WORKINGTOGETHER FORSUSTAINABLESHARKFISHERIESAN OVERVIEWOF SHARK UTILISATION
IN THE CORAL TRIANGLE REGION

Written by
Mary Lack
Director, Shellack Pty Ltd
Glenn Sant
Fisheries Programme Leader, TRAFFIC & Senior Fellow, ANCORS
Published in September 2012
This report can be downloaded from wwf.panda.org/coraltriangle
Citation
Lack M. and Sant G. (2012). An overview of shark utilisation in the
Coral Triangle region. TRAFFIC &WWF.
Photo cover © naturepl.com / Jeff Rotman / WWF-Canon
Thanks to the Rufford Lang Foundation for supporting
the development of this publication

2

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

ACRONYMS
ASEAN

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BFAR

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (the Philippines)

CCSBTCommission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna

CITES

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

CMM

Conservation and Management Measure

CMS

Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals

CNP

Co-operating Non-Contracting party

COFI

Committee on Fisheries (of FAO)

CoP

Conference of the Parties (to CITES)

EEZ

Exclusive Economic Zone

EU

European Union

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

IOTC

Indian Ocean Tuna Commission

IPOA-Sharks

International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks

IUU

Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (fishing)

MoU

Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks (CMS)nei

Not elsewhere included

NPOA-Sharks National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks
PI-RPOA Sharks Pacific Islands Regional Plan of Action for the Conservation andManagement of Sharks
PNA

Parties to the Nauru Agreement

RFMO

Regional Fisheries Management Organization

SEAFDEC

Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center

SAR

Special Administrative Region

SPC

Secretariat of the Pacific Community

USA

United States of America

WCPFC

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission

UNCLOS

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 11 December 1982

UNFSA

United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region3© Anja G. Burns / WWF-US
4

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION

6COUNTRY PROFILES
Fiji
Indonesia
Malaysia
Papua New Guinea
The Philippines
Solomon Islands
Viet Nam

8
11
17
23
25
28
30

SHARK UTILISATION AND RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT IN THE CORAL TRIANGLE
Box 1: Examples of Positive Responses to Shark Management Issues

34
36

RECOMMENDATIONS42

REFERENCES

44

ANNEX 1: NOTES ON MANAGEMENT MEASURES

47

ANNEX 2: SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES OF SHARK SPECIES

50

INTRODUCTION

Sharks are particularly vulnerable toover-exploitation due to their biologicalcharacteristics of maturing late, having
few young and being long-lived.

This vulnerability is exacerbated by strong demand for shark fins and ageneral deficit in management of shark catch. As a top-order predator,
sharks are also thought to play a key role in many of the ecosystems inwhich they occur.
Action on sharks by the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO), international treaties such as the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES), regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) andshark catching countries and entities, has been prompted by increasing
international concern for shark stocks due to a growing body of evidence
that many shark species are threatened and continuing to decline due tounregulated fishing.

Map of the Coral Triangle region © Coral Geographic (Veron et al, unpublished data)

6

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

This overview of shark catch and trade is focused on the six Coral Triangle
countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea (PNG), the Philippines,
Solomon Islands and Timor Leste) and the neighbouring countries of Viet
Nam and Fiji. Indonesia and Malaysia are within the top twenty catchers1of sharks globally from reported FAO data2 . The analysis in this reporthas been conducted through a desktop study of available information andliterature. The following aspects of shark fisheries in each of the eight
countries were investigated.
6KDUNFDWFK TXDQWLW\DQGVSHFLHVWDNHQ)$2FDWFKGDWDUHFRUGHGE\WKH)$2ZDVDQDO\VHGIRUWKH 
period 2000-2010 (FAO Fisheries Department, 2012)

6KDUNWUDGH VSHFLHVDQGSURGXFWVLPSRUWVDQGH[SRUWVUH 
exports). FAO trade data was compiled for the period 20002008 (FAO Fisheries Department, 2010)



7KHQDWXUHRIILVKHULHVLQZKLFKVKDUNVDUHWDNHQ6KDUNXWLOLVDWLRQLQFOXGLQJGRPHVWLFPDUNHWDQG
processing facilities

0DQDJHPHQWRIILVKHULHVLQZKLFKVKDUNVDUHWDNHQLQFOXGLQJ
legislative/regulatory instruments

,QWHUQDWLRQDOHQJDJHPHQWRQVKDUNPDQDJHPHQW

Available information on each country has been presented in the formof a Country Profile. The availability of information varies considerablyacross the countries and a profile has not been produced for Timor Leste
due to the limited availability of current information. Given the desktop
nature of this project, it is important to note that this review of available
information has relied largely on documents discoverable through internet
searching. Further information and insights on management of sharks inthe countries concerned may be available through direct contact with the
management agencies concerned. It is important to note that this study
did not cross check data from major importers with reported export datafrom the countries considered in this analysis. Notes on the nature ofmanagement obligations applying to the countries under review including
obligations arising from participation in regional fisheries bodies andinternational conventions can be found in Annex 1. A full list of commonand scientific names of shark species referred to in this report is provided
in Annex 2.

1

The designations of geographical entities in this publication, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of TRAFFIC or its supporting organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area, or of its
authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
2
Top twenty catchers in descending order of average catch from FAO capture production 2000-2010 are Indonesia, India, Spain, Taiwan,
Argentina, Mexico, United States of America, Pakistan, Malaysia, Japan, France, Brazil, Thailand, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Portugal, Nigeria,
Iran (Islamic Rep. of), Korea, Republic of and United Kingdom. (FAO Fisheries Department, 2012).

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

7

Country Profile:Fiji
Shark catch3
Tonnage reported to FAO,

Fiji reports its fisheries catch to FAO but does not identify% of global FAO catch andsharks separately from other fish in those data.

main species reported to FAO
Catch data from other sources

The Fiji domestic tuna fishery lands and markets a number

and main species takenof non-tuna species, although shark trunks and otherspecies are not commercially viable (e.g. lancet fish) and are
typically discarded (Western and Central Pacific FisheriesCommission (WCPFC), 2010a). No shark catch data werereported to the WCPFC in Fiji’s Annual report (Part 1) in2010 although estimated catches of sharks (t) taken in
the period 2006 to 2008 have previously been provided(WCPFC, 2009) and catches for 2011 were provided to
WCPFC in 2012 (WCPFC (2012a):2006 2007 2008

2011

Blue Shark
Mako sharks
Oceanic Whitetip
Silky Shark
Other sharks and rays

705
157
169
152
73

240
43
164
95
39

597
177
54
64
92

374
180
92
250
43

Total

1256

581

984

939

The main species reported in observed longline shark catchfrom Fiji waters are Blue Shark (46%), Oceanic Whitetip(18%), Silky Shark (13%) and Pelagic Stingray Dasyatis
violacea (10%). The main species reported in observed purse
seine catch are Oceanic Whitetip (30%) and low levels ofSilky Shark and hammerhead sharks Sphyrna spp. with theremainder of the shark catch not being identified by species(Lack and Meere, 2009).
Gilman et al. (2007) report that over five years for whichobserver data were available (1999, 2002-2005) sharks
formed 3-10% of the catch per effort (no./100 hooks) and 8
to 25% of the weight of the catch per effort (kg/100 hooks) inFiji’s domestic longline fleet.
3
In the Country Profiles, FAO shark catch refers to the average annual reported catch (tonnes) over the 2000-2010 period. The percentage ofreported global catch refers to the same time period.

8

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle RegionJuncker (2006) reports that in inshore areas, Hammerhead
6KDUNVDQG2FHDQLF:KLWHWLS6KDUNDUHTXLWHFRPPRQDQG
a few species also venture into the fresh water, especiallythe larger rivers. Drop line fishing surveys carried out by
the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) found that
only two species were recorded as bycatch (Silvertip Shark
Carcharhinus albimarginatus and Grey Reef Shark C.
amblyrhynchos). Other species recorded are the Blacktip
Shark C. limbatus and the Whitetip Reef Shark Triaenodon
obesus, Lemon Shark Negaprion brevirostris, Tiger Shark
Galeocerdo cuvier and the Bull Shark Carcharhinus leucas(Juncker, 2006).
Nature of shark fisheries

Sharks are taken in offshore fisheries, as bycatch in a
substantial domestic longline fleet (97 vessels in 2009)and by US purse vessels operating in Fiji’s waters under
the Multilateral Treaty on Fisheries Between Certain
Governments of the Pacific Island States and the Governmentof the United States of America (the US Treaty) (WCPFC,
2010a). Gilman et al. (2007) report that sharks taken in
Fiji’s pelagic tuna longline fishery are usually finned and thecarcasses discarded into the ocean. Sharks are also taken as
bycatch in domestic inshore fisheries. Only a few species are
retained in the inshore fisheries (Juncker, 2006).

Shark Trade

Fiji reports shark exports to FAO in two, non-species-specificData reported to FAO

categories: Sharks not elsewhere included (nei), fresh or
FKLOOHGDQG6KDUNVQHLIUR]HQ6PDOOTXDQWLWLHVRIIUR]HQshark products are also imported. These data show thatshark exports averaged 164 t over the 2000-2008 period. Fijireports production of unsalted fins averaging 134 t/year overthe same period (FAO Fisheries Department, 2010).

Shark utilisation

Until recently, reef fish was readily available, thus shark
was not considered an important food fish (shark is notconsumed in many areas of Fiji due to traditional taboos on
its use, however, it is readily accepted in the Rotuma andRabi communities). With the increase in population andgreater ease of exporting there have been moves to develop
shark fisheries both to supply the local demand for fish andto earn foreign exchange (Juncker, 2006).

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

9

Domestic management
Management measures

No specific shark management measures are known to bein place in Fiji. Gilman et al. (2007) report that shark is
not managed as a separate fishery in Fiji and there were no
restrictions relating to catch, processing and handling ofsharks and shark fins in place.

NPOA-Sharks

Fiji does not currently have an NPOA-Sharks. A Regional
Plan of Action for Sharks (PI-RPOA Sharks) (Lack andMeere, 2009) was prepared as guidance for Pacific Island
Countries and Territories in 2009 through the Forum
Fisheries Association (FFA) and with funding from the
FAO. Fiji is currently consulting with stakeholder groups todecide on the extent of management for inshore and offshore
arrangements. Fiji is considering, as a possible option,
the adoption of a shark sanctuary approach similar to that
adopted by Palau and the Marshall Islands in the Pacific.

RFMOs and regional bodies
Membership

WCPFC and Forum Fisheries Association (FFA)

Implementation ofUnder WCPFC CMM 2010-07 coastal States, such as Fiji,

shark measures

are permitted to apply ‘alternative measures’ within theirown waters. To date Fiji’s reporting of shark catch to the
WCPFC has been intermittent and the measures applied
to its domestic fleet with respect to shark conservation are
unknown.

Gaps and deficiencies
Data and information

Absence of any shark specific catch in FAO catch data.

Management

Intermittent reporting of shark catch to WCPFC, noting thatsuch reporting is not mandatory.
The nature and extent of current shark management
measures imposed by Fiji on its domestic longline fleet,
including measures that are consistent with CMM 2010-07 is
unknown.

10

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

Country Profile:Indonesia
Shark catch
Tonnage reported to FAO,

Average annual reported shark catch 2000-2010 was% of global FAO catch and

106 288 t (FAO Fisheries Department, 2012) representing

main species reported to FAO

13.1% of reported global catch. According to FAO data,
Indonesia is the major shark catching country in the world.
Before 2005 all catch was reported to FAO in only two
species group categories. Currently, one species and
10 species groups are reported. In 2010 Whitespotted
Wedgefish (Giant Guitarfish) Rhynchobatus djiddensis
FRPSULVHVRIWKHFDWFKµ5HTXLHPVKDUNVQRW
elsewhere included (nei)’ around 30% and ‘Stingrays,
butterfly rays nei’, 40%.

Catch data from other sources

The main species taken are Whitespotted Whipray

and main species taken

Himantura gerrardi, Cowtail Stingray Pastinachus
sephen, Whitespotted Wedgefish, Silky Shark, Spottail
Shark Carcharhinus sorrah, Blue Shark, Scalloped
Hammerhead, Pelagic Thresher and Shortfin Mako
(FAO, 2009).
Dharmadi et al. (2008) report the results of a survey
conducted in the south of Indonesia between 2001 and2004. During this period 57 species of sharks wereidentified from shark landings at four landing sites. The
most common sharks in the landings were Squalus spp.
(22%), Silky Shark (15%), Spinner Shark Carcharhinus
brevipinna (13%) and Pelagic thresher (7%).
Commercial species of shark identified in Indonesia’s
NPOA-Sharks include: Spottail Shark, Tiger Shark,
Shortfin Mako, Silky Shark, Scalloped Hammerhead,
Crocodile Shark Pseudocarcharias kamoharai, Pelagic
Thresher, Longfin Mako, Western Angel Shark Squantina
spp., Bowmouth Guitarfish Rhina ancylostoma, Gummy
Shark Mustelus antarcticus, Bigeye Thresher, Spinner
Shark, dogfish Squalidae spp., Spinetail Mobula Mobula

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

11japanica, Giant Shovelnose Ray Glaucostegus typus andCowtail Ray (Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries,2010). The NPOA does not identify the Whitespotted
Wedgefish as one of the commercial species, despite thisbeing the single species identified in catch data reported to
the FAO.
White and Cavanagh (2007) report the capture and finningof whale sharks at Kedonganan in southern Bali. It is notedthat the slow-swimming nature of this species makes it
particularly prone to being caught by artisanal fishers andthat “it is highly likely that whale sharks are landed, either
opportunistically or directly targeted at numerous otherartisanal fish landing sites throughout the Indonesianarchipelago. The increasing fishery for large mobulid rays,
especially Mobula tarapacana, M. japanica and Manta
birostris, in this region may also result in whale sharks
being encountered more often by artisanal fishers due totheir similar habitats and feeding preferences. Althoughestimating the total number caught on an annual basis
within Indonesia would be very difficult, if not impossible,
it is likely that significant numbers are caught each year and
WKDWPRUHVXUYH\VDUHUHTXLUHGWRGHWHUPLQHWKHWUXHH[WHQW
of such landings”.
Nature of shark fisheries

Vieira and Tull (2005) report that Indonesia’s shark and ray
fishery has two sectors: the large scale or industrial sector
and the small-scale or artisanal sector, with the artisanal
sector believed to be the most significant contributor to thetotal shark and ray catch. It is likely that, given the vessels
used by artisanal fleets are less likely to have insulated fishholds or refrigeration, there is a strong incentive for sharkfinning.
Sharks are taken as target species using gill and tangle nets,
longlines and harpoons and as by bycatch by tuna longlines,
trawls, seine nets, trammel nets, hand lines and otherbottom gear. Sharks are an important source of livelihood
for many communities (FAO, 2009). In Raja Ampat
archipelago about 100 vessels (about 7 m) target sharks forfins with small sharks landed for domestic consumption
and larger shark carcasses discarded. These subsistence or
WUDGLWLRQDOILVKLQJYHVVHOVDUHQRWUHTXLUHGWRKDYHILVKLQJ
permits (Varkey et al., 2010).

12

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

Fowler et al. (2005) report that:DWDUJHWVKDUNILVKHU\H[LVWVWKURXJKRXWPXFKRI 
Indonesia using longlines, although gillnets are also
used;



DILVKHU\LQHDVWHUQ,QGRQHVLDXVLQJODUJHPHVK 
gillnets, targets Whitespotted Wedgefish for its
valuable fins;DGHHSZDWHUORQJOLQHILVKHU\WDUJHWVCentrophorus
spp., Greeneye Spurdog Squalus mitsikurii, Kitefin
Shark Dalatis licha and Hexanchus spp. mostly for VTXDOHQHULFKOLYHURLOVWDUJHWWUDZOILVKHULHVIRUUD\VVSHFLHVLQFOXGLQJ

Dasyatis spp. and Eagle Ray Aetomylaeus maculata
operate in the west of the country;HODVPREUDQFKVDUHFRPPRQO\WDNHQDVE\FDWFKLQ 
fisheries including trawl fisheries for penaeid prawns
and demersal fish, pelagic longline fisheries for tunas
and hook-and-line fisheries for reef fish; andIUHVKZDWHUHODVPREUDQFKVDOVRRFFXULQ,QGRQHVLDDQG
the Freshwater Sawfish is known to occur in someareas.

Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing by
Indonesian vessels in northern Australian waters has beencommon over the last decade with shark taken illegallyroutinely finned (Lack and Sant, 2008). However, there
has been a marked reduction in IUU fishing in northern
Australian waters in recent years, including IUU fishing by
Indonesian vessels. In the 2006 calendar year, a total of 365
Shark products located on board an
Indonesian fishing vessel apprehended in2012 in Australia’s northern waters

foreign vessels were apprehended in Australia’s northernwaters. However, between July 2008 and June 2012 only
76 Indonesian and PNG vessels were apprehended. Of
these, 60 Indonesian vessels were targeting shark. Most
incursions into the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ) now
occur at the outer extremities of the maritime boundarywith periodic opportunistic shallow forays into Australianwaters. (G. Lovelock, Australian Fisheries Management
Authority in litt. to G. Sant, TRAFFIC, 31 August 2012).

Shark Trade

Between 2000 and 2008 Indonesia reported shark exports

Data reported to FAO

to FAO in three categories: Shark fins, dried, unsalted;
Sharks nei frozen; Sharks, rays, skates, fresh or chilled,nei (FAO Fisheries Department, 2010). Over that period,
exports of fins averaged over 1400 t/year, of frozen shark

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

13and over 750 t/year and of fresh chilled shark around 80
t/year. Indonesia also imports dried unsalted shark fins(around 160 t/year) and frozen shark products (around 60
t/year).
Indonesia reports production of dried, unsalted shark finswhich appears to be predominantly exported. Productionof Sharks nei, frozen, increased noticeably from 2007 froman average of less than nearly 500 t per year between 2000
and 2006, to nearly 8000 t/year in 2007 and 2008. The
increase in exports of frozen shark product reflected in the
FAO over this time is not commensurate with the increasein production. This suggests that either exports are underreported to FAO or that domestic consumption of sharks
has increased significantly.
Other trade data andAccording to FAO (2009) the main shark export is dried

information

shark fin from species including guitarfish and shovelnose
rays. Exports are predominantly to Japan, China Hong
Kong SAR, Singapore, China, Malaysia and Taiwan.
Surabaya (East Java) is the centre for shark fin exports.
Other products such as skins, gill rakers and cartilage areincluded in other export categories and shark oil is recorded
under fish oil. Shark fillets are exported to Singapore
through Belitung Island. Other shark products such assalted and dried meat are usually traded locally or exported
mainly to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, however these export
are not recorded separately.

Shark utilisation

Most parts of the sharks are utilized (fin, skin, meat, bones,
stomach, liver, teeth) and generally sold through brokers/
traders at auction for domestic sale or export (Watts, 2003).
Some fin traders in Indonesia process shark fins before
exporting (Watts, 2003) although Dharmadi et al. (2008)
report that this is unusual.
Dharmadi et al. (2008) report that in southern Indonesia
shark flesh is generally salted or dried and sent to othermarkets in Jakarta and West Java. Shark skins, fins andoil are also marketed with fins dried prior to export. They
report that fins landed in Bali comprise Oceanic Whitetip
Shark, thresher sharks, Blacktip Shark Carcharhinus
tilstoni and Blue Shark.

14

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

Domestic management
Management measures

The growth in shark and ray fisheries in Indonesia has
outstripped effective management. There are few, if any,
management strategies aimed at protecting shark resources(FAO, 2009). The only regulation and law enforcement
related to shark fisheries and product is for sawfish (SKMentan No. 716/KPTS/Um/10/1980 and Peraturan
Pemerintah No. 7 Tahun, 1999) but the implementationof the regulations was only applied for monitoring andbanning the rostrum trade rather than to other parts of the
body due to the lack of ability to identify the species (FAO,
2009).
Vieira and Tull (2005) note that the predominance of
the artisanal sector in shark catch poses difficulties
for management since imposing catch restrictions on
impoverished artisanal fishing communities has potentiallyserious impacts on the incomes and well-being of thesefishers, their families and communities. An understanding
RIWKHVHLPSDFWVLVWKHUHIRUHUHTXLUHGIt is reported that there is considerable illegal fishingin Indonesian waters by Thai trawlers and it has beensuggested that institutional arrangements in Indonesia are
not capable of dealing with this issue and in fact that there
may be some corruption on the part of those charged with
enforcement (Heazle and Butcher, 2007). The extent towhich this illegal fishing activity affects shark populations is
unknown.

NPOA

Indonesia adopted an NPOA-Sharks in November 2010
(Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, 2010). The Plan
identifies key issues for shark and ray management inIndonesia and broad strategies to address these. Those
responsible for implementing the strategies are identified.

RFMOs and regional bodies
Membership

Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin
Tuna (CCSBT), Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC),WCPFC (CNP), Southeast Asian Fisheries Development
Center (SEAFDEC), Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN)An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

15

Implementation of

7KHUHLVQRLQGLFDWLRQWKDW,QGRQHVLDUHTXLUHVLWVYHVVHOVWR

shark measures

FRPSO\ZLWKWKHILQFDUFDVVUDWLRUHTXLUHGE\WKH,27&DQG
the WCPFC.
Indonesia is one of the major fleets involved in taking
sharks in the IOTC area (IOTC, 2009). Indonesia, as
UHTXLUHGE\,27&5HVROXWLRQUHSRUWVVKDUNFDWFK
to IOTC with reported catch between 2001 and 2008
averaging 8500 t/year, but this average increased tonearly 16 500 t/year in 2006-2008. Reporting against
UHVROXWLRQZKLFKUHTXLUHVPRUHGHWDLOHGFDWFKDQG
effort data on ‘the most commonly caught’ shark species
taken in surface fisheries, longline fisheries and coastal
fisheries, is yet to be tested. Indonesia did not commenton implementation of Resolution 10/02 in its 2011 Annual
Report to the IOTC. In relation to Resolution 10/12 onThresher Shark, it commented that, according to logbooks,
sharks (presumably thresher sharks) are not taken as
bycatch in its tuna longline fishery. Herrerra et al. (2010)
report that Indonesia had not provided any data on nominal
catch or catch and effort of sharks taken in its purse seine
fleet or on catch and effort of sharks taken in its longline
fleet in the Indian Ocean to the IOTC. It had only partiallyprovided data on nominal catch of sharks taken by its
longline fleet.
Reporting of shark catch to CCSBT is not mandatory andIndonesia had not reported any shark catch to CCSBT up
until 2009. Indonesia does not report any information
on shark catch in WCPFC Part 1 Annual Reports to the
WCPFC or in the aggregated catch and effort log sheet data
for longline fleets provided to the Commission (Clarke andHarley, 2010). It is not mandatory to report shark catch to
the WCPFC.

Gaps and deficiencies
Data and information

Greater species level identification of catch in data reportedWR)$2LVUHTXLUHG

Management

The nature and extent of domestic shark management
measures imposed by Indonesia, including measuresconsistent with WCPFC CMM 2010-07 and IOTC Resolution
05/05 is unknown.

16

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

Country Profile:

Malaysia
Shark catch
Tonnage reported to FAO,

Average annual reported shark catch 2000-2010 was% of global FAO catch and

23 808 t (2.9% of global reported catch) (FAO, 2012).

main species reported to FAO

Malaysia reports shark catch to FAO in two categoriesof which ‘Rays, stingrays mantas nei’ comprise 67% and‘Sharks, rays, skates etc nei’ 33%.

Catch data from other sources

SEAFDEC (2006) reports that the ten most commonly

and main species taken

taken shark species in Malaysia (in order) are: Spadenose
Shark Scoliodon laticaudus, Brownbanded Bamboo Shark
Chiloscyllium punctatum, Spottail Shark, IndonesianBamboo Shark Chiloscyllium hasselt, Blackspot Shark
Carcharhinus seali, Scalloped Hammerhead, Milk Shark
Rhizaprionodon acutus, Graceful Shark Carcharhinus
amblyrhnchoides, Sicklefin Weasel Shark Hemigaleus
microstoma, Grey Bamboo Shark Chiloscyllium griseum.
Based on landing data collected from 2003 to 2004, themost dominant species of sharks found in Malaysia arefrom the longtailed carpet sharks Family Hemiscyllidae and
UHTXLHPVKDUNVCarcharhinidae. The most common rays
are whiptail stingrays Family Dasyatidae (Department of
Fisheries, Malaysia, 2006).

Nature of shark fisheries

Sharks are taken mainly by trawl and gillnet fisheries withVPDOOTXDQWLWLHVWDNHQLQORQJOLQHSXUVHVHLQHDQGRWKHU
fisheries. The sharks and rays landings that constitute apart of the demersal fishery occur throughout the Malaysian
fisheries waters, from the coasts to the edges of its exclusive
economic zone (EEZ). The landings contribute only aminor portion, less than 2.2%, of total marine landings.
Sharks are not targeted by fishers but are caught together
with other commercially important species. In 2001, sharkscaught by trawls accounted for 60.0% of the total sharklandings followed by drift nets (26.0%) and hooks andlines (13.0%). Other fishing gears include portable traps,
stationary gears, barrier nets, purse seines and other seines(Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2006).

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

17

Fowler et al. (2005) report that:(ODVPREUDQFKFDWFKHVLQ0DOD\VLDDUHGRPLQDWHG
by batoids taken as bycatch in trawl fisheries.
They cite research that found that 95% of theelasmobranchs were taken by trawling andthat 60% of the catch was batoids.

5D\FDWFKHVDUHKLJKHURII3HQLQVXODU0DOD\VLDWKDQ
Sabah, whereas shark catches are higher off Sabah
than Sarawak.

7KHUHLVOLWWOHLQIRUPDWLRQRQVSHFLHVFRPSRVLWLRQRI
the catch in any fisheries.

)UHVKZDWHUHODVPREUDQFKVLQKDELWPDQ\RI0DOD\VLD¶V
rivers, including Freshwater Sawfish, and populationsof these species have been reduced due to increased
fishing and habitat degradation.

Sea Resources Management Sdn Bhd (2008) conducteda case study of IUU fishing in the east coast area of
Peninsular Malaysia as part of a broader APEC study of IUU
fishing in the Asia Pacific. The observations on sharks containedin the case study are noted below.
They report that “Malaysia‘s official position on sharkfin fishing is that it does not exist in Malaysia. However,whether or not a shark/ray fishery officially exists is
unclear. For example, one research officer at the Southeast
Asian Fisheries Development Centre (SEAFDEC), was
TXRWHGWRVD\WKDWȸZHGRQµWKDYHDVKDUNILVKHU\SHUVH
and we definitely do not practice shark finning.
However, DOF Fisheries Statistics report a category offish landings called Yu, meaning shark, where 8,299 MT
in 2004 and 9,165 MT in 2005 were recorded to have been
landed in Malaysia. Landings of rays are also recorded in
the official data (e.g. 16,754 MT in 2004 and 15,929 MT in2005 were recorded).
In the context of increasing shark/ray landings (i.e. 10,792
MT in 1982 to 27,948 MT in 2003 and then 25,094 MT in2005), and a declining number of licensed fishing boats
from 30,390 vessels in 1981 to 22,041 vessels in 2005
(for Peninsular Malaysia only), the belief that Malaysia
does not have a shark/ray fishery appears incorrect. In
2005, 35% (some 8,856 MT) of this fishery occurred in
Peninsular Malaysia. Therefore, given that the reported

18

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

landings of shark and rays have increased significantlyin the context of a decreasing fishing fleet, there would
appear to be evidence that these fish are desirable, target
species. Fishing licences for Malaysian vessels do not
restrict the species that can be caught. The licence usually
only restricts the location where fishing can be done (thefishing zone and class of vessel) and the gear type used.”
Shark Trade
Data reported to FAO

Between 2000 and 2008 Malaysia reported shark exports
to FAO in four categories: Shark fins, dried, salted, etc;
Shark fins, prepared or preserved; Shark fins, salted
and in brine but not dried or smoked; and Sharks nei,frozen (FAO 2010). Total shark exports over that period
averaged around 170 t/year of which around 145 t/year wascomprised of fins. Malaysia is, however, a net importer ofshark fin products. Between 2000 and 2008 fins imports
averaged around 485 t/year.
Malaysia’s trade data does not differentiate any sharkspecies.

Shark utilisation

Sharks are retained and sold into local markets. Larger
sharks are sold without fins. Fins are processed as dried
whole fin (from the larger higher grade fins) and as dried or
wet loose fin (from smaller lower grade fins). Shark fins aremostly exported to Hong Kong and Singapore (Departmentof Fisheries Malaysia, 2006).
Sharks are mostly utilized as fresh meat, although some areprocessed as salted fish. A small number of shark’s jaws
and teeth are sold as rare souvenir items to enthusiasts.
Cartilage and some other discarded parts of the fish areused as bait for fish and crab traps. Small sharks, as wellas those that are non-edible or unsuitable for bait are
sold to fish mill factories for fertilizers. Rays are mostly
consumed fresh (cooked or smoked) and salted. Bothmeat and fins from species such as Silky Shark, Blacktip
Shark, Hardnose Shark Carcharhinus macloti, Spottail
Shark and Spadenose Shark are in great demand and theprices of these species are increasing. Other species arealso popular locally amongst Malaysian Chinese for theirfins and meat, especially Blacktip Reef Shark Carcharhinus
melanopterus, Blackspot Shark, Scalloped Hammerhead,

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

19

Great Hammerhead, and Smooth Hammerhead. Fins arenormally extracted from very small sharks from families
Carcharhinidae, Hemiscyllidae and Hemigalidae of lessthan 1 m in size. Fresh fins and their processed items
may be easily found at several wet markets especially in
Kuantan, Kota Kinabalu and Sandakan (Department of
Fisheries Malaysia, 2006).
Domestic management
Management measures

The Fisheries (Control of Endangered Species of Fish)
Regulation 1999 lists whale shark as an endangered marine
animal and prohibits a person to fish, disturb, harass,catch, kill, possess, sell, buy, export or transport the species
without written permission. Sanctions apply (Barriera,2008).
The Department of Fisheries Malaysia (2006) reports that:

8QGHUWKH)LVKHULHV$FWWKH0LQLVWHURI

Agriculture is empowered to make regulations forthe proper management of specific marine fisheries
resources. However, there is no specific regulation
pertaining to the management of sharks and rays
except for Whale Shark, which is listed under the
Fisheries (Control of Endangered Species of Fish)
Regulations 1999. There is no regulation pertaining to
the management of freshwater sharks and rays, whichis under the jurisdiction of the States.
0RUHUHJXODWLRQVQHHGWREHIRUPXODWHGWRSURWHFW
rare species such as Pale Whipray Himantura signifer
found in Pahang, and Kinabatangan river shark(Glyphis spp.) and Giant Stingray Himanturachaophraya in Sabah.

8QGHUWKH)LVKHULHV &RQWURORI(QGDQJHUHGSpecies of Fish) Regulations 1999, Whale Sharkand seven species of Sawfish (Pristidae) are species
listed as endangered marine animals in Malaysia.
(Fischer et al. 2012). The regulation stipulates
that no person shall fish or, disturb, harass,catch, kill, take, possess, sell, buy, export or transport
any endangered species except with the written
permission from Director- General of Fisheries
Malaysia. Any person contravenes the regulations
can be fined up to RM 20,000 (US$ 5229) or a term of
imprisonment not exceeding two years or both.

20

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

Fowler et al. (2005) note that recreational landings of six
shark species (Brownbanded Bamboo Shark, Grey Bamboo
Shark, Zebra Shark Stegostoma fasciatium, Zebra Bullhead
Shark Heterodontus zebra, Coral Catshark Atelomycteru
marmoratus and Whale Shark) are prohibited in Malaysia.
Recent media reports suggest that the Malaysian State ofSabah is planning to make shark finning illegal (Brake,2011) due to a decline in shark populations.
Malaysia states sharks are fully utilized (Fischer et al.
2012), but it does not appear to be regulated for.
NPOA-Sharks

An NPOA-Sharks was implemented in 2006 (Department of
Fisheries, Malaysia, 2006).

RFMOs and regional bodies
Membership

IOTC, SEAFDEC, ASEAN

Implementation of

The IOTC Scientific Committee identified the need forshark measures

Malaysia to collect catch and effort information for sharkspecies from its longline tuna fleet and to report thisinformation to the Commission. Herrerra et al. (2010)
UHSRUWWKDW0DOD\VLDSDUWLDOO\PHHWVWKHGDWDUHTXLUHPHQW
for nominal catch and catch and effort for sharks taken inits longline fleet and for nominal catch in its purse seine
fleet. However it does not provide data on catch and effort
for sharks taken in its purse seine fleet. It was not possible
to determine whether Malaysia applies the 5% fin-toFDUFDVVUDWLRUHTXLUHGE\,27&

Gaps and deficiencies
Data and information

No species identification in catch data reported to FAO andIDLOXUHWRPHHWFDWFKUHSRUWLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH,27&
No species breakdown in trade data provided to FAO.

Implementation of

No management in place for shark species, apart from someshark measuresprotection for Whale Shark. It is unclear whether Malaysia
DSSOLHVWKHILQFDUFDVVUDWLRRUHTXLYDOHQWPHDVXUHVLQ
its domestic waters.

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

21

Country Profile:Papua New Guinea
Shark catch
Tonnage reported to FAO,PNG does not report shark catch to FAO.

% of global FAO catch andmain species reported to FAO
Catch data from other sources

The main species reported in observed longline sharkand main species taken

catch from PNG waters are Silky Shark (72%), Grey Reef
Shark (5%) and Oceanic Whitetip Shark (4%). Silky Shark
comprises 85% of the observed shark purse seine catch(Lack and Meere, 2009. In its target longline fishery Silky
Shark is the dominant species comprising 71.52% of thecatch by number, followed by blue shark, 11.30%. Around
12.1% were other shark species including Blacktipped Reef
Shark, Blacktip Shark, Galapagos Shark, Grey Reef Shark,
Hammerhead Shark, Oceanic Whitetip, Silvertip Shark andTiger Shark (WCPFC, 2011).
In 2008, PNG advised the WCPFC that its export data
indicated that 1724 t of shark product was exported in2007. PNG acknowledged that this figure was more than
twice the information from the log sheet landings datafrom its shark fishery. The potential reasons for this wereidentified as either gross misreporting or that that there area lot of shark products from fisheries other than the shark
fishery (WCPFC, 2008).
Juncker (2006) reports that, as well as the oceanic sharkspecies identified above, coastal species, such as Silvertip
Shark, are also taken in significant numbers, along with arange of other species such as Blacktip Shark, hammerhead
species, Common Thresher Shark, mako sharks, Tiger shark
and Crocodile Shark and some pelagic rays. The fins andmeat of most species are marketable, but species of low
value, e.g. Blue Shark, and may not be retained.

Nature of shark fisheries

In 2010 a total of 256 vessels were active in PNG waters.
Thirty-two were longline and handline and 195 purse seine

22

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

vessels. Of the latter, 9 were PNG flagged, 39 were PNG
chartered and 176 were foreign vessels operating underaccess agreements (WCPFC, 2011).
PNG has a target shark longline fishery and vessels in thisfishery operate only in domestic waters. In addition, sharks
are taken as bycatch in PNG’s domestic tuna longline
fishery. In recent years this annual bycatch has ranged
from 42 t in 2006 to a peak of 134 t in 2010 (WCPFC, 2011).
Juncker (2006) reports that: VPDOOTXDQWLWLHVRIVKDUNZHUHFDXJKWE\DUWLVDQDO
fisheries prior to 1980;



 7DLZDQHVHJLOOQHWWHUVRSHUDWHGDVKDUNILVKHU\LQ
the Gulf of Papua and 1980s and 1990s; and PDNRVKDUNVDUHLPSRUWDQWWRVSRUWILVKLQJLQ31*

MRAG (2005a, 2005b) estimated that unreported catch of
shark by licensed longliners to be around 2500 t per year
and illegal catch of sharks to be around 6500 t/year.
Shark Trade
Data reported to FAO

Between 2000 and 2008 PNG reported shark exports
to FAO in three categories: Shark fins, dried, salted, etc;
Sharks nei, fresh or chilled; and Sharks nei, frozen (FAO
Fisheries Department, 2010). Over this period, reported
shark exports averaged 34 t.

Other trade data andWhile PNG does not provide catch data in its target shark

information

fishery to the WCPFC it reports exports of frozen sharkmeat and frozen shark fins but excludes dried shark fins
(WCPFC (2010b)). In addition it indicates that shark
products are mostly exported to Taiwan.
The export data provided to WCPFC differs significantly
to that reported to FAO. For the period 2004 to 2008, thedata provided to the WCPFC indicates that an average of1682 t of frozen shark product was exported. This comparesto an average 6 t reported in the FAO trade data. Similarly,
exports of frozen fins averaged 137 t over the same period
according to data provided to the WCPFC yet no exports offrozen fins are reported to FAO. No WCPFC Part 1 Annual
Report has been provided to the WCPFC in 2012.

Shark utilisation

Juncker (2006) reports that most shark meat and fins havetraditionally been exported to Taiwan. He reports that anincreasing amount of the shark meat is processed locally,for domestic consumption.

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

23

Domestic management
Management measures

PNG has a Shark Management Plan in place for its target
shark longline fishery. The Plan limits the number ofvessels to nine, hooks per day to 1200 hooks/vessel, andthe total allowable catch to 2000 t (dressed weight) per
year. Observer coverage is set at 20% of fishing days on
active vessels. In 2010 8 vessels were active in this fishery,taking 64,924 sharks. This was higher than the 2006-2009
average but below the highest catch of more than 68,000
sharks in 2006 (WCPFC, 2011).
Longliners not authorized under the Shark Management
Plan, but operating under the Tuna Fishery Management
Plan, cannot target sharks, cannot use wire leaders anddo not have an export licence for sharks (Lack and Meere,2009). The Plan limits to the number of vessels to 100,limits them to setting a maximum of 1200 hooks/set/
day and to a total combined annual catch of 10 000t/yearof Yellowfin Tuna Thunnus albacares and Bigeye Tuna
Thunnus obesus. In 2009, only 20 vessels were active inthis fishery (WCPFC, 2010b).
PNG runs an intensive port sampling program in the main
unloading and transshipment ports around the country.
An estimated 20-25% by weight of the unloading andtransshipments is sampled (WCPFC, 2010b).
As a member of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA),
PNG will prohibit, from 1 January 2011, any foreign purse
seine vessels fishing in its waters to fish for tuna associatedwith Whale Shark.

NPOA-Sharks

PNG does not have an NPOA-Sharks. The PI-RPOA Sharks(Lack and Meere, 2009) was prepared as guidance for
Pacific Island Countries and Territories in 2009 throughthe FFA and with funding from the FAO. However there
are no indications that any of the Plan’s recommendations
have been adopted by PNG.

RFMOs and regional bodies

24

Membership

WCPFC, FFA and PNA

Implementation of

At WCPFC in 2010 PNG advised that “it has a shark

shark measures

fishery that makes use of the entire shark, and has had

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

a management plan in place for the last 10 years. Data is
supplied to SPC” (WCPFC, 2010b). Under WCPFC CMM
2010-07 coastal States, such as PNG, are permitted to apply‘alternative measures’ within their own waters. It is unclear
ZKHWKHU31*DSSOLHVWKHILQFDUFDVVUDWLRRUHTXLYDOHQWPHDVXUHVWRLWVGRPHVWLFYHVVHOVDVUHTXLUHGE\WKH:&3)&
Gaps and deficiencies
Data and information

Absence of shark-specific catch to FAO. Significant
discrepancies and inconsistencies in the export data reported
to the WCPFC and that reported to FAO.

Implementation of

The discrepancies identified by PNG in 2008 between catchshark measuresand trade data suggest that enforcement of the catch limits
under the Shark Management Plan and/or management of the
shark bycatch in the tuna longline fleet is lacking. However,since PNG has not reported its shark trade in recent reportsWR:&3)& QRWLQJWKDWWKHUHLVQRUHTXLUHPHQWWRGRVR LWLV
unclear whether these discrepancies persist.

Country Profile:

The Philippines
Shark catch
Tonnage reported to FAO, %Average annual reported shark catch 2000-2010 wasof global FAO catch

5277 t (0.65% of global reported catch) (FAO Fisheries

and main species reported

Department, 2012).

to FAO
Fifty percent of the Philippines’ shark catch is reported to
FAO as Rays, Stingrays, mantas nei and 50% as Sharks,
rays, skates etc nei. Only one species, Shortfin Mako, is
identified separately and it represents less than 0.01% of
the catch.
There are no shark catch production data reported
Catch data from other sources

explicitly in the annual ‘Fisheries Profile’ produced byand main species taken

the Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Fisheries
DQG$TXDWLF5HVRXUFHV %)$5 DQGVKDUNVDUHQRWOLVWHG
separately in the shark catch or trade data published on
BFAR’s website.

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

25

SEAFDEC (2006) reports that the ten most commonly
taken shark species in the Philippines (in order) are:Whitetip Reef Shark, Spurdog Squalus megalops; rays
Rhinobatus spp., Brownbanded Bamboo Shark, Giant
Guitarfish; Blacktip Shark; Sharptooth Lemon Shark
Negaprion acutidens; Pelagic Thresher, Tiger Shark andSilvertip Shark.
Over the 1998-2001 period WWF-Philippines conducted a
species inventory of sharks based on market and fishery site
landings. More than 500 specimens ranging from shark
teeth, jaws, claspers, heads or whole bodies of animals
were collected from markets and landing sites in at leastten provinces in northern Mindanao, Visayas, Luzon and
Palawan. The collection yielded about 83 species of sharks
and shark-relatives belonging to 24 families. The exercise
was designed to provide the baseline information needed
for the effective conservation and management of sharks(Anon., 2001).
Nature of shark fisheries

Shark Trade

There is little recent information available on the natureof fisheries in which sharks are taken in the Philippines.
FAO (2004) cites reports of large-scale exploitation of the
GRJILVKVKDUN IDPLO\6TXDOLGDH 7KLVILVKHU\EHJDQLQWKH
ODWHVLQUHVSRQVHWRWKHGHPDQGIRUVTXDOHQHKRZHYHU
it became an example of a ‘boom and bust’ fishery.
Fowler et al. (2005) report that demersal longlines areused to catch Centrophorus spp., various Squalus spp.,
Pygmy Ribbontail Catshark Eridacnis radcliffei and theSilver Chimaera Chimaera phantasma for liver oil, whichis exported to Japan. Fisheries also exist for species ofmobulid rays, which are vulnerable to over-exploitation.

Data reported to FAO

Between 2000 and 2008 the Philippines reported shark
exports to the FAO in only two categories: Shark fins,dried, salted etc (averaging 36 t/year) and Shark liver oil/
(19 t/year). In previous years it has reported exports offrozen dogfish, fresh/chilled sharks and sharks, dried,salted or in brine (FAO Fisheries Department, 2010). In
volume terms the Philippines is a net importer of shark
products with imports of Sharks nei, frozen averaging
around 230 t/year over 2000-2008 and considerably
higher, at around 500 t/year, between 2005 and 2008.

Shark utilisation

Information on domestic shark utilisation was unavailable.
The trade data provided above are indicative of the shark
products produced for export.

26

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

Domestic management
Management measures

The Whale Shark is one of two protected species in thePhilippines and is listed as vulnerable in the IUCN Red
List and Appendix II of CITES. Whale sharks and manta
rays are protected by DA-FAO 193 S. 1998 which bans the“taking or catching, selling, purchasing and possession,transporting and exporting of whale sharks and mantarays”. Whale shark aggregation sites have been identified
as priority conservation areas. There is no study on
population estimates of any species of sharks in thePhilippines (Anon., 2011).

NPOA-Sharks

In its latest report to the IOTC on implementation ofmanagement measures, the Philippines indicated that it had
adopted a NPOA-Sharks. However, it has not been possible
to locate a copy of the Plan. The document does not appear
on the FAO website where NPOAs of other FAO members
are listed, nor is there any reference to the document on
BFAR’s web site.

RFMOs and regional bodies
Membership

WCPFC, IOTC, SEAFDEC, ASEAN

Implementation of

The Philippines does not report shark data to the WCPFC inshark measures

its Annual Report Part 1 to the WCPFC. The National Stock
Assessment Program has continued to collect port sampling
data in major tuna landing sites (e.g. species composition,OHQJWKIUHTXHQF\DQGYHVVHOFDWFKDQGHIIRUWLQIRUPDWLRQ 
Increased port sampling coverage will be realized throughthe West Pacific East Asia Oceanic Fisheries Management
Project which started in 2011 (WCPFC, 2010c).
In its latest report to the IOTC on implementation ofmanagement measures, the Philippines reported that inrespect of Resolution 10/02 on mandatory reporting “Alldata except size data mandated to be submitted to the
IOTC Secretariat by this resolution is collected by logbooks.
9HVVHOVDXWKRUL]HGWRILVKLQWKH,27&$UHDDUHUHTXLUHG
to keep daily logbooks by the rules. This is covered by
Fisheries Administrative Order No. 198 Series of 2000.
Size data is gathered in the Observer program.” (IOTC, 7KLVVXJJHVWVWKDWWKHVKDUNGDWDUHTXLUHGXQGHUWKLV
resolution is being provided by the Philippines. However,
Herrera et al. (2010) report that the Philippines had not

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

27

provided any data on nominal catch, catch and effort and
VL]HIUHTXHQF\RIVKDUNVWDNHQLQLWVORQJOLQHIOHHWIn respect of the Resolution 10/12 on thresher sharks thePhilippines indicated only that it had adopted an NPOASharks.
Gaps and deficiencies
Data and information

There is essentially no species based reporting in catch data
provided to the FAO.

Management

There is not a good understanding of the fisheries in whichsharks are taken in the Philippines. There is a need toconfirm whether an NPOA-Sharks has been adopted and, if
so, to examine the document.

Country Profile:

Solomon Islands
Shark catch
Tonnage reported to FAO,
% of global FAO catch andmain species reported to FAO

Average annual reported shark catch 2000-2010 was
9.5 t (0.0012% of global reported catch) (FAO Fisheries
Department, 2012).

Catch data from other sources
and main species taken

The main species reported in observed longline shark catchfrom Solomon Island waters are Blue Shark (26%), Silky
Shark (23%), Pelagic Stingray (19%), Oceanic Whitetip (9%)
and Shortfin Mako (8%). Silky Shark comprises 84% of
the sharks taken in observed purse seine catch (Lack andMeere, 2009).

Nature of shark fisheries

In 2011 a total of 482 fishing vessels (including US Treaty
and FSM Arrangement vessels) were licensed to fish in
the Solomon Islands EEZ. These included 202 purse
seine, 256 longline, and 24 pole and line vessels. In 2010,
13 longline vessels had been identified as shark longline
vessels however these licences were not renewed in 2011
following a decision by the Ministry of Fisheries and marine
Resources to halt all commercial fishing targeting sharks.
(WCPFC, 2012b).
Juncker (2006) reports that sharks are caught bysubsistence and small-scale artisanal fishers in some areas

28

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

of the Solomon Islands, generally as a bycatch of fishing fordeep-water bottom fish or of tuna purse-seining.
Shark Trade
Data reported to FAO

The Solomon Islands reports small and intermittent
exports of dried, salted shark fins. Exports of 2 and 3 t
were reported in 2001 and 2008 respectively (FAO 2010).

Shark utilisation

Juncker (2006) reports that subsistence fishers eat theflesh of the shark and the shark fin is sold for export.
Shark worship has traditionally been common in the
Solomon Islands and still continues on some islands.
Local Gilbertese communities hunt shark for domestic
consumption especially in the Wagina area in the Western
Province.

Domestic management
Management measures

No specific shark management measures are known to be inplace in the Solomon Islands. The only known regulation islicensing of shark fin exporters (McCoy, 2006).

NPOA-Sharks

The Solomon Islands does not have a NPOA-Sharks. The
PI-RPOA Sharks (Lack and Meere, 2009) was prepared
as guidance for Pacific Island Countries and Territories
in 2009 through the FFA and with funding from the FAO.
However there are no indications that any of the Plan’s
recommendations have been adopted by the Solomon
Islands.

RFMOs and regional bodies
Membership
Implementationof shark measures

Gaps and deficiencies
Data and information

Management

WCPFC, FFA and PNA
The Solomon Islands reported to the WCPFC in its Annual
Report Part 1 in 2012 it was not allowing for targeting ofsharks. It is unclear what measures the Solomon Islands
takes to ensure that it is in compliance with CMM 2010-07.
As a member of the PNA, the Solomon Islands has
prohibited, from 1 January 2011, any foreign purse seine
vessels fishing in its waters to fish for tuna associated withwhale sharks.
There is no species breakdown in the catch data provided
to FAO. While there is an increasing understanding of
the species taken offshore fisheries, there remains little
information on the species breakdown of shark catch incoastal fisheries.
There is not a good understanding of the nature of fisheries
in which sharks are taken in the Solomon Islands. There do
not appear to be any shark-specific management measuresin place.

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

29

Country Profile:

Viet Nam
Shark catch
Tonnage reported to FAO,

Viet Nam reports its fisheries catch to FAO but does not% of global FAO catch andidentify sharks separately in those data.

main species reported to FAO
Catch data from other sources

In its first Annual Report (Part 1) to the WCPFC, Viet Nam

and main species taken

indicated that a number of species of sharks are taken inits domestic longline fishery for tuna. The species includes
Pelagic Thresher Shark, Whitecheek Shark Carcharhinus
dussumieri, Silky Shark, Blacktip Shark, Scalloped
Hammerhead, Great White Shark, Blue Shark, Crocodile
Shark and a range of stingrays and devil ray species. Overthe period 2000 to 2005 Blue Shark comprised up to 24%of the annual catch of the longline fishery and pelagic
thresher up to 21%. Devil rays were also prominent in
the catch, comprising up to 13% of annual catch (WCPFC,
2010d). No update was provided to WCPFC on shark
catches in its most recent (2012) Annual Report (Part 1).
Shark species were also recorded in the gillnet fishery,
which predominantly takes Skipjack tuna Katsuwonus
pelamis, including Pelagic Thresher, Blackspot Shark,
Smooth Freshwater Stingray Dasyatis garouaensis, Pygmy
Devilray, Mobula eregoodootenke, Spinetail Mobula andWhale Shark. Devil rays were again prominent in the catch(WCPFC, 2010e).
Long (2006) reports that in four surveys undertaken in two
ports (Phan Thiet and Vung Tau) in 2003/04, 13 speciesof sharks were identified as being taken. Pelagic Thresher
Shark, Bronze Whaler Carcharhinus obscurus, Silky
Shark, Blacktip Shark, Spotless Smooth Hound Mustelus
griseus, Grey Bamboo Shark, Whitespotted Bamboo Shark
Chiloscyllium plagisoum, Zebra Shark, Zebra Bullhead
Shark, Sharpnose Sevengill Shark Heptranchias perlo,
Coral Catshark and Scalloped Hammerhead.
A research survey, reported in Long (2006), conducted
between 2001 and 2004 identified 39 species including:30

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region VSHFLHVRIVKDUNV RIILYHIDPLOLHV DQGVSHFLHV
of rays of (five families) in the Tonkin Gulf; VSHFLHVRIVKDUN IDPLOLHV DQGVSHFLHVRI
rays (5 families) in the Southeast Area; and8 species of shark (4 families) and 8 species of rays (3families) in the Southwest area.
Nature of shark fisheries

SEAFDEC (2006), reports that sharks are targeted bylonglines and taken as bycatch in trawls and gillnets. At
that time sharks constituted approximately 21.5% of thetotal longline catch and around 1% or less of trawl andgillnet catches. Long (2006) reports that around 75%of the elasmobranch catch in longlines is sharks and theremainder rays.
Long (2006) reported that there were no statistics in Viet
Nam on the total catch of cartilaginous fishes. However,
he noted that shark fisheries started developing after 1980
and reached a peak at the end of that decade. Fishing was
driven by the increasing demand for shark fin for export
and domestic consumption as well as increased demand forother shark products such as skin, shark cartilage and shark
liver oil. Shark fisheries by hook and line, and longline
developed in Quang Binh, Binh /Thuan and Vung Tau,
however declining catches have seen those fleets diversify
to, or specialize in, tuna fishing.
Viet Nam’s coastal fisheries are showing signs of overfishingand in order to encourage fishers to operate in waters
further offshore the Vietnamese government is offeringsubsidies of around US$3500 a year for fishermen buying
new boats fitted with an engine larger than 90hp (World
Fishing, 2010).
Fowler et al. (2005) report that little information onelasmobranch populations of fisheries in Viet Nam isavailable and suggest that loss of coastal habitat may
be a threat to these populations. They note that several
freshwater species of endangered batoids occur in rivers in
the country, but their status in Viet Nam is unknown.

Shark Trade
Data reported to FAO

Between 2000 and 2008 Viet Nam has reported shark
exports in two categories: sharks nei, fresh chilled (anaverage of <2 t /year) and Sharks nei, frozen (an average of

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region31around 63 t/year). According to the data reported to FAO(FAO 2010), Viet Nam is a net importer of shark products
in volume terms with imports of Shark, nei, frozen
averaging around 400 t in the 2000-2008 period. Importsof this product increased to around 2400 t and 1100 t in2007 and 2008 respectively. Viet Nam does not report any
re-exports of shark products.
Shark utilisation

All parts of the shark are reported to be utilised. Freshand dried meat is sold on the domestic market and fins,stomachs, skin, bone and liver are exported (SEAFDEC,
2006).
Long (2006) reports that sharks are processed and tradedas follows:
Fresh shark: retained whole in trawlers and gill net boats
until landed. Fins of sharks of more than 6-7kg are thenremoved and smaller sharks sold whole.
Dried sharks: seen on offshore long line boats as dried
fish meat, dried skin and dried bone
Liver: cut into small pieces then processed into oil andcontained in plastic cans.
Stomach: used as foodFins: preferred product for export

Domestic management
Management measures

There are no shark-specific management measures known
to be in place in Viet Nam.

NPOA-Sharks

There have been reports (Cavanagh et al., 2008 and
SEAFDEC, 2006) that Viet Nam has been developing
an NPOA but the current status of the Plan is unknown.
SEAFDEC (2006) reported that lack of funding washindering progress.

RFMOs and regional bodies
Membership

WCPFC (CNP), SEAFDEC, ASEAN

Implementation ofViet Nam became a CNP of WCPFC for 2010 and 2011

shark measures

because of the need for cooperation between with
the Commission to achieve compatibility of fisheries
management and conservation and on the understanding
WKDW&13VWDWXVZRXOGUHODWHRQO\WRWKHDFTXLVLWLRQDQG
exchange of fishery information and data and that Viet
Nam has no participatory rights for fishing for highly

32

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Regionmigratory fish stocks in the high seas of the Convention
Area. Viet Nam reported shark catch taken in it’s gillnet andlongline fisheries to the WCPFC in 2010 but not in 2011 or
2012.
Gaps and deficiencies
Data and information

While there is some data available on the shark species
taken in the longline fishery, the latest data available is for2004 and there are no data on the actual catch level, only
proportions of catch. Further the species breakdown andextent of shark catches in other coastal fisheries is unknown.

Management

There is a lack of information on any shark specificmanagement measures in place in Viet Nam. The potential
for Government-subsidized increases in offshore fishingposes a potential threat to shark species and management
action to ensure, in the first instance, that species specificcatch data is reported is a priority.

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

33

SHARK UTILISATION
AND RESPONSIBLE
MANAGEMENT IN THE
CORAL TRIANGLE

WWF and TRAFFIC consider that the
responsible utilisation of shark resources
UHTXLUHVUHVSRQVLEOHPDQDJHPHQWWUDGH
and consumption. Each of these elements
UHTXLUHVDGHTXDWHJRYHUQDQFHDQG
monitoring to provide confidence that
traded shark products are from sustainablesources. The links between these elements
DQGWKHQDWXUHRIWKHUHTXLUHGLQLWLDWLYHV
are described in the flow diagram in Figure
1. The findings of this review have been
considered in this context so as to ascertain
the extent to which the various components
UHTXLUHGWRGHOLYHUUHVSRQVLEOHPDQDJHPHQW
exist in each of the countries.

Responsible
Management
Catch data
(Account for all mortality)
Catch Documents
Catch set at sustainable levels

Trade Data
Trade Certification
Trade Related Measures

Responsible
Shark
Utilisation

Responsible
Consumption

Responsible
Trade
Block IUU &Unsustainable Products

Figure 1. Responsible Shark Utilisation (Lack and Sant, 2009)

A summary of the key characteristics of shark fisheries, catch andmanagement across the Coral Triangle countries, drawn from the Country
Profiles, is provided in Tables 1 and 2. This review of shark fisheries,
catch, trade and management in countries in and around the Coral
Triangle has identified some key gaps in our understanding of theseissues. It is possible that, in some cases these gaps can be filled by further,
direct investigation with the relevant countries, but there is a strong

34

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Regionpossibility these gaps reflect real deficiencies in data collection and analysis
and actual lack of management of sharks. The key issues arising from theanalysis can be summarised as follows: JHQHUDOIDLOXUHWRUHSRUWVKDUNFDWFKWR)$2LQVKDUN specific categories; ODFNRIVSHFLHVLGHQWLILFDWLRQLQVKDUNFDWFKGDWDUHSRUWHG



to FAO; ODFNRIVSHFLHVLGHQWLILFDWLRQLQVKDUNWUDGHGDWD JHQHUDODEVHQFHRIVSHFLILFPDQDJHPHQWPHDVXUHVIRU

sharks, despite sharks being targeted in a number ofcountries and bycatch of sharks, particularly rays in somecases, comprising large proportions of total catch in manyother fisheries; OLWWOHHYLGHQFHRIPHDVXUHVEHLQJLPSOHPHQWHGDW

the national level to ensure compliance with reporting andmanagement obligations to RFMOs; and OLWWOHHYLGHQFHRIDFNQRZOHGJHPHQWRIWKHQHHGWRDGGUHVVissues associated with lack of data and management ofsharks with only two of the eight countries being
confirmed as having an NPOA-Sharks.

There is a need for In the context of our model of responsible shark utilisation (Figure 1) theseILQGLQJVGHPRQVWUDWHWKDWIHZRIWKHHOHPHQWVUHTXLUHGIRUUHVSRQVLEOH
a concerted effort shark utilisation are present in the eight countries examined. This confirms
to ensure that shark the need for a concerted effort to ensure that shark utilisation in the region
utilization in the is sustainable.
region is sustainable
The problems identified above are common to many shark catching

countries, including many of the top 20 shark catching countries (see Lackand Sant, 2011). While these problems remain largely unresolved there
are examples of positive initiatives to deal with them (see Box 1). These
initiatives range from improved data collection and research to bans on
the take and/or trade in some species of sharks. These are just some of
the many management and trade-related measures available. These were
explored in more detail in a joint CITES/FAO workshop in 2010 (see FAO,
2012). There is therefore, both experience and advice available to guide
Coral Triangle countries in the efforts to address shark management.

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

35Box 1: Examples of Positive Responses to Shark Management Issues
1. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)
a. Conducted an ERA for sharks to identify the most vulnerable species
b. Identified key shark species for management purposesc. Has begun stock assessments for these species as a basis for species specificmanagement (see http://www.wcpfc.int/doc/SC8-Report)
2. Forum Fisheries Agency
a. Has prepared a Pacific Islands Regional Plan of Action for Sharks to guide responses toshark management issues (see http://www.ffa.int/sharks)
3. Some countries (e.g Palau, The Maldives, Honduras, The Bahamas, Tokelau, The MarshallIslands) have implemented shark sanctuaries in an effort to minimise the impact of tuna fishing,in particular, on sharks and to maximise the tourist potential available from maintaining shark
populations
4. Eleven Southeast Asian countries have developed a regional plan of action to combat illegal,
unreported and unregulated fishing including that of sharks(see http://www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/compliance-activities/illegal-foreign-fishing/rpoa-iuu/ )5. Some countries (e.g. Australia, Nicaragua, Panama, Taiwan, United States) have introduced
measures to require that sharks be landed with fins attached while others require
shark landings to comply with a fin to carcass ratio (e.g. New Zealand, Samoa, South Korea)
6. Some countries have regulated the type of gear that can be used and prohibit the use of wire
leaders on long lines (e.g. Australia, Marshall Islands, Tonga), making it easier for hooked sharks
to escape7. The potential for sustainable target shark fisheries has been demonstrated by the Marine
Stewardship Council certification of The British Columbia and the US Atlantic Spiny Dogfish fisheries
8. Some countries (e.g. Marshall Islands) and some jurisdictions (e.g. Hawaii, Northern Mariana
Islands, Guam, California, Washington) have placed trade bans on shark and shark products
including fins
9. Some countries have developed specific mitigation guides to minimise the risk posed toshark by specific gear types(see http://www.daff.gov.au/brs/fisheries-marine/publications/chondrichthyan_guide_for_fisheries_
managers_a_practical_guide_for_mitigatingchondrichthyan_bycatch)

10. Some countries have banned the retention of specific shark species e.g Taiwan banned theretention of whale sharks in 2008

36

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

36

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region© Brent Stirton / Getty Images
An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region37

Table 1: Management and data reporting environment for sharks in the Coral Triangle

CountryParty

UNCLOS1

UNFSA2Fiji

R

R

Indonesia

R6

R

FAO/
COFI3

CITES

CMS4/
Shark MoU

WCPFC

9/X

A

A

CCSBT, IOTC,

9/9

A7

A7

RFMO

WCPFC (CNP)8
Malaysia

R

X

IOTC

9/9

A

A

PhilippinesR

S9

WCPFC, IOTC,

9/9

R

R

CCSBT (CNP)
PNG

R

R

WCPFC

9/X

A

A

Solomon Islands

R

A

WCPFC

9/X

A

A

Timor Leste

X

X

9/X

X

X

Viet Nam

R

X

9/9

A

A

WCPFC (CNP)

1

UNCLOS: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 11 December 1982
UNFSA: Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to theConservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA)
3
COFI: Committee on Fisheries of the FAO
4
CMS: Convention on Migratory Species
5
NPOA-Sharks: National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks
6
R: Ratified
7
A: Acceded
8
CNP: Co-operating non-contracting Party
9
S: Signatory
10
Philippines reported to IOTC (IOTC, 2012) that the Philippines has adopted a NPOA-Sharks and that there is pending legislation with the Congress of the
Republic of the Philippines on a measure on sharks. However, the NPOA is not accessible from the FAO website and the authors of this report have not beenable to view a copy of the NPOA.
2

38

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

38

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle RegionReported FAO
shark catch
2010

Reports to FAO

Rank as shark
catcher(2000-2010)

NPOA
Sharks5

Fish
Catch

Shark
catch

Shark
Trade

(t)

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

94,3181

Yes (2010)

Yes

Yes

Yes

20,5639

Yes (2006)

Yes

Yes

Yes

5,513

30

Unclear10

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No
10

130

No

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

39

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

39

Table 2: Summary of key characteristics of shark fisheries in Coral Triangle countries

CountryFiji

Reported FAO-

94,31820,563-

1

9Indonesia

Malaysia

shark catch 2010(t)
Rank asshark catcher(2000-2010)
Nature of shark fisheries

BycatchTarget in gill and tangle

Bycatch and(target/ bycatch,Longline

nets, longlines andprobably target

main methods)

Purse seine

harpoonTrawl, Gillnet

Bycatch in longline, trawls

Hook and line

and other bottom gear)
Main species taken1

Blue Shark

Blue Shark, Cowtail

Blackspot Shark

Mako sharks

Stingray

Brownbanded Bamboo

Oceanic Whitetip

Pelagic Thresher

Shark, Graceful Shark

Pelagic Stingray

Scalloped Hammerhead,

Grey Bamboo SharkSilky Shark

Shortfin Mako, Silky Shark

Indonesian Bamboo

Spinner Shark, Spottail

Shark, Milk Shark

Shark Squalus spp.,

Scalloped Hammerhead

Whitespotted Wedgefish,

Sicklefin Weasel Shark

Whitespotted Whipray

Spadenose Shark
Spottail Shark

Main shark products

Fins

Fins, Flesh, Oil, Skins

Fins, Flesh

Key gaps, deficiencies

Failure to report shark

Inadequate species

No species identification

and uncertainties

specific catch to FAO

identification in catch andin catch or trade data

trade
Apparent lack ofmanagement

Failure to meet IOTC
Failure of management

reporting requirements.

to keep up with growth ofApparent lack of

shark fisheries

management

1‘Main species’ are listed in alphabetical order, rather than in order of significance,since in most cases insufficient information is available to identify species composition definitively.

40

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

40

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

PNG

Philippines

Solomon Islands

Viet Nam

-

5,513

10

-

-

30

130

-

Target longline

TargetBycatchTarget in longline

Longline

Bycatch in trawl

Purse seine

and gill nets

Bycatch longline

Blacktip Shark

Centrophorus spp.

Blue Shark

Blackspot Shark

Common Thresher

Mobulid rays

Oceanic Whitetip

Blacktip Shark, Blue

Crocodile Sharks

Pygmy Ribbontail

Pelagic Stingray

Shark, Crocodile Shark

Grey Reef Shark

Catshark

Shortfin Mako

Great White Shark

Hammerhead spp.

Silver Chimaera

Silky Shark

Pelagic Thresher

Mako sharks

Sqalidae spp.

Pygmy Devilray

Oceanic Whitetip

Scalloped Hammerhead

Pelagic rays

Silky Shark, SmoothSilky Shark

Freshwater, Stingray,Silvertip Shark

Spinetail Mobula, Whale
Shark, Whitecheek Shark

Meat, Fins

Fins, Oil, Flesh

Flesh, Fins

Flesh, Fins, Stomachs,
Skin, Bone, Liver

Failure to report shark

Inadequate species

Inadequate species

Failure to report sharkspecific catch to FAO

identification in catch

identification in catch

specific catch to FAO

and trade

Poor understanding ofDiscrepancies between

the nature and extent ofGeneral lack of

catch and trade data

Poor understanding ofshark fisheries, especiallyknowledge on species

may be indicative of

shark fisheries.

coastal fisheries

composition of catchpoor enforcement ofUncertainty about the

management measures

Philippines’ NPOA-

Apparent lack of shark-

Apparent lack of

Sharksspecific management

management

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

41

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

41

RECOMMENDATIONS

As noted above, the information
contained in this report cannot be
regarded as comprehensive andit is likely that, even with further
investigation, significant gaps in our
understanding of these issues willremain.

In these circumstances it is difficult to make recommendations on
specific management actions, since these need to be informed by a soundunderstanding of the nature of the fisheries in which sharks are taken, thespecies breakdown of shark catch and the level and relative composition of
shark catch by species.
However, lack of data, and/or lack of specificity of data, on both catchand trade is a common theme across the region. In addition, this review
has identified significant gaps in the countries’ implementation of thecatch/trade reporting and management obligations arising from theregional bodies and international conventions of which they are members.
Therefore it is possible to identify some overarching recommendations
to address the common issues identified by this review and to establish abasis for more effective longer-term management of sharks in the region.
It is recommended that efforts focus on:
1. improving data collection and reporting; ,WLVLPSRUWDQWWRQRWHWKDWIDLOXUHWRLGHQWLI\VKDUNVSHFLHVLQ 
catch or trade data reported to FAO is unlikely to be simply achoice that a country makes in reporting. It is much more likely
to reflect the fact that the data collection processes in place simply
do not allow such reporting.
The appropriate solution is therefore to be found at the datacollection level rather than the reporting level.
Further, the nature of that solution will vary across artisanal  DQGLQGXVWULDOIOHHWV7KHIRUPHUIRUH[DPSOHPD\UHTXLUH



estimates based on periodic sampling of catch or landings,
whereas the latter may lend itself to log sheets, observer coverage etc.

42

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

2. ensuring that the actions agreed to in WCPFC, IOTC, FAO,CITES and CMS are implemented; and3. developing a rudimentary shark assessment report. In datapoor situations a risk-based approach to management can be a costeffective mechanism for ensuring the best targeting of available resources.
In this context, it is recommended that these assessments comprise thefollowing six steps.
 

 FROOHFWDQGDQDO\VHDQ\DGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQRQVKDUNILVKHULHV
and catch identifying any existing data collection programs andprevious one-off projects that may have provided information on
the nature and level of shark catch; 

 FRQGXFWDFRPSUHKHQVLYHDQDO\VLVRIWUDGHIORZVRIVKDUNSURGXFWV
from each of the countries so as to contribute to ground truthingof catch data or, in the absence of such data, to provide anindication of the likely levels of shark catch; 

 GHYHORSVDPSOLQJPHWKRGVDSSURSULDWHWRWKHQDWXUHRIWKHILVKHU\(i.e. artisanal or industrial) and tailored to the situation in eachcountry, to fill the key remaining data gaps;  IRFXVDFWLRQRQWDUJHWVKDUNILVKHULHVIRUVSHFLILFVKDUNVSHFLHV or groups of species since the information collected to datesuggests that there are many target shark fisheries across thecountries and that these are, with few exceptions, unregulated
and unmonitored. These fisheries are driven by demand for fins,  PHDWVTXDOHQHDQGLQVRPHFDVHVIRUVNLQ  HQJDJHDVPDOOJURXSRIVKDUNVFLHQWLVWVIDPLOLDUZLWKHFRORJLFDO
risk assessment (ERA) methodology to conduct a base levelrisk assessment of the shark species affected by fishing in eachcountry, informed by:

 

 

WKHLQIRUPDWLRQFROODWHGLQWKLVUHSRUWDQGVXSSOHPHQWHG
by the sampling in Step 2,

 

 

 DQ\DQDO\VLVFRQGXFWHGE\WKH6RXWK(DVW$VLDUHJLRQDOgroup of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group,
existing biological information collated for other nationaland regional ERAs,

 

 

OLWHUDWXUHDYDLODEOHRQWKHUHODWLYHYXOQHUDELOLW\RIVKDUN
species; and  LGHQWLI\WKHVKDUNVSHFLHVDWKLJKHVWULVNLQHDFKFRXQWU\WR

prioritise action at the species level.

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

43

REFERENCES
Anon. (2001). New Species of Shark on your Table? Available at: http://wwl.panda.org/media_
centre/?2374/New-species-of-shark-on-your-table. Viewed 27 May 2011.
Anon. (2011). Philippine Clearing House Mechanism for Biodiversity. Coastal, marine andisland biodiversity: Other indicator species. Available at: http://www.chm.ph/index.
php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99%3Acoastal-marine-and-island-biodiversityother-indicator-species-&catid=36%3Abiodiversity-in-the-philippines&Itemid=92
Barriera, A. (2008). The Protection of Sharks: A legal and Policy Analysis. Instituto Internacionale
de Derecho y Medio Ambiente for Oceana. http://www.iidma.org/privado/Archivos/
ReportSharksApril2007.pdf . Viewed 5 October 2010.
%UDNH/  0DOD\VLDQ6WDWHSODQVWRPDNHVKDUN¿QQLQJLOOHJDO,Q(DUWK7LPHV$YDLODEOHDW
KWWSZZZHDUWKWLPHVRUJFRQVHUYDWLRQPDOD\VLDQVWDWHSODQVVKDUN¿QQLQJLOOHJDO.
Viewed 27 May 2011.
Cavanagh, R.D., Fowler, S.L. and Camhi, M.D. (2008). Pelagic Sharks and the FAO International
Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks in Camhi, M., Pikitch, E.K.,
and Babcock, E.A. (2008). Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation.
Blackwell Publishing.
CITES Animals Committee (2004). Report on the implementation of the UN FAO International
Plan of Action for sharks (IPOA–SHARKS). Twentieth meeting of the Animals Committee
Johannesburg (South Africa), 29 March-2 April 2004. AC20 Inf. 5
Clarke, S. and Harley, S. (2010). A proposal for a Research Plan to Determine the status of the
Key Shark Species:&3)&6FLHQWL¿F&RPPLWWHH6L[WK5HJXODU6HVVLRQ$XJXVW
Nuku’alofa, Tonga.
Department of Fisheries, Malaysia (2006). Malaysia National Plan of Action for the Conservationand Management of Sharks (Malaysia NPOA-shark). Available at: KWWSZZZDS¿FRUJ
uploads/smartsection/351_NPOA_Malysia_shark.pdf
Dharmadi, Fahmi and Kurnaen Sumadhiharga (2008). Artisanal Shark and Ray Fisheries in South ofIndonesia. Marine Research in Indonesia. 33 (2): 175-187.
FAO (2004). National Fishery Sector Overview, The Philippines. Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/
DOCUMENT/fcp/en/FI_CP_MY.pdf .Viewed 24 May 2011.
FAO (2009). Report of the Technical Workshop on the Status, Limitations and Opportunities for
Improving the Monitoring of Shark Fisheries and Trade, Rome, 3-6 November 2008. FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No. 897. FIMF/R897. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/
i1121e/i1121e00.htm . Viewed 5 October 2010.
FAO Fisheries Department (2010). FISHSTAT Plus. Commodity Production and Trade 1976 – 2008.
Fisheries Information, Data and Statistics Unit, FAO.
FAO (2012). FAO Report of the FAO/CITES Workshop to Review the Application and Effectivenessof International Regulatory Measures for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Elasmobranchs.
Genazzano, Italy, 19–23 July 2010.
FAO Fisheries Department (2012). FISHSTAT Plus. Capture Production 1950-2010. Fisheries
Information, Data and Statistics Unit, FAO.
)$2)LVKHULHVDQG$TXDFXOWXUH5HSRUW1R5RPH)$2SS
Fischer, J., K. Erikstein, B. D‘Offay, M. Barone and S. Guggisberg (2012). Review of the
Implementation of the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of
Sharks. )$2)LVKHULHVDQG$TXDFXOWXUH&LUFXODU1R&SSBBBBB
Fowler, S.L., Cavanagh, R.D., Camhi, M., Burgess, G.H., Cailliet, G.M., Fordham, S.V., Simpfendorfer,
C.A. and Musick, J.A. (2005). Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan
Fishes. IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group, IUCN.

44

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle RegionGilman, E., Clarke, S., Brothers, N., Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Mandelman, J., Mangel, J., Petersen, S.,
Piovano, S., Thomson, N., Dalzell, P., Donoso, M., Goren, M. and Werner, T. (2007). Shark
Depredation and Unwanted Bycatch in Pelagic Longline Fisheries: Industry practices andattitudes and shark avoidance strategies:HVWHUQ3DFL¿F5HJLRQDO)LVKHU\0DQDJHPHQW
Council, Honolulu, USA.
Heazle, M., and Butcher, J. (2007), Fisheries depletion and the state in Indonesia: Towards a regional
regulatory regime. Marine Policy 31, pp276-286.
Herrera, M., Pierre, L and Million, J (2010). Report on IOTC Data Collection and Statistics. Available
at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/018/ak813e.pdf . Viewed 25 May 2011.
IOTC (2009). Report of the Fifth Session of the IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems andBycatch Mombasa, Kenya 12 - 14 October 2009. Available at: KWWSZZZLRWFRUJ¿OHV
proceedings/2009/wpeb/IOTC-2009-WPEB-R[E].pdf
IOTC (2011). Report of Implementation for the Year 2010. Reporting CPC: Philippines. Available at:
KWWSZZZLRWFRUJ¿OHVSURFHHGLQJVV,27&6&R&%('SGI . Viewed
25 May 2011.
IOTC (2012). Report of Implementation for the Year 2010. Reporting CPC: Philippines. Available
at: KWWSZZZLRWFRUJ¿OHVSURFHHGLQJVFRF,27&&R&,5
Rev_1%5BE%5D.pdf
Juncker, M. (2006). &RDVWDO6KDUN)LVKHULHVLQWKH3DFL¿F±DEULHIRYHUYLHZRIFXUUHQWNQRZOHGJH.
&RUDO5HHI,QLWLDWLYHIRUWKH6RXWK3DFL¿F &5,63 3URJUDPPH
Lack, M and Meere, F. (2009). 3DFL¿F,VODQGV5HJLRQDO3ODQRI$FWLRQIRU6KDUNV*XLGDQFHIRU
3DFL¿F,VODQGFRXQWULHVDQGWHUULWRULHVRQWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQDQG0DQDJHPHQWRI6KDUNV.
http://www.ffa.int/sharks .
Lack, M. and Sant, G. (2008). Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Shark Catch: A review of current
knowledge and action. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and
TRAFFIC, Canberra. Available at: KWWSZZZWUDI¿FRUJ¿VK.
Lack, M. and Sant, G. (2009). Trends in Global Shark Catch and Recent Developments inManagement. TRAFFIC International.
Lack, M. and Sant, G. (2011). The Future of Sharks: A review of Action and Inaction. TRAFFIC
International and the Pew Environment Group. Available at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=327611.
/RQJ1  'DWDFROOHFWLRQRQVKDUN¿VKHULHVLQ9LHW1DPLQ6($)'(&  Report on the
Study on Shark Production, Utilisation and management in the ASEAN Region (2003-04).
SEC/SP/75. Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, Bangkok, Thailand, 229 pp.
McCoy, M. A. (2006). Addressing Shark Finning in FFA Member Countries: Issues andConsiderations. Gillet, Preston and Associates, Inc.
Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (2010). National Plan of Action (NPOA): Shark and Ray
Management. Jakarta.
MRAG (2005a). IUU Fishing on the High Seas: Impacts on ecosystems and future science needs.
Final Report. Report prepared for the UK’s Department for International Development withsupport from the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation. Available at: ZZZG¿GJRY
XNSXEV¿OHVLOOHJDO¿VKLQJPUDJLPSDFWVSGI Viewed 15 November 2007.
MRAG (2005b). Review of Impacts of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing on Developing
Countries. Final Report. Report prepared for the UK’s Department for International
Development with support from the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation.
Available at: ZZZG¿GJRYXNSXEV¿OHVLOOHJDO¿VKLQJPUDJUHSRUWSGI. Viewed 15 November
2007.
SEAFDEC (2006). Report on the Study on Shark Production, Utilisation and management in the
ASEAN Region (2003-04). SEC/SP/75. Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center,
Bangkok, Thailand, 229 pp.

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

45Sea Resources Management Sdn Bhd (2009). Case Study of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
Fishing off the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Available at: KWWSZZZLOOHJDO¿VKLQJLQIRXSORDGV$3(&IZJ,88¿VKLQJHDVWSGI
Varkey, D.A., Ainsworth, C.H., Pitcher, T. J., Goram, Y and Sumaila, R. (2010). Illegal, unreported and
XQUHJXODWHG¿VKHULHVFDWFKLQ5DMD$PSDW5HJHQF\(DVWHUQ,QGRQHVLDMarine Policy 34(2):228236.
Vieira, S and Tull, M. (2005). Potential impacts SEAFDEC, of management measures on artisanal¿VKHUVLQ,QGRQHVLDQVKDUNDQGUD\¿VKHULHVDFDVHVWXG\RI&LODFDSWorking Paper No. 127
Asia Research Centre, Murdoch University, Western Australia.
:DWWV6  6KDUN¿QQLQJXQUHFRUGHGZDVWDJHRQDJOREDOVFDOH:LOG$LGDQG&R+DELWDW$YDLODEOH
at: KWWSZZZZLOGDLGRUJ3')UHSRUWVVKDUNB¿QQLQJBUHSRUWSGI. Accessed 4 October 2010.
WCPFC (2008). Papua New Guinea. Annual Report Part 1. Information on Fisheries, Researchand Statistics. WCPFC-SC4-AR PART 1/WP-23. Available at: http://www.wcpfc.int/
PHHWLQJVWKUHJXODUVHVVLRQVFLHQWL¿FFRPPLWWHH
WCPFC (2009). Fiji: Annual Report – Part 1. Information on Fisheries, Research and Statistics.
WCPFC-SC5-AR/CCM-07. Available at: http://www.wcpfc.int/meetings/2009/5th-regularVHVVLRQVFLHQWL¿FFRPPLWWHH
WCPFC (2010a) Fiji: Annual Report to the Commission. Part 1. Information on Fisheries, Research andStatistics. WCPFC-SC6-AR/CCM-07. Available at: http://www.wcpfc.int/meetings/2010/6thUHJXODUVHVVLRQVFLHQWL¿FFRPPLWWHH
WCPFC (2010b). Papua New Guinea. Annual Report to the Commission. Part 1. Information on
Fisheries, Research and Statistics. WCPFC-SC6-AR/CCM-18. Available at: http://www.wcpfc.
LQWPHHWLQJVWKUHJXODUVHVVLRQVFLHQWL¿FFRPPLWWHH
WCPFC (2010c). Philippines. Annual Report to the Commission. Part 1. Information on Fisheries,
Research and Statistics. WCPFC-SC6-AR/CCM-19. Available at: http://www.wcpfc.int/
PHHWLQJVWKUHJXODUVHVVLRQVFLHQWL¿FFRPPLWWHH
WCPFC (2010d). Vietnam. Annual Report to the Commission. Part 1. Information on Fisheries,
Research and Statistics. WCPFC-SC6-AR/CCM-35. Available at: http://www.wcpfc.int/
PHHWLQJVWKUHJXODUVHVVLRQVFLHQWL¿FFRPPLWWHH
WCPFC (2011). Papua New Guinea. Annual Report to the Commission. Part 1. Information on
Fisheries, Research and Statistics. WCPFC-SC7-AR/CCM-18. Available at: http://www.wcpfc.
int/node/3218
WCPFC (2012a).Fiji: Annual Report to the Commission. Part 1. Information on Fisheries, Research andStatistics , WCPFC-SC8-AR/CCM-07. Available at: http://www.wcpfc.int/doc/AR-CCM-07/Fiji2
WCPFC (2012b).Solomon Islands: Annual Report to the Commission. Part 1. Information on Fisheries,
Research and Statistics WCPFC-SC8-AR/CCM-21. Available at: http://www.wcpfc.int/doc/ARCCM-21/Solomon-Islands-2
White, W.T and Cavanagh, R.D. (2007). Whale shark landings in Indonesian artisanal shark and ray¿VKHULHV)LVKHULHV5HVHDUFK
World Fishing (2010). 9LHWQDPWRH[SDQG¿VKHULHVVHFWRU. 22 January 2010. Available at: http://
ZZZZRUOG¿VKLQJQHWIHDWXUHVQHZKRUL]RQVYLHWQDPWRH[SDQG¿VKHULHVVHFWRU$FFHVVHG
September 2010.

46

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

ANNEX 1: NOTES ON MANAGEMENT MEASURES
The management measures applied will vary according to domestic fisheries management
arrangements and the implementation of obligations under international or regional organizations.
For the relevant countries, these international obligations may arise as a result of management
measures adopted by:x

the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA);x

the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC);x

the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT);x

the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC);x

the Parties to CITES; and/orx

the Parties to the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS).

A summary of key aspects of the governance and data reporting environment in which shark fisheries
operate in each of the eight countries is provided in Table 1. An overview of the measures in place in eachof the above regional organizations and conventions is provided below as a platform for the assessmentof implementation/compliance with these measures provided in the Country Profiles.

PNA
The PNA, a group of eight Pacific island countries (Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, MarshallIslands, Nauru, Palau, PNG, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu) has banned the setting of purse seine nets
on Whale Sharks Rhincodon typus and has pushed, unsuccessfully, for a WCPFC ban at the regional
level.

RFMOs
The WCPFC and the IOTC each has some form of binding shark conservation and management measurein place for sharks. Relevant measures include:
WCPFC:
x

Conservation and Management Measure (CMM) for Sharks (CMM 2010-07);x

WCPFC Conservation and Management Measure for Oceanic Whitetip Shark (CMM 2011-04)

IOTC:
x

Resolution 05/05 Concerning the Conservation of Sharks Caught in Association with Fisheries
Managed by IOTC;x

Resolution 10/02 Mandatory Statistical Requirements for IOTC Members and Cooperating
Non-Contracting Parties;x

Resolution 12/05 On establishing a programme for transhipment by large-scale fishingvessels ;x

Resolution 12/03 On Catch and Effort Recordings by Fishing Vessels in the IOTC Area ofCompetence7KH5HVROXWLRQDPRQJVWRWKHUUHTXLUHPHQWVLQFRUSRUDWHVVSHFLILFUHTXLUHPHQWVfor providing shark catch data for a number of shark species; andx

Resolution 12/09 On the Conservation of Thresher Sharks (Family Alopiidae) Caught in
Association with Fisheries in the IOTC Area of Competence (Appendix XXIII). (This Resolution
introduced amendments to Resolution 10/12 allowing observers to collect biological samples(vertebrae, tissues, reproductive tracts, stomachs) from thresher sharks that are dead at
haulback).

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region47

&&6%7KDVDGRSWHGDQRQELQGLQJUHFRPPHQGDWLRQWKDWPHPEHUVDGKHUHWRWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH
WCPFC and the IOTC when their vessels are operating in the relevant waters of those Commissions andreport back to the CCSBT Compliance Committee on their adherence to this. In summary, the measures
adopted for sharks across the WCPFC and the IOTC, and by default the CCSBT1, include:x

retention of all parts of any retained sharks, except head, guts and skin, to the first point oflanding;x

FRQWUROVRQVKDUNILQQLQJWKDWUHTXLUHWKDWWKHZHLJKWRIILQVDWWKHILUVWSRLQWRIODQGLQJRUtransshipment does not exceed 5% of the weight of shark carcasses on board (mandatory in the
WCPFC and the IOTC, voluntary in CCSBT);x

prohibiting the retention, transshipment, landing or trading of fins in contravention of thefinning controls (mandatory in the WCPFC and the IOTC, voluntary in CCSBT);x

prohibiting retaining Oceanic Whitetip Shark(WCPFC CMM 2011-04);x

reporting data on shark catchoin the WCPFC, Parties are asked to provide catch of key species (Blue Shark Prionace
glauca Silky Shark Carcharhinus falciformis, Oceanic Whitetip shark C. longimanus,
mako sharks (Shortfin Mako Isurus oxyrinchus and Longfin Mako Isurus paucus,
thresher sharks (Biegeye Thresher Alopias superciliosus, Pelagic Thresher A. pelagicus
and Common Thresher A. vulpinus), Porbeagle Shark Lamna nasus and hammerhead
sharks (Great Hammerhead Sphyrna mokarran, Scalloped Hammerhead S. lewini
and Smooth Hammerhead S. zygaena);o

LQWKH,27&3DUWLHVDUHUHTXLUHGWRVXEPLWHVWLPDWHVRIWKHWRWDODQQXDO QRPLQDO FDWFK
data (by species and gear) and catch and effort data by gear for the most commonlycaught shark species and, where possible, to the less common shark species.

x

encouraging release of live sharks taken as bycatch; andxencouraging members to implement the International Plan of Action for the Conservation andManagement of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) through development of an NPOA-Sharks.

The IOTC also prohibits retention, transshipment, landing, sorting, selling or offering for sale any part
RUZKROHFDUFDVVRIDOOVSHFLHVRIWKHIDPLO\$ORSLLGDHDQGUHTXLUHVPHPEHUVWRUHOHDVHXQKDUPHGWRWKH
extent practicable, all species of that family.
An attempt has been made in the Country Profiles to assess the extent to which the countries have
implemented these measures. However, it remains unclear, in many cases, whether domestic
regulation/legislation has been adopted to implement these measures on their fleets or the extent towhich complementary measures are applied in national waters. The relevant RFMOs do not conduct acomprehensive assessment of the extent to which their Parties implement RFMO measures. As a result,the assessment here is opportunistic rather than comprehensive and is drawn largely from incidental
references to particular members in reports of RFMO compliance committees and statements made by
the members themselves to the RFMOs or to national authorities. The extent of compliance or noncompliance depicted here is not, therefore, conclusive.
CITES
The Parties to CITES adopted a Resolution in 1994 regarding shark conservation and management.
Since that time there have been many Decisions of the Conference of the Parties (CoP) regarding
sharks and the agreement of a current Resolution, Resolution Conf. 12.6 (Rev. CoP15). Since 1994,
the now 175 Parties to CITES have noted that COFI members were encouraged to have an NPOASharks by 2001, that there was a significant lack of progress in implementing the IPOA-Sharks andthat insufficient progress has been made in achieving shark management through the implementationof the IPOA-Sharks. Specifically, CITES Parties urged “FAO’s COFI and RFMOs to strengthen theirefforts to undertake the research, training, data collection, data analysis and shark management plandevelopment outlined by FAO as necessary to implement the IPOA-Sharks” (CITES Resolution Conf.
12.6 (Rev, CoP15). In addition, the Parties to CITES have supported the creation of a Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MoU) between CITES and the FAO.
1
'HWDLOVRIWKHPHDVXUHVLQSODFHFDQEHIRXQGDWWKHIROORZLQJZHEVLWHVKWWSZZZLRWFRUJ¿OHVSURFHHGLQJVPLVF&RP5HportsTexts/resolutions_E.pdf ; http://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-2010-07/conservation-and-management-measure-sharks ;and http://www.ccsbt.org/docs/pdf/meeting_reports/ccsbt_15/report_of_CCSBT15.pdf (Attachment 16).

48

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

A number of sharks have been included in the Appendices of CITES (Whale Shark, Sawfish Pristidae
spp2, Great White Shark Carcharodon carcharias and Basking Shark Cetorhinus maximus) and othershark species continue to be proposed at meetings of the CoP with four shark proposals at the mostrecent CoP in 2010. While these proposals received the majority of votes they did not receive the
UHTXLUHGWZRWKLUGVPDMRULW\WREHVXFFHVVIXO
According to a number of CITES decisions:x

SDUWLHVVKRXOGUHSRUWSURJUHVVLQLGHQWLI\LQJHQGDQJHUHGVKDUNVSHFLHVWKDWUHTXLUHFRQVLGHUDWLRQ
for inclusion in the Appendices, if their management and conservation status does not improve(paragraph (b) of Decision 14.1043);x

if landing and exporting products from shark species of concern identified by the Animals
Committee (see Annex CoP15 Doc. 534), Parties should report on the fisheries, environmental
and international trade management measures adopted, levels of landings and exports, and thestatus of these stocks and fisheries [paragraph c) of Decision 14.108]; and CoP15 Doc. 53,5; andxshark fishing and trading entities, particularly the major fishing or trading entities (Indonesia,
the European Community, India, Spain, Taiwan, Mexico, Argentina, the USA, Thailand,
Pakistan, Japan, Malaysia, France, Brazil, Sri Lanka, the Islamic Republic of Iran, New
Zealand, the UK, Nigeria and Portugal) are strongly encouraged to identify opportunities to:
improve, in cooperation with FAO and relevant fishery management bodies, the monitoring
and reporting of catch, bycatch, discards, market and international trade data, at the species
level where possible and to establish systems to provide verification of catch information[paragraph c) of Decision 14.115].

In addition, there having been many recommendations to the CITES Parties to adopt such things as
better data reporting, trade codes and other shark measures, since the 1994 Resolution, there has beena limited response since these are also non-binding (CITES Animals Committee, 2004). Despite a
QXPEHURIUHTXHVWVWRWKH3DUWLHVIRUUHSRUWVRQWKHLULPSOHPHQWDWLRQRI&,7(6UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVRQ
sharks, Parties have provided little information. Hence it is not possible to provide any meaningful
assessment of the extent to which CITES’ recommendations on sharks have been implemented.

CMS
In 2009, the members to the CMS agreed an MoU on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks thatcame into effect in March 2010. The MoU applies to species listed in the CMS Appendices, whichcurrently includes the Whale Shark, Basking Shark, Great White Shark, Longfin Mako, Shortfin Mako,
Porbeagle, the northern hemisphere population of the Spiny Dogfish Squalus acanthias and the Giant
Manta Ray. The MoU aims to improve the conservation status of these migratory sharks throughconcerted and coordinated action, including compliance and enforcement efforts, on the part of theStates that exercise jurisdiction over the range of these populations, and States whose flag vessels
are engaged outside national jurisdictional limits in activities that may affect these populations. A
conservation plan, which will form an annex to the MoU, is currently in draft form and is yet to beagreed by a meeting of the signatories. The MoU is non-binding and aimed at increasing international
coordination to ensure action is taken to protect migratory sharks.

.2 Pristidae spp. Are included in Appendix I of CITES except for Pristis microdon which is in Appendix II and annotated to specify that its
inclusion in Appendix II is “For the exclusive purpose of allowing international trade in live animals to appropriate and acceptable aquaria forprimarily conservation purposes.” See http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.shtml
3
Decisions 14.104, 108 and 115 are available at http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid14/14_101-117.shtml
4
Available at http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-53.pdf
5Ibid
An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

49

ANNEX 2: SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES OF SHARK SPECIES
Common name
Eagle Ray
Pelagic Thresher
Bigeye Thresher
Common Thresher Shark
Coral Catshark
Silvertip Shark
Graceful Shark
Grey reef Shark
Bronze Whaler
Spinner Shark
Whitecheek shark
Silky Shark
Bull Shark
Blacktip Shark
Oceanic Whitetip Shark
Hardnose Shark
Blacktip Reef Shark
Blackspot shark
Blacktip Shark
Spottail Shark
Great White Shark
Gulper sharks
Basking Shark
Grey Bamboo Shark
Indonesian Bamboo Shark
Whitespotted Bamboo Shark
Brownbanded Bamboo Shark
Silver Chimaera
Kitefin Shark
Pelagic Stingray
Smooth Freshwater Stingray
Pygmy Ribbontail Catshark
Tiger Shark
Giant Shovelnose Ray
River sharksBlackspotted Catshark
Sicklefin Weasel Shark
Sharpnose Sevengill Shark50

Scientific name
Aetomylaeus maculata
Alopias pelagicus
Alopias superciliosus
Alopias vulpinus
Atelomycterus marmoratus
Carcharhinus albimarginatus
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchoides
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos
Carcharhinus brachyurus
Carcharhinus brevipinna
Carcharhinus dussumieri
Carcharhinus falciformis
Carcharhinus leucas
Carcharhinus limbatus
Carcharhinus longimanus
Carcharhinus macloti
Carcharhinus melanopterus
Carcharhinus sealei
Carcharhinus tilstoni
Carcharhinus sorrah
Carcharodon carcharias
Centrophorus spp.
Cetorhinus maximus
Chiloscyllium griseum
Chiloscyllium hasselt
Chiloscyllium plagisoum
Chiloscyllium punctatum
Chimaera phantasma
Dalatias licha
Dasyatis violacea
Dasyatis garouaensis
Eridacnis radcliffei
Galeocerdo cuvier
Glaucostegus typus
Glyphis spp.
Halaelurus buergeri
Hemigaleus microstoma
Heptranchias perlo

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

Common name
Zebra Bullhead Shark
Hexanchids
Giant Stingray
Whitespotted Whipray
Pale Whipray
Shortfin Mako
Longfin Mako
Porbeagle Shark
Giant Manta Ray
Pygmy Devilray
Spinetail Mobula
Box Ray
Gummy Shark
Spotless Smooth HoundSharptooth Lemon Shark
Lemon Shark
Blue Shark
Cowtail Stingray
SawfishCrocodile Shark
Bowmouth Guitarfish
Whale Shark
Milk Shark
Whitespotted wedgefish (Giant

Scientific name
Heterodontus zebra
Hexanchus spp.
Himantura chaophraya
Himantura gerrardi
Himantura signifer
Isurus oxyrinchus
Isurus paucus
Lamna nasus
Manta birostris
Mobula eregoodootenke
Mobula japanica
Mobula tarapacana
Mustelus antarcticus
Mustelus griseus
Negaprion acutidens
Negaprion brevirostrisPrionace glauca
Pastinachus sephen
Pristidae spp
Pseudocarcharias kamoharai
Rhina ancylostoma
Rhincodon typus
Rhizoprionodon acutus
Rhynchobatus australiae/djiddensis

Guitarfish)
Rays
Spadenose Shark
Scalloped Hammerhead
Great Hammerhead
Hammerhead sharks
Smooth Hammerhead
DogfishSpiny Dogfish
Spurdog
Spurdogs
Greeneye Spurdog
Western Angel Shark
Zebra Shark
Whitetip Reef Shark

Rhinobatus spp.
Scoliodon laticaudus,
Sphyrna lewini
Sphyrna mokarran
Sphyrna spp.
Sphyrna zygaena
6TXDOLGDHVSSSqualus acanthias
Squalus megalops
Squalus spp.
Squalus mitsikurii
6TXDQWLQD spp.
Stegostoma fasciatum
Triaenodon obesus

An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region

51