Marc De Verteuil
Published:
Monday, June 20, 2016
Good news for sharks from the Caribbean where four new shark sanctuaries are to be established. On June 15, St Martin and Cayman Islands announced shark sanctuaries, completely closing their waters to commercial shark fishing. Grenada and Curaçao say that they will protect sharks before the end of the year.
Half of the world’s shark sanctuaries are now in the Caribbean. The rationale for establishing shark sanctuaries is that they are good for sharks, fisheries, reefs, tourism and good for island economies.
Sharks are worth more alive than dead. A 2011 study, in the Pacific Island nation of Palau, found that sharks there are worth US$ 1.9 million alive, on the reef versus US$ 108 per shark, cut up for meat, in the market. Most of this value is related to dive-tourism. Grenada, Curaçao, St Maarten and Cayman Islands have found that sharks are simply too expensive to have on the menu.
Do shark sanctuaries work? Up until now there was not much data to support shark sanctuaries. A new research article, titled Higher Abundance of Marine Predators and Changes in Fishers’ Behavior Following Spatial Protection within the World’s Biggest Shark Fishery by Vanessa F Jaiteh of Murdoch University in Australia suggests that shark sanctuaries are effective.
The seas around the Raja Ampat Islands, in the Coral Triangle in Indonesia, hold the richest marine biodiversity in the world. The abundance of the reefs attracted both fishers, including shark fishers, and divers and conservation NGOs. Starting in 2005 a privately-managed no-take zone was established by an eco-resort by a lease agreement with local communities.
That eventually became two no-take zones and a marine-protected area (MPA). In 2012 Raja Ampat regency banned commercial and artisanal shark fishing, thereby establishing a shark sanctuary throughout its 15,000 square miles of land and sea.
Researchers found that inside the no-take zone, shark abundance was significantly higher than in the open access zone, where there was less enforcement. This proves that with proper governance, the demise of sharks can be halted and turned around in shark sanctuaries. Populations of groupers, snappers, tunas, mackerels, large-bodied wrasse and parrotfish also went up.
A negative was that some fishermen felt left out of the decision-making and became marginalised. In short: they lost their livelihoods and had to look for other ways to support themselves. In some cases they turned to crime and became fuel smugglers.
The researchers concluded: “We found that shark fishers adapted to the loss of former fishing grounds by shifting fishing effort to other locations or diversifying their livelihoods, including illegal petrol transport. While conserving sharks for tourism can be effective, it may inadvertently result in displacing fishing effort to unprotected regions. We propose that effective shark conservation in Indonesia will need to combine strategic spatial protection with efforts to support livelihood security and diversification.”
Trinidad and Tobago both value sharks, but for different reasons. In Trinidad, shark tourism is promoted in the form of dead shark, in a fried bake. Tobago does not have the cultural affinity for eating shark that Trinidad does. There the shark-dollar value comes from domestic and international tourists, who come to dive Tobago’s famous reefs, hoping to see live sharks, manta rays and turtles.
If we can take from the Palau study, Trinidad benefits US$ 108 from a dead shark, while Tobago benefits US$1.9 million from each live shark. Of course the actual figures for T&T will differ from Palau, but the trend will be the same. Clearly there is a conflict of interest here.
Turtles were an important part of Tobago’s culinary culture, much like shark meat is special to Trinidad. The economic and conservation value of turtles won out over the desire for curried turtle. In this regard the eating of shark is a controversial cultural holdover, en par with eating whales in Japan or dogs in China.
Trinidad has long diminished its local supply of shark. Sharks are still caught, but the majority of what is eaten is actually imported from around the globe.
Bake & Shark can earn some tourism dollars as long as global shark conservation awareness stays low. When tourists start to care about sharks, as is the trend, what was a selling point will become a liability. A good tourism manager is ahead of the curve and will see the pitfall of eating sharks as a tourism magnet.
Luckily there are tasty alternatives to shark, such as lionfish, king fish and flying fish. They are a bit more expensive, but what is the cost of losing tourism arrivals?
Now that a desire has been voiced to infuse new life in to Tobago’s tourism industry, to replace lost oil and gas income, policy makers and tourism entrepreneurs must look at Tobago’s tourism strengths. Tobago has sun, sea and sand, just like most Caribbean islands. What sets Tobago apart is its appeal to eco-tourists and divers.
Establishing a shark sanctuary in T&T is deemed unrealistic at present, but the evidence says that the status quo does more harm than good. Protecting sharks in Tobago has a greater tourism benefit than Trinidad. The Tobago House of Assembly is urged to implement a shark sanctuary. Tourism entrepreneurs in Tobago should be champions of the shark cause because they stand to gain the most. Forward thinking tourism entrepreneurs can lead the pack by financing no-take zones and MPAs.
Whatever action is undertaken, fishermen’s concerns must be taken in to account and alternative livelihoods facilitated. This must be done before the last sharks are gone. There is great opportunity here, but not if we wait too long.
Columnist