International:
The porbeagle shark is included on Annex 1 (Highly Migratory Species) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which lists "Family Isurida" (former name for Family Lamnidae) among other oceanic sharks. The UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks establishes rules and conservation measures for high seas fisheries resources and has been in force since 2001. It directs States to pursue co-operation in relation to listed species through appropriate sub-regional fisheries management organisations or arrangements. No progress with implementation of shark fisheries management appears to have been achieved.

In 2004, the EU rejected a proposal from Germany for the EU to submit an Appendix II listing proposal to the 13^th Conference of Parties to CITES, with the objective of ensuring the sustainability of fisheries supplying international trade. There is no regulation of the international trade demand for meat that is driving many fisheries. However, the porbeagle is one of the subjects of CITES Decision 13.42, directed to Parties, which states that Parties should take note of the species-specific recommendations in document CoP13 Doc. 35 Annex 2 with a view to ensuring that international trade is not detrimental to the status of these species (CITES). The relevant section reads: "The Animals Committee concluded that North Atlantic populations have been severely depleted and noted that quotas in EU waters apply only to non-EU fleets through access agreements. As these quotas are far higher than can be supported by the stock and do not restrict fishing effort they are not considered to be an effective management measure in this case". The Animals Committee recommended the following:

a) ICCAT members are encouraged to collect and report data on catches and discards of porbeagle sharks, as per ICCAT Resolution 95-2, which has yet to be complied with, and undertake stock assessments in order to develop management recommendations. Other relevant Regional Fishery Management Organizations are encouraged to establish and implement similar programmes.

b) The US and Canada are encouraged to enhance existing management for their shared porbeagle stock by establishing a cooperative, bilateral research and fisheries management programme.

c) The World Customs Organization (WCO) is encouraged with urgency to establish a harmonized international code for porbeagle sharks.

Two Regional Fisheries Organisations, ICCAT and IATTC, have adopted finning bans, as have several range states (e.g., USA, EU, Australia, Brazil etc.). More are likely to follow suit.

Northwest Atlantic:
The 1995 Fisheries Management Plan for pelagic sharks in Atlantic Canada established precautionary catch levels of 1,500 t for porbeagle in the target shark fishery. License limitation, a ban on finning, restrictions on gear, area and seasons, bycatch limits and restrictions to recreational fishers permitting hook and release only were also implemented (Hurley 1998). The porbeagle TAC was reduced to 1,000 t in 1997 (O'Boyle et al. 1998), then to 1,700 t during the two years 2000 to 2001 while additional scientific information was collected (DFO 2001b). As a result of these studies, it was concluded that the population was seriously depleted (to 10 to 20% of virgin biomass) and would require a greatly decreased fishing mortality if recovery is to occur. An annual catch of 200 to 250 t would correspond to fishing at about MSY and would allow population growth. However, annual catch levels of about 1,000 t would be sustainable over the long term once the population has recovered. These DFO analyses, which are the basis for the regional assessment, are contested by COSEWIC (2004), who notes that the quota for 2002 to 2007 of 200 to 250 t represents a substantial reduction from catches in the mid-1990s, but even this amount now corresponds to a high exploitation rate because of the low population abundance. It is highly uncertain if this quota reduction will be sufficient to halt the porbeagle decline, and if so, to what extent the population will recover, given that there is uncertainty in estimating FMSY and the quota, the low number of mature animals remaining in the population, that at its current low abundance the population may experience depensation (Allee effects), and that reduction in fishing pressure is not always sufficient for population recovery (Hutchings 2001). COSEWIC (Committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada) designated porbeagle as Endangered in 2004 (COSEWIC 2004).

Since 1993, shark fisheries in Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters in the US have been managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Sharks of the Atlantic Ocean. The plan set commercial quotas in the US EEZ for 10 species of pelagic sharks at 580 t dressed weight annually, with recreational bag limits also applied. There is a small quota (92 t) for porbeagle. Commercial fishers require an annual shark permit, and finning is prohibited.

Northeast Atlantic:
Norway is allocated a quota of 200 t of porbeagle in European Community (EC) waters, reduced in 1985 from the 500 t established in 1982 (Gauld 1989). Since 1985, the Faeroe Islands can also take 125 t from EC waters (originally 300 t in 1982, 150 t in 1984a). These quotas currently exceed total landings from shelf areas in the region and yield no management benefit.

Annex V of the Convention on the Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems and Biological Diversity of the Maritime Area [also called OSPAR (Oslo-Paris) Convention] requires OSPAR to develop a list of threatened and/or declining species and habitats in need of protection or conservation in the OSPAR maritime area (Northeast Atlantic). OSPAR member states were invited in 2001 to submit proposals for inclusion on this list. In response, Portugal, on behalf of the Azores, proposed to list porbeagle Lamna nasus in the wider Atlantic because of its biological sensitivity, keystone importance and the severe decline in its population. This proposal has not yet been adopted.

The status of the largely unmanaged, unmonitored Northeast Atlantic stock is likely worse than the seriously depleted Northwest stock, with stringent conservation and management action (fisheries closure and stock assessment) needed urgently to enable stocks to rebuild to levels where sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries are possible.

Mediterranean:
The species is listed on Annex III, "Species whose exploitation is regulated" of the Barcelona Convention Protocol concerning specially protected areas and biological diversity in the Mediterranean, signed in 1995 but not yet ratified. The Mediterranean population of this species was also added in 1997 to Appendix III of the Bern Convention (the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats) as a species whose exploitation must be regulated in order to keep its population out of danger. No management action has yet followed these listings. The draft action plan for the conservation of cartilaginous fishes (Chondrichthyans) in the Mediterranean Sea (Anonymous 2002) has identified porbeagle as a species that urgently needs development of a management programme for sustainable fisheries.

Southern Oceans:
In 1991, Australia brought in legislation that prevented Japanese longliners fishing in the EEZ from landing shark fins unless they were accompanied by the carcass. Since 1996, these vessels have not fished in the Australian EEZ.

The Southern African population of porbeagles is largely unmonitored and little data is available on bycatch levels in the longline fisheries of this region. However, all foreign flagged vessels in the South Africa fishery are required to have 100% observer coverage, whereas domestic vessels are required to have 20% observer coverage (C. Smith, pers.comm). The bycatch must be monitored and this porbeagle assessment reviewed within five years of the opening of this fishery.

A small, regulated fishery is permitted by New Zealand, which included porbeagles in its quota management system in October 2004, with a TAC set at 249 t (Sullivan et al. 2005). There are no other management measures applicable to the Antarctic and Southern Ocean, since CCAMLR appears not to be monitoring or managing this species.