Alternative livelihoods for shark conservation 21
FIG. 1 The location of Ampera and Lewalu villages in Alor, Indonesia. The pelagic thresher shark Alopias pelagicus fishing ground is mainly located between Pulau Alor and Pulau Pantar, c. 2 km from the coast. The fishing ground is part of the marine protected area but is not an exclusive no-take zone.
protected area governance.Wealso conducted a focus group discussion involving participants from various livelihood groups to explore perspectives on shark fisheries, conserva- tion, potential economic alternatives and levels of satisfac- tion with previous conservation initiatives (Shidqi et al., 2019). This baseline informed the design and evaluation of our intervention.
Design of a livelihood-based intervention In 2020, follow- ing several recommendations based on the multi- stakeholder meeting (Shidqi et al., 2019), we designed a livelihood-based intervention through individual and col- lective decision-making (Addison et al., 2013; Sterling et al., 2017). At the initial meeting, we identified several po- tential approaches that were supported by the fishers, such as the provision of subsidies (e.g. boats, fishing technologies and training to acquire skills in fisheries and alternative economies). We then engaged with fishers individually to ensure the proposed newlivelihoods were tailored according to specific household needs (e.g. based on the respondent’s economic reliance on fishing, their interests and voluntary participation; Wright et al., 2016; Bachmann et al., 2020). This was followed by another focus group discussion, to which all pelagic thresher fishers were invited, to list all possible livelihood opportunities and rank their preferred solutions (Newing, 2010;Sainsbury et al., 2015). By the end of these processes, three alternative livelihood options were selected for a pilot: (1) tuna and red snapper fisheries, (2) small-scale chicken farms, and (3)kiosks to sellcommodities such as rice, kerosene or ice cubes to local residents. We facilitated the formation of a self-governing group
for the fishers who voluntarily agreed to adopt the new live- lihoods. We chose a self-governing system to grant partici- pants autonomy, which has been shown to be more effective than external governance because rules can be developed based on the participants’ specific social circumstances
(Tang & Tang, 2001; Brooks et al., 2012;Basurto et al., 2013). The terms and conditions, including the rules, sanctions and monitoring of the intervention, were discussed, deter- mined and agreed upon collaboratively. Before commencing the new livelihoods, a declaration was made and an oath taken in the village (Supplementary Plate 1) tomake the en- tire community aware of the prohibition of shark fishing. In addition, Indigenous ceremonies were conducted in the an- cestor’s house (Rumah Adat), and an ocean offering was made (sumpah laut). We also embedded supplementary, ongoing activities to strengthen the progression of this pilot, including training and recruiting women community members to start small and medium enterprises creating and selling various products primarily to local communities and tourists.
Collaborative species management We engaged with gov- ernment and non-government actors on multiple occasions. Ourmessaging highlighted the potential non-extractive eco- nomic value of threshers, drawing from a case study of thresher-focused tourism in the Philippines (Cruz, 2016). We conducted formal and informal meetings with the vil- lage government and community leaders at the village level to amplify awareness and promote support for the intervention (Büscher & Wolmer, 2007). We partnered with the district’s Planning and Development body, which led the networking to garner support from other political figures. Notably, this government body functions directly under the District Leader, who is liable for overall govern- ance and policy formation, including allocating the district’s annual development budget. Finally, we engaged with the Provincial Legal Depart-
ment, theDepartment ofMarine and Fisheries, and academic representatives, with the intention to create an umbrella for combining policies created at subordinate levels. Given the Provincial Government’s authority over the East Nusa
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
