Shark fishing is a global problem that demands local solutions

 

Countries worldwide have voted within the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to restrict global shark trade. Shark overfishing, driven primarily by trade in shark products, results in the annual death of millions of sharks. The new CITES listings target 54 shark and ray species, aiming to maintain their international trade within sustainable limits.

However, concerns exist that these listings might inadvertently increase shark fin prices and foster informal shark fin markets. Many species already on CITES remain valuable for small-scale fishers, and in 2018, CITES-listed sharks continued to dominate contemporary fin markets.

Beyond targeted fishing, sharks are frequently caught unintentionally as bycatch using indiscriminate nets and lines. Since CITES only covers international trade, regulations do not extend to sharks traded and consumed in local markets. Implementing strict rules in these markets could negatively impact the livelihoods of small-scale fisheries.

Efforts to reduce catches of threatened shark species must prioritize the rights and welfare of small-scale fishers. My colleagues and I conducted research on Indonesia, the world's largest shark fishing nation.

Our focus was on two critically endangered taxa, hammerhead sharks, and wedgefish, both already listed on CITES. Utilizing behavioral science and economic research methods, we interviewed 144 fishers in Indonesian shark fishing hotspots. We presented various conservation scenarios, including a new rule with fines for non-compliance, a voluntary program, and compensation for reducing catch.

The rule and fine scenario received limited support, as fishers found it impractical and unfair. The voluntary program garnered more interest, with 55% of fishers in Aceh expressing willingness to participate. However, the overwhelming preference was for a compensation-based approach, with 98% of fishers agreeing to stop catching hammerheads and 96% for wedgefish if their lost income was compensated.

Based on our study, it could cost just $12,000 per year to save up to 20,000 hammerheads and wedgefish in Aceh through a compensation scheme. This approach, though not tested, is likely more cost-effective than enforcement-based interventions.

We are currently piloting this compensation scheme in Aceh and Lombok, where fishers receive compensation for sharing videos of safely releasing hammerheads or wedgefish. Over 150 animals have been safely released since April, and fishers report using payments to support their families and educate their children.

While CITES listings play a role in regulating international trade, a nuanced approach is crucial to reducing catches without harming small-scale fishing communities. As governments convene at the UN biodiversity summit COP15, our research provides a scalable method for conservation interventions tailored to diverse fishing contexts, aligning with the vision of "living in harmony with nature." This approach ensures solutions involve those most affected by conservation efforts.