Shark Population Decrease Due To Fin Harvesting, Not Climate Change

Shark populations have decreased, and contrary to popular belief, climate change is not the culprit. In fact, the reason for such decline is closer to home: human danger.

A landmark study published in Frontiers in Marine Science showed that effective shark conservation, as studied in Indonesia, is only effective when protection through no-fishing zones is combined with efforts of local communities by managing their own fisheries and by finding alternative, sustainable livelihoods.

This is especially interesting, considering that the largest shark-fin industry is located in the heart of the Coral Triangle. According to Science Daily, this is a region on the Indian and Pacific Ocean that is home to the world's most diverse coral reefs -- known as the Amazon of the Seas.

In this area is an environment that sustains an industry that is responsible for over 3 million shark deaths every year. The reported annual catch is around 100,000 tons.
Shark fins are especially tempting for Indonesian fishermen because they have a high monetary value, making shark fishing one of the most lucrative livelihoods for coastal regions. The enormous profits have transformed coastal villages to cash-based communities.

Unfortunately, the shark populations have dropped in recent years. This is due mainly to the increase in the supply of shark fins to the global market -- which lead to overexploitation of the shark populations. This problem does not only affect the sharks and the biological ecosystem but the marine tourism industry as well. This is why it is necessary to protect both sharks as well as the local economy, and conservationists are already calling for better management of these areas -- sharks are still being harvested for their fins despite the population declines.

Although it is easy to say that these communities have to do the right thing, fishermen in the area expressed their dilemma in finding sustainable livelihoods due to the remoteness of the areas they are living in, and some of their found alternatives involve high personal or environmental risk that can hardly be sustainable, and instead undermines the benefits of successful conservation strategies on the local level.