When are fish wildlife? Conservation ethics and real life impacts of shark protection on marginalized communities

In the world of marine conservation sharks and rays have become a well-funded focus of advocacy work over the last decade. With concern increasing about the status of many elasmobranch species a split has emerged in the... [ view full abstract ]

In the world of marine conservation sharks and rays have become a well-funded focus of advocacy work over the last decade. With concern increasing about the status of many elasmobranch species a split has emerged in the conservation community with some seeing sharks and rays as ‘wildlife’ to be fully protected and others seeing sharks and rays as ‘fish’ that can, like other fish, be managed sustainably. This plays out in policy advocacy at global fora like the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) or Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs). However, the real-world impact of such high-level ‘wins’ for protection on fishing communities making a marginal living are often overlooked. Nor is there as much funding for the long-term challenge of social preparation and implementation as there is for getting the policy ‘win’.

This paper focuses on one fishing community in Jagna, Philippines impacted by the push for protection of sharks and rays. In April 2017, Jagna's traditional, century-long fishery for mobula rays that supported hundreds of families was shut down with only two weeks' notice. BALYENA.ORG, a local NGO, had been working in the community for six years researching the fishery. Following the fishing ban, BALYENA.ORG and the Manta Trust documented the impact on fishing households and struggled with the fishers to support community organizing and participation in rushed government income replacement schemes that have yet to materialize. There is also evidence that with no alternative, fishing for mobula has continued ‘underground’.

 This community crisis followed a rise in national NGO shark advocacy in the Philippines connected to international protection efforts. The success in listing mobula rays on CITES Appendix II – which does not require domestic bans for the species, only monitoring of international trade – spurred organizations to convince the Philippines government to require full protection for all aquatic animals listed on CITES, regardless of Appendix level or whether the population status and science points to the need for immediate prohibition. This is over and above the Convention or national law requirements. There has been little focus on understanding the social, cultural, and economic impacts of protection measures and glaring absence of fishing community stakeholders in most discussions.

This paper demonstrates the necessity of engaging fishing communities if we are to tackle the challenge of implementing conservation policies that are both equitable and effective for the species they strive to protect.