1

TECHNICAL REPORT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF SHARKS AND RAYS IN BELIZE: CAPTURES AND TRADE

DR. RACHEL T. GRAHAM

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY (WCS)

MARCH 2007

2

PROJECT SUMMARY This report outlines additional results from the project entitled “Vulnerability Assessment of Sharks and Rays” that were not previously available during the field work undertaken between December 2005 and January 2007 as permitted by the Department of Fisheries under research permits 00002/06 and 00010/07. Results from field work and fisher surveys indicate that sharks in Belize are scarce where they were once abundant and are highly vulnerable to both direct and indirect anthropogenic threats. These findings are mirrored in numerous sites worldwide. As this project provides the first baseline information on coastal elasmobranchs in Belize, changes in abundance and distribution have had to be construed from historical accounts derived from fishers. Field and fisher surveys confirm that overfishing is the major direct threat to elasmobranchs followed by alteration of critical habitat. Indirect threats such as increased market demand for shark products from the neighboring countries of Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico, as well as Asia, coupled with a lack of shark specific regulations have led to population declines of Belize’s elasmobranchs. Nets were identified as the primary gear used for shark fishing followed by longlines. Regulations exist to curb their use in coastal inhabited and protected areas but enforcement is unable to keep pace with deployment. The loss of large sharks in Southern Belize has potentially unleashed a trophic cascade that has led to a shift in capture of mesopredators such as nurse and sharpnose sharks and rays. It is possible that the removal of shark species (e.g., hammerheads, blacktips, tiger sharks, reef sharks and bulls) that prey on other elasmobranchs accounts for higher abundances of mesopredators recorded through landings and field surveys. Many species of elasmobranch mesopredators feed on fish and mollusks and bivalves and could hence impact stocks of conch and even their habitats. The majority of shark fishers interviewed (n = 80) noted that shark resources have declined in the past 10 years and the state of the fishery is poor. Determination of shark movement and site fidelity though tag recaptures was impossible as tags returns were very low despite the outreach undertaken with Belizean and Guatemalan fishers. Most dramatically of all, the two species of sawfish that existed in Belize appear to be ecologically extinct, if not fully extinct. None of the 151 fishers interviewed about sawfish had encountered an individual of either species known to have occurred in Belize more recently than six years ago despite an increase in fishers and fishing effort throughout the country. Nets are specifically cited by the majority of fishers interviewed as the reason for the demise of sawfish. To rebuild shark populations in Belize, a combination of elasmobranch-specific regulations coupled with gear bans will be necessary. Specifically, we recommend the following:

§ Renewal of a shark fisher’s license is contingent upon their collaboration with researchers to record landings data

§ All sharks and rays be landed whole gutted with fins on (as opposed to dressed and finned)

§ Limit the number of export licenses for salted fish and make the granting of these licenses contingent on work with fisheries researchers at landing sites and customs officials at check-out points.

3

§ Longlines and nets are banned throughout the country expect where used for non-lethal shark surveys by permitted researchers

INTRODUCTION Populations of sharks and rays worldwide are under increasing pressure from unsustainable fisheries with dramatic declines in populations of several coastal and pelagic species documented over relatively short time scales (Thorson 1982, Baum et al. 2003, Baum and Myers 2004). These declines throughout their ranges have, in cases, led to local extirpations that have earned several species such as the sawfish (Pristis pectinata and P. perotteti) the listing “Critically Endangered,” and the great and scalloped hammerheads (Sphyrna mokarran and S. lewini) the listing “Endangered” by the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2006). As the food chain's apex predators with K-selected life history traits and low population recovery rates, sharks and rays may be potent indicators of fishing pressure (Stevens et al. 2000) and in coral reef habitats, of high fish biomass and a functional ecosystem (Newman et al. 2006). Furthermore, recent studies in the western Atlantic indicate that the removal of larger shark species has led to cascading trophic effects such as an increase in mid level predators and the disappearance of prey species (Myers et al. 2007). Existing studies on shark populations and behavior in Belize are scarce. Most have focused on whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) an economically important but non-targeted species in Belize (Graham 2003, Graham 2004, Graham and Roberts 2007), and on population abundances and movement behavior of reef-associated sharks at Glover’s Reef Atoll (Chapman et al. 2005, Pikitch et al. 2005) and in marine reserves at Lighthouse Reef Atoll (Graham et al. 2005). Although shark products have been assessed cursorily (Thompson 1944), there have been no recent reviews of the state of shark fisheries in Belize. This project formed the first broad assessment of coastal elasmobranch diversity, elasmobranch distribution, and fisheries and fisher perceptions of current populations in Southern Belize. During the course of this study, fishermen from 10 coastal communities in Belize revealed through informal discussions and structured interviews that catches of reef-associated elasmobranchs, once commonly taken, have declined dramatically over the past 20 years following the introduction of gill nets in the 1970s. This is similar to information presented by Thorson on elasmobranchs in Nicaragua (Thorson 1982). Also, fishers note shifts in species distribution and abundance, as well as species marketed. For example, where blacktips (Carcharhinus limbatus) used to be abundant, nurse sharks (Ginglymostoma cirratum), Caribbean sharpnose (Rhizoprionodon porosus) and rays are now primarily caught. This suggests that Belize is already witnessing the cascading effects from the loss of the top predatory species similar to that identified in the Atlantic by Myers et al. (2007). Elasmobranchs are apex predators that maintain the healthy structure of fish assemblages (Stevens et al. 2000) and their removal could eventually lead to a food web collapse. In many sites sharks and rays further form the basis of a rapidly expanding and highly lucrative dive tourism industry (Anderson 2002, Newman et al. 2002, Graham 2004, Topelko and Dearden 2005). This project has begun to raise awareness of the role and vulnerability of elasmobranchs to unsustainable fishing among coastal communities. Yet, the study has further revealed that specific management measures will be needed to stem and reverse the broad declines in elasmobranch species.

4

This report constitutes an addendum to the report of preliminary results deposited with the Belize Fisheries Department in January 2007.

PROJECT SITE AND METHODS The project site encompasses four marine reserves (Southwater Caye, Gladden Spit, Sapodilla Cayes and Port Honduras) and three national parks (Sarstoon-Temash, Laughing Bird Caye and Payne’s Creek).

Figure 1. Location of sharks and rays project Landings – Sharks Landings of sharks and other commercially valuable species were monitored in the Punta Gorda fish market six days a week for the entire year as part of another study focusing on Goliath grouper, four days in Belize City and two days in Dangriga. With the collaboration of shark fishers at Rocky Point (North of Monkey River), we were able to install two fishers in the camp to record and measure shark landings from 3 November – 1 December 2006 and landings in October 2006 at Motherbush Point south of Punta Gorda. Although we were prepared to record

5

landings at the South Stann Creek shark fishing camp, the fishers at that site were unwilling to cooperate with us, so no data were acquired. RESULTS & DISCUSSION Landings Shark meat is not regularly consumed in Belize. As such, sharks are rarely targeted by Belizean fishers and are usually only caught as bycatch in the finfish fisheries. This was supported by fisher surveys and occasional visits to the Belize City Vernon Street market and the Dangriga fish market, as well as a year long effort at monitoring landings of the critically endangered Goliath grouper (Epinephelus itajara) at the Punta Gorda fish market. This study, undertaken as part of another project, yielded scant information on shark captures. Only nine sharks were brought to market for sale, confirming that most coastal artisanal fishers who sell in the market don’t fish sharks and that shark meat is not in high demand locally. Although Belize’s fishing cooperatives purchased shark products for export in the 1960s to 1990s, with up to 3,500 kg registered for yearly export by the Department of Fisheries between 1993 and 1995 (Gibson et al. 2003), purchases ceased in the late 1990s following a dramatic decline in catch rates in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Patriarch fishers interviewed about historical trends in shark captures supported the occurrence of declines. Demand for shark products in neighboring countries remains high, particularly to satisfy religious and economic requirements for cheap white fish during the Lenten season (March/April). Sharks are traditionally captured and processed in Belize and exported as dry salted fillet to neighboring countries. However, in the past five years, as shark has become more difficult to find and prices have stayed relatively static in Guatemala’s coastal markets, fillet has been exported as wet salted, representing an estimated 50% increase in fillet price over dried product. Consequently, Belizean shark fishers have now been mostly displaced by fishers of Mexican, Honduran or Guatemalan origin. Informal discussions with Guatemalan fishers reveal that shark fishing shifted to Belize following extirpations of elasmobranchs in their territorial waters. Captures and landings in Belize are not regulated and the value of exported products is self-determined and reported to Customs upon exiting the country. According to customs officials based in Punta Gorda, five export permits for salted fish captured in Southern Belize were awarded for the 2006-2007 shark fishing season. Fisher interviews and field work observations revealed six shark fishing camps and two coastal communities where shark fishers operate and land sharks in Southern Belize: two large seasonal shark fishing camps located at South Stann Creek (north of the community of Riversdale) and Rocky Point (between Monkey River and Placencia), and four smaller camps located near Buttonwood Caye, Cocoplum Caye Range, Hatchett Caye and Small No-Name Caye. A seventh seasonal camp located near Belize City that captures sharks for export to Guatemala is not included in this report due to lack of data and its location outside the project area. Coastal communities such as Punta Negra or Monkey River rarely catch sharks and focus instead on inshore schools of snappers, mackerel and jacks. Sharks continue to be targeted from the small community of Motherbush, located south of Punta Gorda.

6

The Rocky Point camp has been observed to host up to seven to nine boats, South Stann Creek hosts up to seven boats and the four other camps, at least two boats each. Each boat usually carries four fishers for an estimated total of 24 boats and 96 fishers operating from mid-October to the end of March. The Small No Name Caye fishing camp sprang into existence in January 2007 in the heart of the Port Honduras Marine Reserve. It operated for about two months with two boats before closing down following continued inspection by reserve rangers from the NGO Toledo Institute for Development and Environment (TIDE). The rangers were unable to ban the fishing as it was taking place outside of the reserve. Although shark fishing historically began in January and lasted until end of March, continued declines in shark captures have doubled the fishing season, which now runs from October to April. Fishers fish daily apart from the two–week break encompassing Christmas and the New Years holidays. Although the largest shark fishing camp located in South Stann Creek would not allow us to conduct landings surveys, a brief visit to the camp in January 2006 revealed 38 nets, including large mesh silk line nets (>10” mesh) used to capture large sharks and 10 x 50-gallon drums. Although we were not able to conduct interviews with the fishers, two individuals noted dramatic declines in large shark captures compared to 5-10 years ago as well as having to travel further to fish. Motherbush Three fishers from Motherbush Point capture sharks, fillet, salt, and export the meat to Guatemala. During eight overnight sets conducted in October 2006, the fishers landed 25 sharks, primarily blacktip and hammerhead (Sphyrna spp.) consisting of both juveniles and adults. The catch was perceived as relatively poor. Sharks are captured throughout the year from this site as part of the net fishing. Rocky Point Landings at the Rocky Point shark fishing camp from November 3 to December 1, 2006, were considerably higher with 183 sharks measured and an estimated total of 500 animals captured. Rays, including eagle rays (Aetobatis narinari), southern stingrays (Dasyatis americana) and Chupare (Himantura schmardae), were not measured as they were used for shark bait when captured. The two-member landings team was required to assist the fishers in return for recording data, so they were only able to measure 183 of the 500 sharks captured. The Caribbean sharpnose shark dominated catches and represented over 65% of landings (Figure 2). Large sharks (e.g., hammerheads, blacktips, lemon sharks) accounted for less than 25% of all catches. Fishers captured both neonates and mature individuals of the seven identified species of shark noted in Figure 2. Landings assistants noted their records were representative of the total landings with an estimated 320 individuals that could not be measured due to limitations of the landings team.

7

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

R. poro

sus

C. limbatu

s

S. mok

arran

S. lewini

G. cirra

tum

S. tibu

ro

N. brev

isros

tris

Species

Freq

uenc

y in l

andin

gs

Figure 2. Landings of elasmobranchs at Rocky Point shark fishing camp between 3 November and 2 December 2006. Port Honduras We had an opportunity to collect additional landings data after the grant termination at a small shark fishing camp established by three fishers on Small No-Name Caye located inside the Port Honduras Marine Reserve on 12 February 2007. One overnight set from one boat with three fishers yielded 19 sharks including three blacktip pups from a large pregnant female and three hammerhead sharks. They perceived the catch as average representing about 1-1.5 quintales or 45.5-68.3kg of meat. Value and marketing of shark products We determined the value of shark products in Belize and Guatemala through the shark fisher interviews and visits to fish markets in Belize. Fillet is sold wet salted for a mean price of US$1.3/lb. Fins are sold dried for a mean price of US$50/lb. All landings from shark camps in Southern Belize are sold in Guatemala under the umbrella of five export permits for salted fish (Customs Officers, Punta Gorda, pers com.). Each export license is worth US$25/yr and several fishers export product under the umbrella of one license. Fishers self-report the value of their export to Customs when leaving the country and no revenue remains in country. One of the landings assistants situated at the Rocky Point camp and formerly a shark fisher, noted that a 50 gallon drum holds 3-3.5q or 136.5-149kg of meat (1 quintal = 100lb = 45.5kg). One drum or 3 quintals further represents fillet removed from about 300-350 small sharpnose sharks, fillet from 200-250 juvenile blacktip sharks or 20 sharks measuring between 1.5m and 1.8m. Fishers interviewed estimated that a good night’s shark fishing yielded 2-3q or 91-136 kg of meat with a common perception of a 1.5q catch per boat as average.

8

Meat is either sold locally in coastal cities in Guatemala or exported to Guatemala City. Fins are sold primarily to Guatemalan middlemen, most of who belong to a single family or directly to Asian buyers. The price of fillet varies from US$1.04 to US$1.56 per pound (mean of US$1.3/lb). Dried shark fin prices ranged from US$13 to US$65 per pound based on size of fins and marketplace (mean US$50). Fishers informed us that meat prices have doubled in the past 5 years as the availability of shark fillet has declined. Over the past 5 years, Guatemalan fishers have also begun to capture and process rays to substitute for shark. Fishers have also indicated that fin prices have quadrupled following increased demand from Asian markets. Project assistants determined through landings surveys conducted with fishers at Rocky Point 2006, that during the course of 45 fishing days from the start of November to mid December 2006, shark captures generated and estimated US$40,000. This is most likely a considerable underestimate as the price of fins was not included in this total. Fishing proceeds were divided among the crew with half apportioned to the head of the shark fishers based in Livingston, Guatemala and the remaining half divided up between 10 fishers/employees who returned to Livingston or Sarstoon (Guatemala) once the shark fishing season had ended. Revenue per employee for the 45 day period is an estimated US$2,000 or US$44/day. Coupled with survey results on the number of shark fishing camps in Southern Belize, fisher numbers, effort and average capture rates, we derived an estimate for total amount and value of shark products removed seasonally from Southern Belize. Figures are based on an average day of 1.5q per boat per day and a fishing season of 150 days. For the 24 boats recorded working in Southern Belize, this represents conservatively 5,400q or 245,430 kg (539,946lb) of shark products extracted from the seasonal fishing camps in Southern Belize between October 2006 and April 2007. With the use of shark weight conversions figures, 539,946lb of wet fillet represents 1,781,822 lb whole shark (3.3 conversion) and 25,658 lb dried fins (1.44% conversion of whole body weight) (Vannuccini 1999). Using current market prices in Guatemala as related by shark fishers, fillet is worth is US$701,930 and dried fins fetch US$1,282,912, representing an estimated total for the seasonal value of shark products of US$1,984,842. Caveats include the possibility that not all boats fished all 150 days, that fins of different sizes fetch different prices with larger fin sets worth more than smaller fin sets. However, the estimates remain conservative as they represent average catch rates and do not include the sale of shark oil or teeth and jaw. Moreover, these figures do not include shark fishing occasionally undertaken between May and October. By comparison, the Belize Tourism Board recorded 73,619 visitors to the Hol Chan and Shark Ray Alley marine reserves in 20051 whose visitation at entrance fee rates of US$10 per person would yield US$736,190 for 2006. Graham (2003, 2004) estimated visitor expenditures of US$1.35 million in five stakeholder communities from whale shark tourism conducted at Gladden Spit over a sex-week period in 2002. Although whale sharks are not fished, these combined figures suggest that considerable revenue can be expected from shark related tourism in Belize. These activities are sustainable, broadly distributed to businesses and communities in-country and offset the one-time revenue generated through shark fishing that primarily benefits neighboring Guatemala. The value of ecosystem services provided by elasmobranchs are not calculated here.

1 BTB 2006. Visitor levels per activity. http://www.belizetourism.org/belize-tourism/visitor-activities.html

9

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We have been able to undertake the first broad baseline of coastal and barrier reef based elasmobranchs in Belize. Although field work was based in Southern Belize, the shark fisher surveys provided information on shark fishing throughout the country. Results of surveys and field work indicate that overfishing is the key threat to elasmobranchs throughout Belize with the greatest capture of animals currently occurring in the transboundary region of Southern Belize. Several indirect threats further threaten the sustainability of shark populations in Southern Belize. These include the alteration of critical habitat such as coastal mangrove lagoons and seagrass beds, a lack of shark-specific regulations, low enforcement of fishing regulations, lax customs control coupled with religious beliefs from neighboring countries. The value of the shark fishery to Guatemala is estimated at US$1.9 million for the past season divided among 94 fishers. There is considerable financial incentive to continue shark fishing despite the fisher’s mention of declining catches, especially of larger shark species. However, the incentives for catching sharks are most likely offset by the non-consumptive value sharks generate for tourism and ecosystem services. Our low catch per unit effort, particularly of top predatory species of sharks (e.g., hammerheads, tiger, blacktips) supports fisher accounts that large shark resources have declined dramatically over the past 20 years. Moreover, the predominance of meso-predators such as nurse sharks and sharpnose sharks and rays supports the existence of continued trophic impoverishment. Increased demand and fishing pressure from Guatemala combined with the use of unsustainable fishing gears such as nets followed by longlines are highlighted are blamed for the decline in catch of endangered species such as the hammerheads and the ecological if not full extinction of two species of sawfish. There is a distinct need to develop specific regulations for the management and conservation of elasmobranchs and a management plan for the protection of elasmobranchs. The National Plan of Action for Sharks will be a considerable first step towards shark conservation in Belize but the application of this plan will require firm commitment at the highest levels to ensure the repopulation of now depleted shark stocks in Southern Belize. The collective information gathered from this study suggests the following recommendations: § Undertake a country wide valuation of the non-consumptive benefits of elasmobranchs,

particularly in relation to the booming marine tourism industry and ecosystems services these species generate

§ Make provision of fishing licenses contingent on compliance of landings data collection with scientists and Fisheries officers

§ Encourage review the provision of fishing licenses and only provide these to Belizean-born fishers or those with a valid Belizean passport.

§ Review the use of gillnets and longlines throughout Belize with a particular focus on a ban implemented country-wide with enforcement, notably in all marine protected areas.

§ Continue shark landings data collection at key shark fishing camps and train more NGO staff and fishers to undertake the landings data collection

§ Review licenses provided for the export of salted fish and possibly impose a limit or moratorium on the provision of additional licenses.

10

§ Hold meetings with religious leaders in Guatemala and subsequently Central America to identify means of reducing pressure on sharks due to the religious requirements of Lent.

§ Broaden the shark awareness and outreach activities to reach students in Belize and neighboring countries of Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico

§ Continue research on elasmobranch critical habitats and movement studies at known sites and expand to other vulnerable transboundary areas such as Corozal Bay.

LITERATURE CITED Anderson, R.C. 2002. Elasmobranchs as a recreational resource. In: S.L. Fowler, T.M. Reed and

F.A. Dipper (ed.) Elasmobranch Biodiversity, Conservation and Management: Proceedings of the International Seminar and Workshop, Sabah, Malaysia, July 1997, IUCN SSC Shark Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. p. 46-50.

Baum, J.K. and R. Myers. 2004. Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecology Letters 7:135-145.

Baum, J.K., R.A. Myers, D.G. Kehler, B. Worm, S.J. Harley and P.A. Doherty. 2003. Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science 299:389-392.

Chapman, D., E.K. Pikitch, E. Babcock and M. Shivji. 2005. Marine reserve design and evaluation using automated acoustic telemetry: a case-study involving coral reef-associated sharks in the Mesoamerican Caribbean. Marine Technology Society Journal 39:42-53.

Gibson, J., M. McField, W.D. Heyman, S. Wells, J. Carter and G. Sedberry. 2003. Belize's Evolving System of Marine Reserves. In: a.C.D. J. Sobel (ed.) Marine Reserves. A Guide to Science, Design and Use, Island Press, Washington. p. 287-315.

Graham, R.T. 2003. Behaviour and conservation of whale sharks on the Belize Barrier Reef. Ph. D., University of York, York, UK. 408 p.

Graham, R.T. 2004. Global whale shark tourism: a "golden goose" of sustainable and lucrative income for tropical countries. Shark News October 2004.

Graham, R.T., E. Hickerson, N. Barker and A. Gall. 2005. Rapid Marine Assessment of the Blue Hole and Half Moon Caye Natural Monuments. pp. 69, Wildlife Conservation Society, Punta Gorda, Belize.

Graham, R.T. and C.M. Roberts. 2007. Assessing the size, growth rate and structure of a seasonal population of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus Smith 1828) using conventional tagging and photo identification. Fisheries Research 84:71-80.

IUCN. 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland.

Myers, R.A., J.K. Baum, T.D. Shepherd, S.P. Powers and C.H. Peterson. 2007. Cascading Effects of the Loss of Apex Predatory Sharks from a Coastal Ocean. Science 315:1846-1850.

Newman, H.E., A.J. Medcraft and J.G. Colman. 2002. Whale shark tagging and ecotourism. In: S.L. Fowler, T.M. Reed and F.A. Dipper (ed.) Elasmobranch Biodiversity, Conservation and Management: Proceedings of the International Seminar and Worjkshop, Sabah, Malaysia, July 1997, IUCN SSC Shark Specialist Group, Gland, Switerland and Cambridge, UK. p. 258.

Newman, M.J.H., G.A. Paredes, E. Sala and J.B.C. Jackson. 2006. Structure of Caribbean coral reef communities across a large gradient of fish biomass. Ecology Letters 9:1216-1227.

11

Pikitch, E.K., D.D. Chapman, E. Babcock and M.S. Shivji. 2005. Diversity, demographic population structure and habitat partitioning of reef-associated elasmobranchs at a Caribbean atoll (Glover's Reef, Belize). Marine Ecology Progress Series 302:187-197.

Stevens, J.D., R. Bonfil, N.K. Dulvy and P.A. Walker. 2000. The effects of fishing on sharks, rays and chimaeras (condrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:476-494.

Thompson, E.F. 1944. The fisheries of British Honduras. pp. 32, Development and Welfare in the West Indies.

Thorson, T.B. 1982. The impact of commercial exploitation on sawfish and shark populations in Lake Nicaragua. . Fisheries Bulletin 7:2-10.

Topelko, K.N. and P. Dearden. 2005. The shark watching industry and its potential contribution to shark conservation. Journal of Ecotourism 4:108-128.

Vannuccini, S. 1999. Shark utilization, marketing and trade. pp. 470, U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.