Designing and evaluating alternative livelihoods for shark conservation: a case studyon thresher sharks in Alor Island, Indonesia
RAFID A. S HIDQI * 1 , 2 ,DEWI R. S ARI 2 ,J EHES KI EL ALO P E N 2,YODHI K S O N M. B AN G 2 IGO ARIANT O 2,PRIMIAT Y N. S. KOPONG 2 , 3 ,VIVEKANANDA GITANDJ ALI TD2 E TOIL E SMULDERS2 and HO LLIE BOOTH 4
Abstract The pelagic thresher shark Alopias pelagicus is an Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered species primarily threatened by overfishing. Indonesia is the world’s largest shark fishing nation, and in Alor Island, thresher sharks have been a primary target for small-scale fishing communities for decades, sustaining subsistence livelihoods and serving as a protein source. With thresher shark popu- lations continuously declining, there is a need for conser- vation measures to reduce shark mortality from fishing, while also securing the well-being of coastal communities. This study presents results and lessons learnt from a multi-faceted effort to reduce communities’ dependence on this Endangered shark species through a livelihood-based intervention complemented by collaborative species man- agement and community outreach. Using a theory-based and statistical research design, we describe the approach taken in our intervention and its conservation outcomes. Total thresher shark catches were 91% lower among fishers who participated in our intervention compared to non- participants. Participating fishers also experienced increases in their income, in some cases by up to 525% relative to the income before the intervention. Occasional violations and challenges in the form of socio-political conflicts also occurred, yet these incidents acted as catalysts for regulatory change and reinforced stakeholder collaboration. This suggests overall positive outcomes and the potential for con- tinued social change in shark conservation in the region over the long term. Our findings outline some generalizable lessons learnt for designing and implementing bottom-up livelihood-based interventions in other contexts.
Keywords Alopias pelagicus, alternative livelihoods, com- munity-based conservation, conservation planning, elasmo- branch, evidence-based conservation, human dimensions, pelagic thresher shark
The supplementary material for this article is available at
doi.org/10.1017/S0030605324001376
Introduction
Alopiidae, one of the most threatened elasmobranch fam- ilies globally (Dulvy et al., 2008). These sharks are epipela- gic, inhabiting large areas predominantly offshore over deep waters in the tropical and subtropical regions of the Indo-Pacific (Liu et al., 1999). Their population across the Indo-Pacific has seen an estimated 50–79% decline over the last three generations (c. 55.5 years; Rigby et al., 2019). Declines of pelagic thresher populations are particularly se- vere in Indonesia, the world’s largest shark fishing nation, with an estimated reduction of .83% during 2002–2014, evidenced by reduced catch numbers and sizes (Dharmadi et al., 2013; KKP, 2016). This decline is primarily attributed to targeted captures by small-scale fisheries and incidental catch in tuna and swordfish longline, gillnet and purse seine fisheries (Drew et al., 2015; Murua et al., 2018). The pelagic thresher is categorized as globally Endan-
T
*Corresponding author,
rafid.shidqi@
duke.edu 1Nicholas School of The Environment, Duke University, Durham, North
Carolina, USA 2Thresher Shark Indonesia, Kalabahi, Indonesia 3Sekolah Tinggi Pastoral Atma Reksa, Ende, Indonesia 4Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Received 24 January 2024. Revision requested 4 April 2024. Accepted 10 September 2024. First published online 11 February 2025.
gered on the IUCN Red List and has been listed in Appendix II of CITES since 2016 (Rigby et al., 2019; Cardeñosa et al., 2021). Management measures are in place through Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMO) such as the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), which in 2010 established Resolution 10/12 prohibiting the retention, trans-shipping, landing, storing and selling of thresher sharks (family Alopiidae). These international measures have been translated into two Indonesian Government Min- isterial Decrees, No. 12, 2012 and No. 58, 2020, focused on encouraging conservation actions such as live release of all thresher shark species bycatch and reporting any dead capture to the head of port. However, these policies primar- ily focus on large industrial fisheries and aim to address bycatch, leaving targeted fishing by small-scale artisanal fisheries unaddressed, even though these constitute .90% of the Indonesian fleet (Halim et al., 2019). In contrast to manta rays and whale sharks, which are fully protected under national decrees and regulations, a
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited. Oryx, 2025, 59(1), 19–30 © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605324001376
he pelagic thresher shark Alopias pelagicus, often sim- ply referred to as pelagic thresher, belongs to the family
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140
