Thumbnail Image

NPOA - Kingdom of Tonga - National Plan of Action (Shark Plan, 2014-2016)








Also available in:
No results found.

Related items

Showing items related by metadata.

  • Thumbnail Image
    Book (stand-alone)
    NPOA - Vanuatu National Plan of Action on Sharks (2015-2018)
    A national policy for the management of sharks in Vanuatu
    2014
    Also available in:
    No results found.

    Consistent with the Fisheries Act No. 10 2014, this Plan: (i) is a policy guideline that ensures conservation, management, development and sustainable use of oceanic sharks in Vanuatu waters; (ii) promotes long-term biological sustainability and rational optimum and economic utilization of sharks in Vanuatu’s Tuna longline fishery; and (iii) serves to prevent, avoid or minimize any potential adverse environmental and social impacts, effects or risks of fishing, other human activities and environ mental factors on oceanic shark species
  • Thumbnail Image
    Book (series)
    Review of the Implementation of the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012
    Also available in:
    No results found.

    In 2011, the Conference on Fisheries requested FAO to prepare a report on the implementation of the 1999 FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks by FAO Members, and the challenges Members faced when implementing the instrument. This document provides the requested review and includes information on National Plans of Action (NPOAs), for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, national fisheries regulations in general and measures applicable to s harks including research, data collection and reporting. In addition, membership of relevant regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) and status of adopting the Port State Measures Agreement are included. This review focuses on the 26 top shark-fishing countries, areas and territories determined as those reporting at least 1 percent of global shark catches during the decade from 2000 to 2009: Indonesia, India, Spain, Taiwan Province of China, Argentina, Mexico, the United St ates of America, Pakistan, Malaysia, Japan, France, Thailand, Brazil, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Portugal, Nigeria, Iran (Islamic Republic of), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Republic of Korea, Canada, Peru, Australia, Yemen, Senegal and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). This review also considered shark action plans and measures from the European Union (Member Organization) and ten RFMOs. Eighty-four (84) percent of the global shark catches reported to FAO from 2000 to 2009 was from the 26 top shark-fishing countries, areas and territories. Overall, global reported annual shark catches during this decade show a significant decline of almost 20 percent from about 900 000 tonnes to about 750 000 tonnes. The review shows that 18 of the 26 top shark fishing countries, areas and territories have adopted an NPOA Sharks and that an additional 5 of these countries are in the process of adopting or developing such a plan. Among the most com monly adopted management measures for sharks are shark fin measures; but other regulations have also been implemented such as closed areas and season, by-catch/discard regulations, protected species, total allowable catches (TAC) and quotas, special reporting requirements and others. Data collection and research on sharks is lacking in many regions. Overall, the reporting of shark catches to FAO has improved in the last decade. Shark catches reported at species level doubled from 14 pe rcent in 1995 to 29 percent in 2010. Most of the top shark-fishing countries, areas and territories have taken steps to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, either by signing the FAO Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA) (46 percent) or at least by adopting an NPOA IUU or similar plan (23 percent). Only five (20 percent) of the top 26 shark-fishing countries, areas and territories have not adopted an NPOA Sharks, signed the PSMA or implemented an NPOA IUU. Nonethele ss, in quite a few countries the effective implementation of MCS schemes is problematic, often because of a lack of human and financial resources. All but one of the top shark-fishing countries, areas and territories are members of at least one RFMO. In particular, shark measures adopted by tuna bodies are binding in their areas of competence for all their member States that have not objected to the measure in question. The array of shark measures adopted by the RFMOs may vary from b inding recommendations or resolutions to non-binding measures, as in the case of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT). They include shark fin measures, catch and gear regulations, prohibited species, area closures, reporting requirements and research programmes. This means that in all but one area covered by RFBs there are internationally binding shark measures in place for high seas fisheries.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Book (series)
    A preliminary value chain analysis of shark fisheries in Madagascar 2014
    Also available in:
    No results found.

    Madagascar’s extensive (~6,500 km) coastline comprises the most diverse and extensive shallow marine habitats in the Western Indian Ocean, supporting an estimated 123 shark and ray species. Sharks have featured in Madagascar’s fisheries for at least 100 years, with exports recorded as early as the 1920’s. Globally, shark fins are one of the most highly valued seafood items and represent a critical and significant source of cash for some of Madagascar’s isolated fishing communities. The global sh ark fin trade is estimated to be worth between US$400-500 million a year. Increases in the shark trade over the last two decades is closely linked to economic growth in China, where the market is concentrated, and the ripple effects of this increase in demand have been felt worldwide. Scientific estimates for the number of sharks killed annually can be up to 100 million individuals and sharks are on the whole overexploited. Today, thirty percent of all shark and ray species are now classified as ‘Threatened’ or ‘Near Threatened’ with extinction according to the IUCN Red List, although this number is likely to be higher given that the status of almost half (47%) of shark species cannot be scientifically assessed due to a lack of data. There is strong evidence that shark overexploitation occurs in Malagasy waters and that shark populations in the area are declining rapidly. Although reliable figures on Madagascar’s domestic shark fishery are sparse, anecdotal observations report declines in shark numbers within the last two decades. According to national studies based only on official export data, recorded shark fin exports stood at approximately 32 tonnes in 2010, a decrease from 65 tonnes in 1994. Lack of data on catches, particularly from artisanal fisheries, bycatch by licensed industrial vessels, and by illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing by foreign industrial vessels, means these official export figures are likely to be gross underestimates of the actual pro duction. Madagascar’s shark fishery is comprised of three main fisheries according to Malagasy legislation: artisanal, traditional and industrial fisheries. Madagascar’s artisanal and traditional shark fisheries extend along the entire west coast, with the most important traditional fisheries along the southwest coast. Overfishing has led to fisher migration, spreading the fishery along the entire west coast and also much of the north. There is no established traditional shark fishery along the east coast due to adverse sea conditions, whilst the south is the least developed of all sites surveyed for this report. Throughout the country, surveyed fishers report catching shark for the purposes of income from selling fins (88%) and meat (77%), and as a source of food (31%), demonstrating the important link to the international shark fin trade. Shark fin exports reach the international market mostly through two principal buyers and exporters, namely the Sea Reine and Sin Hing, Chinese comp anies based in Antananarivo. The supply chain for shark fins is both complex and rather fluid with fishers selling either fresh (wet) or dried fins to collectors and fins graded in value according to size and quality. Some fishers bypass the local collectors and sell dried fins directly to main buyers in larger towns to obtain a better price, which can be a mark-up of 40% for high quality fins. The value of shark fins during the study period (2012) varies according to their condition (wet or dri ed), quality (four recognised grades) and their position in the supply chain. Robust data was collected for the first two levels of the supply chain but was lacking for the higher levels (main buyer to exporter). Guitarfish fins were on the whole, twice as valuable as shark fins and therefore both in demand and a fishing target. Since 2012 the average value of shark fins has dropped. Trade in shark meat is also well establishedin Madagascar, with meat sold into a supply chain that serves mainly local and national (provincial) markets but can also be exported to the Comoros. Shark meat does not fetch a high price compared to other fish or meats but can be an important supplementary source of income or nutrition in some cases. Generally fresh meat is sold and consumed locally whilst dried salted meat is bought by collectors and transported to inland urban markets in Madagascar. Some dried shark meat is also exported. ANGAP Association Nationale pour la Gestion des Aires Protégées ASH Aut orité Sanitaire Halieutique BAD Banque Africaine de Dévelopement CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CCPS Cellule de la Coordination de la Politique Sectorielle/MPRH CLB/VOI Communauté Locale de Base/Vondron’Olona Ifatony CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora COI Commission de l’océan Indien COS Certificat d’Origine et de Salubrité CSP Centre de Surveillance des Pêches CMS Convention on Migratory Species DGRH Direction de la Gestion des Ressourc es Halieutiques/MPRH DPRH Direction de la Pêche et des Ressources Halieutiques/MPRH DRPR Direction Régionale de la Pêche et des Ressources Halieutiques FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations RFMO Regional Fishery Management Organization GEF Global Environnement Facility GTZ Gesellschaft Für Technische Zusammenarbeit IPOA Sharks – International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission IUU Illegal, Unregulated and Unreport ed JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency, Agence Japonaise de Coopération Internationale MAEP Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Elevage et de la Pêche MGA Malgasy Ariary MNP Madagascar National Parks (previously ANGAP) MPRH Ministère de la Pêche et des Ressources Halieutiques NGO Non Governmental Organisations SWIOFP/OISO South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project, Programme de l’Océan Indien Sud- Occidental UNGA United Nations General Assembly WIO Western Indian Ocean WWF World Wild Fund fo r Nature 6 A preliminary value chain analysis of shark fisheries in Madagascar 7 8 A preliminary value chain analysis of shark fisheries in Madagascar Foreign commercial fishing fleets have also been prevalent in Malagasy waters since at least the 1980’s and primarily target shark and larger pelagic fish, with significant shark bycatch for those fisheries not directly targeting sharks. Almost none of the sharks caught are landed in Madagascar. IUU fishing within Madagascar’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a well-established issue, with the shark fishery specifically targeted by both licensed and unlicenced vessels. Despite the significant pressures on Madagascar’s shark fishery and the enormous socio-ecological and economic value of the trade, the country has no coherent or functioning shark conservation strategy or legislation. The lack of a national strategy is largely due to deficiencies in data on fishing effort, catches, landings and discards in all commercial fisheries for sh ark. This is compounded by a paucity of information on shark ecology, fisheries status and the socioeconomic value of the trade throughout Madagascar. Furthermore, in isolated coastal areas with little infrastructure, the sale of high value dried shark fins has been one of the few ways local Malagasy fishermen can earn cash. In this context, the diverse and unconnected stakeholders have no basis or motivation to enact meaningful conservation measures, particularly when economic imperatives outwe igh any other consideration. In a country as poor as Madagascar, even minor poverty relief is important, leading fishers to continue shark fishing despite low catches and diminishing returns for fishing effort, further threatening the future of the fishery. There is an urgent need to actively and aggressively manage Madagascar’s shark fishery. The rapid decline of sharks is likely to have several negative socioeconomic and ecological impacts, including the loss of livelihoods and protein for tho se people who rely on them and potentially altering the trophic structure of marine and coastal ecosystems. However, putting in place conservation measures and enforcing regulations remains a formidable challenge. Much of Madagascar’s fishery takes place in remote fishing grounds scattered over thousands of kilometres of coastline; the fishers are highly mobile and move great distances to seek productive fishing grounds; the government lacks the means to monitor these fisheries and enforce regul ations; and the markets are informal and closed. Significant steps must be taken in order to effectively prevent the collapse of Madagascar’s shark fishery. A widespread campaign to regulate both international and local shark fishing must occur simultaneously for any significant positive change to occur. For this to take place scientifically robust data must be collected over the long term. For any national conservation strategies to be implemented effectively, they should be based on data colle cted through participative monitoring and implemented at the national level. Such strategies should apply to artisanal and traditional fisheries, as well as to international commercial fishing vessels operating within the EEZ. Madagascar’s existing locally-managed marine areas are a vehicle through which coastal shark management strategies could be implemented. However an increase in both technical and logistical capacity will be required for effective management at the local, regional and natio nal level, together with strong enforcement support to LMMAs. Although it is recommended that the government develops appropriate national legislation and put in place proper monitoring and export restrictions, the onus remains heavily on the international community, with global legislation driving the regulation or lack of regulation of the global shark trade. Particular attention needs to be paid to those countries with distant water fleets / vessels operating within Madagascar’s EEZ, both leg ally and illegally. Without proper regulation of their shark fishing effort, partly through RFMO’s, little progress can be made.

Users also downloaded

Showing related downloaded files

No results found.