark fishing, sale, or trade of shark products
  • The Bahamas (2011): no commercial fishing, sale, or trade in shark products
  • The Marshall Islands (2011): no commercial shark fishing or sale of shark products
  • Tokelau Islands (2011): no shark fishing in territorial waters
  • Mexico (2011): no shark fishing from May to August
  • Sabah, Malaysia (2011): no shark fishing; no possession and sale of fins
  • Honduras (2010): no shark fishing
  • The Maldives (2010): no shark fishing
  • Indonesia (2010): no shark fishing in Raja Ampat
  • Palau (2009): no shark fishing
  • Guinea-Bissau (2008): no shark fishing in marine protected areas
  • French Polynesia (2006): no shark fishing, with exception of Mako sharks
  • Egypt (2005): no shark fishing and commercial sale of sharks
  • Ecuador (2004): no direct shark fishing in Ecuadorian waters, but sharks caught elsewhere may be landed in Ecuador
  • Republic of the Congo (Congo-Brazzaville) (2001): no shark fishing
  • Israel (1980): no shark fishing

This list was compiled with the help of resources from Humane World for Animals (formerly the Humane Society International).

International treaties

CITES
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) regulates international trade in species to ensure their survival. Species are designated for protections by being listed on CITES appendices. Those shark and ray species that are listed under CITES are mainly listed on Appendix II, for species that may become threatened with extinction. Commercial trade in such species is controlled. The only exceptions are the seven sawfish species, which, at the 14th Conference of the Parties (COP14) in 2007 were added to Appendix I, for species considered endangered and for which most commercial trade is prohibited. Shark and ray species have been added to Appendix II at the following COPs:

  • COP12 (2002): basking and whale sharks
  • COP13 (2004): great white sharks
  • COP16 (2013): oceanic whitetip, smooth hammerhead, scalloped hammerhead, great hammerhead, and porbeagle sharks, plus all species of manta rays
  • COP17 (2016): thresher and silky sharks and all species of mobula rays
  • CoP18 (2019): 18 species of sharks and rays—including shortfin and longfin mako sharks—six species of guitarfish, and 10 species of wedgefish
  • COP19 (2022): more than 50 species of requiem sharks, including blue, tiger, and bull sharks, as well as several species of hammerhead sharks and 37 species of guitarfish

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 
The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, also known as the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS)—adopted in 1979 and entered into force in 1983—is an international agreement to conserve migratory species throughout their ranges. In 2010, a Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks (Sharks MOU) was adopted by a number of CMS parties to improve the conservation status of migratory sharks listed on CMS Appendices I and II. The agreement initially prohibited the practice of shark finning and the landing of unattached fins and applied to seven shark species—basking, great white, whale, shortfin mako, longfin mako, porbeagle, and the northern hemisphere populations of spiny dogfish. The Sharks MOU was amended in 2018, expanding the list of protected species from 7 to 29, including additional sharks and rays, and strengthened conservation commitments, such as bycatch mitigation and habitat protection. It also improved alignment with CITES, FAO guidelines, and regional fisheries management organizations (see below), enhancing international cooperation and enforcement. Additionally, the update introduced clearer implementation guidance and formalized reporting requirements to track conservation progress effectively. As of 2024, of the 133 parties to the CMS, 48 countries plus the European Union have signed the Sharks MOU.

UN Food and Agriculture Organization
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) developed the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) in 1999. The plan, in which participation is voluntary, calls on all fishing nations to assess the status and conservation needs of sharks and directs countries whose fisheries catch sharks to prepare and implement a National Shark Plan (NPOA-Sharks). Implementation of the IPOA-Sharks has been slow. According to the IUCN, 31 national and six regional NPOA-Sharks have been produced.

Regional fisheries management organizations
Regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) are international bodies whose objective is to ensure the sustainable conservation and management of shared fish stocks and other living marine resources through international cooperation. They cooperatively establish catch limits, other fishery management rules, and measures to combat illegal fishing. Many RMFOs have banned shark finning, the earliest being the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) in 2004. Since 2015, five of the 14 RFMOs have adopted full or partial FNA policies—these RFMOs include the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC).

Regional seas agreements
Regional seas agreements are international treaties or conventions established to promote cooperation and coordination among countries with the goal of protecting a region’s marine environment and conserving biodiversity. These agreements often involve collaborative measures for managing marine resources, reducing pollution, and addressing shared environmental challenges in specific geographic regions. The Cartagena Convention and the Barcelona Convention, discussed below, are two such agreements. 

  1. Cartagena Convention/SPAW Protocol 
    The Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (aka the Cartagena Convention)—adopted in 1983 and entered into force in 1986—is a legally binding regional agreement for the protection and sustainable development of the marine environment in the Wider Caribbean Region (WCR). The Cartagena Convention is implemented through three protocols (technical agreements): the Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) Protocol, the Combatting Oil Spills Protocol, and the Pollution from Land-Based Sources and Activities Protocol. 

    Via the SPAW Protocol (adopted in 1990 and entered into force in 2000), species are protected through inclusion on one of the protocol’s three annexes. Several shark and ray species are listed on SPAW Annex II. Parties to the protocol must “ensure total protection and recovery” of species listed on this annex by (1) prohibiting the taking, possession, and killing of or commercial trade in them and their eggs, parts, or products and (2) to the extent possible, prohibiting disturbance of them during periods of biological stress such as breeding, incubation, dormancy, and migration. 

    The SPAW Protocol also promotes marine protected areas (MPAs), essential for shark nursery grounds and migration corridors, and encourages regional scientific collaboration and policy alignment with CITES, CMS, and RFMOs to improve shark and ray conservation. While implementation varies among member states, the SPAW Protocol plays a crucial role in strengthening shark and ray protections in the Caribbean by integrating conservation, fisheries management, and habitat protection.
     
  2. Barcelona Convention/SPA/BD Protocol 
    The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (aka the Barcelona Convention) is a legally binding regional treaty (adopted in 1976 and entered into force in 1978) for the purpose of protecting the Mediterranean marine environment. Its Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity (SPA/BD) Protocol, adopted in 1995, strengthens marine biodiversity conservation, including for sharks and rays. Several sharks and rays are listed on Annex II and Annex III of the protocol. Signatory states must prohibit capture, retention, trade, and disturbance of Annex II–listed species while ensuring sustainable management of Annex III–listed species. The protocol promotes MPAs to safeguard key shark habitats, including nursery and feeding grounds. It also supports cooperation with CITES, the CMS, the FAO IPOA-Sharks, and the GFCM to strengthen conservation efforts. Despite varying enforcement across the region, the SPA/BD Protocol plays an important role in regional shark conservation, particularly through MPAs and trade restrictions.