Documents reveal the recreational fishing industry’s concerns held more sway over the government’s decision than scientific or conservation advice

An Australian government decision to opt out of international protection of five shark species was influenced heavily by the concerns of the recreational fishing industry rather than scientific or conservation advice, departmental documents have suggested.



In an unprecedented move in January, the government lodged a “reservation” against five shark species listed under the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (or CMS), which is a United Nations-administered agreement.

The move exempted Australia from the protection of three thresher shark species: the bigeye, common and pelagic, as well as two hammerhead shark species: the scalloped and great hammerhead. The internationally agreed protection would have made it an offence for fishers to catch or kill these animals in Australian waters.

Documents show the federal Department of the Environment provided only one external viewpoint – that of recreational fishers – in its brief to Greg Hunt, the environment minister. The concerns of the fishing lobby were also the only non-government views handed to the delegation that represented Australia at a CMS summit in November.

Although the brief to Hunt did not include any advice from science agencies such as the CSIRO or concerns from conservation groups, it warned there would be “major domestic ramifications” if the sharks were protected, citing concerns over “premier game fishing”.

The Australian National Sportfishing Association wrote to the department in August, voicing its concern over additional protections for the sharks but admitting it “does not have the benefit of scientific expertise to comment with authority on the rationale for nomination of migratory species”.

Despite this, the brief to Hunt gives prominence to the anecdotal view of fishers, noting that: “Recreational fishers consider thresher sharks to be one of the premier game fishing species and note that they are seasonally abundant at many coastal locations.”

While the brief acknowledges that hammerhead shark numbers are in decline, it adds that “recreational fishing stakeholders also question the evidence of decline of the species in Australian waters, and do not believe the species is migratory”.

The Australian delegation was instructed that, contrary to the precautionary principle of safeguarding wildlife in the event of uncertainty, a lack of information about thresher and hammerhead sharks should, in fact, prevent them from being protected in Australian commonwealth waters.

If any of the other 120 nations at the summit objected to the idea of a minimal protected area in Australian waters, the “delegation should then argue that Australian populations should be excluded from the listing, due to the lack of data supporting their conservation and migration status in Australian waters”, the brief states.

Minutes from a conference call between the environment department and eight representatives from the fishing industry revealed several participants were sceptical over whether thresher and hammerhead sharks were in decline or even migratory species.

The CMS summit in November referenced a study showing that a great hammerhead shark was capable of travelling 1,200km in just 62 days.

Hammerhead sharks are currently under assessment over whether they should be added to the national threatened species list. The species is already considered under threat by the New South Wales government, which bans the capture and killing of the animal in its state waters.

Michael Kennedy, the campaign director of Humane Society International, said deliberations over the shark species were “biased in favour of the fishing industry”.

“The industry provides no scientific backup to their assertions, which is very disappointing to say the least,” he said. “Australia’s reputation at these international meetings has been very good but the lack of scientific attention and the lean towards the views of the industry has not gone unnoticed overseas.

“It’s a disturbing trend and I’m not sure how we fix that. Fishing has become a very powerful lobby and we think that’s dangerous. Scientific committees should have a far greater say on the listing of sharks and we shouldn’t discard the precautionary principle when faced with a lack of data.”

A spokeswoman for Hunt said he was “briefed thoroughly” ahead of the CMS conference and provided with the views of a range of stakeholders.

“Stakeholders consulted included state and federal government agencies responsible for the environment and fisheries management, environmental NGOs and recreational and commercial fishing industry representatives,” she said.

“The department also obtained scientific expert advice on the proposed changes to the CMS appendices.”’