Regional Fisheries Management Organisations and Management of Fish Stocks - Essay Example

?Critically assess the role of regional fisheries management organisations in the conservation and management of fish stocks that straddle the exclusive economic zone and high seas and highly migratory fish stocks? The regional fisheries management organisations related to ocean bodies have been actively pursuing the conservation and management of fish stock straddling the exclusive economic zone and high seas as well as highly migratory fish stocks. The same has been the objective of United States Fish Stock Agreement. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Agreement came into effect on 4 August 1995 for the conservation and management of straddling fish stock, and highly migratory fish stocks. Part VII of the Agreement deals with living resources of the high seas through Article 116, Article 117, Article 118, Article 119 and Article 120. Before delving deep into the functions of the fisheries management organisations it is of great concern to know what the UNCLOS Articles state on the role of the regional fishery management organisations. Article116 provides the right to fish to all the countries and their citizens to practice fishing on the high seas on certain conditions, which include: (a) Their treaty responsibilities; (b) the rights and duties as well as the stakes of coastal nations provided for, among other things, in article 63, paragraph 2, and articles 64 to 67; and (c) The conditions as given in this Section. Under Article117, the concerned state has responsibility to follow with regard to its citizens assess for management of the marine resources of the high seas. Cooperation with other states in this regard is central to the conservation of marine resources on the high seas (UNCLOS). Under Article 118, the spirit of Article 117 is taken ahead through cooperation states shall take fresh steps and enter into accords with other states for commercially using the similar water resources or dissimilar water resources on the same region with the purpose of conserving the water resources. It is the responsibility of the states to set up regional or sub-regional fisheries organisations (UNCLOS). Article 119 is also dedicated to conservation of fish stocks of the high seas. 1. It stipulates conditions on deciding the permissible catch and setting up other safeguarding steps for the fish stocks, such as: (a) found suitable as based on scientific knowledge on which the concerned states can depend upon for preserving the fish populations of cropped species at standards that ensure long term production as based on suitable environmental and economic considerations, particularly of the developing countries, considering the fishing methods at all levels of fishing – regional, sub-regional and international; (b) States pay attention to the impact on the species related to or relying on harvested species with the aim of preserving fish populations of such related or relying on species beyond limits at which their populations could not be increased through breeding. 2. All global organisations working for conservation and management of fish stocks shall communicate and exchange related scientific facts, catch and fishing statisitics at all levels of cooperation, regional, sub-regional and global with the suitable active contribution from the respective governments of the organisations. 3. Fishermen shall be treated impartially irrespective of the fact related to their specific state citizenship rights while taking conservative steps and enforcing them. Article120 is meant for marine mammals; Article 65 is also relevant to the conservation and management of marine mammals in the high seas (UNCLOS). An attempt at analysing the role of RFMOs will include all regional groups. First of all an attempt on the conservation and management of the Northeast Atlantic Region will be made to be followed up with an assessment of the other regions (UNCLOS). Northeast Atlantic Region The production data on chondrichthyans from 1985-2006 in the Northeast Atlantic region includes countries like Spain, France, Portugal and the U.K. to be on the top in capturing such species worldwide. Current landings of such species have comparatively been stable moving around ~100,000t in the last 50 years. There are various regional and global policies for managing and offering recommendations in conservation and management of regional fisheries organisations. It is the responsibility of regional fishery organisations to enforce regulations for global waters. The regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) see to it that sharks and rays, the endangered species are not targeted for commercial purposes. RFMOs need to cooperate with various states to effectively conserve such species. In the Northeast Atlantic Ocean for example, specific RFMOs are the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) (SSG 5.2.1). Taking the case of chondrichthyans in the Northeast Atlantic region, all chondrichthyans are not captured by commercial fisheries; vessels traditionally targeting chondrichthyans have changed to new business avenues due to the reason that it is forbidden under the law to target chondrichthyans (SSG 5.1). The purpose of NEAFC is to supervise and provide scientific knowledge on the condition of fish stocks and suggest ways to limit their landings. The Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea provides NEAFC with scientific advice. The current NEAFC Convention came into existence in 1982 serving the European Community, Denmark (on behalf of the Faroe Islands and Greenland), Iceland, Norway, Poland and the Russian Federation as NEAFC Convention Area comes under the jurisdiction of these states while the other three areas belonging to global waters are the NEAFC Regulatory Area. Deep sea sharks like Portuguese dogfish and leafscale gulper shark come under the NEAFC regulated fisheries; it has forbidden certain deep sea areas for fishing. In 2005, NEAFC suggested a prohibition on fishing for basking sharks (SSG 5.2.1). Another regional organisation, ICCAT, works for the conservation of tunas and similar species in the whole Atlantic Ocean. ICCAT has on its list the 46 Contracting Parties that provide it the right to take conservation steps for different types of tunas, swordfish, billfish and, to a limited extent, sharks. Data is collected from all fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean for measuring their stock and making recommendations. Shark in the ICCAT fisheries is a “bycatch” but there have been recurrent incidents of targeting shortfin makos and blue sharks in high seas. The ICCAT’s Standing Committee on Research and Statisitcs (SCRS) appraises their population regularly to oversee ecologicalrisks for sharks and other pelagic elasmobranches. It was the firsat such organisation imposing a ban on shark finning (SSG 5.2.1). A number of global and regional tools associated to the conservation of chondrichthyans in the Northeast Atlantic include the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS or Bonn Convention), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), United Nations Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFSA), FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA–Sharks) and the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic (OSPAR) (SSG 5.5). Effective management cannot be possible until all regional countries cooperate with one another. Enough strives need to be made by the Range States as given in the appendices of CMS for safeguarding their habitat, reducing blocking in migration and related causes that endanger the migratory species. More global and regional Agreements need to be made for the conservation of species listed in Appendices I and II of the CMS. Like the EU, zero TAC should be practiced for basking sharks (SSG 5.5.1). CITES has been successful in creating a global structure for blocking business of endangered species and regulating worldwide business of other such species. Sufficient support has been lacking in proposals presented by Germany for spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias and porbeagle Lamna nasus, not getting two/third majority for making regulations limiting business on their meat and fins for sustaining them (SSG 5.5.2). Under the UNCLOS framework coastal states have been given the responsibility of managing fisheries as per the territorial waters jurisdiction and UNCLOS acknowledges their EEZ right up to 200 nautical miles. UNCLOS under Article 61(3) has set the management goal of safeguarding marine yield as based on environmental and economic reasons. UNCLOS has laid provisions for safety of sharks on Coastal States for managing the reducing stocks of distinct species (SSG 5.5.3). The UNFSA serves a number of conservation goals on safeguarding and preserving fishing levels and stocks, correct reporting and reduction on bycatch and discards as well as collecting scientifically relevant data that helps in the management of fisheries. Wherever scientific explanation is lacking a precautionary approach is made to tackle straddling and highly migratory stocks and species. Attempts are made to cooperate for certain species among regional fisheries. As per the Annex I of the UNCLOS, coastal and other states need to ensure conservation of migratory species and use of listed species only for fishing. Coastal states are supposed to adopt a similar policy of conservation for ‘straddling stocks’ in the coastal waters and the high seas under Article 63(2) of the Convention (SSG 5.5.4). Yet another initiative by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) was taken as the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA–Sharks) in 1999 under the guiding principle of the ‘Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries’ with the aim of safeguarding the shark family and ensuring their sustainability. FAO has created Technical Guidelines (FAO 2000) to back up the IPOA-Sharks, which states ‘States contributing to fishing mortality on a species or stock should participate in its management’. It is obligatory to produce a Shark Assessment Report (SAR) by the related states and see to it whether a National Plan of Action (NPOA-Sharks) is required or not. Under the NPOA, the related states need to loo into all conservation and management issues for the chondrichthyan fishes that happen in the waters of a specific state (SSG 5.5.5). Making of a NPOA-Shark is of no value if it is not implemented in a given time frame. Being a voluntary initiative, there has been very slow progress; the EU took the task very late of creating a Community Plan of Action (CPOA) for sharks. The process will consume time and the regional plans of action for sharks are still missing (SSG 5.5.5). The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic (OSPAR) is yet another instrument by 15 states of the European Community for conservation of marine life. By following an eco-system move, it aims to make programmes, steps and policies for safeguarding marine environment from the wrongs committed by human functions and promote long term use of the seas. The work is accomplished strategically by OSPAR for safeguarding the ecosystems and biological marine variety. Foreseeable conservation functions are identified for preferential treatment so that at risk species could be safeguarded. Creating consciousness for the endangered species while creating Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and expanding knowledge on the subject would help OSPAR in substantiating conservation action. OSPAR has so far listed 11 elasobranch species for conservation in the whole of the OSPAR area (SSG 5.5.6). The Regional Fishery Management Organisations such as NEAFC and ICCAT need to take further steps of constructing regional plans of action under the FAO IPOA-Sharks. They should boost the spirit of correct reporting on elasmobranch catch data on their Convention fields, promote their population evaluations, follow scientific guidance on elasmobranch fishing bans to assure that global catches are long term, totally safeguard via zero catch limits the risky species like porbeagles, bigeye threshers and deepwater sharks, allow only landing of sharks with their fins not separated so that a ban on fins is enforced and help in gathering species-relevant shark catch data. Special precaution must be taken on setting limits over chondrichthyan fishing. Bycatch of chondrichthyans should not be ignored without verifying them and take steps to reduce bycatches and discourage fishing to limit the attempts on fishing. Northwest Atlantic Region In the waters of Northwest Atlantic (NWA) that include Arctic, subarctic and boreal waters away from Canada and Greenland to temperate and tropical waters, information has been obtained mainly from the US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Canada’s Department of Fisheries (DFO), Mexico and from Trinidad and Tobago, which could be acclaimed reliable for managing Atlantic shark fisheries. In the early years of the 1990s, elasmobranch catches in the NWA region were taken in directed fisheries as well as bycatch in other fisheries like pelagic longlines aiming swordfish, tuna and trawl fisheries for shrimp and demersal fishes. The three NWA countries, namely the US, Canada and Mexico were among the top 20 countries in elasmobranch fishing (Burgess et al. 99). Although elasmobranch fisheries in the north region of the NWA are managed well but certain profitable species have been victims of undue exploitation while in the southern area of the region, mainly the Caribbean islands there is no such management organisation (Burgess et al. 99). A number of shark and batoid species are at risk because of excessive fishing and lack of ecological balance. Before 1990s thee was no management of elasmobranch in the waters of the US. Presently there exists vast conservation arrangement for shark and batoid in Canada and the US. Canada initiated its first fishery management plan (FMP) for Atlantic region sharks in 1994 and enlarged its scope in 1997. Regulations were implemented first of all for skate fisheries in Canada’s Atlantic waters in 1995; skate fisheries are part of the Groundfish Management Plan (Burgess et al. 99). Initially, the Atlantic sharks were under the federal control in the US; a Final Fishery Management Plan was also implemented in 1999 for Atlantic Tuna, Swordfish and Sharks. Another FMP was formulated for spiny dogfish S. Acanthias in the waters of the US Atlantic region in 2000 away from the shore to be approved and enforced by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission in late 2002 (ASMFC). Further, for the seven species of Atlantic skates, the services of the New England Fishery Management Council were taken by NMFS in 2003 (Burgess et al. 100). The Mexican Federal Gazette has circulated a set of National Standard Rules for Shark Exploitation and Conservation in its waters on 12 July 2002. It has enlarged the scope of the resolution named NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM 029-PESC-2000 to include provisions for the conservation of fish stocks. Other countries of the region have not formulated any such regulation plan on sharp-only. Bahamas has prohibited longline fishing since early 1990s in its domestic waters for the very reason that huge number of sharks are wiped out by the longlines (Burgess et al. 100). The singular country following a National Plan of Action (NPOA) in sync with the FAO’s IPOA-Sharks is the US. There is total ban on shark finning in the US, Canada and Costa Rica through regulation; Costa Rica is somewhat less hard on implementing the ban. There is a sanctioned stipulated limit on the landing of fins that need to be below 5% of the cropped weight of the dead sharks landed (Burgess et al. 100). Other countries of the region are lagging behind because they don’t have sufficient resources on performing appraisals and conservation tasks. Countries like the US and Canada have also not followed scientific recommendations leading to loss of species like batoid. These resource-rich countries have not shown enough concern on over-fishing and bycatch of sharks and batoid is continuing; major breeding places such as nursery grounds are not sheltered. Whatever management measures are taken by these rich countries are not sufficient to limit excessive fishing; more steps need to be taken to conserve marine life. Unhindered Mexican shark fisheries and undue Canadian dogfish quotas pose a problem for the US because they can affect the US management of collective stock. In some other waters of the Northwest Atlantic area there is no conservation being practiced at all over elasmobranch populations in the absence of scientific and management leads (Burgess et al. 100). The western Atlantic area of the global waters like other ignored areas lacks regulations, management and accords on shark fishing where pelagic sharks in huge numbers are being bycatched on longlines aiming tunas and swordfishes. There are no regulations in place to initiate legal action against finning of sharks. In the absence of any regional fishing management organisations the ICCAT has taken the responsibility of keeping check on longline fisheries involved in tuna and swordfish landing   in the Atlantic. Although ICCAAT has no authority over controlling shark fishing but it has on its own set a Sub-Committee on Bycatch to gather and match species-particulars on shark bycatch by the countries of the western Atlantic region on different types of sharks such as blue and shortfin mako sharks (Burgess et al. 100). Southwest Pacific Region Coming to the Southwest Pacific that includes Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and many Pacific Island states, the sharks are well managed and conserved here in comparison to other parts. All fisheries have research and monitoring programmes with stock appraisals done timely manner and employed in fixing management steps. A great number of fisheries are governed through Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) and attempted regulations. Other countries of the region spend less on research and controls. Australia produces a Shark Assessment Report (SAR) and a NPOA as per the directives of the FAO-IPOA-Sharks (Stevens et al. 161). The elasmobranch species of the area are in dire need of conservation that includes fish types such as sawfishes, river sharks, the Maugean skate Dipturus sp., the grey nurse shark and Carcharias taurus. Already six species of elasmobranch species have been under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Pacific Island States have no particular conservation regulations for any species of elasmobranch (Stevens et al. 162). Indian Ocean Region In the Indian Ocean region at the minimum 23 nations have their coastlines including Myanmar, Somalia, Red Sea and Persian Gulf. There are three leading elasmobranch fishing countries in this region yet there is no management of elamobranch fisheries. A number of countries have common fishing regulations like registration of fishing ships but no particular regulations for elamobranch fisheries. The only countries safeguarding nine shark and rays species are India and Maldives. Protected species include whale shark Rhincodon typus and their landing is prohibited. The Maldives have implemented regulations to control export of ray products by earmarking areas to save R. Typus (Anderson and Simpfendorfer 142). There is no arrangement for conserving fish stocks by cooperating in case the exploited fish cross exclusive economic zone. Although the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission has taken the cause of gathering regional data on oceanic shark catch but there has not been any satisfactory progress due to lack of interest shown at the national level (Anderson and Simpfendorfer 142). There is the African Shark Management Group (ASMG) for the African nations of the region; it is a new advisory group, created to increase capacity and exchange knowledge for the long term use and conservation of elasmobranchs(Anderson and Simpfendorfer 142). Many countries of the region are involved in illegal fishing of elasmobranchs as internal situation of these countries is not peaceful. Efforts are not forceful enough to attend to the sustainability needs of distinct fish varieties. Examples include Somalia for poor government infrastructure and Maldives and Chagos for insufficient enforcement of regulations (Anderson and Simpfendorfer 142). Mediterranean Region In the Mediterranean region, situation is comparatively less grim because elasobranch catching is reduced to teleost in commercial fisheries but at the same time sharks and rays form crucial role in the marine ecosystems of the region. The poor knowledge on the latest shark populations and the standard of fishing attempts are the leading management and conservation problems faced in the Mediterranean region. There is utter lack of planning and the extent of associated risks on not observing fishing functions, commercial landings, biological standards and species recognition (Walker et al.). The primary aim of the management organisations needs to be effective checking of elasmobranch landing, particularly multi-type fisheries where sharks are the crucial part of the bycatch. Until regular appraisal of shark catch is performed, risk to bio-diversity of marine life ca not be eliminated Northeast Pacific region In the Northeast Pacific region, there is total neglect in regional or global management of sharks and rays. Other than the US and Canada managing their fisheries at domestic level only, there is just a draft of the federal management plan for sharks in the Pacific region including conservation of just five species of pelagic sharks. The deficiency of the plan, according to Susan E. Smith (NMFS, La Jolla pers. comm.)), is that species like C. carcharias, C. maximus and megamouth shark Megachasma pelagios would be put on hold while fishing for highly migratory tunas, billfish and sharks within the US west coast Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) would speed up. In the eastern Pacific, only California and Alaska at present have regulations for sharks (Camhi 1999; Leet et al. 2001; PFMC 2001)). You won’t see in the whole of NEPR batoids being managed by the fisheries. With the enforcement of the new legislation, things should move for the better after analysing commercial landings in California (Leet et al. 2001)). Until there is a push to implement the formulated rules and regulations, as the Mexican Federal Gazette has published the National Standard Rules for Shark Exploitation and Conservation in Mexican waters on12 July, 2002, we should not expect positive changes in fisheries management (Leonardo Castillo-Geniz pers. comm.) (Cailliet and Camhi 176). Northwest Pacific Region In the Northwest Pacific region elasmobranch fisheries are very few. Generally, regulations are in place for fishing vessels but not for elasmobranchs except in the Philippines where the export of R. Typus or M. Birostris products is banned for promoting ecotourism. Like Japan, one of the selected countries in the world having NPOA-Sharks, the Philippines is in the process of doing the rough work on it (IUCN/SSC SSG and TRAFFIC 2002)). Malaysia has specified six species that cannot be landed by recreational fishers and many marine guarded areas that impacts elasmobranch populations. In October 2002, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Centre (SEAFDEC) member countries (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam) have taken the initiative for efficient shark fisheries management in the ASEAN region. A programme was under progress for 2003–2005 ‘Management of Shark Fisheries in ASEAN-SEAFDEC Member Countries’ with the aim of knowing the biology and ecology of sharks, including environment they need, risks to sharks and effect of fishing practices on sharks, to create conservation strategies for sharks in this region and generate consciousness among the stakeholders and the people of the region in regard to the particular biological pressures faced by the sharks and risk to sharks within the fisheries. The results of this collective initiative would create a spirit of support for the conservation of fish stocks near the coastal region and on the high seas through the NPOA-Sharks in the region (A.B. Ali pers. comm.)) (Simpfendorfer et al.163). Another regional initiative in the Pacific region was taken by the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum by establishing the Fisheries Working Group for Sustainable Fisheries. In 2000, another initiative for the Conservation and Management of Sharks wastaken with the leading focus on striving to enforce the FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) in the APEC area. All stakeholders to the conservation and management of sharks including policy makers, the scientific community and industry leaders need to participate in discussions at regional level to reach a consensus on conservation of marine life (Simpfendorfer et al. 163). Sub-equatorial Africa The Sub-equatorial Africa on the world map includes all those countries in the group that were included earlier in Northeast Atlantic region. The fishery management organisations in the region face similar challenges as happen elsewhere in the world such as localism, no control over fisheries, scant work on biological and fishery research, nominal research base and hardships due to financial limitations of developing countries besides political unrest affect a number of the region’s chondrichthyan species to misuse of ocean wealth through uncontrolled stakes of the fisheries of the region. Landing of cartilaginous fishes in the area is greatly uncontrolled; there is only limited management effort visible in South Africa where the commercialisation of the white shark has been banned besides a ban o pelagic gillnets in the territorial areas. Fisheries cannot operate without licences and entry for longlining and gillnetting of cartilaginous fishes is restricted although there are no quotas (Compagno et al. 118). South Africa is the only country in the Sub-equatorial region working in the direction of producing a Shark Assessment Report (SAR) and running National Plan of Action for sharks (NPOA-Sharks) in South Africa under the FOA International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) (Sauer and Shipton 2003)). Marine and Coastal Management (MCM), the government initiative for conserving marine resources, has established a Chondrichthyan Working Group way back. Currently, it is on the way to establish a regular research chair to attend particularly to the problems with chondrichthyans. It is in the process of planning an extra Shark Management Advisory Group in the approaching time. Another African Shark Management Organisation (ASMG) was set up in 2001through the workshop on Shark Conservation and Management organised by the International Federation for Animal Welfare (IFAW) in Africa. This is an advisory group formed for long term use and conservation of chondrichthyans by inviting all African coastal sates and islands to be a part of the efforts made to increase capacity by working in collaboration with all stakeholders benefitting from such collective efforts (IFAW 2001). Such efforts need to be made after regular intervals to know the current status of the chondrichthyan (Compagno et al. 119). Efforts of the government organisations cannot produce results if regulations are not enforced effectively, as we see in the case of landing, transport, transhipment and disposal of sharks, which was prohibited in South Africa in 1998 until the Living Marine Resources Act was not implemented forcefully. Authorities need to get Special permission from the far seas fishing ships shifting cargoes in South Africa by entering into particular business agreements. The need is to collectively manage fisheries with equally robust implementation of the regulations to maintain the Chondrichthyan populations and bring the past state of healthy balance of the eco-system (Compagno et al. 119). Under the initiative of IUCN and the Save Our Seas Foundation strategic plans for safeguarding sharks, rays and chimaeras need to be formulated by asking organisations on the needs and attainment of targets because whatever needful has so far been done has not been sufficient in conservation of endangered marine species and migratory stocks that straddle the exclusive economic zone and high seas. Suggested strategic planning include a number of steps, which need to be taken for better conservation of chimaeras, sharks and rays, as given below (SSG Strategic Plan). 1. High seas have so far been beyond the range of supervision, which needs to be extended wherever commercial ships move on the high seas for capturing sharks directly or as bycatch. There is further need to create educational awareness on identifying species so that their stocks could be measured for analysis purpose. 2. Consumers should be discouraged on taking sharp fin soup by innovative initiatives so that efforts are made on choice not to consume shark fin soup. 3. Awareness on conservation of marine biodiversity should include basic taxonomy for defining the species to avid any misunderstanding on what tasks are at hand on management and conservation. 4. The life history data on endangered sea-water species should be analysed to be used for marine life management that becomes helpful in the long life. 5. If elasmobranch bycatch is checked at species level, it will help. There are no specific fisheries for sharks and skates inside the Russian Northwest Pacific area but they are random bycatch in different fisheries. Further check should include on the bycatch of spiny dogfish and salmon shark in salmon driftnet fisheries of Pacific sleeper shark and skates in bottom trawl fisheries and all elasmobranch species in long line and gillnet fisheries. 6. A global level accord on removing the IUU fisheries targeting sharks can help ease the situation. All plotting ships and flag states should be blacklisted. Appropriate action should be taken against countries not enforcing regulations. Business in shark fin products should be banned to conserve sea-water biodiversity. 7. At RFMO level large reserves for safeguarding sharks should be created and an ecosystem health device to know the population of sharks be installed. A direct connection would compel stakeholders to involve enthusiastically in taking positive management steps. 8. Legislation for landing of sharks with fins attached can help as it is not possible to collect a heap of shark carcasses on the ship with fins attached due to the huge size of the shark and hardness of the fins. All measures taken collectively would discourage fishers gather fins, smoothen the catch data gathering and pave the way to efficient use of the landed sharks. 9. Effectively vast range of MPAs can bring improvement in the implementation of regulations unlike the current limited territorial waters that are unable to implement goals. Therefore, the range of MPAs needs to be extended. 10. Measures related to port state, quotas and landing checking are just excuses for showing falsely that ‘something is being done’; in the Indian Ocean it is a common practice. Thus, depending on such measures would be costly in the interest of healthy marine life although the same cannot be true in all situations. 11. Finning should be declared illegal activity to discourage small poaching ships from collecting only fins. 12. Significance should be given to ecologically crucial species for their conservation in stead of economically preferable species to ensure better long-life of stocks and distribution of resources for species of reduced economic value. 13. Retention of at-risk species should be banned by all state, regional and sub-regional level s of fisheries management organisations. Shark species listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) or on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable (the “threatened” category) until their crop levels are maintained via peer-reviewed stock measuring. 14. Bycatch of sharks relevant with the fresh FAO global directives on bycatch management should be discontinued. 15. Penalties need to be imposed on RFMO members for not disclosing the number of sharks caught. Where reporting of catches is not compulsory, it should be made mandatory to report species level appraisal of measures taken. 16. All commercial fishing ships should be in all-time observation so that bycatches could be minimised and creating set release practices to gain increased post-release survival. 17. Taxonomical factors need to be reviewed for enhanced recording of the variation in chondrichthyans by including the molecular bar-coding technique. 18. All endangered species should be banned for catching, retention, landing and business purpose at RFMO level as identified by IUCN. Further, endangered species chondrichthyans’ breeding and nursery area needs to be protected. Works Cited Anderson, R. Charles and Simpfendorfer, Colin A. “Indian Ocean.” Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes. Status Survey. Ed. Fowler et al. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 2005. 140-149. 7 May 2011 Bonfil, Ramon., Amorim, Alberto. and Simpfendorfer, Colin A. “Southwest Atlantic.” Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes. Status Survey. Ed. Fowler et al. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 2005. 131-139. 7 May 2011 Burgess, George., Camhi, Merry., Fordham, Sonja V., Musick, John A., Bonfil, Ramon., Branstetter, Steven ., Shing, Christine Chan A., Gonzales, Leo Walter., and Hoff, Thomas. “Northwest Atlantic.” Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes. Status Survey. Ed. Fowler et al. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 2005. 95-112. 7 May 2011 Cailliet, Gregor. and Camhi, Merry. “Northeast Pacific.” Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes. Status Survey. Ed. Fowler et al. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 2005. 172-185. 7 May 2011 Compagno, Leonard J.V., Cavanagh, Rachel D., Smale, Malcolm J., Dudley, Sheldon F. J., Cook, Sid F., Cooke, Andrew., Sauer, Warwick and Holtzhausen, Hannes. “Subequatorial Africa.” Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes. Status Survey. Ed. Fowler et al. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 2005. 113-130. 7 May 2011 Fowler, S.L., Cavanagh, R.D., Camhi, M., Burgess, G.H., Cailliet, G.M., Fordham, S.V., Simpfendorfer, C.A. and Musick, J.A. (comp. and ed.). 2005. Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes. Status Survey. IUCN/ Simpfendorfer, Colin A., Cavanagh, Rachel D., Tanaka, Sho and Ishihara, Hajime. “Northwest Pacific.” Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes. Status Survey. Ed. Fowler et al. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 2005. 150-160. 7 May 2011 UNCLOS. Section 2. Conservation and Management of the Living Resources of the High Seas. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention. 2011. 7 May 2011 Walker, Paddy., Cavanagh, R., Ducrocq, M., Fowler, S. “Northeast Atlantic.” Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes. Status Survey. Ed. Fowler et al. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 2005. 71-94. 7 May 2011 Read More