A review of shark sanctuaries and their effectiveness

The shark sanctuary has become a popular approach for shark conservation. As of this writing, 17 nations have designated their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as Shark Sanctuaries. Shark sanctuaries prohibit all commercial fishing for sharks and retention of sharks caught as bycatch within a country’s full EEZ.

The Maldives, Marshall Islands, Cook Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Honduras, the Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Cayman Islands, Bonaire, British Virgin Islands, St. Marteen, and Saba make up the countries that have implemented shark sanctuaries (PEW, 2019). In any of these countries, possessing shark products onboard can cost up to US$250,000 in fines per shark fin, fishing license suspension, and in the Marshall Islands six-month imprisonment is a possible punishment (Ward-Paige & Worm, 2017).

At first glance, this seems like a step in the right direction for shark conservation; however, a short search will reveal a sharp division between conservationists on their effectiveness (Chapman et al., 2013). For example, Davidson sees a shark sanctuary as “an ambitious strategy that might be doomed to exist only on paper and could discourage investments in other types of shark fisheries management. We agree that enforcement will determine whether these shark sanctuaries live up to their promise, as is true of any new management regime” (Chapman et al., 2013).

Every shark sanctuary lacks detail regarding program goals, guidelines for evaluation, and data on shark catch and trade (Ward-Paige & Worm, 2017). Sanctuary amendments are rare, and also private in some countries. A shark sanctuary is simply a ban to shark fishing in a countries EEZ, accidentally or on purpose. Commercial fishing remains legal in shark sanctuaries.

The shark species that benefit the most from the enclosures are local reef species (Knip 2012). Logically, species that remain within the boundaries of the sanctuaries, like local reef sharks, have an increased chance of survival compared to species that merely migrate through them. As of 2019 (sanctuary amendments in some countries are private), four shark sanctuaries include regulations that could reduce incidental shark mortality through gear restrictions.

In the Cook Islands, “no vessel may possess, use or cause to be used as part of any fishing gear a wire leader or a trace wire for fishing.” Wire leaders, steel trace, and wire trace are all illegal in the Federated States of Micronesia. Trace wires are unlawful in the Marshall Islands. Finally, in New Caledonia, fishers are required to use net cutters to free accidentally caught animals (Ward-Paige, 2017). 

Countries implementing shark sanctuaries vary significantly in the amounts of shark present in their waters. This variation in shark abundance makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of shark sanctuaries as a whole, as very few sharks populate some shark sanctuaries while others host a plethora of species (Ward-Paige, 2017). For example, the British Virgin Islands have a maximum abundance of 11 species compared to French Polynesia’s 245. Likewise, the percentage of scuba dive sites with sharks averaged 80% in the Bahamas while only averaging 14% in Curacao, according to SCUBA divers surveyed (Ward-Paige, 2017).

A shark sanctuary with few sharks is by no means a waste of policy, as any effort in conservation can mostly be deemed positive. Shark abundance should also not be used as the sole metric to judge effectiveness. Compliance and enforcement will be the most significant factors deciding whether or not shark sanctuaries are efficient.

Compliance suggestions already exist thanks to the PEW Charitable Trusts (Abernathy, 2012). Firstly, the organization suggests that fines should match the high value of shark fins. This way, there is a more considerable incentive not to retain incidentally caught sharks. Banning the sale, trade, and possession of shark products allows for easier identification of violators, compared to bans of the fishing of sharks. Fishing gear and methods that target sharks should also be banned, as they are already are in some shark sanctuaries. Following in the footsteps of their fellow sanctuary nations has a high chance of decreasing shark catch, as well as implementing a standard for future sanctuaries. (PEW, 2017).

Interviews of fishing captains, workers, and others involved in the seafood industry in shark sanctuary countries uncovered a variety of perceived sanctuary effectiveness across countries. The Caribbean Netherlands and the Cook Islands have relatively low levels of sanctuary compliance and enforcement, while both variables were high in French Polynesia. The Bahamas have high compliance yet low enforcement values, while Palau and the Marshall Islands have low compliances yet high enforcement values (Ward-Paige & Worm, 2017). These compliance values are concerning existing regulations in shark sanctuaries. Taking into account how many international commercial fisheries use these countries’ water, and how heavily they fish, exacerbates the risk of overfishing.

Shark sanctuary countries are among countries with high shark catch rates, large shark product markets, and medium abundance. However, these results varied as some shark sanctuary countries reported low catch rates, small shark product markets, and high abundance, while other nations reported little catches, a lucrative shark product market, and a high abundance of sharks. Curacao reported high shark catch rates, large shark product markets, and low abundance (Ward- Paige, 2017).

The presence of large shark product markets in countries with designated shark sanctuaries should raise an alarm to conservationists. Even though shark fishing is banned explicitly in sanctuary legislation, sufficient enforcement is required to make sure fishers seeking a share of this lucrative market are not tempted to fish shark.

Enforcement appears to be the most critical aspect of shark sanctuaries lacking in their effectiveness. Only two of the 11 shark sanctuaries analyzed in 2017 included regulatory documentation mandating monitoring as part of shark sanctuary implementation (Ward-Paige, 2017). There have been virtually zero publically released amendments to shark sanctuaries since 2017. The FAO finds that the top 13 shark fishing nations in the world fish in shark sanctuaries (Lack & Sant 2011). Countries like China, India, or Brazil can easily take advantage of the status of these countries’ socioeconomic status and bribe officials to significantly underreport catch numbers, as well as to smuggle shark fins. 

More importantly, shark sanctuary regulations lack detail regarding program goals, guidelines for evaluation, and data on shark catch and trade. Traditional methods of assessing shark populations and human use patterns are crucially essential and impossible without these aspects. According to Chapman et al. (2013), countries with sustainable shark fisheries all possess substantial research, assessment, monitoring, and enforcement capacity devoted to fisheries management.

 

References

Knip D.M., Heupel M.R., Simpfendorfer C.A., (2012) Evaluating marine protected areas for the conservation of tropical coastal sharks, Biol. Conserv. 148 200–209.