20 R. A. Shidqi et al.


gap exists between fisheries regulations and conservation objectives for pelagic threshers. The rationale behind safe- guarding manta rays and whale sharks lies in their non- extractive value, notably from tourism (O’Malley et al., 2013; Djunaidi et al., 2020; Setyawan et al., 2022). This facili- tated a bottom-up approach, with local governments taking the lead in safeguarding these species because of the value they provide to their constituencies (Setyawan et al., 2022). In contrast, pelagic threshers continue to be valued as an ex- tractive fisheries resource, particularly for their fins and meat, which are consumed locally. Consequently, the imple- mentation of conservation efforts directed towards pelagic threshers, such as full protection of the species, is not per- ceived as a priority (Drew et al., 2015; Fahmi & Dharmadi, 2015; KKP, 2016). The Alor Archipelago, situated in Indonesia’s East Nusa


Tenggara Province, is home to a small island community that is reliant on pelagic threshers for livelihoods and as a source of protein (Shidqi et al., 2019). Although the sur- rounding areas are designated as marine protected areas, the pelagic thresher is not included as a species of conserva- tion interest. Because the species’ presence has only been documented relatively recently (in 2018), local authorities were largely unaware of its conservation needs and ongoing threats posed by fishing. In addition, the marine protected area lacks exclusive no-take zones, allowing the continu- ation of local fishing and thus contributing to the overall population decline (Shidqi et al., 2019). Conservation measures are urgently needed to protect


the pelagic thresher from unsustainable exploitation, but traditional top-down conservation measures, such as blan- ket bans on fishing, are typically unjust and ineffective in ad- dressing the issues faced by ocean-dependent communities. Such measures also have the potential to create adverse socio-economic and conservation outcomes and often fail because of non-compliance and improper implementation (Collins et al., 2020; Oyanedel et al., 2020; Castellanos- Galindo et al., 2021). Even when rules are implemented, reliance on shark fisheries may persist unless feasible, profitable and socially desirable alternative economic opportunities are established (Jaiteh et al., 2017b; Booth et al., 2019). As such, achieving shark conservation objectives necessitates multi-faceted interventions that are based on understanding and altering human behaviour and ensuring coastal communities are not negatively affected (Simpfendorfer et al., 2011; Mizrahi et al., 2019; Booth et al., 2021). Alternative livelihoods offer a potential win–win solution


to trade-offs between conservation and socio-economic ob- jectives. However, although they have proven effective in some instances (Roe et al., 2015), poorly designed and exe- cuted interventions can lead to continuing resource exploi- tation and poor outcomes (Hughes et al., 2011; Eriksson et al., 2019; Mahulu et al., 2019). Effective and just alternative


livelihood interventions require a robust understanding of the local context, the factors influencing human behaviour, and a focus on community members most vulnerable to resource access challenges (Wright et al., 2016; Reddy et al., 2017). Within this context, here we present a case study of an


alternative livelihood intervention in Alor, Indonesia, with the goal of preventing the extinction of the pelagic thresher while addressing the livelihood needs of communities de- pendent on marine resources. We use a theory of change (Weiss, 1997) to evaluate the effectiveness of the interven- tion, supported by 5 years of empirical data collected during 2018–2023. Our aims were to: (1) outline the design of a multi-faceted conservation intervention to reduce economic dependence on pelagic threshers and thus mitigate mortal- ity from fishing and population decline, (2) demonstrate the impact of the intervention on pelagic thresher catches and local livelihoods, (3) identify lessons learnt from the inter- vention, particularly how the results can inform and in- crease the political will of multiple stakeholders, and (4) provide general recommendations for effective community- based conservation, especially opportunities to adopt such approaches in other communities dependent on threatened marine megafauna in Indonesia and in similar contexts globally.


Study area


The conservation intervention was implemented in the Alor Archipelago, East Nusa Tenggara Province, Indonesia (Fig. 1). Preliminary research identified the villages of Ampera and Lewalu as twothresher shark fishing communities (Fig. 1). As of September 2018, there were c. 172 and 387 house- holds in Ampera and Lewalu, respectively. Approximately 104 households depended on fisheries, but only 27 engaged in pelagic thresher fishing (11 relied on pelagic threshers as their target catch, 16 targeted them opportunistically). Pelagic thresher fishing has been practised in these com-


munities for .50 years, with benefits apparent throughout the neighbourhoods: thresher fishing contributes to the availability of affordable protein and provides additional labour options such as reselling of fish and a variety of post-production activities (Shidqi et al., 2019).


Methods


Collection of baseline data In 2018, we gathered baseline data using a mixed-methods approach, including question- naires administered through in-depth interviews. These were structured into sections covering the respondents’ socio-cultural background, livelihoods, income and fishing practices, aswell as details on the local market chain of shark products, and perceptions of shark conservation and marine


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


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